Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 March 18

= March 18 =

Distress flag
Hanging a flag upside-down is a sign of distress (like say if a ship had plague aboard). So how would they handle it if the flag is up-down symmetrical, like the Japanese flag ? StuRat (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Distress_signal indicates what is done in cases of symmetrical flags. -- Jayron 32 05:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks !

Why was this article deleted?
Hi.

I'm wondering why this article was deleted and why whoever on Wikipedia decided it was a hoax. It is a verifiable punishment for gishers who fail to follow the relevant commandment of gishwhes. You can find it here http://www.gishwhes.com/g_blog/commandments/.

Quote:

3. Nomenclature - From this exact point forward you shall scribe the word “GISHWHES” as “gishwhes.” We are henceforth banning caps-lock. If we see you infracting this rule online (or in sky-writing) you will be publicly called-out, and forced to perform the “Cutstata” dance (1867 version) without the usual aid of high heel shoes and the royal entourage. The sole exception to this rule is the Dinomite, who is (still) figuring out how to type in lower-case.

Many of the gishers have been looking for information on the "1867 Cutstata Dance". By you deleting the article that says it was made up for gishwhes, you are denying those gishers a resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.16.215.190 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article at GISHWHES still exists; if you wish to discuss moving it to a non-capitalized title, such as gishwes, you should discuss it on the talk page here. Matt Deres (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The purposes of Wikipedia do not include providing anybody a resource. Wikipedia is about summarising subjects that people have already thought it worth writing about. If there were reliable independent published sources which discussed the Cutstata dance (even if all they said was that it was a joke made up for the Gishwhes community) then we might* have an article about it. If there are no such sources we cannot have an article (even if in fact it was a dance craze known to thousands in the 1860's)
 * * I said 'might': it still might not merit an independent article, but only a section in GISHWHES. But without such sources it should not even appear in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Chess
When I was a primary school kid, I belonged to a chess team organized by the school. Now, I have just joined a chess club to basically have some fun on my day off. Does anyone know of any websites that teach chess strategy? I can remember all the opening moves we were taught, and can win (mostly), but I'd like to learn a little bit more, because now it's not a primary school game, this is for adults, and some of the people are chess experts. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし！ ) 15:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want an easy way to practice against a computer try here, which lets you play gnu chess on the web without installing anything. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a review of some free sites that teach chess tactics/strategy . SemanticMantis (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Chess already comes with the Mac, so I can play on that, but I will check out those sites. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 03:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of websites that you can find with a search. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Privacy law in Slovakia
I have asked a question about this previously at Commons. Last July, when I visited Bratislava, I encountered a newly-wed couple having their wedding pictures taken. This was at the technical museum, not at a private place like their home or a church. So I decided to also photograph them. Neither the couple or the official photographer seemed to mind, but I never asked for their permission.

How can I find out whether I can publish the photographs or not? I have no way of contacting the couple or the professional photographer, because I don't know who they even are. I wrote a question about this at the Slovak Wikipedia at what I assume is their Reference Desk, but looking at the history, it can go almost half a year without any edits, so I don't think I'll get a reply.

I don't know anyone in Slovakia, I don't understand Slovak, and I don't know of any Slovakian websites. How can I find out whether publishing the images is allowed or not? J I P &#124; Talk 20:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * According to freedom of panorama Slovakia does not have freedom of panorama inside public buildings. So you might get deleted for not having a license if you post the picture.  There appear to be no Slovak language articles linked to the relevant English articles.  The standard advice to contact a lawyer is relevant. μηδείς (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How do I contact a lawyer in Slovakia? As I said, I don't know of any lawyers in Slovakia, and I don't understand any Slovak. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You'd actually just contact a local lawyer who deals with EU law, regardless of whether the lawyer spoke Finnish, German or English. Unless you intend to use this commercially or publicly it might not be worth your while. If you intend to use the image at wikipedia, you should probably read Copyright problems and contact and administrator.  Someone else might have more direct advice, since I am not an admin, and don't much deal with uploads.   helped me with an issue deleted over fair use, she may be a good person to approach if this is wikipedia-related. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how copyright problems would be of concern. I took the pictures I want to upload, not the professional photographer. The only possible issue here is privacy. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What's at issue here is personality rights, the right of private individuals to not have their image exploited commercially without their knowledge or consent. According to this article, personality rights are protected under Slovak law. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Copyright would be at issue under freedom of panorama. It's why in the US many museums forbid the use of cameras.  The right to any image belongs as a derivative work to the owner of the object or location, not to the person taking the picture.  Under Slovak law you can (apparently, according to our article) take a picture of the outside of a building yourself and use it commercially.  There's a recent ruling that taking photos of the Eiffel Tower at night is illegal for the same reason. μηδείς (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama for this issue when it comes to commons. Note that AFAIK the copyright doesn't necessarily belong to the owner of the object or location. It may belong to the architect, sculpturer, artist or whatever. Depending on what you were actually photographing, it's possible Commons:Commons:De minimis may apply. It's also possible some of the things you are photographing are in the public domain due to age. Ultimately I think someone can only say for sure if there are problems by checking the photograph. Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)