This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
I assume the access date on the Palisades reference should be 2022? (Not 2020, which is before the publication date.) -- Verbarson talk edits 13:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
? -- Paul sandworm ( talk) 10:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't reply to your response, not because I don't respect your answer, but that thread was getting long and it was veering away from the original focus. As you replied, I didn't entirely agree with what you said, but the basic premise that you presented, that freedom of speech is limited to the context in which that speech is issued, it does make lots of sense, and anyone with common sense will see the merit of what you say when you write:
Extended content
|
---|
|
I agree that the right to speak freely does not actually disappear when a person enters a home, or business, or Wikipedia. I agree that the context matters, and effectively I agree with the pragmatic effects of your position, I do not agree that rights can "evaporate" in certain circumstances. I would say that there are rights of individuals that can sometimes conflict with each other, and that the weight of those rights can be ascertained as to which rights overrule each other. Is the right to life more prevalent than the right to liberty, for example? Or the first person's right to speak more prevalent than another, second person's right to speak? Can a person's right to the pursuit of happiness, prevail over a second person's right to freedom of expression? All those can go one way or the other, in terms of how they are contextualised; in what context are we focusing on here?
In Wikipedia, we're in the context of an online website. In your example, we're in the context of a private domain, a person's house. Do the rights of Wikipedia prevail over a user's right to express himself? Do the rights of the homeowner prevail over a guest's right to express himself? Those rights don't disappear. There are simply rights that can prevail over other rights.
That would have been my response. But, again, I didn't see much profit in extending that Teahouse thread any longer than it had already gotten. You had a very good reply, and I thought I should give you the respect of my take on that reply. I basically agree with you. Please forgive me, if it seemed that I didn't pay attention to your position! 69.112.128.218 ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the longer of two responses to this question, you seem to have left out a word. I didn't see the question until after it was archived, but to help anyone reading your response, it would be helpful if you went ahead and edited. I don't believe a "copyright" is a person, but maybe you meant "copyright expert"? — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello sir/mam, I recently come to know that you are going to delete my one file which I had uploaded a while ago, stating that it is invalid.
But is there any way to stop the deletion progress/process as I want this image to use on Wikipedia.
Please, any advice. Thank you.
File name: File:Anubhav Sinha (Indian director).jpg File link: [1]
Bobe8q8661 ( talk) 15:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello my friend, I need your help to edit offensive information or delete a negative page and work on a new correct page. the topic is very important. Ahmad alajlani ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Dear Marchjuly, I reverted one of your two recent edits on the Tianwen-1 Wiki page; specifically, your edit changed the image display option to "thumbnail" size. The affected images is that of an illustrative figure from a scientific journal; its presence is intended to show the parameters that the Tianwen-1 landing team calculated in order to distinguish between possible landing ellipses, and as such, it is meant to be read by the journal reader (or in this case, the Wiki article reader). The thumbnail version of the figure's image however, is so small that it is basically unredable and defeats the purpose of placing it on the Wiki page. For this reason, I reverted that particular edit. Playing with the sizing of the image on the page is OK so long as the text in the figure remains redable, and I may try to do this, but a thumbnail is just too small in my opinion. Let me know if you have any concerns. Spotty's Friend ( talk) 04:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
|upright=
parameter like is being done for the other images in the article. This will tell the software to automatically scale the image according to the device the reader is using or according to their user preferences. However, you need to make sure the image is not too big as explained in
WP:IMAGESIZE. You need to remember that Wikipedia reader's tend to use all kind of different devices and thus not everyone might not be seeing the images the same way as you do with whatever device your using; so, you need to size the images in way that will make them accessible for the average reader and not just in a manner that looks good to you. 660px images may look fine on a laptop or PC with a pretty large monitor, but maybe not so good on other types of devices. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 12:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
|upright=
parameter can have on other users though. Images should, as much as possible, be sized to provide the best clarity for the majority of readers using the most common types of devices. I understand the temptation to make images that contain lots of detail as big as possible, but this can really mess things up for readers using devices with small screens, which many may be using these days. The images in the Tianwen-1 article already seem a bitlarge for most computers with average-sized screens, but their large size is probably causing some real problems for hand-held devices with much smaller screens; so, what those users are likely seeing is a large image with bits and pieces of text surrounding it. This can make articles really hard to read for certain users, which is something we should be trying to avoid. If there's lots of detail in an image, it's often better to try and use other ways to provide readers with the detail such as is explained in
MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Tablular data associated with images can often be incorporated as simple text within the article body with the image then be provided to support the text. Bigger is not always better when it comes to images in Wikipedia articles because it can unintentionally create
MOS:ACCESS issues for others. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 09:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)I didn't know this was a thing. Template:Draft categories seems quite useful. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
I assume the access date on the Palisades reference should be 2022? (Not 2020, which is before the publication date.) -- Verbarson talk edits 13:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
? -- Paul sandworm ( talk) 10:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't reply to your response, not because I don't respect your answer, but that thread was getting long and it was veering away from the original focus. As you replied, I didn't entirely agree with what you said, but the basic premise that you presented, that freedom of speech is limited to the context in which that speech is issued, it does make lots of sense, and anyone with common sense will see the merit of what you say when you write:
Extended content
|
---|
|
I agree that the right to speak freely does not actually disappear when a person enters a home, or business, or Wikipedia. I agree that the context matters, and effectively I agree with the pragmatic effects of your position, I do not agree that rights can "evaporate" in certain circumstances. I would say that there are rights of individuals that can sometimes conflict with each other, and that the weight of those rights can be ascertained as to which rights overrule each other. Is the right to life more prevalent than the right to liberty, for example? Or the first person's right to speak more prevalent than another, second person's right to speak? Can a person's right to the pursuit of happiness, prevail over a second person's right to freedom of expression? All those can go one way or the other, in terms of how they are contextualised; in what context are we focusing on here?
In Wikipedia, we're in the context of an online website. In your example, we're in the context of a private domain, a person's house. Do the rights of Wikipedia prevail over a user's right to express himself? Do the rights of the homeowner prevail over a guest's right to express himself? Those rights don't disappear. There are simply rights that can prevail over other rights.
That would have been my response. But, again, I didn't see much profit in extending that Teahouse thread any longer than it had already gotten. You had a very good reply, and I thought I should give you the respect of my take on that reply. I basically agree with you. Please forgive me, if it seemed that I didn't pay attention to your position! 69.112.128.218 ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the longer of two responses to this question, you seem to have left out a word. I didn't see the question until after it was archived, but to help anyone reading your response, it would be helpful if you went ahead and edited. I don't believe a "copyright" is a person, but maybe you meant "copyright expert"? — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Stifle ( talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello sir/mam, I recently come to know that you are going to delete my one file which I had uploaded a while ago, stating that it is invalid.
But is there any way to stop the deletion progress/process as I want this image to use on Wikipedia.
Please, any advice. Thank you.
File name: File:Anubhav Sinha (Indian director).jpg File link: [1]
Bobe8q8661 ( talk) 15:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello my friend, I need your help to edit offensive information or delete a negative page and work on a new correct page. the topic is very important. Ahmad alajlani ( talk) 16:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Dear Marchjuly, I reverted one of your two recent edits on the Tianwen-1 Wiki page; specifically, your edit changed the image display option to "thumbnail" size. The affected images is that of an illustrative figure from a scientific journal; its presence is intended to show the parameters that the Tianwen-1 landing team calculated in order to distinguish between possible landing ellipses, and as such, it is meant to be read by the journal reader (or in this case, the Wiki article reader). The thumbnail version of the figure's image however, is so small that it is basically unredable and defeats the purpose of placing it on the Wiki page. For this reason, I reverted that particular edit. Playing with the sizing of the image on the page is OK so long as the text in the figure remains redable, and I may try to do this, but a thumbnail is just too small in my opinion. Let me know if you have any concerns. Spotty's Friend ( talk) 04:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
|upright=
parameter like is being done for the other images in the article. This will tell the software to automatically scale the image according to the device the reader is using or according to their user preferences. However, you need to make sure the image is not too big as explained in
WP:IMAGESIZE. You need to remember that Wikipedia reader's tend to use all kind of different devices and thus not everyone might not be seeing the images the same way as you do with whatever device your using; so, you need to size the images in way that will make them accessible for the average reader and not just in a manner that looks good to you. 660px images may look fine on a laptop or PC with a pretty large monitor, but maybe not so good on other types of devices. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 12:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
|upright=
parameter can have on other users though. Images should, as much as possible, be sized to provide the best clarity for the majority of readers using the most common types of devices. I understand the temptation to make images that contain lots of detail as big as possible, but this can really mess things up for readers using devices with small screens, which many may be using these days. The images in the Tianwen-1 article already seem a bitlarge for most computers with average-sized screens, but their large size is probably causing some real problems for hand-held devices with much smaller screens; so, what those users are likely seeing is a large image with bits and pieces of text surrounding it. This can make articles really hard to read for certain users, which is something we should be trying to avoid. If there's lots of detail in an image, it's often better to try and use other ways to provide readers with the detail such as is explained in
MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. Tablular data associated with images can often be incorporated as simple text within the article body with the image then be provided to support the text. Bigger is not always better when it comes to images in Wikipedia articles because it can unintentionally create
MOS:ACCESS issues for others. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 09:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)I didn't know this was a thing. Template:Draft categories seems quite useful. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)