I have made a proposal regarding me hiring staff to follow up on copy and
paste issues on Wikipedia. The staff would not only determine how common
the issue is, but would also collect data on what type of responses that
improve things going forwards.
When they pick up issues they will also be
Thanks for sharing Emeric and Jean-Fred!
I would love to see a translation of this important resource and I'm
sure it could be useful for others as well. :-)
Best
Claudia
Am 11.12.2014 um 07:20 schrieb Emeric Vallespi:
Hi, and thanks for your support :)
Sure Winifred, I will add a learning
Thanks a lot Wikimedia France,
Another good exemple why we need to improve the Translation system on-wiki and
allow to start from non-english source.
Charles
Le 11 déc. 2014 à 10:39, Claudia Garád claudia.ga...@wikimedia.at a écrit :
Thanks for sharing Emeric and Jean-Fred!
I would
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:47 AM, charles andrès (WMCH)
charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks a lot Wikimedia France,
Another good exemple why we need to improve the Translation system on-wiki
and allow to start from non-english source.
Charles
So true!
Alice.
Le 11
2014-12-11 11:02 GMT+01:00 Alice Wiegand awieg...@wikimedia.org:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:47 AM, charles andrès (WMCH)
charles.andres.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks a lot Wikimedia France,
Another good exemple why we need to improve the Translation system
on-wiki
and allow to start
Hi, and thanks for your support :)
Yes, thanks all for your kind words :)
Another good exemple why we need to improve the Translation system
on-wiki and allow to start from non-english source.
So true!
So true!
As a reminder, this is tracked in Phabricator:
Thanks for that post Jan - it's interesting to see that the Swedish National
Heritage Board has already been doing something similar. Unfortunately, with my
very limited Swedish I've not been able to glean much from the content as
interesting as it looks! However, it definitely backs up the
I just noticed a disturbing trend on Commons that highlights a general
issue with its use as the media repository for our projects.
I recently had an image nominated for deletion under Commons policy against
photos of packaging: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:PACKAGING.
It was of some
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
I just noticed a disturbing
This kind of response is case in point on why people find Commons toxic.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
There's nothing more to say.
Russavia
That comment is unhelpful
My takeaway from this mail was that someone finally noticed that Commons
does, in fact, thank you for your uploads now. That was a positive
byproduct of Wiki Loves Monuments in 2011-2012!
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if
Steven,
No Stephen, this is toxic -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU
My response was a hard truth unfortunately. As is my comments at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Green_tea_Kit-Kat.jpeg
about your long, whiny post.
Thanks for reading
Russavia
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Quite seriously, if you can't understand the concept of copyright and
derivative works, then perhaps this is not the project for you.
I understand the concept of copyright and derivative works, and I think
Luis,
I know all about that applause Jimmy received.
http://i.imgur.com/SKX3P8J.gif
Steven, is that you in the middle? :
Russavia
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Luis Villa lvi...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steven,
Maybe Russavia is having a bad day and needs a time out.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies) deliberately
a bit overbroad. If their packaging policy is Just How Copyright Works,
then
Oh cry me a river Nathan.
What is inappropriate is that we have Steven ranting and raving about
a project on which me and others bust our humps on developing.
If people can't understand
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:SCOPE,
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:L and
I'm not having a bad day Nathan. It shits me to tears when we
continually hear of Commons being broken; when in fact it works very
well.
I will say that the person who is doing the packaging DR's is going
thru them, with our Commons policies in mind. You are attacking that
person on a public
What about this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that
is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't seem to refer to
any packaging specific jurisprudence, so presumably the
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies)
Nathan
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
copyrightable in this image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
reason for deletion. The logo is clearly PD-textlogo and is de minimis
in that situation -- i.e. it's inclusion is
fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
What about this file?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007-11-21_Hammamet-VW-2.JPG
The image is of a car, and the car has a logo and design motif on it that
is surely eligible for copyright. COM:PACKAGING doesn't
Marco there's hope!
http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/102821/ip-minefield-monkey-makes-copyright-history/
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Marco Chiesa chiesa.ma...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Katherine Casey
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
All sniping aside,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Nathan
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
copyrightable in this image.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Trademarked is never a
reason for deletion. The logo is
I don't think Commons has a clear stand in this matter. I see many old DRs
closed as kept.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Beer_bottles
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bottle_of_Duff.jpg
Regards,
Jee
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:14
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey
fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com wrote:
All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether
Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or
whether it is (like many of our projects' copyright policies)
On 11 December 2014 at 17:54, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
but fop trumps all else when you are outside
Not under any legal system I've looked into. Even UK law isn't that
liberal.
--
geni
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That
issue was referring to the copyright on the 3D bottle. Refer to
Shut up, Russavia.
I wouldn't normally be so curt with someone I just put on moderation,
but apparently you think that's an appropriate tone to use on this
list.
Austin
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh cry me a river Nathan.
What is
On 11 December 2014 at 18:04, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Geni
You wouldn't be talking about the Skyy Spirits case would you?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/225_f3d_1068.htm
This case is not akin to that case in any way, shape or form. That
issue was referring
Fae, Steven hasn't been a WMFstaffer for some months. Luis is, but he
appears to be speaking in his staff role.
Risker/Anne
On 11 December 2014 at 13:14, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
not terribly productive, nor a very nice
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Stephen, you are young and handsome, in fact rather dishy to my
ageing eyes. Good for you. Keep in mind that your fellow volunteers
might not have been born so lucky, and that being young and pretty all
too soon passes into
Are you kidding? Most of WLM photos in the Netherlands have cars in them -
these all fall under fop
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:23 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 18:19, Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - it is in the Netherlands - yay!
Nyet. Netherlands
Okay, guys, let's all take a step back and remember [[WP:Civility]].
(Yeah, I know that's a Wikipedia pillar, but can't we all at least get
on board with that one?)
The tone of this thread was accusatory from the start, and quickly
went to vicious. Maybe everyone can try it again with a bit of
Hi,
A quick follow-up: We now have good numbers for the amount of files
missing machine-readable metadata on Commons (spoiler: it's about
~500,000 files, meaning ~98% of files have machine-readable markers).
Below is a copy of the update I sent to commons-l:
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
of panorama:
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel
10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de
bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is
gemaakt om
Wait, are you saying all those pics are going to be deleted then? There
must be tens of 1000's out there by now
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
No, they do not. The Dutch title of copyright law considering freedom
of panorama:
Als inbreuk op het
Steven Walling, 11/12/2014 17:40:
I just noticed
Really? The day after tomorrow is the 12th birthday of
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avoid_copyright_paranoiaoldid=649
!
Nemo
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
It is good that Steven Walling is observing the way he is treated by the
officious fanatics at Commons and now is thinking twice about ever
uploading anything to Commons. It's a completely dysfunctional project
that has little to do with the task of creating and illustrating an
encyclopedia. It's
I don't think those pictures are going to be deleted - there are
plenty of pictures of cars on commons, and I haven't seen a movement
to get them all deleted (I don't spend much time on commons, though,
so I might have missed it). I do think it would be a good thing to
keep them, but fop should
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and
helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy Hogdson or
Greig Laidlaw...
Just to read that I'm a fascist and an anal retentive
Just on the same page as Pipo, thank you Steven for this nice troll.
2014-12-11 21:39 GMT+01:00 Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and
helped to have
On 11 December 2014 at 16:40, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The first issue here is one of demotivating contributors. I took a photo of
an object I owned, and gave it away to be used in Wikipedia. The only
interaction I ever get on Commons about my photos is a notification
On Thu Dec 11 2014 at 12:40:09 PM Pipo Le Clown plecl...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm on the road every two weekends, and processing pictures the rest of the
time on my free time. I've provided around 8000 pictures to Commons, and
helped to have pictures for articles like Cristiano Ronaldo, Roy
On 12/11/14, 8:14 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
To answer the tractor question first. Of course not, there is nothing
copyrightable in this image.
I see many copyrightable objects in this image. The tractor. The car.
The
On 12/12/14 03:40, Steven Walling wrote:
Commons should really just have stayed a database shared
among projects, not been made into a wiki where all our more important
projects are subject to the rules mongering of a tiny broken community.
I don't know what that would technically look like.
As you said, the first issue of Commons is demotivating contributors. And
this thread is actually doing a good job at it...
STOP the Commons bashing. Stop calling Commons contributors anal
retentive or fussy neckbeards.
I'm an european. In Europe, one does not call another nazi, as Americans
do.
Hoi,
This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware
of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where
someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a
living as well so they will sue when they are paid to do so.
When
49 matches
Mail list logo
