Does everyone see the hidden images placeholders in the gallery? Or is
it only moderators who see them? If it's only moderators who see it, it's not
as big of a problem as I thought.
But if everyone sees them, those who usually view the Last Updated page
of the gallery have probably noticed, we have more hidden images than not, on
the first page. This has 2 sources (aside from the spam itself) -- (1) not
enough moderators, and (2) decided items are retained for a week. I can't
remember the reason for this. But I can think of a couple of ways to improve
Could we consider not retaining decided items so long? Maybe only 2 or
3 days? Maybe not at all? Or maybe could we only retain those approved items,
and let deleted items go? As far as I understand, once an item is deleted, it's
gone from the database and can't be recovered. So I'm not sure why we hold them
on the moderation page.
Would there be any problem posting a call for new moderators in forums?
I think I will post another call for mods on the mailing list. But I'm not sure
there would be any interested people from forums. I guess it can't hurt?
Thanks for any comments :-)
If anyone is interested, we still need more moderators for the website
It doesn't usually take very much time. I'd estimate no more than a
half an hour per week. (Preferably spread out 5 or 10 minutes each for 3 or 4
days per week. But at this point, once a week would help.)
And Martin has built us a wonderful system where the burden of deleting
an image or removing member doesn't fall all on one person. Typically it takes
2 moderators to decide the fate of a reported image or member.
If interested, please visit this page,
(https://inkscape.org/en/*moderators) and click the button which I think says
something like "Join this team." After that, I'll contact you with details to
get you started.
this is a continuation of a thread regarding extensions documentation in
general, but I am starting a new thread due to the slightly different focus.
I made changes that add the python sources to doxygen generation. This
is already somewhat useful, because it is easy to see class methods with
arguments at a glance.
Also made a doxygen 'subpage' for the python extensions, linking to some
common classes in the extensions directory. (note: some input on this
list is welcome)
Now, this is really nice, but has one downside - the Classes list and
the Namespaces list contain python and c++ documentation all mixed up.
Does anyone think it is a problem?
In my opinion, there are enough tools at hand to find the necessary
documentation - e.g. seach, the "Inkscape Source Code Documentation"
subpage, the files list (which is separated because the extensions and
core code are in different directories).
I'd like to know whether any c++ devs would be irked by this.
Otherwise, I'll just submit a pull request.
It is also a possibility to create a new Doxyfile and output the
extension docs in a separate directory. In a sense it 'feels right' for
all documentation to be in one place, though.
I wrote an extension a few years ago, and just updated it this weekend.
When reading through the docuemntation I saw that you're looking for
someone to write/flesh out the extension guide.
I'd like to give it a try.
I have experience with with inkscape and python both, not so much with
ruby and perl.
I have not found any docs for simpletransform, simplestyle, and inkex so
I read trough them.
They are pretty easy to understand, but it would be nice if there were
some deatails about them on the wiki, not just articles using them.
Just checking out this recent upload:
How does it happen that the....well sort of a byline....isn't a link,
and is not the name of the member who uploaded it. Even when I find the member
in the breadcrumbs/path (jay.hale) I don't see that name as a nickname or
It's no big deal. I'm just curious :-)
Same member has another image (flagged) and it's "by name" is a 3rd
different name. I just don't see how that can be done? Must be some option
that I've never used.
On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 13:49 +0100, C R wrote:
> On second thought, I'd take this down:
> Reason: The lead graphic is marked "getty" at the bottom, so it's
> clearly taken from another website.
Getty is the company behind iStock Images, this image searched via
TinEye (which I highly recommend to anyone doing moderation on images)
shows the images was uploaded in 2013 by BlackJack3D.
> I'd take this one down too:
> Because the author name in the graphic does not match the user name,
> and they have not responded to your question.
This is a ceramic tile from San Juan so very likely not made in
Inkscape, the email address for the store is ducart at yahoo, where as
the user on inkscape.org is an aol address.
> And I'd take this one down as well:
> Because not only does it rip off (c) characters, it's a rip off of
> the original you pointed to.
The law is very clear when it gives people right to parody and create
these kinds of cultural commentary works. We take stuff like this down
on request from the original copyright holders only.
BUT. This work is still not an original work. It was drawn by
Menselijke Christen in 2014 using Coral Draw and Illustrator. So it
should be taken down on grounds that it's not an Inkscape work and
wasn't made by the user
> Anything with (c) marked as Public Domain needs to have some proof
> that poster has the right to license it that way.
> No one should be posting other people's work on the inkscape website.
Generally no. If I draw something infringing, that different to if I
copy an image from where else. There's at least a creative step to
drawing things which we should be up for defending under grounds of
free speech until asked to take it down.
Best Regards, Martin Owens