Misplaced Pages

User talk:Lupo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:22, 30 September 2004 editLupo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,890 edits →[]: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 18:02, 30 September 2004 edit undoDarwinek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators180,870 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 319: Line 319:


:If you want to rework the article, fine, but removing information just because you changed your mind is not a good idea. ] 13:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) :If you want to rework the article, fine, but removing information just because you changed your mind is not a good idea. ] 13:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About US track and field athletes. So I can write just only stubs?
] 18:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:02, 30 September 2004

Archive

Sorry about "Johnny Owens" post

I didn't notice it was copyright-protected. I'll be more careful when i post something :)


Images from the Australian parliament are not copyright. Adam 12:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted material

I'm the author of this copyrighted material. Is there no convention for allowing copyrighted material to be reproduced with the author's permission?

Hm. Look, you can't post stuff that includes a © notice saying "all rights reserved". You are submitting (i.e., re-licensing) the text under the terms of the GFDL, which allows anyone to edit it and to redistribute it, even for commercial purposes. Are you sure that's what you want? If you are the author, and do hold the copyright, state so on the talk page of the article. I will now send an e-mail to Michael Karl Witzel as a way to get independent confirmation. (On the wiki, anybody can claim to be anyone... :-) So watch your yahoo e-mail inbox! Lupo 21:18, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fine. I did get confirmation, and the whole issue (for the benefit of all bystanders: which was about Diner) has been resolved amiably. Lupo 22:22, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

why did removed the picture? (Pamela Anderson)

there is no problem with that picture... --Qwerty12 16:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello Lupo. The user above has uploaded the Pamela Anderson image to the Hebrew Misplaced Pages as well, explaining it was taken from here. Now I see that he is the same one that uploaded it to here as well, and that it was removed. Is the image copyrighted? If it is, and needs to be removed from the Hebrew Wiki, let me know, and I'll delete it over there. Thanks, Roy 19:11, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Qwerty12, I don't know if you are T.Ho. If you are, please understand that I do not intend to offend anyone. But I do think that these "portraits" of T.Ho are of poor quality. They do not give the reader (or viewer, as it were) an adequate, realistic idea of how the person portrayed looks like. In articles where Misplaced Pages doesn't (yet) have a real photo of a person, using one of T.Ho's graphics may be all right—it may be better than no image at all. But once an article gets a real picture of the person, these artworks serve no purpose anymore. Misplaced Pages is not the place to showcase somebody's artistic skills, and realistic photos are to be preferred over artistic portraits in an encyclopedia whereever possible. Art, by its very nature, embodies the personal preferences of the artist and is less objective than a photograph. True, a photographer also composes an image and decides how s/he wants to depict a subject, but still I do believe that photographs are more neutral, realistic, and generally more suitable for use in an encyclopedia. For these reasons, I had removed T.Ho's portrait of Pamela Anderson, for that article has a real photograph. (Moreover, one that is purported to be in the public domain, whereas there is no clear licensing information for T.Ho's portrait.) Lupo 07:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This still doesn't answer my question: should I remove the pic?--Roy 19:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

I confirmed it by phone with Auspic when this first arose. You'll just have to take my word for it. Adam 07:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Francis Buchanan-Hamilton

Sorry - hadn't noticed Francis Hamilton-Buchanan, most of the references seem ot have it as Francis Buchanan-Hamilton. Shyamal 10:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copying text from Fortress UK site

I would like to transfer text from my Fortress UK site into Misplaced Pages. How can I do this without being tripped up by copyright queries like on the Fort Charlotte page for each new entry? John Bray

As I said, I'll e-mail you in a minute. Lupo 15:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that

Sorry about reverting your revert to Elvis, I guess maybe I was agreeing it was a revert or something. I don't know. -- user:zanimum

Hey, no problem! Actually made me smile. Unfortunately I couldn't think of a witty edit summary... Lupo 20:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the defacing of http://en.wikipedia.org/Semaphore_%28communication%29. I'm glad there are some alert readers out there! David 20:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bulletin board type useage of wikipedia

Hi

I really hope you are an admin for this site because i have some serious concerns. I got your message directed to me. But the Ip address you are tracing is a corporate firewall. we are a call center where sometimes there are long durations of downtime between calls, because of this out tech department has allowed internet acess to certain sites. Misplaced Pages is one of them. many people here use the site daily. If you could block the ip address from making changes but still allow view only acess, it would prevent a couple idiots from ruining it for the rest of us.

thankyou

I have no idea what this is all about. Lupo 07:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Generals Daughter

www.allmovie.com

Also try:

www.allmusic.com www.allgame.com

How is that nonsense?? It is a very notable pop-culture reference.

... and what is this about? In case you mean Jason Allan: any article that starts with "Dumbass" and fails to give context is fair game for speedy deletion. (The latter in itself is a sufficient criterion.) Write a decent article about him! BTW, you can sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); the software will replace them by your signature and a timestamp when you save the page. Lupo 10:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Westland Lynx Photograph

Why did you remove the Westland Lynx image? The Westland Helicopters Website where it was downloaded from (http://www.whl.co.uk/) clearly stated:

The photos on this site are the property of Westland Helicopters Ltd (an AgustaWestland company) and are made available for publishing and personal use. They may not be changed or combined with other images in any manner without prior written consent of Westland Helicopters Ltd.

Misplaced Pages clearly falls under publishing and is therefore allowed to use this image. If you have information to the contrary, the other photograph in the article should also be deleted as it was downloaded from the same source.

Well, I see the following text at http://www.whl.co.uk/disclaimer.html :
" The contents of the pages on this web site are copyright Westland Helicopters Ltd. The copying or incorporation into any other work or part or all of the material available on this web site in any form is prohibited save that you may: download extracts of the material on the site for your personal use; or: copy the material on the site for the purpose of sending to individual third parties for their personal information provided that you acknowledge us as the source of the material and that you inform the third party that these conditions apply to them and that they must comply with them."
Based on this statement, I deleted the image as a copyvio. Lupo 13:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the tip and praise!

I,m doing my very best to make the Ann-Margret page look beautiful. Thank you! And, I finally got it right! Just look at it now.

Thanks for help with Edgar Cayce on Karma.

Thanks again. Thats all.--Jondel 08:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Thanks again for help with Languages of the Philippines.

I am sending the appropriate e-mails/contact.--Jondel 08:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

e-mails responded.
From your responce to netaholic.
>I've just spent several hours going through page histories and the like.

Thank you very much for you time effort. I hope this mess will clear up soon.--Jondel 04:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your assistance with copyright issues on images

Hi Lupo, I figure you're the guy I can talk to first about copyright issues. Image:Ac.papyrus.jpg is actually copyrighted material and is actually the same as http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus/papyrus3.jpg. This is on a featured article! In fact, all the images placed on this article have been placed on there by Adam Carr without any image copyright attributions. Image:Ac.arthurhunt.jpg has no attribution, and I think comes from http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VExhibition/images/a6.jpg, and the copyright status is unclear. The case could be stated that this is a fairuse image, however this is debatable. The image Image:Ac.bernardgrenfell.jpg also has no copyright attribution, and appears to be a cleaned up version of the image http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/aip/grenfell_150dpi.jpeg found from http://www.ulb.ac.be/assoc/aip/galerie_g-l.htm. The original source of this image is "P. Oxy. XVII (1927) front." The image Image:Ac.oxyrhynchus.jpg appears to be a modification of http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/oxyrhynchus7.jpg, from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/oxyrhynchus.htm (which is copyrighted material). So here's my problem: we have a featured article story with all the images (contributed by one user) under doubt. Firstly, what does this do to the featured article status, secondly what do we do about the images, and thirdly how do we make sure this user doesn't keep doing this? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Further to this, please note the following images have no copyright attribution and no image source. This is going to make it hard for us to use fair use and fair dealing stick! I can't track down their original source.

I have tracked down what I believe to be the original sources for the following images:

There are plenty more. What do I do?! Adam Carr is a good editor and contributor, by the way (even though I disagree with him on some edits). It's just that I'm a bit concerned with these images having no source and copyright... it doesn't reflect too well on Misplaced Pages!

Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Adam is, when it comes to images, a problem user. In fact, I'm still in the process of verifying his claim that AUSPIC images were not copyrighted. I'll tell him once more that he should provide source and licensing info (if you check his talk page, you'll see that several people have told him so already; see e.g. the version from Sep 18, 2004). If he still doesn't change his behavior, I'm afraid I'll have to start an RfC on this. It is troublesome, and it's been going on for far too long. Lupo 07:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lupo, I can verify this for you. I live in Australia. Please message me the contact details or a website and I will get this underway. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am finding this all rather tiresome and puzzling. The photos of Australian MPs and Senators are from the www.aph.gov.au website. They are taken by Auspic, and I rang Auspic when this was first raised to find out if they are copyright, and they told me that they are available for non-commercial use. These photos are widely reproduced in Australia. That is why they are at the website. How many times do I have to explain this? If you don't believe me ring Auspic yourself (+61 2 6277 3342). As to the other images referred to above, Map1.gif, etc, are maps I created myself. How do I "license" my own work? The other images come from a variety of historical and political websites, which I couldn't now remember even if I wanted to. The use of all these images for a non-commercial purpose such as an encyclopaedia is "fair use" under any reasonable interpretation. Since most of them are of long-dead politicians and generals and taken by long-dead photographers, and since they have been posted to multiple similar websites, I would be very surprised if there are any copyright issues with them. I must say I think this whole image-copyright issue that some people here have is greatly exaggerated. There are obvious copyright issues with current news media images and images by professional photographers (which are clearly marked as copyright), but I doubt anyone cares a straw about the re-use of these old photos. And even if they do, they will in the first place ask Misplaced Pages to remove them. (I have no idea what "licensing info" means, by the way). Adam 08:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bad news for you Adam. This isn't correct. I just contacted the Parliament of Australia and we need to get confirmation of copyright for the images - and we need to do this department by department. There is no such thing in Australia as a fair use for the government. I'm going to verify with Auspic the copyright status of these images myself. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. Give the sources. just state "Source: <URL>" on the image description page, replacing "<URL>" by the URL you got the image from. For stuff created by yourself, just say so.
  2. Licensing: there's a whole slew of ready-made image copyright tags that you can use. What's so damn complicated about putting e.g. "{{noncommercial}}" on an image description page? (But for "non-commercial use only"-images, see Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems#Non-commercial_use_images! Jimbo doesn't want them because he thinks they're not free. I think we should use them (they're at least properly licensed, which is more than what can be said about dubious "fair use" claims), but he owns Misplaced Pages, and so I won't upload such images. (Nor will I ever delete such images.)) For stuff you created yourself, decide on an appropriate license (GFDL, or one of the Creative Commons Licenses) and use the corresponding tag.
  3. On AUSPIC: no offense meant, but I've seen the claim "this image is copyright free" too often. I prefer to get some e-mail confirmation for such claims. If they don't reply to my e-mails, I will phone them (though that will be a rather expensive long-distance call for me) and see if I can get them to send me a confirming e-mail in that way.
There is absolutely no need to do this. I am an Australian and I can contact them. What is AUSPIC's phone number/website? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Adam gave it above. I've sent them two e-mails so far (the second one today), asking for clarifications. If you'd like to call them, thanks a lot. Try to get them to send you an e-mail explaining the copyright status of their images found on web sites of the Australian government. If you want, I can forward you the two e-mails I have already sent. Lupo 18:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  1. As to "fair use": Australian copyright law doesn't know fair use. In fact, it's a peculiarity of U.S. law, and I have strong doubts that it can be applied to anything but U.S. sources.
  2. The "copy it and see if we can get away with it" attitude you express in your above statement is highly unprofessional.
Lupo 08:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good grief. Why do you think we have an Images for deletion page? Also, how do we know whether your images are in the public domain, under GFDL or under Creative Commons licensing?
One point I maybe should have made, however, is that Australian copyright lasts for 50 years. If any of the images created in Australia is over 50 years old, then we are in the clear. However, we should still be attributing the sources of the image so that this can be verified. Another thing that needs to be made clear is that just because we aren't aware of the copyright status of the image or material in question does not mean wikipedia won't be held liable for copyright infringement. Ignorance is no excuse under Australian law. Under Australian copyright, creators of works have three "moral rights" when we reproduce their work:
  1. they must be attributed
  2. they are able to take action if you state their work is someone else's work, or alter their work and say it's your own or someone elses
  3. can take action against you if you use the work to defame or dishonor them
It's not hard to track down this info, btw. Just go to http://www.copyright.org.au and look at http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G010.pdf. The important point here though is that although Australia doesn't have "fair use" it does have fair dealing legislation. For it to apply, you must be reviewing or criticising that work, doing research or study or be reporting news. None of these things are likely to be claimable for the images I've noted. The images aren't for research or study - they are for finishing off the final article, though the case could be made that the image is for the purpose of "a thorough examination and analysis of a particular subject" (the same definition as the Macquarie dictionar . It can't be criticism or review, because the Australia Federal Court has stated that for the reproduced work to be seen as criticism and review the article must make some form of judgement. Misplaced Pages does not do this, it's against the whole concept of NPOV! For more info see http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G079.pdf So unless we can get copyright status, then we're stuffed on each of the Australian images.
Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's Australian copyright law got to do with it? Very few of the images I use are Australian, and Misplaced Pages is based in Florida, I believe. However, since y'all seem to think this is such a big deal I will try to be more attentive to it in future. I have no idea what GFDL or Creative Commons are but I suppose I can find out. Adam 13:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Copyright is an important issue for Misplaced Pages, and we need to be able to clarify the copyright status of our material. We're paranoid about it because a company like SCO might come along and try to kill the project dead. Or even try to take away the close to $50,000 that has been contributed so far in donations. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Adam, I mentioned Australian copyright law only because of the AUSPIC images. If they indeed are "copyright-free", then of course that mention is completely misleading. If they're not, we could maybe use them under "fair use", but I do not know whether fair use applies to non-U.S. sources. Probably not. As to fair dealing: AFAIK, fair dealing is a closed copyright exemption: i.e. an exhaustive list of things you may do. If we can find some item in this list that would apply to using images despite their being copyrighted, fine. But if not, then we just can't use them. (Fair use, on the other hand, is open, i.e. must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.) Lupo 18:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair dealing template

Lupo, I've created an Australian fairdealing tag: Template:AustFairdealing. Want to check this out? Also, I think I'm going to be expanding the fair dealing Austalian section once I read the relevant acts. Anyway, what do you think? Maybe we could add this to the Misplaced Pages:copyright page if the community likes it. How do I get this tag to be reviewed? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll read up on Australian copyright law (thanks for the pointers!), and I'll take a look at the template then. No time right now, sorry. Lupo 18:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok, now having read the relevant information sheets at (they're very good), I see that Australian copyright law knows exactly four exemptions from copyright protection (which is automatic in Australia, i.e. one doesn't need to register or even place a © on a publication—the mere act of publication suffices):
  • research and study, where "research is defined as "diligent and systematic enquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover facts or principles..." and "study" as "a thorough examination and analysis of a particular subject..." (). However, use is limited to "For text material published in electronic form, it is deemed to be fair to reproduce one chapter or 10% of the number of words." (ibid.)
  • criticism or review: as you pointed out, the definition of either term includes judgement and thus contradicts our NPOV policy. Therefore, this cannot apply to Misplaced Pages.
  • reporting news: also doesn't apply to Misplaced Pages
  • professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney. Also doesn't apply.
Hence, the only way we could invoke "fair dealing" under Australian copyright law was the "study" case: one could argue that the writing of an encyclopedia article is a study. However, the "max. 10%" rule in effect cannot be enforced on a Wiki, and thus we cannot use that excuse either.
In summary, I don't see how fair dealing under Australian copyright law could be used to justify including copyrighted text or images in Misplaced Pages, and thus I believe the template has no use. All this under one big caveat: I am not a lawyer. Lupo 07:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it should be OK if we use this on images. We'd have to prove that it's no more than 10% of the original material. Perhaps I could make this specific to images? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, they only talk about text. How "10%" would be interpreted with respect to images, I do not know. For the discussion here, let's just assume it was "10% of all images on the website". How would we enforce that we didn't use more than that? Assume there were 100 images of Australian senators. The first 10 uploads would be ok, but the eleventh not? We have no way of controlling that, and thus I think we cannot rely on the "study" exception either. Lupo 07:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hold on... each individual article is counted as a seperate body of research. Unless we had an article with a picture of 100 senators (I don't think that would happen!) and the total work is 10% then we don't need to worry. Besides which, at the end of the day whether we have this tag or not is beside the point. If we somehow quote more than 10% of the work, then we violate Australian law. We would have to modify the article in any case! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
They say explicitly in : "if you are reproducing text or printed music which is published as an edition of 10 or more pages, the Act deems that it is fair to copy: (a) 10% of the number of pages; or (b) one chapter, if the work is divided into chapters. (For text material published in electronic form, it is deemed to be fair to reproduce one chapter or 10% of the number of words. If text is available in hardcopy and separately in electronic form, you can apply either the test relating to the number of pages or relating to the number of words to work out what is deemed to be fair.)" I would assume that in the case of a web site like , one page on a senator might be considered one chapter. And if the images are taken from (A single PDF file with all the pictures), my above argument certainly applies. However, I've just noted that they also say "For other material, such as drawings, photographs, unpublished material and so on, the Act does not state how much you may use without permission. Rather, you will need to consider whether, in all the circumstances, it is fair to use the material." and then goes on to give a list of considerations that is surprisingly close to the U.S. notion of "fair use".
Hmph. So, on closer reading, it does seem that Australian fair dealing is—concerning images only!—very much like U.S. "fair use". Only for text the strict 10% rule applies. That info should go into the fair dealing article.
In light of this, I now think that indeed your template may have some value. Remains to be argued that writing a Misplaced Pages article is a kind of "study"... if we can argue that, then we can use that template for Australian images. Lupo 14:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The whole thing is simply a question of jurisdiction. If we include a copyrighted work from some other country than the U.S. under the U.S. "fair use" copyright exemption, and the non-U.S. copyright holder then sues Misplaced Pages (or the Wikimedia foundation, or Jimbo), where does he have to go to court?

  • If he can sue in his own country, then we can apply fair use only to U.S. materials because a non-U.S. court would apply non-U.S. law, and thus "fair use" wouldn't even be considered.
  • If, however, the non-U.S. copyright holder would have to sue in Florida, a U.S. court would apply U.S. law, and Misplaced Pages would be fine if the "fair use" claim was substantiated.

From what I have gathered from previous discussions on this subject, nobody around here seems to know which case would apply, but apparently there is some concern that the first might occur: the German Misplaced Pages, for instance, does not allow fair use images, because German copyright law doesn't have the concept. It only has a few well-defined exemptions akin to fair dealing, and none of them are applicable to Misplaced Pages. Lupo 07:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see how the new fair trade agreement between Australia and the U.S. deals with this. We've been progressively harmonising our laws with the U.S. laws. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

I spoke again to Auspic this morning. They again told me that these images are available for non-commercial use. They said they would prefer that the pictures were tagged "photo courtesy Auspic" but this is not a legal requirement. They are sending me a written statement to this effect and I will post this when I get it. Adam 08:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's good. So we'll have to add the sources and the "{{noncommercial}}" tag to these images, plus a Wikilink to the confirming e-mail once you've posted it somewhere. Adding "photo courtesy of AUSPIC" on the image description pages might be a good idea, too. Lupo 08:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In order to satisfy who, exactly? There are 150 MPs and 76 Senators. I'm not going to do all that work unless there is a very good reason - eg, a real possibility of legal action. Adam 09:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I know it's work, and I already told you I consider it extremely rude to let others do that work when you can do it easily when you upload an image. Of course, it is work for you, too, when you have to do it retroactively for previously uploaded images. But anyway, we're going to help you with it. As to your childish question "to satisfy who": You are aware that both Australian and U.S. copyright law and in fact the international copyright law and thus the copyright laws of any country that signed the Berne Convention always requires attribution? Maybe it's time you read up on copyright issues. Lupo 10:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The images are either available for non-commercial use or they are not. If they are not, I will delete them. If they are (as Auspic tell me is the case), then I will leave them as they are. Adam 10:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Józef Haller

I have an eye on other images submitted by our new friend. We're also having a chat on the idea of copyrights and copyright tags (we both know that learning all the nuances takes time). As to the picture itself - I investigated the history of this picture some time ago when I uploaded it to the Polish wiki. It was an official portrait of gen. Haller used during and after the Polish-Bolshevik War of 1920. It was used in official publications of the Polish ministry of war affairs as well as by the media. I've seen the picture used several dozen times - without any info on the author or copyrights. According to present Polish law (post-1994) the copyrights (if the image was ever copyrighted at all) expired long ago (it's 65 years in most cases, AFAIR). On the other hand the polishpd is somehow clumsy, just as fairuse and other "copyleft assumed" licenses. In this case the matter is clear, the image is not copyrighted and as such it should be treated as simple international PD. ] 00:34, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I forgot that in was an image from the 1920s. What about the World War II images: Image:Smigly rydz.jpg, Image:Wladyslaw Anders.jpg, and Image:Stanislaw Maczek.jpg? Is {{polishpd}} appropriate, or is there something in Polish copyright law that would make them plain {{PD}}? I'm worried a bit about the "non-retroactive copyright law of July 10, 1952": these images were most probably taken before that date, and thus I fear that this exemption from copyright protection might in fact not apply. Lupo 07:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It all depends on the source of the photos. I believe all of them are applicable for fairuse, but the source needs to be stated by the uploader. ] 09:06, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
The source always needs to be stated. That is required by the Berne Convention. Lupo 09:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know that, that's why I asked Emax to provide sources. ] 12:17, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Einstein2.jpg

I added this to the Swedish deletion page. It should be erased within a few days. Thanks for the notification. / Mats 19:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this (and for replacing the image so quickly). I got confused because on sv:, VfD seems to be part of the Village Pump. And since I can't read Swedish, I thought I'd check RC to see if somebody whose name I might recognize was around. But you sure have powerful words over there: upphovsrättsbrott or even copyrightbrott just sound great (especially the former)! We should start using that over here: "Never again upload a copyrightbrott, or else!" Sounds much harsher than "Please do not upload copyright violations". :-) Lupo 19:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Lupo for the copyviol warning. we already replaced the image in the Spanish Misplaced Pages - Hasta la vista. --Jorge GG 20:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Einsein's image was replaced in Polish Misplaced Pages - THANKS Superborsuk 21:09, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Replaced in Turkish Misplaced Pages as well. Thanks for the note. at0 21:39, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The image is now deleated from the swedish wikipedia. // Solkoll 21:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights in Arabic Misplaced Pages

Thank you for the notice in my talk page, I will have the image replaced instantly.

Columbia U Copyrights

I am taking action now to delete the article information, please understand that in the coming months I seek to expand them, but from this point on, I am taking a wikihiatus. -- Ctrl_build. 21:53:52 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

for information about Einstein image gl:user:agremon

Grey Owl and other non-natives

I presume you comment (at Talk:Grey Owl) is because impostor is usually connected to criminal or fraudulent endeavors, as it usually is. You certainly have a point. Unfortunately, I do not know any other term for people who have misrepresented their background, even if their intentions are not criminal as such. As far as I know, terms like "white indian" and "black indian" are at least partially derogatory (as in some african-americans accusing middle-class blacks "going white"). However, I wish there would be good term who people who have "gone native" (usually westerners who have joined some other culture for their own reasons) - Grey Owl and Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance would certainly fit that bill. There was also Victorian man who wanted to become an ottoman sultan or something like that but the name escapes me at the moment.

Very good picture, by the way. - Skysmith 09:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. "Impostor" bit me because of its negative connotations. I'm not sure whether "black indian" or "white indian" is derogatory, both terms get lots of Googlits on respectable web sites. Grey Owl pretended to be an Ojibwa. How sincere this was I cannot judge, and whether the Ojibwas accepted him as one of theirs, I do not know. Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance at least was (according to the article) adopted by the Blood tribe. Now what do we do with naturalized people? Do we have a category for those? We certainly don't call them "impostors". Maybe both Grey Owl and Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance should simply removed from the list at impostor and from the category...
BTW, was Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance born in 1890 or 1893? The article gives both! Lupo 10:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Most of my (few) sources say 1890 - I corrected it. I have also noticed term "faux indian".
As for their sincerity, it is probably impossible to say. Sylvester Long probably wanted to better his own social position and Belaney had romantic fascination to amerindian life, but this is entirely my own view. Ojibwas were probably aware of the origin of the Grey Owl but (AFAIK) said nothing when Yellow Robe spoke about his suspicions about Long. Long's "adoption" was apparently more of a "honorific membership" amerindian tribes have bestowed to celebrities (like Robert Pershing Wadlow) and even foreign dignitaries, and that does not necessarily mean true membership of the tribe.
As for naturalization, most of those who change citizenship do not try to change their past and claim that they were, say, born in their new homeland. But as I said, you have a point- Skysmith 10:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


And then again, maybe I'm just overreacting to the term "impostor". makes a fascinating read, but would need additional secondary sources to guard agaist POV before one could make a Misplaced Pages article out of it. Lupo 10:35, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your recent DiMaggio image uploads: sources, please!

Do you have a LIFE? Obviously not! But, just to humour you, I got pic #1 from ESPN (ask THEM where they got it!), pics #2 and #3 from google images search (again, ask THEM where they got them!) You still wanna zap 'em, knock yourself out -- I could give a f*ck!


HSDL-9100-021 proximity sensor

Lupo ,

Thanks for restoring. I wasn't planning to have it restored because it probably was not that relevant. Did'nt have enough motivation anymore. Besides, I guess I was too attached to my articles.(- - Yeah , I'm a wikipediaholic in denial - - ) So I should practise detachment.

Thanks anyway. --Jondel 09:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Korean Buddhism

It is true that I originally entered the material for the article on Korean Buddhism, but I found that I did not like seeing the article passed around without getting due credit. I have freely contributed hundreds of other articles to Misplaced Pages, but have decided that I do not want this one posted. As the author, I do have this right, and I think it is reasonable for Wikipedians to observe this courtesy.

Charles Muller

Look, I'm an extensive contributor to Misplaced Pages. I've written hundreds of articles. This happens to be a longer piece for which I've decided that I want due credit. I am not concerned about legalisms. If I am the author, and I don't want my work in Misplaced Pages, it seems to me that I should have the right to decide that. If not, that there is certainly something very wrong here.

(Above posted by Acmuller on September 30, 2004. Moved from my user page. Lupo 11:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I'm sorry that you feel this way. But you are credited in the history pages. As to your removal: please note that this is no longer "your" article. By removing the text you also show disrespect for all the edits other people made since August 19, 2003, even if you may feel that these edits were all minor. Nothing is wrong here, but AFAIK "once GFDL, always GFDL". Anyway, I propose to re-instantiate the text again, until this issue has been hashed out with Jimbo. After all, a few more days (if his decision should be to remove it) doesn't matter much, does it? Would you please re-instantiate the text yourself? Thank you. Lupo 11:44, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BTW, the license is GFDL, not GPL. Lupo 11:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Legalisms aside (and I acknowledge that I was the first to make this a legal issue), when someone who has contributed as extensively to Misplaced Pages as I have realizes that one contribution was a mistake, and wants to retract, I don't think it is too much to ask. As far as the edits done on that piece by others, they consisted of little more than chopping big paragraphs into little ones, nothing comparable to the volume of contributions I've made on that article, and elsewhere in Misplaced Pages.

Regarding the return of the prior page--I can't do that, because the version I have locally is my original, before it was converted into smaller paragraphs.

Finally, there are probably only three people in the world who can write that article, and as I said on the page, I'd be glad to replace with a more compact work (which would probably be more appropriate anyhow). It doesn't make sense to turn an avid Misplaced Pages contributor such as myself into a disgruntled detractor. Acmuller

Nobody wants to make you into a "disgruntled detractor" :-)
You (like anybody else here) can revert: go to this the history page, click the underlined time-date link of the version you want, click edit, click save. Done.
If you want to rework the article, fine, but removing information just because you changed your mind is not a good idea. Lupo 13:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About US track and field athletes. So I can write just only stubs? User:Darwinek 18:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)