File talk:JohnVanEssen.gif



As there's no preview option during upload, I missed the typo in the comment. Can it be fixed? --Xymph (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2016 (CST)

Yeah. The edit tab on the File: page allows changing text, templates, etc as normal. You merely can't alter the image itself that way; you must do that offline and reupload. Ryan W
I considered that, but it's a file history, so wouldn't re-uploading merely create another entry? Or does it indeed supersede the existing one? --Xymph (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2016 (CST)
It does supersede it everywhere else (after the server realizes what you've done), though the previous uploads remain viewable from their thumbnails on this page.  And some of my neurons apparently hit the edges of the phone screen and didn't get through, as I now realize you meant the comment column in that very table, which comes from the log summaries.  In the interest of radical transparency, MediaWiki makes logs very difficult to edit; the sysadmin isn't likely to set a precedent of going in to fix typos.  Sorry.    Ryan W (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2016 (CST)
Too bad, then I'll let it go. --Xymph (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2016 (CST)
On second thought (since I made another little comment mistake), would an admin be able to completely delete both images so that I can re-upload with fixed comment? --Xymph (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2016 (CDT)
Delete this photo, or delete the new map view?    Ryan W (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (CDT)
Both? --Xymph (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (CDT)
OK, deleted the photo.  Regarding the map, for some reason removing only the most recent file revision is not supported (elliptical developer explanation: [1]).  Therefore, after you re-upload, I'll take out the two redundant versions in the middle.
I'm doing this because I know you'll come back :>  but honestly, you shouldn't expect it to become routine.  We undoubtedly have thousands of "comment"-type values with typos, broken links, mistaken technical remarks, etc., and it's never been a priority (because a reader would never see one unless they knew exactly where to look).    Ryan W (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2016 (CDT)
Thanks for your faith ;) and your patience for my (relative) wiki-newbieness. I agree it doesn't and shouldn't have priority – it's just that after two clean upload sweeps for Final Doom, this glitch irked me. --Xymph (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2016 (CDT)


Is this a file you own? If so I'd prefer that you license it to us in a more permissive manner than fair use. If it is not a file you own, do you happen to know the source so that I could enquire about it to them? For purposes of legality, the owner is whoever actually took the pic with a camera. --Quasar (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2016 (CST)

It's by John himself, taken from his home page with his explicit permission by email. I listed some of the license options to him (as he can't view the drop-down list without a user account), and he could make as little sense of their multitude as I did. Basically I thought 'fair use' was more permissive than GDFL or CC, and one step away from 'public domain'. Which he is fine with too, frankly he doesn't care.
I respect you guys taking the copyright stuff seriously, but for a non-lawyer it is too hard to choose from that list. --Xymph (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2016 (CST)
That's perfectly understandable. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} is our preferred option, but {{GFDL}} and {{FAL}} are equally valid if one had a preference. Public domain is itself an option also. --Quasar (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2016 (CST)
Why is CC your preference, and how would I go about determining my preference? Is there a comparison-of-licenses table or somesuch that helps gain (reasonably) quick insight into the implications of one choice versus another? I don't see a FAQ entry but I can't imagine I'm the first relatively new uploader who faces these choices.
Originally I wasn't going to spend a whole lot of time on this matter, but now that you questioned the (semi-)arbitrary choice that I did make, I want to understand this before making another, less arbitrary one. ;) --Xymph (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2016 (CST)
It's the simplest open content license (the only one capable of being adequately explained by 3 bullet points) and matches the license we use for textual contributions. There's no other real reason. We just prefer open content in general. Fair use, by contrast, is a vague poorly defined area of copyright which is in constant flux due to case law. We can't dictate this to you, so I figured I would ask. Please don't be annoyed or distracted with it, it was just a request. Ian Mapleson recently volunteered any of the image content from his site for use here under CC BY-SA 4.0, just as an example of past "successes." If you prefer not to bother, we can retain the image as-is. --Quasar (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2016 (CST)
PS there is a somewhat informative matrix here, though I suspect it's still more info than you're looking for overall. --Quasar (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2016 (CST)
Actually, that does help, thanks. License adjusted. --Xymph (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2016 (CST)
Thanks. --Quasar (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2016 (CST)