User talk:PlanespotterA320
The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Viktor Nikolaevich Kibenok.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Viktor Nikolaevich Kibenok.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Understanding of the situation.
I read your letter. I do not consider your contribution to be bad as the contribution of Devlet. You really brought a lot of benefit both in the Russian-language section and here. I saw a huge number of very good your edits. But our understanding of Crimea is different. I do not think that my edits here were somehow harmful. What is the problem in Belogorsk, I don’t understand at all. This is the official name. Well, we do not call Istanbul as Constantinople, right? That to and here. I have nothing personally against you, but when you are so persistently defending Pusher Devlet, I begin to think that you are just like him. Is it logical is not it? You mentioned the term Vatniki in the Russian Wikipedia, and that already says something. Even if I go too far somewhere (on the Russian Wikipedia), this is only an answer to Devlet’s inappropriate behavior. Do not call me Tatarophobe. if I struggled with the Russophobic contribution of Devlet, this does not make me a Tatarophobe. Каракорум (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Каракорум: Spamming Crimean Tatar articles that met notability requiements with deletion tags was inappropriate and Tatarophobic - you were literally trying to erase many prominent Crimean Tatars from Wikipedia. Now, I understand that you don't like Devlet Geray, but the fact that he created an article doesn't mean the article itself is worthy of deletion. Devlet Geray has helped me translate portions of old books I needed translated, and has made many positive contributions (after all, google translate is missing or insufficient for many he has helped me with). I apologize for using the term Vatnik in my moment of rage (but I do not apologize for saying that the article attracts some of the worst Vatniks - some very unpleasant people including Yevgeny Ivanovich Popov, who is a textbook Vatnik, have republished pieces of the article inside their far-right blogosphere). I stand by my position that this article should not exist. And you should know that such article would never be tolerated on English Wikipedia - here at English Wikipedia we strive to build an encyclopedia of information supported by wide consensus, not to push fringe ideas and make pages to advertise the works of far-right "historians". If you are familiar with my work on Commons, you know that I spend a lot of time checking old Soviet magazines and books for photos that are public domain or will be public domain soon. In the research process I've inadvertently found quite a few bits and pieces of information that put significant doubt on the official claims made by Beria.
- As for your recent edits here - remember that policies on English Wikipedia are different for policies on Russian Wikipedia, and things like the titles of cities in disputed territories are a gray area especially. With Russian and Ukrainian nationalists arguing over wether Russian or Ukrainian spelling should be used, the comprimise of "neither" and reverting to the old name makes sense. Given your history, I think it is best that you refrain from editing Crimea-related topics here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- Человек, который удаляет из статьи памятник (!!) Исмаилу Гаспринскому, хотя я германскую принцессу не удалял, и ставит вместо него другой, называет меня русофобом.. И называть других русофобом это нарушение правил википедии, но у вас все сходит с рук Devlet Geray (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
no cropped postal covers
You reverted my edit with comment "NO CROPPED POSTAL COVERS! (TW)". Why? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bogomolov.PL: Read the PD-RU-exempt template text. It's a copyright thing.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- And? Is an envelope copyrighted? If no - why part of it is copyrighted? If yes why you replaced copyrighted part of this envelope image with copyrighted envelope image? At Commons are stored thousands of envelopes, postcards, postmarks [1] as they were issued by governmental body and are not copyrighted. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Did you read what PlanespotterA320 told you to read? "Warning – This Russian official document, state symbol or sign (postage stamps, coins and banknotes mainly) may incorporate one or more works that can be copyrightable if separated from this document, symbol or sign. In such a case, this work is not an object of copyright if reused in its entirety but, at the same time, extracting specific portions from this work could constitute copyright infringement. For example, the denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps. " We CANNOT use portions of postal covers, stamps, etc. We can only use images of them in full. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- I can not read this text as it is not present in Russian legal acts. At Commons are numerous images cropped from postcards [2]; as these kind of imagery is present at Commons we can and even must use them to replace non-free images in Wikipedia. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bogomolov.PL: The footnote about cropping postage stamps and other items is Commons policy based on Russian copyright rulings and common law. (That's because of the issue over the definintion of what is and isn't an official document - while a whole postage stamp is considered an official document, an image cropped out from on that doesn't show the demonimation is not an official document)You don't have to like it. There are many images on Commons cropped from Russian postal covers, and they WILL have to be deleted. Notice that Category:PD-RU-exempt (cropped postal covers) is in Category:PD-RU-exempt (possible wrong license). Just because something is on Commons doesn't mean it is free to acceptable to replace a fair-use image - there are literally thousands of copyright violations on Commons. We must stick with the fair use photo of Batitsky out of precaution. Do not try again to replace a fair-use photo with a cropped postage stamp. This is an agreed-upon precedent at Russian Wikipedia. Do not try to get rid of the photo of Batitsky unless you can find a TRUELY free portrait.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- This footnote you meant is not visible for Commons users who have Russian language in personal settings as they see only Russian text with no footnotes for PD-RU-exempt|type=postal cards
- Did you read what PlanespotterA320 told you to read? "Warning – This Russian official document, state symbol or sign (postage stamps, coins and banknotes mainly) may incorporate one or more works that can be copyrightable if separated from this document, symbol or sign. In such a case, this work is not an object of copyright if reused in its entirety but, at the same time, extracting specific portions from this work could constitute copyright infringement. For example, the denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps. " We CANNOT use portions of postal covers, stamps, etc. We can only use images of them in full. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Это произведение не охраняется авторским правом согласно статье 1259 части четвёртой Гражданского кодекса Российской Федерации № 230-ФЗ от 18 декабря 2006 года. Не являются объектами авторских прав:
1. официальные документы государственных органов и органов местного самоуправления муниципальных образований, в том числе законы, другие нормативные акты, судебные решения, иные материалы законодательного, административного и судебного характера, официальные документы международных организаций, а также их официальные переводы; 2. государственные символы и знаки (флаги, гербы, ордена, денежные знаки и тому подобное), а также символы и знаки муниципальных образований; 3. произведения народного творчества (фольклор), не имеющие конкретных авторов; 4. сообщения о событиях и фактах, имеющие исключительно информационный характер (сообщения о новостях дня, программы телепередач, расписания движения транспортных средств и тому подобное)
- You can use Google Translate to check absence of any footnotes.
- About category PD-RU-exempt (cropped postal covers) - a lot of images are in this category for many years. Why? Nobody knows about hundreds of this kind of files? Or nobody believes in Commons (not present in legal acts) theory of "portion of free image is non-free"? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bogomolov.PL: You're not listening. You probably noticed that postage stamps and postal covers weren't mentioned in the text of the law you copied and pasted. On commons, there is a name for the rule you described as "portion of free image is non-free" - it's called de minimis on Commons. Based on the text of the law, it is not entirely clear if postage stamps and postal covers are allowed at all since they are not enumerated. It was decided that they are official documents if used IN FULL - but when cropped out to be mere illustrations, they are not protected by the official document status anymore. As for the fact that many cropped images have been on Commons for a while, that is true, but that does not mean that they are acceptable. I once found a photo of Mariya Dolina falsely labeled as public domain that was uploaded in the early 2000's. As for the many files in the category - that category is relatively new, the many files were inconsistently categorized, and I am starting to put ALL cropped postal covers in that category so I can do a mass deletion request. Many images of cropped postal covers HAVE BEEN DELETED in the past, and they will continue to be deleted. If you feel that cropped postal covers should be allowed, take it up with admins who wrote the text of the PD-RU-exempt template and made the ruling on the nature of postage stamps and postal covers (maybe under further scrutiny, they should not be allowed at all). But DO NOT come to my talkpage to bark at me about widely-accepted rules that you do not understand/want to ignore. The artistic illustrations on postal covers and postage stamps are not free of copyright BY THEMSELVES, but works of art protected by copyright until expiration. Illustrations cropped out are not official documents. This ruling by Wikimedia Commons has been argued about a lot (some think postal cards shouldn't be allowed at all), but personal opinion doesn't matter - Wikimedia's official position outlined in the footnote on the template is what stands. Goodbye.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- "It was decided that they are official documents if used IN FULL" - it was a Commons lawyers decision, I guess? Where I can find this decision text?
- You could find just a 7 year old discussion at Russian Wikipedia closed without any resulting decision.
- You are talking about "admins who wrote the text of the PD-RU-exempt template" but I don't see this kind of text of the PD-Ru template you are talking about.
- It is completely normal to ask questions if I don't understand some reasons of your edits, isn't it? I was not declaring "you are wrong", I was not reverting your edits at Wikipedia, I was not reverting your edits at Commons so why you are so unfriendly? sincerely yours, Bogomolov.PL (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bogomolov.PL: You're not listening. You probably noticed that postage stamps and postal covers weren't mentioned in the text of the law you copied and pasted. On commons, there is a name for the rule you described as "portion of free image is non-free" - it's called de minimis on Commons. Based on the text of the law, it is not entirely clear if postage stamps and postal covers are allowed at all since they are not enumerated. It was decided that they are official documents if used IN FULL - but when cropped out to be mere illustrations, they are not protected by the official document status anymore. As for the fact that many cropped images have been on Commons for a while, that is true, but that does not mean that they are acceptable. I once found a photo of Mariya Dolina falsely labeled as public domain that was uploaded in the early 2000's. As for the many files in the category - that category is relatively new, the many files were inconsistently categorized, and I am starting to put ALL cropped postal covers in that category so I can do a mass deletion request. Many images of cropped postal covers HAVE BEEN DELETED in the past, and they will continue to be deleted. If you feel that cropped postal covers should be allowed, take it up with admins who wrote the text of the PD-RU-exempt template and made the ruling on the nature of postage stamps and postal covers (maybe under further scrutiny, they should not be allowed at all). But DO NOT come to my talkpage to bark at me about widely-accepted rules that you do not understand/want to ignore. The artistic illustrations on postal covers and postage stamps are not free of copyright BY THEMSELVES, but works of art protected by copyright until expiration. Illustrations cropped out are not official documents. This ruling by Wikimedia Commons has been argued about a lot (some think postal cards shouldn't be allowed at all), but personal opinion doesn't matter - Wikimedia's official position outlined in the footnote on the template is what stands. Goodbye.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)