Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:04, 9 December 2009

I'm extremely busy off-Misplaced Pages these days. I may or may not answer promptly, or I may not answer at all. Lupo

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

Kuntaw

I've added a Kuntaw page which is a simple redirection to the Kuntao article. I'm just mentioning it here because I see you had deleted a same-named page for copyright violations and wanted to reassure you that this is different. I've sent this note to RedWolf as well since he made a similar deletion. HarmonicSphere (talk 8:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Bush Dog

I want to publishing your public domain picture of the bush dog in a book. It is a book about all wild dogs of the earth. How you wish, I hereby tell you about using of that image. Thank you, Thomas Riepe thomas.riepe @ t-online.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.142.145 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

commons:Image:Speothos_venaticus_001.jpg is not "my" picture. It was moved to the Commons by someone else, who completely botched the image description. The photographer was R. Schmode. I am not Mr. Schmode. Please see commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2007/03#Image:Bushdog002.jpg and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Speothos venaticus 001.jpg about possible problems with this image. (The Zoo complained.) We've deleted this image before, and we'll delete it again now. Lupo 21:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Patry's Blog

Have you been following this? Brrrrr --BirgitteSB 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Brr indeed. I am very happy that Patry regularly speaks out against the machinations of the RIAA. The contract law problem (ProCD v. Zeidenberg, decided 1996, enforcability of shrink-wrap licenses, court's opinion (see in particular section III, the LEXIS example made by the court!)) is indeed chilling... for contributors, less so for the projects like WS or the Commons, or (I think) its operator, the WMF, since neither is party to any such contract. (A point of view also confirmed by the ProCD court opinion.)

I am no lawyer, but I wonder what that means for Bridgeman v. Corel (decided 1999)? What if Bridgeman had put a shrink-wrap license on its CD saying that one mustn't redistribute the files on the CD? (I haven't found any mention of that in the court opinion of Bridgeman.) Would Corel have lost under the ProCD ruling? Would the contract have trumped copyright law?

commons:User:Micheletb once claimed something similar: he said that the creator of a file (even if it's an image that is a plain reproduction of a PD work) had ownership rights on the file, and could impose conditions about its re-use, even if he published the file on the Web. So, only self-taken {{PD-Art}} files should be accepted according to him. (He didn't mention ProCD, he argued in terms of French contract law.) At the time, I don't think anybody (me included) understood what he meant. The implications of this 7th circuit decision make this look less far-fetched... even if ProCD would (in my spontaneous layman reaction) be applicable to files on the Web only if the conditions were clearly stated right next to the image (or within the file), or the file was accessible only through a click-through license, but not if the conditions were placed in some linked "terms of use" statement at the botto m of the page. And anyway, the contract would be enforceable only against the uploader (I think). Still brrr. Lupo 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Contract law seems to have overrode copyright law in ProCD, in my lay opinion. So I imagine a wider acknowledgment of Bridgeman v. Corel will go hand and hand with more restrictive "Terms of Service" to mitigate the "weakness" of copyright law in that area. I agree that this will only applicable where the conditions are stated in the file (or more likely a click through TOS to access a database of files). I also agree that this is not a going to concern WMF or the projects but rather contributor (especially those in the US). More later . . . --BirgitteSB 12:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

All the same I would personally be upset to see uploaders taken to court (God forbid criminal court) over the fact that they did not bother to read the TOS and thought PD is PD is PD, as so many people do. I think that there large lack of awareness about this issue with uploaders. I asked about it on IRC last night and no one seemed to have heard of this issue. The other concern is that if Chapter 12 can be used to ignore the normal working of Copyright law (including the fair use defense). This makes me worry that it could be used to restrict the use of anything were access is only availble after "agreeing" to some sort of contract, even if the contractee would otherwise have a license to reuse the material. If that concern is valid, then WMF needs raise ensuring future "Accessibilty" a bit higher on their list of goals.--BirgitteSB 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that indeed this concern might be valid. I remember now the issue (without reference to ProCD, though) having been discussed when the New York Public Library put its collection on-line. Their TOS still makes it clear that they claim physical rights and are trying to use them to restrict uses of the items put online. (Though I must admit that their notice is the most honest one I've seen in a long while. They even acknowledge that most of these items are PD.) The fear then was that they'd make the images accessibly only through a click-through license, which would, in the opinion of the laypeople discussing it, probably have given them the means to potentially go after people who downloaded their images and published them elsewhere for commercial purposes. (Or uploaded them on a WMF project...) That click-through license didn't happen yet... Lupo 13:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its very honesty makes it wonderfully incongruous. They admit right off the bat that they don't hold the copyright and then go right ahead and claim that things still work exactly as if they did hold the copyright. Haukur (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point that Chapter 12 of Title 17 is not really copyright law but contract law. If the contract in those TOS is found to be a valid one; the copyright is likely irrelevant. The ProCD case was over material that was uncopyrightable per Feist; therefore it doesn't seem to matter that they don't own the copyright so long as you enter into a contract with them to obtain access. There are many, many public domain works which are not available at all because the owner (i.e. Vactican) of every physical copy refuses to allow people access to them in order to make a copy. Don't conflate access issues with copyright; they are completely separate and you need both in order reuse a work.--BirgitteSB 02:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I do follow what you're talking about. I still think this is quite amusing. Haukur (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The NYPL TOS is just the sort I am afraid of being enforced. Although some people may game the system by cherry-picking jurisdictions or using untraceable technical means, it remains a trap for the unwary. Those that will get in trouble over this are the ones that will have never understood it could illegal to copy a PD work in the first place. I find it very frustrating that these "anti-piracy" laws can be used against works which are not protected by copyright. Hopefully RIAA will get squashed across the board in their lawsuits and dragging small fry into court will go out of style. I think the best we can hope in these restrictive TOS's will be only enforced when someone draws attention to themselves by making too much money off of breaking the agreements. I don't see much chance of them going away unless Bridgeman is overturned or something else earth-shattering happens. --BirgitteSB 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What annoys me is that, as far as Web images are concerned, the whole "physical rights" issue is just not necessary. If the physical owner of some work wants to make money off that work, he has plenty of ways to do so without recourse to such a TOS. The NYPL, for instance, only puts rather low-quality (well, call it medium quality) images on the web. If you want a high-quality version, you need to order a print, and I'd bet it comes with a license that says you mustn't republish that print. So, they wouldn't need that "physical rights" TOS at all, since the quality of the images available on the Web is such that commercial use (say, printing posters or even postcards from them) is not really possible. Still, the quality is sufficient for most other uses, and in fact, they can only profit from their images being reused elsewhere: it's free advertisement (at least, if properly attributed). And they are protected against someone ripping off substantial parts of their on-line database anyway by copyright law (in the EU, by the sui generis database protection, in the U.S., because the database as a whole is protected as a collection—the selection, arrangement, and presentation thing).

For text databases like LEXIS, the contract issue may make more sense. It's not for nothing that LEXIS is a subscription service; I guess they'd have a hard time enforcing any "contract" if they made the PD texts in their database accessible to anyone. If a U.S. governmental authority should ever decide to put up a similar database of legal cases online as a service for the general public instead of publishing the court documents only in rather obscure other sources, some of which are not even online, LEXIS couldn't do anything against it. Luckily for us, most of the important stuff is available elsewhere (Findlaw and others).

Google books has another way of protecting its PD assets: when you download a PDF of a PD book from Google, you do get the whole thing all right, but it's not OCRed. For just about anyone, OCRing a PDF containing only graphics showing the text is beyond their capabilities. Maybe doable for a single file (but you'd need to have a good OCR software first), but hardly en masse. If you want to search for a text in such a book, you'll need to go back to Google... Lupo 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of books contain prominent claims on one of the first pages along the lines of "any reproduction of this book blah blah blah is prohibited", often this is found even on books in the public domain. Am I entering into a binding contract by continuing to read the book? Haukur (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

From ProCD :

We think that the place to start is sec. 2-204(1): "A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract." A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance. And that is what happened. ProCD proposed a contract that a buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. This Zeidenberg did. He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance. . . . the UCC permits contracts to be formed in other ways. ProCD proposed such a different way, and without protest Zeidenberg agreed.

Not all efforts to prevent reproduction are binding contracts but binding contract can contain enforcable efforts to prevent reproduction; regardless of the copyright status.--BirgitteSB 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A few links:

• Peter Hirtle's take on public.resource.org republishing Smitshsonian images.
• commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2007May#Should we careful with Flickr CC-BY photos made by the Smithsonian?: Commons discussion about this. Incidentally, that's also where Micheltb brought forward his argument.
• Mazzone's Copyfraud paper, p.33ff, especially the footnotes. (That paper was, back in 2006, available for free download. I cannot manage to download it again today from SSRN (might also be a problem at my end), but I still have a copy I downloaded back then. If anyone is interested, I can send it to you by e-mail. Just send me a Wiki-Email.)
• Can't find the NYPL discussion, though. I think it was on commons, but maybe I misremembered...

Lupo 09:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)If the physical owner of some work wants to make money off that work, he has plenty of ways to do so without recourse to such a TOS. The NYPL, for instance, only puts rather low-quality (well, call it medium quality) images on the web. If you want a high-quality version, you need to order a print, and I'd bet it comes with a license that says you mustn't republish that print The crazy thing, which is pointed out by Peter Hirtle, is the license that comes with the print is basically worthless for protecting NYPL's asserts. Let's say I buy a dozen high-quality prints from them. Then I mail the physical prints to WMF as a donation. The works are PD and the license would only bind me from making a copy of the physical print they provided. So with organized individuals shelling out a one-time fee (perhaps imagining it as a donation to a worthwhile institution) they could easily and legally have these "assets" plundered and put on Commons. It is a really flimsy protection for those whose mission includes public access to the collection for reproductions. Do you have any idea whatever happed with the Smithsonian and PublicReasource.org?--BirgitteSB 20:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right. And no, I don't know if a lawsuit is brewing between the Smithsonian and public.resource.org. All I know is that the images are still online. Unless I'm mistaken, many of them have also found their way onto Commons. Lupo 20:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Patricianship

A couple of us are trying to improve this, and would welcome anything you could add on the Swiss patrician classes, especially concrete details - where, when , how many families, monopolies of which rights and powers etc. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Urheberrecht bei Wappen...

Hallo Lupo, folgend Kopie meines Schreibens auf .de.

Könntest du dir diese Diskussion bitte anschauen und gegebenenfalls antworten? Ich glaube du kennst dich ja da aus.--Caranorn (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Habe auf Commons geantwortet. Lupo 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Didier Daeninckx

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Didier Daeninckx, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? FelisLeo 08:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

{{prod}} removed. See Didier Daeninckx. Someone should just expand our stub. Lupo 09:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

'someone' has had 2 years to do so. FelisLeo 10:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So what. Not a reason for deletion. Just one for improvement. Lupo 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry didn't want to anger you. I see your point, as I didn't notice the French article, I'll see what I can do translating some bits from the French one. Cheers! FelisLeo 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tony Buzan.jpg

Did this image have any licensing anywhere in the version history? If not, then http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:Buzan_smoking.jpg and http://nl.wikipedia.org/Afbeelding:Tony_Buzan.jpg might have to be deleted. -Nard 21:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The original uploader, User:Oliver Y, claimed to have taken this photo himself. The problem is that this image exists (presumably since 2003) at . The self-made claim was added half a year after the image was originally uploaded. We'd need at the very least an OTRS release to keep it. Commons and nl-WP images nominated for deletion. Lupo 09:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Krill fishery

Ahh, I was going to rework that myself, but you got in ahead and have done a good job. It was not really a copy violation since it was entered by the owner of the web site. He's a bit raw, but I welcomed him, removed the vandalism templates on his user page, and reinstated his stuff and encouraged him. He responded by creating this useful article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on it. Lupo 10:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wuu.wiki image problems

Hey Lupo,

I am now a temp. sysop there so please report any problems or requests to my talk there and I will handle it.

Thanks, Mww113 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Hector apparently got sidetracked or went on vacation. Well, remove those copyvios from Carla/Carka now. Cheers, Lupo 20:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Fritjof_Capra.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fritjof_Capra.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

your von manstein article review (jan 2006)

i have just tried to work through the 'demoted' article on v.manstein. what comes over is that the author and contributors have little or no academic background. the undertones of bias are not a credit to[REDACTED] and and the writing does not meet even mediochre standards. you were entirely correct to organise its demotion. however, the article is still there with no 'bias' or 'inexpert' or 'unacceptable' tabs at the top of the and it is only now, on the third reading, that i have found that it is 'demoted' but not 'removed'.

is there a wiki academic review/editorial board which can do something about this? the article is not up to standard and affects the whole image of wiki. i am a published military historian (Truppenfuhrung, Boulder Co. 2001, q.v. wikipage) with a biography of v.manstein in preparation. do have a suggestion? best wishes, thanks.Miletus (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Erich_von_Manstein, you appear to have used the account User:Bruce Condell... Nwinther has given you excellent advice. How about starting with an in-depth article on the Hamburg von Manstein trial? But be careful not to produce "original research". Working from primary sources, such as the trial transcripts, is bound to be seen as "original research". Trial proceedings are acceptable sources only for basic facts (such as "In the trial, X claimed Y. The judges considered this claim to be whatever"). Are there any publications about the trial that could be used to back such an article?

I've abandoned the Erich von Manstein article. Back when the article became a "featured article", I tried to avoid or neutralize heavy pro-Manstein bias. When I found a fabricated quote (at the very least it was an extremely poorly paraphrase, not a quote), I found my earlier suspicions confirmed and got the article demoted. Subsequently, I just watched it from time to time, and saw that it had become a battlefield, with bias changing back and forth from "good general" to "bad general" and from pro-Manstein to anti-Manstein. I have no intention at all to get involved there again.

If you decide to touch that article, go slow, rewrite it piecewise, not in one big bang, and be prepared that your being a professional military historian may mean nothing here. It's not always easy for professionals to collaborate with amateurs on difficult topics. Points need to be argued and sourced, people may not always accept something just because a professional says so. But if done with patience, and if you don't run into a persistent crooky "edit warrior", it may be a rewarding process for both sides, and the article can only get better. If you should get into troubles with someone immune to reason, ask other experienced editors for help, for instance at the Administrators' noticeboard, or at the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military history.

Good luck! Lupo 15:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

hi! many thanks for your indications above, and for taking the time to offer much appreciated advice. your comment ref reported speech/sourcing is noted. you are correct, i had the account 'bruce condell' but it stopped working (i do not understand why) so i adopted the new wikiname miletus (no secret about it). what surprises and disturbs me is the extent of the aggressively asserted, but totally misinformed, opinions that can be found. as you indicate, it is a battlefield. what comes out of my own research is that v.manstein was not actively political. he had little time (available) for it and it did not correspond to the old prussian tradition that military officers took no role in politics. (national socialist era , younger, officers did not observe this principle, in general) his wife, however, was a senior member of the party and very influential which may have helped him (in the background) in his frequent, professionally based, abrasive arguments with hitler and assured his survival, rather than being placed on the retired list. grateful for your advice and many thanksMiletus (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:ImageUpload

Hi Lupo,

You have protected the same template on Commons. Will you consider protecting it here as well, as it is transcluded onto pages copied to en.wiki for use on the main page, and to prevent errors/error messages being shown on those images' description pages. G.A.S 16:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Seems I goofed with this template; should've been a simple HTML comment. Well, now the damage is already done, but I'll change the upload script at Commons to not use this template anymore right away. Lupo 09:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thrill of the hunt

I'm doing a round of image sleuthing at Talk:Urðarbrunnr and User:Haukurth/Sander's Edda. Some 50 images to be matched up with 24 artists and five xylographers. Funny time when books couldn't be bothered to tell you what artist made what picture. Haukur (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Date links

Hi Lupo. Regarding this edit, I just was wondering if you had noticed Tony's comment on the talk page. I believe there are some valid reasons to unlink dates. Best, Paul Erik 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. No, indeed I hadn't. I've left a comment over there. I disagree with it. Lupo 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also notice that it was a discussion confined mainly to the regulars of MOS, and announced for a wider audience only on August 9, 2008 (four days ago). Don't know why I didn't see Tony's message at Talk:Paul Kane, though... Lupo 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

your comments/discussion page ref truppenfuhrung

hi, The page was written with english speakers in mind. For this reason, it was decided that the convention of not using the umlaut or other accents would be followed and no compensatory germanising dipthongs would be used. For german speakers, we felt that it would not be an effort for them to 'read through' standard spellings which did not use accents. The page was prepared by german linguists, including myself, and the same convention was also used in the preparation of the original Truppenfuhrung book text and by the pre-publication Academic Review Board (U.Co.). Sometime after the page was posted, a well-meaning editor added umlauts and made some small accent additions/changes to some of the german expressions. I assumed good intentions and, as there was no serious change to the text, the additions were left intact as a courtesy. The text of the page is complete in itself but it needs to be brought up to wiki-standard, for layout and cross-referencing. If you would be interested, please let me know. thanks for your manstein suggestions Miletus (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce, Misplaced Pages does thing differently than book publishers or academic review boards. On the umlaut question, I guess views are divided, but for article names, we usually use the native name (if that uses Latin script at all), c.f. the article Zürich, which resides at the "with-Umlaut" name, with Zurich being a redirect. Of course, the spelling should be consistent, so having the article at "Zürich", we then use this with-Umlaut spelling throughout. The same applies to the article Truppenführung. Readers who don't know German at all have no problem at all ignoring the diacritics, and those who know at least a little German will know how it is really pronounced.

Your comment about "the additions were left intact as a courtesy" sounds a bit strange to me. Maybe you should read WP:OWN? Lupo 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lupo. yes, I am familiar with the page WP:OWN my remark above relates to those editors/visitors to the page who have clear expertise on the subject (above their own opinions) and who are capable of making a useful contribution. In such cases, there is nothing for me to say. There are others who fail in this regard and it is these who are an irritant. best wishes Miletus (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Guy de Pourtalès

Hi, Lupo, I'm going to drop a line to Mme Jakubec regarding the mystery Pourtalés photo, unless you'd rather do it... (Nice work, btw, on the article!) - Nunh-huh 01:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually about to send the missive off, so no need for you to do likewise! - Nunh-huh 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Fondation Guy de Pourtalès has confirmed that the picture is that of Guy's brother Raymond, so I will move it on English. I will try on Commons, but I'm not sure I have that privilege. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC) - Actually, I guess it all has to happen on Commons. Can you rename the picture there? - Nunh-huh 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll let a bot handle this. :-) Did they say who the photographer was? Or when the picture was taken? And they wouldn't have an image of Guy that they could release, would they? Lupo 07:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they didn't identify the photographer or date, but they did mention that they did have images of Guy, "if that would help". I haven't yet written back to see if they're willing to release them under our somewhat draconian requirements :) - Nunh-huh 00:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If they're reluctant to release an image under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, propose to them to release an image under the GFDL. The requirement that republications must be accompanied by the full license text makes stand-alone commercial re-use unlikely. If they release an image, we also need to know who took the image. If it's a Swiss photographer who died 1943 or later, they themselves may not own the copyright! In that case, we'd need an OTRS confirmation in which they confirm that they do own the copyrights, and thus can release the image. (If the Swiss photographer died before 1943, the photo would be PD in Switzerland anyway.) Lupo 07:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Nornorna vid Urdarbrunnen.jpg

Thought this unholy monster of an image description page might amuse you. Haukur (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:-) Interesting though: commons:Image:Nornorna spinner ödets trådar vid Yggdrasil.jpg should go—looks like Project Runeberg made an error. Lupo 13:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they made an error, as such. I think they just decided to digitize the book and let the pieces fall where they may.

As for W. Meyer I've now found out that he had a whole company - the "XA" that comes after "W. Meyer" stands for "xylografiska anstalt". I still don't know what the squiggle after that means. But I think it wasn't necessarily Meyer himself that made the engraving.

If you look at my first upload of the image you can see some sort of signature in the lower left corner; I just can't make it out. Haukur (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just had something of a eureka moment. The squiggle after "XA" is a ligature of L, B and H. This has to be the L. B. Hansen that the book gives as one of its xylographers but whose work I hadn't actually found anywhere. Now, unfortunately I haven't been able to find his dates. Haukur (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the image description page. The image may or may not be in the public domain in Sweden. Haukur (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, maybe Johannesson, Lena: Xylografi och pressbild, Stockholm 1982; ISBN 9171082093, has something on L. B. Hansen (and more on "Meyers xylografiska anstalt"). It's available here for SEk 100.—. I wasn't able to figure out on their website what the shipping costs would be, otherwise, I would have ordered it right away. But maybe your university library has it. Lupo 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, yes! My university library does have it. Can't wait to snatch it when it opens on Monday. Meanwhile, I've found that there's a 2001 article on the guy: L.B. Hansen - xylografen fra Grorud I'm sort of mulling whether to buy the issue or to try for an interlibrary loan. Haukur (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll let you get it in the library. I have a hard time deciphering Swedish anyway. Misplaced Pages sometimes pushes me to do crazy things (like (almost) ordering a book in a language I don't really speak!). Lupo 20:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean :) I read an article in Dutch the other day, something I had no idea I could do until I really wanted to know what that text said :p Haukur (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Same experience here with Portuguese or Dutch. I did do Danish for Gunni. I can make sense of Swedish texts, but it takes a lot of effort, and whether I would have succeeded in understanding even a little bit from Johannesson's academic publication is doubtful. Lupo 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• L. B. Hansen is mentioned in Johan Bojer's En Pilgrimsgang: Lupo 06:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, a very puzzling reference and the only one in the book (I got a full-view version through an American proxy). Haukur (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Eduard Spelterini

On 7 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eduard Spelterini, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I really enjoyed reading the article to review it. Royalbroil 06:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, cool! I didn't really think it was up to par for the main page, so I didn't nominate it, but if others think it's good enough for DYK, all the better! Lupo 21:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

But he was not a hot air balloon pilot! His balloons were filled with gas. I really should improve this little article... Lupo 21:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

FA review

I have nominated Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gorch Fock 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gorch Fock 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Now Commons update FYI

The local image File:Andean Cat.jpg, which you uploaded in November 2004, was transferred to Wikimedia Commons in August 2006 as Commons:File:Gato andino.jpg. — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Southeastern five-lined skink.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Southeastern five-lined skink.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. multichill (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. IMO, the image qualifies for {{attribution}}, though. See the linked discussion. Lupo 11:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

commons:File:Kompsat-2.jpg

Hello Lupo

I am new on Misplaced Pages, I am a french geographer and I want contribute about geographie and satellite imageries.

I created one page about the satellite Kompsat-2 on Misplaced Pages France and I want to create the same page in English and in spanish. I integrated an image Kompsat-2.jpg to illustrate this page and you have cleared off it. I make sure the copyright on this image about KARI (Korea Aerospace Research Institute), owner of the satellite Kompsat-2 because I am in discuss with them.

During the first intégration, I have not writed the licence. Now I choose "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0". May I integrate again with the licence mark ? Perhaps is it you who can change the licence mark ?

I want soon to contribuate on Wiki with images from this satellite on several pages. It is very important for me that we discuss about my contributions on Commons.

Regards PMichelSI —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMichelSI (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoi? Je n'ai rien fait avec cet image. Je ne l'ai ni rapporté comme violation des droits d'auteur, ni l'effacée. Si vous avez une permission de KARI d'importer l'image sous une license libre, enovyez-la a OTRS permissions-commons AT wikimedia.org, mentionnant l'image é laquelle s'applique. Une fois que c'est fait, on pourrait alors restaurer commons:File:Kompsat-2.jpg. Lupo 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

according the delete message we recieved!

hello!

here is our web site, where our logo can be seen - http://www.gerb.bg/bg/mgerb we are the youth organization of a bulgarian political party and we want to create a wiki article. hope that this evidence is good enough to not make you delete our logo picture, neither our article. thank you in advance!

MGERB team —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgerb.gerb (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For previously published material, please confirm the release under a free license by sending an e-mail to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org, mentioning to which images the release applies. Lupo 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Fallschirmjaeger Kreta 1941.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fallschirmjaeger Kreta 1941.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

you deleted my page

Lupo

just wondering why you deleted my page "Ethan Gilsdorf" --- do I know you?

thanks

Frodslig (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I don't know if you know me. I deleted the page with the reason "copyvio pasted together from http://graycrane.net/Ethan/biography.html". See its deletion log entry. Lupo 08:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: if you are Gilsdorf, read WP:AUTO. Also, you'd need to confirm the GFDL release of this previously published text by sending a confirmation e-mail from the e-mail address given at http://graycrane.net/Ethan/ to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. State in the e-mail which Misplaced Pages page this relates to. Lupo 10:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Southeastern five-lined skink.jpg

File:Southeastern five-lined skink.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Eumeces inexpectatus skink.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Misplaced Pages, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages, in this case: ]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of Crozet Islands.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Map of Crozet Islands.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

File:B-17 Schweinfurt.jpg is now available as Commons:File:B-17 Schweinfurt.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PD-old and PD-US

Hello again Lupo. I've opened an RFC on what to do about images tagged {{PD-old}} where the creator is not named, and images tagged {{PD-US}} where the date of first publication is not specified. Your input would be most welcome: Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags/Public domain/Mistagged images. All the best, – Quadell 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MIT Brass Rat image edit

Hello, My name is Mitch Westwood, and I'm the Chair of the MIT 2011 Ring Committee. I know this issue is a little old, so I'm sorry for getting to you so after-the-fact. The MIT Class Ring page on Misplaced Pages has the images of all the recent Brass Rats, our class ring. For my class, the Class of 2011, our design was unveiled on February 6th of this year. Soon after, we went to add the images to the Misplaced Pages page, but they were quickly taken down. I chair the committee that designed the ring, and my committee and I were hoping to find out why the images were taken down and if there is a way we can put them back up. We spent the entirety of the fall semester working on our design, and it would be great if we could find a way to have it online. Thanks so much. Best, Mitch 18.240.6.120 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Dorothy Dandridge.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dorothy Dandridge.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Garrett A. Morgan.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Garrett A. Morgan.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stamp file

Quadell suggested in my review of fair use stamps that you would have an opinion about File:EBOccupStamps1.jpg which I suspect is questionable or improperly licenced stamps. It was removed in August 2006 and then reinstated in October 2006. What do you think? TIA ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a comment on this one, one way or another? ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't even know what jurisdiction the Channel Islands belong to. In any case, the given rationale for PD strikes me as probably mistaken. I would guess that UK law applies, but I don't know what that says about stamps. Crown Copyright would be 50 years since publication.

I have no idea whether the file might be OK under "fair use"—I try to stay as far away from that muddy area as I can.

Lupo 08:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ww2censor (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unspecified source for File:Gato andino.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gato andino.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?--Kaldari (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of looking into this. The specified author and source were URLs, which are now broken. The person who tagged it apparently didn't think to check archive.org to see what the pages looked like and just slapped a misleading tag on it (especially the "If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information." as that's what it already had). I updated the links to the archived pages. DreamGuy (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't do anything about this image because, frankly said, I wouldn't upload such an image today. The site's terms are actually rather ambiguous, and the author of the photo is completely unknown. But I guess we may keep it. Lupo 08:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Buildings: example for review

Back to my FOP-related inquiry: can you review validity of image usage in Vesnin brothers? As I understand the situation,

• File:Vesnin family ca.1890.jpg is PD, falling out of protection scope (country of origin ceased to exist);
• File:Moscow,_Prospect_Mira,_20.jpg and File:Moscow, Mantashev Stables.jpg - derivative photos tagged with free licence: primary works fell out of protection scope;
• All artwork scans are protected in the country of origin since 2008. Prior to 1/1/2008 they were PD. No grandfather clause in national legislation. So it's a question of NFCC compliance alone;
• File:Kr Presnya 48-2 01.JPG and File:Library wing - DK Zil.jpg - derivative photos, primary subjects are protected to 70 years p.m.a. (1959+70). They shouldn't be on Commons but can they be uploaded to en-wiki? if yes, what licence? TIA,

NVO (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here goes my take on it:

1. No problem. Would also be fine under PD-RusEmpire.
2. Disagree, the last of the Vesnin brothers died 1959, so the works will go out of copyright on January 1, 2010, unless you can show that Alexander had no hand in these two buildings (which seems unlikely according to the article). Not OK at the Commons since Russia has no FOP, but would be OK here at the English Misplaced Pages, since only U.S. law is relevant here. Maybe additionally tag as FOP to warn re-users.
3. Where's that artwork scan clause?? Please point me to the precise article in FL-230. As I understand it, articles 1337ff apply only to works not previously disclosed to the public and that moreover are out of copyright or were never copyrighted. This publication right does not apply to works previously disclosed. (Where "disclosure" is much more permissive than "publication"; it includes any form of making the work available to the public, even ephemeral forms such a speeches, recitals, or performances, or even just agreeing that someone else may use the work. See articles 1259 and 1268.)
4. That Benetton building is from 1927?? Can't say anything on these two since we don't know the architects. In any case they'd be fine here at the English Misplaced Pages. Use the free license of your choice, and tag as FOP to warn re-users.

Lupo 09:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify why #4 (original work 1926-1927) is acceptable (and why is it possible to bend the free licence term) but #2 is not although they are not protected in Russia (original works 1912-1914)? (p.s. I went to great lengths with polarizer filters to find a sweet spot where the two-story-high Benetton ad is nearly invisible through sun glare :)). NVO (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, please clarify relevance of #3 (identity of publicator - why does it matter?) As I understand, chapter 71.6 (articles 1337... etc.) are irrelevant in this case and we should refer to basic definition of author (1257-1258), protected object (1259), exclusive rights (1270) and terms of expiry and inheritance (1281-1283). NVO (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hm, articles 1283 and 1151 indicate that if estate of deceased author was not duly inherited then author's rights become PD (unlike tangible property that goes to the state). But none of us is qualified for a full-blown police investigation of something that happened 50 years ago... Skip, it can't be generalized. NVO (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All images of buildings are OK in all countries that have FOP. (If taken from a public place, and the building is on or visible from a public place.) All such images are not OK in all countries that don't have FOP, if the building is copyrighted. Since the U.S. does have FOP for buildings and the English Misplaced Pages regards only U.S. law, all such images are OK here if freely licensed by the photographer. But you're right, we might tag them in some way to make re-users aware of this problem.

On #2: I overlooked that the buildings are from 1912-1914 and looked only at the death year of the architect. If they'd be PD in Russia per PD-RusEmpire, fine.

On #3: You wrote "artwork scans are protected since 2008". What exactly do you mean here? Do you mean scans of copyrighted artwork? Of course these would be subject to the copyright of the artwork, as always (and as before 2008). Do you mean scans of PD artwork? I don't see anything in FL-230 that would say so. In fact, article 1259(7) limits copyright to works that are the result of the creative labor of the author. Scanning is not creative and does not result in a new work. 1225 is in the same vein in saying that intellectual property rights (amongst them copyrights) are granted only on results of intellectual activity.

Lupo 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"are protected since 2008" I meant that before 1/1/2008 the underlying original artwork, produced in 1920s, was not protected (or, at the very least, was freely reproduced). Then suddenly they became protected to 70 years PMA. NVO (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Yes, the rules for the underlying works have changed on 2008-01-01. Rather unfortunate for us. Whether something is PD in the U.S., however, is hardly affected by this change, because for the copyright status in the U.S., the most interesting part is the copyright status in Russia on 1996-01-01 (see URAA), and on that date, the rules in Russia were those of the 1993 law with its 50-year term. Later changes in the Russian law do not affect the copyright status of Russian works in the U.S. It is of importance on the Commons, though, because the Commons also regards the copyright status in the source country. Lupo 09:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Londonstreetfiddlerc.1880.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Londonstreetfiddlerc.1880.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Zoomable images/de-tile.scm

So I created all the tiles I want to de-tile.scm and put them in one folder... 600,000 file total (most of them blank jpgs.)

can this script de-tile 600,000 jpg images? if they're named properly?

i'm about to let her rip... i'll report any updates—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.158 (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never tried that. Since this simple script tries to load all tiles into individual layers before combining them, the GIMP may run out of memory. But it shouldn't be too hard to change the script to load one tile, combine it with the already existing part of the image, and then discard that tile before loading the next tile. That should take care of the memory problem, but it may still take quite a while. Alternatively, try to organize the tiles in hierarchical subgroups, merge each subgroup separately, then name the resulting per-subgroup-files and merge those. Also note that there are other tools to de-tile images, for instance unzoomify. Haven't used it myself, though, so I don't know how well it performs. Lupo 08:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cartoons in public domain

Correct me if I'm wrong—but as far as I can figure out, Lupo, you're the one who added the segment on "Animated movies (Cartoons)" to the Public Domain article back in 2006. There you argue that a cartoon can't slip into the public domain if its characters are still under copyright. In other words, if Daffy Duck himself is still copyrighted, then no Daffy Duck cartoon can be PD—indeed, Warner Bros (the Daffy Duck owner) needn't even bother to copyright any Daffy Duck cartoons ever; for as long as Warner can keep Daffy himself copyrighted, then no one can touch the cartoons regardless. This argument is infamous as being the one used by large studios' lawyers to threaten small-scale video firms when the firms are trying to reissue the studios' cartoons. But I've done a lot of reading and I've never seen an example of a lawsuit in which the judge actually upheld this argument. In fact, the work you cite as the source for the argument does not include it. Where did you get it? On a related note, you refer to cartoon characters being "copyrighted" at first and "trademarked" later, with ambiguity as to whether the two registration processes hold the same weight. In my research, I've seen many cartoon characters trademarked as stand-alone entities, but very few of them copyrighted. What would you say this means? 76.117.255.159 (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I cite two works in that paragraph. Gorman's Copyright Law, 2nd ed. from the Federal Judicial Center, as a source for the statement that cartoon characters are objects of copyright. If a character is copyrighted, Gorman points out that this copyright may cover more than just the precise shape, but also "the manner in which it moves, acts and portrays a combination of characteristics." It seems clear to me that such a copyright would make subsequent animated cartoons derivative works of that character copyright. If so, in analogy to the cases mentioned just above (Pygmalion, Hoppalong Cassidy), it is unfortunately also clear that a cartoon can enter the public domain only once the copyright on the character has expired.

Far less clear is the question which characters are copyrighted. I don't know whether studios would need to file a separate copyright claim for the character, or whether its first appearance in a copyrighted cartoon would suffice. I haven't dealt with such issues recently, but IIRC, Walt Disney asserts copyright over Mickey Mouse on the base of its first appearance. (Though some people—again IIRC—contest that claim, I think we may safely treat Mickey as copyrighted.) I don't know off-hand whether Donald (again Disney) and Daffy (Warner) are copyrighted as characters, though I strongly suspect so. On Superman, there were court actions, and IIRC, it is copyrighted. Unless we have some indication that a particular character is not copyrighted after all, I think we'll have to assume that it is, and calculate the copyright from the character's first appearance in a published work. (Maybe I should re-read the stuff about Mickey. Right now I don't remember anymore how Walt Disney did the renewal of the copyright on the character... )

The trademark issue is less important for us here. It's not a question of which holds more weight: the two relate to different fields. Though there may be overlaps, and that's what the second reference (Moaffat) is about. But we're rather unlikely to have any use we might make of such images to be considered a trademark infringement.

Lupo 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Air Pirates might be an interesting article in this context. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

christoph meili article

Christoph Meili.. nice work.

HUGE ACCIDENT with my image upload

Lupo, this --Jackie ohlsen (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC) and I was trying to add an image - mct.JPG - and somehow I managed to add someone's photo of a building and parking lot onto it. I do not have ANY idea how I did it. I was NOT trying to hack someone's parking lot photo and need to know how to fix it as I can't figure out how. I have tried to reload and rename, but it is forozen as the WIKI FBI must think I am a parking lot photo thief. CAN YOU HELP ME!!!!!! I am new here and have managed to screw up more times than you could POSSIBLY imagine. Thanks for any help you can extend. I need a tranquillizer :-S --Jackie ohlsen (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You uploaded commons:File:mct.JPG. The only problem is that here at the English Misplaced Pages, there exists a local image File:Mct.JPG. So, here at en-WP, you'll see a view of some unidentified Arab city instead of your painting. Lupo 08:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

email contact?

Lupo could you contact me via email?... ( mdale _at_ wikimedia.org ) ..I wanted to discuss your projects a bit in relation to the multimedia usability grant. mdale (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Graboid

The article Graboid has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnotable fictional creature and article purely unsourced WP:OR and excessive non-free images. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent reading, thanks for the tip! Needs more references but a well-done curiosity otherwise. I recommend an AFD to get more opinions. NVO (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? Back in 2004 I created that as a redirect to Tremors after I had deleted it as a copyvio as per Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Graboid. And now, some five years later, I'm notified of a {{prod}}? Misplaced Pages never forgets anything! Lupo 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Graboid

I have nominated Graboid, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Graboid. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Documentation of partnership with German Federal Archives

Hallo Lupo, I support the Best practices documentation team and we developed a comprehensive documentation about the partnership with the German Federal Archives. Currently, we are looking for Wikipedians who helped to improve the data and tell their story. I saw that you have been very active there, so I would like to ask if you could add your story or an interesting finding (mistake)? This would help us to document the partnership and integrate different perspectives. Please, let me know if you could contribute or if you know other Wikipedians who would love to share their experiences! --KathrinJ (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Uwe Kils

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Uwe Kils. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Uwe Kils

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Uwe Kils. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)