Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:51, 30 May 2006

Archives

• /Archive1 — from 02:10, 16 January 2003 (UTC) to 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

History of List of environment topics:F-G

During the deletion of this article, I didn't conside the GFDL attribution loss to the degree you are mentioning. This article is a list of other articles, but is still desrving of attributation. I've merged the edit history of it to the history of List_of_environment_topics:F to maintain the contributors list. Please note, that it appears that the original contributor of that list did so with a cut and paste move from List of environment topics, possibly loosing attributions at that point as well. xaosflux /_CVU 23:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π#Question

In what sense is p(x) symmetrical? I find it symmetrical only when large values of |x| are involved, which is expected as then it would approximate x. And BTW, I suppose you meant 4/(1+x) instead of 4*arctan(x). -- Paddu 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not p(x) that's so symmetrical, it's the integrand: p(x)- 4/(1+x). (And yes, I meant that instead of arctan - thanks.) If you look at it just between 0 and 1, it looks like a nice bell curve, sort of. -GTBacchus 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Calghighrshonours.gif

You say you have provided the image for the "private use" of Misplaced Pages users. But you have tagged it {{copyrighted free use}} which means people can use it not only for private purposes but also e.g. for commercial purposes.

Misplaced Pages no longer accepts "non-commercial use only" images. Hence either you must licence the image under some free image licence acceptable to Misplaced Pages or the image should be deleted. I'm not sure how the latter is acceptable since while uploading the image you would have had to agree to licence the image under a free licence since you are its copyright holder. -- Paddu 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought it went without saying that the Copyright license selected takes priority over the Summary. I believe the copyright notice on that page nicely summarizes the legalities of the image; I see no reason to make changes or delete the image. Incidentally, what made you click on the page/image? Thank you.Michael Dorosh 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Page edits

Thanks for your concern.. that IP is used by ~400 undergrads so it's likely to have made a lot of edits all over the shop.

Tag Confusion

Look,i got permission from the photographers,but if such a rule(permission only for wikipedia) exists then its just making our lives tougher,i mean why should he release it into public domain,its his image he can very well demand money for it elsewhere,if the tag can be changed please help me to do so.If you want i can paste a copy of the email granting permission.I would be very dissapointed indeed if such rules prevent users like me who respect copyright,get permission and still arent encouraged to upload.I also havent read through the whole document its way too long(i mean the rules) could you please highlight the relevant section,i also didnt the logic behind this rule)if it exists).Prateek01 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia

You state on your user page: "I suffer from copyright paranoia w.r.t. contributions from myself (which's why I've contributed almost nothing to the 'pedia)."

Which makes it doubly puzzling why you continue to stick your nose into the work of those that do make bold contributions. If your only claim to contributing is to delete the contributions of others, you haven't added anything to wikipedia; indeed, you've only contributed to that feeling of paranoia on the part of others that prevents them from contributing. Maybe, with all due respect, you need to re-examine why you are here. If it is to enforce policies implemented by others, ask yourself who those policies are really serving. Not the users of Misplaced Pages, but the handful of people who wish to protect themselves from liability issues. Their interests are in vague legal concepts, nothing more.Michael Dorosh 15:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't claimed to have contributed anything here, I haven't claimed I added anything valuable here, and I feel I need not examine why I'm here unless I'm banned. BTW whoever the policy serves, they are to be enforced since this site is not owned by either of us but by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is intent on enforcing these policies. -- Paddu 16:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Interstate shields

I would then have to update each description separately, as they refer to the border being 0 pixels (which used to work before the SVG software was modified). Additionally, Commonist won't mass upload and overwrite (which is probably a good thing for vandalism prevention). --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 14:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User page formatting

Yes I know my userpage is crap, especially when comparing to such as yours, but I removed most of the userboxes, I was just testing them. I agree it doesnt look well (not only in Mozilla though), but unfortunately as you can see I'm not that active on the en., so a page as good as yours will have to wait.Thanks for the coment though... --AndersL 13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Vandalip

By this edit you made Template:Vandalip a copy of the version as of that date of Template:SharedIP. Hence the template has now become redundant. Moreover, since the edit doesn't give a link to Template:SharedIP, the past history of the text pasted is not clearly visible, in violation of GFDL. (I'm not sure if the text is small enough to not be copyrightable.)

Should Template:Vandalip be made a redirect to Template:SharedIP? Or should Template:Vandalip be reverted to the earlier version where it only talked about reporting network abuse? I'd prefer the former since the "network abuse" clause has been added to Template:SharedIP. -- Paddu 06:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not know about the Template:SharedIP template when I made that edit. I got the text from User_talk:143.231.249.141 which I mentioned in the edit summary. At that time I did not know that it was a subset of Template:SharedIP. I found it neat that it told users that it may be shared.

I believe that Template:vandalip should become a redirect for shard ip. I made that change because many vandal IPs are shard through a corporation. (However, not all are!) That makes it a sticky situation. But, because vandalip has one of those {{{1}}} things where you can insert information into the template, and because it says may be shared. It also may not be shared. Because the vandal ip template is on some IPs that are shared we need to mention that. So yes, I support the merge and redirect.

I think we need to propose that on the talk page. --michael180 20:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu

I have not interacted with you before. But I notice you participate in Indian politics related articles. I made some updates on the article. Please check and comment. I want to see it a become featured list. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if that MGR pic will stand fairuse. It was removed by OrphanBot previously for that reason. Again, I don't want too many troubles at the WP:FL regarding fairuse pics. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to revert your last edit. I will let the images stay there. Please reconsider keeping the MGR pic per my message above. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Got your message. The blank spaces in the records section look odd though. Can anything be done? - Ganeshk (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The article looks much better now. Karunanadhi pic move made the difference. The blank spaces do not bother me much now. - Ganeshk (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

wowturkey

Hi Paddu,

If wowturkey made a policy specifically for Misplaced Pages, and allowing images on it to be unconditionally used for Wikipedias commercial interests i.e. answers.com, would this be sufficient? Or must the images be completely and unconditionally relased? --A.Garnet 20:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I have not yet spoken to them, but if there was a way to limit the licence to just Misplaced Pages, i thought i would enquire before i or others attempt to give free reign over all their images. Like you say, may be better to come to agreement with them over a number of free license images that they can give us, and perhaps this can be an ongoing thing, i.e. if there is an image that is very relevant we can ask them to release it. If they agree of course. I think Met said he was going to have a word, i will wait and see if he has any luck. Cheers, --A.Garnet 20:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey i was wondering if this tag: ==== "Any-purpose" copyright ====

• {{ABr}}—A photo copyrighted by Agência Brasil, that can be freely reproduced as long as credit is given to the source and the reporter.

is also suitable for wowturkey? Metb82 19:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well. We obviously can't use that tag as of now. I got really irritated and blurted out a response at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Turkey, but please clarify if what you meant is "using that tag straight away" (which is what I thought) or "asking wowturkey.com to licence under this tag".

BTW, thanks for pointing out the {{ABr}} tag to me. I really wonder if such licences are considered "free enough" since they don't seem to bother about the rights to modification and use of modified versions of the images. I've raised this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags#"Any-purpose" copyrights truly "any-purpose"?. -- Paddu 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)