User talk:SuperHamster

Re:Advertisements.png
It worked for me, but I reuploaded it just in case something went wrong. Thanks for letting me know! -  Shrimp Pin  12:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't working still, and then I figured it out...my adblocker blocked the image, hah! I suppose the "Advertisement" part ticked it off. Thanks, ~Super Hamster  Talk 15:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Advertisement Policy
Hey, SuperHamster. I kinda forgot to talk about this sooner, but I was wonder if edits like these fall under the scope of the Advertisement Policy. I know that the edits were made before the policy was in place, but there seems to be pieces left here and there in a few of the missions. --SgvSth (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Sgv - yes, that's definitely spamming. Linking to a tutorial video is one thing (not that we should be doing that in lieu of writing content), but the whole bit with the author's names and the request for subscribers is definitely out of line. Thanks for asking! ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on their talk page. ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It kinda slipped my mind for a bit.  (Although it is on a different subject, I would also like to ask if Category:Amiibo could be recreated?  I ask since there will need to be article on the gear that is branded (Squid Hairclip, Power Mask, Samurai Helmet, etc.) and a few images that could use them.)  Either way, thanks for the help again.  --SgvSth (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Splatoonwiki? Inkipedia?
I was just wondering, why is the domain splatoonwiki.org if the wiki is Inkipedia? marikdff 03:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure - I joined after the domain was set up. Perhaps it's more identifiable, or a name change occurred early on. Either way, we do also own inkipedia.org, so maybe a domain name change could occur at some point. ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Then how about redirecting splatoonwiki.org to inkipedia.org? --marikdff 03:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that'd be what'd happen if we move the domain :) May be worth bringing this up on the Pump. ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Category question
I was wondering if there was any way for me to edit Category: articles that need images. Because the file link dosent have the right name, but when i try to edit it, it will only let me edit the first two to three lines, and i wanted to know if only admins could edit categorys. SmallZapFish 17:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey there - if you're trying to edit the category page itself, you should be able to edit it just fine. A category contains links to pages and files that have been placed in that category, which is done by placing  on those pages. You can't change the pages within the category by editing the category itself. If you see a file with an improper name, that's because the file is actually improperly named and that file will have to be moved. ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I hate to jump into the discussion thread here, but the rule of thumb is to keep the conversation in the same area, so here goes. The specific issue that you saw is related to a template that, when placed in an article or in a file like you saw, will add it to  Category:Articles that need images.  The category divided the files from the articles, which is why it looked to be at the bottom of the category.  In any case, there is a separate file that would have been that file, so I tagged it as delete.  (Though, I only noticed that we already have a separate file as I typed this up and originally assumed that it would need to be replaced later.)  In any case, if you see a file like that in that specific category, or any of the other maintenance categories, then it is likely coming from a file that has a template on it that is causing the trouble.  (As a small side note: Using a colon in front of a link to a file or category will turn it into a normal link instead of showing the file or adding the category to the page.)  --SgvSth (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying Sgv :) ~Super Hamster  Talk 17:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

ADMIN BARNSQUID
You may put this Barnsquid on your user page, talk page, or awards subpage.

Possible Inappropriate Content Policy Violation?
Hi, I just recently came across | this edit on Marie's page. The part about Moray Towers was quickly removed by another user, and no trace of it is left currently, but the part about her recent comment during the NA Splatfest announcement has been up until I | hid it just now. Did these statements violate Inkipedia's Inappropriate Content Policy to some degree? SilverStarlight (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, although I'm not an admin, I removed this, since it did imply something inappropriate. Good job on spotting it. Inkling luke.png (Inkling talk.png) 19:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use
I noticed you were adding categories to my user images, which of course I appreciate. (-: That said, you put them all as fair use, which is not correct, as I am the copyright holder for these images. I'll make an effort to ensure any future images wind up under Category:User Images, but I do want to remind you of the scope of where fair use applies. Otherwise, every image on the wiki will wind up under Category:Fairuse. (-: --GuyPerfect (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Guy - correct me if I'm wrong, but those images are just screenshots from the game. If you take a screenshot of something someone else made (in this case, Nintendo), it's considered a derivative and you do not own the copyright to that image. Even though you took the screenshot, the screenshot is of Splatoon, which Nintendo owns. See this page for in-depth information. If you want further explanation, let me know. Thanks, ~Super Hamster  Talk 17:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By the definition of a derivative work, the work in question needs to have a not-insubstantial basis on some copyrighted work. While the argument can be made that Splatoon is a copyrighted work, it can also be said that no one is making an Octarian-based shooting game. A screenshot of a video game doesn't satisfy the definition of derivative work, and seldom qualifies for fair use, as it is seldom intended to express a copyrighted work. If I take a snazzy screenshot of Marie in a cool pose, that's fair use because Marie is the purpose of the picture and is copyrighted. If I draw a picture of Judd, but with a fork-shaped tail and call him Jedd, that's a derivative work because it's based substantially on a copyrighted work. If I record a video of me shooting an Inkzooka at a puddle of orange ink on Kelp Dome and pwning some n00b trying to hide from me, then that's neither a derivative work nor fair use because it's neither about nor based on something that's copyrighted. It's about something I did--something I made. --GuyPerfect (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. Splatoon is a copyrighted work. You did not create Splatoon - so you do not have copyright on any screenshots or videos you make from it. ~<font color="#07517C">Super <font color="#6FA23B">Hamster  Talk 19:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nintendo is not granted rights for the images produced by their devices except in cases where the images themselves are the exact work protected by copyright (as is the case with full-motion video). The copyright for a software title like Splatoon applies to the program itself, not the images produced with it. Don't want to take it from me? Fair enough, then look at YouTube. Nintendo recently raised a big stink about users monetizing their FMV content and issued a bunch of takedown notices, yet people with their "let's plays" and top ten lists were left alone. If Nintendo owned all the footage ever recorded from a Nintendo game, then no one would be allowed to monetize any game footage on YouTube. I guarantee you we're not the first to ever have this conversation either, and the current state of affairs on YouTube was settled on as the right way to do things. --GuyPerfect (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is very, very wrong. Nintendo owns the copyright to screenshots of its video games. Nintendo created the game, and created the artwork you see in the game. The reason why Let's Plays and other videos are left alone with because it's free advertising for Nintendo, and Nintendo takes a rather large cut of revenue from these videos through its Content Creators program. You don't get to monetize a video of Nintendo's without paying them. The only defense people have for using clips and screenshots of video games is fair use - which is why we tag our images as such. ~<font color="#07517C">Super <font color="#6FA23B">Hamster  Talk 22:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I recommend you take a look at this guide on the Commons. ~<font color="#07517C">Super <font color="#6FA23B">Hamster  Talk 23:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are in error for the reasons I've already presented. In fact, the article you linked does not discredit my argument for two particular reasons: 1) the case it refers to when declaring screenshots as non-free in the US errantly applies to a wholly separate legal concept (regarding photos of photos depicting uncopyrightable material), and 2) as it states in the "Software" section, the copyright status of a software title "does not prevent you from uploading works created using non-free software". At the end of the day, doodling in Photoshop or playing Splatoon both amount to the same result: both software titles take inputs from their users and use them to produce images. Surely no one will argue that every image produced by Photoshop is the property of Adobe Systems. --GuyPerfect (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No cigar. Regarding your first point, you're trying to argue that the entire link I provided is invalid because Bridgeman is in regards to public domain images. You completely ignore the sentence before it, which states "if the copyright holder(s) do not agree to publish the program under a free license, and they do not explicitly license the screenshot (or all screenshots) under a free license, the screenshot is not free." Bridgeman does, in fact, support my claims. If you take a photograph of a public domain work, you do not own the copyright since it is not original. Same goes for taking screenshots of copyrighted materials; your screenshot is not original, thus you do not have copyright on it. The original copyright owner does, just as the public retains ownership of any photograph of a public domain work.
 * "does not prevent you from uploading works created using non-free software" -> this refers to works you create in free software. You didn't create the screenshot of Splatoon; you literally took a screenshot of Splatoon. You hitting a few buttons does not create an image you own the copyrights to. Nintendo owns all the artwork in the game. Yes, if you actually create something in Photoshop, you own the copyright to it - but only if you actually create it from scratch. If you use copyrighted materials to create something in Photoshop, you don't own the copyright to that.
 * I've worked for years on image licensing on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons, and have provided actual sources that back my claim. Take some time to try and understand what I provided you. ~<font color="#07517C">Super <font color="#6FA23B">Hamster  Talk 05:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)