User talk:Decltype/Archive 2

Thank You kind sir.

'Tis a privilidge.

God knows how long it will last on my user page though.....

Tresiden (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome :) decltype (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A7. I probably didn't word it as well as I should have. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since A7 doesn't apply to a (possible) TV series, I still think WP:PROD or subsequently WP:AFD is the correct procedure. decltype (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just explaining what I was thinking. :) Thinking wrong but thinking. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense...I think :) decltype (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin but sometimes my brain malfunctions just like everyone else. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I happened to notice your question on Thuresson's Commons talk page. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requires, in section 4(c), that the author(s) be attributed in a manner "reasonable to the medium or means" utilized. In the past, the consensus on Wikimedia projects has generally been to assert that, for clickable thumbnail images used on wiki pages, attributing the author(s) on the image description page counts as reasonable and sufficient to fulfill the license obligations: see e.g. Wikipedia:Captions#Credits and commons:Commons:FAQ#Where do I get credit for my images?. On the Swedish Wikipedia in particular, there seems to be some ongoing discussion about credits in image captions at sv:Wikipedia:Frågor om bilder#Bildbylines igen. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Ilmari. I am aware of CC-BY-SA §4(c), for images licensed with the general CC-BY 3.0 or similar I agree that the standard Wikimedia attribution scheme is sufficient. My interpretation is still that my license requires attribution as stated, and this view also seems to be shared by at least some of the participants in the thread, unless I'm misreading. t.ex:

"Tänk på att CC-BY-licensen kräver att skaparen krediteras på det sätt som skaparen begär. Om en bild ligger uppe med CC-BY där fotografen angett att "Foto: Nisse Hult" ska anges vid bilden, så är det ett licensbrott att inte ha med bylinen. Ett annat problem med avsaknad av byline vid bild (bildbyline är något helt annat) är att utskriftsversionen av en artikel bryter mot licensen då den refererar till "Bildsidan", som inte kommer med när man skriver ut. // Castrup 13 mars 2009 kl. 16.02 (CET)"

If my license somehow violates Commons requirements, then my images or my license should really be deleted from Commons (along with similar licenses requiring a byline). However, I don't think this is feasible. Anyway, the license was originally intended for third-parties unrelated to Wikipedia, but to be honest I see some of the smaller-language wiki's as just that, because the de facto quality standards of content are much lower than en.wiki (in my opinion, anyway).

Lastly, I realize that I'm probably coming across as awfully petty, especially since my images are not particularly high quality. I guess it's more of a question of sentimental value, anyway. I'll gladly share some moments from my life, I just want my name (or more precisely, the name I go by), to be associated with it. Again, thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my inquiry. decltype (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I personally feel that a general policy of crediting image authors in captions could well be a good idea, provided that it left editors sufficient discretion in cases where full credit in the caption would not be reasonable (e.g. collaborative images with dozens of authors, or an author demanding to be credited with a ten-page essay) and that a method was provided to render such credits in a nice and non-obtrusive manner (like, say, the template you have on no.wikipedia). I was just pointing out that the current consensus policy on most Wikimedia projects seems to be not to credit image authors in that manner, and indeed that some editors like to remove such credits if they encounter them (which sort of makes sense as a matter of fairness; unless every image author gets to be credited in captions, no-one should).

I think that, if one wanted to change this policy, the most efficient way to go about it might be to 1. see if the idea has support among the people who are likely to be listened to on such issues (like Jimbo, Erik, Anthere and other WMF folks), 2. come up with a good and practical policy (and possible attendant technical measures) that can be implemented without hitting any of the obvious pitfalls, and 3. propose it here on en.wikipedia. It's been my experience that such changes, if they make any sense at all, trickle down from en.wikipedia to smaller projects quite efficiently, whereas going the opposite way tends to meet significant resistance. It often sucks, but that's the way it seems to be. Alternately, if enough folks in the Foundation supported it, a WMF Resolution might be a possible way to get things rolling.

As for Commons, I'd expect them to follow the lowest common denominator, as indeed they should: Commons cannot enforce its policies on other projects, except through the content they provide, so as long as there's even a single WMF project that doesn't attribute image authors in captions, Commons can't honestly promise to authors that they'll be thus attributed.

Regarding the comment by sv:User:Castrup that you quoted, I just looked through the Unported versions of the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (versions 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0) and couldn't find anything saying that authors could explicitly specify the manner in which they should be credited. All the licenses say is that the authors are allowed to choose the name or pseudonym by which they are to be credited, or to designate someone else as an Attribution Party. Other than that, the licenses say that attribution "may be implemented in any reasonable manner", as long as it's at least as prominent as that provided for other contributing authors. Nowhere do they say that I could e.g. demand to be credited in purple blinking 72pt text or to have my credit placed to the left (or to the right, or in the middle of) the image. Your request to have your username shown alongside the image in a monospaced font, while IMHO quite reasonable as a request, doesn't really seem to me any more binding under the CC licenses. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and I was infact surprised and disappointed that the actual legalese of CC-BY doesn't go into more detail. Before I uploaded my images, I looked at the "Human-readable" license, which says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", and I thought it sounded acceptable. Besides, looking at the CC FAQ, under "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?":

"(2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify"

The fact that the actual text does not explicitly specify this is very, very discouraging. If this wasn't the intended requirements of the license, it should never have made it to the version of the license 99.9% of people using it will read. I'd like to say a lot more, but there's simply too many thoughts spinning around in my head right now. I will try to reply more coherently later. For now, thanks for offering your opinions, I really appreciate it. decltype (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in maintaining a false sense of security. If the user is abusive, he should be blocked. Someone is going to make that edit to Huggle themselves even if I did not publish it. PirateSmackK says he's an intermediate C programmer. I suppose we can tell him to stop using Huggle and block him if he continues. Either way, there's no point in having Huggle require a flag that is actually not needed. Maybe Wikipedia should have an edit cap for ordinary users? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree on most of what you're saying. The question remaining is, since the only purpose rollback serves is to speed up (and presumably lighten server load) for the actual rollbacking, which is a little slower if it is emulated, do we really need WP:RFP/R at all? I think I'll bring this up over there. decltype (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, thank you, the list itself is extremely interesting, if nothing else. Certainly not what I had expected :) decltype (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delays. I've had all sorts of distractions coming up. I'll do my best to get it done as soon as possible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry forgive me i just got carried away....-Da Balla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.23.218 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. decltype (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed you were using <nowiki> on WT:CSD to illustrate templates in text without transcluding them. I don't know if you knew, but there are some templates to make this easier. {{tl}} can be used (with {{tl|template}}) to refer to a template (and link to it). {{tlx}} allows adding parameters to that (i.e. {{tlx|template|parameter1|parameter2}}), {{tls}} creates the link and adds subst: before it (i.e. {{tls|template}} will create {{subst:template}}). Just a tip that might come in handy, I have found it to be much easier than to have to write <nowiki> all the time and it allows people to click the link to view the template. Regards SoWhy 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew about {{tl}}, but I don't write about templates very often, so I usually forget. Agree that it is much more practical. Thanks. decltype (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For all your help regarding CSD! ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How nice of you. Thanks a lot! decltype (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Cheers,--ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The photos in the actual articles are so small, here: they're big, so you can, you know, SEE THEM!

Thanks For Interest, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see the page's dicussion page, if these are non-free images, why are they on every "Nightmare" related page?

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The page I added is for informational purposes only. I hope that this is ok. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamrox (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Hi Decltype, thanks for retagging those two as attacks.

And for the follow ups. If you ever run for admin please remind me of this incident ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted! Thanks a lot! decltype (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Decltype. You have new messages at ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

my edit to STUNT COCK was not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.91.99 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken. Do you have a source? decltype (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: I was not mistaken: . decltype (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Decltype. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page. Cheers, and happy editing! Sincerely, Dylan620 3 _{My master}.

This message was sent to you at 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC).

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk)

no problem, it my mistake I forgot to subst it, thank you again :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)