Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bzuk (talk | contribs) at 16:12, 1 October 2010 (→File:Infrasofttech.PNG: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1: to 30 March 2006 2: February 2006 to April 2006 3: April 2006 to June 2006 4: June 2006 to August 2006 5: August 2006 to October 2006 6: October 2006 to December 2006 7: January 2007 to March 2007 8: March 2007 and April 2007 9: April 2007 to August 2007 10: August 2007 to November 2007 11: November 2007 12: December 2007 13: January 2008 14: February 2008 15: March 2008 16: April 2008 17: May 2008 18: June 2008 19: July-August 2008 20: August-September 2008 21: October-November 2008 22: December 2008 23: January-March 2009 24: April-October 2009 25: October-December 2009 26: January-April 2010 27: May-September 2010 DYK archive

{{globalize}}

Hey, thanks for following up with Closeapple on the ] thing. I haven't heard back from them about it in a while, so I was thinking of just moving the pages without their help. I was actually thinking of asking user:Plastikspork to check my work since I wasn't totally confident I would do it without messing something up (they have a lot of experience with TFD and templates). Or you and I could do it together, or if you would want to go ahead and do it yourself that would be great too. If you do, take a look at these directions, they say there are three templates that have to be moved and some links need to be changed. Anyway, thanks for keeping an eye on this. Peace, delldot ∇. 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked yesterday, and it seems to be progressing fine without me. Probably just as well since I'm not sure I'd have been any help. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. It doesn't look like it's been moved yet, but there are a couple others interested in it now. :) Peace, delldot ∇. 23:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The story

I've left you everything you should need at User Talk:Fergananim. I know I'm not so popular in Scotland right now but you know I know my Mumu nearly as well as Cavila. Why not ask me? Anyway, lethan means broad or wide, but according to Meyer the first element may originally have been Mun, or neck, not crown. Fiachu Muillethan I should return to after creating so long ago. DinDraithou (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Different story. Talk:John_of_Islay,_Earl_of_Ross#Titles. DinDraithou (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

00:28, 4 September 2010 Angusmclellan (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Paul-Provenza publicityshot.jpg" ‎ (F7: Violates non-free content criteria #1)

As a busy person with a life, it's hard to sit and check Misplaced Pages every five minutes to await breathlessly to see if I was able to post a picture of my friend or not. My other friend being the photographer who provided the photo. This is ridiculous. I can't be this much of a nerd to even try to figure all of this out, so please advise - I have the email address for the photographer to write in permission to grant me the almighty privilege of using this precious photo, but now that it's deleted, how is this going to work now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannemcneil (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted File:Paul-Provenza publicityshot.jpg for now. As far as getting permission goes, please look at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. There's an example there of a draft letter that you might use that covers all the legal schtick. If there are any hiccups - such as the image being deleted again before you finish getting a reply - let me know. It takes two seconds to undelete it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Great - thanks Angus, the photographer will email as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannemcneil (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Emily Maguire (singer)

I moved your new article on top of the existing one. If you update an article like this you should just edit the one that's there rather than creating a whole new one. Just use cut and paste. Make sense? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment and for doing this, merging the page histories together, it looks great. As a new Wiki contributor I am learning the procedures. My dilemma was that the existing page only had 3 lines of text so I was basically creating a complete new page for the artist. I decided to use my user page to get it into shape first. When I was ready to move, it would not allow me to overwrite the existing name without setting up A Request To Move. Reading the procedure message I read do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text.... So I decided to give it a new name and ask for the other page to be promptly removed. You mention cut and paste rather than copy and paste. Is that a way that the creation history would be moved leaving me to use my user draft as a fresh page. I am unclear about how to do this I would be very grateful if you could explain and advise with this matter and point me in the right direction. Kind Regards Livewirer (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of this and that (and some Albanian territory)

Before you do a final decision on what to do with Occupation of Albania (1912–1913) I suggest you ask User:Athenean if this is what he was really asking for. I found his AN/I request highly surprising, and I cannot at present see any way this is going to lead to his favored solution – unless we issue a categorical ban on the use of the word "occupation" on Misplaced Pages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard

It seems that I have been giving all the wrong answers yesterday. In fact, my authority in closing the move discussion does not come from WP:RM/CI as the argumentation on AN/I implied, but from the Ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard. What you have done is overturned a decision taken and recorded on another administrators' noticeboard. I do not think you should have done that. I have posted the following on AN/I to clarify the issue.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Alex Pacheco (PETA) (2).jpg

Hai Alen

I dont think there is a requirement of OTRS, as its listed as CCA-3 --Kalarickan (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is since the uploader isn't the photographer. There should be OTRS tickets for all of the PETA stuff (or even just one ticket to cover the lot). I suppose I could check with SV, she's sure to know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. This seems to have been an oversight. The image is duplicated on commons where I have added the related ticket number here. It's a very appropriate shot of him - Peripitus (Talk) 23:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Uniforms...

I don't think it's the Blue Police, hmmm... try asking at WP:MILHIST and WP:GERMANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 September 14#File:GermanPoliceTormentingJew.JPG

Clearly, my addition took a long time to write (from before the in-closing-process template), and was then saved without edit conflict. So no enforcing upon your task is intended, and I still think it is relevant. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I took the debates as to possible vote canvassing to be as relevant as the insinuations as to conspiracy, which is to say not very relevant at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Angusmclellan, I need to know your opinion on the case, which seems to be very close to that of the Holocaust picture. It seems to me that J Milburn's and Hammersoft's problems with implementation of the NFCC policy are more general. Another possibility is that I am not right in this situation. Can you please have a look that this and give me your opinion? Thank you in advance, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the image of Soviet soldiers raising the Red Banner over the Reichstag is as historic an image as the Marines raising the Stars and Stripes over Iwo Jima. So it should be treated in the same way, which means either as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima-equivalent or a lengthy section in some other article on the history and significance of the event. Since, having just now check, that is how we treat it now I don't see a problem with excluding the image from other articles where it would merely be decorative, just as we do with the historic Iwo Jima image. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me point out, however, at few facts that make this analogy not correct.

1. Free photos of the American soldiers and of the US flag on the Mount Suribashi are available, whereas analogous photos for the Reichtag are not.
2. Free photos of Eastern front in general are not available as a rule, because all works of Soviet photographers are copyrighted now.
3. Iwo Jima was not the focal point of the Battle of Pacific, whereas the Reichstag was the primary and ultimate military target since 1943.
4. Iwo Jima did not mark the end of WWII in Pacific, whereas the red flag on the Reichstag heralded the end of organised German military resistance in Europe.

All these arguments have already been presented on the talk page, however, I understand that you have no opportunity to read all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. The Rosenthal's photo has been removed from the Iwo Jima article during the discussion about the Reichstag photo, and because I pointed at this image as an example of a non-free image in the infobox. I did not oppose to this removal because other photos of the US flag on Mount Suribachi were available.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• @Paul: Factually incorrect. You started this most recent discussion regarding the suitability of the Soviet flag over the Reichstag on September 12. The Rosenthal images was not on the Battle of Iwo Jima article at that point, nor at any other point during the recent discussion. Further, if you believe I have a problem with NFCC policy in general, I invite you to make a report at WP:AN/I. @Angus: thanks for your input. I think further discussion on this subject should be taken to Talk:Battle of Berlin. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I referred to our earlier dispute that, probably, took place without your participation. Look in the archive there .--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Angus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Unlikely to be much help! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I have a feeling that there is some fundamental flaw in the way NFCC are being implemented for historical images's case. Let's consider the Holocaust picture as an example. What is a Yad Vashem's goal? To educate people about the Holocaust and to show the photos from their archive to as many people as possible. That is why these photos are available online. The second goal is to prevent unauthorised commercial usage of these photos (which is impossible due to copyright and which theoretically can happen had these photos been placed in PD). Would placement of this photograph in the Holocaust article infringe Yad Vashem's rights or contradict to its goals? Obviously, no. Moreover, I would say, it would be correct to make all Holocaust or WWII images copyrighted to prevent any possibility of their use for, e.g. commercial advertisement, etc (which would be really unacceptable). Therefore, excluding such images from Misplaced Pages under absolutely artificial pretext serves absolutely no positive goals and decrease the articles' quality for absolutely abstract reasons. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Paul, it might be useful for you to read Gratis versus Libre. Misplaced Pages aims for Libre, not Gratis. If Yad Vashem retains rights to a given work, but wants it distributed widely, they might grant permission to Misplaced Pages to use it here. That would be a gratis use. It furthers their goals, and it might seem to you to be ok; we're educating, right? It's not ok. In fact, permission to use on Misplaced Pages is a speedy deletion criteria. See Misplaced Pages:CSD#F3. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In my mother tongue two different words are used for these two concepts, so this essay is hardly useful for me. Regarding speedy deletion, that what always puzzled me. AP granted explicit permission to WP to used the Rosenthal's Iwo Jima photo. However, that did not prevented its removal from the Iwo Jima article. I have absolutely no idea what is the reason of that...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PS I started to think that logical inconsistencies and counter-intuitivenell of NFCC serve as and additional proof of NFCC's validity for you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is our choice that "permission to use on Misplaced Pages" is a speedy deletion criteria and not something that is mandated by the EDP or by any of our founding principles. Given that we do use non-free content, there is no fundamental reason why we could not, if we wished, freely use content which is not entirely free-as-in-freedom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(Angus, if you rather this didn't take place on your talk page just say so) @Paul: The reason is simple. I pointed you to the Gratis vs. Libre article because it is a fundamental concept that needs to be understood to understand our NFCC policy here. If we didn't make a distinction between Gratis and Libre, we could just follow U.S. Fair Use law and be done with it. Libre, which we follow, means anyone can use our content for whatever purpose they want to use it, including SELLING it. AP would never consent to the Rosenthal image being used in that manner. Therefore, we treat it as non-free and limit its usage within the project to as little as necessary, so as to maintain our focus on our libre goal. Yes Angus, it is our choice. It's a fantastic one. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Gratis vs. Libre. Yes, I perfectly understand that. However, I do not think the opportunity to sell something that has been made based on the Holocaust or WWII images is a good idea. I would say the opposite: if all this buzz is about an opportunity for some businessmen to make money on the pictures of that kind, then I definitely oppose to that. IMO, it is probably even better that these images are not in PD, because that (i) makes possible to use them in WP under fair use terms and (ii) makes impossible to make money on them. Let me repeat it: it is very good that some of the best history images cannot be re-sold, and it is very bad that someone tries to remove these images from WP under that pretext.

Re "therefore, we treat it as non-free and limit its usage within the project to as little as necessary" What does "we" mean? As I already pointed out, I am little bit disappointed by your tendency to speak on behalf of the Foundation. You hardly are in the position to make such claims. Speak for yourself, please. Remember that even to act as if you are an owner of a single article is highly inappropriate, whereas you behave as if you privatised WP as whole. That equally valid for some of your colleagues (e.g. J Millburn).

And finally, if the process initiated by you and J Millburn will develop in the same direction further, Misplaced Pages will become significantly nationally biased, which will severely undermine one of key WP principles. And I will have to go to appropriate noticeboard to stop that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• And I'm disappointed at your apparent tendency (as well as Paul's with respect to J Milburn) to presume that I think I speak for the Foundation. I don't. ANY time I speak of 'we' I speak of the people who make up this project. I speak from experience, exposure to many debates on the subject, and being well versed in our guidelines and policies. Frankly, I'm astonished that you of all people would try to tear apart my argument by attacking me (in supposedly speaking for the Foundation, which has NOTHING to do with my argument) rather than dispute what I've said. We're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad I was wrong. However, the fact that you belong to some project does not automatically mean you are eligible to educate others. I am a member of the Fact and Reference check project, however I don't think I am entitled to teach peoples how concretely the facts should be presented based solely on my membership. And I always speak for myself only. If you have more experience, please show that by providing strong arguments. By contrast, your arguments are not too convincing so far.

By no means I wanted to tear apart your arguments, I just noted that the way you conduct the discussion is somewhat misleading. If you are not comfortable with my previous post, please disregard the penultimate para. However, my other concerns have no relation to that, and I am still waiting for your answer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 27#Category:Public domain films

I also left a back-link at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Films#Identifying public domain films. -84user (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopeful

Hi Angus. I have sent you an email hoping for two sources I don't have! DinDraithou (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Woolf stuff is no problem. I'll get that sent tomorrow. You have Downham I think. How about Hudson's Viking Pirates?

For Peritia, the Deacon might be able to help you. Glasgow city libraries don't have a copy and I never got round to trying to blag a card for the university library yet. There is probably a copy in the National Library of Scotland, but I'm not in Edinburgh much any more. You could try asking the folks at the resource exchange. If you have no luck there, let me know and I'll be in Edinburgh sometime next month and can check it out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The resource exchange looks promising and I will try them... once I've gone through and checked to see if there is anything else from Peritia I can't live without! There may be one or two more so it makes sense for me to add them to the request. I didn't know about this so thank you very much. If I have no luck I'll just buy the article.

Hudson I don't have but a great deal can be previewed, and he is also extensively cited in Misplaced Pages and occasionally by Downham.

I look forward to seeing what Woolf has written. It's a shame he isn't writing more about Ireland. DinDraithou (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got to add that Hudson doesn't seem to have gotten the best reviews and much of his Viking Pirates looks like it has been thrown out. His Haraldssons appear to be mostly his imagination. Then he also makes some pretty surprising errors like calling Maccus (mac Arailt) Magnus when everybody knows that is wrong. So obviously he has some comprehension problems and other issues. I don't trust his scholarship.

I do generally trust Downham but her grasp of Norse Limerick and Munster is a little weak. On p. 54 she calls Máel Muad mac Brain just 'the son of Bran' and on the next page makes a reference to Limerick and Uí Fidgenti's (combined) "forces" without mentioning Donnubán, while the AFM actually do. So she doesn't make an error but it's not all said quite right. Earlier on p. 41 she gets closer to making a real error because the Annals of Clonmacnoise do not actually say what she is citing them for, if you look at my work on Amlaíb Ceanncairech. And the AFM make no mention of a "decisive victory" (=battle), so she's still stuck in the 920s and thinking of Tomrair mac Ailchi beating Gofraid. We all love our Clare Downham (she's cute too) but she's not perfect. DinDraithou (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad template

I fixed some of your edits that were broken templates like this one to images uploaded by Lilbadboy312 but you may have done some others, so you might want to check out similar recent edits. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

photo

Hi, to be honest I am very confused by the choices for the photo I have uploaded. It is an official promotional photo of Julie that has come from her speaker biography, provided by her colleagues at Ariadne Capital (her company). The license allows it to be used anywhere. Perhaps you could help me (in simple language) how I can link this to her page and change/ammend the license status I have given it when I uploaded it. thanks Notts214 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

file

I uploaded it properly and recognised the source. It was a file I can use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex0274 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Alyona Azernaya's paintings

Thanks for your advices. This paintings are with me, so I though, I could take photos without any problem. Of course, she is ok for publishing this photos. Is it possible that these photos remain in place (or in a non public place on wikipedia) in order she can give her authorization for each file. I can ask her to give me explicit authorisation for each file (with their name). Where can I find the exact text she has to sign. Thank you for your help Qqchose2sucre (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Schräge Musik

You think that someone can reproduce this ? I'm sure you'll want to give it a crack yourself. FWiW, check out the use of the image in the article. Bzuk (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Further, where do I make the case for its retention? Bzuk (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Photopermissions

Thanks. I have already sought the copyright holder's permission for Colin Larkin image and forwarded this to wikipermissions. Am awaiting a ticket from them. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Pamela Gardiner (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 September 6#File:Haugsetting.jpg

Would you reconsider your decision for this? My nomination didn't have to do with FOP, it had to do with lack of dating. The author died 62 years ago, so it's not public domain in Norway (despite the website's proclamation in the affirmative), and we don't know the publication date, so we can't say PD-US-1923-abroad either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Infrasofttech.PNG

Hi, I saw you deleted File:Infrasofttechlogo.PNG because of same type of file is available ie File:Infrasofttech.PNG. but the problem with current file is, its licences is invalid, user claims as own work, where its logo. please leave a talkback. KuwarOnline 05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Fw189 1.jpg

Hi Angus, the image wasn't mine nor the claim of public domain that was made by another editor as it comes from his own source? I tried to find a colour image but the image does not seem to want to do anything other than showing a black and white preview. FWiW, have you checked the progress of the article; it's come a long way since the revision started last week. Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC).