I'm just a virtual girl in a virtual world...
Join Second Life to meet me in a virtual reality!
- 1 Second Life
- 2 I seem to have touched a sore point ...
- 3 Not angry, but also not contributing more
- 4 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Building-tools.jpg)
- 5 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Appearance-modify.jpg)
- 6 More accusations of self-plagiarism?
- 7 Perhaps an update is in order?
- 8 Second Life images
Hi Gwyneth! I saw you editing on the main article. We are trying to make the criticism section a bit more NPOV. I encourage you to come and give us a hand :) Sarg 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi again :) I've seen the message you left in my talk page and I must say I'm amazed that you've found such an incredible resistance here! So very different from my own experience. Perhaps I could help somehow? Up to now none of my edits have been in any way reverted or disputed, and I even chatted amiably with a couple friendly admins. I'm sure if we can work on the Second Life article to create a user consensus there is no admin who could ever force his/her viewpoint on the Wiki. If I see an admin going against community consensus I'm willing to even get to the point of filling a RfA against him. Sarg 23:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I seem to have touched a sore point ...
Hi, this is Iani. I was surprised to find that my little comment resulted in so much trouble. I do not understand why recounting different experiences of different persons on one topic is "contradictory" and has to be removed. Rather, I thought this ought to be seen like different theories on a sub-topic, such as you can see in uncountable articles, for example about the origin of Maize. I believe it was clear from my formulation, that that was indeed the intention. That the SL topic is not one of natural science should not deter us from offering different descriptions of this very rich and complex world that is SL. I am sorry if my little point caused trouble, but understand from your writing this is probably a larger ongoing problem. I agree that this particular case shows signs of narrow-mindedness from the editors. So anyway, I thought: What about a Wikibook on SL, where a lot of information and discussion can be written at length on the topic? Iani 18:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not sure. Never touched the Wikibooks part of Wikimedia... How does it work? Perhaps we could gather some support in the forums or from people like Hamlet. Sarg 22:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Wikibooks is another topic altogether - only marginally related to documenting SL in the larger context of Wikipedia. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that vandalism of a kind is actually taking place on the SL page of Wikipedia. The deletors argument ("Hyphz 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)", does he exist?) seems to me thin and facetious. It is easy to rephrase my point so as to make it even clearer that I am offering an alternative point of view, that can be seen as complementing, not contradicting. Compare the size of the criticism section in Second Life article with that of the larger MMORPG World of Warcraft. What is going on!!!???. Plus the fact that Hyphz planted that comment straight on Gwyneth's user page instead of talk where it belongs is just plain rude, and I therefore understand the Gwyneth feels harassed. I am not sure where this discussion should continue. Sarg, I would gladly discuss this with you in-world, lets please find a way to communicate on this directly. I am making also an entry in your talk page. I am willing to investigate the serious possibility of vandalism here with you. Iani 18:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not angry, but also not contributing more
Actually, this is one of the major reasons I gave up contributing material to the Wikipedia(s). Similar projects (also using wikis) have very often come to the point where it's the admin's prevailing view that remains as "fact". When that happens, since I'm not into the "wiki game" of deleting posts, changing other people's words, practicing censorship, and, roughly speaking, acting as it was one's "divine right" to make people "think properly", that at the end of the day made me give up in disgust.
I'm not angry at anyone in particular. It's simply that I have not enough time for all the interesting projects I participate in. I'm also aware of the difference between "editing" and "censorship" — in my country, I'm a published amateur author, and that means working a compromise with your editor when he disagrees in the way things should be written. I'm fine with that; people who know me personally know how patient, open-minded and tolerant I am, when it comes to discuss with me on what texts should be presented as a "final version".
On the other hand, I'm totally intolerant with petty "censorship games". Content in the Wikipedia takes a lot of time to write and research; getting all that thrown out just because some people want to "play the censor game" is simply too much for me to endure. Respect my own work in doing the writing and research, and I'll respect your right to edit things; accuse me of "not playing the game correctly", and my reaction is simply — "fine, it's your game and I'm out of it". Don't expect any consideration, respect, or tolerance, if you're not prepared to do the same regarding my own person.
The Wikipedia was even the first place where I was accused of plagiarising myself. I find that both hilarious and very, very sad. The excuse was simply: if I wasn't prepared to "edit myself" so that the content became different, my words would be simply deleted, and not even a reference would remain. When things come to that point... I'm out :) Gwyneth Llewelyn 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Building-tools.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Building-tools.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Appearance-modify.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Appearance-modify.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
More accusations of self-plagiarism?
Oh my... again?
Who is making these insane claims that those images were placed on the Wikipedia because of "fair use"? They're not; they're pictures that I've taken myself, and that are my own copyright, which I freely give away to the Wikipedia community to use and abuse.
Really, it seems that I'll need to register every single word I ever type with a central authority to make a claim on what's my work!
[UPDATE] Gwyneth Llewelyn® is now a registered trademark in Portugal.
Perhaps an update is in order?
One thing I have noticed is that several articles in Main, particularly those about Second Life, refer to your user page. Perhaps a more biographical, encyclopedic user page is in order, given your apparent prominence.
- Baloo, the proeminence is totally "apparent" but I've updated my biographical user page as per your suggestion. Please feel free to review it at your leisure and suggest any further changes. Thanks for the offer! --Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Second Life images
Hi Gwyn, could you please confirm that you are the subscriber that created the digital assets used in the Second Life images you've uploaded, and then update your licenses accordingly? The SL license states that only the subscriber who created the digital assets has the rights to release them under Creative Commons, etc. czar 05:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Your files are under discussion here: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 January 28#File:Libsecondlife-sceneviewer.png czar 05:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Aye, I can confirm that all those images have been created by me. Unfortunately they have been deleted before I even had a chance to review them. Oh well. Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)