Welland Viaduct

This Talk page protected by the Good Faith Page-Policy.

This user is a member of the Kindness Campaign.

---

Work

For namespace planning efforts:
see Zones of Engagement

General Discussion

Broom

Assuming you derived Image:Angel broom.gif from Image:Broom icon.svg then it was completely wrong to try and place your version in the PD (or to claim to be the copyright holder as you did with Image:Angel broom 107px.gif). Please also note that:

• SVG is the preferred format for graphics such as this (though I have to admit that I don't have the tools to create them myself). Failing that, use PNG format. GIF should only be used for animations.
• scaled down versions are not needed - the MediaWiki software does automatic scaling as you can see above.

— RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me to fix this up. You've identified an area of my ignorance in which i need further explanation (notably image use and copyrights in Wikipedia Commons). Here is the re-use policy *1* on that Broom.icon page:

"This work is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or any later version. This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See version 2 and version 3 of the GNU General Public License for more details."

What you seem to be saying is that it wasn't a problem to re-use it, but the categorization of it as 'Public Domain' or 'my copyright' are both incorrect. I think i understand that part. How should it have been categorized for copyright purposes, of the options available to me? *2* Much obliged.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, i have created a PNG version and have uploaded this and am using it instead. Is what i did in terms of the copyright this time correct? How do i go about deleting the GIF version(s) since that is (those are) the wrong format? The deletion of objects appears to be a technical issue i have yet to master. Your reference to the proper procedure to get others (admin? bots?) to assist me in erasing what has been created that was unnecessary or problematic would be appreciated. I gather that in the case of pages {:dp-u1} is enough to add to the top of it. Someone *3* also mentioned {:dp-author} i think. I gather that tagging in this way lets admin know that the creator wants it destroyed and that after a "|(reason for the desired erasing)" is important also inside the tag. Corrections welcomed.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

• *1* No that is not the re-use policy. It is the text of the licence which is slightly different.
• *2* Categorisation is a defined term in Wikipedia. It is better just to talk about licence tagging. Image:Angel broom.png is, I believe now, tagged properly.
• *3* "Someone" indeed! If you were to stop your <expletive deleted> frigging with this page and leave all messages in place, then this edit would still be visible, you would be able to see who the someone was (!!) and that they had recommended the use of {{db-author}}. Note: double {{ }}s (you have some examples above which you could have followed); 'db' not 'dp'; reason is specified with {{db-author|rationale=reason for the desired erasing}}. Strictly speaking, {{db-u1}} is only for your user pages. {{Db-author}} is a better one to remember since it can be applied to any page - image, mainspace, etc.

— RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive category changes

Before making wholesale category removals, please read those articles and associated talk pages to determine whether your intended edits are justified. You clearly never bothered to do so for Intelligent Design and others, otherwise you would have seen multiple reliable sources, cited in the lead section, supporting the pseudoscience categorization. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I never would have bothered with ID but i got tired of quibbling about the fringes and decided to see what would be offered up as 'reliable sources' for those which even i thought were pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:POINT. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)