Wikipedia talk:WikiProject OWS/Archive 25

Project Image
We have our first discussion. Should we use this logo (A) or this logo (B) as the artist that desigened the logo itself I take great offense to the CC license being used incorrectly. Attribution belongs to me as the designer and original author and all other works are deriveratives, but when this is explained politely I got a weird tug of war. It isn't that great a logo, but creative commons does not mean you can claim a work as "your own" an hour after it was uploaded. I do NOT give up my attribution rights and as for the use on this project that shall be decided by local project consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See how they look on the page:
 * Original SVG
 * PNG
 * When I first came across this page I saw some aliasing problems with the SVG logo. I re-created the logo as a PNG, which I think has better anti-aliasing especially against background colors. I was reverted when I replaced the image, by the author of the original (Amadscientist), who cited licensing problems, and then again after those problems were fixed, for unknown reasons. Anyway, I'm presenting the two options here, so please weigh in on which you like better. Thanks.  Equazcion  ( talk )  10:27, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the licensing issue, I attempted to clear this up with Amadscientist, but he hasn't been too forthcoming. I don't have any interest in taking credit away from him, I just wanted to make the logo look better. He came to my talk page to express his concerns, and I told him he could alter the summary and licensing info however he saw fit, but he tagged it for speedy deletion instead. The speedy was rejected, following my apparently successful attempt to fix the licensing info myself. Long story short, the image attribution appears to be cleared up now, so all that's left is to decide which looks better.  Equazcion  ( talk )  10:34, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

What you don't seem interested in is exactly what you did. Sorry, but even if it's not a speedy delete it would have been deleted had you not made even the small changes you did make. You see, Creative Commons does not mean you can simply take the art of another author and use it and attribute it to yourself. And Wiki does have some rules about it. Check it out. One can find the policies if one looks, but right now please bare in mind this isn't an article...it's a newly formed Wikiproject and local consensus rules all decisions, including use of images and files on the project page.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had noted the original work that the image was based on, which I thought was enough at the time. Apparently it wasn't, but I didn't know what needed to be done to fix that, and I expressed that to you. I'm very much interested in proper attribution, though you're absolutely correct that I don't understand the ins and outs of image licensing, which is why I told you that you could alter the licensing as you saw fit. You could've fixed it, but you tagged it for speedy deletion instead. Anyway this is all in the past, let's let people decide which to use now.  Equazcion  ( talk )  10:45, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)


 * The program you used altered the work to much and misplaces the shadow ontop of the the image at the base. It is not an improvement. Thank you for your good faith effort.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't alter your work in an image editor, for the record, in case that's your understanding. I created an entirely new image, though copying your design (with the exception of the brown signpost, whose bitmap I did actually copy over from yours).  Equazcion  ( talk )  10:56, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter. You took a creative commons license and used it as if it were public domain. The original concept will always belong to the original artist/author and you should NEVER attribute work that is not your own on Wikipedia under any circumstance. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I understand that this action hurt you too much to even amicably rectify the situation as I offered, instead tagging the image for speedy deletion. I apologize for hurting you thusly and I'm just glad we could eventually work this out.  Equazcion  ( talk )  11:09, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept any apology you have. You know what you are up to. You tried to claim the work as your own. I have been kind....others would call that theft.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Options
Anyway, to move past the squabbling above, here are the choices again, as they stand currently. Note that Amadscientist has since removed the sign from his SVG version of the logo, whereas I didn't do so for my PNG. I don't have any strong feelings regarding its presence, but there's still the question of which presents the better-looking text:
 * Original SVG
 * PNG

Please voice your opinions. Thanks.  Equazcion  ( talk )  11:15, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a Wikipedia Article. If you are not a member of the project you can't participate in gaining consensus for what image we use. I included your image as a courtesy as I can easily alter the original file. If you don't wish to be a member here I would rather you didn't bother the project in this manner. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Anarchism and Occupy
Hello WikiProject OWS. I'm looking for another set of eyes to take a look at Anarchism and the Occupy movement, which is currently a pending DYK. I've raised some concerns on the talk page about the balance of the article and would appreciate another perspective, especially from an editor familiar with the origins of the movement and its connection with anarchism. Thanks, Gobōnobo  + c 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

99% redirect
Would it be better as "WP:The99%" or just not use it at all. I will look at guidelines for project redirects but don't see a problem with it's use so far. Are there objections for any other reason?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good without the "the". I don't think anyone who knows how to look for projects will have difficulty finding this one. Gobōnobo  + c 01:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Begin guideline debate
What should be included? We need to set out some project rules and guidelines. These need to adhere to all Wikipedia policies as well, but we should at least have a set way of aproaching certain aspects. Do we like the basic set up of the main article or do we want to use it as a guide as we build the project?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will begin researching through the guidelines and start writing up basic guidelines and perhap style as well. If other members see something that absolutely stands out as "What the heck" or they just want to make some copy edits to the section, feel free to change anything I write and if there is any dispute I will discussit it here before I attempt any changes id at all. This seemed to work well on another project recently so lets try that slowly.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That works for me. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)