Jump to content

User talk:Picaroon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Academicigbo (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 28 May 2007 (→‎Picaroon9288 Stop that Nonsense Now). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Picaroon9288, Stop

If you are intelligent, you should research the names of inventors I am adding to my posting, instead of you acting contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. Stop reverting the thoroughly researched information I post. And if academicians are shown what you are doing, they will whole-heartedly agree that you are being strange. If you have questions, feel free to email me: academos-evan@unitedkingdom.co.uk. In good spirit, I say you should think clearly before editing anything here in Wikipedia. And thanks for cooperating...for the meantime.


D
  • To leave me a message, click here. To email me, click here. If your email requires a timely response, please notify me here to ensure I see it.
  • If you have a question or concern about a deletion (or other action) of mine, please ask nicely and do your best to figure it out yourself before asking.
  • You can sign your comments with ~~~~, or not; page history will tell me who made what comment when.


Welcome

Bonbonbonbonbonbon

Thanks for blocking the troll. Musical Linguist 22:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, it's almost reflexive. Someone tailgates you, you swear at them; troll pops up, you block them. Picaroon (Talk) 22:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppetry

Okay, here is the thing: like my IP report said, "Please look at this IPs contribs. I've not seen anything like this. All are reverts of a user's edits and are happening very quickly." I was hoping to enlist support from an admin (you, perhaps, but apparently not as you are now admonishing me for reporting "good users"). Obviously something strange is afoot. Why don't you try to AGF sometime instead of coming down against me on my talk page after I report what is obviously an unusual situation to you?—Gaff ταλκ 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for telling me about the incident board. That will be helpful in the future. As far as this IP is concerned, another admin has blocked it. I guess that I assumed that when admins responded to alerts on the AIV board they would actually read the reasons why the report is being made an do something more than a "ten second scan." Perhaps realize that not every case of vandalism is as simple as somebody writing yo mama on the featured article. My mistake. —Gaff ταλκ
No worries. User:Momusufan blocked 156.34.215.61 (talk · contribs). I think the IP may have been onto something. The sock puppt claimed the IP was User: Moeron. Thanks for looing into this. I will use the incident board for such concerns in the future. A few nights ago, I was on when Colbet vandalism hit hard adn I was wondering where to post what I saw coming through...—Gaff ταλκ 00:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belated follow-up on the "Sega chase". BTW, thank you for coming to my defence... it was happening so quick I didn't have time to go to AiV or even fill the other "confused  :)" editor in on what was really happening. Since you're onto what SEGA is up to... Based on what "typical" edit history I've seen from him today I believe he is editing from IP 66.190.156.221. Not sure if a new case is being drawn up or if that IP addy is up for rcu but I believe it should be. If you have time could you tell admin Wiki alf that a 156.34 IP addy actually got a warning for something. I am sure it'll give him quite a good chuckle and he will hunt me down and tease me for it :D. Again thanks for stepping in this evening. SEGA's sporadic "good" edits are always outweighed by his bad(copyvio) ones. And he must be stopped whenever possible. Have a nice day! 156.34.216.210 00:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair...

...it wasn't when I opened it, and it probably will be closed again shortly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you never know what is going to happen at that train wreck of a page. If I speedy deleted it under CSD G1, would it get sent to deletion review? Oh, the delete button is so tempting! Picaroon (Talk) 04:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Life screenshots

Regarding Image:Banhammer.jpg, Second Life policy generally lets users retain copyright over virtual things, such as their character design, that they create. If this had been uploaded with an allegation of ownership of copyright by the uploader, would this image have been retained? I imagine there have been prior discussions of this. Can you point me to any? -N 16:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could definitely be retained if it had been under a free license. Specifically, it is the wording "and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company or person that developed the game" which is relevant. I'm not familiar with the game, but if the game does allow users the copyright of images they create, and image creator Dale Glass (talk · contribs) agrees to release it under a free license, then the image is fine. Picaroon (Talk) 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we copy [1] from Commons? The only objection I could see with this is Wikipedia generally frowns on source tags, although this one could be useful because it clarifies the fact that making a screenshot does not create a derivative work. -N 18:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to WP:BOLD be bold and do it. As for this particular image, not much can be done with it due to the uncertain copyright status. -N 18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dale Glass 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd. I created the tag for the second life screenshots and within hours not only did the uploader clarify the license info but he posted HERE when previously he had only 3 separate edits. Must be a doppelganger. -N 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Attribution is fulfilled until the terms by stating "from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" as it did state. Wjhonson 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough. Complete edit history is required. Picaroon (Talk) 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete edit history is not required. Some people think it is, others think it's not. The Wikimedia Foundation has not stated one way or the other on this issue. Wjhonson 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When we lack clarification, and can not reach a conclusion, playing it safe is the best we can do. The article is currently undergoing deletion review, so let that conclude. If the article is restored, then this whole discussion is moot. If the article is kept deleted or re-deleted then it would be inappropriate to leave it in a user sandbox anyway. I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not going to restore the subpage, because it is common practice to mandate full attribution. Picaroon (Talk) 02:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is common practice, then you could point to an example of that practice somewhere? We have tons of examples of deleted articles in userspace already. Thanks. Wjhonson 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dealings with sites that copy our content, at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, is good example of where we request full attribution, not just "from Wikipedia." The fact that this is in a user subpage on Wikipedia doesn't make it different, because the content is still not fully attributed. Picaroon (Talk) 02:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Picaroon&oldid=134016678"