User talk:Decltype/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Barnstar
Thank You kind sir.
'Tis a privilidge.
God knows how long it will last on my user page though.....
Tresiden (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Canned (tv series)
A7. I probably didn't word it as well as I should have. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since A7 doesn't apply to a (possible) TV series, I still think WP:PROD or subsequently WP:AFD is the correct procedure. decltype (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just explaining what I was thinking. :) Thinking wrong but thinking. :) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense...I think :) decltype (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm an admin but sometimes my brain malfunctions just like everyone else. :) --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense...I think :) decltype (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Image attribution
Hi, I happened to notice your question on Thuresson's Commons talk page. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 license requires, in section 4(c), that the author(s) be attributed in a manner "reasonable to the medium or means" utilized. In the past, the consensus on Wikimedia projects has generally been to assert that, for clickable thumbnail images used on wiki pages, attributing the author(s) on the image description page counts as reasonable and sufficient to fulfill the license obligations: see e.g. Wikipedia:Captions#Credits and commons:Commons:FAQ#Where do I get credit for my images?. On the Swedish Wikipedia in particular, there seems to be some ongoing discussion about credits in image captions at sv:Wikipedia:Frågor om bilder#Bildbylines igen. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer, Ilmari. I am aware of CC-BY-SA §4(c), for images licensed with the general CC-BY 3.0 or similar I agree that the standard Wikimedia attribution scheme is sufficient. My interpretation is still that my license requires attribution as stated, and this view also seems to be shared by at least some of the participants in the thread, unless I'm misreading. t.ex:
- "Tänk på att CC-BY-licensen kräver att skaparen krediteras på det sätt som skaparen begär. Om en bild ligger uppe med CC-BY där fotografen angett att "Foto: Nisse Hult" ska anges vid bilden, så är det ett licensbrott att inte ha med bylinen. Ett annat problem med avsaknad av byline vid bild (bildbyline är något helt annat) är att utskriftsversionen av en artikel bryter mot licensen då den refererar till "Bildsidan", som inte kommer med när man skriver ut. // Castrup 13 mars 2009 kl. 16.02 (CET)"
- If my license somehow violates Commons requirements, then my images or my license should really be deleted from Commons (along with similar licenses requiring a byline). However, I don't think this is feasible. Anyway, the license was originally intended for third-parties unrelated to Wikipedia, but to be honest I see some of the smaller-language wiki's as just that, because the de facto quality standards of content are much lower than en.wiki (in my opinion, anyway).
- Lastly, I realize that I'm probably coming across as awfully petty, especially since my images are not particularly high quality. I guess it's more of a question of sentimental value, anyway. I'll gladly share some moments from my life, I just want my name (or more precisely, the name I go by), to be associated with it. Again, thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my inquiry. decltype (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I personally feel that a general policy of crediting image authors in captions could well be a good idea, provided that it left editors sufficient discretion in cases where full credit in the caption would not be reasonable (e.g. collaborative images with dozens of authors, or an author demanding to be credited with a ten-page essay) and that a method was provided to render such credits in a nice and non-obtrusive manner (like, say, the template you have on no.wikipedia). I was just pointing out that the current consensus policy on most Wikimedia projects seems to be not to credit image authors in that manner, and indeed that some editors like to remove such credits if they encounter them (which sort of makes sense as a matter of fairness; unless every image author gets to be credited in captions, no-one should).
- I think that, if one wanted to change this policy, the most efficient way to go about it might be to 1. see if the idea has support among the people who are likely to be listened to on such issues (like Jimbo, Erik, Anthere and other WMF folks), 2. come up with a good and practical policy (and possible attendant technical measures) that can be implemented without hitting any of the obvious pitfalls, and 3. propose it here on en.wikipedia. It's been my experience that such changes, if they make any sense at all, trickle down from en.wikipedia to smaller projects quite efficiently, whereas going the opposite way tends to meet significant resistance. It often sucks, but that's the way it seems to be. Alternately, if enough folks in the Foundation supported it, a WMF Resolution might be a possible way to get things rolling.
- As for Commons, I'd expect them to follow the lowest common denominator, as indeed they should: Commons cannot enforce its policies on other projects, except through the content they provide, so as long as there's even a single WMF project that doesn't attribute image authors in captions, Commons can't honestly promise to authors that they'll be thus attributed.
- Regarding the comment by sv:User:Castrup that you quoted, I just looked through the Unported versions of the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licenses (versions 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0) and couldn't find anything saying that authors could explicitly specify the manner in which they should be credited. All the licenses say is that the authors are allowed to choose the name or pseudonym by which they are to be credited, or to designate someone else as an Attribution Party. Other than that, the licenses say that attribution "may be implemented in any reasonable manner", as long as it's at least as prominent as that provided for other contributing authors. Nowhere do they say that I could e.g. demand to be credited in purple blinking 72pt text or to have my credit placed to the left (or to the right, or in the middle of) the image. Your request to have your username shown alongside the image in a monospaced font, while IMHO quite reasonable as a request, doesn't really seem to me any more binding under the CC licenses. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from, and I was infact surprised and disappointed that the actual legalese of CC-BY doesn't go into more detail. Before I uploaded my images, I looked at the "Human-readable" license, which says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", and I thought it sounded acceptable. Besides, looking at the CC FAQ, under "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?":
- "(2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify"
- The fact that the actual text does not explicitly specify this is very, very discouraging. If this wasn't the intended requirements of the license, it should never have made it to the version of the license 99.9% of people using it will read. I'd like to say a lot more, but there's simply too many thoughts spinning around in my head right now. I will try to reply more coherently later. For now, thanks for offering your opinions, I really appreciate it. decltype (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I see where you are coming from, and I was infact surprised and disappointed that the actual legalese of CC-BY doesn't go into more detail. Before I uploaded my images, I looked at the "Human-readable" license, which says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor", and I thought it sounded acceptable. Besides, looking at the CC FAQ, under "How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?":
WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter
The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Huggle rollback requirement
I don't think there's any point in maintaining a false sense of security. If the user is abusive, he should be blocked. Someone is going to make that edit to Huggle themselves even if I did not publish it. PirateSmackK says he's an intermediate C programmer. I suppose we can tell him to stop using Huggle and block him if he continues. Either way, there's no point in having Huggle require a flag that is actually not needed. Maybe Wikipedia should have an edit cap for ordinary users? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I have to agree on most of what you're saying. The question remaining is, since the only purpose rollback serves is to speed up (and presumably lighten server load) for the actual rollbacking, which is a little slower if it is emulated, do we really need WP:RFP/R at all? I think I'll bring this up over there. decltype (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe, thank you, the list itself is extremely interesting, if nothing else. Certainly not what I had expected :) decltype (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
GAN delays
I'm sorry for the delays. I've had all sorts of distractions coming up. I'll do my best to get it done as soon as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Message from anon
I am sorry forgive me i just got carried away....-Da Balla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.23.218 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
<nowiki> vs {{tl}}
Hi there. I noticed you were using <nowiki> on WT:CSD to illustrate templates in text without transcluding them. I don't know if you knew, but there are some templates to make this easier. {{tl}} can be used (with {{tl|template}}) to refer to a template (and link to it). {{tlx}} allows adding parameters to that (i.e. {{tlx|template|parameter1|parameter2}}), {{tls}} creates the link and adds subst: before it (i.e. {{tls|template}} will create {{subst:template}}). Just a tip that might come in handy, I have found it to be much easier than to have to write <nowiki> all the time and it allows people to click the link to view the template. Regards SoWhy 10:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I knew about {{tl}}, but I don't write about templates very often, so I usually forget. Agree that it is much more practical. Thanks. decltype (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
A Barnstar for You
|
The Guidance Barnstar | |
| For all your help regarding CSD! ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
- How nice of you. Thanks a lot! decltype (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome. Cheers,--ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds chat 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nightmare
The photos in the actual articles are so small, here: they're big, so you can, you know, SEE THEM!
Thanks For Interest, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion +
Please see the page's dicussion page, if these are non-free images, why are they on every "Nightmare" related page?
I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The page I added is for informational purposes only. I hope that this is ok. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamrox (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
CSD tagging
|
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| Hi Decltype, thanks for retagging those two as attacks. |
And for the follow ups. If you ever run for admin please remind me of this incident ϢereSpielChequers 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support
Decltype, Gaia Octavia Agrippa has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
exusme
my edit to STUNT COCK was not vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.91.99 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
This message was sent to you at 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC).
Thank You
|
Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk) |
- no problem, it my mistake I forgot to subst it, thank you again :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
C++
Please do not acuse me of vandalism! I was fixing the C++ code to the way it is done in the industry --89.100.217.82 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but there's a very large message in the article telling you why you shouldn't change that text. That's why I reverted you. decltype (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
What is your isiue with c++, i dont care what some idiot with a book wrote, its nonsense and not as used in industry, if that is a version why isnt it tought?--89.100.217.82 (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's not how I would have written it either, but since there's broad consensus to use that version, that's the version we use. However, your version is ill-formed, and should not compile without a diagnostic. If it does compile, it will have undefined behaviour. But as we both know, the industry doesn't care about such unimportant details :) decltype (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, the "some idiot with a book" is the creator of the C++ language, who probably is a bit more respected authority on the subject than a random university lecturer. -- Autopilot (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia is useless if its not going to show it properly, and im sorry but what is wrong with my version, there is nothing wrong with it, except some people like you feel, if my cpp lecturer who also wrote a book on it does that i cant see how its rubbish, thank you v much--89.100.217.82 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(...) the main function (...) shall have a return type of type int (...)
- ^ ISO/IEC (2003). ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E): Programming Languages - C++ §3.6.1 Main function [basic.start.main] para. 2
No offense, but if your lecturer doesn't know that, he does not know very much about C++. decltype (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No offense but void main() causes compiler error --89.100.217.82 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the paragraph I quoted explicitly states that main should have a return type of int, not void.
- As for
void main() {}
- Most compilers will give an error, but it is not required. The compiler must emit a diagnostic, but it may still compile the code successfully. decltype (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
WHAT IS THE BEST COMPILER M8? I DON'T THINK IM USING RITE ONE, IS BORELAND GOOD?--89.100.217.82 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- For Windows? I think the Microsoft compiler is the best. Comes free with Microsoft Visual Studio Express. decltype (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
main may be void. The compiler can but need not issue a diagnostic (it need not issue any diagnostic).
I don't quite get why you say that "most compilers reject" void return. GCC, Solaris, Intel, Microsoft and Irix compliers all accept it. I have to write code that works on all five.
It causes a problem (not specifically in main) that when programming for templates using a return type of void is illegal, and makes "void" difficult to generalise in templates to include the void type. This I believe is a proposal for being cured in C++0xx.
Simon Trew, Microsoft C++ MVP SimonTrew (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry Decltype I edited what I said not expecting anything after.
- The point is more that void return is legal, but nope a C++ compiler does not have to omit diagnostics (or if you disagree, say where).
- I think you would agree with my points of fact though.
- No, that's okay, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. You may be right that many compilers do accept void main(). But it is not a well-formed program according to the C++ standard, per the above. Given an ill-formed program the compiler is required to emit a diagnostic. EDG does, Comeau does, my version of GCC does, and VC does it (with /Za), and are thus conforming in this manner. decltype (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
screenshot
You have any Screenshot of the Norton 360 software because I don't. I have NIS 2009, so I can't provide any screenshots of N360.--Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 16:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
n360
I can't find the typo, can you please point it out? --Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 16:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The typo was "it include". I don't know if you intended "includes" or "included". decltype (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
rereview of n360
Can you do a re-review of n360. I think I have fixed the concerns you have.--Tyw7 (Talk ● Contributions) Leading Innovations >>> 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: GAN/M
That is indeed a reasonable review. Looks like you did everything correctly in terms of tagging, etc. I'll watchlist the review page to keep an eye on any progress. Good luck! Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Allocator (C++)
|
On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allocator (C++), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Royalbroil 05:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I personally think proper conduct is one of the most important traits of a good contributor. Unfortunately, I do believe that serious behavioural issues are often a result of external factors that we as Wikipedia editors are unable to remedy. That said, I really think that this project has some merit. I'll consider it. decltype (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
GA
Yes, I'm totally backlogged. However, I'll have free time from Wednesday to Sunday. I'll take another look now for yours assuming edits were made. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've done a small copyedit, ticked off a few resolved issues and posted follow-up questions and suggestions. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Stifle!
I was slightly puzzled by your deletion of ^^^ as patent nonsense. From what I recall there was some kind of "structure", giving his name and a non-credible claim of importance. decltype (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, there is a typo in User_talk:Stifle/wizard/deleted/why (last line). decltype (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose it should have been an A7. I'll restore it and redelete it with the right reason.
- Thanks for pointing out the mistake in the wizard; I've fixed it. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage earlier today :) Jozal (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)