User talk:Sca/Archive20

Let's hope we don't get too many of these. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can justify that this was going to result in a positive change to the encyclopedia, feel free to undo the close and allow that discussion to reach it's natural conclusion. I don't see it, but maybe I missed it.--Jayron32 04:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that issue with the closing template covering all nominations under the nomination regarding the former French President getting arrested. Kirliator (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I thought I fixed it. Looks like you fixed it before I 'fixed' it. Ha. Sca (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some adjustments. Edit2 is the latest iteration and incorporates the feedback received till now. Please check and further advice. Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a newer version of the original image and titled it Edit4. I think this has addressed the exposure issue to a better extent than the earlier efforts. Would be grateful if you can spare some time and review Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slight slope towards right has been corrected and uploaded as an updated image within the Edit4 image. Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were having a bit of fun with spiders, but the message on my talk page that you promptly reverted with no comment leaves me wondering. I meant no offense, but I won't interact with you further if that's your wish. Isa (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns basis which you had opposed the candidature of the image has been addressed in the subsequent edits by me. Request you to review and share your latest views - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We met on Errors. Do you think it's an error that we say Johann Sebastian Bach and not John Sebastian Creek because this is the English Wikipedia? - I'd like to show you around in Idstein. Ask Floquenbeam ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, how about calling Bach Jack Creek on English WP? (OK, I'll shut up now.) Sca (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can highly recommend the tour. Idstein is charming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Das wäre ein Genuß! (Did I say that right?)

Gerda, Floquenbeam: I hope you both realize my comments re St. Martin were based solely on editorial considerations, and that there was nothing personal about them. Honest people may differ but remain friends, nicht wahr? Sca (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr wahr! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you misunderstand me at ITN/C. At this edit I was replying to LaserLegs who claimed article is using "anonymous source". I actually edit conflicted with you, then I thought you'll understand because I don't want to interpolate my response between yours and his especially given you're also responding to him directly.. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way -- your cited Beethoven remark, "Musik höhere Offenbarung ist als alle Weisheit und Philosophie" should be: "Musik ist höhere Offenbarung als alle Weisheit und Philosophie." --Obenritter (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in danger of

It's obvious I've hit a stone wall of opposition.

(However, upon reflection, I'm reconsidering my view on the Stan Lee posting.)

PS: FYI, that would be streng verboten (or strengstens verboten). – Sca (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone ever informed you but stuff like "Standard Youtube licence" are meaningless. It's simply rather the uploader has chosen as the licence and doesn't allay concerns that the upload has zero rights to upload whatever it is they uploaded. You need to make sure that the uploader has sufficient rights.As already said, if it's an official channel of the artist or record company or something like Vevo then it's okay. If it's not, then no. As also mentioned, since likewise anyone can say they are an official channel, you do need to be careful that they really are an official channel. There are various signs you can use to guide you, some of them already outlined (number of views of that channel etc), also the Youtube verified tick, but you do need to take care and to some extent it is a matter of experience. But definitely anything like frizt24343 or tia8943 or chococookiesf43241 are not likely to be okay for music from professional artistes. Also anything where the video is random pictures likewise for music from professional artistes. Likewise videos with scenes from movies or TV series are generally a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you came to be posting here, but thanks for the info. Sca (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Nil, I quite agree with you that "Standard Youtube licence" is quite useless and usually indicates that no copyright choice has been made at all. But you may have overlooked a recent development at YouTube whereby YT itself adds, for many music tracks, explicit permissions from the publishers or record companies concerned, tucked away under "SEE MORE" in the description field, see e.g. this fine record It is my understanding that these statements allow for public use (although there may be conditions attached, e.g. that YT can insert adverts. etc). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y Sca (talk)

From the brief research I did, it seems that that is a license that video creators release their videos under when they upload them. If it is incorrectly applied to content the uploader does not own, that is the equivalent of a Wikipedia editor releasing text they do not own under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, which is what you do every time you save an edit to English Wikipedia. We have strict policies forbidding the release of text that the uploader does not own, but not everyone always follows those rules all the time; the same is true of YouTube. For this reason, you can't just rely on what the "license" says about the video, and must apply proper judgement when determining whether a YouTube video is bootleg or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y Sca (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

-

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, and your good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of offending your aesthetic sensibilities, here's another version of happy. Those were the daze.... Sca (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]