User talk:Soundvisions1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:43, 15 December 2010 editTbhotch (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers313,073 edits →Question: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:11, 16 December 2010 edit undoSoundvisions1 (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers10,256 edits →Question: ← replyNext edit →
Line 71:		Line 71:

	] told me to come here to ask you something. Here is the issue: An ] commented me at one ] to ask if the image ] could be checked for freedom of panorama. According to him: " is basically a far away image of the stage, where it is impossible to make out what is exactly happening. It is only looking at the backdrop of the performance that one can make out Bey". The image was taken in Berlin, Germany, where according to commons ] (for permanently objects, which is not the case). I'm asking you if that image may fall into a copyvio due a part of it have to Beyoncé on a big screen (repeated three times), and if it is, what could be done. Thank you (sorry for my bad English BTW). ]<sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Happy Holidays</font> 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)		] told me to come here to ask you something. Here is the issue: An ] commented me at one ] to ask if the image ] could be checked for freedom of panorama. According to him: " is basically a far away image of the stage, where it is impossible to make out what is exactly happening. It is only looking at the backdrop of the performance that one can make out Bey". The image was taken in Berlin, Germany, where according to commons ] (for permanently objects, which is not the case). I'm asking you if that image may fall into a copyvio due a part of it have to Beyoncé on a big screen (repeated three times), and if it is, what could be done. Thank you (sorry for my bad English BTW). ]<sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> <font face="Lucida Calligraphy">Happy Holidays</font> 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

			:On it's own the image is fine. As the image is being distributed (Hosted) on Wikimedia Commons see their ] policy, and, more specifically, ] - the issue that arises would be if someone decides they want to crop the image to show only the screen. In that case there has to be a clear indication of who owns that source, which right now there isn't. A concert, in itself, is usually not under a copyright as far as still pictures go but when it comes to multimedia being used during the concert it becomes a slippery slope. Personally to avoid such concerns I would use instead, as there is nothing being "broadcast" on the screen. It's taken by the same user and available under the same license. ] (]) 02:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:11, 16 December 2010

Template:Archive box collapsible

Barnstar!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For Soundvisions1's tireless image tagging! — Athaenara ✉ 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions

Hey, I saw you recently posted there. How do you think User:Netalarm/MEDIALAB compares to the current header? Netalarm 03:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the box/color what is the difference? Aside form that the links needs ot be update - all "image" related links are now mostly "file" related links. Wording should also be adjusted.

For example:

"How to add a copyright tag to an existing image" > "How to add a copyright tag to an existing file"
"From the page Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:" > From the page Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:

Also the section that says "Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license..." should be revised to reflect that not all material found on Flickr is actually the property of the account posting it. You could add something like: "See also Commons:Questionable Flickr images. This page lists Flickr users and images that have been questioned in the past, and links to the discussion."

And, IMO, GFDL was never really a proper license for images so now that the current Misplaced Pages "recommended" license is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License the collective wording should probably be updated to reflect that. So, for example, the section that starts with "Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}})..." should probably be changed to read "Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}})..." So it needs a lot of little tweaks, like a lot of templates do. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary difference is the unified header, so instead of having the various boxes and sections as done in the old header, there is now just one unified box that contains all the information needed. I think the new header design allows the newer users to easily understand everything and is more organized. For example, right now I'm counting around 9 sections/boxes in the old header, while there is only one new header. Regarding the actual text of the header, that was directly copied from the old header without any major modifications :P. I'm not too familiar with how the noticeboard operates, so would it be possible for you to update the new header with up to date information that I may have missed? I've already updated the noticeboard with the suggestions. Thank you. Netalarm 04:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of film box template

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

NOTE:This is not the location for discussions about templates using the standard {{infobox}} template or back end coding. If you are having problems using {{infobox album}}, or find the back end coding hard to understand, than you need to bring it up on Template talk:Infobox album, not here.

Why are you replacing the film infobox with some messy table markup here? Is there a feature missing in the film infobox that you need? Why not propose it at Template talk:Infobox film? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ 02:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been busy reverting your edits. The I.P is a potential vandalism use I.P and has been tagged as such. There was zero reason for you to revert my revision to what the I.P did.

As for the template itself - it has been used since 2008 and was made from existing templates, see {{Infobox album}} for reference. If you feel that template is no longer needed and/or consists of "messy table markup" than feel free to suggest it be cleaned up. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a template, it's some hardcoded html table, which is riddled with parserfunctions. Please see WP:Don't template the regulars, and feel free to respond at Talk:Five Across the Eyes (film). Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ 04:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have no real idea you were a "regulars" as the first thing that popped into my radar was your removal of a warning placed on a I.P that has been tagged for repeated vandalism. Most "regulars" wouldn't do that.

It is a template. A hint - all templates have back end coding, you can view this by viewing the source. This will show you the coding that leads to other sources used within the template. If you aren't willing to open up a deletion discussion for {{Infobox album}} I will suggest it on the talk page for that template based on your concerns here if you would like. On the other hand if you want to step up and recode the back end please feel free to do that as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Plastikspork is right here; we strongly prefer standard templates... not whatever that was. He's one of the best template developers around this project. Delete {{Infobox album}}? You must be joking. Seriously, Jack Merridew 05:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi back:

Question by Jack Merridew: Delete {{Infobox album}}? You must be joking.
Answer provided by Plastikspork: it's some hardcoded html table, which is riddled with parserfunctions.

Sorry, *I* don't want to see {{Infobox album}} deleted but if there is consensus that the back end is "some hardcoded html table, which is riddled with parserfunctions" than I think the source should be addressed. All I did was copy that source to try and make a constant for media - but that was in 2008. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just posted at Talk:Five Across the Eyes (film). It is sometimes appropriate to embed html in templates; it is rarely appropriate in article space. Hope that helps. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for help on coding, chances are I have been doing about 20 plus years longer than you, and it has nothing to do with any template coding - it has to do with Plastikspork reverting my warning and reversions to an I.P already tagged for being a potential vandalism account. The entire 2008 template issue appears to be a smokescreen of sorts. Soundvisions1 (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I find this all laughable, that anyone feels a mild "General note" placed by Twinkle on an account that has a history of being used for this sort of thing is missing the core issue. Frankly I have tagged I.P's and reverted I.P's edits many times and not once had the unwarranted fervor this has caused. Unless those involved have a vetted interest in these I.P's than End of story to all (un)involved.

Please be careful when warning IP's of vandalism. This was not vandalism! You might not agree with the edit, but it doesn't fall remotely under vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that you are only adding fuel to a fire that does not need to be flamed. To be clear I used Twinkle to warn an I.P that has been warned in the past an edit they had made had been reverted. My warning *was* justified and it had nothing to do with what another editor has now made it it into. Have a nice day. EDIT - actually the edit you speak of was *not* the I.P that I warned - user talk page history confirms this, and also confirms that they have been warned by others. The I.P I warned however appears to be part of the same source system as it has the same tag - a look at this I.P's talk page history will also confirm other warnings. For example this warning is far more severe than mine was. And if you note in the summary of the warning I placed it says General note: Nonconstructive editing on... Please be more aware of the fact before you come here placing warnings about things. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Garion96's view. You're not listening to people. The IPs are fine; Sandia has some smart people, btw. The more you make inappropriate warnings, and inappropriate 'templates' the more attention you're going to get. Jack Merridew 21:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The other warning you mentioned that the IP got refers to a warning of 3 years ago! You do know that it's extremely unlikely that it was the same person who did that edit? IP addresses do change. And yes, your warning was not justified and the edit I spoke of was definitely the IP you warned. This edit and this warning. One edit is from 134.253.26.4, your warning is to 134.253.26.4's talk page. Garion96 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To "Jack Merridew": Making a veiled threat by pointing out that if I continue to revert and warn I.P's the more attention you're going to get is something some might consider vandalism.

To Garion96: You "warned" me above by citing this - which is a dif of a reversion I did to an edit done by 134.253.26.6, which was *followed by* a reversion to that done by 134.253.26.4. Show me where in 134.253.26.6's history I issued any warning, ever, for anything? When I made this reversion I left a general note to 134.253.26.4. My thought, at that time, was it was the same I.P as before - however when all of this nonsense kicked in and I looked I saw it was not the same I.P., but both are the "same". The same types of edits were being made by both I.P's and clearly both 134.253.26.6 and 134.253.26.4 are related. Both are tagged with a template that explicitly states: In response to vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled, and abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for further investigation. And given how silly all of this is I should have expected the point about what is a clear, and blatant if you will, vandalism warning vs what is a clear "general warning" would be entirely ignored with a comment pointing out it "refers to a warning of 3 years ago!". So fine, you want to play silly games: This warning? - July 2010. How about the template that was added September 16, 2010 clearly stating In response to vandalism from this IP address, anonymous editing may be disabled, and abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for further investigation.? How about this warning to the other I.P given on November 29, 2010? Oh wait - I know the proper response/s: "That refers to a warning of 5/3/1 month ago! You do know that it's extremely unlikely that it was the same person who did that edit?" Ok than - I guess I have to submit to that kind of logic and should most likely bring a TfD for {{SharedIPGOV}} because, after all, it is extremely unlikely that the same person is making edits. And of course, heck - we have a lot of blocks for I.P's that probably shouldn't be valid, and we should update all of the warnings to be explicit never to be used on I.P's.

And then I awoke in cold sweat to realize it was only but a dream, created by someone other than myself who was not who they appeared to be due to misplaced '0' in the dream sequence.

Oh, in case nobody got that see Sarcasm and Irony for an overview. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

User:Jappalang told me to come here to ask you something. Here is the issue: An editor commented me at one FAC to ask if the image File:Flickr - gillyberlin - Beyonce I am... Tour 2009 Live in Berlin (14).jpg could be checked for freedom of panorama. According to him: " is basically a far away image of the stage, where it is impossible to make out what is exactly happening. It is only looking at the backdrop of the performance that one can make out Bey". The image was taken in Berlin, Germany, where according to commons it is OK (for permanently objects, which is not the case). I'm asking you if that image may fall into a copyvio due a part of it have to Beyoncé on a big screen (repeated three times), and if it is, what could be done. Thank you (sorry for my bad English BTW). Tbh®tch Happy Holidays 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On it's own the image is fine. As the image is being distributed (Hosted) on Wikimedia Commons see their Commons:De minimis policy, and, more specifically, Crops of de minimis images - the issue that arises would be if someone decides they want to crop the image to show *only* the screen. In that case there has to be a clear indication of who owns *that* source, which right now there isn't. A concert, in itself, is usually not under a copyright as far as still pictures go but when it comes to multimedia being used during the concert it becomes a slippery slope. Personally to avoid such concerns I would use this image instead, as there is nothing being "broadcast" on the screen. It's taken by the same user and available under the same license. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)