User talk:Quadell/Archive 14

Thanks


I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bridge
Thanks; I try to do my best, but there's too little of us working in the area. I even tried to drag in those lazy butts from rec.games.bridge in here, but they're really lazy butts ;-). Regards, Duja 16:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

MSF peer review
I've just submitted the MSF article for peer review, and I'd like to know what you think of it so far. --CDN99 19:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Block on User:195.56.91.5
Thanks for putting a block on the anon link spammer. Don't forget to put a message out on the talk page for that IP address. :) --StuffOfInterest 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding .  Being that I'm not an admin this won't do me any good.  I just try to spot them.  Still, thanks.  What would be nice is a template to put on people's talk page to point out a 3RR and list them in a category for admins to take a look at.  Sort of like how templates such as the speedy delete collection work. --StuffOfInterest 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Argh, I should read more closely before replying. Obviously, you were not telling me to use it. :)  Bit of egg-on-face after a too long day at work. --StuffOfInterest 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the user box! --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 21:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * -ditto on the arbcom box RomaC 07:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Cypriot stud (Leon)
Quadell, this has been going on since November with this user continually ignoring consensus opinion, therefore it's pretty clear they are now acting in bad faith (Talk:Jennifer_Aniston). Arniep 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is all basically a result of this user getting annoyed that he was not allowed to stick Greek (he is Greek cypriot) right at the top of the Jennifer Aniston article, and he thereby went (in my opinion) on to be deliberately disruptive because of this. Arniep 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking Photos in the Sackler Gallery
Just as an FYI... taking photos has never been allowed in the Sackler Gallery.

I brought up that fact at one point in the debate over the Qur'an photo and mistakenly thought that would mean the photo couldn't be used on Wikipedia. Since then, I have been accused on at least two occasions of intentionally making a false copyright claim so the picture would be removed. joturner 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Pruning of links
I'm just a little concerned about this edit. I'm very surprised that there were no problem links in that entire list. I didn't check through the articles because I know that the Hotlist is your baby and you wouldn't remove links without checking them but I just felt like I needed to say something. Hope everything is well. Thanks again for the tips to get the sorting of red and blues correct! --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion
Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:
 * A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
 * A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
 * A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject anti-war, Article improvement drive
February 15, 2003 anti-war protest an article from the WikiProject Anti-war, which you are listed as a member of, has been nominated for the Article Improvement Drive (by me ).

It is an article about a day of much importance both to the history of the anti-war movement and to general discussion of the Iraq war. With a little work from experienced editors it could gain FA status. If you would like to see it improved please vote for it at Make "February 15, 2003 anti-war protest" the subject of an Article Improvement Drive--JK the unwise 13:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Cool
Who was that directed towards? I didn't see any hint of negativity in any of Zora's, Babajobu's, or my most recent posts. joturner 14:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:DeCSS.PNG
I have tagged this image as copyvio. Clearly Wikipedia is no place to inject content which has been ruled illegal. Some may disagree with the court ruling, it may be considered stupid, but as long as it is illegal in the jurisdiction where Wikipedia is incorporated and has its services it clearly should not be put in Wikipedia. Please direct any discussion to that image's talk page or the requisite copyright issues listing. NTK 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Marcelle Karp
Thank you. I like working on the WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias, I learn so many new things! I actually didn't think my article was very thorough, so went back and tried to expand it, but couldn't find much more biographical information on the Web. There are plenty of links out there, but they're all about the magazine and the book. Hope my expansion didn't spoil it, in your opinion. I found it kind of ironic that she went from a background like that to Sesame Street, but there it is. GRuban 20:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-image sleuthing?
One problem with the wiki is that its not entirely obvious how to get help. I need to find someone who can help me track down a series of changes to the Ashton-Tate article, and typing in "wiki sleuth" led me here.

Do you know anyone adept at tracking down anon users by IP? The article in question was modified in a series of unlabled edits that seriously changed the tone to one that was extremely positive, notably in the description of Ebers. For instance, it expunged several interesting tidbits of information, like how the company deliberately paid bills late and eventually had their power turned off, and how Ebers hated the 3rd party developers and eventually yelled "make my day" by threatening to sue them all.

I have a feeling the edits were made by Ebers himself, or someone close to him. I should do a revert, but I would like to make sure first. Any ideas?

Maury 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks! For the record, yes, she is aware that the material is GFDL'ed and she approves. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Transportation in NYC
Hello quadell - I notice you've done work on the New York City article. The Transportation in New York City sub article has really come along and has been nominated to be a US Collaboration of the Week. Check it out and if you like it, please vote for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:USCOTW We need all the votes we can get! Wv235 03:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mylar balloons.jpg
Hi - People (myself included) are confused by the comment "Woodcarving by Donald Ellis Waddell, Jr." on this photo. - SCEhard T 20:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... how do I move that properly?
Not sure how to move that. Is there some trick or official way? Kmac1036 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Shuozhou
Just letting you know, you might want to sit down so that you don't explode with happiness... I've created one of the articles on your wishlist; Shuozhou, the area in China. Don't get too excited; it really is just a stub, and I couldn't find a lot of information on it. Fortunately, there were articles on it in German and Cinese; unfortunately, I speak neither German nor Chinese. So I machine translated them both (the chinese was particularly humourous), and used those as sources. Unfortunately, here was a little blurb on the history in CHinese that got completely mangled by the machine translation (sample: In 1988 the Shuoxian, the Pinglu two counties merges supposed the new moon state city...), and so got lost. Feel free to read over and correct/edit/whatever. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Thanks for giving me something to do... СПУТНИК ССС Р 14:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom chart colors
IMO, the light green bars may be difficult to distinguish from the background for some people (and on some monitors). I suggest replacing either the light green bars or the background with a darker color. --TML1988 01:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Revival of Image sleuthing
I would love to see a revival of Image sleuthing, and knowing that you were once a major contributor, was wondering if you would help to finish off the images currently in the que so we can move on and raise awareness about it. Thanks for everything you've done so far! Nrbelex (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood (talk)[[Image:Sleuthicon.jpg|45px|]] 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Visconti56.jpg]]
No please delete it, it was one of those strange things that happen on Wikipedia (at least to me) one seems to loose the server half way through an upload - so one uploads another and then found the first attempt was successful after all. I wonder what happened to it's twin uploaded later. It was meant for Sicilian Baroque but then I found a better image on commons, it should have a film clip tag. If I find it I'll put it at The Leopard or it can be deleted too, it's not important. Thanks for the message. Regards Giano | talk 14:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

IFD
Hi, Just wanted to clarify your comment with regards to notifying uploaders of IFD. I notified the uploader for anything that was suspect copyright or not showing a source if the user recently contributed to Wikipedia. If their last edit was more than 6 months ago I didn't waste my time. Also with orphan images I didn't notify them, and I don't think I listed any orphans that were recently uploaded. They'd all, as far as I'm aware, been unused for some time. My understanding was that notifying the uploader was a courtesy and that as the user listing an image, it was at my judgement whether or not I notify the uploader. I want to be sure I'm doing the right thing so could you please direct me to something that explains exactly what I must do ie I must notify the uploader. thanks Rossrs 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What an excellent explanation!! Thank you for taking the time - it all makes perfect sense. Cheers Rossrs 09:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
As for "thrilling and fulfilling"... well, the less thrilling the better, for arbcom, I think. :-) Thanks for your message! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom election
Curse you for voting for me! Thanks for your support. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Timeline Edit
I merged the two bars for Raul654 at ArbitrationCommitteeChart, but they had a couple-day gap between them initially. If that gap was intentional, feel free to revert me. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you!  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 22:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The rule of the shorter term
[From WP:PUI:]

As for your first point: do you have a source for your statement "If it falls into the public domain in the home country, the U.S. will not insist that the image is copyrighted"?? That would amount to the U.S. honoring the rule of the shorter term. I have been unable to find any such statement. (Though I'd love having a definitive reference confirming that, as it would make many things a lot easier.) Lupo 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really matter in this case, since it's copyrighted in the UK, and therefore also the U.S. But for other cases, the U.S. is willing to honor another country's copyright, but if that country doesn't claim copyright, there's nothing to honor. The international copyright law is only there for one country to enforse (or choose not to enforce) another copyright held in another country. There is never a case where a resident of Country A took a photo in Country A, and Country A considers the work in the public domain, but Country B claims the photo is copyrighted. Country A would just tell country B to mind its own business. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. Can we clarify this precisely? (Let's take Country B = U.S., for that's all we care about here, although the case is different on the commons. We're talking about works published first outside the U.S., 1923 or later, without subsequent publication and/or copyright registry in the U.S.)
 * The work is inegligible for copyright protection in Country A &rarr; it cannot be copyrighted in Country B (in any case, not just the U.S.).
 * The work is or was copyrighted in Country A:
 * 2.1. It is still copyrighted in Country A &rarr; it's copyrighted in the U.S. (expiry: 95 years after first publication, or, if first publication after 1977, 70y p.m.a, or, if post-1977 and corporate authorship, shorter of 95y since pub or 120y since creation.)
 * 2.2. It fell into the public domain in Country A before 1996 &rarr; it's PD in the U.S.
 * 2.3. It was still copyrighted in Country A as of Jan 1, 1996, but fell into the PD in Country A subsequently due to copyright expiry in Country A &rarr; now what?
 * Case 2.3 seems to be the one we have to consider (not for the Einstein image, but in general). Now, as the work was still copyrighted on Jan 1, 1996, I contend that that it is copyrighted in the U.S. with the expiry as in 2.1, unless the U.S. honors the rule of the shorter term. The Berne Convention only is there to ensure that if something is copyrighted in one country, it automatically also is copyrighted in all other signatory countries, subject to their respective copyright laws and copyright expiration terms. It does not harmonize copyright expiry other than prescribing a 50y p.m.a. minimum for the duration and suggesting the rule of the shorter term, which is not binding. Hence, we'd need some confirmation that the U.S. indeed does follow the rule of the shorter term. Where in 17 USC do they say that? What about U.S. case law? Are there any rulings that would indicate that the U.S. indeed does follow the rule of the shorter term? Lupo 08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just came across Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc. from 2003/2004, a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit). Now this is about some sound recordings (recorded in the UK in the 1930s, where they had entered the public domain in the 1980s), and thus not directly applicable. Nevertheless, I find it interesting in our context. Capitol, who sold copies of these recordings, claimed (amongst other things) copyright infringement on the part of Naxos, who had begun also selling copies of the same recordings. Now, ignoring all the complications arising from the fact that sound recordings apparently are not covered by the Berne Convention, and the fact that this court is dealing with New York state common law copyright (whatever that is), pp. 15ff contain a discussion of Naxos' defence.
 * Naxos essentially claimed that these works were public domain in the U.S. because they were in the public domain in the U.K. before January 1, 1996. Sounds familiar? Interestingly, the judge is of the opinion that this reasoning was a logical fallacy, the mere fact that 17 USC and the URAA only say essentially "if a work is copyright protected on Jan 1, 1996 in its home country, it is also copyrighted in the U.S." does not support the conclusion "if a work is not copyrighted on Jan 1, 1996 in its home country, it is also not copyrighted in the U.S." It took me a moment to understand this, but basically the judge says that the law is silent on what applies to foreign works out of copyright in their home country on Jan 1, 1996. (The expert basically says that "if A then B" does not imply "if not A then not B".) Ho-hum.
 * The decision in this case (from April 2005, written by Judge Graffeo) essentially follows this argument and concludes that expiry of copyright in the UK does not preclude copyright protection under state common law copyright. (It really only begins on p. 30. The first thirty pages are a brief legal history of copyright law in the UK, and the U.S. on federal and state level. Judge Graffeo really started out with Adam and Eve!) Here's the description of this decision: it apperas that all the judges of the court cuncur with Graffeo's opinion. Two points on all this: first, this applies to these sound recordings only; and second, state law apparently was considered because these sound recordings, for reasons I do not even begin to understand, appear not to be covered by federal law. Still, it does indicate that there is no "rule of the shorter term" in the U.S., and even worse, it seems to indicate that our assertion "if a foreign work has entered the PD in its home country before Jan 1, 1996, it's in the PD in the U.S." (that's case 2.2 from above!) is on shaky ground. IANAL, and all that :-) Lupo 11:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a summary of a law firm on that case, and a blog entry about it (which raises the interesting question where the 2067 date mentioned in the above documents comes from). Is it time yet to write Capitol Records v. Naxos of America? See List of notable United States Courts of Appeals cases... It's certainly time to update WP:PD with a caveat regarding case 2.2. and by including something on sound recordings. Lupo 12:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added something on that to WP:PD. Feel free to improve! Lupo 10:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On the issue of whether our case 2.2 from above is valid, I have taken a closer look at the court's decision in the aforementioned case. (IANAL, and all that again :-) I find it interesting that the court makes no mention of the expert's "logical fallacy" argument. Instead, the court says that while the URAA (17 USC 104a) would have exempted these pre-1972 recordings from copyright restoration (because they were PD in their country of origin by Jan 1, 1996, and no copyright in the U.S. existed on them), it does not apply because nothing in 104a invalidates 17 USC 301(c) (which places such recordings under state law), and thus the URAA has no effect on state law. Since there is no provision in New York state law for a shorter term clause, copyright protection for these recordings is available under New York state law. The court doesn't even say whether these recordings actually are copyrighted; they just say they are eligible for copyright under New York state law. I don't know what NY law says, but if it said that copyright on sound recordings expired 20 years after the original publication, I guess that would mean that these recordings in fact were not copyrighted. But all they said is that the URAA does not prohibit a state to place pre-1972 sound recordings under copyright, even if these recordings do not meet the conditions of the URAA.
 * Now, luckily, just about any other kinds of copyrightable works do fall under federal law; I am not aware of any other such "state law exceptions". In this case, I think our interpretation "if a foreign work was PD in its country of origin by Jan 1, 1996 and no copyright existed in the U.S. by that date, then the work remains PD in the U.S" holds. 17 USC 104a goes to great lengths to enumerate the precise conditions under which a work's copyright is restored. If the legislators had wanted other works that do not meet these conditions to be eligible, they would have broadened the conditions accordingly. And since images do fall under 17 USC, we're in no danger of suddenly seeing that case 2.2 become invalid because of some state law. Therefore, I feel confident that we can leave that rule as it is. Lupo 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

MSF FA
Hey, you'd better start counting your nickels and dimes, because Médecins Sans Frontières is now a featured article. --CDN99 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nosource
Tanks and sorry for any incovenience :) .--555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 19:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my English is poor. I am fixing some images, but, in anothers (like this and this) is impossible to determinate it's correct date. --555pt | msg | msg on w:pt 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights and Iran
Hi Quadell, I noticed you replaced the text at Image:Jalaseh Majles.jpg with a PD-because citing the fact that Iran does not have a copyright treaty with the United States. While this argument is true (and has been made by User:Zereshk many times), a lengthy discussion on the mailing list resulted in a statement by Jimbo Wales noting that we should respect Iranian copyright (despite the fact that it could not be enforced in the United States).

While I understand the use of that image is on somewhat shaky fair use grounds, it is probably would not hold as PD.

I'd just like to make you aware of that fact. —Wikiacc • ◊ 23:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Help!
For some reason I have been banned from Wikipedia for "not editing articles within one month." All that I ask is that if there is such a rule and what the basis is. I am not getting a response from the Admin that put the block on in terms of actually explaining or showing me this supposed rule i cannot find. All that I ask is that IF I am to be blocked that it's done per regulation. Thanks you. User:Kmac1036

Once again I thank you and will keep my thoughts and emotions in check in the future. Can I remove the posting on my homepage and change it now or does it have to stay for some time? Kmac1036 03:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Empire state by hine.jpg
Sorry about questioning the reason you've given&mdash;I'm just trying to understand, not trying to criticize. The photo is from 1931 and commonly titled "Icarus", and this site claims copyright "&copy; The Estate of Lewis Hine". Hine published a book entitled "Men at Work" in 1932 ; this book contained at least one version of this image (titled "The Sky Boy") according to the George Eastman House. You wrote: "Since this worker is working on the construction of the Empire State Building, he could not be working on this after 1932. Therefore the photo is in the public domain in the U.S." Why? Did "Men at Work" not have a copyright notice? Of if it did, did Hine fail to renew the copyright? (I haven't found any renewals by Hine in 1958-1964 on, nor did I find anything for "men at work"...) Either case, I think you should explain on the image page why this post-1923 photograph was PD in the U.S.... :-) Lupo 15:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm&mdash;what does 1932 vs. 1931 have to do with it? Am I missing something? Either way, what do we require for a PD claim due to "copyright not renewed"? Do we consider a manual search of the TIFFs given at the above link sufficient, or do we require that the Copyright Office be asked? (I think at the very least my failure to find a copyright renewal indicates that there is a fair chance that indeed Hine (or his estate, in this case) really didn't renew the copyright.) Lupo 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Beginning the day by skipping your morning coffee is a bad idea. (And a sign of an advanced case of Wikiholism?) :-) Lupo 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow!
That was quite a shocking abuse of admin powers to delete a useful picture from the Wikimedia Commons without any support whatsoever! Well played! Babajobu 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar! Now I can go improve the rest of your bounty articles until I'm blocked for making you donate all your money to Wikipedia... :P --CDN99 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Your actions regarding the Qur'an picture have resulted in a request for comment/de-adminship. Your response to the charges are requested in the response section. joturner 11:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While I certainly respect you as an editor, I cannot deny that your deletion of the images was inappropriate. I sympathize with your feelings and hope that your previous history as an upstanding editor is well-considered during the RFC. However, as I'm sure you're aware, your deletion of the images was at best a conflict of interest, at worst an abuse of power. I imagine you knew this going into it, and chose to bite the bullet regardless. I respect that, but my respect cannot be used to exonerate you. My sincere suggestion is to accept the charge against you (regarding image deletion) and plea for leniency. I don't think anyone holds ill will against you here, but these types of actions cannot be simply ignored and justified with WP:IAR. As Kelly Martin well demonstrated, admins must adhere to some threshold of accountability (especially when the use of admin powers are at issue). Regardless, I hold nothing personally against you and wish you the best of luck. Kaldari 14:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From Joturner's talk page...

RFC
Thank you for notifying me. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking over your userpage and your contributions, I find it amazing that we're in conflict. You're a great contributor to Wikipedia, and I agree with you about just about everything. We're both members of the Muslim League, we're both coders, we're both religious pacifists, and we're probably the only two Wikipedians that declare themselves both pro-legalization and drug-free!

You seem like a great guy and a valuable ally, and it's unfortunate we find ourselves in this position. I hope we can patch things up and work together. Sincerely, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I do hope we can put this behind us. But unlike you, I'm putting the interest of Wikipedia before my personal interests. I am happy the image is gone, but the manner in which you did it, in my opinion, is reprehensible for an administrator. Once this issue is resolved, I'm sure we can get back to being on good terms. I don't believe one bad move makes one bad person. joturner 15:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Joturner, I really hope you will reconsider your position here. "When the best sort of sysop has to break the law to do what everyone knows is right, there's something wrong with the law."  Your RfC is really ill-considered, and when we reach the point that good admins can't do what is right because of this irrational passion for rules lawyering, we lose what makes this community work: passionate people having fun together, cutting each other significant slack, and finding ways forward that are helpful to all parties.  The best interest of Wikipedia is to give sensible people the power to do sensible things without a lot of red tape and nonsense after the fact.--Jimbo Wales 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations
As per the Waleed article, I figured there was no point to listing spellings that were identical but with different spacing. If anything, we could put a (sic) after any direct quotes from the media that spelled his name as Alshehri instead of al-Shehri - though I don't imagine we'll ever run into that problem. (Though Atta, with his el-Amir, al-Sayed and such should definitely list the alternate names) But I'd be in favour of saying that if he never used both names himself, then that would be like mentioning that Lara Flynn Boyle was "also transliterated" as O'Boyle in some media reports - definitely not relevant to the opening sentence of an encyclopaedic article. shrugs Just my two cents Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 14:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, and I always thought that Qaddafi was just God's gift to PoliSci students since there was no possible way to spell his name 'wrong' - I'm sure one could get away with "Mo'margh Cadaghffi" and a professor would simply assume that was his Irish pseudonym. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 14:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Blush
I hadn't noticed the 6th userbox on the left until now. I'm speechless. Lupo 16:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems as though you could do with something nice here
I think your action was entirely understandable, and I don't envy you seeing your wife the subject of all this controversy. Take care. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second that. Palmiro | Talk 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Since it fits in so nicely with my anti-userbox userbox, I think I'll leave it there for the moment... And just for me, too! Wow. Palmiro | Talk 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think everyone is overreacting. You made a good decision and were very understanding with the issues people had with the image. So don't worry about it. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey it's over! Congrats. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 14:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Commendations and condolences
I commend you on making the right decision on the matter of that image. A three-month-long debate over something like this is clearly a Gordian knot, and you cut it quite deftly, if I do say so myself. I only wish our community were less critical of those who take bold action to resolve conflicts. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

What a storm in a tea cup! You did the right thing, Quadell! Lupo 19:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The photo
Quadell, I have restored a version of Image:Big Quran page.jpg that crops out your wife. Since that seems to be the crux of the argument, I hope you don't mind this. Dragons flight 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Blackburn Skua.jpg copyright
Hi, Quadell. How well do you understand UK/EU copyright? The UK parliament appears to have enacted a measure which is impossible to interpret: Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first made available to the public. I believe this applies to this photo, which was merely described as 'Photo by courtesy of "The Aeroplane"' - no photographer credit - copyright would have lapsed at the end of 1991. However The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995: The new provisions relating to duration of copyright (i.e. 70 years) apply...to existing works in which copyright expired before 31st December 1995 but which were on 1st July 1995 protected in another EEA state under legislation relating to copyright or related right. So I have to understand 17 other copyright laws as at 10 years ago?! I can't find any official publication to tell what this means. Sorry for the long message but I uploaded quite a few AFP photos and would like to be certain of the position before I start deleting them! Keith Edkins 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's copyrighted. Quote from WP:PD:
 * However, with the EU Copyright Directive from 1993, which became effective in Germany on July 1, 1995, these works suddenly became copyright protected again, until 70 years p.m.a! This was caused by Spain's longer copyright term of 80 years p.m.a. suddenly superseding Germany's old "25 years"-rule that had been governing World-War-II-era images. As a result, a 1943 image that had been in the public domain since 1968 became copyright protected again in 1995 with a term of 70y p.m.a.
 * On anonymous works, the EU Copyright Directive says in article 1(3): "In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall run for seventy years after the work is lawfully made available to the public." Since the EU directive is binding, the UK must comply with this. From what I understand, we have here either an anonymous or pseudonymous author, and thus I think "70 years since publication" applies. Does that help, or have I misunderstood something? Lupo 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: you made a typo on the commons: "17" instead of "70").


 * Sloppy work on my part! Upon further consideration, there are two goofs in this. First, I needed to show that indeed anonymous or pseudonymous works published in 1940 were indeed still copyrighted somewhere in the EU (the quote above only talks about p.m.a., hence a known author). Luckily, the old Spanish copyright law is still available online (in Spanish, though). Its §27(2) says that anonymous or pseudonymous works had a copyright term of 70 years since publication (unless the author becomes known during that period, in which case 70y p.m.a. applies again). So, that condition is fulfilled.
 * BTW, note that the quote above contains a minor mistake as it claims Spain had an 80-year copyright term. I have since corrected this on WP:PD.
 * The second goof is the assumption that it was indeed an "anonymous or pseudonymous" work. According to the above, the caption said Photo by courtesy of "The Aeroplane". When I think about it, this doesn't look like a pseudonym. More likely, it's the name of a magazine, namely The Aeroplane! Therefore, the book publication is not the first publication. The magazine existed from 1911 to 1968; the image in question must have been published between February 9, 1937 (first flight of that type) and early 1940. So, even if the first publication was in that magazine, the image is still copyrighted, whether the author is known or not.
 * Unless the image was covered by UK Crown Copyright. Crown copyright for published works expires 50 years after the first publication. Although such works might in theory still be copyrighted outside the UK in other Berne Convention members (see e.g. Sterling 1995 towards the end, section titled "Protection of Crown copyright in other countries"), the practice on Wikipedia is to consider such works to be copyright-free world-wide. There has been an extended discussion on Wikipedia-l in May 2005 on this precise topic. See the message from User:David Newton which says basically "although works whose Crown copyright had expired could be still protected outside the UK, we have a statement by the OPSI, who manage all Crown copyrights, that they as the representant of the copyright holder (the crown) do consider Crown copyright expiry to apply world-wide and will not enforce it outside the UK once it has lapsed in the UK." I'll go amend WP:PD once more...
 * For the image at hand, to make a real PD claim, we would thus have to dig up the issue of The Aeroplane in which it was published (shouldn't be too hard, I'm sure a good UK library will have it) and see how it is credited there. If it then credits this to e.g. the Royal Air Force, it's Crown copyright, and the image is PD. (Somehow, I do consider this even likely.) Lupo 10:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (The guilty uploader confesses) I have to say I think it is unlikely that tracking down The Aeroplane will prove the photo to be Crown copyright - I think Aircraft of the Fighting Powers would have stated that at the time (as it did in a few cases, e.g. "Air Ministry photograph"). There are 75 photos in like case (list). In view of the implausible effort to locate them all in The Aeroplane, Flight etc. I think I should regretfully tag them all for deletion and edit them out of the articles. Any views to the contrary?--Keith Edkins 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keith, I don't know that book, but... I would still try to locate these magazines in a library and check. Who but a fellow RAF pilot could have shot that image? I somehow doubt The Aeroplane had its own pilot-photographers and made arrangements with the RAF so that their own photographer could take an image... isn't it possible that in the book, they credited images they got directly from the RAF or the Air Ministery to them, but didn't bother checking up on images that had appeared earlier and just credited the magazines they got them from? I do think it a trip to the library might be worthwhile. Lupo 11:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nth edit
There is an option at Special:Contributions to begin from Earliest. Setting the list to 500 edits, the newest item on the second page will be the 1000th edit, the newest item on the fourth page the 2000th, etc. Thanks for the reminder, by the way. I'm very out of date. Jkelly 21:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your questions
Hi Quadell, thanks for your kind words and I also look forward to having this behind us.

Q1. Do you still feel you did the right thing in insisting the photograph of my wife be included in Wikipedia?
 * I didn't insist that the picture of your wife be included: I insisted that we respect the community verdict that it should be retained until a replacement was found. I also personally believed that the picture should be retained until a replacement was found--Wikipedia is built on the GFDL and I think we should take it seriously, and by agreeing to find a replacement pic I think we were respecting the awkardness of your situation--but had the community voted differently I would have respected it. Babajobu 00:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2. I would have been willing to leave the image on Wikipedia's servers until a replacement could be found, so long as the image wasn't on the Qur'an page in the meantime. It was your reversion of my removal that convinced me I needed to delete it. Do you think that your reversion to include the image was appropriate?
 * FWIW, you didn't remove the pic after my reversion...you deleted it after Jotourner's reversion. I assumed that seeing people on both sides of the debate revert your removal frustrated you, and you reacted by just overruling both sides with a delete. Yes, I think my reversion was appropriate in that everyone else commenting on the page at that time, on both sides of the discussion, disagreed with your removal of the image. I think that your power as the photographer was to use our sympathy for your situation to influence the community to find a replacement image. I think you were in the process of accomplishing this when you deleted the image.

3. I have apologized for edit warring over this. Do you think you should as well, or do you think your actions were appropriate?
 * Sorry, but I just don't think two reverts to abide by a talkpage consensus on what is best for an article requires an apology. Both sides agreed that the pic should be retained until I solution was ironed out.

4. In the future, if the photographer of a work asks that his photo not be used on a certain page, and if there isn't a clear consensus on whether the photo belongs on the page or not, do you think the photo should be used there, or do you think the photographer's wishes should be respected?
 * I think this is a topic that Wikimedia Commons needs to address, and I'm happy to abide by whatever decision they come to. However, from this point forward it seems silly to pretend that Commons pictures that include people are freely licensed, since it seems that permission can be revoked whenever desired. If that's the case, then Wikipedia should probably regard Commons pix w/people as nothing more than fair use pictures.

5. What do you think I could have done better to have avoided the conflict? If I had asked Jimbo to delete the image, instead of doing it myself, would that have been appropriate in your view? If I had waited another two weeks (with the offending photo still on the page), would that have helped? And should I have had to stand for the image being used in a way I clearly objected to? If there was a way I could have dealt with the situation better, I'd like to know so I can learn from my mistakes.
 * Since Kone was in the process of acquiring a replacement image--a process which was thwarted by the Smithsonian librarian saying she couldn't deliver so long as the link to the pic was broken--I think you probably should have waited at least 48 hours or so. Two weeks seems as though it would have been far more than enough. Yes, I would have much preferred that Jimbo had deleted the picture, I think your doing it sets a horrendous precedent for the Commons license. How could you have dealt with the situation better? The most obvious thing would been never to have freely licensed a picture that you were not willing to see used freely. I hope that you will no longer upload images to the Commons, or that, if you do so, the pictures will not include images of living people. Having done so, and being unhappy with the way the pic was used, I think it would have been best for you to (1) use the sympathy we all had for your predicament to ask that a replacement picture be used (you completed this step, and we agreed), and (2) taken the lead in hunting down the replacement pic. I think that would have been the best way to handle it.

Finally, let me just say that it's obvious you are a very good editor and Wikipedian, and though I've been unhappy with your handling of this situation, I appreciate your great value to the project and in the end that's more important than any of this. Let me also just say again that I sympathize with how awkward this has been for you, and totally sympathize with your desire not to have your wife's presence before the Quran attacked as a disgrace. Regards, Babajobu 00:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Request for Comment
I withdrew your request for comment. You can see the rationale for its removal in the page's withdrawal section. joturner 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This image
Hi Quadell,

I have just seen image on this article and think it is a breach of copyright due to it containing part of the Google logo? I am not too sure about the image copyright processes on WP so thought you might be a good person to ask about this? -Localzuk (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the advice. I may list it as you suggested, as it may have issues. Cheers again -Localzuk (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

DeCSS image
Just to let you know, I have withdrawn my objection to the DeCSS image, per the talk page. NTK 08:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tannin
Tannin has refused on numerous occasions to licence his images under the GFDL, since he does not want commercial re-use of his images. He only ever uploded two images that were explicitly tagged as GFDL. It is an incorrect to assume that an uploader has read, understands and agrees with the GFDL (even though they should do all these things before contributing).--nixie 12:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Patajali.jpg
What's up with this? You uploaded it and tagged it PD. The artist who made the statue just contacted me and wants to know where we got the photo. So, where did we get the photo? Who is the photographer? Why is the image tagged PD? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)