User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2006/October

Telephone_numbering_plan, Carrier_Identification_Code and Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier

Good evening, Sandstein. Appreciate seeing another officer of the court contributing to Wikipedia.

I've amended the articles to strip out the reference to the specific carrier's name and code in the example of use.

I've also removed the two links to telecom industry web pages, leaving only the link to the archive of the comp.sys.telecom USENET newsgroup, as well as to the U.S. FCC and the N.A.N.P.A.. The latter maintains a changes-every-month list of those codes, and internalizing that information would be a needless effort, IMHO.

Might also note I've been adding to Wikipedia content for a while now, and this is the first issue I've had with content, or anything else, for that matter.

If there's a better way to tackle the issue, let's do that, as my sole objective is to make this information available to those who need it to bypass tied-up long distance trunks and use the trunk lines of alternate providers to call their families. Please feel free to contact me off-line at my ARRL address below.

73s and best regards,

John Bartley K7AAY

K7aay 23:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: I don't speak for Henry Durant, the OTC, the ARC, the ICRC, nor anyone else. View expressed are mine alone.

Vitra Design Museum

Hi Sandstein, I saw you wfying some links to this article, and noticed that you wrote Vitra. Nice work-- will you write Vitra Design Museum too? If you need images, there is Image:Vitra002a.jpg available from the Commons, but if you have more that would be even cooler. What an exciting building, I've never been there, but it seems so to me. Regards, DVD+ R/W 20:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I visited the museum today, had a guided tour of the premises and took some pictures. Then I decided to write the article that I found we still lacked... Yes, I intend to write the museum article also, but first I'll have to edit, upload and add to the article some of the photos I took. There are also some good free-content pictures on Flickr, I've noticed. Best, Sandstein 20:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the pictures are really great too. I'm going to put Vitra on the architecture portal, if you don't mind :-) I've already got Vitra Design Museum on my watchlist, and look forward to reading what you write. DVD+ R/W 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have rushed to nominate Vitra at the portal. I was just really excited about the article, I was thinking of writing it myself at one point, but you've made a much better start than I would have. You don't need to abstain (as like so much at Wikipedia, it isn't a vote but a discussion), and you have plenty of say. Also, it won't get posted for another two months so the rough edges can easily be taken care of by then. I should have waited to hear from you, but so you know, it really is intended as a compliment/award as much as an attempt to organize architectural info here. I hope it makes DYK too. You're right that it needs more sources, I'll look into it, but someone who's really good at that (esp. for architectural stuff) is Mcginnly. I'll ask him if he's not busy, or you can if so inclined. Regards, DVD+ R/W 16:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to apologise - I have no problem at all with you nominating the article for anything (thanks, again, for your praise). I was just being realistic about it being probably not very good yet. I've put it up at DYK because that usually attracts some eyeballs to fix the usual problems that are obvious to all but the author. And you don't need to feel obliged to find sources, or to ask anyone to - which isn't to say that they wouldn't be much appreciated, of course. Best, Sandstein 16:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, the museum article is written, as well. Knowing that one has a readership is a motivation... Sandstein 21:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading too - nice work - we've really been lacking Hadid images - Do you have any more for the fire station? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just what's at Commons:Category:Vitra. I'll upload a few more, worse ones (with people in the picture, etc). There are also some free content pictures on Flickr, if anyone has the time to upload them. Sandstein 12:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vitra, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On 9 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vitra Design Museum, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Peta 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Updating information

I created a set of future links for the template lookup (at Wikipedia_talk:Updating_information), and saw that you'd used the template in the Bern articles. When I looked in one to see how you'd used it, I saw that it was in a heading. Curious, I changed the year from 2010 to 2001, and the heading changed, as I suspected. Since links can be made to headings, I'd say that this template should be used OUTSIDE headings. I'll update the usage instructions to reflect this. --Scott McNay 06:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, this makes sense. Thanks for the message. Sandstein 06:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your posting of "how to" tag

On August 10th, you posted "how-to" tags in two sections of they HVAC article, suggesting that the might qualify for moving to Wiki Books. I would like to implement that but I don't know how to do so. How about explaining how that is done (in step-by-step detail) on the Talk:HVAC page? - mbeychok 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:HVAC. Sandstein 05:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A question

Hello Sandstein, I understand from your userpage that you are a jurist. I was wondering if you have noticed the dispute over the {{PD-Soviet}} licensing, and what you think about this. Could you either convince me of the case against it or provide some legal defence for it? I've been thinking about this a lot lately and need help with the legal arguments involved. Regards, DVD+ R/W 01:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been aware of this issue only peripherally. I'll take a look at it, although I can't promise anything - if the issue involves interpreting Soviet domestic law rather than the Berne Convention, I'm not optimistic. Sandstein 05:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've got no time to read up on the actual legal sources (and I don't read Russian anyway), I've briefly reviewed the discussions. They present a question of law and a question of policy: are those Soviet-era images copyrighted, and if yes, what do we do about them?

As to the first question, Lupo has provided references to both Russian and U.S. courts holding that the pictures are indeed (at least now) copyrighted under the respective domestic laws; these references are summarised at Commons:Template:PD-Soviet. I've seen no persuasive arguments that these holdings don't apply to all or most {{PD-Soviet}} images; and because the law is essentially what the courts says it is (I'm a legal realist), as far I'm concerned we must assume that the images will generally be copyrighted as a matter of law in the countries relevant for our purposes.

As to the second question, based on my (probably limited) understanding of the scope and basic policies of Commons (free content only) and en-Wikipedia (free content and fair use only), it follows from the answer to the first question that the decision to delete {{PD-Soviet}} images on Commons was correct, and that {{PD-Soviet}} images on en-Wikipedia should be reclassified as fair use, or if they have no fair use, deleted.

I hope you find these thoughts useful. Best, Sandstein 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The argument for keeping the {{PD-Soviet}} images seems to be, in paraphrased form: "These are useful images, and no one has sued us so far, so let's keep them." This strikes me as unpersuasive, because it doesn't address the legal question (or it accepts Wikimedia projects violating copyright law), and because it seems to advocate keeping images that do not meet the generally applicable image copyright policies of our projects. It's not relevant, in my opinion, that the images are useful for our projects and that no rights owner has (apparently) objected to our use of them until now, because if we were to accept this as a reason for keeping images, we'd have to keep nearly every random website copyvio image of the sort that people upload all the time. I see no reason why we should privilege Soviet-era images in that regard. Sandstein 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this Sandstein. I hope no one ever retroactively copyrights GFDL unless, of course, we get massively compensated for it ;-). Hey, when are you going to become an admin? DVD+ R/W 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retroactively copyrighting GFDL? Hmm, that would be difficult, because GFDL-licenced content is already protected by copyright - it's just that the rights holders (i.e., we) have granted everyone the right to use the content for free, unter certain conditions. So what can a crazed hypothetical legislator do? Retroactively forbid the licencing of content for free? Apart from the obvious question of why, this would create a great deal of practical problems in any reasonably recent legal system (i.e., younger than some 2,300 years).

Oh, and thank you for the compliment. I've not really considered applying for adminship until now, because Wikipedia is enough of an interesting hobby as it is. I've probably still got some more spam new page patrol to do, to get my fingers itching for that delete button... Sandstein 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you are ready, you have my offer to nominate or co-nominate you. DVD+ R/W 20:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

All right - and thanks, again, for that vote of confidence. Sandstein 20:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical Discussion of Rangekeeping

Please reconsider your decision on the article for deletion for this article. Sr13 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it looks rather different now. Sandstein 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Update to Template:Update_after

Hi! I've made changes to Template:Update after (it now links to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating and As of), and made significant changes to the documentation at Template:Update_after (including documenting the built-in ability to add a comment, and a changes in where it's allowable to be used); please review, and provide comments at Template talk:Update after if you think any are appropriate. Thanks! --Scott McNay 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Aurae

Ah! I wasn't aware that aura (paranormal) existed; if I had been, you can be sure that I would have made the redirect instead of just tagging the article with "disputed". Thanks for taking care of that. DS 12:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Labinal

Hi Sandstein, can you visit the Airbus A380 talk page for your recent edit about Labinal? cheers --Ctillier 16:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 17:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal question: Einstein's matura

Dear Sandstein, I need your advice on a legal point. I have a copy of Albert Einstein's matura, which he received in Aarau in 1896. This is a pretty important document, since there is a widespread myth that Einstein was bad at math, and this document shows that he actually received top marks. My question: can I upload it assuming that it is public domain ? In Switzerland, I am pretty convinced that such a document would not be covered by copyright, for lack of individual character (I'd also be curious to know if you think that such a document could be considered as ineligible for copyright because it is a "decisions, protocols or reports by public authorities"). On the other side, US copyright law for unpublished works is pretty stringent, cf [1] (the document was obviously published, but I don't know when, and probably not too long ago). Pragmatically, I don't see how there would be any problem, but I thought I'd check to see what your opinion is. All the best, Schutz 08:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. Prima facie, I'd say there's a very good chance of it not being protected by copyright in Switzerland, either because

• it's a case of art. 5 par. 1 litt. c URG, as you surmised,
• it's not copyrighted due to lack of individuality per art. 2 URG, if it's just a form sheet with the marks written in (this is maybe less clearly the case if there is a written commentary),
• it may be public domain under relevant Argovian cantonal law, or
• copyright may have likely expired under the "author's death +70 years" rule (art. 29 par. 3 URG).

I'll see what the commentaries have to say on it if I'm back at the office tomorrow, but I'd really need to see the document (can you upload it as fair use for the time being?).

As to applicable law, if US law is also applicable for our purposes, which I'm not really clear on, we'd have to ascertain if it's a "work" and whether and when it's been "published" at all (by the rights holder, of course), according to US law. Per your link, works published extra-US before 1909 are not protected under US law. I agree that as a practical matter there will be no problem. (For a somewhat comparable and also unproblematic Commons upload by me see: Commons:Image:Günter Grass POW record.jpg). Sandstein 16:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to scan the document as soon as possible (I have lent the book to someone). There is no commentary, expect for preprinted text with gaps filled in with name, dates, and marks. Except for the layout, it is probably similar to present time maturas. Schutz 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Scanned and uploaded at Image:Einstein-matura.jpg; I still have to fix the fair use licence for now. Schutz 09:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking at it, my opinion is that it is in the public domain under both of the following rules of Swiss copyright law:

• lack of individuality - just a form sheet (art. 2 URG)
• decision of a public authority (art. 5 par. 1 litt. c URG)

Although you haven't said so, I'll assume it was published in Switzerland first, but at any rate, my rule of thumb would be to apply the law of the country where the decision was issued, i.e. Switzerland, at any rate. Finally, the canton of Aargau is extremely unlikely to try and enforce any purported copyright in a US court in such a case. My advice would be to upload it in Commons with the appropriate PD-Switzerland tags. Sandstein 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. As for the first place of publication, I can not answer. My book was edited by the Historical Museum in Bern, but there is no guarantee that it was the first publication ever. Many thanks for looking into this ! Schutz 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)