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

Sunday

20

October

Archives of older talk are listed on the archives page.

Image:Stjepanfilipovic.jpg

Thank you for trying to clarify the copyright status of the image above. I wrote a short description of whats up on the image page, so I just ask for your patience and to let me find proper sources. It's one of those (in a nutshell): image was taken by a photographer during WW2 who wished to remain anonymous, it was wildly and widely published, and is pretty much considered public domain by now. I will do further investigation and provide sources on details of how the picture was taken and why it is legal for us to use it. But, it might take more than a week. --dcabrilo 14:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lupo, thank you for showing good faith. If you don't mind, please cite the appropriate copyright norms of Nedić's Serbia so we can make sure the license is indeed rubbish. Thanks a bunch! --dcabrilo 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

{{PD-old}} applies to works where the author was dead at least 100 years ago. This is clearly impossible for a 1942 image. Now go make a watertight fair use rationale addressing all four points of fair use, if you like. Lupo 14:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dislciamer: don't read this, it's a rant: It would be wonderful, truly wonderful, if an editor for once tried to help clarify things instead of mindlessly tagging stuff around and seeming to be a dick meanwhile. Would you really like an obviously PD image to get deleted because I'm puzzled with what tag to use for a an image over which nobody in the world claims authorship instead of perhaps helping to find an appropriate tag for the image, as you apparently have some spare time? But, like I said, this is just a rant, so go about your business and do forgive me for sounding this pathetic. --dcabrilo 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There ain't no such thing as "obvious PD". If it is, it's your job to prove so. No go whine elsewhere. (And watch your language. Don't call me names. Don't post things here if you don't want me to read them.) Lupo 14:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you are not willing to help me find appropriate tag, you think we are on two different sides. Instead of helping me, you'd rather confront me - that's why you come off as a dick, FYI. Furthermore, if you were familiar with Serbian copyright law, article 9, section 2, as well as article 13 (in connection to article 7, sections 1 and 2), you would see that this is clearly public domain, as no paternal rights over the work are claimed (nor can be claimed in the future unless the author resurrects due to circumstances of the war), you would perhaps too see that this is obviously pd, without an obvious tag (and if, only if you did your research before asking me not to call you names, you might have seen [1] ). If you also were kind enough to give me more time for which I politely asked (and made a good enough explanation meanwhile), it would be easier for all of us. Finally, it is up to you to help if you want to be a part of this community. --dcabrilo 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Provide verifiable sources for your claims regarding copyright law or make a fair use claim. Finally, don't be so ridiculously pathetic. It's not up to you to decide what group I'm part of. Post links to the relevant laws (from 1942 up to the present, and don't forget the transitional provisions!) on WP:PUI if you want to show that the work was PD. Just because other sites use it doesn't mean it was PD. "Public domain" does not mean "we can get away with using the image". Remember, we're here to build a free encyclopedia! And we shouldn't claim something was PD unless we can show that it indeed is. The photo might be an orphan work, and in that case we'd be busted and you'd have no other way but make a fair use claim. Besides, PUI gives you 14 days to make your case, together with the week you already had, that makes three weeks. If you can't show that the image is PD in that time, there's no use waiting longer. It's not as if I had cut short any of your efforts; I've just put a deadline on it to avoid this be forgotten. Make your case at WP:PUI; further communications from you here will be ignored by me. Over and out. Lupo 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rrburke 17:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lupo ... just to follow up on this, the link you had to the Copyright by the USHMM seemed to be for some other image. I'm assuming it changed, and searched out and updated it with the right one, and have removed the tags. Cantankrus 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Images are just like the other darn library of congress archive images, non-permenent links. Keep in mind when linking to LoC imagry. Look at the trick I did on that image's page for a permenent link to a search page which only contains the image in question. Kevin_b_er 03:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's hope your link remains "permanent"... Lupo 06:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Generic kitchen.jpg

Can you please provide a source for the image Image:Generic kitchen.jpg that you uploaded. Thanks, Nv8200p talk 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. (The source was there all the time, but displayed as an interwiki link.) Lupo 06:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dowson

Thanks for the information about Dowson. It is rather straight from the source, so it should be, as a matter of style, indicated that it is copied, not the editor's own words. Thanks again for taking the time to find the correct information about the author. The latest edition is copyrighted, but I don't know if this is because of a change in diacritics or something--it doesn't appear to be particularly modern in this respect. KP Botany 00:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you re: Block

Thanks for taking action on Muttermuschi. I am still very new to wikipedia, and was still trying to trace through that user's history, then trying to figure out how to request some action, when I saw that you had already placed a block. Again, thanks for taking action. Pawl Kennedy 14:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky's "uncle"

Thanks for the heads up! I added {{fact}} first and went digging later. Pretty soon I realized that it was a case of relatively sophisticated vandalism by a clever vandal who was apparently banned back in August. And yes, it was Lev Hartman(n) who tried to assassinate Alexander II in November 1879. I should probably add a footnote to the other article once we restore it. Thanks! Ahasuerus 21:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the footnotes. I'll see what I can do, although I am mostly busy with the ISFDB project these days. Ahasuerus 19:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Honor Harger

Hi there,

You left my a message regarding autobiographical entries on Wikeipedi, in relation to the entry on myself (Honor Harger). I did not create this entry. It was created by someone else. It contained a couple of inaccurcies (eg, the date of my birth) which I corrected.

Is this not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honorharger (talk • contribs)

You said:

"Right you are. Sorry, my bad. Want me to move it back? Lupo 07:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)"

Yes please!

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

Retouching

Hi Lupo. I don't know if Soviet printing technology was different from anywhere else. I simply meant that it was common in earlier times to retouch photos to clean them up and increase contrast, so that a good halftone could be made. The amount of retouching needed would also depend on the quality of available photos, printing process, type of ink and paper (less expensive, absorbent paper needs larger halftone dots to prevent ink spread from turning dark areas solid black), and the editor's taste. Perhaps in the Soviet economy retouching labour was easier to come by than expensive coated paper, but I don't know if anything can be deduced from the results. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-17 21:37 Z

vandalism

if the article is grossly inaccurate PR, then the revolt begins to brew.

later lackey.

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

wikipedia watch is blacklisted?

cowards

Congratulations!

A half thousand PD-Soviet images were massacred in Commons without so much as a prior warning. Not only English articles (Valentina Tereshkova, German Titov, etc) have gone imageless in one night, but articles in other Wikipedias as well. You may consider your mission accomplished. Thank you for all the work you put into "improving" Wikipedia, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So what? Why come bitchin' to me? If these images did not fall under any other PD or free license tag (and apparently they didn't, since they were not re-tagged if they still were in the PD-Soviet category), then deleting them on the commons was right. There was ample warning. It's unfortunate that the mistaken PD-Soviet has existed for so long; if the error had been discovered earlier, correcting it would be much less work (and cause less hard feelings, too). That it has existed for so long is not my fault: blame others for dragging on the discussion for a whole eight months. As for my "mission": you shouldn't assume bad faith, and you shouldn't speculate about my motives beyond what I have written elsewhere, as you're bound to be wrong unless you could read my mind. I have said times and again that I wanted the tag corrected and the images recategorized as needed, not necessarily deleted. Since "fair use" is not allowed on the commons, it is only logical that there will be more deletions there than here. I have also spoken out against mass-deletions. Going through these images individually is a lot more work, alas. Besides, I think that the encyclopedia is indeed improved by not using images that in all evidence are not PD but were claimed to be. Lupo 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, unlike Carnildo who gave seven days to retag the PD-Soviet images, Drini did not give anyone a warning or put {{unlicensed}} on the page. Secondly, I post on this page because I expect that you, as an orchestrator of the campaign, should replace deleted images on Lev Yashin, Artek and elsewhere with free replacements. It's easy to destroy, not so easy to construct. Thanks in advance, Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One, I'm not an "orchestrator" of anything; but I have kept pointing out that the basic assumptions underlying PD-Soviet were wrong and did not match the available evidence. Provide verifiable proof of my "orchestrating" anything: you won't be able to, as that's just a figment of some people's imagination (and apparently also of yours). Two, the PD-Soviet images have been deletable long ago. If you think Drini should have done otherwise, why don't you take it up with him? Finally, I'm not responsible for replacing any images. In reference to your edit comment: I don't care what you "expect", and I didn't start the mess, I started cleaning it up! Wikipedians generally shouldn't expect any fellow volunteer editor to do anything. (That's easy to forget, I know; it happens to me, too.) Even so, I am slowly going through these several thousands of images and trying to figure out, one by one, whether they could be re-tagged sensibly, or were re-tagged so, or whether they indeed need to go. Alex Bakharev also did a fairly good job of re-tagging quite a lot of images as PD-Russia, where applicable. It'll take time. If any image gets deleted before I ever get to it, I won't fret over it. You know, instead of whining, finger pointing and looking for a scapegoat you could help sorting out the images. Lupo 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

How dare you tell "you could help sorting the images" to users who sorted hundreds of them after you brought your assault to a succeful conclusion? 5-6 people retagged hundreds of images but they are not robots to retag 2000 of them in a time frame you or Drini arbitrary set. As the time "it'll take" fopr you passes by, the empty links are getting delinked by bots from the relevant articles and there will be no way to find it out even if the image is found to be deleted inapropriately or is usable at en-wiki as fairuse, especially since as the image pages were deleted, the info on sources is gone as well, so they cannot be fairused. One thing you achieved is that several users will never upload anything to commons. I know that you are not upset about it. --Irpen 17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to pirate images with false tags and dubious rationales at your own "Russopedia", whenever you create one. This is a western project, and inherently respectful of copyright laws. Truthseeker 85.5 00:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)