User talk:NottNott/Archives/2013/June

Use of Fair Use content on Articles for Submission

I want to use the Super Crate Box logo on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Super_Crate_Box. However, it's copyrighted. Since the article for creation is on a talkpage, and the picture wizard specifically says not to use fair use images on talkpages, can I upload the logo? It's not a talkpage in the sense of it, it's an article in production. Do I have to wait for it to become a fully fledged article before I can upload it? I don't know. Thanks :3 ~NottNott (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You are quite correct that fair use images should not be used on talk pages. You should only upload the image if the article is accepted. Since images do not affect your chances that the article will be accepted, you are not disadvantaged by doing so. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to List of Sam & Cat episodes, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Woah! I swear all I did was change "All the episode titles are hashtags." to "All the episode titles begin with hashtags.". I used the Beta Visual Editor for this edit, so I'm going to say, with 100% confidence that this fault was caused because it's in beta. With that said, I'm now going to make that edit via "edit source". Sorry 'bout that. ~NottNott (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And on further inspection, I realise that this edit was incorrect in the first place, as a hashtag is not the same as a hash. Whoops. ~NottNott (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that the edit was made with the Visual Editor so figured that was what caused the extra junk. I'm trying it out as well but won't trust it for a while. Best to look at the edit history after you make an edit and look at the diff for the edit you make to see if what you wanted to do actually happened. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

regarding User talk:99.228.199.197

The ip you warned. It says you are DDreth? was it a glitch. It was supposed to say your name when you used uw-vandalism1. I used the removal warning on the ip DDreth —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It must be a glitch. I think it's when two people try and submit a change at EXACTLY the same time, then something goes wrong or something else. I don't know. I didn't try and impersonate you :p ~NottNott (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Links with suffixed characters

I've undone your edit at Help:Cheatsheet, because I think the previous version was correct. When a link is followed immediately by extra letters, the software includes them as part of the blue link - so "[[copy edit]]ors" is displayed as "copy editors" but is a link to "copy edit". This is a handy shortcut for links like Libyans, which links to Libya or "elephantine" which links to "elephant". Does that make sense? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, I guess I should have realised that a wikimarkup article is practically guarenteed to be perfect. Thanks :3 ~NottNott (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "plot" sections in articles

For "plot" sections in articles such as this one, should an article go into so much depth about the plot? While it does reveal more information, isn't there something not encyclopedic about it? I recall reading this as a rule somewhere. Could do with some clarification. Thanks :3 ~NottNott (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

TBH, at least in my opinion (though other helpers seem to agree) the 'plot' section in question to so detailed as to constitute a copyright violation (as detailed at WP:PLOTCOPYRIGHT, with the 'legal' explanation in the preceding section of that essay). The section needs to be blanked and replaced with {{non-free}}, with a specific citation of WP:NFCC#3 in the edit summary (a ref to 'plotcopyright' would also be good. I'm willing and able to do this myself, but this is kinda 'your ballgame' at the moment, so I'm going to give you a while to take care of it before I do anything.

Hope this is the type of reposnse you were looking for (it's kinda tangential to what you /specifically/ asked, but relevant). Revent (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

On a more general note there's WP:PLOT which says that "summary-only descriptions of works" are not encyclopedic; that may have been the rule you were looking for. Huon (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Rightho, I edited the plot section to not be so detailed, but to still provide a good level of detail and summary in my own words. I don't think it violates any copyright, but do you guys think it's okay? ~NottNott (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Much better, IMO...it's telling 'generally' what happens without the 'blow-by-blow' details that are a problem. I'll poke back at other people a bit, but it should be fine now. (This is much better result than my 'uninvolved-editor-blanking-it-with-a-vio-flag' version). :) Revent (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)