→A kitten for you!: new WikiLove message |
→A kitten for you!: I'm currently ignoring your latest RFA |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
<br style="clear: both;"/> |
<br style="clear: both;"/> |
||
Careful [[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]]! I frequently eat kittens for breakfast, and Smok is not the only dragon lurking around this page. I have noted you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FPiotrus_3&diff=594720222&oldid=594720201 'reaching' out to me'] with something less than instant recall; besides which, only Christ 'reached out' and you certainly aren't Him. I really wouldn't push it. I don't want to be vindictive, so I'm '''currently''' ignoring your latest RFA, but don't make me a tool or a fool in it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Giano|<span style="color:Black;background orange;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giano '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:10, 10 February 2014
Old messages are at:
- User talk:Giano II/archive 1 (From Oct 2004)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 2 (From Jan 2005)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 3 (From July 2005)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 4 (From Jan 2006)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 5 (From July 2006)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 6 (From Jan 2007)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 7 (From July 2007)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 8 (From Jan 2008)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 9 (From July 2008)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 10 (From Jan 2009)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 11 (From July 2009)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 12 (From Jan 2010)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 13 (From July 2010)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 14 (From Jan 2011)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 15 (From July 2011)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 16 (From Jan 2012)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 17 (From Jan 2013)
- User talk:Giano II/archive 18 (From July 2013)
- User talk:Giano/archive 19 (From Jan 2014)
Please leave your message below:
RE: Thieving
I totally understand, much the same situation here. I just got back online editing in over a month being gone, and saw the text you added... looking good! Does the "Towers of Krim" book have a lot more information on other palaces/buildings in and around Crimea? If so, I'd eventually need to pick it up for myself as well .. DDima 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi DDima, not really on many other palaces; it just deals with Vorontsov Palace in great detail and [Bakhchisaray Palace]], but it is very detailed and in depth. If you can pick up a second hand copy cheaply, it is quite interesting. plus there's a lot of old prints and drawings which are out of copyright and can probably uploaded. Giano 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure I'll still find some use for it anyways! DDima 23:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi DDima, not really on many other palaces; it just deals with Vorontsov Palace in great detail and [Bakhchisaray Palace]], but it is very detailed and in depth. If you can pick up a second hand copy cheaply, it is quite interesting. plus there's a lot of old prints and drawings which are out of copyright and can probably uploaded. Giano 22:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Warning to All
I strongly advise everyone to stop uploading images to Wikipedia because they are taken to Commons where if you find that you've made an honest mistake and attempt to rectify it - this is what happens to you: [3] [4]. Easier to nip the problem in the bud and don't upload anything. Giano 08:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone understand templates?
Woulds somebody be kind enough to make me up a template that looks something like this, but with hings more centred up and tidy - perhaps a nice big hand logo or a sledgehammer? Thanks in advance. Giano 16:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Perhaps it could have Spumoni (my bird) looking menacing on it? Giano 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- You know I appreciate your sentiment on this matter, Giano; I put "keep local" on just about everything I upload, and I upload very few images. Having said that, the template doesn't meet the terms of use, which requires that all additions be able to be used elsewhere. And yes, that includes being able to upload to Commons. I'm fairly certain that the majority of people who upload to Wikipedia or allow their visage to appear in such images expect that their image will be used only on the project where it was originally uploaded (I ran across some that had originally been uploaded to another project many years ago, and am fairly certain some of the individuals in those photos didn't realise that their image would be all over the web). I'm pretty certain that most people whose visage appears in such an image expect that "modification" is probably restricted to a bit of cropping or light adjustment, and don't realise that it could be used by anyone on the web for any reason in any kind of compilation (with the possible restriction of attribution), including making them look like fools or worse. The theory of Commons is great. The reality is perhaps not so much. Risker (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Giano, I personally have had generally good experiences with Commons, but I must admit that your description of the way you were treated there ("At present, uploading to Wikipedia, is rather like giving a much loved friend a Christmas present only to find it's been given away to the neighbours who have trashed it and given you the finger at the same time.") was both hilarious and sadly accurate. I am glad that PumpkinSky was around to put a stop to that Kafkaesque nonsense. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Risker and 28bytes dialogue is always useful, but from your comments Risker I can see that it's time for a change. The Utopian ideal of Wikipedia and Commons is laudable - very laudable, but where Commons is concerned, it could well now be hampering Wikipedia and its mission. Think how many more brilliant images we could have if people knew they were solely for use on Wikipedia - ie: they knew there was less chance of their visage ending up on a disreputable site in a slimy corner of the internet. Personally, I have hundreds of old photographs of the upper echelons (Royalty and politicians) of Roman, London and New York society in the late 19th and early 20th century, but I'm damned if I want them plastered all over the internet, but I'd be happy to have them in articles here. That's just me - there must be thousands of others out there like me (God help the world). In the past, I have emailed the owners of private sights asking to use images on Wikipedia, and often been denied because they don't want to sign alway all rights - so you see the current policy is currently hindering the project, not helping it. It's time for a change; it can't be retrospective, but Wikipedia does not have to be stuck in the past - does it? Giano 18:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've encountered the same thing. People are often happy to have their image in a WP article, but they don't want to give away all rights to it. One I feel particularly bitter about is an image of Worsley Man I was given by the Manchester Museum. It got deleted because the covering email didn't obviously release all rights. Eric Corbett 18:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely; I'm sure it's a very common problem. Wikipedia's laws were not handed down from above on Mount Sinai; they can change as the project changes - things that don't evolve become extinct. Giano 18:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, though, perhaps Wikipedia does need to be stuck in the past. The Share-Alike clause that Wikipedia is currently released under forbids any derivative works of it from being released under a more restrictive license than its parent. So, for something like an article, we can't just switch licenses midway; the original articles were share-alike before, so the current versions (which are derivatives of the originals) can't be released under something that's more restrictive. I am very much not a lawyer, so this is purely uneducated speculation, but I wonder whether that applies to Wikipedia in total: that is, because the project as a whole is a derivative of its earlier, share-alike states, we can't change the default license of the project, since that would violate the earlier states' share-alike clause. I mean, what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but I don't know whether it's actually legally doable (even if one managed to get community-wide consensus for it and the WMF to sign off on it, and good luck with either of those things, let alone both). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What's been done obviously can't be changed, but we need to look forwards, not backwards. Why can't I upload an image today allowing its use only on WP? Eric Corbett 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Anything is legally do-able, if one sets about it correctly. We already have copyright images that are used because none other are available, or they are a book cover - it's just a matter of choosing the correct licence. The Foundation spends a fortune each year in 'various' ways, a few dollars on legal advice would soon find the correct way forward. Giano 18:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Giano: Well, the thing is that it really isn't about choosing the correct license. Where Wikipedia is concerned, it's either a free license (i.e. one that is as or less restrictive than Wikipedia's own CC-BY-SA) or it's not. If it's free (again, in terms of at or better than CC-BY-SA), then it's free, and there's no issues. If it's not, it might still be able to be used under the fair-use provision of the law regardless of what its license actually is, but it has to follow the policy on non-free material as outlined by WP:NFCC. There's no nuance to it; it's binary, black or white, on or off. That's why there's no room for "only on enwiki" please, at least as far as licensing goes.
@Eric Corbett: Well, to answer your question in the literal way that you didn't intend: you can, it would just have to be a non-free upload, subject to all the encumbrances of non-free uploads. To answer your question in the slightly less literal way that you probably did intend: I'd imagine it traces from the desire for a right to fork. That is, Wikipedia was designed with the ability to freely redistribute itself in mind, and designed with the idea that anyone should be able to make their own copy of Wikipedia. The idea comes from the open-source software movement, where the right to fork presumably prevents the complete domination of a software product by its small group of core developers, since anyone can come in, copy the source to their own thing, and start their own branch. Moreover, the ability to freely redistribute probably sounds like a good feature to those who want to distribute Wikipedia in underdeveloped countries, behind state censorship, and the like. Thus, it's important for as much content as possible to be released under a license that explicitly allows all of these things. Because of the reality of the world, there had to be compromises made, which take the form of the WP:NFCC restrictions; they're so heavily restricted because their use and proliferation creates pieces of content that cannot be freely exported along with the rest of Wikipedia. To allow a more restrictive licensing scheme to be used freely in Wikipedia would increase the difficulty of such exports exponentially, as one would have to figure out exactly what one is allowed to reuse and where, separately for each bit of information and each image in Wikipedia. Not a workable solution if one wants to allow the right to fork. Now, of course, some valid questions are "why do we need to allow for commercial or non-educational reuse in our license, as we do?" or "why do we care whether someone can easily fork or not?"; valid questions. But that's what I understand of the history, at least (and take it with a large grain of salt, because I wasn't around when it happened; that's just what I've gleaned from exploring the history). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- These 'laws' are not engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. Without us, there is no Foundation - never forget that. Giano 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, of course they're not, but at this point, they might as well be. It's not mainly the Foundation I'm talking about (though they would need to be convinced regardless, lest they pull some office-action voodoo to prevent things from changing); one would first need to convince the editing community to come to a consensus that the license needs to change. I doubt that'll ever actually happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- In the specific case I mentioned, Worsley Man, the very restrictive NFCC wouldn't have helped, as the article was about the peat bog he was found in, not about him. The museum was quite happy to have his image included in the article, but not to release all rights to their image. But I agree with you that very little ever changes here, so we're just pissing in the wind. Eric Corbett 19:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Heh, of course they're not, but at this point, they might as well be. It's not mainly the Foundation I'm talking about (though they would need to be convinced regardless, lest they pull some office-action voodoo to prevent things from changing); one would first need to convince the editing community to come to a consensus that the license needs to change. I doubt that'll ever actually happen. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, Eric you are wrong shudduppa-your-face and listen! We are not pissing in the wind; this is something that can quite easily be changed; it just needs a few people to point out the net benefits to the project - and those few people have to be the few people writing the project, that's where you enter the equation because others have no experience of the problem. Giano 19:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- These 'laws' are not engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. Without us, there is no Foundation - never forget that. Giano 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- @Giano: Well, the thing is that it really isn't about choosing the correct license. Where Wikipedia is concerned, it's either a free license (i.e. one that is as or less restrictive than Wikipedia's own CC-BY-SA) or it's not. If it's free (again, in terms of at or better than CC-BY-SA), then it's free, and there's no issues. If it's not, it might still be able to be used under the fair-use provision of the law regardless of what its license actually is, but it has to follow the policy on non-free material as outlined by WP:NFCC. There's no nuance to it; it's binary, black or white, on or off. That's why there's no room for "only on enwiki" please, at least as far as licensing goes.
- Anything is legally do-able, if one sets about it correctly. We already have copyright images that are used because none other are available, or they are a book cover - it's just a matter of choosing the correct licence. The Foundation spends a fortune each year in 'various' ways, a few dollars on legal advice would soon find the correct way forward. Giano 18:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Risker and 28bytes dialogue is always useful, but from your comments Risker I can see that it's time for a change. The Utopian ideal of Wikipedia and Commons is laudable - very laudable, but where Commons is concerned, it could well now be hampering Wikipedia and its mission. Think how many more brilliant images we could have if people knew they were solely for use on Wikipedia - ie: they knew there was less chance of their visage ending up on a disreputable site in a slimy corner of the internet. Personally, I have hundreds of old photographs of the upper echelons (Royalty and politicians) of Roman, London and New York society in the late 19th and early 20th century, but I'm damned if I want them plastered all over the internet, but I'd be happy to have them in articles here. That's just me - there must be thousands of others out there like me (God help the world). In the past, I have emailed the owners of private sights asking to use images on Wikipedia, and often been denied because they don't want to sign alway all rights - so you see the current policy is currently hindering the project, not helping it. It's time for a change; it can't be retrospective, but Wikipedia does not have to be stuck in the past - does it? Giano 18:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. It's always seemed strange to me that we ban both "Wikipedia only" and CC-BY-NC image contributions while allowing thousands of "all rights reserved" images to be used under fair use. 28bytes (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Look! if it's your image, you can license it however you want. Wikipedia has the choice of accepting your gift or declining it. It's really quite simple. Giano 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- ........and to anyone who doesn't believe me, images can be easily and harmlessly uploaded to Wikipedia; eg: File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg, and put straight and usefully into articles. Giano 21:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Methinks the reason for the elimination of "middle-ground-licensing" is partly based on avoiding license-proliferation (e.g. the custom en.wikipedia.org-only-license), and thereby increasing simplicity (for the uploader who has fewer legalese-options *and* for the verifiers who don't need to read an essay). But there is also a more subtle reason, and I think it's the big one: insisting that imagefiles either be GPL-style (CCBYSA/GFDL) or BSD/MIT-style (pubdom) or fully proprietary (NFCC) gives an incentive to strongly minimize the number of proprietary images. Allowing enWiki-only, or CC-NC, or zlib-license, or dual-licensing, would not merely boost complexity, it would also make the choices less stark. See moral suasion and bailouts in banking, for similar concepts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- In the many years that I have been here, I have learnt just one thing - if there's a problem coming, Wikipedians will stand idly and watch it, and I will be there to say: "I told you so." Giano 08:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Look! if it's your image, you can license it however you want. Wikipedia has the choice of accepting your gift or declining it. It's really quite simple. Giano 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. Note, if you did create this file, you may want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, which will allow the image to be accessed by all Wikimedia Foundation projects (which include the various localized versions of Wikipedia)
If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. DES (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)I'm sorry, and I understand and sympathize with your position, but if you don't allow re-use by anyone anywhere it isn't free, and if you are the copyright owner Wikipedia won't accept a non-free license. Its just that simple. DES (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Then Wikipedia is gong to have to change. This is just Round 1, and the setting out of positions. If WMF would rather see Wikipedia suffer a reluctance to upoad images than alter its stance, then WMF is not fit to oversee Wikipedia. Giano 00:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Smok
Bishzilla has collected your page guardian Smok the dragon for some rest and relaxation in her pocket. She was concerned he'd feel abandoned. Best put him in the Victorian lounge, I suppose. Wouldn't want him melting the ice hotel. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC).
A kitten for you!
I was unleashing a horde of wiki kittens on a number of editors today, and I am on the roll. I thought: did I forget about anyone important? Sure I did. Here's your kitten. It's a Wawel Dragon in disguise, perhaps... Anyway, keep up the good job in 2014. Cheers,
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Careful Piotrus! I frequently eat kittens for breakfast, and Smok is not the only dragon lurking around this page. I have noted you 'reaching' out to me' with something less than instant recall; besides which, only Christ 'reached out' and you certainly aren't Him. I really wouldn't push it. I don't want to be vindictive, so I'm currently ignoring your latest RFA, but don't make me a tool or a fool in it. Giano 22:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)