User talk:Nsk92/Archive 5

3RR
You are about to violate the 3-revert rule in your zeal to salvage the page that dose not belong to wikipedia in opinion of several people. Laudak (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you. Your actions are absolutely outrageous. The AfD is not coplete and there is no consensus there for either deletion of the article or removal of the material from it. You must obtain consensus first for such drastic measures and cannot perform them unilaterally. Nsk92 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lede
The lede you wrote is actually missing from the article now, BTW. Just in case you hadn't noticed amidst all this mess. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is because Laudak unilaterally removed it. Please undo his edits back to my version since I have already exhausted by three reverts. Nsk92 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''You and user Laudak are both in clear violation of 3RR and both continuing the edit war. Time to stop.'' Paxse (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please. You know full-well that I am well-aware of 3RR and that the article is currently fully protected. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3RR rule is used to prevent edit warring - if the article is protected and you continue the edit war on an AfD page - this is still edit warring. Take a break, edit something else and walk away from this issue for a while. Paxse (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, what in the world are you talking about? You might want to refresh the definition of an WP:edit war: "An edit war occurs when contributors, or groups of contributors, repeatedly revert each other's contributions". I am certainly not edit warring on the AfD page. I did not revert a single thing there. I did and do comment there, as is perfectly proper in an extraordinary situation like this one. Nsk92 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

David Thouless's photograph
I simply do not know how to re-write the copyright statement to save the photograph. If you know, please go ahead and re-write it. In this connection, you may wish to know that American Physical Society is a non-profit professional organization (they are not allowed to make any profits, for instance, on the scientific journals that they produce). For your information, David Thouless is truly one of the greatest physicist alive today and I expect that sooner than later he will be awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. It is therefore only appropriate that Wikipedia displays a photograph of this truly great man (who is in addition a very nice man). My search in the past has shown that there is no free photograph of him available anywhere. --BF 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to the above message, you may also wish to consider the following photograph of Max Jammer which is in the same uncertain condition as that of David Thouless: Max Jammer's photograph. --BF 14:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is not simply a matter of re-writing the licence statement at the image page; it is a problem of obtaining a copyright permission from the copyright holder first. The image is taken from the page of the American Physical Society that displays a copyright tag, © 2008 American Physical Society. Unless and until they explicitly release the copyright and allow free use of this image, we cannot use the image here on Wikipedia. Basically if you want the image used on Wikipedia, you would have to contact the American Physical Society directly and ask them to release the copyrights to this image under GFDL; they can do that by sending an e-mail directly to WMF (the easiest way) or by placing a note at the webpage where the image is hosted that the copyright is released. I don't doubt that David Thouless is a great physisist and I agree that it would be nice to have a photograph of him in the Wikipedia article about him. But not at the price of violating copyright laws and Wikipedia's copyright policies. I am familiar with the frustrations caused by these problems, having written a few WP articles about scientists myself. However, per WP:NFC, the fair use claims are not applicable to photographs of living people, so even if you cannot find a free image after a lot of searching, a non-free image still cannot be used. I see that you have uploaded several other images with the same problem. You may really want to read up on Wikipedia's policies regarding copyrights and images (a rather heavy and complicated stuff but necessary) before uploading further images. Nsk92 (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked at the Max Jammer photo and, as you say, it has the same problem. The image is taken from a webpage displaying a copyright tag, © 2008 American Physical Society. So unfortunately this image is also an obvious copyvio case and will have to be deleted (if and when you obtain a GFDL permissing from APL releasing the copyrights to this image, it can be re-uploaded). Sorry, but that is the way it is. Nsk92 (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have now asked User:Stifle whether he would be able to salvage the photographs. --BF 03:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I know that User:Stifle is very experienced in dealing with image copyright issues on Wikipedia and hopefully he will be able to work something out. As I understand it, it will be necessary to request a copyright release for the images directly from the American Physical Society, but how they will respond to such a request it is hard to guess. I have never done any such copyright release requests myself (except once in off-wiki RL context, in a very different situation); hopefully Stifle would help you to come up with a good copyright release request or maybe submit one himself. However, if you yourself are affiliated with a university or a college, it may actually be better if a copyright release request to the American Physical Society comes from you, since I would imagine that that would increase its chances of success. Nsk92 (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The problem with the APS is that by being a non-profit organization, they are by definition almost always short of man/woman-power, so that the less one writes to them, the more appreciative they are. I can write to them, but so can any other person. In general, I believe that Wikipedia editors must act more constructively and proactively and instead of outright deleting, make an effort in the direction of preserving things that people have made some effort and brought into Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia is about creation (of a knowledge basis), and not about destruction. Since I have been on Wikipedia, I have myself written to tens, if not hundreds, of people and organizations for obtaining various permissions, so that I cannot be accused of negligence; when an editor sees some shortcomings in my (or somebody else's for that matter) copyright statements, s/he would do well to do some writing, instead of instantly deleting the image at issue (after all, I had given the source). I am simply dumbfounded by the adversarial attitudes of some of the editors who act like vigilantes. Kind regards, --BF 09:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding clusterfucks
I found the situation unfortunate, and any behavior issues need to be addressed seperately, but there is no prejudice towards solving the problem outside of AFD. I think the next thing to do is to see about getting the edit-war issue sorted out, perhaps via WP:RFC or mediation or something, or seeking additional input from related WikiProjects, and then getting sorted out WHICH articles below WHERE, none of which is really the scope of AFD. Once a general consensus can be reached as to what to do about the mess, we can figure out which articles need to stay and which need to go; but the problem has become outside the scope of deletion, as far as I am concerned, and I don't see how any articles can be deleted yet before we sort out which articles are which. That's a content area, and doesn't really need admin involvement, unless we need to enforece consensus once it is established. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 00:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that this can be sorted out without RfCs and there is no a discussion at the article's talk page on how to proceed further. But I do feel that as a procedural matter Laudak's actions during the AfD were extremely improper and disruptive, constituting a fine example of AfD gaming, and a successful one at that. I feel that such behaviour must not be rewarded, even temporarily, by having his version being the currently protected one, as this version does not show improvements to the article and additions of sources made during the AfD prior to Laudak's "hit and run" job. Laudak's version has been protected by an admin who was in the !delete minoroty during the AfD and who have not even tried to talk to either of the parties (myself or Laudak) prior to protecting the page. I certainly was not about to violate 3RR, I am sufficiently experienced to know better than that. The admin who protected the page indicated during the AfD said that "Any admin has rights to unprotect without asking me first". I think that as a closing admin who was uninvolved in the AfD itself you can certainly either unprotect the article or, if you feel the time is not right for that, change it to the pre-Laudak version for the time being. Nsk92 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Image advice
I'd like to ask you for some image advice since you are experienced in image copyright issues, which is a pretty dicey area. I am looking for an image of Alexei Khvostenko for the WP article about him that I created this summer. Khvostenko died in 2004 so, in principle, one could use a non-free picture of him under the fair use claim. There are several problems, however. First, most photos of him are at various Russian sites that are very sloppy regarding copyright issues and it is basically impossible to find out who really owns the copyright on any given image since they are typically posted and reposted without attributions. I did find an image of him in this article in Moscow Times that I think would be usable since, at least, there is a copyright logo at the bottom of that page and one could reasonably assume that the copyright belongs to Moscow Times (although I am not completely sure even about that; the image caption there points to a now defunct site www.ekho.msk.su; presumably that was the site of Ekho Moskvy, but a search of their current website returns several entries regarding Khvostenko, but nothing containing the photo in question). There is also another problem. I think that any fair use claim would have to involve a statement that no free equivalent is available. There is in fact a picture of Khvostenko at the Russian Wikipedia site. In theory I could have used that image as a free one. However, it seems very likely to me that the Russian Wikipedia image is not free but a copyvio. The image is of professional quality. The licence info given at the Russian Wikipedia site for the image file is very wonky. The licence says that the image was made personally by a user called sir66. However the file was actually uploaded by another user, called Ruskiman. This all looks rather fishy to me. I don't know if it would be appropriate to upload a non-free image (assuming I can find one with identifiable copyright ownership) and if yes, what one would have to say regarding availability or non-availability of free images. I'd much appreciate your advice. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From what you say, it would seem that a non-free image would be appropriate for this article, and I would use the Moscow Times one. As long as you can provide details of the source and copyright holder (which does appear to be the Moscow Times), you can make out a rationale for use of the image. While there is a presumption that a non-free image of a living person is replaceable, there is no such presumption for a dead person. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I am still unsure, however, what, if anything, to say about availablity of a free image if I do use the Moscow Times one. I thought that one is supposed to say something on this point when making a fair use claim for a non-free image use; and the Russian Wikipedia image is claimed to be free... Thanks again, Nsk92 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom:Botan River
Hi! I did what you proposed. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I'll take another look momentarily. Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've marked this entry as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year. Thanks a lot for your contributions. CeeGee (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. --A NobodyMy talk 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-evaluate please...
See Template_talk:Did_you_know? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link in the message above - Mgm|(talk) 13:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Smile!


A NobodyMy talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
On behalf of the Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!
Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not! :) Happy Editing!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my contributions?
I responded to DAB who said that Turkey is a theocracy which are not correct and to the abca that said that there are religious persecution. So the statements of dab and abca also must be deleted?

Humanbyrace (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a response at your talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I read it,so why you have not deleted Uhalla and DAB statements as they are similar to mine?

Well, we now have officials of Turkey and Iran(!) complaining about the ban. I ask you. This is involuntary comedy. I can see western countries criticizing Switzerland for falling short of western secularism, but to have an Islamic theocracy deposit official notes of protest over the minaret ban is simply absurd. --dab (𒁳) 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Islamic state countries have banned the building of churches for hundreds of years.--Rabka Uhalla (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

MY AIM WAS ONLY TO CORRECT THESE FALSE STATEMENT FOR THE ONES THAT WILL BE LOOKING TO TALK PAGES. IF THESE FALSE STATEMENTS WILL BE DELETED THAT'S OK OTHERWISE I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY THOSE FALSE STATEMENTS WOULD BE KEPT WHEREAS MY MERE CORRECTION WILL BE DELETED IE THE ONES WHO WILL LOOK AT THE TALK PAGE WILL THINK THAT TURKEY IS A THEOCRATIC COUNTRY PERSECUTING NON MUSLIMS AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF CHURCHES IS BANNED IN "MUSLIM MAJORITY COUNTRIES".

best regards Humanbyrace (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Humanbyrace (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not read through the entire page but I do see that some of Dbachmann's edits have been removed on the same grounds. About Uhalla: I do consider his e-mails to be disruptive and have reported them as such at the sockpuppetry investigation page Sockpuppet investigations/AntaineNZ. I did not remove all of his posts from Talk:Minaret controversy in Switzerland since, although I very much disagree with him (and I said so),  he was raising a specific editorial point about the article itself, aguing against the use of the word "controversy" there. Nsk92 (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Concerning your edit on my talk page. Smarty, please note that if I make an edit, I probably have a good reason for it. If you knew what wiki code is (and you should know what is about since you edit WP), you would see that in the article the categories, the interwikis, and the template appear two times. So please 1) remove the warning from my talk page, 2) restore my edit in the article Karlsson-on-the-Roof, and 3) try to be more attentive next time. Ciao. — ערפד  ?
 * Yeah, sorry, that was my bad, I did not notice that the article had duplicate interwikis. Nsk92 (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
