User talk:Rrjanbiah

Rajesh, POV and all is part of Democracy. Every one is in a Gödel's world. So, I may not have the same world view as yours and you as mine. Nobody is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Wikisleep is not a solution to these problems. Continue your work on Wiki and try to neutralise POV. I want you to reconsider your decision. -- Sundar 05:45, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

All the best for your blogging efforts! -- Sundar 08:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

How to get images permission?

from the pump

I could see many people easily get permission to use photos. I want to know if there is any letter templates for that. Why I'm asking is my English is poor and I wanted to use [1] in the article Sari but couldn't even get response. I think, it needs bit diplomacy. Experienced people can share. TIA. --Rrjanbiah 08:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, my advice on the matter - don't bother. Getting permission is a *HUGE* pain the ass. At best, maybe 1 in 3 requests get answered. I guess I've had some bad experiences. The best advice I can give is - find an alternative to whatever image you have. Government (.gov) pages are a goldmine of good, public domain pictures. →Raul654 08:56, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

i disagree. I reuested a couple of permissions, and maybe 50% got satisfied. I think that's a pretty good turnout. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Even if you only get a one in three response, this is still very worth doing. We need more images, and I think the effort of emailing the boilerplate request three times is well worth getting a new GFDL image. Please see the Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission page for an example letter you can use to ask for permission on images. Angela. 11:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The picture you want looks like it is from a professional news agency. People that make money with pictures almost never give them away for free. You should ask a private person or at least someone who does not make money with the photos. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:43, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about this or this one? Both public domain. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. In my experience, potential victims donators have to be targeted pretty carefully even to get a hit rate as high as 1 in 3. Having said that, I agree with Angela, you can get sufficiently efficient at bashing out emails to make it worthwhile. Pcb21| Pete 11:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also remember you can prefix your search at images.google.com with "site:.gov" to make sure only results from .gov websites are returned - massively increasing chances they are PD. Pcb21| Pete 11:57, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I usually use site:.gov OR site:.mil, wich also gets you the military PD pictures -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:31, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lorks! Great search tip! I thought I knew some snazzy searches, but I didn't know you could restrict it by high level domain like that. Thanks! I know have a little widget allowing me to search only British gov sites ;o) --bodnotbod 22:45, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed you do, and I know you know, but others might be misled ... UK Government info is generally *not* public domain. It's only the US which is. --Tagishsimon

Oh. No. I didn't. Bah! Not that I really intended to use it to grab images. I tend to focus on getting the words wrong instead. --bodnotbod 23:57, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, this is a really great thread. I always have a hard time finding usable pictures. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:30, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Are British government images public domain/fair use? RickK 22:50, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

No. They are Crown Copyright or copyright the local authority, &c, and are not available on the same basis as US government.. --Tagishsimon

You are absolutely right that copyright is retained. However the licencing is usually pretty permissive. Check individual publications for the extent of compatibility with GFDL. Pcb21| Pete 23:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note - You can ask Jamesday for more specific stuff, but the Crown-copyright for images made prior to and through World War II have all expired and entered the public domain. →Raul654 23:44, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Not so - official WW2 pictures and footage were transferred to the Imperial War Museum some years ago and are now the copyright of the IWM. -- ChrisO 16:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It used to be the case that all photographs taken before 1957 had a fixed copyright term of 50 years in the UK. Since the EU copyright harmonisation almost 10 years ago that has changed to non-Crown copyright photos having a copyright term of life of author+70 years. However Crown copyright photographs from pre-1957 still have the 50 year fixed term. That means all Crown copyright photographs from prior to 1954 are public domain in the United Kingdom.

Photographs that are 1957 and later (officially 1 June 1957 and later due to new copyright legislation that year) that are Crown copyright have a fixed copyright term of 125 years fron creation or 50 years from first publication, whichever comes first. That means that a photograph taken in 1958 and not published will not come out of copyright until 2084. However by that time it is likely to have been transferred to the public record office and there is a Crown copyright waiver on such materials which means that it will likely be useable after transfer.

As for IWM material, if it is originally Crown copyright, it will still be Crown copyright. The Crown does not generally assign copyrights. That means that if it is 1953 and earlier it is public domain in the UK. However its status in the US, where the Wikipedia server is located is somewhat unclear. It is in that foggy area on international law that often happens when different copyright regimes interact. Where we are talking about ordinary works then matters are clear, published pre-1923 is public domain in the US, and published works with authors dead earlier than 1934 are public domain in most other countries. However government material is an interesting question. I have sometimes seen places where the US Government claims copyright outside of the US. For example the Naval Vessel Register website explcitly claims to not be public domain outside the US. However, with the adoption of the rule of shortest term by the EU that claim is probably bogus within the EU. Crown copyright materials are even more awkward than US Government materials. There is an active copyright that is protected by HMSO. However its term is very different to non-government copyrights. What is its exact term in the rest of the EU? What is its exact term in the United States? Those are questions that I suspect could only be adequately answered by court cases.

To summarise, in the UK Crown copyright photographs from 1953 and earlier are public domain. From the safest point of view in the United States if they are published then they are subject to the same rules as other British copyright works from that period. If they are unpublished then they are subject to Title 17, sections 302 and 303 of the US Code. Section 303 provides that works unpublished in 1978 shall be the same as for published works created after 1978, but that unpublished works shall not come out of copyright before 31 December 2002. If published between 1978 and 2002 they shall not come out of copyright before 2047. British Government works subject to Crown protection are works for hire under US law. That means they are subject to copyright protection for 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation. That means that all unpublished Crown copyright materials that were made before 1884 are not regarded as having copyright protection under US law. Published Crown copyright materials are subject to the same duration rules as all other US works made for hire. So published Crown copyright materials from pre-1923 are out of copyright.

The only common ground for the two regimes is published materials from pre-1923 and unpublished photographs from pre-1884 (since all other unpublished copyright material is under copyright until 2039 in the UK as a transitional provision similar to the US 2002 provision). However Crown copyright waivers on unpublished records extend the extent of photographic materials that could be used on the Wikipedia. That is the strictest view and is probably the one that would have to be taken by the Wikimedia Foundation. Personally I regard published Crown copyright materials that are more than 50 years old as effectively being public domain worldwide as HMSO are unlikely to pursue action over materials that are not in copyright in the UK (especially with respect to internet sites which are effectively acccessible from anywhere in the world at the same level, meaning that something on a UK server which would not be infringing under UK law is effectively the same as something on a US server that would technically be infringing US law). David Newton 00:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As a reminder, if you cant find a photo, try adding it to Wikipedia:Requested pictures. I often try to add photos from various sources that are requested there -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all the people who helped me in this thread. Thanks for Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission and Wikipedia:Requested pictures--that is what I was looking for.

BTW, recently the webmaster of [2] replied me stating that the photo is from agency and so he can't help. Unfortunately I couldn't understand this jargon ("agency"). Is there anyway to find the agency of the photo?

Also, is there any place in Wikipedia where I can confirm if the image is in PD or conforms to the license? Say for example, I could find the photo in many places [3] --Rrjanbiah 05:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"photo is from agency": News agencies: A company that makes money by selling photos. They do not give it away for free. I have found two free photos of a Sari: This and This. Can you use these photos?

I also think that to show a Sari (Indian female dress), Anna Kournikova is not the right person in an encyclopedia. An Indian woman would be much more suitable for a picture of a Sari. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info and photos. I was looking for unexpected personalities on Sari and found Anna and thought her photo is suitable for the article to gather attention. Anyway, the article needs more work and will use the photos that you suggest sometimes later. Thanks --Rrjanbiah 07:50, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Good point you brought about regarding 'class' and 'grade' in Aishwarya Rai. Is there any article where I can find out the school/college-related terminologies in different countries with regards to the terms like grade, class, term, semester, names of vacations, etc. If we don't have this info as yet maybe we need to have it somewhere Jay 12:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

edits stats code

I saw a post from a while ago that said you had some code to automatically count the number of edits a user has, but I can't find it. Where is it, and how do I use it? (How do I use SQL on Wikipedia, because I've never used SQL before?) [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk)]] 17:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayalalitha image

I haven't worked on the Jayalalitha article or anything related to it since May. I uploaded the older image and can see it on the image page but not on the article which is strange. This seems to be a bug. --Hemanshu 12:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

re-uploaded my version. --Hemanshu 12:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aryan invasion theory

Hi Rrjanbiah,

Thanks for the warm welcome.

You asked me to write more about the latest DNA theories in the Aryan invasion theory article.

But the short passage of Mitochondrial DNA studies confirming the Aryan invasion theory, that I wrote on the India article, has been deleted by stating that the passage was POV. I had given scientific studies validating the statements and also provided bibliography at the bottom of the article. Still it was deleted.

How am I supposed to write anything at all on the AIT page. Besides, if the people on wikipedia delete passages which are corroborated with scientific data and bibliography, then I think the wikipedia has already been ravaged by people who edit anything that they do not like, by calling it POV. POV seems to be a phrase justifying any kind of edit. Water Fish 20:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dude... you're off-base... there are mitochondrial dna studies affirming genetic admixtures could only have taken thousands of years before the ingress and hence the AIT is 'disproved' was different. Also, major figures like Romila Thapar have come out denying the racial basis of Aryans. The point of this is that there do exist scientific and historical studies arguing the points you attempt to set forth as gospel and hence, these debates are appropriate only on the AIT page itself, not on a synopsis in the India article. The debate is referenced. No one's shutting you up. --LordSuryaofShropshire 00:03, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Kannada page

I noticed that you reversed a lot of the changes made on the "Kannada" page - please mention on the discussion page before making major reversals; I am not sure if it was an accident or not - can you let me know either on the discussion page or on my talk page? (responding here is also fine; I will check back later) - thanks. --ashwatha 06:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems to be an accident. Fixed now. --Rrjanbiah 08:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

V-sign Made in London

See Talk:V-sign Philip Baird Shearer

M Karunanidhi

All that is required if you wish to place the atheist categorisation on that page is that you explain why. It may be known truth to you, but other readers of Wikipedia will also want to know why this person falls in that category. It would be helpful if you added a sentence or two to the article saying why he is an atheist, and how this displays itself in his everyday actions. If you can't find the right words, then put the evidence on the talk page, and ask other people to do it for you. Simply placing the categorisation on the article without explanation just seems like a very POV thing to do. All we want is that things are obvious for other readers. Noisy 09:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've asked you before: please substantiate this categorization or remove it. There is no justification within the article, and therefore it appears totally out of place. Once the detail has been added to the article, it may then become apparant that it is the right thing to do, but at the moment it looks wrong. You are obviously in a position to justify this, so please expand the article first: that's all I'm asking. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 07:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't remove as it is a known fact. If you don't trust me, do a google test. The article is still stub and it should be cleaned and improved. But, removing content will only weak the article. --Rrjanbiah 07:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you can't justify it yourself? That I have to justify it for you? That doesn't seem right to me. The onus is on you to provide the evidence, not on me. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 07:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a professional editor to write the whole articles immediately. I can do what I can do. I have added the well known fact, and will substantiate it once I get time and words. As it is a stub, I don't think it's a big issue.--Rrjanbiah 08:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

India

Please go to talk:India and discuss the matter of the map issue. →Raul654 05:39, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

tamil

Hi, a personal request. I need to check if my name in Tamil is correct on my user page. Thanks. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:03, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for you inputs and support. Actually my name is pronounced "Nikolis", see the Hindi font to get the exact pronounciation. [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 20:20, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mate, for the trouble I've put you through. :) [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 18:55, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)