|(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)|
I know that we have our differences, especially on Meta, but you fit the profile of a administrator very well. Have you ever considered attempting to become a sysop on enwiki or Commons? You might be better off becoming an enwiki sysop rather than a Commons sysop, but I'm unable to participate in the enwiki community at this time. Would you enjoy doing administrative work on Commons? If so, what sort of administrative work would you like to do? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind note. RFA an enwiki is such a hostile environment that I can't really understand why anyone agrees to go through it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Actually, I did look at a couple, and it's not as hazing-oriented (which is good), but I don't think that I have a realistic chance right now, because I haven't done as much work on deletion requests as many of them want, and I'm not an expert on copyrights (and several regulars really want experts, rather than people to help with the bulk of the obvious stuff and enough sense to know their limitations and thus leave the complicated stuff to others). But it's possible that someday I'll have enough experience here to meet their ideals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I think there is sufficient agreement to move the draft User:Colin/People to replace the existing guideline page (obviously with a few tweaks to add categories, etc). The complication is that a few people such as yourself have editing the draft and so I think, per copyright licence, we need to ensure they are credited in the history. I can't find info on that on Commons, but what I found on Wikipedia confused me. I think it might be permissible to move the content over and simply refer to the old draft in the edit summary with a link. Then the draft can be blanked. However, perhaps a more complex admin move is needed where history is kept. I know you are not an admin but you are very knowledgeable about policy. Do you know what to do? I've also asked User:Kaldari. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think you can merge histories, which requires an admin. Providing a link (redirecting might make more sense than blanking, because blanking might prompt someone to delete it) is also "legal" as I understand it. For my own part, I really don't care if I'm credited for those small changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Help Desk archived & "Wehrmacht"
Hello ! I assume it's not OK to attempt editing dialogues in archives. However I noticed now (after sometime with little time) that You gave me a reply to my last comment about the German war time books. Thanks for your reply. I must not scan these books, they are not mine, and has become fragile over the years. So I will instead attempt photograph some of the most interersting pictures. (most of them are not). I thank You once again Boeing720 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sourcing expert required
In the Commons:Requests for comment/Xrays, Avenue uncovered a paper here that discusses radiographic images wrt archaeology artefacts. Eleassar has seized on this as proof the "nuclear option is nonsense" and is confident such images are not copyrightable in the US and UK. The article is an interesting read and makes very similar arguments to those made by various wikidocs (though the author's understanding of MRI leaves something to be desired). However, consider it from the POV of a Wikipedia source. It becomes clear that the article is an opinion piece, not an authoritative work on copyright. It also becomes clear the author is making an argument for a state of affairs they think should be the case in their opinion, if they had their way, rather than one that actually is the case. Much as I would like the article to be used to save such images from the chop, this is merely more evidence of the amateur lawyering and misuse of literature to be found throughout this discussion. Could you please put on your sourcing-expert hat and explain to Eleassar why this article is interesting but ultimately useless.
I hope the WMF team consider the topic from both a legal and pragmatic viewpoint. For example, EllenCT's argument is that it is all very well to consider some theoretical "it is protected" argument but without a legal case (no harm) this might well be moot. Other options include relaxing the "precautionary principle" for certain subjects where there is clear doubt but no evidence that there is actually a problem. I'm still in discussions with a couple of publishers to try to discover how they do this in practice -- so far it appears there is a convenient hole in their procedures. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Colin,
- Thanks for keeping up with that discussion. I'm also not a lawyer, of course, and, speaking purely as another volunteer non-lawyer, I think that the whole thing would be better settled by people who know more than I do, and best settled by every government in the world specifically addressing diagnostic medical images in their statutes.
- I'm unfortunately really short on time this month, so I haven't done much research, but my impression is that all of the sources are approximately equally lousy: somebody here says, "it's kind of like a photograph, so let's guess that the photography laws apply" and somebody over there says, "Nah, it shouldn't be copyrightable, because it's just information" and someone in another place says, "Probably it ought to work approximately like this"—but nobody knows, and we would rather know than just guess what is most likely. I don't really know what to recommend, except to wait for the Copyright Office to reply (and I'm not actually very hopeful that they'll issue anything like a definitive statement). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)