User talk:EVula/Archive-2008
![[en] As a dedicated Wikimedian, I don't limit myself to just one project or just one language.](/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg){kind=logo}
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
|
Image Tagging Image:Georg Ritter von Schonerer.jpg
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Georg Ritter von Schonerer.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. GeorgHH • talk 15:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...shit. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Drawings
When you upload drawings, what subject do you reccomend I draw, and what program should I use. It seem sthat MS Paint is kind of bad. Nothing444 17:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't recommend uploading your drawings at all, to be honest; Commons isn't the place to show off your artwork. If your images aren't for use in any of the projects (and nothing personal, but none of your images could be considered encyclopedic), or at the very least, a minimum amount of usage in the User: namespace, then they shouldn't be uploaded here.
As for the general advice about what program to use, it's quite possible to do illustration work in Photoshop, though a tablet is a better input device for that sort of thing than a keyboard and mouse. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
deprecated function in your monobook.js
Dear user, I noticed that you use the includePage function in your monobook.js page.
This function is now obsolete, as the importScript function was introduced with rev:35064 to the MediaWiki Javascript core library wikibits.js. It also keeps track of already imported files.
To allow us to remove includePage from Mediawiki:Common.js I'd kindly ask you to replace its use with importScript (same syntax!). Thanks! --Dschwen 17:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Er, okay. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was too late when I realized the includePage function only appeared in a comment in your monobook.js, so... ...uhm... ...just carry on what you were doing :-) --Dschwen 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- It was too late when I realized the includePage function only appeared in a comment in your monobook.js, so... ...uhm... ...just carry on what you were doing :-) --Dschwen 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
a photo with the iphone category
Hi. You were wrong regarding your comment on this edit. I agree with the removal of the category, but you may want to research a bit more. The original image appears to have been taken with an iPhone. Because of this, the category was added with the Flinfo tool. So, in fact, the image does have something to do with the iPhone.--Rockfang (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- A picture of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park's sign has nothing to do with the iPhone itself; we don't categorize our photos by what type of camera they were taken with, hence the irrelevance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Let me rephrase it. You weren't wrong with the category removal. I think you removing the category was a good thing. I'm just saying the photo does have something to do with the iPhone. Think of it this way: If I paint a tree, that painting obviously has "something to do with me" because I painted it.--Rockfang (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...seriously? You left me a message saying that I'm wrong (which in and of itself isn't the friendliest declaration to make) because you're nitpicking the exact phrase I used? Give me a break. Yes, you're right in that the picture does have some correlation to the iPhone, but as far as Commons is concerned, there's no relevant connection between the two, which is both my rationale for the edit and for the phrase used. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was just trying to point something out. Typically, if I make a mistake, I'm happy if someone points it out. Sorry, I won't post on your talk page anymore.--Rockfang (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ordinarily, I would agree with you. The thing here is that I didn't make a mistake; at worst, I used overly broad terminology. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was just trying to point something out. Typically, if I make a mistake, I'm happy if someone points it out. Sorry, I won't post on your talk page anymore.--Rockfang (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- ...seriously? You left me a message saying that I'm wrong (which in and of itself isn't the friendliest declaration to make) because you're nitpicking the exact phrase I used? Give me a break. Yes, you're right in that the picture does have some correlation to the iPhone, but as far as Commons is concerned, there's no relevant connection between the two, which is both my rationale for the edit and for the phrase used. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Let me rephrase it. You weren't wrong with the category removal. I think you removing the category was a good thing. I'm just saying the photo does have something to do with the iPhone. Think of it this way: If I paint a tree, that painting obviously has "something to do with me" because I painted it.--Rockfang (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Rubik's Cube
- The colors aren't the issue. Toys (such as this, or action figures, or whatever) are considered derivative works; check out the chart on the right side of the page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not in the nature of an "action figure". The claim is not that Rubik's Cube is a derivative work, but rather that the cube is itself the original copyrighted work, and therefore that any photograph of the cube is a derivative work. EVula, you're just not paying attention to the facts or the arguments. 75.72.179.139 16:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you're attacking my argument based on the fact that a Rubik's cube isn't an action figure (a statement I'm inclined to agree with) and don't address the issue of the copyright being held by a third party, I'm afraid I'm unable to listen to your "you're just not paying attention" argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
English Wikiquote comment
Hi. I left a response on my talk page under English Wikiquote comment. Thanks for your comments! :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 07:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. I added a short reply thanking you. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk) 18:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)