Jump to content

User talk:Lupo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Air.dance (talk | contribs) at 09:09, 25 October 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Your recent DiMaggio image uploads: sources, please!

Do you have a LIFE? Obviously not! But, just to humour you, I got pic #1 from ESPN (ask THEM where they got it!), pics #2 and #3 from google images search (again, ask THEM where they got them!) You still wanna zap 'em, knock yourself out -- I could give a f*ck! - Worc63

HSDL-9100-021 proximity sensor

Lupo ,

Thanks for restoring. I wasn't planning to have it restored because it probably was not that relevant. Did'nt have enough motivation anymore. Besides, I guess I was too attached to my articles.(- - Yeah , I'm a wikipediaholic in denial - - ) So I should practise detachment.

Thanks anyway. --Jondel 09:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Korean Buddhism

It is true that I originally entered the material for the article on Korean Buddhism, but I found that I did not like seeing the article passed around without getting due credit. I have freely contributed hundreds of other articles to Wikipedia, but have decided that I do not want this one posted. As the author, I do have this right, and I think it is reasonable for Wikipedians to observe this courtesy.

Charles Muller

Look, I'm an extensive contributor to Wikipedia. I've written hundreds of articles. This happens to be a longer piece for which I've decided that I want due credit. I am not concerned about legalisms. If I am the author, and I don't want my work in Wikipedia, it seems to me that I should have the right to decide that. If not, that there is certainly something very wrong here.

(Above posted by Acmuller on September 30, 2004. Moved from my user page. Lupo 11:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I'm sorry that you feel this way. But you are credited in the history pages. As to your removal: please note that this is no longer "your" article. By removing the text you also show disrespect for all the edits other people made since August 19, 2003, even if you may feel that these edits were all minor. Nothing is wrong here, but AFAIK "once GFDL, always GFDL". Anyway, I propose to re-instantiate the text again, until this issue has been hashed out with Jimbo. After all, a few more days (if his decision should be to remove it) doesn't matter much, does it? Would you please re-instantiate the text yourself? Thank you. Lupo 11:44, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BTW, the license is GFDL, not GPL. Lupo 11:54, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Legalisms aside (and I acknowledge that I was the first to make this a legal issue), when someone who has contributed as extensively to Wikipedia as I have realizes that one contribution was a mistake, and wants to retract, I don't think it is too much to ask. As far as the edits done on that piece by others, they consisted of little more than chopping big paragraphs into little ones, nothing comparable to the volume of contributions I've made on that article, and elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Regarding the return of the prior page--I can't do that, because the version I have locally is my original, before it was converted into smaller paragraphs.

Finally, there are probably only three people in the world who can write that article, and as I said on the page, I'd be glad to replace with a more compact work (which would probably be more appropriate anyhow). It doesn't make sense to turn an avid Wikipedia contributor such as myself into a disgruntled detractor. Acmuller

Nobody wants to make you into a "disgruntled detractor" :-)
You (like anybody else here) can revert: go to this the history page, click the underlined time-date link of the version you want, click edit, click save. Done.
If you want to rework the article, fine, but removing information just because you changed your mind is not a good idea. Lupo 13:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

USATF and others

About US track and field athletes. So I can write just only stubs? User:Darwinek 18:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, OK. I confess. Coretta Scott King isn't mine. I took it from www.bookrags.com, they've nice biographies. But it was simply misunderstanding the copyright rules from my side. By the way. It's sad that famous African American persons like David Dinkins (he's got perfect biography at BookRags too) or Coretta Scott King don't have large articles like for example Babylon 5. They deserve it! But I wanna be fair so I confessed. It was my mistake, I know. I just wanted to do good thing. Let people know who were David Dinkins and Coretta Scott King. If you know right people, please let them know about that and motivate them to rewrite that articles. You are admin. User:Darwinek 18:05, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's me, again. It will be great if you would rewrite Coretta Scott King. If you want, just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Dinkins&oldid=6235454 my former article on David Dinkins, it was too from BookRags. Do you think you can rewrite this too? Please. If you want you can look at my new article I started today. I was doing it for 3 hours it's National Women's Hall of Fame. And there are no copyright violations. I think so. User:Darwinek 16:29, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RE YOUR MESSAGE: Brigitte Fossey images Please indicate these images' source and licensing status. All images on Wikipedia should have this information, so please add it on the image description pages. Thanks, Lupo 15:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JillandJack"

It is a good idea to wait for a contributor to finish their work before you leave them such a message. Please do not bother us again. Thank you. JillandJack 15:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your questions

First of all, the US Fish & Wildlife Service logo. It looks like it's covered by 18 USC 701, so I agree that we should not use it. They mention on their website that the specific restrictions are published in the Federal Register; if I get a chance, I may try looking them up at the law library, to see if we can find a basis for using the logo directly. In the meantime, I'm not overly concerned about cases where the logo is incidentally visible in a photo.

Thanks for your answers. I'm not concerned about photos showing some instance of a logo protected under 18 USC 701 either - in the case of the USFWS logo at least, it's only the logo graphic that is protected, not photos showing some instance of the logo appearing somewhere, and the image on which the shoulder patch showing the logo is visible is in the public domain anyway. I was concerned about the use of the logo graphic itself. Time to check Wikipedia:List of images/Logos for other occurrences of such protected logos... Lupo 06:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, fair use analysis has never particularly concerned itself with whether the material originated in or out of the US. As long as the copied publication is subject to US copyright law rather than, say, French law, that's really the fundamental question in deciding whether you can claim fair use under US law. Because fair use analysis is somewhat amorphous, I suppose a court faced with the question might consider non-US origin an issue, or the court might allow this fact to affect its analysis without actually being explicit about it. Of course, determining whether US copyright law applies in the first place may be tricky depending on the facts of the particular case. Anthony and I had a bit of a discussion on this issue (see User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Aug 2004)#International fair use and User talk:Anthony DiPierro#Choice of law if you want to try to reconstruct our exchange).

Yup, I was aware of that exchange. I guess I should have asked a slightly different question: in view of the uncertainties involved on whether U.S. fair use may be applied to items under foreign copyright laws (and I was assuming that a picture taken from a French web site fell under the French droit d'auteur), and the uncertainties on the consequences should somebody decide to take legal action against our doing so, should we on Wikipedia allow such "U.S. fair use" claims for such items? Personally I have the feeling that to be on the safe side, we shouldn't... Lupo 06:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Finally, NATO's restrictions look similar to those of the UN, which were recently discussed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and its talk page. The primary limitation, not being used for advertising, restricts a significant portion of potential commercial uses. This is definitely not free, and in my opinion we should not be using these licenses as a basis for including images, but some people apparently consider them "free enough". If the issue is not resolved, we may need to submit this question to Jimbo and the Board of Trustees for a decision. --Michael Snow 17:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'll mention the NATO copyright on Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree images, too. Lupo 06:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: USFWS

Thanks for the heads-up. I retagged the image. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:33, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

4.23.83.100

On RC patrol you said this user "has so far not bothered to discuss his changes despite being asked to do so." Actually, I doubt the user has seen any request to discuss anything. The message left by User:Golbez on the anon's talk page was two hours after the anon quit posting for the day. The anon knows how to use talk pages (he has edited one), but no one has left him a message on an article talk page. Since the anon never simply reverts, but goes about re-inserting information by hand, it is likely he doesn't know how to revert, and probably has never even seen a page's edit history. That would mean he has never seen the one edit summary that requested him to discuss things on an article's talk page. I would bet that when he signs on next and sees "You have new messages," that will be the first time he's actually seen anyone requesting discussion. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the material to even think about jumping into this one, but I would reserve judgement about his character and attitude until after we know he is aware that someone would like to talk. SWAdair | Talk 07:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I see it, Golbez asked him to discuss at 07:45, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) on User talk:4.23.83.100. 4.23.83.100 continued editing for three hours after that! Lupo 08:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Agh! I am so embarrassed. The way I have my preferences set, I saw the timestamp on the talk page as you say, 07:45. Timestamps on page histories, however, show without the five-hour offset. That means I saw the anon's timestamps as being five hours earlier than my "adjusted" time preferences. You are entirely correct! The anon didn't quit editing two hours before the message was left -- he kept editing for three hours after. Lupo, please accept my most sincere (rather red-faced) apologies. SWAdair | Talk 08:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    Hey, no problem! I thought it might have something to do with timezones... which is why I leave my Wikipedia time setting at UTC. Only drawback is that sometimes I edit, and when I remember to check my watch, I find out that it is already hours later than I had thought it was! (Wall clock is a few hours ahead of UTC here.) Lupo 08:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:USCasualtiesC130DoverAFB.jpg

Oh, and while I'm on your talk page...  :-) Good detective work, there. Thank you for following up on it. I think you're right. If only Wikipedia's detractors knew how careful we are about getting everything right. An anon corrected a caption, which got the attention of a regular who brought it to a public forum, which caused a close examination of a bank of photos, along with comparisons of the physical characteristics of the aircraft mentioned. In very short order, the mistaken caption was corrected in all appropriate places. Someone should write an article about the detective work that goes into the Wikipedia. Again, great job.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 08:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm humbled. Really. Just a routine fact checking job, and a simple one, at that. Thanks for your kind words! Lupo 08:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

Hi, yeah I guess I must have been looking at an old version. I was looking through the history before but I didn't realize I wasn't back at the current version...sorry about that. Adam Bishop 12:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image Removal

I understand that you removed the images I uploaded for Francine Dee and Tila Nguyen because of copyvio. But how does that "border on explicit advertising"? I don't understand that part. -- J3ff 22:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I'd love to... just, um... give me some time to fully read the policy documents! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, about to go to bed :-) It's getting close to 1 am, I just have a bit of insomnia. I wouldn't have any issues with you placing me up for adminship in the morning. You reckon I have a chance though? Positions of authority like this make me nervous (though they also make me ultra-careful about what I do also...)! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I like the sentiments of your post... will start reading the policy documents. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, just want to say thanks for putting me up for adminship! Your vote of confidence makes me quite happy :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

government sites

May I ask you a quesion? Are every photos on ".gov" sites free? I mean, can I use them in Wikipedia ?
Darwinek 14:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I mean photos of persons, like senators, governors, people who received some awards etc.
For example look at Gregory W. Meeks or Juanita Millender-McDonald.
Darwinek 19:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Swiss History

I was just reading your early history of Switzerland article and noticed an infobox with several red links - are you planning on writting these articles as well? --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 18:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not single-handedly. I am in the process of writing Old Swiss Confederacy right now, it should be ready tomorrow. But see Talk:History of Switzerland and Template talk:History of Switzerland for why I did this: Dbachmann had said three weeks ago that he wanted to do something, but then apparently got side-tracked. The History of Switzerland article was in such a poor shape that I just thought I'd help along by offering a pretty sound structure within which one could work. The red links in the box all are encyclopedic topics, and if somebody else writes them, I'll be happy: that was exactly the point. Lupo 19:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. fantastic work on the articles, chapeau. I would have aspired to a History of Switzerland roughly as it looks now, but I didn't envisage a whole series! thanks, dab 22:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. If you're interested, you might want to take a look at my to-do-list... Lupo 07:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*sigh*

This is why I'm glad you nominated me for admin. I accidently moved Lynne Truss to Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. I basically moved the wrong article! Could you help me fix this? Thanks mate. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Congratulations on the old swiss confederacy article. You would get my vote for sure, if i was asked for one. Keep on the good work! Another hot-topics-avoider

Woohoo!

Hey, thanks for nominating me mate. I appreciate it! Actually, I'm kind of suprised how many people knew who I was... I thought I was beavering away quietly in the background out of site of the world! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Help a new admin out!

I trid to merge the histories of Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson Seiko Corporation because ages I mucked up the page by copying and pasting one into the other... then I moved the page Epson Seiko Corporation to Seiko Epson Corporation accidently (don't ask) and couldn't get it back. I basically (silly me) gave up in frustration and promptly forgot about it. Now I'm trying to rectify that. Doesn't seem like the page histories have merged however. Is this just a quirk of Wikimedia, or have I totally stuffed up? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I worked out it was a quirk. The history is all there! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would have loved to help, but it seems you have a habit of asking when I'm not looking... Lupo 11:42, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
BTW, I just remembered: this is a known problem with history merges. It's got something to do with caching; sometimes, clearing your browser's cache helps, and sometimes waiting a short while (presumably until the squids—or the database?—are up to date again) makes the "problem" disappear. But it sure can be confusing! Lupo 12:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Habsburgs

They're a mess I agree, but I'm not competent to sort them out. We have some genealogy buffs at Wikipedia, though. This stuff is totally addictive... --Wetman 13:53, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

not really angry

Although I thought that was how it was coming across in my comment. What irritated me wasn't initial confusion, which is understandable, but the fact that I had explicitly removed that image, with an explanation that it was of the wrong Francis, and that Wetman had then added it back in with no explanation. Quite irritating, although obviously not that big a deal. I'll take a look at your questions... john k 07:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Habsburgs (general issues)

I agree with you as to the problems. Some thoughts...

  1. Holy Roman Emperors should be named according to the formula Name Ordinal, Holy Roman Emperor. It should be decided on a general basis whether these should use the German or the English name, although I'd suggest that the English is probably more commonly used in English (although this is likely gradually changing). Uncrowned rulers of the Holy Roman Empire prior to Maximilian I seem to be at Name Ordinal of Germany sometimes, and sometimes at their own individual name. I'd suggest, actually Name Ordinal, King of the Romans, although I'm not sure. I'd suggest that no Habsburgs after 1282 should be referred to as "of Habsburg" - they are properly "of Austria" from then on, just as Wittelsbachs are "of Bavaria" or "of the Palatinate" rather than "of Wittelsbach", and Wettins are "of Saxony" rather than "of Wettin" or "Wettin". The names of these dynasties are in very large part post hoc constructions - so it is the "Wittelsbach" dynasty simply because the first Duke of Bavaria from this family had been Count of Wittelsbach at the time he became Duke of Bavaria. The name "Wittelsbach" itself was then lost for several centuries before it's eventual recovery. So, for the early Habsburgs, you'd then have...

Rudolf I, King of the Romans (or Rudolf I of Germany) Albert I, King of the Romans (or Albert I of Germany) Albert II of Austria Albert III of Austria Albert IV of Austria Albert II, King of the Romans (or Albert II of Germany) and so forth...

Members of the Habsburg family ruling different parts of the hereditary lands should be referred to as, say Archduke Sigismund of Further Austria or Archduke Charles of Inner Austria. Members of the family who don't rule anything should be at Archduke Forename of Austria or Archduchess Forename of Austria. I'm not sure about members of the Tuscan line - obviously the grand dukes should just be where they are - Leopold II of Tuscany, or whatever. But their family members were Archdukes of Austria and Princes of Tuscany (and Hungary...). You could have Archduke Forename of Austria-Tuscany, but that's awkward...

At any rate, the naming of articles on members of German ruling houses is generally very problematic. In particular, you have the problem with new naming. Maximilian I of Bavaria can refer to both Elector Maximilian I and King Maximilian I, who were entirely different people. Same deal with Frederick Augustus I of Saxony. (or Frederick Augustus II of Saxony, or Frederick Augustus III of Saxony). Frederick of Württemberg, which is what the name of the article on the first King of Württemberg should be by current conventions, seems clearly inadequate - it is not immediately evident that this individual is a monarch at all. Even non-sovereign German noble titles seem to be problematic - there seems to be no consensus as to whether they should be included in article titles or not. john k 07:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right, let's go slowly. We have several issues here:
Granted, this may lead to a large number of redirects, but it's a finite number :-)
The other issue is how to organize the lists of rulers. At the very least, there should be a reference from Habsburg to List of rulers of Austria, and the two lists should be made consistent. Somehow, I found the lists on the German Wikipedia easier to use than ours. We should also cross-check the dates...
Thoughts? Lupo 07:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In terms of Holy Roman Emperor Francis I, I don't think we should have any redirects for him involving Austria or Habsburg, since he was a member of the House of Lorraine, and was not considered a Habsburg. Francis I of Austria is his grandson - he is never referred to as that. I completely agree about redirects for other places they've ruled. Leopold II should have a redirect at Peter Leopold of Tuscany, for instance. For English v. German names, I really do think that we should set a standard policy, or, at least, set a date where we switch from using Anglicizations to using German names. It is odd when navigating through if it keeps going back and forth, and there's no reason not to be consistent, except that it's a pain in the ass to go through and standardize (which shouldn't deter us). I have no problem with using "of Habsburg" forms of names for redirects, but I would strongly object to having any main articles there. john k 16:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re:This is just advertisement plus a showcase for a web designer --> spam

Ok, who are you guys to decide that some links are SPAM and others are not ? What do you mean by "This is just advertisement plus a showcase for a web designer --> spam" ??? Did you just take few minutes to have a look on the two sites and see if a wiki's link was there ? hum ?? did you ?? I guess you did not, because if just did it before deleting my two links you would find three backlinks to wikipedia. http://www.gainsbourg.org/vrsn3/html/links/index.html

http://www.gainsbourg.org/vrsn2/html/links/index.html

and the third : http://www.kookaburraprojekt.com/html/featured.html

I guess this is called Respect from you guys for my contribution to Wikipedia and for all the good stuff I added there. Before deleting stuff, take the time to have a look on it, and try to understand it. And in case, if you don't have any knowledge about, let it, just let it. "So join them! Webmasters: if you have linked to Wikipedia, please do add your website below, under the appropriate category. Please list your website only once. "

Regards David

Chill. Mistakes do happen, and it seems I made (a minor) one in this case—sorry. I did look at the two web sites, but didn't find the links (also, because the Gainsbourg site in particular was slow to load). Furthermore, please note that the "Wikipedia" link buried on the Kookaburra page doesn't link to Wikipedia, only the icon does... Lupo 09:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alright, my apologizes for the kooka's link, I did not see that only the icon was pointing to Wikipedia. I corrected my mistake. Could you now please put back my two links on the Wiki's Friends, because I guess that if I do it myself again, someone gonna remove it....again !

so the two links were : http://www.gainsbourg.org

http://www.kookaburraprojekt.com

Thanks and regards.

David

Where do I need to put the source? The same page I put the copyright tag?

Thanks!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lupo&oldid=6848606"