User talk:Avenue/Archives/2012

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tānemāhuta carving, at Eden Park, from front.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me. --Kadellar 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

QI-pls re-assess

Please re-assess the QI nomination of Garfield's Pythagoras theorem
I updated the image as suggested--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Updated again--Please check--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Researchers conduct autopsy on stranded beaked whale.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Intersting picture and QI for me--Holleday 20:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

RfCU

Thank you for your support.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I changed my vote on that image. I had misread the fine print.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We're all entitled to change our mind. --Avenue (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin?

Hi Avenue. If you're interested I'd like to nominate you for admin. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And I would support. --Slaunger (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'd happily accept your nomination, but can I ask you to please wait 3 weeks before nominating me? I'd like to be able to respond in a timely way to any queries that may come up, but I'm currently travelling and may have very intermittent internet access over the next couple of weeks, so I'd prefer for it to wait until I've got back home and recovered from the inevitable jet lag. --Avenue (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Have a nice trip abroad (hopefully you will also bring a treasure of new photos back)! --Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, 3 weeks is up. Ready to go?  :-) --99of9 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had to stay offline a lot longer than I planned. I'm hoping to ease back into things here over the next week or so. --Avenue (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is now a good time? --99of9 (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, much better than before, thanks. Sorry again for my long absence--Avenue (talk)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Avenue --99of9 (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Image use

Hi Avenue,

My names is Jason Rendle and I am writing you to you in relation to two coprosma flower images you have (one of a male flower) the otehr of a female flower)

My company specialises in writing high quality, low cost science workbooks for New Zealand science students and I would like to include these two images.

Could you please get back to me to discuss.

Kind regards,

Jason.

Silverback Academic Media.

[email address redacted]

I've replied via email. --Avenue (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

GFDL

I think it may be helpful to add your "actual decision Gnangarra reached was fair" comment on Gnangarra's talk page to the FPC "Closure response" discussion, especially given your oppose position in the discussion.

I didn't quite understand your "straw man" comment. I think there is a danger in picking over the fine details of Gnangarra's closing summary as though they were part of a legal document. It is possible his reasoning was more complex than the summary, hence my "splitting hairs" comment.

Thank you for your comments at the GFDL discussion. Even though I didn't agree with them, the whole point of the exercise was to get the community discussing the issue (and not just voting and leaving, as happens so often) -- hence I tried to engage with folk to get them to expand on and consider their comments and opposing views. We are meant to try to persuade each other to reach consensus, rather than just count votes. Though clearly here there are entrenched views.

I see from your comments you say you've used the GFDL for its copyleft/SA merits. Could you help me undersand how these are different from CC BY-SA? Perhaps with reference to the licence? We have to consider, though, whether those merits are sufficient when weighed against the disadvangages it imposes (or appears to impose) on reusers. And this "appears to" is I think the key point. I'm still learning about all these licences but one aspect I've learned is that a licence is not a contract. It is a permit for the reuser to do something they are not normally permitted to do (with copyright works). So if they have any doubt the licence terms can't be met, then they must walk away from reusing it. If they have doubt the licence terms actually make sense for the media (as is the case with GPL, etc) then they must walk away from reusing it. So whether the licence is "correct" or not isn't important. If it appears to have problems then that's all that matters. Which is why the simple CC licences are helpful. Colin (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added my view that the closure decision was fair to the discussion at FPC.

While I think Gnangarra's closing summary was susceptible to a "straw man" interpretation, I've probably picked over it too much already. I agree that his judgement was probably more complex and finely weighted than his summary made clear.

I'm a strong believer in the power of copyleft to raise consciousness about the importance of free/libre works, and hopefully encourage more people to contribute free content. I also feel that Wikipedia contributors should have a copyleft licensing option that stretches beyond the borders of a photo, to encompass entire articles that use it as an illustration, for instance. I'm still learning about licenses too, but as far as I know, there isn't one available that explicitly does this. Creative Commons have explicitly decided not to do so. The language in GFDL's clause on aggregation with independent works (e.g. "[...] the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the compilation's users") had me hopeful for a while, thinking it might be a suitable option, but I've since concluded that it's too vague. So I wouldn't advocate it on copyleft grounds. I mentioned it in the FPC discussion more in response to your specific question about whether any Commoners used GFDL while wanting to allow reuse by anyone.

One important advantage GFDL 1.3 has over CC-BY-SA 3.0, IMO, is its forgiveness clauses. You can lose the right to reuse a CC-licensed work too easily, e.g. through an innocent mistake, with no way to recover it. The simple summaries of the CC licenses gloss over such finer points. Perhaps they are useful, but also potentially misleading. So while I agree that licenses that merely "appear to" present problems for reusers are a concern, licenses can also appear freer that they really are, and IMO this is also a concern. --Avenue (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll do some more reading on the matter. Wrt your last point, dual licensing CC with GFDL 1.3 would help there: the reuser could choose GFDL if they felt more comfortable with it and could meet its demands. I use the upload wizard on Commons, which doesn't offer the dual licence option. I think the old upload form does. Is there any reason, wrt Wikipedia say, to routinely use dual licensing? Did the upload wizard not included just to keep things simple? Colin (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

FPC talk "archiving"

Hey Avenue, I'm sure it was just an honest mistake, but your archival attempt at FPC talk destroyed the MiszaBot data and the archive links. --Dschwen (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this is odd, it happened twice before by different users. Maybe a bug in the updated Mediawiki? --Dschwen (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't try to archive anything there. I edited the last section of the page, which shouldn't have touched the stuff further up the page. A bug sounds possible. Thanks for letting me know. --Avenue (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The bug is now reportedly fixed. (See also Commons:Village_pump#Edit_conflict_issues.) --Avenue (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Administrator

---

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Avenue, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons on irc.freenode.net. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators:#wikimedia-commons-admin.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratz! Glad to see the clean sheet of support votes. You deserve that! --Slaunger (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! You may find this page interesting which Jim spammed on my user talk when I became an admin here. ;) Trijnstel_talk 15:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Admin, congratulations! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks like I have a lot of reading to do! :-) --Avenue (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Good luck with the new tools! Érico Wouters ^msg 01:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the team -- I see Trijnstel has beaten me to my usual suggestion, although I don't quite understand why she calls it "spam" while recommending it in the same sentence -- anyway, feel free to edit or add to this page. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:SouthPoleStation.jpg

And also:

• File:WindowInIceberg.jpg

Yours sincerely, Andrew Gray (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Help: no-FoP Italy

Hi. When you have a moment, could you do me a favor. I decided to occupy my time to list the no-FoP files in Italy. It has been a long and difficult work that needs to be reviewed by administrators. Please, could you check if everything is correct on User:Raoli/Deletion requests/FoP Italy? Thanks! Raoli ✉ (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tasman Lake

Your Tasman Lake pic is an FPC at en:wp. It is very impressive, however, there are some problems with the sky. I wonder if you fancy having another go at fixing them. Alternatively, I could try with Hugin and Photoshop if you have the raw files and are willing to send them to me (Dropbox?). -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I agree the sky has problems; I didn't have much luck fixing this at the time. The computer I did this on has died, and my backups are not very well organised, but I'll see if I can track down the source files. --Avenue (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Flickr images the owner would like to keep private

Hello, Avenue/Archives. You have new messages on another wiki at Commons:Help_desk#Flickr images the owner would like to keep private. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nikthestunned (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)