After dealing with fair use images on user pages, and working with SVG image
files, I have been quietly making some unilateral additions to WP:IUP and
WP:FUC (actually they are corollaries to already existing policies).
The additions in a nutshell: Avoid uploading fair use images in SVG format
because SVGs are, in essence, infinite-resolution images. They can be
expanded to any size and still maintain the same quality high resolution.
An example of this can be found at [[Wikipedia:Preparing images for
upload#Why you should use SVG over PNG]].
We do not want Wikipedia to become THE source for piracy, do we?
Theoretically, a piracy thief could easily download an SVG logo like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikimedia-logo.svg, expanded it to 2
meters in width, and illegally sell them as posters. But he would not be
able to do the same thing with a PNG image like
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png since the
resolution will become very, very distorted.
Zzyzx11 at en.wikipedia.orghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zzyzx11
zzyzx11(a)hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
==Jimbo on the warpath re *FD==
*FD, AFD/DRV in particular, is causing noticeable problems for the
Foundation, as Jimbo has noted of late on wikien-l. (See archive -
there's a lot of posts on the subject this month.) The idiocy over
Category:Living people's nomination was the last straw.
I realise AFD/DRV regulars don't like this sort of discussion
happening outside WT:AFD and similar places, but it does happen and it
will affect *FD -- call this a notice to participate in the
discussions that are happening.
So the question is how to better ensure (a) intelligence-insultingly
crap nominations don't get in or can be killed quickly (b) better
behaviour from AFD contributors (assuming better faith of non-regulars
editing, and so forth) (c) cutting down the crippling weight of
deletion/undeletion process which leads some admins (e.g. me) to go
"fuck it".
Ideas? Assume for this discussion that nothing changing is not an
option, because it isn't.
(Note: my personal opinion is that almost everything nominated on AFD
does in fact deserve as quick, messy and painful a death as can be
managed. But the edge cases are causing real and serious problems
across Wikipedia and for Wikipedia.) - David Gerard 13:11, 25 January
2006 (UTC)
- d.
A user with a legitimate interest in the subject has asked me to undelete
one of the incarnations of 'Gang Stalking.' It had been recreated as a
subpage of 'Conspiracy theory' and I speedily deleted it. Can I just
undelete it so he can have a look, or can I email him the text from the
page, or should he list it somewhere requesting temporary undeletion?
Tom Harrison
A most interesting case, ladies and gentlemen:
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress]]
"This RFC concerns the behavior of editors from the United States
Congress". This could possibly set a precedent for how we deal with
vandalism from organisations trying to push their POV. We should
probably contact someone at Congress to let them know how their
reputations are being soiled on Wikipedia. I'm no good at understanding
the consequences or repercussions of this, so I just think somebody
involved with the Foundation (Jimbo? Angela? Anthere?) might be
interested in this. Certainly we don't get vandalised by Congress
everyday. :)
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])
I wrote:
>No, I just think the page makes her look worse that she should and
>won't help matters. I'm also trying to bring DreamGuy to the party. If
>we can get them to email each other directly without rancor ...
I've also unblocked Elonka and added a note on WP:ANI to this effect.
- d.
Philip Welch wrote:
>How come we're blaming her all of a sudden? We're the ones who
>screwed up. The predominant culture on Wikipedia is really good at
>pissing off good-faith contributors sometimes--I'm often loath to ask
>others to contribute because I know how they'll ultimately be treated.
>Here's someone who openly states on her page that she wants to help
>Wikipedia, but she wants the personal attacks against her removed
>before that happens. If you step back and look at it from her point
>of view, and not through the lens of the Wikipedia culture, is that
>really so unreasonable?
No, I just think the page makes her look worse that she should and
won't help matters. I'm also trying to bring DreamGuy to the party. If
we can get them to email each other directly without rancor ...
(cc to Elonka)
- d.
On 1/30/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>You can say Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia anyone can
> edit, but some people don't seem to grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia is
I have to say I don't like the insinuation I have sometimes seen that
people who don't know what encyclopaedias are are somehow inferior,
stupid or un-educated. I confess that I have had very minimal contact
with encyclopaedias. My parents had an out of date Funk & Wagnalls
which I sometimes looked at when I was young, and my school had an out
of date World Book. Never in secondary school or university did I ever
consult one, a brief flirtation with Encarta aside.
So I suspect that screaming "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" fails to
resonate with a lot more people than just me. And constant references
to and comparisons with Encyclopaedia Britannica, as if we all had a
copy of the most expensive printed work in history at home, don't help
matters either.
So by all means, create more links to Wikipedia in 8 words, or direct
people there, or make WP:NOT contain a more explicit definition of
what an encyclopaedia is. But please don't join the unhelpful chorus
of people who think that chanting "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia"
explains everything. Because it doesn't.
Whew. That wasn't meant to be a rant. Honest :)
(On second thoughts, I don't think you *were* joining that unhelpful
chorus. But let this be a warning to others...or...something.)
Steve
I've had a few complaints from people who said that, not being
administrators, they felt unable to participate fully in
[[Wikipedia:Deletion review]] because they could not see the content
of the article under discussion.
I've decided to act on this, and have placed the following notice on the page:
"Some administrators take all good faith requests for undeletion on
this page as de facto requests for temporary undeletion for the
purpose of debate, and will honor such requests, unless the content is
defamatory, copyright, a personal attack, or otherwise unsuitable for
publication, for the duration of the debate. They reserve the right to
will be not undelet if there is reason to suspect that this forum is
being abused. Pages undeleted for this purpose should be clearly
marked with a link to [[Wikipedia:Deletion review]].".
This should solve the problem. Basically I'll undelete stuff that
satisfies the above criteria while it is being discussed on the forum,
in the interests of encouraging full participation by all editors.
Hello.
I am a public figure who has contributed over a thousand edits to Wikipedia,
and created dozens of articles. I was attempting to go through the dispute
resolution process to build an RfC to address a series of personal attacks
that were generated towards me by user DreamGuy, but earlier today I was
accused by Admin Bishonen of harassment, and then blocked "indefinitely", without
warning, by Admin David Gerard, with the comment, "clearly not here to write
an encyclopedia in any way."
More information is available here, including a link to the related
discussion on the Admin noticeboard: _http://www.elonka.com/wikipedia/_
(http://www.elonka.com/wikipedia/)
I hope that this will be sufficient information to get the block removed
immediately. I have several articles which I would like to continue editing.
If anyone has any questions, I can be reached at _elonka(a)aol.com_
(mailto:elonka@aol.com) .
Thank you,
Elonka Dunin
[[User:Elonka]]
_http://www.elonka.com_ (http://www.elonka.com)
(http://www.e)
