User talk:Lupo

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

2024

Friday

1

November

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Harald Naegeli, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer the images

Actually, the images of electronic tubes that I tagged with OTRS should be transferred to commons. There, I modified the ConfirmationOTRS template so that it talks of the licensing displayed on the page, not of GFDL. Do you want to do the transfer or do I do it? David.Monniaux 19:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a slow link right now, so if you could do it, that'd be great. But unless you move all such images for which we have a permission to the commons, the problem here on en: remains unsolved. Maybe a rewording would still be in order? Maybe a combined tag: GFDL for articles, but mention that for images, the claimed license has been confirmed by the OTRS ticket such and such. Lupo 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. David.Monniaux 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lupo 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bing

It's very good news: it means that prof. Donahue has no problem with writing it himself, and therefore we may probably expect something much more detailed than our internet searches could produce. I suppose you have already sent him a link to the article and explained to him how to expand it. Perhaps it would also be a good idea to point out to him, just in case he doesn't know this already, that wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can contribute to; being an expert on a subject will not necessarily prevent (anonymous) strangers from editing your text. David Sneek 10:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case, I'll proceed by sending him a very carefully worded follow-up message. I just wasn't sure because he sent back such a brief reply and also wasn't sure whether "I would not mind" could, in some idiomatic ways, also mean "I wouldn't/don't care"—you know, similar to the "I could/couldn't care less" snag. BTW, I had not only mentioned Bing, but also the Copeau article and the Vieux-Colombier, and provided links to the Suzanne Bing and Jacques Copeau articles. Lupo 10:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should create a Théâtre du Vieux-Colombier stub? David Sneek 10:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one of the theatres of the Comédie-Française and mentioned there. If you can put together a stub and link it from the Bing and Copeau pages, that'd be great. Lupo 10:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a shot later today. David Sneek 10:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlanBeddoe.png

Hi, it looks like the copyright and year are unknown. So it is probably best to just delete it since Crown copyright pictures are not allowed in Wikipedia. --YUL89YYZ 16:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shudders

-) kidding! Yeah... hopefully the fair use amendment I've added will allow us to delete images more easily. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam88

yes, it certainly looks like it (I am a bit uncomfortably with the number 88 I must say, at first I expected another stormfrontie). technically, the ban hasn't quite expired, since he broke it a couple of times, and I think it was supposed to be reset in such a case, but why quibble. I will just consider Adam88 as identical with Antifinnugor, now again with the permission to run into 3RR once a day. dab (ᛏ) 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the redirect now. There is really nothing to be discussed here I think. dab (ᛏ) 20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts of Ghana

Thanks for addressing the copyright issue. I've been away from Wikipedia and didn't see your message at User_talk:Gwil until now. In consequence, I seem to have missed the proposal you referred to on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. I have no problems with the Districts of Ghana page as it stands now. If you wanted something else, feel free to ask. I'll try to watch my talk page every day for a while. Gwil 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've added my comments to the Talk:Districts of Ghana page. Gwil 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USSR tag

[1] Hallo Lupo, ich bedaure, dass die Debatte, von der ich jetzt erst erfahren habe, weil ich nicht täglich hier bin, so unerfreulich endete. Dein Löschantrag war voll und ganz berechtigt. Da inzwischen Copyrights talk die zentrale Anlaufstelle ist, bei der man von so kompetenten Nutzern wie Dir rasch Antwort erhält, sollte man vielleicht auf anderen Copyright-Talk-Seiten Hinweise anbringen. Es gibt dort alte Anfragen, die nie beantwortet wurden, obwohl sie an sich nicht uninteressant sind. Sorry for writing German --Historiograf 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the moral support! Actually, it did have a positive side: it brought a few editors into the debate (which is still going on at Template talk:PD-USSR), and it brought out some editors who didn't care before, and most of these have shown that indeed they don't care or know anything about copyright. Sometimes, beating the bushes can be quite interesting... Anyway, I'm in a slow-going e-mail discussion with Jean-Baptiste Souffron; I hope he can help figure out a workable rule. I don't ask for a rule that is 100% correct, just one that covers most cases and appears reasonably correct. Sooner or later, that dreadfully wrong "pre-1973" rule will go, but I decided that before taking action again, I'd want to be able to present such a reasonable rule that is preferrably backed by the Foundation's lawyers. I haven't let the issue drop, and I won't. Patience will win the day.

About more pointers to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights... if you feel they are needed, just add them. I do check Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags and also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other from time to time, but I know that there are a couple more such pages, yet I just don't have the time to answer everywhere. Also, there are quite a few other Wikipedians who know a lot about copyright around here. Lupo 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nun ich denke, en kann wirklich froh sein, dass du dich so gründlich darum kümmerst. Solltest du irgendwelche Hilfe zu de brauchen, drop me a note. Thanks --Historiograf 03:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URL placed

Thanks for warning.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Incropera (talk • contribs) 22:21, March 2, 2006 (UTC)

User:Karim2006

I suppose that's within your range of discretion, but I don't think any user account whose first edit (vandalism or not) is to project space could be an actual clueless n00bie. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

TOC tip

Thanks Lupo for the "TOC tip". I didn't remember me. -- Paul Martin 11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Entry.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Entry.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Your statement at that image is confusing--was the image released as PD or GFDL or just permission given? Please note that, since our images are available for mirrors, permission-granted images are not allowed here. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I didn't upload that! I just tracked it down and provided the source. As the uploader is a permablocked vandal, I suggest speedying it. Lupo 08:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, Lupo! I was going through a whole lot of suspicious images quickly (by the way, if you're interested, here's my list). I get those templates for similar reasons sometimes and always find it annoying. I have deleted that image and another used in the same article. Chick Bowen 15:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of artworks

The overall tenor of the Copyright Office's position seems to be that it is generally impossible for something to be "published" if no copies have ever been made or distributed. If you think about this, it makes some sense. If there's really only the original, then all rights in the work are inherently privately owned and none have been offered to the public (which is one way to think about unpublished vs. published). Using that logic, the position that merely displaying the original does not constitute publication is also understandable.

However, keep in mind that you and I are interpreting the currently applicable law on the matter. For works created earlier in time, the historical state of the law might change the analysis. There's also the difficulty of knowing as a factual matter whether a particular work has ever been published. --Michael Snow 18:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I gave out legal advice, people would start coming and asking me for it, and then I'd have to start charging for it. And in the general sense, I'm reluctant to make statements that amount to saying some category of things is definitely in the public domain. Part of this is that "public domain" really means an absence of copyright protection, and I trust you realize the difficulty usually inherent in trying to prove a negative.

I would differ with part of your interpretation of the 1909 Copyright Act. It did not so much grant (federal) copyright protection to unpublished works as it didn't impair existing protection (under state law). And incidentally, registering a copyright did not necessarily constitute publication, see section 12.

One way of looking at the difference between the 1909 Act regime and that of the 1976 Act is as an extension of federal law in applying to unpublished works (this ties in with dropping the requirement of a copyright notice as well). And though we usually refer to federal law, it's important to keep in mind the possibility of other sources of law that affect copyrights. This used to have somewhat greater significance, and is still used by rightsholders at times, for example with old recordings where the federal copyright regime did not adapt to the issues fast enough to suit them.

Between the duality of the old regime and the reduced significance of publication in the new one, publication is not easy to pin down, although I wouldn't recommend suddenly assuming that old artwork is necessarily unpublished (being on Wikipedia suggests that it probably has been published in some sense at some point). For a synopsis of the situation, consider this now 50-year-old but still insightful quote from the Second Circuit:

Courts apply different tests of publication depending on whether plaintiff is claiming protection because he did not publish and hence has a common law claim of infringement—in which case the distribution must be quite large to constitute 'publication'—or whether he is claiming under the copyright statute—in which case the requirements for publication are quite narrow. In each case the courts appear so to treat the concept of 'publication' as to prevent piracy.

Piracy is a highly technical term meaning "bad copying" which is the opposite of "good copying" aka authorized reproduction or fair use. When you're looking at the potential for result-oriented law, it's hard to give you simple mechanical predictability of outcomes. So it may be that Wikipedia's culture and public image, which needs to be that of a good project with respect for copyrights, has comparable importance to the challenge of figuring out the technicalities. --Michael Snow 04:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is not as clear-cut as I would have hoped. If a painting was never digitized until after 1996, is it an "unpublished work"? If a painting was photographed with concent of the artist, and that photograph was presented (in a flyer, say, or a textbook), is that the first publication? Does it depend on the intent of the copyright holder, as Michael Snow seems to show above? Copyright law was certainly not written with Wikipedia's ease in mind. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't! :-) But what does 1996 have to with all this? And if it was digitized and posted on a web site (say, of a museum), is that then (first) "publication"? If so, who would hold the copyright? (Unpublished works published 1978 - 2002 are copyrighted until the later of 2047 or 70 years p.m.a!) The museum or web site owner? The artist or his/her heirs? Do museums ask the artists or their estates before putting up digitized versions of their holdings? Or do they usually also acquire the copyrights? Owning the canvas doesn't mean they owned the copyright... this is getting awfully complicated. I'm almost sorry I asked—I am getting confused. (But applying 70y p.m.a. is probably still a good rule of thumb for Wikipedia, I think.) Lupo 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 1996, I meant 2003 - I got my years mixed up. If a work was created by an author who died in 1935 or earlier, but the work was first published in 2003 or later, then it's considered an "unpublished work" and in the public domain. About the others, I have no idea. Does anyone know someone who had artwork exhibited in the 1930s or 1940s? Or an art museum curator from that period? I guess 70y pma is fine as an intirim guideline. (Incidently, the {{PD-art}} tag currently states that the author died more than 100 years ago, which seems a bit restrictive. But the PD-art tag on the Commons says 70 years. Go figure.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Artwork. Lupo 08:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He removed my comments

and that pissed me off. If you know him ask him to play straight. =Bhannu 13:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier retreat

I think we have addressed amny of the issues you may have had with the Glacier retreat article...if you care to have look, you'll see it has undergone a restructuring and is a lot closer to what you may have had in mind...your comments would be welcome of course and I appreciate your time.--MONGO 05:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schöpfungshöhe

Have a look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he Greetings --Historiograf 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite good. I suppose you wanted me to read it to get constructive criticism? Here goes:

Content: Very good, obviously written by someone who knows the subject well :-) (Yes, I did look at the history...) I would try to avoid the three long quotes. The two from the courts use language that is not accessible to a layperson (even a German native speaker, I think) who hasn't studied the issues beforehand. I think it would be better to paraphrase and summarize them, but leave in the source links such that interested readers can still get the original dense text of these decisions. In "Probleme mit der Schöpfungshöhe", I would leave out or rephrase the second-but-last paragraph "...gestanzte Formeln..." as it is POV (even though I agree). Peter Thiel doesn't seem to be a lawyer; I'm not sure his opinion, even if well-founded, is truly up to encyclopedic standards. Why not qualify this and formulate it more generally ("Auf Außenstehende können solche Formulierungen wie gestanzte Formeln wirken, ..."), and then also summarize Thiel's position. I wouldn't mention him by name (unless he's well-known), but again leave in the link. The article also mentions that a happening could be copyrighted. Here I would elaborate on performances in general. A particular concert, i.e. performance of a musical work, is also copyrighted, isn't it?
Format issues: I think the presentation of the four criteria for the copyrightability could be improved by mixing the criteria with the explanations like this:

Nach Loewenheim (S. 54) unterschiedet man vier Elemente oder Schutzvoraussetzungen des Werkbegriffs:

Es muss eine persönliche Schöpfung des Urhebers vorliegen.
Dies schließt Hervorbringungen der Natur, von Maschinen und Tieren aus. Urheber sind stets Menschen. Die Werke von malenden Schimpansen sind daher nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt. Es wird allgemein abgelehnt, objets trouvés, irgendwo vorgefundene Gegenstände (etwa einen besonders bizarren Ast), in den Urheberrechtsschutz einzubeziehen.
Sie muss einen geistigen Gehalt haben.
Es muss der menschliche Geist im Werk zum Ausdruck kommen. Das Ergebnis gedankenloser Spielereien oder rein mechanischer Tätigkeiten ist nicht geschützt.
Sie muss eine wahrnehmbare Formgestaltung aufweisen.
Das Werk muss eine bestimmte Form angenommen haben, die der Wahrnehmung durch die menschlichen Sinne zugänglich geworden ist. Es ist nicht nötig, dass es körperlich fixiert wurde. Auch ein Happening kann geschützt sein.
Es muss in ihr die Individualität des Urhebers zum Ausdruck kommen.
Dieses ist das zentrale Kriterium des Werkbegriffs. Je stärker die Individualität des Urhebers im Werk zum Ausdruck kommt, um so größer ist die Schöpfungshöhe und der Schutzumfang.

(If you want to copy this source, remove the initial three colons ":::" before putting it into the article.) Although I don't know if such an organization would work well in the context of the overall layout; maybe the chimp image interferes. On a more general note: I'm not sure this whole presentation of these four criteria belong into the article de:Schöpfungshöhe, only three of these criteria actually have something to do with creativity. Maybe they should be discussed in de:Deutsches Urheberrecht. (Which should be linked, and where you should add a summary and a link to de:Schöpfungshöhe, too.)

HTH, Lupo 08:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

many thanks! -Historiograf 16:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

... for removing vandalism on my user page. Some people really don't like being warned for vandalism... Schutz 10:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Howdy! Just read your comment over on the DYK proposals page about Forest swastika and made a response, but since I'm not all that familiar with the feature I figured I'd come over here to ask a question. Typing it out it sounds a little confrontational, but I've no ulterior motive other than actual curiosity. Anyways, my question is whether DYK is for featuring new subjects or new articles. If it's the former, I'd agree that the nomination shouldn't go through since there is previous content on the subject, though that content was a copyright violation and is only viewable by admins. If it's the latter, however, I'd say that the article has as fair a shot at the main page as any of the other entries there. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either, which is why I phrased it as a question. I don't care, I just thought I'd point it out. Lupo 13:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not overly concerned about whether or not the article gets main-page exposure — given the obscurity of the subject matter it's unlikely that it'll bring any worthwhile changes, but I'm a stickler for rules and wanted to make sure I understood what was expected to be on the page. Thanks for the quick response! :) GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 13:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your message

hi Lupo,

yes I guess we could, but I think it would still be better to try to get it the normal way first, who knows maybe we'll be lucky. I just send an Email to them, waiting for the response. I know that sometimes they charge money for images, I hope this will not be the case (because who's going to pay?). If it should get difficult, let's see what we can do next, but if there is a refusal of use, then I think the case is pretty much clear. Gryffindor 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you put the source for Image:Potega Rzeczypospolitej u zenitu Zlota wolnosc Elekcja 1573.JPG, which is good. However you sourced the Image:Uchwalenie Konstytucji 3 Maja.jpg from [2], clearly these are two different versions of the same painting (different size, colour, etc.) I have to reinsert the unknown source tag until the actual source is really given, sorry. Gryffindor 14:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page. You're mistaken. Lupo 14:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your language and do not call me "silly" [3], it is not necessary. I am not saying that the image is not public domain nor are photographs of such copyrighted, however that still does not touch the issue of where the source of the specific file is, which needs to be given, regardless of Bridgeman v. Corel. And the source you have provided is not the same of the image. Gryffindor 14:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Look, I'm not trying to make life difficult for anyone, nor am I going to go an a "tagging spree". I have left a message with User:Emax that s/he needs to take care of this business of all the images that were uploaded. Which means I'm obviously giving the user a chance to do so instead of tagging them all and giving only 7 days pronto (which IMO is kinda too short anyways, but that's another issue). However sources are necessary, which is what you have agreed upon as well. If the user scanned it from a book, then that's fine too, however that needs to be stated. And if the image is public domain (which it most likely will be), then there really is no problem is there? But we need to do the right thing and we need the correct sources. I want these images to stay on Wikipedia as well, but that cannot mean that we can bend or even break the rules and laws. And it is the primary responsibility of the user who uploads the image to provide the source. I'm sure you and me can both agree on this. Gryffindor 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emax is inactive since early 2005, he has either left or is editing under another handle. Previous experience suggests that if he's still around, he doesn't monitor his old talk page, and/or doesn't want to give away his new identity, and you're unlikely to get an answer from him. So save you the time, it's no use notifying him. On the rest: we don't "bend or even break the rules and laws". Lupo 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well good (and bad) to know this user is not doing anything anymore, the uploaded image's sources will have to be searched for individually in that case :-/ Gryffindor 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict, LT COL William P, Polar Times

I am researching information regarding Benedict and the first flight to the geographic north pole, for which he was plane captain, in 1952. I can't find the article by Compton, as written for the polar times. How did you come to work on the bio of Benedict, and any info. would be appreciated ( I am a grad student, and this info is for my thesis, which recounts the story of the expedition of May 3, 1952). Thanks, reggierose@comcast.net

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.47.120 (talk • contribs)

This is about the article William P. Benedict. Well, we really don't have much on him, basically just what was written here. Someone copied that text into Wikipedia, and I rephrased it, cleaned it up, and hunted for some third-party confirmation that this was true (that's where the firefighters' memorial link comes from). To get the article, contact the Polar Times directly, or ask Compton himself. An e-mail address of his from July 2005 is given here. (It also appears that he himself edited the article on Joseph O. Fletcher on September 14, 2005, so chances are that he's still alive and well and interested in the subject. If you ask him nicely, I gather you have good chances of getting a wealth of information from him.) HTH Lupo 07:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher, LT COL Joseph O., May 3, 1952 Polar Expedition

Hello, again: I am writing in regard to the above topic, as well as Lt. Col. Benedict, whom piloted this plane. I already wrote to you regarding your sources and possible additional info. regarding any of this you might have. I have extensively researched this topic as I am writing about it as my thesis--facts contained for both men and the expedition are accurate, so I know you are tapping an authentic source for the information posted on this website.

PLEASE contact me regarding this as I am hitting walls and know info. out there exists on all of it (as this website attests to)--I also know this info. was not posted too long ago, as I have been researching for over 2 years and this is the first I found it..... Regards, Reggierose@comcast.net

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.47.120 (talk • contribs)

See above. BTW, you did see this link given in the article on Fletcher? Lupo 07:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fletcher himself is still alive. Try finding his e-mail address and contact him! (Or maybe you'll have to use snail mail or even go visit and interview him.) Lupo 08:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note Compton's web page, and I've expanded Benedict's article a little from an Italian book review. You might try to get hold of Compton's book, too. Lupo 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more searching turned up an interview Brian Shoemaker conducted with Fletcher in 1997. Lupo 10:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

threat to block forever

Why do you believe Richard Arthur Norton has been inaccurate in his description of image copyright information? (for one? for many? for all?) Might you be wrong? Can you refer me to where you discussed your concerns with him? Or are you 100% sure he is in the wrong? WAS 4.250 16:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]