Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ian13: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:43, 15 September 2008 editIan13 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,881 edits Help required !!!: yes← Previous edit Revision as of 15:14, 15 September 2008 edit undoKnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk | contribs)3,439 edits Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg: new sectionNext edit →
Line 112: Line 112:
:::If you check ], the website has declared the Image free in their blog (http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=783). Is a Non-free use media rationale required for the Image then? Is there any alternate Creative Commons licensing tag. Thanks, ] (]) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) :::If you check ], the website has declared the Image free in their blog (http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=783). Is a Non-free use media rationale required for the Image then? Is there any alternate Creative Commons licensing tag. Thanks, ] (]) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Um, well, permission alone is not sufficient. This is because images from Misplaced Pages are used elsewhere. We require that images are either licenced under a free licence (GFDL, cc-by-sa etc., and it must allow commercial use), or meet US fair-use criteria. Because of this, yes, a rationale is probably needed as we are using the image under a claim of fair-use due to the absence of a free licence. ]] 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC) ::::Um, well, permission alone is not sufficient. This is because images from Misplaced Pages are used elsewhere. We require that images are either licenced under a free licence (GFDL, cc-by-sa etc., and it must allow commercial use), or meet US fair-use criteria. Because of this, yes, a rationale is probably needed as we are using the image under a claim of fair-use due to the absence of a free licence. ]] 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello, may I know why was the image deleted? The copyright issues were discussed earlier and were approved by ], an experienced image reviewer at WP:FAC. --''']'''] 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:14, 15 September 2008

Archives
This is Ian13's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.


A4232 road

Hello again Ian13

I would like to point you again, in the direction of 217.36.107.9 who seems to be engaging in another edit war concerning the article A4232 road. I know this may seem like telling tales but I think these editorial confrontations are getting to be a bit more than coincidences.  stavros1 ♣  16:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for breach of 3RR. Thanks, Ian¹³/t 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ian13,
217.36.107.9 appears to be at it again. I feel like we are in the same situation as before this user was blocked. I have not reverted the users edit as I have better things to do than keep reverting this users vandalism all the time. The user has put no summary to the edit or replied to on Talk:A4232 road. I'll just leave it to you. Seth Whales (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Warned again. Ian¹³/t 18:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Please do not insert redundant and duplicated information into this article. I have asked the same of the other users involved. Thanks, 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Hi Ian13,

I am prepared to compromise for a second and last time, on this article. I am prepared to change the junction names from say "Culverhouse Cross Interchange" to just "Culverhouse Cross" and "St Fagans slip road" to "St Fagans" etc.throughout the infoboxes. I am doing this on the condition that 217.36.107.9 does not revert the above edit and never edits any part of A4232 road again (sorry I have to put this in, but this user has shown to be disruptive already by having a 24 hour block). I have now changed the article accordingly and hope this puts to bed this utterly futile edit war. Regards Seth Whales (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, "If you allow me to circumvent content policies, I'll not do it quite so blatantly in future" does not amount to a compromise. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) Seth Whales (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Compromises rarely include banning editors from making further edits to the page. The user was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR, and has been repeatedly warned for disruption, but regardless, a ban won't stick. However, 217.36.107.9, a compromise is going to have to be reached. How about following (the first bit) of the proposal above? Ian¹³/t 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed it all a bit, trying to merge both page versions. Comments? Ian¹³/t 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ian13,
Fine by me...thanks very much for your help. Seth Whales (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ian13, I would urge you not to take the bait, and read this before involving yourself further. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I have replied at length on that page. Ian¹³/t 15:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alabama Great Southern Railroad

Is there any way to speed up the process and move Talk:Alabama Great Southern Railroad/Temp, or do I need to wait a week? --NE2 01:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The page was created (almost 3 years ago!) as a copyvio, and has gone largely unchanged, so was valid for immediate deletion under CSD G12. However, I held off, and instead posted a full copyvio notice to encourage its recreation. Given this has happened, I am more than happy to go ahead and move it. I must say, excellent work. You have made a useful article from nothing in a very short time.
While I'm talking to you, your User:NE2/valuations/Alabama Great Southern Railroad page concerns me. It appears to be public domain, which is fine, however sometimes, copyright can be claimed from the transcription. I'm no expert in this field, but if you didn't type it up from the book, or a faithful image of the page, I think it may need to be deleted.
Cheers, Ian¹³/t 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not a direct copy-paste from the transcription; where possible I used the page images, and otherwise I corrected OCR errors. The text is as it was published by the ICC. --NE2 18:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That's cool. Just wanted to make sure. Good work :) Ian¹³/t 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nek

Thank you for In Due cover.
Oleg N (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Ian¹³/t 10:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre's talk page

What was the reason to move the past three days of comments on Sceptre's talk page to that archive page? Now that the talk page is blanked there's no hint at that archive and the edits are not in the history of the talk page either. Was there any particular reason to hide those last 3 days of comments like that? user:Everyme 08:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the comments to the archive per user request , courtesy blanked the archive link (with a direct link to the previous revision ), and posted a notice at the bottom of the main talk page linking both to the new archive page and to a direct diff for the 3 month block notice (yes, that IP was me sorry). However, I did not blank the main talk page (that was done by Tznkai . I hope that helps. Ian¹³/t 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Hadn't seen Sceptre's posting. (Still seems a bit unusual, seeing as the entire main user talk history is kept in place except for those last few days. Oh well, none of my business.) user:Everyme 17:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Help required !!!

Hello, I urgently require some help from you. Actually, a user uploaded an Image Image:MangaloreanCatholicsRules.gif on the Mangalorean Catholics article, and released it under the Public domain. But however, when I checked the Individual articles on them, no free Images were present. I checked the entire Wikimedia Commons but those images were not found. That means these are copyrighted images copied from other websites, and then merged into a bigger Image. Is it allowed as per WIKIpolicies. I have contacted you since you are an administrator. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's likely you are correct and it is a copy-vio as a derivative work of copyrighted material. I have tagged the image as needing sources, and evidence of permission from those sources. They have one week to respond and fully tag the images, else it will be deleted. You can actually do this yourself using {{di-no source}} and {{di-no permission}}. I hope this helps. Ian¹³/t 11:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for your reply..One more copyright violation - Image:Goan Special.jpg on Goan Catholics article. (3 out of 6 images are not free) (IMG 3,5,6). Kensplanet (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
All tagged up. Ian¹³/t 11:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you please delete Image:St, Paul's church, Mangalore.jpg immediately. This was uploaded by me when I didn't have enough knowledge of free Images. It is a 100% copyrighted image. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Vanished. Cheers, Ian¹³/t 11:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a question regarding an Image. Hope you don't mind!!! Kensplanet (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, ask away. Ian¹³/t 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If you check Image:C202 (www.kamat.com).jpg, the website has declared the Image free in their blog (http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=783). Is a Non-free use media rationale required for the Image then? Is there any alternate Creative Commons licensing tag. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, well, permission alone is not sufficient. This is because images from Misplaced Pages are used elsewhere. We require that images are either licenced under a free licence (GFDL, cc-by-sa etc., and it must allow commercial use), or meet US fair-use criteria. Because of this, yes, a rationale is probably needed as we are using the image under a claim of fair-use due to the absence of a free licence. Ian¹³/t 12:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mumbai 20080212.jpg

Hello, may I know why was the image deleted? The copyright issues were discussed earlier and were approved by user:Elcobolla, an experienced image reviewer at WP:FAC. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)