User talk:acagastya

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

acagastya/talk/Archive

File:2017 Bangalore ComicCon (media) IMG 0107.JPG[edit]

Just curious. Under what policy do you assert the right to control the caption? The caption is not part of the image. --SVTCobra 12:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

On a separate note, I apologise for assuming that you are the subject of the photo. It might have been because I was editing late at night. Green Giant (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I do have some rights reserved for the photo and can choose the caption I want to; and someone else adding a caption on the file page appears as if the author is endorsing it, which I am not. If you want to express who is in the photo, make use of description. Not a caption which I endorse. By the way, Green Giant, hi. Good to see you back. (Wish you would have been active earlier—but better late than never; Also; you should not stay away from project for longer durations, PeP would kick in, and you would be losing the rights.
•–• 13:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, I ask. what are those rights and where are they asserted? I don't see them in the human-readable summary of the license. --SVTCobra 16:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not endorse the caption, and summary != license. Adding the caption in caption field without my permission is act of endorsement that the author suggests this caption, though I do not. Click on the license link, and find out what is and what is not allowed. In any case, my photos, I decide what caption to be used, and it is '\0' For ComicCon media. Make use of description if you want to.
223.237.217.109 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

For your information, the following images that you uploaded lack license information:

Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be you asserted that "this was handled off-wiki" or something like that. I assure you, that is insufficient. Things like: "usage “greatly” helps readers" is ultimately meaningless. Honestly, I don't think that person (223.237.252.103) was you, because you are so very careful with licensees. Therefore, I urge you to correct the situation. --SVTCobra 02:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I know you asked not to be pinged because you don't want e-mails, but then you should have turned off e-mail notification. I am doing this as an official notification of lack of license. --SVTCobra 03:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't see the motivation to ping the user on their talk page, even if pings are disabled, email is sent for talk page messages.
•–• 23:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If you see, each media with copyrighted elements (Thor, Captain America, Hulk, The Tick, the manga character) -- they all have the fair use rationale. It isn't written in {{peacock}} terms. You aren't really supposed to do anything with the off-wiki discussion, evidently, you were not able to catch up with the on-wiki discussions, so off would be futile. This message actually wasted my time, for a moment I thought I did not write a rationale.
•–• 00:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
A couple of questions. India has freedom of panorama, so photographing public displays of art (copyrighted or not) is within your rights, is it not? Did you attend ComicCon with your press credentials? If so, you are afforded additional rights.
Specifically regarding 0120 and 0123, did the artist know you were photographing their work in progress and for what purpose? Given the close-up nature of the photos, I assume the artist knew you took photos, but if you stated that you were with Wikinews, and the artist permitted the photos, then you have implicit permission to publish them under your preferred license. Also, it is a work in progress, so it is not the final copyrightable form.
Certainly, we could rely on the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act of 1957, but I feel that these photos are as much your work as the work of the copyright holders. If you only assert fair-dealing/fair-use, then anyone could reuse them and assert the same.
Finally, if you are certain you want to stay with fair-use/fair-dealing for these images, Wikinews' fair use policy states that "you must add both the correct copyright tag and a fair use rationale for each use in any article". If we do not have an appropriate copyright tag for these images, we can create one. But it is necessary to have. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
FoP has a clause for publicly accessible, which it was not. One had to spend at least ₹400 to enter the KTPO centre. There is also a clause of being permanently available in publicly accessible place — less than a week duration is nowhere close to be called permanent. I guess that deals with Marvel characters. For manga characters, consent of photograph does not mean I have the right to upload. They are two different things, let alone me choosing the license. Unlike basket weaving (it requires skill, and it is an art, but not copyrightable) like this, the sketch was easily above ToO. And since it is the main subject, it cannot be under de minimis. (It is de maximums or de primus if such thing exists) For the tattoo, the copyright of the web-series is with Amazon.com and for the comic…its publisher/author/creator. If you sketch a photo of Spider-Man, and take a photo of it, you can not sell it. So is true with drawing Disney princesses. Belle’s story is under public domain, but if you specifically draw her like how she appears in Disney movies, it is a derivative work of a copyrighted content. Just like this photo is not allowed on Commons: link though I drew it in MS Paint in my own. Ask Green Giant if you wish to know more) similarly, photos like this are not acceptable for a free license as well. Reason: I did not create the typeface. (Exception: public domain fonts)

Indian Copyright Act was amended almost 6 times, you used an old one. But, the photo was taken moments before completion — there was a hiccup, an error, and the screen went blank, and while trying to revert it, since tablet does not have a keyboard for Ctrl+Z, it took time, and then, there was a power supply interruption, but when it was restored, he just signed it and left. Missing a signature is not enough to call it incomplete. (See the Tick’s tattoo in initial stage) distance? Well, I was less than a metre away, but I don’t think that is how you should think. I took this photo from almost 20 metres from the subject, not easy to tell. If copyright tag is important, I need to make sure it is not misused (there have been so many cases where people did not respect CC license terms, discussed above) so I am not surrendering any of my rights of this photo. I have uploaded it on the servers located in the US with full conciousness, and unlike other photos (which had no ambiguity about the copyright status of the work) this is (c) Agastya Chandrakant.
•–• 00:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am not fully updated on the amendments to the Copyright Act. What were the changes? (you can just give me a link to current law if that is easier). In the US, a ticket price does not preclude a place from being public. But maybe that's different in India.
The drawing artist did have a signature on the work in 0123, but was the artist not copying other Manga or characters to which they don't really own copyright?
You mention de minimis which is a requirement of fair-use/fair-dealing. By not asserting your rights, you are handing them back to the subject of the photo. And by not being de minimis nor licensed by you, it would be de jure fully reverted to the subject's (Thor, Cap. America, Hulk, etc) intellectual property, by many standards. Though, I am not sure if that applies to India. (No mention of it in the original 1957 law).
There are many images of a similar nature on Commons. I do not think you should be afraid to assert CC-BY-IN (whatever your preferred version is). It gives you legal right to demand attribution at the very least. What's the worst that could happen? DC Comics or Marvel or Amazon says, you can't use that license? OK, we change it to fair-use/fair-dealing. There is no risk. It would possibly be different if you were profiting off of the images, but you are not. So they couldn't even prove damages. Besides that, there are tons of similar images of displays at various ComicCons on Commons.
P.S. Some of the costumes are so good that they could be considered copyright violations themselves. LOL. If you want to stick with fair-use/fair-dealing, I will make a copyright tag and let you approve it before adding it to the images. Cheers,--SVTCobra 02:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Costumes do not account for copyvio -- and in general, photographs of cosplayers will not violate copyright -- I read the discussion (on wp or com, perhaps). The artist drew it on the spot, and did not refer any photographs. I did not say de minimis is required for FU, I said the primary subject of the photo was something that is copyrightable (and well above ToO) hence, I can not release it under free license.
•–• 03:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
In general, photographs of official mannequins on display will not violate copyright, either. The copyright owners want people to see them.
The "did not refer to photographs" for the drawing artist is not a legal claim. If I memorize a poem, can I write it down again without 'looking at the original' and claim it to be my copyright? I think not.
But you did avoid answering my questions: a) Did you use your press credentials? b) Did you tell the artist why you photographed their art? (I am not accepting your insinuation that you used a tele-lens for it.)
Don't be afraid to assert some rights. --SVTCobra 03:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I got media accreditation because of press credentials, and I had asked every single person before taking the photos if they are okay with it being used for Wikinews. (except for cosplayers on stage -- that is not practically possible) There are some basic steps for drawing a manga character -- and even if it is copyrighted, it is under FU. For my rights, I specified, (c) Agastya Chandrakant. I am not dropping any of my rights because I don't want to find out my photos were used by various people which violated terms and conditions. Unlike the DMCA in the US, I can't do much in India. I am pretty sure that photo was not taken from a publicly accessible [that means you do not have to pay anything to be at that place] location, or is there as a permanent display (unlike that Golden colour Bull somewhere in the US)
•–• 03:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
for the record — mannequin photo was deleted from Commons link.
•–• 01:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:CC BY-ND 2.5 IN[edit]

Hello. Regarding this edit, I didn't add any photos to the template. If you're referring to the icons, they are the ones that are used at the Creative Commons website. I'm not sure why it would take much longer to load them than any other CC license. If it is a loading problem why don't we use the standard CC template and add an Indian flag icon perhaps? Green Giant (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

They are unnecessary additions, which do not add any significant meaning. They do not contribute much, except for slower load time. Not everyone is blessed with high speed internet. Currently browsing at 10 kB/s — do you seriously think it has any use? Also, I reverted the textual changes which I had used from the target page. And the template — avoiding any ambiguous claims of license breach, by making use of home grown 100% fit {{msg}}.
223.237.217.33 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I'd disagree about the meaning in that they convey the essence of the license in easily understandable symbols. Certainly for many people, symbols are more useful than a chunk of text. I am not sure I know of many people outside legal circles who would want to read terms and conditions. Would it not be simpler to perhaps leave out the text of the summary and let people click on the link if they want to read more? Please have a look at the latest version of {{CC BY-ND 2.5 IN/Sandbox}} and tell me what you think. As for low-speed internet, I do understand because I live in a fairly rural valley in the UK and have yet to benefit from high-speed internet at home. When I have to do intensive editing, I sometimes go to the nearest major public library but even that is for a one-hour slot; alternatively I sit in a cafe and go through a couple of cups of tea so they don't think I'm only there for their WiFi! Green Giant (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
symbol only helps those who know about it, and that too, not necessarily. (Difference between CC BY and CC BY-SA for example) Last month, I had to inform at least half a dozen websites that they were using photos that I had clicked, which violated the terms (I do that, some times) and I had to explain the licensing team what they had gotten wrong. Symbols really don’t convey much meaning (don’t forget Noncommercial has a slashed dollar sign, in total bias of first world countries) and it can never replace text. Especially for a license. By the way, I think “rural UK” was too much to reveal for a person who prefers to maintain anonymity — it doesn’t reveal anything, but now, I know in which time zone you work.
223.237.240.175 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the CC icons are fairly widespread now, although I too encounter users who don't understand the license of the image they were copying. Quite often they haven't read the license as a whole rather than just ignoring the text or the icons. I have copied over {{CC-country-flags}} from Commons and will look into adapting {{CC}} to accept country specific entries. I think that will be the best approach, although I am not negating your customised approach either. Let's leave this conversation till I have worked out the intricacies of the templates. By the way I don't mind people knowing that I live in a rural part of the UK - there are about 3 million rural folk here in an area slightly smaller than Uttar Pradesh. If a checkuser wanted to, I am sure they could pinpoint my general area, although they wouldn't have a reason to check me anyway! In fact there is one OTRS admin who knew my real name when I joined OTRS but they are not an OTRS admin anymore and I doubt they remember it. My OTRS pseudonym is related to my real name but I would pity the poor soul who would waste time trying to decipher it! Green Giant (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
There are people who clearly try to invade others privacy. Pitying with them does not help.
223.237.228.203 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in here, but the addition of the symbols amount to something like 80kb when loading an image page that is measured in MB. This cannot seriously be a consideration for image templates. --SVTCobra 02:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

{{img}}[edit]

This template does't play well with WN:Make lead: images displayed via {{img}} are not noticed by WN:Make lead. --Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't care for this template. The fact that "File:" has to be omitted, means one cannot just double-click and copy the file name from Commons (or locally). I would like the "reuse terms" thingy if it actually just was a pop-up of the license, but it is just a link to the image itself. Not helpful. With some improvements, I could see myself using it, but not really in its current form, especially with Pi zero's concern. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
"File:" is an obsolete string. It depends on how we copy things. For pizero's concerns, I am looking at the JS, and I would be able to fix it. The way reuse terms was created, thb, it was not properly thought, and not the best template I have came across, so far. Reuse terms is more important than any other comfort. Pop-up is not a good idea -- creativecommons.org uses pop-ups, and their website is not mobile compatible. The {{translated quote}} which I am so proud of, which works without JS, it managed to fail on Safari for iOS -- and I am figuring out why. Current analysis -- pop-up is not the best idea, and what is more important? link to license information, or how one copies the string. (side note, whenever I add an image, I go on to type "[[File:]]" and then copy only the title)
•–• 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero, SVTCobra: easy fix — the template was created so that we can avoid typing the file name for reuse terms. So, just subst: it and let software do the hardwork. That solves MakeLead issue.
223.237.202.121 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer[edit]

I've closed your reapplication for reviewer as successful, and restored your bit.

(I'm not aware of any traditional nickname for our reviewer privs, along the lines of the ha-ha-only-serious nickname for admin privs "mop and bucket". Perhaps "red sharpie"?) --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't see how it is related to "red sharpie".
•–• 16:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sighting[edit]

Somehow, a revision of the unpublished Giroud article got sighted. I unsighted it for you. (When a revision of an unpublished article gets sighted, unsight it by viewing it, scrolling down to the bottom of the page, and clicking "unaccept revision". Then check to make sure there are't any other sighted revisions.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Did I sight it? I should be more careful about it. By the way, I know about unsighting -- because of Wikibooks.
•–• 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Some that occur to me (not mentioning other templates that these require):

For additional suggestions — keeping in mind our templates also include a lot of cruft from the early days that's not used much and might be better left out of a clean set-up — see Wikinews:Template messages.

Of course, our existing automation, consisting mainly of easy-peer-review and make-lead, small though it might seem, is extremely valuable in reducing difficulty of maintenance tasks; I think difficulty of doing ordinary things has been part of the downfall of some Wikinews projects, because when news production is so difficult in its essential elements, it can be very damaging to have great difficulty in accidental elements as well. And my answer for that would be based on the dialog tools, but even if that were fully developed I doubt the feasibility of the dialog tools in incubation. --Pi zero (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: thank you for leaving a note, but I think you missed {{xambox}} -- it is one of the most crucial information templates for non-article pages, and also for yet-to-be published articles. Just like how we might not need {{w}} always, but it has an implicit call in {{sources}}. So could you also list all those trivial ones, please?
118.151.209.30 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: also a list of important [tracking] categories -- dates, yes.
•–• 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Poet, lyricist, and digital activist John Perry Barlow dies, aged 70[edit]

Thanks, man. I'm getting sleepy and I said most all that I could say for now. I would like to follow up with tributes in a day or two but for the obit, this is all I have. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Remark about your way of commenting[edit]

I suppose this was you? Your often negative comments on my edits here (and sometimes on me as a person) are beginning to annoy me. De Wikischim (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that comment — the story is four days old and is no longer fresh. And the current headline says nothing unique which is one of the the most important things about writing a headline. Israel strikes whom? What is F-16? Israel has been striking for years! Make it unique. Add that crucial information. I need not tell you how to write headline, you have been writing articles for quite a long time.
•–• 09:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. Well, the main focus of the news article is the second air raid by Israel, which seems to have happened on Saturday. So the news is 3 days old now, not 4. By the way, I have been active and writing on the Dutch Wikinews version mainly, not much yet on this one (as you should remember too). De Wikischim (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The art of writing headline does not change with the language. As for the freshness is concerned; the lede speaks of something that happened on Saturday, but the second paragraph speaks about the background information. I understand background information is necessary for understanding the article, but that does not mean the article should explain the background first, and then say about what happened now (that approach is purely encyclopaedic for the archival record) Speak about the latest developments in the upper part of the article and stuff that background information at the bottom part.
•–• 10:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I've just changed this (before I read this last comment) so the background info about the downing of the F-16 is now discussed in detail in the third paragraph, instead of the second one. Thanks for giving me advice - perhaps I for my part was just a little too insulted hereabove. De Wikischim (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Tino Ranger uploads[edit]

User Tino Ranger locally uploaded a couple of files, and I started to treat it the way I usually do — block for 'local upload abuse', nuke, leave note on user talk page — but then wondered, noting some hint of 'Hindu Wikinews' in one of the image names. Don't suppose you can offer any insight into this? --Pi zero (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

looking at the log; I saw "Hindio-News" and has nothing to do with hiwn, as far as I know. By the way, working in incubator is difficult to track recent changes.
•–• 01:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)