User talk:Jusjih/Archives to Sep 2007

Source of photo of Stephan Körner

Thank you for your query about the photo of Stephan Körner that I uploaded. It is a photo that belongs to me and comes from the family "archive." I am his daughter and can attest to the validity of the photo, which is not copyrighted. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out how to add the relevant information to my father's page so I would be grateful if you could do it for me. Thanks. Ann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annmaltmanphd (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of the shorter term

I'm still not happy about your using 17 USC 104A as an example for the U.S.'s not implementing the rule of the shorter term at WP:PD. The problem is that most readers will be confused because 104A actually does include something similar, namely that copyright on a foreign work is not restored on the URAA date if it is out of copyright in its source country on that date!

As I see it, the true reason why the U.S. does not implement the rule of the shorter term is 17 USC 104(c):

Effect of Berne Convention. – No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. (Emphasis added by Lupo)

That says that the Berne Convention is not self-executing in the U.S., and that only U.S. law applies. Thus §7(8) BC does not apply, because U.S. does provide otherwise, by stating that only U.S. law applied and then not saying anything about a shorter term in its law. In fact, by saying "shall not be expanded or reduced by ... the Berne Convention" they explicitly say that the rule of the shorter term was not valid in the U.S. Lupo 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide:Tiananmen "tank man"

Fair use image deleted from my user page. I will be more careful in the future with this issue. Thank you, Jusjih. Randroide 17:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julian vs Gregorian dates

Hi Jusjih

You made several edits (e.g. for 1615,

"Year 1615 (MDCXV) was a common year starting on Thursday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar (or a common year starting on Monday of the 10-day slower Julian calendar).")

where you noted the confusion between the Julian and Gregoria calendars. with links to clarify. This is a good thing. But ...

could the phrase "10-day slower" in that string be replaced with "10-day-earlier" (or "10-day-later"; I'm not sure which is wronger. It's that relativity thingie.) which more precisely conveys the meaning?
the Julian calendar is the faster of the two

I expect you used a bot and I don't bot yet, so this request.

Thanks. --Saintrain 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Banach entry was vandalized after you protected it

Polish ultra-nationalists somehow managed to vandalize the Stefan Banach Wikipedia entry after you protected it - see the history of the entry on Stefan Banach. This vandalism has been going on for months. The purpose of these Polish chauvinists is to erase and to distort any mentioning of the Stefan Banach contribution to and afiliation with the Ukrainian mathematics.

Most of the Banach's professional career took place in the Ukrainian city of Lviv. Banach chaired the department of mathematics in Ivan Franko University in Lviv. He is also one of the most prominent members of the world-famous Lviv School of Mathematics. Banach was a member of Ukrainian Academy of Science and colaborated with many Ukrainian and Russian colleagues. Banach's mother was Rusyn or Ukrainian and Banach's father was Polish.

Banach is listed as both Ukrainian and Polish mathematician in at least Ukrainian and Russian wikipedias. The comprehensive List of Ukrainians lists Stefan Banach as one of the eminent Ukrainian mathematicians.

Despite many facts (the origin, place of work and life, contributions to the Ukrainian mathematics) linking Banach to Ukraine, Polish chauvinists systematically vandalise the Stefan Banach entry in the English language Wikipedia. E.g., they erased the mentioning of Banach as both Ukrainian and Polish mathematician, leaving only him being mentioned as Polish.

Entrusted with the Bucket!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Der yck C. 03:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dendrobium-lindleyi.jpg

I've added the authorisation from the Commons Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk and removed the speedy template. JoJan 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred it now to the Commons : Commons:Dendrobium lindleyi JoJan 15:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DVC10096.JPG

Oh. It was an image I took with my camera of a monster head inside a castle I went to a few years ago. Didn't know I had to copyright my own images, but now I know. Do you still have this image kicking around, or do I need to upload it again? Thanx for any input. --erin k. 10:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for returning the pic. Did I copyright it correctly? If so, no reply necessary. Thanx --erin k. 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Blu-point.jpg and other images

I am Italian, how is possible create a credit in this English version of Wikipedia? This image and other are mine. Thank you. Claudia

The problem images claim to be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5, but with the watermark, I went to the source site where evidence of CC licensing could not be found. If you cannot prove the licensing to be true, we cannot accept your uploaded images, especially if you did not make these images. See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems in case you make any images without copyright licensing at the source sites but you want to license their uses here.--Jusjih 16:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ampallang Piercing.jpg

The copyright info that I provided is correct I took the picture personally (with my camera phone) someone else edited it for size. I could take another and email it to you. I could not find the pic on the site you posted. Can you please provide me with a link? Maybe I can contact the Webmaster about posting the correct copyright info. Maybe it’s just a similar pic. I have posted another pic on the lorum page you can see they are of the same area. Please post on my talk page THX Randywilliams1975 05:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think I should do, if the image gets deleted I will just have to take another one and repost it, how to I keep people from questioning the copyright, the internet is a big place and since the image is in the public domain on Wiki anyone can take it and use it. The pic is used on multiple pages not just the amp page and the uploaded Commons image is the same on I took. THX Randywilliams1975 15:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so if i uploaded the pic again with my name as the copyrighter and my release and kept it that way then it should be ok. i see where your coming from now i hold the copyright but it didnt show my name uploading the images. do you think that would work THX Randywilliams1975 06:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THX Randywilliams1975 18:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2007 Rand L Kannenberg.jpg

Please delete this old version. Thank you. Cjas

Florida Photographic Images

Please do not contacting me about deleting these images as I requested in the discussion for deletion of the template (flphoto). The template has been deleted, and I trust that others will see that all the photos will be deleted properly. I uploaded probably 50 images assuming that whoever made up the template understood the correct copyright on the images. Apparently they did not. Royalbroil 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Battle Natural Bridge Flag

The licensing source is clear for Battle of Natural Bridge Flag

You wrote: Thanks for uploading Image:Battle Natural Bridge Flag.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

Since you have taken it upon yourself to have images from the same (legal) source deleted, you should place the appropriate tags. Noles1984 13:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no tag. Now it is fine.--Jusjih 01:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check rationale info

Please take a look at the rationale and information tag I put together (example) Image talk:Bannerman Plantation 1947 rc18299.jpg Why couldn't a template be created incorporating the fair use template? Noles1984 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Noles1984 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving Notices After Correcting

I'm still receiving notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale problems even though the below tag has been placed on the image and discussion pages.

Digital Image Information
This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 0000000. This image is needed to enhance and improve this article and no other representation exists.
Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.
Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

Copyright Information

What can be done? Noles1984 15:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request a deletion review to explain why the page in question should be undeleted.--Jusjih 04:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitravel

Hi there Jusjih! I saw your note about that image over on WT... and also that you speak Chinese, so I thought I would let you know we're about to launch a Chinese version of WT, I think... see Chinese WT expedition. Hope you're well. – cacahuate ^talk 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I support launching Chinese Wikitravel, I consider having to use a separate shared site cumbersome. As of now I plan to run for adminship at English Wikiquote and I plan to use Wikiversity to start some original researches, I cannot come to Wikitravel often. While I may eventually wish to become an admin at English Wikitravel, I cannot distract my own attention by using too many sites. The simple words are "one at a time" for adminship as I cannot run for adminship at too many sites altogether.--Jusjih 15:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. He

Hi,

Thank you for contacting me. I know you've been at WP forever (much longer than I), but I'm not sure how closely you've followed the recent disputes over the application of BLP policy at en.wiki. A few esteemed editors, including the now-departed Doc Glasgow and several members of en.wiki ArbCom, took a rather extreme view of employing speedy deletions under BLP to "preserve the dignity" of young people, crime victims, and other disadvantaged persons who became publicly known through no choice of their own. Some speedy deletions of this sort were endorsed by ArbCom at its "badlydrawnjeff" decision, but the issue is not firmly resolved by any means.

It is no secret that I disagreed with the general expansion of BLP to justify some (though not all) of these speedy deletions: Doc and I argued the issue more than once, as I felt such "speedy" content removals without deliberation harmed Wikipedia. Nevertheless, when I closed DRVs, I remained neutral to the best of my ability, and I did believe that the He DRV endorsed Doc's deletion. When the recreation of the article was brought to my attention at my talk page recently, I felt ethically bound to enforce the DRV to the utmost, and to lay aside my personal opinions. I deleted the recreation under CSD G4, considering the DRV to have constituted a "deletion discussion" for its purposes. (This is an allowance I would not normally make, but given the BLP controversy, I felt it necessary.)

However, now that another esteemed administrator has come forward disagreeing with deletion, I readily -- and happily -- concede the point. :) Your suggestion of a renaming seems wonderful to me, and more than enough to allay any BLP concerns. The article is, as I've sure you've seen, excessively detailed; you, as the multilingual, cross-cultural expert here can likely remedy that easily. I will restore the article and make the move to the suggested title immediately, reversing my own speedy deletion. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition

		The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
		For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Merit

		The Chain Barnstar of Merit
		For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence

		The Chain Barnstar of Diligence
		For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour

		The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour
		For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:NorwalkCTRowaytonMainStreet08112007.JPG

You wrote:

Please specify which image should replace this one. Pending your answer I have to undo your last edit to show license. Once you answer I can delete for you.

Here's the page I'm using instead: Image:NorwalkCTRowaytonAveInDowntownRowayton08132007.JPG

Again, to be clear — please delete the page linked to in the title of this messsage. Thanks for your help! (if there's a better way I could have gone about this, please tell me) Noroton 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These two images are different, not exact duplicates. Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations says: "you can never retract the GFDL license for the copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL forever." Based on this, I can delete your image only if transwikied to Wikimedia Commons. Otherwise, doing what you request would violate the copyright licensing policy here.--Jusjih 14:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save my images

I cant understand what wrong with the license of my images: 1) I took these photos with my camera and 2) I uploaded them with gnu-selfmade free license.. so what is missing?

image:nochevaldiviana.jpg image:torreon23.jpg

Dentren | ^Talk 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag {{GFDL-self}} and remove my added tag to save your images.

How do I do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dentren (talk • contribs) 15:51, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Go to the image description pages, type {{GFDL-self}}, and that is it.--Jusjih 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0405.Annabell 002.jpg

Hi, Jusjih! I've been wondering -- why was this image moved to Commons? -- Mikeblas 09:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had no source or license information here when you made an edit it here on 19 May 2007. Commons already got the image with the same name in 2005. Is the Commons image the same one as what you edited? If you would like to edit a Commons image description, please go to Wikimedia Commons to do so. You must register a username if you want to upload, but you may edit anonymously with your IP displayed.

image was belong to me.!

Image:Kartal Dağlarda.jpg this image was belong to me.! Could you give it back .-- 3210 ^(T) 18:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molter Karoly image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Molter_Karoly.jpg

Hi, can you please help me with this image? This is taken from the Hungaryan National Széchényi Library. What i have to do, that others stop tagging it? It is public. I also wrote to the library management (just 4 sure) .. but probably they will write back in hungaryan, so no big sense. thank you for you help Elmao 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you get any reply, even if in Hungarian only, please forward it to permissions at wikimedia dot org while the image in question is currently tagged fair use.--Jusjih 16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Elmao 17:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tirgu Mures

Hi, this change can I revert? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%A2rgu_Mure%C5%9F&diff=158099886&oldid=157531614 Who says it's nonsensical? thx Elmao 19:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some images are used only as fair use. I cannot simply revert the edit.--Jusjih 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thx again Elmao 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Park

Just out of interest why was this deleted? Fronsdorf 18:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanBot tagged Image:Stanley Park.jpg no source on 26 July 2007. Proper source and copyright information has never been provided since then.--Jusjih 18:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Image:Tutankhamun Burial Seal.jpg

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am planning to tag this image based on the history as follows, if you could let me know if this is satisfactory that would be great.

I downloaded the image some time ago from this site. The image is a photograph of an artifact from ancient Egypt. The photograph was taken in 1922 by Harry Burton and published in The Times in Feb. of 1923. Burton died in 1940. So I think this makes the image eligible for the {{PD-50}} tag. If this is not correct, or there are some other issues, I would be happy to delete the image. Thanks, Jeff Dahl 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your statement it is eligible for Template:PD-old-50. Please explain the source there. However, American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term might affect it, so when did its copyright expire in the United Kingdom? Even if it is considered copyrighted in the USA, it is not the end of the world if you still have good fair use rationales in any article. It is not used in any article yet.--Jusjih 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like in the UK, the copyright is 70 years after the death of the author, so this would put the copyright expiration in 2010. Jeff Dahl 00:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of any relevant article here to claim fair use?--Jusjih 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would be at least one place to claim fair use, but I prefer only to use free images. If this image is not able to be used as a free image, then I would rather delete. Jeff Dahl 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Image copyright problem with Image:Original Soviet flag.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Original Soviet flag.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 16:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. Licensing information was originally provided, but removed by an anonymous user because this flag design appears to have been superseded. As the image description page states, I simply uploaded it at the request of an anonymous user. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:09:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Flagimage is now considered obsolete. How about uploading a version with the correct coat of arms? Better if it can be uploaded to Commons. Yesterday and today I have gone through at least hundreds of untagged images here, but I will go to Wikisource to tag more articles as well.--Jusjih 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the original image, I only uploaded it at the request of an unregistered user (unregistered users cannot upload). —{admin} Pathoschild 21:35:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As Russia is a successor state of the USSR, I am tagging it Template:PD-RU-exempt as a compromise for now. Any registered users can upload a more correct version later.--Jusjih 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tirgu Mures

Hi, now I deleted the photos with fair use .. Can I revert this? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%A2rgu_Mure%C5%9F&diff=158699457&oldid=158688977

thank you Elmao 11:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing with Dahn rather than an edit war.--Jusjih 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i give up, you can't discuss with him nothing, thanks anyway! Elmao 14:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imminent image deletion

On Oxygen therapy you put up a notice that this image is a candidate for speedy deletion. I can't figure out why. It is appropriately tagged, and isn't available on Commons (both of which were not always the case). There's no notice on the image page of why it would be deleted. Would you please look into the matter, and get back to me? Thanks. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally tagged the image and its Commons copy no source. You asked me on Commons that it should be presumed under GFDL, so I made the presumption here while Commons cannot presume in this way. I have removed {{deletable image-caption}} from your mentioned article, but since you are a lifeguard, please try to get a freely usable image if you can. Thanks.--Jusjih 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I'll be taking my camera to work tomorrow. Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picutres

Would you be able to let me know what type of pictures i can use in user space, and if i do not remove the pictures, what the consequences will be. I have gotten all of these images from various pages on Wikipedia, so I don;t see a problem.

--Andrew Winston 01:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I visit your userpage, I have found all of your displayed images limited to fair use. I have converted them to links so other users can follow to links to see these images with copyright information. Having a gallery of fair use images is rarely if not never fair under GFDL.--Jusjih 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]