Talk:Rostislav Krimer

Untitled

www.bashmet.com has given all necessary license to Wikipedia to use any text or photo from this resource, so all are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) The necessary statement is left on the http://bashmet-festival.com/eng/festival_info/rostislavkrimer

license permission

The necessary email has been sent to Wikipedia with necessary statement. [Ticket#: 2016010810000641].

www.bashmet.com has given all necessary license to Wikipedia to use any text or photo from this resource, so all are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) The necessary statement is left on the http://bashmet-festival.com/eng/festival_info/rostislavkrimer

• Note, the statement given releases content to Wikipedia specifically. Because we further grant anyone anywhere the right to use Wikipedia content, any source material must be similarly licensed. A grant of license specifically to Wikipedia does not meet those requirements. Crow^Caw 22:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please read this. Granting the appropriate permissions "to Wikipedia" is not sufficient - the grant of permission has to permit reuse by third parties. Hut 8.5 07:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note! DEAR FRIENDS! THE TEXT OF THE LICENSE HAS BEEN CHANGED AS YOU REQUIRE! HOPE NOW IT IS FINE! BEST WISHES!!!

Well this seems to be a fine mess! My understanding is:

• the email to OTRS does not give valid permission, as no licence seems to be specified; pinging Storkk, who will perhaps set me right on this (sorry to question your judgement; I think I would have asked for a clearer statement in that case)
• the release on Krimer's page] seems to me valid; I don't see that the corollary " … for Wikipedia so as to anyone anywhere, who uses Wikipedia content" can modify the terms of the two licences; pinging Crow and Hut 8.5 for their thoughts
• the content is anyway unacceptably promotional for use here; as usual, it'd have been far simpler all round to write a new page from scratch.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the current licence at [1] looks fine to me. At the time I wrote the above comment the text at that link was different, it looked like the statement at the start of this section and restricted use of the text to Wikipedia only. Hut 8.5 21:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes looks ok now to me too, though ideally the site would just delete all text after "GFDL", as the rest is irrelevant... Crow^Caw 21:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both! That seems to be a consensus, will close this one. I'd be happier if the OTRS template were changed to {{OTRS received}}, I think. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: I suppose you are correct: I should have made a note on the ticket so that it could be checked by other agents in the future. I have now added that note to the ticket. Parenthetically, everyone should be aware (generally) that an {{ConfirmationOTRS}} template only indicates that some text has been correctly licensed: it indicates nothing regarding whether that text is appropriate for inclusion on grounds other than licensing, and certainly doesn't obviate any possible WP:COI issues. Storkk (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Storkk! I don't want to make a big deal of this, but what's bothering me slightly is that the template says the content was released under dual licences, but the actual ticket (without going into too much detail here) really does not specify any licence at all (so we don't, for example, know whether that release includes commercial re-use). It's mostly academic anyway, as the page itself seems to be compatibly licenced. And yes, my comments about suitability should have been made separately from the discussion of the licence – neither that nor any possible COI have any relevance to the OTRS permission. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The ticket notifies us that there is a free license attached to some text, which insofar as we accept {{ConfirmationOTRS}} for text is fine, I think, as long as a note is made on the ticket to enable other agents to check in case the site ever goes down. There are much more problematic issues, I think, with OTRS confirmation of donated text--and they can't be addressed elegantly by the OTRS system as far as I can see... but as long as {{nothanks-web}} and other instructions to editors who post suspected copyrighted text contain the directions they do, OTRS agents will feel required to do the best they can to address those tickets. I would be open to any further thoughts you have on this, but my talk is probably a better venue. Storkk (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rostislav Krimer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e20romagna.it/articolo.php?articolo=25199

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)