User talk:Nn123645/2011

Photo fix for Thom S Rainer page - copyright issue

Hello, Nn123645. You have new messages at MicahCarter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I am seeking to fix a problem with the copyright status for the photo file I've uploaded for Thom S. Rainer.

I've uploaded: Rainer1-web.jpg, which is not copyrighted. I received a warning about this, so I uploaded Rainer2-web.jpg to replace it, now copyrighted. This was considered "vandalism" by a bot and I see that you have also provided a warning.

Can you help me fix this easily?

Many thanks, Dr. Micah Carter Director of Communications LifeWay Christian Resources Nashville, Tenn.

Sure no problem. I noticed you where having difficulty when I came across your edit in the recent changes. Ignore the bot's revert, it is what is known as a False Positive, or misclassification of the edit. I have reported it via the ClueBot NG false positive report interface and removed the warning from your talk page. If you own the rights for the photo there is no problem, you can either license or donate this photo to the WMF under a license that is comptable with the English Wikipedia's two main licenses: the Creative Commons, Attribution, Share Alike license (CC-BY-SA), and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The image needs to be tagged appropriately with the relevant templates or licenses to be able to be included. This is out of necessity since the vast majority of images available on the web are copyrighted and not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. --nn123645 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The way copyright law works is that all works are automatically copyrighted unless specified otherwise. This means that unless it is known a copyrighted work is "free", meaning it's under a license that allows pretty much anyone to use it for almost any purpose, as long as the meet a few conditions (like saying who took the picture), or in the public domain someone owns the rights to the photo and it can't be used without the written permission of the author. The reason your image was tagged was that the copyright status of the image was unknown. The policy is to delete any image that does not have appropriate documentation about copyright status if documentation is not supplied after a certain period of time.

On an unrelated note if you may want to review our policy on conflict of interest and our Frequently Asked Questions for Organizations. It is generally not advised to make anything other than minor edits (like spelling fixes to the content of a page for which you have a conflict on interest. I have noticed that you made a substanical change to the article here that is almost certainly in violation of the Conflict of Interest policy if you are indeed director of communications for the same organization that Thom S. Rainer works at. --nn123645 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force

I have recently started a WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force to help coordinate an effort to get a new WebCiteBOT to combat WP:LINKROT. In June 2010, you were looking in to this and had written some software in Sept 2010. I would like to cordially invite you to give your input on the software part of this project as well as other parts, if you are interested. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 15:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd definitely be interested. The problem hasn't gotten any better and we need needs to be fixed asap. --nn123645 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The task force page is setup here. I also started a discussion on the talk page here about the software difficulties of this task. Thanks very much. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reward for working WebCiteBot is $535.00

I just saw that Gunther Eysenbach of WebCitation.org raised the reward for a working WevCiteBot to $535.00. Please refer to the bounty board and the related discussion. You can find Gunther's email address here. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I use IRC though lately not regularly. My username is the same as here, and I do have a wikimedia cloak. --nn123645 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: You called it

Time flies. What's the latest news on that, anyway? -- Kendrick7^talk 10:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I found this. Thanks for the nice words. I probably also pointed out back then that the trial, once begun, would never actually end. No one listens! Oh well, I try to just edit these days and stay out of the mad monkey-house of policy matters. -- Kendrick7^talk 11:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Future of all nations

Machines, all over running and taking control of the globe machines, the ruthless thing on earths.18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC) includeonly></includeonly>]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomanno1 (talk • contribs)

Okay? Can you ellobrate a bit. I don't quite understand what you are saying. (Also I have removed your attempted external link which appears to be an attempt to spam.) --nn123645 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me we aren't seriously considering starting yet another phase then a vote

Re. RfC talk

I mostly agree with what you said, and I particularly enjoyed the cat.

I wondered...what do you think of this very, very rough concept - [1].  Chzz  ►  14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good process, much better than what we have now. I agree with most of the people that want to close the poll that we do eventually need to get results, but the thing is this discussion has been going on for over 2 years now, is another few months really going to make a big difference? The problem we are facing is the problem with pretty much any wikipedia discussion, it's way to freakin long. There is a reason commercials are only 60 seconds max, and that TV shows don't go on for 20 hours. Everyone has a limit as to how much time, concentration, and otherwise engery they can devote to reading random rantings posted by people they don't know on a project that they have no direct impact to that they edit for some nebulus reason of trying to make the world's largest free encyclopedia. If you go to one ANI archive that's full, say Archive 679, it comes out to pages of material, and that is only 6 days of discussion. This is not at all unusual. We are running into the same problem here. At that length it is just unmanageable for an ordinary wikipedian to follow and comment on this. It has to be cut down to size. --nn123645 (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, thanks for noticing the cat :D. I thought we might was well try to make this as enjoyable as possible (though I remember the drama caused by the rollcat). --nn123645 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, well, that is what I was thinking on 3 March (as you can see). But the RfC was changed around (without any discussion), and now talk is of changing it again. I've been suggesting this type of approach, and trying to state a case for it, since 3 March. E.g. [2].

This is why I said, "I mostly agree". I think the only way we can make progress is to step back a bit - ie remove it, and then work out some very clearly stated proposed way forwards - a proposal which can be put to the community to see if it has consensus (or, of course, it can be discussed and modified).

I think this has to happen, eventually. Until it does, I can't see any true progress being made - or even if it is, it'll be based on such a rocky foundation it'll be worthless.

Anyway - thanks for taking a look. Good job there is no deadline. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gah that should be 116 pages of material, not pages (it was in one of my edits, not sure how that got omitted)... I'm with you on removing it, but only when we are actually ready for a new dicussion to happen. If we do it before then all we will get is mess. --nn123645 (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly where I think a compromise - a consensus - is possible. There's an almost 50/50 fundamental divide between those who want to keep it on (in some way), and those who want to turn it off (and lots of them don't want it back). That's where I see compromise. If it was turned off but with a clear measurable next-step, I think both camps might go for it. The 'yay' would get their chance to expand the scope (with a future proposal), and they 'nay' would have assurance that any further use would be subject to demonstrating truly deliverable objectives - and if it did not, then that would give 'em great ammunition to prove why it doesn't work (in some types of cases), instead of just blowing hot air.  Chzz  ►  15:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending RFC

Hi, I appreciate your comment and understanding, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A7

I saw it as an attempt, but one that didn't work. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think PROD/AFD would be way overkill anyways. --nn123645 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC

Yes, I'm almost always connected to Freenode IRC, with the nickname "Chzz".  Chzz  ►  18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)