I noted your comment while reading Jimbo's talk page. Requiring crediting in captions is not new; the Associated Press granted permission to use iconic images like Image:TrangBang.jpg on the stipulation that the photographer was credited where ever it was used. I believe that CC-BY gives the creator the right to specify how the image should be attributed, and if he wants to make sure that it is in each caption, I don't see a problem. But don't trust me. Get a second opinion on someone who knows the Creative Commons language better than me. Hbdragon88 23:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the GFDL and the CC-By-SA require attribution which is consistent and appropriate for the medium (go look up the exact text yourself, it's easy enough to find). A practice of inline crediting some of our images would potentially make use arguably out of conformance on all the rest. I'm sure some people will be delighted to see their chosen name over hundreds of pages, but I'm not looking forward to all the images we'll need to throw out because they were authored by folks with 'names' like "throbbing monster cock". :( --Gmaxwell 07:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [1] -- ReyBrujo 15:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who would do that, anyway? On Wikipedia, that would get an indefinite block due to inappropriate username, and Flickr looks pretty closeknit - that is, people take their stuff seriously and wouldn't register a joke name like that. They share their own real pictures, and pick beign usernames or real names. I personally dislike such attribution because the image description page IMO tells me enough (if there wasn't a description page, I would certainly ask for in-line citations). Of course, when the AP is talking, we bow down. I guess if yielding to in-line citing will give us loads of great pictures, I'm all in. Hbdragon88 10:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [2] -- ReyBrujo 15:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering, there is a map that seems to be used for all Illinois cities, example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ILMap-doton-StillmanValley.PNG
I am guessing this is a fair use map that can be altered for other cities? Moving the dot from one part of the map to another. If so, I have already done that, but would I be able to upload them and use them? So what type of Licensing would I then have to choose? I must have chosen wrong on the last couple I did since they were deleted. Thanks.--Kranar drogin 23:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [3] -- ReyBrujo 11:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the assistance. I sent him a question, see what happens, not sure if he is still active or not. Then what should I do? --Kranar drogin 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [4] -- ReyBrujo 14:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the incredibly long Editor Review. When I first went to the page, I thought I had recieved 10 or so separate reviews. Your review topped everything I had previously. I will use your suggestions to improve as an editor. Again, thanks. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [5] -- ReyBrujo 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. And you jeopardized it. Ok. Ok.
Marhadiasa
- Replied on the user's talk page. [6] -- ReyBrujo 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just want to make Wikipedia cleaner.
- You, admins have to think how make lists in this site cleaner.
- It's so messy when looking to lists here.
- Marhadiasa17:42 UTC
- Replied on the user's talk page. [7] -- ReyBrujo 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rey, I'm one of the site admins at Marvelmods.com. I went through your profile and admire all your hard work towards the Wiki project. I see you deleted the marvelmods.com link from the MUA wiki. I could understand the deletion of the URL beneath it which was just a popularity contest/voting questionnaire but Marvel Mods provides fans of the game modifications to be used for the PC version. The fan base for the Marvel Universe is huge and these modifications to the game cater to this crowd. This site was built by several modders in the community and is purely for the people, and does not generate revenue in any way.
What are your views on this? I can understand your concern about site promotion but this URL just leads to more information regarding the game, as well as getting more enjoyment out of it. Thanks for any feedback! Kungfu52 03:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.119.35.104 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 Jan 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding marvelmods.com, it is a very new site. It has a very low Alexa ranking (currently 6,151,261), has a very small forum userbase (69 right now, note that you say the fan base is huge, so this 69 forum members make it look like it is not important for those fans), it has 2 pieces of news, and was registered, according to whois, on December 3, 2006. Give it 6-8 months, grow the site, get members and push it forwards, and then maybe it could be accepted as external link. Right now, unless it is an official site, one month old sites are just not appropriate external links. -- ReyBrujo 18:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [8] -- ReyBrujo 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to go through each image tagging it. I listed them where someone who spends time on copyvios would see them. Most of them are actually listed as being copyrighted by the artist but with no licence. They are fairly blatant copyvios. Also, I'm not sure why you're telling me to use orfud for no source - that's for orphaned fair use images, which none of them are. 02:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.239.14 (talk • contribs).
- Replied on the user's talk page. [9] -- ReyBrujo 02:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for tagging them. 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to extend the block on the IP that I reported to WP:AIV as it is a sock of a banned user who has been spamming all of those pages for some time. All other IPs have been blocked for a week.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [10]] -- ReyBrujo 08:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot. MER-C 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [11] -- ReyBrujo 08:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [12] is a rare example.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [13] -- ReyBrujo 08:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, thanks for the heads up on why it was deleted. I completely forgot about the copyright issue even though I wrote the original piece borrowed. Good catch. We'll get on writing a more encyclopedic piece for the Article and see how we go. Keep up the good work. Messandnoise 05:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [14] -- ReyBrujo 05:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some review links deleted, while others are allowed to stay?
For instance, on the Dead of Alive Xtreme 2 page, you deleted the review link to gatewalker.com, but you left the review links to Metacritic.com and GameBrink. All three of these links had been up for almost a month and a half. Why the preference in deleting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.195.190 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- gatewalker.com is not notable enough compared with metacritic.com or gamebrink.com. Alexa ranking for gatewalker is over 5m, while gamebrink has a ranking of around 25,000, and metacritic, 4,000. -- ReyBrujo 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [15] -- ReyBrujo 15:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:65.184.195.190 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So in this case, the content of the linked page is not relevant. The major corporate sites may be allowed to have their opinions linked to, but smaller independent sites must fall by the wayside until they to manage securing funding to increase their search rankings to compete. You make it sound like it is a mere popularity contest. Sounds fair enough, especially considering what is generally advertised as the Spirit of Wikipedia, the desire to let everyone contribute. Thank you for that clearing that up. Too bad I can't cancel my donation. I guess I'll just have that postcard they mail out returned to sender.
- Ok, in the case of a game article where there isn't any reviews by the big boys listed, can links a smaller site be listed? That DOAX2 link was up for a long time before you axed it.
- By the way, this user has contributed to many gaming articles. Mainly fixing stuff on on 8-bit and 16-bit game entries (no user name yet, desired name was taken - might address that soon though). Obviously since this an encyclopedia, opinionated review type material should never be posted in the body of the article. I see no problem in providing a link to such an article though. Especially an obscured link at the very end of the page.
- Sorry for the multiple edits to this entry. Stupid keyboard getting stuck.
