User talk:80.221.159.67

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Category:SVG_logos_of_non-profit_organizations_associated_with_telecommunications_by_country

[edit]
Category discussion warning

Category:SVG_logos_of_non-profit_organizations_associated_with_telecommunications_by_country has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

80.221.159.67 00:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is FAL really incompatible with GPL?

[edit]

Hi.

Alright, you caught my attention. Where is the area of incompatibility?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Yes, it is incompatible. See the GNU Project's "Various Licenses and Comments about Them § Free Art License". 80.221.159.67 08:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it is okay for both GPLv2+ and FAL files to exist on the same file system, but larger works (derivative works) must comply with both requirements of the FAL and GPLv2+ simultaneously. That is not currently possible.

The question about File:Inkscape0.45.png's GPLv2+ and FAL incompatibility can be satisfied, if it can be shown that Konstantin Rotkevich dual-licensed his car graphic with GPLv2+ and FAL so that "you may choose the license of your choice". 80.221.159.67 08:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Non-free revisions of File:Inkscape0.45.png. 80.221.159.67 08:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address has been blocked

[edit]
 This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer.
  • To prevent abuse, editing from these proxies is currently prohibited.
  • If this IP is no longer an open proxy or zombie, you may place an {{unblock}} request on your talk page.
(whois • sandbox test edit • block log)

Steinsplitter (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "See below (not a Tor exit)."
Unblock reason: "I'm OK with giving you a shot. You have every right to privacy, but registering an account would be the easiest way to avoid blocks while you run a relay. In any event, edit carefully and follow policies. INeverCry 09:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)"[reply]
This template should be archived normally.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ suomi ∙ हिन्दी ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

19:16, 23 September 2016 Steinsplitter (talk | contribs) blocked 80.221.159.67 (talk) with an expiration time of 1 year (anonymous users only, account creation blocked) (Open proxy (more info): TOR exit node) This IP-address does not have a Tor exit node. It was previously a Tor exit node from February 2016 to July 2016. Since then, this IP-address only shares a Tor middle-relay: Any actions from this IP-address are solely actions of myself, the Tor relay operator, not the users of the Tor network.

The fingerprint of the Tor relay associated with this IP-address is 337B7E307550F48DCDADA7481FA8436B2FCDADA9 (relay fingerprint at Atlas).

Thus, I deny the claim that this IP-address would be an open proxy or a zombie and believe this block has been issued in error. As far as I believe, the contributions from this IP-address have only been good faith edits in Commons and other Wikimedia Foundation projects.

I also actively monitor any abuse coming from this address. en:User talk:80.221.159.67 also indicates this is a dynamic IP-address and has a committed identity. 80.221.159.67 19:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have agreed with the abuse department of my ISP that the Tor exit won't be reinstated on this residential connection. (CPDTicket#:103519481 at abuse@inet.fi) 80.221.159.67 20:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

stalktoy results for 80.221.159.67.

Global user contributions for 80.221.159.67. 80.221.159.67 21:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not so constructive block discussion

I've been previously aware of being blocked on Portuguese Dutch Wikipedia, but I've never used it and thus didn't make an effort to create an unblock request would like to know how to proceed with acting on that, if not through stewards. Those blocks have also been done in error. 80.221.159.67 20:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC) (edited: 20:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC), 21:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Right after my block, I see that File:Luxrender logo 128px.png's Template:No source since was replaced with a deletion nomination by User:Steinsplitter. I agree with this action and should have nominated it for deletion myself for the same reason. An author is stated, but I can't find the source for the logo on LuxRender's website to verify and the file was not previously tagged with Template:LicenseReview. I have a suspicion this may have triggered a background check on this IP-address and come up as what I claim to be a false positive with proof stated earlier. 80.221.159.67 21:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just create an account, as normal people do, and stop whining. --jdx Re: 22:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdx: A public analysis of events that led to this considered whining to you? Alrighty then, but your suggestion is a dangerous precedent to right of privacy. The information above is meant to help administrators make a constructive judgement. 80.221.159.67 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above is true. This isn't a Tor exit node any more. No Wikimedia site can be edited anonymously with an active Tor node. See this: File:Tor on Commons.jpg. It's actually impossible for anyone without admin or other advanced rights like steward/staff etc to edit with Tor unless they're logged in to that advanced right account, or are IP block exempt. This IP is safe to unblock as long as behavior is OK. I haven't checked any of that. INeverCry 03:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@INeverCry: The server/pc is a TOR relay now. Looking at the whois of the TOR relay (running with Tor 0.2.8.7 on Linux) the operator seems to be WubTheCaptain (which also has a account here, the IP interacts multiple times with the account). Looking at the edit pattern, the ip seems to experienced for being a newby, the same for the account in question. Last but not least the ip has been identified via Commons:Open proxy detection. I wouldn't oppose a unblock, but my concerns are remaining. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steinsplitter: Nobody who runs an exit node and re-configures it to a middle relay is inexperienced. He knows his business well enough. If he's not doing bad edits, it's better to give him a shot. Running a middle relay means that he edits from the IP and no other Tor users can. He just gives them a bit of bandwidth. I'll take responsibility for unblocking him. INeverCry 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: I have been editing English Wikipedia and Finnish Wikipedia since 2009. I have review rights on Finnish Wikipedia since 2012 on an account (which is now inactive). I have been editing on Commons much less than that, under two years. Hopefully that addresses some of your questions about my experience, though I'd like to avoid sharing too many details right now. INeverCry is also correct about the operation of a Tor middle relay. 80.221.159.67 13:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatible licensing of screenshots of GPL'd software

[edit]

According to Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_of_Rprpr, you think that I set an incompatible license (the CC BY-SA 4.0) for my screenshots of GPL'd software. Could you specify what licenses I could use for such screenshots to achieve license compatibility? Note that I created those screenshots to be used in Wikipedia articles. Also, I'm not sure if I am allowed to remove the current CC BY-SA 4.0 designation and put another license designation. --Rprpr (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rprpr: You can use any of the GPL-compatible licenses (gnu.org). Choosing to use CC BY-SA for your screenshot means you would be in violation of the GPL-license(s) of original works. If in doubt, use the same license as the software depicted (usually {{GPLv2+}}). CC BY (without ShareAlike) is also compatible.

If you took the screenshot, then you may be the copyright holder if your work has sufficient creativity to be above the threshold of originality. Copyright holders can choose the license and change it if they'd like. It's true that Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, but in essence you were never given the permission to use that license anyway. If you are not the copyright holder (work below threshold of originality), then you must follow the license conditions set by the original work copyright holder (e.g. only the GPLv2+ and you don't get a choice of license for the screenshot). 80.221.159.67 15:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:80.221.159.67&oldid=209429079"