User talk:Stardust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The copyright and fair use discussion thread that formerly resided here has been moved under the second heading on the Talk:Settlers of Catan/copyright and fair use page. See also the related documentation on my user page. ~ stardust 16:08, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your pages Settlers of Catan, Great Crossing maps, Settlers of Catan, Into the Desert maps, Settlers of Catan, Four Islands maps, Settlers of Catan, Greater Catan maps, Settlers of Catan, New Shores map, Settlers of Catan, New World maps, Settlers of Catan, Oceans maps have been listed as a candidate for deletion. In the normal day to day operations of Wikipedia, some pages are deleted. Please go to the Votes for Deletion page to discuss whether this page should be deleted. If you have questions about why this page was listed, you can also ask User:Smack.

Its generally nice to include a link to VfD, especially so a fairly new user can find it. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Gentgeen

I believe that deletion notice was autogenerated. Reason for deletion: Smack has never heard of the two Seafarers expansion sets, and does not believe the 21 sea boards are official, genuine Klaus Teuber. Sophomoric. ~ stardust 01:57, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. RickK 02:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dude, chill. Insulting people, however dumb they might appear to be, really only serves to make you look bad. I fear the inflammatory stuff you've said over at VfD will only to harm your case. Oh, and VfD notices aren't autogenerated (sigh - like most everything else here some poor sod has to paste 'em in by hand). -- Finlay McWalter 02:34, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I was fully aware of Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks when I wrote both entries at VfD. I made departures because:

1. Smack should have, at a minimum, read the Settlers of Catan article to fill the rather substantial gaps in his knowledge.
2. As a Wikipedia administrator/sysop, RickK should be bound by a higher standard of integrity, adherence to Wikiquette, and knowledge of copyright laws and the meaning fair use. He has been a failure on all fronts.

~ stardust 02:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I understand that having stuff nominated for deletion is a frustrating experience (I've been there myself). Fundamentally, if an article is worth keeping, it needs no defense from its author. Last time this happened to me (when some vandal nominated an article of mine, mostly through spite at my reverting his porno-talk) I just rode out the storm. My experience was that the great majority of voters on VfD were level-headed, even on subjects they didn't have much knowledge of. -- Finlay McWalter 03:09, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Colored by what? I have no idea what you mean by that comment on my talk page. Angela. 13:23, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Colored by The World According to Angela. Unfortunately, procedures aren't always followed consistently, as you think they are. ~ stardust 16:43, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I'm a little idealistic at times. Biting newbies is an issue which comes up time and time again with plenty of discussion, but no real solutions. Suggestions such as waiting 15 minutes before deletion aren't practical because of the way recent changes is run. On smaller wikis, you can do this because an entire day's recent changes are shown on one screen, so it's quite easy to leave something a day and then check the progress, but the English Wikipedia has grown too large for that. Pages scroll off recent changes in a matter of minutes, and are quite possibility lost and forgotten about if they are not dealt with within those few minutes. I'm not sure if a solution like a delayed recent changes page would be of much advantage and has the disadvantage of being far less attractive to those who watch it. Viewing something later isn't as much fun as seeing the changes happen live, so such a delay may mean seriously reduced numbers of recent changes junkies, thereby letting more vandalism slip through. Angela. 00:08, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Stardust, as you are aware, Settlers of Catan, Great Crossing maps and other pages of yours are listed for deletion. There seems, at present, to be a majority favoring deletion, primarily because these have no content. However, I realise you have put some work into creating the structure for what I assume will be something you intend to develop further later on. May I suggest that these are moved to your user namespace until they are a little more complete? As it stands, Settlers of Catan, Great Crossing maps is not an article - it's not even a stub - so it really shouldn't be in the main article namespace yet. If it was moved to User:Stardust/Settlers of Catan, Great Crossing maps, you could work on it there at your leisure rather than attempting to work on something at risk of deletion. Then, when more complete, you can use the move this page feature to put it back in the encyclopedia. This would keep the page history of any edits made so far, along with any you make whilst it's in your user namespace. Does this seem like a good compromise for now? By the way, I'm only talking about the ones slated for deletion as a result of their lack of content, not those listed as a result of the alleged copyright violation, which I would rather let other people argue over for now. Angela. 21:27, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll take no reply to mean no objection. Angela. 01:46, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I added your article Settlers of Catan to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose under Games, because I think it deserves to be there. Excellent writing on such an important modern game! Thanks! --Chuck SMITH 02:26, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

And I deleted it, because it hasn't gone to Wikipedia:Brilliant prose candidates first. And if it does, I'll vote against it. RickK 02:29, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know why you'll vote against it, but I'll see there. I personally think it's one of the most impressive articles on Wikipedia. Also, I didn't realize that articles hadn't been nominated because I hadn't done much with it since the date when that page was started here a few years ago. Sorry. That doesn't change the fact that it's worthy of being there, but we'll discuss that on that page and not clutter up Stardust's page with that. --Chuck SMITH 02:34, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright tweaks

A few things you've mentioned on your user page which you might want to consider:

• "However, the copyrightable portions are not under copyright protection unless the registration process has been completed" isn't right, in general. The copyright exists and can be infringed without a registration. What is affected is the possibility of getting statutory damages rather than actual damages. Actual damages are often hard to prove for non-commercial works, so a lack of registraton is generally good news for those making far use of a work,because it'll usually reduce their potential risk.
• "the particular manner of the author's original expression" may well apply to the game pieces even when reduced. The use will then probably be found to be fair in part because of the reduction in size, public benefit of the Wikipedia to society in general, small portion of the Wikipedia involved and increased awareness of the game. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation is why I think your similarity argument will fail, while the fair use one should be fine.
• For fair use, you might want to mention that it is impractical for the Wikipedia to replace the game in the marketplace. That's often the most important single factor in how fair use is viewed. Jamesday 10:25, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright tags

Hi! Thanks for uploading the soc* images. I notice they currently don't have an image copyright tag. Could you add them to let us know their copyright status? (Thousands of images have no copyright tags. You can help sort this out by clicking on this link!) Thanks, --ZeroOne 21:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Image:Soc-klaus-teuber.jpg

I have listed this image on copyright problems as it appears to be from http://www.tragsnart.co.uk/travelhub/essen2003/ess03teuber1693.JPG, that site indicates the content is © 2004 by the owner. Might want to contact him to arrange permissions or see if he is agreeable to releasing under a free license. --Wgfinley 08:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Soc-klaus-teuber.jpg listed for deletion

dbenbenn | talk 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)