Commons:Requests and votes/O

Voice your opinion

As many of you know, I was formerly vishwin60, and had a failed RFA. What I took from that failure was to participate at the VP, help out new users at the HD, patrol newimages, uncategorizedimages, detect copyvios, and finally, review flickr images.

From what I've found here, there are lots of backlogs that need to be cleared. The most important one that I'm concerned about is the copyvio category, since the media there is not allowed on Commons whatsoever. Besides that, I also plan on doing stuff including, but not limited to, deleting dupe and incorrectly named media, as well as closing deletion requests and intervening as a neutral third-party at the various administrator noticeboards. I am available on IRC lots of the time, to help users there who need help, and participate in periodic discussions that may arise. In addition to all this, I will continue to do what I do before [ever] becoming an admin, plus contribute media of my own to help make the Internet not suck.

In-line with previous RFAs and common sense, my email is enabled, if anyone asks. (→O - RLY?) 18:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Siebrand 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose - I am still concerned at your lack of response to my comments archived here. More specifically, your signature, while cute, still does not have a clickable link that goes to your user page on this project, much less one with some resemblance to your username.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Oh really an admin candidate with email enabled?!? ;) It's great to see that we did not scare you away after your previous RFA and that you also have actually learned from it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Cary Bass ^demandez 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support —Scott5114↗ 19:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - I do wish you would sort your "identity" out and keep it that way for a bit. However I backed your RfA on en wp (rare visit!). I think you have things to learn but that is the same for all of us. Tread carefully but I have no concerns --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to say that this page is getting rather long. Some questions that are valid do need to be answered. Both WJBscribe & Jeff G. have made valid points - maybe I would not phrase mine as Fred has but the underlying point has me thinking. I may consider a policy that looks at how long the page is before I decide on my vote - if it gets too long I may wish to review it --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• {{Neutral}} pending answer to my question below. WjBscribe 08:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Digon3 ^talk 02:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support EugeneZelenko 15:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support . WjBscribe 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support — JA10 ^{T · C} 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Tarawneh 22:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the change to the image, the licensing remains the same as the original upload, because I was not the original author of that, and that I only changed the font on the number. However, from the time I finish posting this forward, any Interstate shields coming from me will be licensed {{PD-ineligible}}, as this does not specifically mention any restrictions in using the Interstate shield, as it is trademarked. Furthermore, the FHWA is part of USDOT, which in turn is part of the U.S. Federal Government, so it could've been a work of the Federal Government for all it's worth. However, had {{PD-USGov-MUTCD}} and a flip-through through the Manual not been done, all U.S. road shields would be ineligible for copyright anyway, since there was no originality from the uploader.
• In regards to Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg, per a prior VP discussion (archived here), they are to be substed. I only substed the template, as there were no changes visually. However, I did not add any additional license template there, because licenses are non-revocable. Somebody, though, added the MUTCD tag later.
• Signature: does it mutually work now? (→O - RLY?) 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my issue-specific responses below (I'm going to post them one by one to reduce the chances of edit conflicts, and to allow issue-specific future discussions).   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider harmonizing "Vishwin60" with "→zelzany - framed"? ... Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[1][reply]

More specifically, your signature, while cute, still does not have a clickable link that goes to your user page on this project, much less one with some resemblance to your username.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[from above][reply]

Signature: does it mutually work now? (→O - RLY?) 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[from above][reply]

Well, no, I'd like to see the "O" (or something at least vaguely "O" shaped) point to your user page here. Is that too much to ask?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links in RLY? points to my userpage here. Another has my contributions here, and the last one links to my talk page here. (→O - RLY?) 23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per w:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Customizing your signature, "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents." Per w:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages#Internal links, "It is common practice to include a link to your user page or user talk page (often both); the default signature links to the user page. At least one of those 2 pages must be linked from your signature, to allow other editors simple access to your talkpage and contributions log." I am asking you to follow "common practice", as the links from "R" and "Y" are not apparent. w:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages is linked by "Sign your posts" on Commons:Talk page guidelines#Markup.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And common practice doesn't mean that absolutely everyone follows these guidelines. If there needs to be further discussion about this, I strongly suggest moving this to the talk page, since it has been proven controversial many times. On another note, there are much worse signatures at en.wikipedia, and there's the fact that you've been the first person to complain about this. (→O - RLY?) 01:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}, {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, that you chose not to use them to license your images? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[2][reply]

There is nothing wrong with it. I am just not preferenced to license my images that way. (→O - RLY?) 23:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what's the issue with this? What excactly does licensing preference have to do with whether a user is fit for adminship or not? -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going to say... (→O - RLY?) 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O had never responded to my original question. I was originally interested in why anyone would want to use a "cc-by" license without "sa". When this vote came up, I was also interested in why O did not respond, and what implications that inaction might have for its actions (or inactions) as an Administrator.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple: personal preference. Everyone has different ways of licensing their works, some want attribution, others like public domain, and some more just do GNU FDL. Like Bryan said, personal licensing preferences do not have any implication on how an an administrator's view on licensing can be jaded in some way. Omitting the attribution (by) part of that specific cc license was because either "I don't want it" or "I don't need it." (→O - RLY?) 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do you square this edit with your later upload of Image:I-176.svg as documented in this log (but for some reason not in this other log)?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[3][reply]

• Regarding the change to the image, the licensing remains the same as the original upload, because I was not the original author of that, and that I only changed the font on the number. However, from the time I finish posting this forward, any Interstate shields coming from me will be licensed {{PD-ineligible}}, as this does not specifically mention any restrictions in using the Interstate shield, as it is trademarked. Furthermore, the FHWA is part of USDOT, which in turn is part of the U.S. Federal Government, so it could've been a work of the Federal Government for all it's worth. However, had {{PD-USGov-MUTCD}} and a flip-through through the Manual not been done, all U.S. road shields would be ineligible for copyright anyway, since there was no originality from the uploader. ... (→O - RLY?) 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[from above][reply]

What I was getting at was that in this edit 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC), you were substing {{Ltljltlj}} and moving it down to a new "Licensing" section, while you chose not to do the same substing when you uploaded Image:I-176.svg some 17 days later per this log 03:55, 21 June 2007. I accept that there is no originality necessary to place a number in a prescribed font on an existing sign, and that {{PD-ineligible}} would be appropriate in the absence of {{PD-USGov-MUTCD}}.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On June 21, I was uploading maps created by yours truly in Quantum GIS. qgis, as it is right now, is still unstable, and was uploading mainly maps that day. I decided that I would upload an updated shield as well, since one of my maps reflected that change. However, SPUI's license template was a bit esoteric, and even after I [even] substed it, it would still show a {{Spui}} there. Also, I had to get on with my work on uploading maps before qgis crashed, hung, or otherwise made my computer burst into flames. (→O - RLY?) 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards to Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg, per a prior VP discussion (archived here), they are to be substed. I only substed the template, as there were no changes visually. However, I did not add any additional license template there, because licenses are non-revocable. Somebody, though, added the MUTCD tag later. ... (→O - RLY?) 21:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[from above][reply]

Yes, that particular image has seen its revert war, in which Fred J appears to have protected the wrong version.  :)   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That edit warring there was caused by blatant vandal sockpuppets. Had they not have appeared, the edit warring would've been nonexistent. (→O - RLY?) 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the socks are blocked, I have unprotected the page. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm interested by the opinion you expressed in this deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NJDOT. Do you stand by it and could you explain why? WjBscribe 08:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was one month ago, before I started flickr reviewing. After that one month passed, I do not stand by it anymore, because the licensing terms on that page are very vague. However, the real reason why it was deleted (and that's the position I'm at now) was because something could be copyrighted on that website at any time and we wouldn't even know. Copyrighted logos and such are not allowed here, as with free content that have restrictions such as "no commercial usage" and "no derivative works". (→O - RLY?) 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi O, thanks for applying for adminship. Am I wrong in thinking that you are a rather young person? / Fred J 18:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you ask? (→O - RLY?) 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get to know you better. / Fred J 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require a particular age, just a particular maturity level. So it is in my view an optional question. But I suspect Fred is not the only person who is curious. I myself have formed an opinion of your age, but it's not my place to share it, as it is for you yourself, O, to decide whether to answer or not. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided not to answer this question because it is infringing on my right to also contribute as anonymously as possible. (→O - RLY?) 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]