User talk:Abigor/Archives/2010/November

Delete redirect pages

There is two redirect pages that does not have any real purpose. These pages leads to an image file that now has an more accurate name then before. Is there any way to delete the redirect pages without affecting the actual image file?

Link to page 1: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pierce_after_the_final_performance_of_La_B%C3%AAte.jpg&redirect=no

Link to page 2: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:David_Hyde_Pierce.jpg&redirect=no

Can you please help?

 Done. --Túrelio (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:ADRM2 and Template:ADRM

Hi. Looking for an admin clueful about licensing. I came across Template:TlTemplate:ADRM2 after seeing it at Commons:Copyright_tags#Unfree_licenses and was

a)surprised to read the text "If you do not approve of the imposed restriction of this license, you can freely dismiss it." as it seemed to be making a patently, obviously nonsensical claim - that anyone could remove the restrictions of a license they didn't agree with - and this text seemed to be legally authorizing this!

b)surprised to look into the license further, and read Commons_talk:Licensing/ADRM and then read the text of the CC license that is the primary license of Wikipedia, the anti-DRM clauses in particular ("You may not impose any effective technological measures on the...") and then see that you had (after some edit warring) 1) tagged the license as not permitted on commons [1] and then immediately protected the license [2]

c)I see that essentially the same situation applies to ADRM as to ADRM2.

Regarding a), I was going to go ahead and undo this, but it's protected. It seems to be removable as patent nonsense (per WP:PATENT). If the template is on content along with another license that allows such removal, fine, but we can't assume that.

Regarding b), it seems to me that Arnomane is right, and has expertise. What exactly makes this license incompatible with wikipedia in general or commons in particular that doesn't apply to our standard CC license? I understand protecting it as a legal caution, but it seems the issue was resolved in favor of it being an acceptable license. What do you think? Protection rationale is here. Do we need another VP discussion? --Elvey (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexy dancer

Hi Abigor,
your closing statement in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sexy_dancer_01.jpg is not convincing if you refer only to this email communication. Zappel Jazz did not confirm GFDL licensing, but only permitted use on wikipedia ("you can use my images"). Did you have an additional source for your statement "where he says he will agree with gfdl"? --Túrelio (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)