Difference between revisions of "User talk:Hamilton Abreu"

Welcome

Thanks for all the translation work you've been doing recently. I'm (sadly) a monolingual English speaker, so I can't review it in detail, but I'm glad to see it, nonetheless. Let me know if you need any pages deleted or other details cleaned up. Thanks! JesseWeinstein 07:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the blocking problems. It should be resolved now. Thanks for letting me know! JesseWeinstein 19:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, resolved. Thanks! Hamilton Abreu 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the problem again. Let me know if it's not fixed. JesseWeinstein 00:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It was resolved in a day. Thanks Jesse. Hamilton Abreu 00:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of protected pages

Thanks for the note. I've been experimenting with adding a call to the Translations template like: {{Translations| {{:{{PAGENAME}}/Translations}} }}

in Template:Protected but it hasn't been working. Maybe it's because I'm trying to transclude an unprotected page through an unprotected template into a protected page. I'll keep looking into it. Akozak 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam linking to wikipedia?

In looking over the spam you (valiantly) cleaned up, I didn't notice any links to en.wikipedia.org -- since we do have a number of valid links there, which now prevent those pages from being edited by non-admins, could you tell me more about the spam you noticed that linked to wikipedia? JesseWeinstein 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The main concern was spam bots creating the likes of Ireland Traniee Apprentice Jobs It, Provident Banks, Principal Job Openings, Nottingham University Job, Bank In Lombard Suberbin West, Cooperative Bank Mortgage, etc. There are dozens of those. In examining the contents, I found some reappearing URLs. Many, at the bottom of the contents, contained a link to wikipedia, such as the two at the end above, Bank In Lombard Suberbin West and Cooperative Bank Mortgage. So, the identified URLs were blacklisted, together with wikipedia to prevent future stuff of a similar nature. It's been some time now, and it may have calmed down, so this is probably a good time to remove all my additions from the blacklist and evaluate the current usefulness. -- Hamilton Abreu 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'll just remove the wikipedia one, and we can see how things settle. Thanks again for stepping up while I was gone. JesseWeinstein 08:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking for ways to share basic creative commons files

I am an editor for wikiHow.com and I share a lot of files that way and through Flickr, using CC. However, I don't want to put everything there. I am actually investigating ways and places to store them and will then do it and also write about it.

Teresa Trimm

Uploaded files

Hamilton perchè è stata cancellata la mia pagina di file? Ray1870 19:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Uploaded file

• Hi, Hamilton Abreu! When can I upload a file specifically? --Nowhere Man 01:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I understand you. I will create a wiki project later here. Thanks! --Nowhere Man 07:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, later will talk about this topic. It about The Beatles. In my Russia dark night now. --Nowhere Man 23:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• I created the page. If do not need to, i will delete files and page also. ----Nowhere Man 04:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• How to delete files? Or you can delete. --------Nowhere Man 04:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okey, i understand. They are already there. For attribution of the works of art. For example: http://beatles1.ru/with_the_beatles_album_1963/ ------Nowhere Man 05:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks ! ------Nowhere Man 05:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes i do. The condition for the using of this kind of license. For the full rule of law. Major works at least. Great idea to bring the culture of the Beatles to the audience without this will not be able to be implemented. Because all the shivering from fear, when afraid to violate copyright. ------Nowhere Man 16:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• It is for this reason are 2 ways (and good) for insurance. If there is not one of them, then another will come in handy. The license and attribution do everything legally anyway. By the way, the licence is the point where it is written that the "use license in no way affects your right to fair use, this means you can combine. About copyright laws in Russia, England and the USA: our Ministry of culture and the public domain in the documentation are only as one of the points of motivation (preamble), so no more references. Just show that the public domain is real, this reduces the moral sense to require respect for copyright. That's right: we have a public domain in England will begin in 2012, after 50 years since the first record. Obviously, this is about the album Please please me. And more: Copyright Office mentioned is not by chance, this VA-Bank, which was a success: the Office does not take any sanctions, this means that all legally. Because they know perfectly well that, at this site posted a link to them (source of traffic is displayed). Regarding fair use: a few items fulfilled 100 per cent: similar material already exists on any hosting, including Vimeo and Youtube which use the same license, by the way. Recording quality is not the DVD, and in the context of the global objectives of the interests of the right holder are negligible. Donate to culture The Beatles to the vast number of people making the right holder as grain in the vast sea. This is not fiction. In Russia The Beatles loved by millions of people, and around the world and we are trying to bring it up to people, irrespective of their material well-being and does not pursue commercial targets. 50 years since the advent of the ensemble, The Beatles had earned that their study, because it is a real phenomenon, wonder of the world. ----Nowhere Man 02:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• The pirates did not use the license Creative Commons. In the moral sense, the Beatles long heritage of society as a whole. The pirates are looking for money, here everything is based on the desire to popularize the creativity (the antithesis to the notion of "spam"). How can there be-Commerce on the Beatles...., it make adult webmasters for example. I have own site for benefit recipients (laws on social welfare) and my partner - the world champion fighting without rules-Boloyangov Pavel (link exchange). Real Beatleman must deal with benefit, something bad is alien for him. Do you like the Beatles? ---Nowhere Man 04:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am very glad that you like the Beatles! Provocative question: Vimeo and Youtube are copyright holders? They received permission from Apple Corps? I doubt it. This is the losses for corporation, setting a precedent (referring to these hostings, anyone can do the same, the more - "ShareAlike"). I am a lawyer by training. Next, we read an interesting excerpt: "All current CC licenses require that you attribute the original author(s). If the copyright holder has not specified any particular way to attribute them, this does not mean that you do not have to give attribution. It simply means that you will have to give attribution to the best of your ability with the information you do have. Generally speaking, this implies five things: ...." And it is - in relation to these words: "Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder". And "5 things" do not change the crux of the matter. By the way, not known - maybe it's already become a public domain anywhere (as in Russia). About this knows U.S. Copyright Office. ------Nowhere Man 09:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• In what sense? Many English phrases are difficult to translate. --Nowhere Man 09:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi! Sorry, that long did not answer. Internet was not around. You can continue to give me advice if you wish, I do not mind. Was a little offended when you compared us with pirates. We are the same "pirates", like Youtube and Vimeo, (that is - not a pirates absolutely). I am a friend and sincerely believe that all the fans of The Beatles on the planet - brothers and sisters. Unlike other sites of this kind, our website is not for profit, at least it's not an end in itself. Main goal - to give the art of The Beatles for a lot of people, regardless of their financial well-being. It's inspiring. ------Nowhere Man 06:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi! I can't understand only - why. We are the creators of the legal basis for using of the content (same creators, as these hostings). By the way, text about fair use will be delete, only leaving a link to the Office. Attribution was not in relation of small works and several major works, but it is will ok ( major works) very soon, material for the identification we will be look for. All albums received attribution. What does it mean: "copyright infringement"? You continue to insist that we are violating? ------Nowhere Man 08:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have a few hours ago examined the entire diagram in the example of Youtube. We have compiled a description (for documentation), but has not yet translated it into English. We understand it so: Youtube and Vimeo have argued that the copyright owner has authorized the use of them by downloading the videos there and others were later to invoke this (choosing the license). Youtube shows off a device to identify the copyright holder, and also offers to read the crazy list of conditions if someone dares to say that his rights violated and so on…. . I caught the meaning of this . In our case copyright holder or user who got a license will not download content, but will send files by e-mail for us (in the sense, as in Youtube, only e-mail). Scenario further implies: after checking we insert file data in the html code and put on the site for the general public. From the documentation will also says that those who will send us a file via e-mail must to check: video on Youtube, Audio-on Jamendo, and photos on Flickr. Also invited to follow all the procedural steps (clicking on the link to the Youtube page Here: http://www.youtube.com/static?template=contentid&hl=en., http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms&hl=en-GB, http://www.youtube.com/t/creative_commons, here: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_notice.

I will translate the text and put it today on the site. If you say to us that this is badly, then i will send links to content from Youtube and Vimeo for you (I very hope that will not have to do it - i think my schema is not worse than on Youtube). Moreover, procedural links will be there. I once again draw your attention to this: Rules of hosting will be used to our project, and about this will be written on the page with documentation. Will be the links to legal pages of Youtube and without reference to specific video files. -------Nowhere Man 04:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I understand. Remove all the things written (Flickr and others), but please leave the category: The Beatles Art For Free Use. Ok? Remove those pages now, to avoid confusion. I wanted make as better. If i was wrong, then I apologize. I will not more add links about the Beatles from other sites . I will send you links to content from Youtube and Vimeo, as you requested. Apology accepted? -------Nowhere Man 16:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! Technique was broken, therefore I haven't accessed the Internet long time. By the way, which sites, in addition to Youtube and Vimeo, are authoritative sources? For better speed in the collecting of information. ------Nowhere Man 09:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have else the question. Can I write this text (see below) for category "The Beatles Art For Free Use", if so, then link for registration is correct?

Please, add here your free The Beatles-resourse. If it under license of Creative Commons for lawfully, you must at first create your own page on this site after registration. ----Nowhere Man 16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Okey, I will write your wording for the category. And also i will look for international norms of copyright for justification of content on the site. ----Nowhere Man 00:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)