Misplaced Pages

User talk:Stifle/Archive 0409: 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.
< User talk:Stifle Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:56, 4 March 2009 editTimtrent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers131,527 edits →File:Stage curtains.jpg: thanks muchly. We have done all we can.← Previous edit Revision as of 19:32, 4 March 2009 edit undoGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits Notability (Fiction)Next edit →
Line 79: Line 79:
::That OTRS ticket refers to the text on that website, not any images, sorry. ''']''' (]) 14:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC) ::That OTRS ticket refers to the text on that website, not any images, sorry. ''']''' (]) 14:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I've emailed the uploader to ask them to resolve it. While their intention may be obvious it appears that their actions were insufficient. Thank you both for checking. I hope the deletion will be simply temporary. The image is extremely useful. I've never seen anything as good anywhere with suitable licensing. ] (]) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC) :::I've emailed the uploader to ask them to resolve it. While their intention may be obvious it appears that their actions were insufficient. Thank you both for checking. I hope the deletion will be simply temporary. The image is extremely useful. I've never seen anything as good anywhere with suitable licensing. ] (]) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
== Notability (Fiction) ==
There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of ] for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at ] seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? --] (]) 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:32, 4 March 2009

Please click here to leave me a message.

Replies

  • Please reply to me here if possible.
  • If your message is about an AFD or other discussion that you want me to (re)contribute to, I will generally not reply other than by checking the page and adding a comment.
  • If your message is just an FYI or similar, I'll reply here (only) to say "noted" or similar.
  • Unless your message or your talk page advises otherwise, I will reply here and either copy my reply to your talk page or leave you a {{talkback}} template.
  • Please don't leave your email address. I find that offwiki messages are contrary to the open and clear communication that I prefer, and I will not reply by email.
    • Exception: if you are requesting the text of a deleted article, then make sure your preferences include a valid, confirmed email address, as I will email the article to you at that address (only).


Question about licensing

Hi. I've got a question about licensing text in light of the upcoming potential transition to CC-by-SA. As one of my favorite go-to OTRSers, I wanted to let you know about it and ask you, if you have any input, to please weigh in. :) It's at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights#Co-licensing?. --Moonriddengirl 13:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctations

I noticed you declined the A7 speedy request on this article, which I stumbled across by accident. Looking at the history it seems that the editor of the article is Louis Cornacchia, the CEO of the business in question. Given the overall tone of the article as an advertisement, and some bizarre references to Barack Obama's website health careplans broadly, I am tempted to delete the whole thing as an advertisement violation. Although there is a reference link to CNBC the CNBC listing is, literally, another advertisement only for Doctations. Would you agree with this or should I stay my hand? –– Lid 14:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a blatant ad and I wouldn't speedy it, but it could certainly be AFDed/PRODded. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI about a DRV

Hey Stifle, I thought I'd inform you about this...I opened Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_2#Becky_Altringer (an AfD you closed) because there were some issues with IP socking that may have changed the outcome. Please stop by, if you can, and add your input. Cheers, — Scientizzle 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New issue, OTRSing

Hi. A contributor would like to know if he may proactively release future publications on his website. I imagine this is possible. Donating copyrighted materials used to sort of say so. I could also imagine that it would be complicated if he wants to release only some subpages or something along those lines. Are you able to weigh in on this at User talk:Glaan? I told him I would ask a member of the Communications Committee and thought you might be able to help. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply over there. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Querry about OTRS tickets related to livius.org

Ticket:2007013110009589 is referenced from these images:

But all of them have the following text on their description pages

“ With permission granted by the authors to download, copy, re-format and redistribute the pictures for use on computers, computer networks or as a printed publication, provided that no fees are charged for their distribution. ”

Emphasis mine. That sounds like a pretty straight forward non-commercial use only license wich is not acceptable last time I checked. The terms on the site itself mirror this stating

“ (...)hereby allow you to download, copy, re-format and redistribute the pictures for use on computers, computer networks or as a printed publication, provided that
  • you charge no fees for their distribution,
  • are not a commercial website (with e.g. advertisements),
  • add a link to www.livius.org (or add a similar acknowledgment in print).

This also applies for Misplaced Pages-contributors: please do not describe the picture as "in the public domain" but as "from Livius.Org, with permission".

”

Does the OTRS ticket contain a waiver for the non-commercial bit, or is this a "grandfathered" ticket from before non-commercial licenses where officialy "banned"?

This got me a little worried because there are at least 100 images in total from livius.org on Commons (Commons:Category:Images from Livius.org with subcategory), I haven't checked all of them but several are tagged with a GFDL or CC license, some mention non-commercial only use and others not. Also found a second ticket: OTRS:1368643 applied to:

So what I'm wondering is: Are those images wtih OTRS tickets attached ok (that is have commercial use been explicitly allowed despite what they say on their website/image description), and also does those tickets pertain to only those few images or is it a general release that can be considered to cover all the other images from the site that are currently hosted on Commons?

The reason I stumbled onto this was Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Motya.jpg by the way (I advocated speedy deleting the image, as I had not seen those OTRS tickets at the time). If you find anything that might be relevant to that it would be good if you could drop a note there.

Thanks and sorry about the wall of text. --Sherool (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to read the first ticket. The second one is a valid CC-BY-SA release, so those latter two images are good. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Got the access started out. Ticket:2007013110009589 doesn't give any license that's usable here. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the entirety of Commons:Category:Images from Livius.org may need to be deleted. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Global partnership center

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't sure in this case because it looked like the description was for a separate, but affiliated organization, and was simply listed on the D.O.S. website - didn't think that would technically qualify as a work of the federal government. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Stage curtains.jpg

Not unreasonably you have flagged this for deletion. May I ask you, please, to look at what appear to be unusual circumstances surrounding it, since it MAY be part of OTRS ticket 2006051810015476

I think it may have been assumed when it was uploaded that it was so covered. Please see Talk:Theater drapes and stage curtains.

I tried (and obviously failed) to send an email to OTRS about this a couple of weeks ago asking that this be regularised. It looks to me as though the uploader intended that it was covered by that ticket since they created the entire page including the image from copyright material that they released.

I have no access to OTRS, but suspect it is part of a misunderstanding rather than malicious breach of copyright. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't access that ticket, sadly. I'll go bother someone who might have access. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That OTRS ticket refers to the text on that website, not any images, sorry. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've emailed the uploader to ask them to resolve it. While their intention may be obvious it appears that their actions were insufficient. Thank you both for checking. I hope the deletion will be simply temporary. The image is extremely useful. I've never seen anything as good anywhere with suitable licensing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability (Fiction)

There seems to be some progress being made towards redrafting the guideline. Most of the arguments for a permissive guideline seem to have been countered in the sense that they have been found not to be viable. My attempts to obtain a compromise earlier this year seem to be leading towards a slightly stricter applciation of WP:V for fiction that should discourage topics which are only the subject of in universe plot summary, trivia and cruft. A recent post at WT:FICT#The rules seems to make this clear. Can you provide some cool and clear support towards drafting a compromise that is compliant with existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines? --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)