Revision as of 05:43, 7 May 2006 editZeq (talk | contribs)10,670 edits Thank you← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:09, 7 May 2006 edit undoJahiegel (talk | contribs)13,228 edits RfANext edit → | ||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
I was actually starting to look forward to this as a way to cure my wikipedia adiction.... | I was actually starting to look forward to this as a way to cure my wikipedia adiction.... | ||
I really should take a break for a while. let's see if I can. best. | I really should take a break for a while. let's see if I can. best. | ||
==FloNight RfA== | |||
Wow, I'm altogether stupid (''mustn't edit after 1am''). Thanks for reverting me; for some reason, I didn't notice that the RfA'd been closed (I'd not been to RfA in the last few days, since there were none that appeared both close (per ]) and interesting. My bad. ] 06:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:09, 7 May 2006
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimbo Wales | ||
Quickly doing a partial undeletionSlim, I was just about to delete something when I saw that you had. Do you know that there's a quick way of checking the thousands of boxes so that you can just uncheck the two or three that you don't want to restore? I discovered it only yesterday, having spent hours at the Easter weekend resortoring pages, at least one of which had thousands of versions. You can see it here. It just takes five seconds. I'm not sure if it would be wise for me to jump in and restore something that you may be in the middle of restoring, but if you see this in the meantime, let me know. Otherwise, it may be useful to know for another occasion. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Mark LawsonComments appreciated on this (just found accidently). Arniep 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Crown CopyrightYou've just archived your talk page, so I'll respond here. The basic Crown Copyright laid out by HMSO is indeed acceptable as a free license. However, it allows for individual departments to place additional requirements in their copyirhgt notices, some of which make media from them clearly non-free. See for example the copyright notice from the National Archives. Its material is protected by Crown Copyright. However, it also requires the payment of a fee for the use of any of its images. Others, such as the Met Office allow for unlimited reproduction only for private study and scientific research, with any other use requiring explicit permission — ie. {{NonCommercial}}. These also aren't acceptable as free images, though most of the time, the image can be kept under terms of fair use. This is why {{CrownCopyright}} includes a <noinclude> section underneath pointing to the list of acceptable sites at Template talk:CrownCopyright. GeeJo ⁄(c) • 10:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 3RRNo. If you read the comments made on the 3RR page last week you'll see that, in fact, I was blocked for adding the same words more than three times. Your interpretation of the 3RR rule is overly broad and unique. Homey 13:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Thank youHi Slim, Thanks for your note. I understand. best, Zeq PS I was actually starting to look forward to this as a way to cure my wikipedia adiction.... I really should take a break for a while. let's see if I can. best. FloNight RfAWow, I'm altogether stupid (mustn't edit after 1am). Thanks for reverting me; for some reason, I didn't notice that the RfA'd been closed (I'd not been to RfA in the last few days, since there were none that appeared both close (per Dragons flight) and interesting. My bad. Joe 06:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC) |