Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:39, 20 February 2006

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.

vandal?

Hi Lupo, I am getting some borderline vandalism on Hare Krishna and Gouranga. Apparently, a Hare Krishna follower who rejects having scholarly views on the page. I am uncertain if I am correct in considering the reverts vandalic, could you give me a second opinion (on whether blocks are permissible, and rollbacks will be 3RR-exempt). regards, dab (ᛏ) 16:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for having a look; I did ask for an "outside view", so it is perfect that you claim no knowledge of the matter. I am also aware, of course, that "my" versions are superior, I just wanted to know if you considered the reverting to the earlier version objective vandalism; sadly, you don't, so I'll just keep reverting the anon every day till kingdom come... (religiously motivated editors usually have stamina, and are not interested in rational argmuents). regards, dab (ᛏ) 16:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for your help Lupo. I think I was worn out from the nonsense at Rajput, and may have exhibited a little bit of a short temper. dab (ᛏ) 08:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Vandalism

Please note that I have made my points of view very clear in the Gouranga discussion page and have not been blindly reverting. Many of the editions included by used dab are irrelevant or damage the concise look of the page. What is it exactly about the other version which you think is innacurate? If you can make a valid point then I will gladly discuss more. --GourangaUK 08:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Same goes for the Hare Krishna page - if you can clearly state what is innacurate about the 'non-dab' version, I will gladly comment and help to improve the page where neccessary. --GourangaUK 09:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood several things:

1. It's not a question of "incorrect", it's a question of someone else making an attempt (and a good one, might I add) to improve the article.
2. Your reversions now violate several Misplaced Pages style guidelines concerning the formatting.
3. You are blindly reverting; I have seen no statement of yours why dab's linguistic explanations should not be included.
4. You don't own that article.
5. You have violated the 3RR.

Lupo 09:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Vitaphone

The now-blocked user Vitaphone re-registered under the username AnimationFanatic in order to avoid me getting my username changed, and registered again as PietroShakarian in an attempt to impersonate me. UPDATE: I'm not sure if somebody banned his former IP or not, but now he's using 202.47.247.156 and now he's impersonating contributor BrianSmithson with Brian Smithson. -- Pietro Shakarian 19:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Has been dealt with by other admins while I was away. It's best to report such things at WP:ANI. Lupo 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:RfA

I've reverted the question you added to Template:RfA; it's not clear where this question is coming from, or more importantly, how it at all helps those considering the nomination. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And you have been reverted in turn (not by me, and I won't do any reverts there; one is enough). For my rationale for my changes, see Template talk:RfA. Lupo 14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Kane article

Hello there. I saw your response to my comment on the Paul Kane article you are championing. I just wanted to tell you that I did an online search for "A Concise History of Canadian Painting", and it turns out that my local library in The Beaches has a copy; will pick it up the first chance I get and see what it has to say with regard to Paul Kane. Is there anything in particular you are looking for other than the point I was asking about (i.e. Paul Kane's influence on other painters)? I was also at the Royal Ontario Museum earlier today and made a point of looking into the Paul Kane exhibit there. The are over 20, possibly 30 paintings and sketches there. I took some non-flash photography while there, and uploaded the better ones (I didn't have my tripod with me) to Wikimedia. I don't know if they will prove useful to your article or not, but they can be found at the following URLs:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:PaulKane-Sketch-Chief-ROM.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:PaulKane-Sketch-Canoe-ROM.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:PaulKane-BushCamp-ROM.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:PaulKane-BuffaloHunt-ROM.jpg

Hope something here proves useful to you. Will let you know when I have the book. Cheers from Toronto! Captmondo 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My userpage

No, that looks fine...thanks for the adjustment....I am not an expert in any way with some of the formating stuff and it was sure a nice gesture by User:Phaedriel to create that for me...out of the blue.--MONGO 10:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

Re: Paul Kane (Again)

If you were asking if PaulKane-BuffaloHunt-ROM.jpg is an oil painting, then yes, I can confirm that it is. It is funny that you mention Ft. Edmonton, as there is a painting of that at the ROM as well. I tried taking a picture of it but the low light levels, and me not having a tripod meant that the picture was unusable. I can also confirm that PaulKane-BushCamp-ROM.jpg is also an oil painting. All going well, I'll be heading back to the ROM this afternoon, primarily to do some research in their library/archives for information on an article I am working on at the moment, namely: the McLaughlin Planetarium. I have my camera with me and will try to take pics of some of the other paintings if possible, though unfortunately I forgot my tripod again.

As for the book, I have yet to pick it up as yet, but will probably do so in the next few days. My own knowledge of Canadian art is not extensive (other than many trips to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection when I was younger) so I am not sure I can authoritatively add material to the other articles as you suggest, but will see what I can do. Would you be interested in scans of certain pages that might be of interest?

Cheers from Toronto! Captmondo 13:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More Paul Kane Pictures

Haven't picked up the art book as yet, but I did manage to take a few more pictures of the paintings in the ROM and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. They are:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:PaulKane-Chief02-ROM.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:PaulKane-HuntingFish-ROM.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:PaulKane-RiverScene-ROM.jpg

I didn't get the actual names of the paintings, but will make a point of doing so next time I visit. By the way, there are just over 20 paintings on display in total, along with about a half dozen sketches and a hand-written copy of his original catalog. Hope you may be able to get some use out of these!

Cheers again from Toronto! Captmondo 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to track down the actual names for these paintings. I may get a chance on the weekend to pop back to the ROM and do a proper catalog as to what's there, and bring my tripod along for some steadier pics. Have reserved the previously-mentioned book on Canadian art from the local library, and should pick it up this evening. Will report what I find after I have had a chance to look at it.

Also, let me chime in and lend you my congratulations on getting your Paul Kane article to Feature Article status so quickly. It says much about the quality of the work that went into it! Cheers! Captmondo 14:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I picked up the Dennis Reid book from the local library earlier this afternoon. Turns out that there is a whole chapter on Paul Kane and his contemporary Cornelius Krieghoff. I have scanned the entirety of that chapter, and all other pages that reference Kane in the book and have placed them in a 14+ MB zip file that you can download from http://www.frantics.org/Kane/Kane-and-Krieghoff.zip. Once you have downloaded it, let me know and I will remove the file from the site. All of the pages were scanned at 300dpi, so they shouldn't prove to be a problem to read, or to print off. I also included the ISBN number on the first page so that you can turn it into a proper reference.

I could do the work myself, but only thought it fair to at least give you access the book you couldn't otherwise track down. Don't want to steal your thunder after all. ;-) And this will leave me more time to bring my McLaughlin Planetarium article up to snuff for having it Peer Reviewed, hopefully later this evening.

Cheers from Toronto! Captmondo 00:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

On a unanimous support for Kane. I hope you'll keep it up, there is a lot more articles to get featured ;) Renata 17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks! I will, but now I first want to fill in some of those redlinks in the Kane article. Lupo 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Manstein

Hey Lupo, I changed one of the paragraphs in Manstein that you had objected to and removed your comment. I hope it can now be regarded as factual rather than a speculation about what may have have alternatively happened? Regards, Jayanta Sen 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This paragraph is still an opinionated discussion of what might or might not have been; an evaluation of the situation. As such, it naturally reflects somebody's point of view. It must be sourced. (Note, please, that I don't in the least dispute the correctness of that discussion! In fact, I tend to agree with what is written, but I haven't done my own research to be able to judge whether it is correct. But that doesn't matter at all. If this is a widespread view among (military) historians, it should be said so and sourced properly.) The current phrasing is that of an essay, not of an encyclopedia article. Lupo 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What you say sounds reasonable to me. Please feel free to change accordingly. Jayanta Sen 23:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Kane Paintings at the ROM

Hello again:

Just wanted to provide you with a full list of the paintings on exhibit at the ROM. Here's the list:

Blue Wall:

• 11 Kichie Ogi-Maw
• 13 Wah-Bannim
• 10 Spearing Salmon By Torchlight
• 9 Sault Ste Marie
• 5 Aw-Bon-Waish-Cum
• 3 Ojibbeway Camp On Spider Islands
• 8 Encampment Among The Islands Of Lake Huron
• 1 Wah-Pus
• 7 The Daughter Of Asabonish

Red Wall:

• 46 Maydoc-Gan-Kinungee
• 17 The Kakkabakka Falls
• 2 French River Rapids
• 22 Hunting Ducks
• #? Half-Breeds Running Buffalo
• 33 A Buffalo Pound
• #? The Man That Always Rides
• 42 Kee-A-Kee-Ka-Sa-Coo-Way
• 38 Fort Edmonton
• #? Falls At Colville
• 62 Indian Camp Colville
• 65 Game Of Al-Kol-Lok
• 87 Babine Chief
• #? The Esquimalt
• 91 Return Of A War Party

At Right Angle to Red Wall:

• 92 Medicine Mask Dance
• 53 The Death Of Big Snake

Weaving Section

• 93 A Woman Weaving A Blanket

The numbers are presumably the original catalogue numbers, with "#?" being ones I couldn't make out or were absent. No new pics this time, but I have gone and added the proper names to the paintings covered in WikiMedia Commons.

Hope the pages from the book I scanned proved of some use. Am looking forward seeing your article appear on the front page someday.

Cheers! Captmondo 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Great work!

I am very impressed w your work on Lale_Andersen. I am going to strive to copy your footnote technique :) I also agree w your wiki-philosophy as expressed on your userpage.. sadly I'm all too interested in current and 20th century politics, religion, and fringe theories/pseudoscience/quackery... (have a look at this article I wrote ;)

Oh well, I wouldn't call it a philosophy... a mighty big word for my simple approach for staying out of trouble :-) Ok, it also fits my natural interest in tidbits from here and there pretty well. Occasionally, I allow myself to get involved with political articles, too. Erich von Manstein is an example, where I mainly tried to point out what was missing. As for Sherry Shriner: yuck! Incredible what kind of things some people believe (or claim to believe) in. Seems to me this article is indeed in dire need of much more thorough referencing. Even in the lead, things like her birthday or the claim to three academic degrees are obvious candidates. Lupo 13:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got most of that from her autobiography, and also from interviewing her directly by email. If you'd like to help feel free, but please don't go deleting stuff w/o giving me (or her ;) a chance to reference it. Thanks, Sam Spade 16:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Put this barnstar wherever you like (or nowhere at all), Sam Spade 13:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks a lot! That's most unexpected and a pleasant surprise. I'm sure I can find a space on my user page for it. Lupo 13:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoorah! Sam Spade 16:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hundingsbane.jpg

Thanks for working out the copyright issues! :) - Haukur 09:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OMI

Someone was a bit over-eager with archiving the reference desk. There's a little bit about that company now in the archives. Lupo 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks; I've started a stub for Ottico Meccanica Italiana based on your info. — Matt Crypto 08:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

re: green pencil

It's just the way it scanned, I think. It's a very dark green. - Nunh-huh 09:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno

Yes, all the images under Images of the Parliament Building can be used without restrictions. I am all in favour of uploading some of them to the commons; I will look into that over the week-end, if you haven't started before. Schutz 08:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent ! I have just sent you by email the permission that I received from the parlament webmaster, just in case (since the corresponding permission has not yet been recorded by Misplaced Pages). Schutz 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Got it. Lupo 09:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Swiss motto

Is there any reason you continue to implement your preferred "none" version against the opinion of at least two other editors (Schutz and myself)? Lupo 13:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see your self-revert. :-/ Lupo 13:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And missed that it was only partial, so my question stands... Lupo 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If I had to guess, Schutz added the footnote at least partially because of me - I just took it another step. As for the question in general, it is not "the motto of Switzerland" - instead of saying "this is the motto of Switzerland (footnote: ...except it's not, here's why)", it makes more since to just say "there is no motto, though some people have associated {phrase} as such". ¦ Reisio 13:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Wow. I thought I had a basic grasp on copyright. I'd never heard that sound recordings weren't covered under the Berne Convention, and I never knew that individual states could enforce "common law copyright". This is insane. I'm still reading through it -- but anyway, thanks for the information. – Quadell 12:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As you may have gathered from the overall tone of my text, I'm baffled, too. Lupo 14:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I left a question over at Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights#Copyrighted in Iran, and I'd appreciate your input if you get a chance. – Quadell 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In regard to state law, I'm certainly glad to hear that. It's a shame about sound recordings though. By the way, some of us on Template talk:Flagimage are discussing whether or not national or state flags are copyrighted. Empirically, it seems they aren't, but I can't find any information about it at all. – Quadell 17:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about flags. Just two examples I recently came across: Russian state symbols explicitly are not copyrighted (Article 8 of the Russian copyright law from 1993). Swiss flags are not mentioned in Swiss copyright law , but the use of Swiss state emblems is governed by the Swiss trademark law (In German, also available in French and Italian, but not in English), but its regulations are of no importance to Misplaced Pages. (But may be important for some of our re-users if they want to use the Swiss flag for some purposes that are covered by the trademark law. I do not know whether there are any treaties that would force non-Swiss legal entities to honor Swiss trademark law outside Switzerland, but in the absence of proof to the contrary, I would assume that this was the case.) Lupo 08:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Empire state by hine.jpg, if it was first published in 1932, then I assume it's still copyrighted. I had thought it was first published in 1931, but I'm not sure why I thought that. Unless it turns out to have been published in 1931, I suppose we can't use it. Thanks for pointing that out. – Quadell 15:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ack! 23 vs 32. Sort of a numerical spoonerism. I was just a decade off. I think I need some coffee. :) – Quadell 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hints

WP:PD is a lot of stuff to read thanks for pointing me to that. I admire your knowlegde of tne international aspects. I have put on the discussion page of a Commons Karsh photo I see as problematic a mail from the LoC referring to copyright renewals of Karsh works. Have you seen that? What can one conclude for our use of Karsh photos? Can you read German? Greetings from Germany --Historiograf 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to commons:Talk:Yousuf Karsh: yes, I've seen it and left my comments. The bottom line is that we have to consider each image individually, but I fear that for most of them we will discover that they are in fact not in the public domain anywhere else but in Canada. Lupo 19:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! You have not answered the question if you could read German ... --Historiograf 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. Yes, I can. I'll take a closer look at the link you posted below when I get around to it—I'm pretty busy off-Misplaced Pages right now, though, so it might take a few weeks. And I'm not especially well versed in the intricacies of German copyright law, so I'm not sure I could make any useful comments on it. (The U.S. and the German copyright laws seem to be the two most complicated... it seems to me that most other countries' copyright laws are much shorter and simpler.) Lupo 07:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So it would the best to work together. I think I know German copyright very well (better than the average German lawyer) --Historiograf 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/1192452/ --Historiograf 17:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What a mess! All I get from all this is that apparently it is completely unclear in this case whether that image would be copyrighted and if so, who would be the copyright holder, but that there are strong indications that it isn't in the public domain. Reason enough to keep it off Misplaced Pages, IMO. I really can't comment on the details: as I said, I'm no expert of German copyright law. Lupo 08:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A draft of Misplaced Pages:Copyrights

Hello again. As we discussed a while ago, I've begun to try to revamp Misplaced Pages:Copyrights and related pages. My current draft is at Misplaced Pages:Copyrights/draft, and I'd be very glad to have comments or assistance in fixing it up. I've also created Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations and Misplaced Pages:Reusers, and these could certainly be improved as well. What do you think? – Quadell 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but not just right now. I hope I can make it in the next few days, otherwise, it'll have to wait until in two weeks. Lupo 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Yousuf Karsh

Are you going to follow this up or do you want me to do it? I don't think we should both try to do it at the same time ;) Physchim62 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

What can I say? You've got a fan. :) – Quadell 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Images in the UK

Hello again, and sorry to bother you, but another difficult question has come up. I tagged Image:Blackburn Skua.jpg as a possible copyright violation, since it was published in 1940, and I figured the copyright would still be in effect. However the uploader, User:Keith Edkins, contacted me asking for clarification, and I'm not sure what the right answers are.

The photo was apparently (first?) published in 1940 in a book in the UK without a photographer credit, and apparently the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988" says "If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first made available to the public." But then it gets murkier -- read his comment on my talk page to see what I mean. Do you know if the image is still copyrighted or not? Thanks, – Quadell 21:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

April Edlow

Hey Lupo-- I'm April Edlow and I'm offended by the fact that you couldn't find any information on me or my body of work. I'm just kidding. You didn't find any info on me because although I am African American and a photographer (amateur), I'm definitely not famous. -April

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.159.154.26 (talk • contribs) 04:10, February 1, 2006 (UTC)

You know, it would have been really helpful to include a link to Talk:August 14: I really don't remember everything I did or wrote two years ago! Anyway, if you ever do become famous, we'll include you. :-) Lupo 08:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Help Template German Gov

Hello, i think Physchim62 is tracting me not quite fair on his discussion page. Are you intereted to receive the 2 pp. from the Urheberrechtskommentar? Greetings from Germany --Historiograf 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem? As far as I see, Physchim62 is being polite despite having had to suffer some comments that were definitely not nice. de:Benutzer:Steschke's comments after that were not exactly good behavior either. I don't think you have any reason to complain about having been treated unfairly (well, except maybe his "trolling" comment on WP:TFD, but he was provoked).

Convincing people takes time. Physchim62 is not convinced yet, and he is completely within his rights to try to research this himself. Eventually people around here will see where the problem with this template is. There's no rush now; after all, the template has already been deleted once and its current version makes it clear that it should not be used. It's just a question of time until it'll be gone definitively. Since I do agree that this template was wrong, I'll leave a comment over at Template talk:GermanGov. Hope that helps, and all the best. Lupo 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Again. You did not answer my question. I have scanned two pages of the relevant German legal literatur on § 5 II UrhG. Either you nor P. seems interested to read them. I think this has nothing to do with building one's own opinion but with ignorance. Aussume good faith - no longer for you and P. --Historiograf 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Klaus, I didn't mean to offend you. I thought the problem was that you felt treated unfairly, but I didn't understand (and still don't) why.

Until the above, I didn't know what 2 pages of legal commentary you meant. I still don't know why I should read them. Do they contradict anything I said? I trust you to summarize its contents faithfully and correctly in contexts where it applies. You have access to German law sources that I don't have, and have considered cases way too complicated for my limited understanding. Lupo 08:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read it now (you could have told me that you posted now a link to it on Template talk:GermanGov). But why should I have read it? It confirms my own take on this, and confirms the opinion expressed in the discussions at the German Misplaced Pages. But I had assumed anyway that the discussion there was correct. It might, in fact, have been useful to post this earlier and use it to back up the initial statements here on Misplaced Pages that there was something wrong with that template, such that editors here on the English Misplaced Pages, who barely know you or the other German editors who have discussed all this already, could have seen that this was not just the private opinion of a random editor, but indeed the established opinion of external experts. Hey, even for established editors here it is good practice to source one's claims. Lupo 09:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I don't like your misrepresenting me on Template talk:GermanGov at all. I did not "refuse" to read it, I didn't express anything on it, because it was completely unclear to me what the heck you were talking about. So don't go around claiming I did something when I didn't. Lupo 09:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dakota Photo

Lupo; Thanks for your support. I'm not really familiar with the finer points of copyright, all I can say is that I think the photo fits in with the article, and I'm glad you share that view. Thank You. Lee.

the remedy

I know, Lupo; I am not bothered (but I wish the arbcom would look at some context. They are clearly overwrought and out of their depth all too often); If Fred does get his way, you can always re-nominate me, so it will be down to the community in the end. That said, putting me off Misplaced Pages a little bit may prove a remedy to my RL tasklist :) dab (ᛏ) 08:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Albert Einstein.jpg

Done. And yeah, you're probably right about Commons. Where are you, by the way? Besides "Off-line", I mean? – Quadell 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

About featured images and copyright violations: yeah, they're supposed to be incompatable, in theory. . . but it's still featured, I'm afraid. the image was voted featured (despite reservations over the status), and the only way to make it non-featured is to nominate it for removal. Hope this helps, – Quadell 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of red tape I can do without. It just doesn't make sense. What if the image hadn't been on the commons? It would have been gone for good, and there'd have been no way to bring it back as a featured picture. And when it'll be gone on the commons, we'll have that same situation. So I won't bother with nominating it for "featured picture removal", I'll just go straight to getting it removed from the commons once I know whether Physchim62 did get an answer from Mr. Fiedler, the custodian of the Karsh Estate, and if so, what he wrote. Thanks for digging up these links all the same. Lupo 08:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your crusade against Soviet images

Hi, you should understand that I'm pissed off with your nomination. Although I never edited articles on the Soviet period, since 2004 I uploaded too many images to count and I've seen copyright paranoia escalating ever since. When I uploaded the images in 2004, {fairuse} tag was perfectly acceptable. I was a newbie and uploaded hundreds of them. Then the use of the tag was discouraged, and a bunch of images which it took me infinite pains to scan and upload were deleted without prior notification of myself. Then they dispensed with {pd-50} tag, which resulted in some pre-1917 being deleted as well. And now we'll see massive deletions of Soviet images, I reckon. In the meantime, the Polish editors have no problem uploading any photo taken a decade ago and tagging it as {PD-Poland}. I conclude that I should tag every images uploaded to Misplaced Pages as {PD-self}. It is the only way to escape deletions en mass and unwarranted copyright paranoia. --Ghirla | talk 16:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You should note that I am deeply disappointed by your continued personal attacks—first implicitly calling me a "copyright nazi", now misrepresenting my honest effort to get these (IMO wrong) tags {{PD-USSR}} and {{Sovietpd}} resolved as a "crusade" against something, and then still missing the point that I am not calling for a deletion of the images. I will henceforth ignore your childish comments. Read up on copyright issues: it looks like you would need it. And don't go around insulting other editors. PLONK. Lupo 17:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, {PD-USSR} is bad, because these are "Russian copyrights", as you termed it in the nomination (although in truth it equally concerns Ukrainian, Georgian, Latvian images, etc), but {PD-Poland} is good, because these are "European copyrights". Please stop being selective in your nominations. Do you seriouslly think that there are editors who have enough time and energy to retag 600+ images? As for me, I already spend too much time retagging my own images, when the tags get revised or deleted on someone's whim. --Ghirla | talk 17:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

More on PD-USSR

I have written some in "PD-USSR" section of Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights. --ajvol 09:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot; that's most useful! I'll try to figure out what the conclusions were. Your links already helped me understand where that July 28, 1954 date comes from. Note, however, that it should be January 1, 1954 (not "July 28"), because copyrights expire at the end of the year under §27(6) of the Russian Copyright Law (also in the 1993 version). Lupo 10:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Got your message--thanks. I'm quite over my head in all this, I readily admit--my only point at MFD is that if we're going to rewrite the template, we need another template for those cases we are sure about. Incidentally, though, it is generally the case that the US exercises considerable leeway in what it recognizes of other countries' copyrights (and we are, of course, only concerned with US copyright). Ultimately we may just have to contact an expert. There are situations in which they don't recognize laws mentioned in their own treaties--for example (this seems particularly relevant here) the US has higher standards than some countries for copyright claims. You might want to bring this up with Danny, who could ask a quick question of the Foundation's lawyers. However, it does seem worth pointing out that, though I very much appreciate and admire your efforts to get this right, Stalin-era images, particularly government/journalism ones, are unlikely to be claimed (the template should still be accurate, of course).

Thanks for your kind words about adminship--what a lot of buttons there are all of a sudden. :) Chick Bowen 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have already asked BradPatrick, who, I gather, is one of the Foundation's lawyers... Lupo 16:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, I'm not so much worried about claims. But I am convinced that the statement "works published pre-1973 in the USSR are in the public domain outside of the USSR" is patently false, utterly misleading, and based on a bogus reasoning. As you say, the template should be accurate. Or, I might add, as accurate as we can figure it out. Lupo 16:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:AlpineButterflyKnot.jpg?

Hi Lupo

You asked me the following..."Could you please help clarify the copyright status of some knot images..." I suppose its better to answer late than never?

All the knot images I posted were scanned by me and belong to the Wiki-community. These are all the images with amber background and the white nylon string. I'm hoping to put a little more energy into the knots as I re-gain my knowledge of the environment. I'm just getting back into the Wiki-swing of things and have a lot to re-learn and then learn with all the enhancements.

I'll go read up on how to Wiki-copyright a posted picture prior to posting more. Thanks for asking and thanks for your patience.

-- Satsun 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a surprise! Frankly said, I hadn't expected an editor to come back after three years and answer a copyright query. Thank you very much. (Further answer on your talk page.) Lupo 07:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A copyright question

Greetings. Over at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Other, there is an issue about the list Districts of Ghana. I was wondering if you could weigh in. Thanks, – Quadell 17:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left a longish note at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Other. Lupo 16:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Blackburn Skua.jpg

I've deleted this image (on which you commented at WP:CP), but it is also at commons, and you may want to bring up the matter there. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I don't think that'll be necessary. The general opinion seems to be that is UK Crown copyright, which has expired, and indeed I agree that this is highly likely. Lupo 08:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Archery

I know, and I see your point. What about Category:Marksmanship then, including all sort of shooting sports? dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I just don't know enough to say whether classifying crossbow and repeating crossbow under "archery" makes sense or not. Intuitively, I do not associate these weapons with archery. And anyway, including a mythical person such as William Tell in either category doesn't make much sense, it would need to be in Category:Archers (or some such—what's the term for crossbow shooters?) at least. Lupo 12:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Cimbrians and Teutons.png

Hello. Wiglaf created the map in question. He created many fine similar maps. He was a very prolific and high quality contributor (and, on a personal note, a good friend). Sadly, as you can see he has left the project and is unlikely to return anytime soon, if ever. But out of respect for his legacy, Iam trying to protect as many of his images, especially his maps, from deletion as best I can. The problem is, I get easily lost in the vast, tangled and ever changing maze of copyright tags. If you could find some way to help with this I would appreciate it. More importantly, you would be doing the project a favor. Thanks, --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time to go over his image uploads and systematically fill in any missing info. However, I have his talk page on my watch list, and since nowadays most uploaders do get notified prior to deletion of an image, I can catch the urgent cases. (Already did so a few times.) However, if you have specific questions on some images, I'll see what I can do. Lupo 15:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand and shall do. Thank you for the prompt response.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Chicken Soup with Barley

Listen Lupo, I wrote that entire Chicken Soup with Barley page, every last word of it. And then you think you can just waltz in and delete the humour section. Which was based on stuff told to me by Arnold Wesker when I met him about fifteen years ago. Seriously, what makes you think you can edit pages as savagely as you did?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pazuzu1990 (talk • contribs) 19:33, February 20, 2006 (UTC)

I can dance better than you. Either you get to understand before your next edit what an encyclopedia is, or you'll be shown the door. Lupo 19:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)