Although this image is listed as public domain, it might contain copyright palette information (but can you copyright a tint map??)   This makes me think about the following sentence from our policy page: "Although screenshots are OK, raw graphics from the IWADs are not."  IANAL, nor can I speak for Fredrik's reasoning at the time of writing, but I can understand how a resource view (including something like this) would never be fair use, since by definition it has been reverse engineered from an IWAD, which is still proprietary.

There have been several inconclusive discussions about image copyrights (here is another one), and IMHO this wiki would benefit, in the long term, from a more detailed copyright policy.  Any new input you can bring to that topic would be greatly appreciated.    Ryan W 13:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember that fair use images weren't allowed on Wikicities at all when we started. It took a bit of persuation just to get an OK for screenshots, and the Doom Wiki copyright policy still seems to reflect that. Today, I think something similar to Wikipedia's policy on fair use images would work. Under that policy, "raw" graphics are certainly fine for illustrating specific information, when not used gratuitously. Palettes should be fine (the data can be extracted from any screenshot anyway), but complete sprite sheets such as Doomfaces.png are probably not a good idea. Fredrik 15:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see the point of the TINTTAB images possibly violating the resource copyright, as they are basically the exact data existant in the lump, wrapped around a bitmap with the game palette, and compressed into a gif. I've retagged them with Template:ResourceView for now. If this is still too much of a copyright violation, what one could do is save them as a jpeg, which would destroy the original data while preserving the graphical representation of the data. --Splarka (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Excellent!  Long overdue.  A couple of possible tweaks:

  • TC stands for total conversion, not technical.  Also, the template {{Doom 64 TC screenshot}} is not related to licensing; {{Doom 64 screenshot}} should be used instead.
  • IANAL, but the existing template {{Unverified}} seems to cover the cases "Don't know" and "Somewebsite" already.
  • "Doom 64 map view" would IMHO be less confusing/ambiguous than "Midway map".

Ryan W 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I basically compiled this list in 5 minutes in order to upload some files more lazily. Any changes to this should probably be discussed by the community and performed by the local administration (as I am just a prole here, my staff powers should not overlap with my noobness (but I felt creating that list from the existing templates was pretty harmless)). However, some notes on why I did what I did:
  • I titled it "technical" as the body of the template includes that word. It also appears in the proper category for image uploads, and appears on at least one image page: Image:Doom64start.JPG.
  • The usual argument against this (such as on commons or wikipeda): An uploader will not usually choose 'unverified' to upload an image. Having a neutral-sounding default license selection insures that people who don't care what license they upload with will not likely choose one on the list that is inaccurate just to keep their image up. This is also the reason there is no function that forces the user to choose a GFDL/Free license on those projects either (it would just make them lie).
Although I did do some minor tweaks based on your suggestions. --Splarka (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
. . . as the body of the template includes that word.   True enough.  It's just that the word "technical" has a very specific meaning on this wiki, which is almost never relevant to walkthrough articles (where the template in question would be used).
I didn't want to make "unverified" a menu option (sorry if that was unclear).  I was trying to say that the menu options "I don't know" and "Found it on some web site", and "No license" if you really want to keep that, should also lead to {{Unverified}}.
Anyway, it's still a big improvement over any upload page we've had before.  :>    Ryan W 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
"I didn't want to make "unverified" a menu option". I got that part, but if a person starts noticing that is what happens when they upload, they might start choosing a random free license to bypass the immediate deletions of their inappropriate images. --Splarka (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that hadn't occurred to me.  This wiki has been pretty lucky so far — 99 percent of the delinquent behavior is nowhere near as subtle as the situation you describe, and so many of our image uploads are of the same two types (screen shots and map views) that anything out of the ordinary is easy to spot.  Still, it can take us months to actually delete something.  Hopefully it would just be one isolated user at a time, who we could ban if they refused to stop.
Since you work on the main Wikia page, you probably have a lot more experience with malicious edits, but I would think that if a user really wanted to hide copyright problems repeatedly, they would quickly learn to choose "GFDL" from the menu no matter what the other options were.    Ryan W 01:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if you're still around or not, but I just noticed that the developers have just undermined your entire approach by making Special:Upload display the licensing template before the upload button is pressed.   :7     Ryan W 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

doom2 versions[edit]

Moved to Talk:DOOM2.WAD

Banned IP[edit]

Hey, it's me.

You (or someone else) banned IP

I just noticed that it's a BelllSouth IP and a couple of people have used it, also, it's been used to host a few online deathmatches, Could you soft block it, Instead of the Total ban? thanks!

PS: I know that I have Random IP service, and This is one of the ones that I have been dealed in the past.


I am not an administrator here (technically I am staff, but I am only supposed to only block/revert/protect during obvious vandalism/spam when no local administrator is around). See [1], Jdowland blocked the IP. --Splarka (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Licenses, again[edit]

I will begin by repeating that your expansion is a vast improvement over the previous version, which also seemed to develop some scar tissue during the 1.5 upgrade.  :>    However, I still don't understand your reasoning for the first three items in the drop-down menu.

  • You propose templates called "Template:Don't know", "Template:No license", and "Template:Somewebsite", yet you don't want them to say the same thing as Template:Unverified.  It almost sounds as though we're baiting people by not telling them they shouldn't have uploaded something, or that they need to provide more information.  Because this site is about a computer game, we're sort of forced to use a ridiculous number of fair use images in order to be comprehensible, and that is a more subtle policy than Wikipedia's (which basically states that the less frequently the editors even think about fair use, the better).  Therefore, I would think that a loud and unambiguous caution to the newbie is called for sooner rather than later.  I stand by what I wrote above: I have never seen anyone upload an image and try to conceal it from image-deleting admins by labeling it with the wrong license, but we have definitely had people copy images from other sites or from promo material and honestly believe it could be reused without comment.
  • Why do the first three menu options not place the image into a category?  Ignoring any obvious bugs for the moment, I can easily envision a well-meaning, but copyright-ignorant editor glancing at the thumbnails (or even just at the file names!) and then tossing them into various fair use categories without checking for warnings on the description pages.  Even in the absence of Template:Unverified, I think such images should at least be put into a suitably named category, which can be reviewed periodically for questionable cases.
  • Why is "Template:No license" added for the second and third options, but not the first?

Please disregard any of the above which were already true before your modifications.  I didn't think to test it at all until I might actually know enough to interpret the results.

Ryan W 19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you are assuming much too much though on my part in this. I simply copied Wikipedia:MediaWiki:Licenses and modified it until it looked nice. Feel free to remove anything you don't need. I believe 'baiting the uploader' is exactly what Wikimedia does, so that they can correct the person as to what type of upload is warranted. --Splarka (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
you are assuming much too much though on my part in this   Well, if you insist.  :>   So how do I make the "No license" option add a template?  The help page at central is incorrect: it states that the top line of MediaWiki:Licenses will be the default menu option, but in fact "No license" is added automatically.    Ryan W 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The first line always includes no license template or section. This is, I believe, for people that want to add the license manually (such as a template with parameters) without re-editing the page after upload. The solution on commons was to edit the default top message. Don't bother trying to add a template trick to MediaWiki:Nolicense, I tried it and it doesn't work (bah). The general solution on Wikimedia (I think) is to delete everything in Special:Uncategorizedimages (and also include a category on every license template).
However, if you want, I could add a bit of javascript to remove the first option and make the first item on MediaWiki:Licenses (whatever is there at the time) be the default. --Splarka (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
for people that want to add the license manually . . . without re-editing the page after upload   Oy vay, you're absolutely right; that's even mentioned here.  No, don't add javascript — we can't handcuff the power users.  Assuming the bug eventually gets fixed, someone will deal with the content of Special:Uncategorizedimages from time to time (besides, if you're right about the "stealth" uploaders, that page will usually be empty anyway).  Sorry about that.    Ryan W 01:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, what I could do instead (possibly), is move the "none selected" to the very bottom of the list, for the power users. --Splarka (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting.  Of course, depending on the user's screen size and browser font settings, the lowest option is sometimes the *closest* to the mouse pointer.  :D   I suppose you should try to do that if you find it an interesting puzzle, or not do it if it's a headache, or flip a coin if it's both.  (Regular contributors charge right to the fair use options anyway, so they wouldn't have to relearn any habits IMHO.)    Ryan W 02:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Lazy wins! You might change: MediaWiki:Nolicense to say something like "None selected - Choose or type in a license, or your image will be summarily deleted" --Splarka (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought of that after looking at your diffs, but then I read some very long "baiting" discussions on Wikipedia talk:, and decided that if we are going to do it at all (i.e. using this instead of instantaneously suggesting that in all four indeterminate cases the image will be deleted), we should at least use a consistent tone among the first three options.  We'll see how it goes.  The whole issue may be quite marginal anyway, as basically the only images we've ever deleted are obvious vandalism, therefore off-topic regardless of license.    Ryan W 15:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

About the recent ban to[edit]

I noticed that in the reasoning for the year ban on the above IP you noted vandalism from User:Nintendough as part of the reasoning yet when I quickly check his contributions, I don't see any edits that I can see as vandalism. -- TheDarkArchon 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I had blocked his IP before, was the IP of: User:ZFU738, User:Brolsma, User:Nintendough. Brolsma created such pages as: 1 2 3 4. You'll notice both are * ... when a multi-user vandal like this is causing long term problem, blocking the IP is usually warranted.
Both times, mentioning his name was not really part of the reasoning for the ban, but more an indication as to why Nintendough is also blocked as a result of this ban (so if he complains he is banned, local sysops can know why, and ask him why vandalism is coming from sockpuppets on his IP, both times). You'll notice there is no block on that username yet.
Also, I mostly became involved in this case because this user has done this on at least 3 different Wikia (which often requires staff intervention). --Splarka (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)