| Revision as of 17:04, 17 May 2006 editEWS23 (talk | contribs)6,343 edits →Rolling back support on an RfA: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:10, 19 May 2006 edit undoJoan Hecht (talk | contribs)131 edits WarningNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :Hi EWS23, I noticed that user . I see no point in keeping the vote of someone who will be disregarded by the closing 'crat and who is obviously someone familiar with Misplaced Pages who is just popping in to have some fun at the RFA, but I don't really care. (Are there really accounts that do nothing but vote oppose whose edits aren't reverted?) If you wish to revert and make a note for the closing crat that the user does nothing but make RFA votes, then I wouldn't be fussed. I personally am closer to viewing the behavior as disruption but I'll just leave page maintenance to someone else. Cheers, ]] 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | :Hi EWS23, I noticed that user . I see no point in keeping the vote of someone who will be disregarded by the closing 'crat and who is obviously someone familiar with Misplaced Pages who is just popping in to have some fun at the RFA, but I don't really care. (Are there really accounts that do nothing but vote oppose whose edits aren't reverted?) If you wish to revert and make a note for the closing crat that the user does nothing but make RFA votes, then I wouldn't be fussed. I personally am closer to viewing the behavior as disruption but I'll just leave page maintenance to someone else. Cheers, ]] 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for the reply. I won't revert it in that case, then. However, I think I'll start a general discussion on ] about the whole phenomenon, and when/how we should revert comments. To answer your other question, no, I don't know of any accounts that are currently being used solely to oppose nominations, just regular editors who feel the need to oppose nearly every RfA. However, those are certainly two completely different things. Thanks again. ]] | ] 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | ::Thanks for the reply. I won't revert it in that case, then. However, I think I'll start a general discussion on ] about the whole phenomenon, and when/how we should revert comments. To answer your other question, no, I don't know of any accounts that are currently being used solely to oppose nominations, just regular editors who feel the need to oppose nearly every RfA. However, those are certainly two completely different things. Thanks again. ]] | ] 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Warning == | |||
| I did not see your warning, as I am not totally familiar with your site. However, I can assure you that my book is relevant to all titles where I have posted it. Unlike other books written about the Lost Boys, my book gives a thorough account of the Sudanese government and history of Sudan. It deals not only with Sudan, but topics such as refugees, the Lost Boys of Sudan, the conflict in Ethiopia, Uganda, the country of Kenya where the Lost Boys continue to reside, etc.. Even Darfur is relevent to my book, as the muslims of Darfur were enlisted by the Sudanese Government to raid villages in the south where Lost Boys and their families lived. Not listing my book in these areas is a dis-service to viewers who may want to learn more about the inner workings of the Sudanese government and the genocide that has ocurred both in Darfur and the South of Sudan. Thank you for your consideration and sorry for not responding sooner to your warning. | |||
| Best, | |||
| Joan | |||
Revision as of 15:10, 19 May 2006
| I really dislike breaking up conversations. If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here. I periodically clean out my watchlist, so if there has been a lull in a conversation on your page, please restart it here. |
 |
|---|
| 24 December 2024 |
|
Image copyrights
Following up your comment from the Main Page talk page: "nobody can claim copyright over reproductions of two-dimensional images unless they claim that they are creating an entirely new work of art" - I know from personal experience that there are some plausible exceptions to this rule. One is where people take old books and scan the photographs. The photographs and books themselves are public domain, but they are very poor quality and the pages may have started to turn brown and degrade. What often happens is that the scanner retouches the scan and (to the best of their ability) repairs and restores the picture to its original condition. This does take time and effort, and, unlike in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the resulting image can be significantly different to the current degraded condition of the object being "copied". This is more restoration than copying. This might sometimes justify a copyright tag.
The other thing is simple courtesy. In most cases, simply crediting the institution (museum or historical picture library) from where the picture was sourced, would help. Often they are just trying to prevent commercial reuse. Having the credit line with the image (rather than a click away - if that) would probably help. Carcharoth 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I was probably guilty of overemphasis there in response to the argument made by the museum itself, repeated many other places on the net, that "we scanned it so we own the image", which is false prima facie. I grant that there are exceptions and caveats, but in cases where the creator of a two-dimensional image has been dead for over 90 years, the assumption has to be that it is public domain, or the utility of public domain breaks down. As far as I remember, neither the museum nor the anonymous contributor on Talk:Main Page were stating that the image had been altered from the original and thus substantially "new" or that it would be nice if there was a credit line, but simply that Misplaced Pages was somehow legally wrong in using the image.
- On your second point, Misplaced Pages is mirrored by commercial sites and, even if somebody wanted to take the image in question and use it in a McDonald's ad, I'm pretty sure that the museum has no legal recourse. (with all the caveats of the paragraph above of course) I believe that all images on Misplaced Pages without attribution (public domain or not) need to be attributed and sourced, and I am happy if the caption states the source as well, especially if the institution in questions asks us to and it is relevant. It is also worth doing due diligence so that we don't get sued for being careless or unresponsive, even in the Foundation wins in the end. However there is a line between being nice and jumping through non-existent hoops. I do think that Wikipedians need to think through the implications of copyright but am firmly on the side of avoiding copyright paranoia. Cheers and thanks for the note, BanyanTree 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Rolling back support on an RfA
Hi, BanyanTree, how are you? I was just curious why you rolled back a support from User:A ding ding ding ding ding ding ding. I realize that all this user is doing is supporting RfAs, but every registered user is allowed to have their voice heard on RfAs. Just like users who oppose every single candidate, burecrats can easily ignore users who support every single candidate just as easily. However, I didn't want to revert your edit without talking to you first. Let me know what you think. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi EWS23, I noticed that user being reverted previously. I see no point in keeping the vote of someone who will be disregarded by the closing 'crat and who is obviously someone familiar with Misplaced Pages who is just popping in to have some fun at the RFA, but I don't really care. (Are there really accounts that do nothing but vote oppose whose edits aren't reverted?) If you wish to revert and make a note for the closing crat that the user does nothing but make RFA votes, then I wouldn't be fussed. I personally am closer to viewing the behavior as disruption but I'll just leave page maintenance to someone else. Cheers, BanyanTree 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I won't revert it in that case, then. However, I think I'll start a general discussion on WT:RFA about the whole phenomenon, and when/how we should revert comments. To answer your other question, no, I don't know of any accounts that are currently being used solely to oppose nominations, just regular editors who feel the need to oppose nearly every RfA. However, those are certainly two completely different things. Thanks again. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Warning
I did not see your warning, as I am not totally familiar with your site. However, I can assure you that my book is relevant to all titles where I have posted it. Unlike other books written about the Lost Boys, my book gives a thorough account of the Sudanese government and history of Sudan. It deals not only with Sudan, but topics such as refugees, the Lost Boys of Sudan, the conflict in Ethiopia, Uganda, the country of Kenya where the Lost Boys continue to reside, etc.. Even Darfur is relevent to my book, as the muslims of Darfur were enlisted by the Sudanese Government to raid villages in the south where Lost Boys and their families lived. Not listing my book in these areas is a dis-service to viewers who may want to learn more about the inner workings of the Sudanese government and the genocide that has ocurred both in Darfur and the South of Sudan. Thank you for your consideration and sorry for not responding sooner to your warning. Best, Joan