User talk:Nsk92/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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[1] 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[2] 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)

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

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)

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

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.

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)

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)

A Nobody^{My 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 {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Did_you_know#Heathkit H8? 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)

On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergei Kruglov, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nsk92 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia on January 14

A Nobody^{My 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.

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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 Nobody^{My talk} 16:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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 Nobody^{My talk} 16:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [6] 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

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)

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 {{lit-char-stub}} 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)

Hello, Nsk92! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my Phils )

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.