This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.
I remember we had a brief conversation a while ago (still on my archived talk page) about Eastern Europe and Lithuania in particular. I don't know why I didn't take the time to read your user page properly back then but I've done so now and find we have many interests in common, like an appreciation for German culture and a fascination for Eastern Europe. I am from and live in Sweden but have been a lot in the east of Europe and the German cultural sphere, and keep returning to it in many ways, not least by writing reviews of Eastern/Central European literature in translation for a cultural magazine here whenever I get the opportunity (so to speak on the side, my professional life is as a civil servant). I read on your user page that you are a journalist by training and that you've written about the expulsion of Germans from east of the Oder and it made me curious. Would it at all be possible to get a digital copy of Revenge? You'd make a fellow Germanophile happy.
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mikalojus Konstantinas Ciurlionis - FAIRY TALE (FAIRY TALE OF KINGS) - 1909.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 12, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-09-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
If you can justify that this was going to result in a positive change to the encyclopedia, feel free to undo the close and allow that discussion to reach it's natural conclusion. I don't see it, but maybe I missed it.--Jayron32 04:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I have uploaded a newer version of the original image and titled it Edit4. I think this has addressed the exposure issue to a better extent than the earlier efforts. Would be grateful if you can spare some time and review Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought we were having a bit of fun with spiders, but the message on my talk page that you promptly reverted with no comment leaves me wondering. I meant no offense, but I won't interact with you further if that's your wish. Isa (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The concerns basis which you had opposed the candidature of the image has been addressed in the subsequent edits by me. Request you to review and share your latest views - Subhrajyoti07 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
|7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
It seems you misunderstand me at ITN/C. At this edit I was replying to LaserLegs who claimed article is using "anonymous source". I actually edit conflicted with you, then I thought you'll understand because I don't want to interpolate my response between yours and his especially given you're also responding to him directly.. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way -- your cited Beethoven remark, "Musik höhere Offenbarung ist als alle Weisheit und Philosophie" should be: "Musik ist höhere Offenbarung als alle Weisheit und Philosophie." --Obenritter (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be in danger of climing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Please be aware that this is strengen Verbot and can result in a definitely indefinite block. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone ever informed you but stuff like "Standard Youtube licence" are meaningless. It's simply rather the uploader has chosen as the licence and doesn't allay concerns that the upload has zero rights to upload whatever it is they uploaded. You need to make sure that the uploader has sufficient rights.As already said, if it's an official channel of the artist or record company or something like Vevo then it's okay. If it's not, then no. As also mentioned, since likewise anyone can say they are an official channel, you do need to be careful that they really are an official channel. There are various signs you can use to guide you, some of them already outlined (number of views of that channel etc), also the Youtube verified tick, but you do need to take care and to some extent it is a matter of experience. But definitely anything like frizt24343 or tia8943 or chococookiesf43241 are not likely to be okay for music from professional artistes. Also anything where the video is random pictures likewise for music from professional artistes. Likewise videos with scenes from movies or TV series are generally a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
From the brief research I did, it seems that that is a license that video creators release their videos under when they upload them. If it is incorrectly applied to content the uploader does not own, that is the equivalent of a Wikipedia editor releasing text they do not own under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, which is what you do every time you save an edit to English Wikipedia. We have strict policies forbidding the release of text that the uploader does not own, but not everyone always follows those rules all the time; the same is true of YouTube. For this reason, you can't just rely on what the "license" says about the video, and must apply proper judgement when determining whether a YouTube video is bootleg or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)