User talk:Adambro
|
Adambro is busy in consensus reality and may not respond swiftly to queries. If you have an urgent matter, it may be best to send an email. |
|
|
tsia. - Amgine | t 03:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
excuse me, but wikipedia told me you deleted my contribution. i did not appreciate that, and for your information, AFTER i finished it i wouldn't have cared, but it's an assignment form my biology teacher where i have to Prepare a wikipedia eyewitness report of a photosynthesis interview with a leaf and it's chloroplast. all i wanted was for the report to be done as a contribution to wikipedia so it would look professional.67.203.209.181 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
look dude. im in highschool, it's something im doing for my biology class, and it's required. thanks for deleting it...67.203.209.181 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hallo! Would you like to join an article writing/reviewing contest that I started? We need more people to join up. 
If you're interested, drop a line at the above link. Thanks! ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Time-specific H1N1 maps
Can you help out with this? I'm having trouble getting the versions out of the history. I've identified the articles that need new versions
- Swine flu reported in more countries; WHO warns of possible pandemic risk
- Swine flu outbreaks appear globally; WHO raises pandemic alert level to 5
- Swine flu worldwide: update
- U.S. pork plant in Mexico near confirmed case of swine flu
- Swine flu cases worldwide top 1,000
There was another, but I removed the image from it because the article was published before the image was created. The version duplicated should match with the publication time, could pick through article content to check against the image but I think that's probably excessive. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll get those sorted based upon the publishing time or slightly later if appropriate based upon any updates. I'll have a quick read of the article to try to make sure the image reflects what the text says. Adambro (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Done all except U.S. pork plant in Mexico near confirmed case of swine flu since it isn't published yet and might not be considering it has been abandoned once already. If/when it is a static copy of both of the images used should be made in the same way as the other ones. I'll keep it on my watchlist and do this when necessary. Adambro (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Adam. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Commons accreditation
I don't know if you follow the WMUK mailing list, but I brought up skenmy's idea for a security printer there. As added justification for the expense, and per an issue you seem to have with some requests here, I brought up a suggestion for something on Commons.
Yes, technically it should go all the way to meta for this, but building it on a few projects first gives the impetus to take it there.
Can I ask you to look on this favourably and perhaps pass comment on the section I've added to the village pump on Commons? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Bots discussion
As someone listed as having an active bot I would like to draw your attention to the following issue. This may not affect you unless your bot edits sighted pages - eg in the Template namespace - but as a bot operator your input is likely to be better informed. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Adambro (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It's CC-BY-NC-2.0, that's perfectly fine under WN fair use rules as I understand it. What's wrong? --Killing Vector (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- An image is either freely licensed (public domain, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, etc.) or unfree. CC-BY-NC falls into the latter category. As such, the fact that it is available under the CC-BY-NC licence is irrelevant, it is simply an unfree image and like all unfree images to be used on Wikinews requires a solid fair use rationale explaining why a free alternative couldn't be found or created to show the same information. In this instance, it would be perfectly feasible for someone to go along and photograph the ongoing event or ask for someone who has already done so to consider releasing their image under an accepted free licence. Therefore it isn't possible to justify using this unfree image under fair use. I fear that similar problems exist with One shop defies court order, one shop returns to work in Dublin Thomas Cook occupation. Adambro (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's an unreasonably high standard; yes, potentially "someone" could travel halfway across the country to get a photo of what's going on there now; such a photo would not be equivalent. user:SVTCobra approved of my upload of the Thomas Cook photo on IRC. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did what? When? --SVTCobra 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what approval Killing Vector may or may not have had but the Thomas Cook photo currently violates WN policies. It is not free and so can only be used under fair use but lacks a rationale explaining why it wasn't possible to find or create a freely licensed alternative. Adambro (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, it needs a rationale. But I have never seen or heard of that photo until five minutes ago. --SVTCobra 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- On IRC, you said you'd back me up. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- When? What are you talking about? I haven't been on IRC in the last 12 hours. Please just use {{non-free use rationale}} to help you write a rationale for the image. --SVTCobra 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- For the Thomas Cook photo, that wasn't in the last 12 hours, that was a few days ago. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the Thomas Cook photo on Commons? So there's nothing to talk about. --SVTCobra 14:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- The image in question can be found at File:Thomas Cook protest.jpg. Adambro (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't the Thomas Cook photo on Commons? So there's nothing to talk about. --SVTCobra 14:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- For the Thomas Cook photo, that wasn't in the last 12 hours, that was a few days ago. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- When? What are you talking about? I haven't been on IRC in the last 12 hours. Please just use {{non-free use rationale}} to help you write a rationale for the image. --SVTCobra 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- On IRC, you said you'd back me up. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, it needs a rationale. But I have never seen or heard of that photo until five minutes ago. --SVTCobra 14:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what approval Killing Vector may or may not have had but the Thomas Cook photo currently violates WN policies. It is not free and so can only be used under fair use but lacks a rationale explaining why it wasn't possible to find or create a freely licensed alternative. Adambro (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did what? When? --SVTCobra 14:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's an unreasonably high standard; yes, potentially "someone" could travel halfway across the country to get a photo of what's going on there now; such a photo would not be equivalent. user:SVTCobra approved of my upload of the Thomas Cook photo on IRC. --Killing Vector (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh this File:Thomas Cook protest.jpg one. Don't remember talking about it, but it needs a rationale. It is easy with the template. --SVTCobra 14:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Right, I've put the rationales in, is everything fine now? --Killing Vector (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please familiarise yourself with the fair use policy. It concerns me that you've apparently not yet done so. Adambro (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I added the information required, I just added it incorrectly. I humbly apologize. Beyond that, we simply disagree on interpretation of the policy. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Any use not covered by this whitelist is not allowed". Where do the whitelist allow images such as this one? This is hardly a minor disagreement on how to interpret the policy, you seem to be ignoring it. Adambro (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I interpret it in a way that lets us actually write news. The way it was explained to me, the underlying principle under all of this was to ensure we don't get sued; I've ensured that by only using CC images, under the terms of the CC license -- where is the breach of copyright? Your interpretation, meanwhile, seems to contain a great big hole; we can use copyrighted non-free images under grants of license, but somehow we can't use CC images? Finally, you raise an unreasonably high standard, as I mentioned above, for equivalent images -- that is, where you assert that just because someone could potentially truck out to the Isle of Wight and take a similar photo themselves, the hypothetical existence of some different work depicting some different moment in time is a reasonable substitute for the actual, licensed image that we have here. Yes, I am aware of the text on the page; but you know very well that practice is entirely different. I'm following the standard set in practice that lets us do journalism. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be ignoring policies. The fair use policy is not simply about ensuring we don't get sued. It is about limiting the amount of unfree content we use in line with the actual core aims of the project to create freely licensed news articles. Using unfree content except in very limited circumstances isn't compatible with these aims nor the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I've suggested we can use images under a grants of license. This certainly isn't my position. What you seem to forget is that this project isn't simply about the collaborative authoring of news articles, we are supposed to be creating content that is reusable under an accepted free licence. This is restriction within which we have to work. Adambro (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the consensus of the community doesn't reflect the words on the screen with regard to policy then I will follow the consensus of the community. The consensus of the community certainly supports {{gol}} images; if you oppose these then you're against consensus in that case as well. Now, as I've already said, I don't object to using inferior free substitutes when they're adequate; I've used such substitutes in the past. In the case of these two photos, there are not free substitutes available. If you don't think those photos should be there, then propose their deletion. I do feel, though, that you're taking an impractical and fringy position with regard to the policy. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be ignoring policies. The fair use policy is not simply about ensuring we don't get sued. It is about limiting the amount of unfree content we use in line with the actual core aims of the project to create freely licensed news articles. Using unfree content except in very limited circumstances isn't compatible with these aims nor the foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I've suggested we can use images under a grants of license. This certainly isn't my position. What you seem to forget is that this project isn't simply about the collaborative authoring of news articles, we are supposed to be creating content that is reusable under an accepted free licence. This is restriction within which we have to work. Adambro (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I interpret it in a way that lets us actually write news. The way it was explained to me, the underlying principle under all of this was to ensure we don't get sued; I've ensured that by only using CC images, under the terms of the CC license -- where is the breach of copyright? Your interpretation, meanwhile, seems to contain a great big hole; we can use copyrighted non-free images under grants of license, but somehow we can't use CC images? Finally, you raise an unreasonably high standard, as I mentioned above, for equivalent images -- that is, where you assert that just because someone could potentially truck out to the Isle of Wight and take a similar photo themselves, the hypothetical existence of some different work depicting some different moment in time is a reasonable substitute for the actual, licensed image that we have here. Yes, I am aware of the text on the page; but you know very well that practice is entirely different. I'm following the standard set in practice that lets us do journalism. --Killing Vector (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Any use not covered by this whitelist is not allowed". Where do the whitelist allow images such as this one? This is hardly a minor disagreement on how to interpret the policy, you seem to be ignoring it. Adambro (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I added the information required, I just added it incorrectly. I humbly apologize. Beyond that, we simply disagree on interpretation of the policy. --Killing Vector (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please familiarise yourself with the fair use policy. It concerns me that you've apparently not yet done so. Adambro (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. May your bot update this template for Russian Wikinews too? — putnik 14:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I will investigate whether that is possible and keep you informed of my progress. Adambro (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will wait your answer. — putnik 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- And if you do not mind I may copy scripts and run my bot using your data. — putnik 17:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I run my bot with modified version of your script and your data. Thanks. =) You may see my version at /home/putnik/ru_news/weather.py. And one thing that may be usefull for other languages:
text = text.replace('August', u'...')changes "Augusto C. Sandino International Airport (MNMG)" too, I use replacement for 'UTC August' instead. — putnik 00:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Your bot can update this page?--Reality006 (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Should be able to. I'll look into it and let you know. Adambro (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Had to make some new changes. Page was forced to change names, please excuse me. New pages are C and F. If you appreciate your help to be updated.--Reality006 (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Recruiting Commoners/ making things easier for photographers
I don't know if you'd seen ShakataGaNai's suggestion that we alter priorities a little when a report is predominantly a 'photoessay'. Essentially, he wants to drop the requirement for a minimum of three paragraphs and just insist on enough to put an event in context. There's a start on an essay on this where I think you could offer valuable input.
I'd like to see this shaped up, then highlighted on Commons in some way such that photographers over there might consider doing reports to showcase their pictures. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Interwikis
Hi, Just see [1] Regards, Otourly (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you lunch something like that on polish Wikinews? And what do You need to do that? We used commons' maps but now it is out of date - look. --Krzysiu Jarzyna (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
For the link. :) --Soy Rebelde (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
My Pages
Thanks for reminding me... I could delete them but Thank you so much!
--Firefox6297 (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
They can be deleted in a minute. there is 3. That's why im saying they.
Admin rights
I request that my admin rights here are removed. Adambro (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have set the protection level on your userpage to autoconfirmed. Hopefully this will keep any vandalism down while still allowing you to update the page at your leisure. Cases like this just add further evidence that my idea for an optional universal userpage for global accounts would be awesome:). Gopher65talk 13:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your assistance. Adambro (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)