User talk:Nkinkade - Revision history

Nkinkade: /* Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ */

2011-11-16T23:55:11Z

Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 16 November 2011
Line 185:		Line 185:
	--[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

	: Hi. We recently published an complete rework of the FAQ. The previous FAQ was not organized very well, was hard to navigate, was worded poorly for some questions, and had some questions that really weren't frequent. I think the FAQ item you are referencing falls into this latter category of not really being a question people frequently ask. It's a legitimate ~~questions~~, but it's just not common enough to be in the FAQ. The information contained in that old FAQ entry, which you cite, isn't wrong, it was just removed. Feel free to use the content of that old entry. [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		: Hi. We recently published a complete rework of the FAQ. The previous FAQ was not organized very well, was hard to navigate, was worded poorly for some questions, and had some questions that really weren't frequent. I think the FAQ item you are referencing falls into this latter category of not really being a question people frequently ask. It's a legitimate question, but it's just not common enough to be in the FAQ. The information contained in that old FAQ entry, which you cite, isn't wrong, it was just removed. Feel free to use the content of that old entry. [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

	:: Hi! Thanks for the quick answer, this helps a lot! --[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		:: Hi! Thanks for the quick answer, this helps a lot! --[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

TarkinTor: /* Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ */

2011-11-16T23:52:09Z

Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:52, 16 November 2011
Line 186:		Line 186:

	: Hi. We recently published an complete rework of the FAQ. The previous FAQ was not organized very well, was hard to navigate, was worded poorly for some questions, and had some questions that really weren't frequent. I think the FAQ item you are referencing falls into this latter category of not really being a question people frequently ask. It's a legitimate questions, but it's just not common enough to be in the FAQ. The information contained in that old FAQ entry, which you cite, isn't wrong, it was just removed. Feel free to use the content of that old entry. [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		: Hi. We recently published an complete rework of the FAQ. The previous FAQ was not organized very well, was hard to navigate, was worded poorly for some questions, and had some questions that really weren't frequent. I think the FAQ item you are referencing falls into this latter category of not really being a question people frequently ask. It's a legitimate questions, but it's just not common enough to be in the FAQ. The information contained in that old FAQ entry, which you cite, isn't wrong, it was just removed. Feel free to use the content of that old entry. [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

			:: Hi! Thanks for the quick answer, this helps a lot! --[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nkinkade: /* Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ */

2011-11-16T14:27:31Z

Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:27, 16 November 2011
Line 184:		Line 184:

	--[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

			: Hi. We recently published an complete rework of the FAQ. The previous FAQ was not organized very well, was hard to navigate, was worded poorly for some questions, and had some questions that really weren't frequent. I think the FAQ item you are referencing falls into this latter category of not really being a question people frequently ask. It's a legitimate questions, but it's just not common enough to be in the FAQ. The information contained in that old FAQ entry, which you cite, isn't wrong, it was just removed. Feel free to use the content of that old entry. [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

TarkinTor: /* Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ */ new section

2011-11-16T13:31:04Z

Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:31, 16 November 2011
Line 168:		Line 168:

	:: Many thanks. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)		:: Many thanks. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

			== Regarding removal of "two different CC licenses" paragraph from FAQ ==

			Hello Nkinkade,

			on [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&action=historysubmit&diff=53217&oldid=53112 20:47, 14 October 2011] you seemed to have removed (among many other changes) this paragraph from the [[Frequently Asked Questions]]:

			<blockquote>
			'''What happens when a copyright owner says her work is governed by two different Creative Commons licenses?'''

			As a user, you can choose to use the work under either license. Generally, a licensor that offers the same work under two different licenses gives the public a choice between them. If, for example, a photograph is governed by one license with a NonCommercial provision, plus a separate license with a NoDerivatives provision, it does not mean that both provisions apply together. If an owner wants both to apply together, she should be sure to choose a single license that contains both provisions.
			</blockquote>

			What was the reason for removing this? Is this not true anymore, or not in all cases, or just considered irrelevant? I wanted to cite this, but had to find out it got removed. An answer would be greatly appreciated!

			--[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton Abreu: /* Bots user group */

2011-07-21T22:37:37Z

Bots user group

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 21 July 2011
Line 166:		Line 166:

	: Hi Hamilton. I added your user to both the bots and bureaucrats groups. That said, your user is an Administrator, so you should theoretically should have been [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Special:UserRights/Hamilton_Abreu able to do that].		: Hi Hamilton. I added your user to both the bots and bureaucrats groups. That said, your user is an Administrator, so you should theoretically should have been [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Special:UserRights/Hamilton_Abreu able to do that].

			:: Many thanks. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nkinkade: /* Bots user group */

2011-07-21T22:24:40Z

Bots user group

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 21 July 2011
Line 164:		Line 164:
	== Bots user group ==		== Bots user group ==
	Hi Nat, could you put my account back in the Bots user group, please? -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)		Hi Nat, could you put my account back in the Bots user group, please? -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

			: Hi Hamilton. I added your user to both the bots and bureaucrats groups. That said, your user is an Administrator, so you should theoretically should have been [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Special:UserRights/Hamilton_Abreu able to do that].

Hamilton Abreu at 21:57, 21 July 2011

2011-07-21T21:57:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 21 July 2011
Line 161:		Line 161:

	::Great. Thanks, Nathan. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)		::Great. Thanks, Nathan. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

			== Bots user group ==
			Hi Nat, could you put my account back in the Bots user group, please? -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton Abreu: /* AbuseFilter extension */

2011-05-05T20:56:49Z

AbuseFilter extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 5 May 2011
Line 159:		Line 159:

	: I believe this should all be working again. Apparently an upgrade of the extension was all it took. Thanks! [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)		: I believe this should all be working again. Apparently an upgrade of the extension was all it took. Thanks! [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

			::Great. Thanks, Nathan. -- [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nkinkade: /* AbuseFilter extension */

2011-05-05T20:34:54Z

AbuseFilter extension

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 5 May 2011
Line 157:		Line 157:

	Me again. Are you able to figure out what's wrong with the AbuseFilter extension? Most of the pages related to it don't seem to work at all (blank). [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)		Me again. Are you able to figure out what's wrong with the AbuseFilter extension? Most of the pages related to it don't seem to work at all (blank). [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

			: I believe this should all be working again. Apparently an upgrade of the extension was all it took. Thanks! [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton Abreu: /* AbuseFilter extension */ new section

2011-05-03T23:31:22Z

AbuseFilter extension: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 3 May 2011
Line 153:		Line 153:

	:::::I believe it needs to be short, or people may be put off. But the Overview helps to get a high-level understanding, which is useful. Let's see how it works out. Thanks for you time, Nathan. [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)		:::::I believe it needs to be short, or people may be put off. But the Overview helps to get a high-level understanding, which is useful. Let's see how it works out. Thanks for you time, Nathan. [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

			== AbuseFilter extension ==

			Me again. Are you able to figure out what's wrong with the AbuseFilter extension? Most of the pages related to it don't seem to work at all (blank). [[User:Hamilton Abreu\|Hamilton Abreu]] 23:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:55, 16 November 2011
Line 185:		Line 185:
	--[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

	: Hi. We recently published an complete rework of the FAQ. The previous FAQ was not organized very well, was hard to navigate, was worded poorly for some questions, and had some questions that really weren't frequent. I think the FAQ item you are referencing falls into this latter category of not really being a question people frequently ask. It's a legitimate ~~questions~~, but it's just not common enough to be in the FAQ. The information contained in that old FAQ entry, which you cite, isn't wrong, it was just removed. Feel free to use the content of that old entry. [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		: Hi. We recently published a complete rework of the FAQ. The previous FAQ was not organized very well, was hard to navigate, was worded poorly for some questions, and had some questions that really weren't frequent. I think the FAQ item you are referencing falls into this latter category of not really being a question people frequently ask. It's a legitimate question, but it's just not common enough to be in the FAQ. The information contained in that old FAQ entry, which you cite, isn't wrong, it was just removed. Feel free to use the content of that old entry. [[User:Nkinkade\|nkinkade]] 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

	:: Hi! Thanks for the quick answer, this helps a lot! --[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)		:: Hi! Thanks for the quick answer, this helps a lot! --[[User:TarkinTor\|TarkinTor]] 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)