User talk:Cynn's Thong/Victoria's Secret - Clearance Sale 1

untitled section

Don't violate 1RR to fix a 1RR violation. --JonTheMon 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're planning to keep this ridiculous user, please add a link to your sig. | 72 | 17:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

you can do it for me if you truly care that strongly about it. i'm going to bed- my fiance wants to fuck me. pz, hommies Cynn's Thong 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to do it in your preferences.--h. moo. 17:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cynn's Thong, you apparently already know about the GWW:1RR which you violated. You are violating the GWW:SIGN policy with your custom sig, and you are being disruptive about this image issue. Try to read the rest of our policies on your break and be less concerned about some image about some inane trivia when you return. — Gares 17:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, please change your signature to include a link, as per GWW:SIGN#Customizing your signature. You change this via your preferences. Thanks. My apologies, I hovered over the first signature, not the second on that page. G R E E N E R 23:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

...yea... whatever |Cynn's Thong| 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

btw, it's not "via your preferences". it's "via preferences". please bug off, hunny. |Cynn's Thong| 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

via your* preferences I think you mean though to you it displays 'my' of course... | 72 | 02:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

sig

test |Cynn's Thong| 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mew is a copyright :( , but it have this for that occasion :P File:User Neil2250 Imnotmew.png --Neil2250 19:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

At 19px.theres not much dif. :P File:User Neil2250 Imnotmew.png well.besides a bit of colour. but you can always watermark it. --Neil2250 19:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

that kid ezekial (whatever his name is) just 1RR'ed when he put the copyright tag on it. if wikipedia can have this: 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokemon' with IMAGES OF POKEMON ON IT, then why can't we? i'm confused.... |Cynn's Thong| 19:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but pokemon are indeed copyrighted. thats why i made you the Itsnotmew.--Neil2250 19:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Unlike wikipedia, we don't exercise w:Fair use with copyrighted stuff. Also, if you check out the non-free images on wikipedia (a.k.a. the ones that aren't released under their license) you will see that they also describe the image as not free and how the image is being used in an article. Example --Riddle 20:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

here. |Cynn's Thong| 20:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Was mine not good enougth? D8 --Neil2250 20:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You should update your sig to reflect the name change for your sig image. --Riddle 20:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) no, no! yours was fine. i just wanted the bright pink was all. sorry if you took offense. :< |Cynn's Thong| File:Cynn's Thong Sig.png 20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

done. thanks. |Cynn's Thong| 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just updated it, Like it? --Neil2250 20:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL! you're goofy. xD |Cynn's Thong| 20:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, your image is still a copyright violation. An image that looks like copyrighted content is still a copyvio. --Riddle 20:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Your mistaken. im Neil. this is Goofy --Neil2250 20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So once again. my picture comes back into play >:) --Neil2250 20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I also need to mention that, given there was no formal consensus, you're removing of the copyvio tag on your sig image is, indeed, a violation of GWW:1RR. --Riddle 20:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

riddle: i don't see how. the image was no longer a "copyright violation" so the tag needed to be removed. |Cynn's Thong| 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is still a copyright violation. I've all ready said this. --Riddle 20:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Reset indent) what? how is it still a "violation"? it's completely altered from it's original form and is my therefore now my OWN art. i'm not trying to point negative fingers at anyone but if mine is a violation then why is neil's not? |Cynn's Thong| 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, Neil's is also a copyright violation. And no, it is not completely altered, it still resembles mew, which is copyrighted property. --Riddle 21:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Riddle i just want you to know your on my Must-gank list.so have a nice day.--Neil2250 21:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

i'll pretend i am not confused. *drool drips out mouth* |Cynn's Thong| 21:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This says hi. --JonTheMon 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

that's the original image that i got it from. my inspiration derived from that but i still claim dibs of ownership for the altered and un-alike image of a cute alien-type cat with creepy-cute eyes... >____> |Cynn's Thong| 21:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Long and short, you have to have a certain amount of originality to be able to have the rights to an image (and therefore release it under the GFDL). It'd be up to a court to decide the exact amount of originality, but we err on the side of caution here. --JonTheMon 21:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

jon: ah, okay then. that explains it a bit better. thanks! >:D |Cynn's Thong| 21:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just draw it, or have someone draw it for you. Butterflies and such are pretty easy to make. --*Yasmin Parvaneh* 19:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

copyvio, again.

[1]. :/ Can you show where it's was released under GFDL or other compatible license? --Riddle 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

i didn't even take it from anywhere specific. i did a google search on pictures and that was one of the images that popped up. how in the world is a butterfly copyright? :\ |Cynn's Thong| 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

By being someone else's art. Copyright rules are fairly strict. --Riddle 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

that really makes no sense to me. there are trillions of "art" images on the internet. :\ so if i open paint and draw a really fat ass girl with a g-string no one would be able to use it on their website due to copyright? |Cynn's Thong| 00:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not until you released it, or gave your consent, no. Sorry. G R E E N E R 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) as per their site:

"Бесплатная, удобный интерфейс и возможность скачивать новые обои с сайта."

this is translated to: "Free, easy to use interface and the ability to download new wallpapers from the site.".

that, to me, says they openly distribute their "art" under a free release licence. |Cynn's Thong| 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

and this: "На этом сайте представлены только самые лучшие обои для рабочего стола. Они распределены на категории, которые вы видите слева. Каждый день на сайт добавляются новые обои. Приятного просмотра."

this is translated to: "This site presents only the best wallpapers. They are divided into categories that you see on the left. Every day, the site added a new wallpaper."

what more proof do you need? |Cynn's Thong| 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) with more researching of the site, the site clearly says it does not have a copyright on the images and that the site is merely a collection of images provided by the orignal owners. kindly take the copyright tag off my signature now, please. |Cynn's Thong| 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The only problem that I see is that their website (their claim on the picture) has been taken off of the pic you're using. They seem to place that on all of their material. G R E E N E R 00:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

what? |Cynn's Thong| 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

no it's not |Cynn's Thong| 00:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

the site specifically states that it has zero ownership over the images on their site. i've even gone so far and translated the russian text on their site pertaining to their admitance that they do not claim copyright over any of the "art".

so what is the problem? |Cynn's Thong| 00:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (re:no one would be able to use it on their website due to copyright?)If you licensed it or otherwise watermarked it, yes. By uploading it to the wiki, you are licensing whatever you upload to the GFDL and implicitly saying that it is your own, completely original work. This runs into a problem when people or companies are dependent upon their art or intellectual property in order to make profits. Thus if you license their work, they'll sue for copyright infringement. There are probably some groups of people that don't mind, but, as Jon said earlier, we err on the side of caution.

That said, the general rule of thumb for GWW with regards to images is if it isn't clearly yours or ArenaNet's, don't bother uploading it. However, if you are dead serious about uploading something, check to see if it's released into the public domain, or licensed under GFDL. If neither of those apply, but you are still dead serious, get into contact with the original artist(s) and ask for permission to use their art on the wiki. Tell them explicitly that you will be licensing their work under GFDL. --Riddle 00:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Cynn, I don't mean to be prudish on this, and I realize that I may have been unclear before. I was referring to the www.vetton.ru which they placed on the picture, and you have since removed. Personally, I like that style of art, and it does make for a unique sig. It may seem like a lot, but if you are able to contact the artist, I will fully applaud your effort. G R E E N E R 00:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ugh...

there is no one to contact. the website claims, and let me put it in caps so i get my point across, "WE DO NOT CLAIM COPYRIGHT. THIS WEBSITE IS MERELY A COLLECTION OF IMAGES". that, to me, tells me that there should be no problem with the use of a rendered rainbow-butterfly on this site. :\ |Cynn's Thong| 00:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"All wallpapers are the property of their authors. Site vetton.ru is only a private collection. All wallpaper on this site may be deleted at the request of the author." Their footer seems to say otherwise. [2] --Riddle 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

riddle: uh... my point exactly. like i've just said- they claim no copyright over the art on their website. i'm quite sure that after 10 years of the picture being on that site that there is not any type of copyright in effect for the butterfly at hand. |Cynn's Thong| 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"All wallpapers are the property of their authors" which means it isn't yours, which means you can't upload it to this wiki without their permission. --Riddle 00:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if you do get permission directly from the author(Nathan Smith C2005) [3] to release under GFDL, his name still have to be attributed to the artwork for it to be kosher under GFDL license. Also because the original is released with the copyright symbol, it's released under Fairuse which is definitely not compatible with GFDL. This also means that the Russian website that hosts it doesn't have any right to revoke any copyright attributed to the work, and hosting it is a violation of Fairuse. Hosting it on photobucket and other websites not owned by nathan smith is also a violation. The only time Fairuse content can be used legally w/o permission is for the purposes of such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship <taken from the wiki. Verbatim copying, modification, or releasing under a different copyright by someone else is not legal. --Lania 19:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) TRANSLATION: Copyright is a clingy girlfreind who doesent let you do anything. --Neil2250 19:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Less than 5 minutes of research yielded me the original author. [4] [5]. Yes, all original art in deviant art is Fairuse. --Lania 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't let it stress you too much. Some of us even went though this on photos they own and took themselves on their own camera. (Rolls eyes)--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 19:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

lania: so does that mean i can remove the copyright tag now? or?

yasmin: yea... it's stressful because i spent a lot of time looking for a new image to use as my signature since i was not allowed to use the mew. i even went through all the effort to render the butterfly which took me a little while. :( |Cynn's Thong| 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstandings and throwing around words without actually understanding them, so I'm going to try to break this down into simple terms. You cannot upload random images you find on google. These are almost always copyright violations, whether they have a copyright mark on them or not, whether you find them on the original creator's website or some aggregator website, whether you make changes or use the original image as-is. If you want an image for your sig and can't make one yourself from scratch, I suggest browsing around Wikimedia Commons, finding an image that's tagged as either released under GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), or in the public domain, and when you upload it, credit the source (a link to the image's page on Commons). - Tanetris 20:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, Neil is into making things like that, perhaps you can ask him for help?--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

sig test 2

test test ╠Cynn's Thong╣ 20:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

is my sig fine now? this is my last attempt for a signature image for a little while me thinks. ╠Cynn's Thong╣ 21:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to switch the width to 14 in order to keep the height at the 20px limit.--Fighterdoken 22:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

the image will be deleted soon anyways due to a "copyright violation" thingy. ╠Cynn's Thong╣ 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

changed for the time being. ╠Cynn's Thong╣ 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Let me enlighten you a little about "fair use". Read this... [6]. Pretty much anything in magazines, websites, books, posters, billboards, or any other published works, words, or ideas, unless specifically stated otherwise is "fair use". Fair use is part of the US Copyright Law that prohibits almost any form of copying, modification, rewording, reworking, reverse engineering, etc etc etc... Only times it is okay to copy is for the purposes that's listed ok on the wiki page (crit, documentary, research, etc). Even then it is "NOT" okay to release under a different copyright. --Lania 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That new image you uploaded. Unless it is a photograph that you took of someone that you know and gained permission, or the image was released under GFDL somewhere then it is also a Copyvio. --Lania 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) uh... wow... that's..... so lame! pretty much any and everything that has ever been made into an image is copyrighted? jesus... Q_Q ╠Cynn's Thong╣ 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Even if that image, story, online novel, idea, doesn't say "copyright" blah blah blah, it is still automatically copyrighted. This is true for the internet as well. --Lania 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be RC spamming but look here. [7] My sig image was taken from a Wiki commons [8]. You can do the same. --Lania 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

:P --Unending ♥ fear 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

sorta looks like a butterfly? –alistic 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So you like thongs in games?

This new upcoming game from our dear NCsoft will unleashed a new game thats mostly about yummy tasty unrealistic girls in thongs, the likes you perverts like so MUCH! http://images.mmosite.com/photo/2009/11/23/bladeandsouls616d5x82342e.jpg --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.244.147.58 (talk).

That does have pretty decent graphics though. :0 --Unending ♥ fear 19:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a screenshot, see the ingame video interview game slide show thingy first xD --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.244.147.58 (talk).

which is where? :3 --Unending ♥ fear 19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bladeandsoul dot com X_x its also an NCsoft game and it should have something announced... but I didnt find it. Either next time see the text on the image =P the sites there, lower right corner =P

On a further note, this game is so a rip off gw2. Trying to do something unique and original yeah right. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.244.147.58 (talk).

(Reset indent) for one: learn to sign your shit. for two: how the hell am i a "pervert" for liking females in lingerie? forgive me for having an attraction to the opposite sex, IP. i guess you must have a certain heterophobia you're not telling us about.

in conclusion: fuck off. |Cynn's Thong| 03:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

you have an objectifying outlook on women | 72 | 03:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

considering i am a woman engaged to another woman... |Cynn's Thong| 03:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"forgive me for having an attraction to the opposite sex" ... "considering i am a woman engaged to another woman...considering i am a woman engaged to another woman..." Uhmmmmmmmmmmmmm...? :S --Unending ♥ fear 06:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

^ bisexuality.

my preferences in real life really have no business with anyone except me and the other person i am seeing. so i'd say bringing it up in the end is all pretty irrelevant and calls for a "cool story, bro" imo. meh... |Cynn's Thong| 08:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

well next time you should read what you type what ending fear wanted you to see was :"that you failed yourself big time", if you look closesly at your quotes. it cleary gives the idea that your actualy a guy passing off as a bisexual female.In case you don't get it this "forgive me for having an attraction to the opposite sex" plus "the content of your page" clearly states that YOU are a guy. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:85.243.164.223 (talk).

IP... from someone who doesn't even have the common sense to sign their shit, you sure do have a lot of ill-founded "facts". you lack that little thing that us human beings call "common sense". you are by far the most ignorant person i've seen so far to come onto my talk page. your logic and sense of structure is as rediculous as it is as a poor attempt to troll on a talk page. i assume you are one of those guys who beats their spouse for the mere pleasure of it, hmm? to say i am not a bisexual female and that i am not engaged to another female is probably the most immature assumption anyone could ever make on a wiki (where you literally know nothing about who or what the other person is/does).

from this moment on, to prevent any other dumb, illogical, redundant and wife-beater-like-logic from continuing to be posted on my talk page in this section: /archived |Cynn's Thong| 23:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)