User talk:John Smith's/Archive 2

Talk Page Archive 1

(Please write new comments AT THE BOTTOM!)

New format - can't have your cake and eat it

The new format is not good, because it is repeating content. There are two options:

1. Go back to the original format 2. Remove the bottom section and put them all into the relevant categories

Which do you want? John Smith's 12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets discuss this under the "New Format" section for the page. Dirtymentality 06:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

It looks like USer:HongQiGong is continuing his struggle. I've gone ahead and left a note on his talk page and in the edit summary suggesting he take the issue to the talk page, hopefully he'll take my advice and we can actually work this out. As things stand I must confess to being somewhat baffled as to what his objection is. --Daduzi ^talk 05:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Baoshan1937-Asahi-01.jpg

First of all, if you continue to revert, update the date of the "unknown" tag. Otherwise, a sysop may accidentally delete that page.

As for the Japanese copyright law, there is no problem. According to the current copyright law, a photograpgh enters the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator. But pre-1956 photographs are not affected by the current law because they had already entered the public domain before the current law became effective (see ja:著作権の保護期間#写真の著作物). FYI, the old copyright law states:

写真著作権ハ十年間継続ス (Article 23 Section 1).

I don't think we should provide detailed explanations about the pre-1971 copyright law on every individual page though I think it should be presented somewhere on the Wikipedia, Category or Template namespace.

As for Chinese copyright laws, I only consulted Template:PD-China. --Nanshu 15:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sea of Japan poll

Hi, there.

I placed a notice regarding your poll in Wikipedia:Current surveys. Also, I asked User Nihonjoe to place a similar message in the Japan and the Korea "notice boards" pages. Please check them for accuracy. Thanks.--Endroit 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear from Nihonjoe, so I went ahead and posted the messages myself at:

1. Wikipedia talk:Korea-related topics notice board
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

Again, please check them for accuracy. Thanks.--Endroit 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Hi John, I can't give an opinion without knowing what the image is (and even then I might not be able to, as I'm not an image expert by any means). I saw from your contribs that there was a query about this one but I see it does have a source, so I'm not sure what the problem is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say they're fine to keep, because they're of historical importance, he has provided a source for them, and one of the sites says they are public domain, though it doesn't say how it knows that. Another tag that can be used is {{historicphoto}} (at least I think that's it), which is fair use, but regarded as the kind of fair use that is particularly safe to use for a variety of reasons, none of which I'm in a position to judge. A good person to speak to about images is User:Jkelly, who is very knowledgeable. As for how to nominate them for deletion, see Wikipedia:Images for deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's for everyone. See Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#Listing_images_and_media_for_deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop listing stuff for speedy deletion. Immediately.

Please stop listing images for speedy deletion either here or on Commons, and start discussing the status of images instead of tagging them for speedy. I do not care if you really have a case or not with any of these images, but you are being incredibly disruptive by reverting speedy tags over and over and over and over again, and you look like a good candidate for a block right now.

The proper place to list possibly unfree images on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images; on Commons, use {{delete}} and then list the image on Commons:Deletion requests.

Lastly, under the Berne convention which China and the U.S. are signatory to, copyright over the content of a web site exists automatically upon creation; no copyright notice is needed. If an external web site does not mention its copyright terms anywhere, it is assumed that all content of the site is copyrighted by its creators. Kimchi.sg 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what you did prior to my protection of the Image:Body everywhere.jpg. That's what I was referrring to. Also, your recent activities on Commons. Don't force a sysop to fiddle with your editing priviledges there as well. Kimchi.sg 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No no no, you've misunderstood the terms of the convention. Under the Berne convention, everything is already "properly copyrighted" once it is created. Kimchi.sg 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I suspect that you are right, insofar as these images could only very generously described as being sourced. Nevertheless, there seems to be resistance to speedy deleting (above). On en:, the way to handle this is through Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, where parties have more than a week to try to work out the copyright status of images (if we're sure somehow that they are licensed appropriately, and I don't believe that is true, Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion is your alternative). On Commons, it is commons:Template:Deletion requests. My advice is to use the slowest and most discussion-filled methods possible; even if you're absolutely sure that you're right, less acrimony will be generated that way. I don't think that we should be hosting them while this discussion takes place, but, oddly enough, that is the standard way of doing things. Jkelly 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I commented at Commons. I also note below that significant concerns about these photographs continue to be raised. Surely there must be a standard text on this particular episode that could be consulted. Jkelly 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is renamed, surely there will be substantially less resistance to removing it from the article. You may also want to consider trying an article request for comments. This is a verifiability problem as well as a licensing/sourcing of image problem. I believe that there are editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject China and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan who may have more background, and be able to help clear the matter up. Jkelly 00:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is unfree, and fails to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, then it will be deleted within forty-eight hours. If it doesn't fail those criteria, and it still needs deleting for some reason, it would go to WP:IFD, which is faster than WP:PUI. Jkelly 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch

The photo is not taken in the area or time period recognised by historians (Japanese, Chinese and the Westerners) to fall into the definition of Nanking Massacre. It's a photo from the battle of Huschow. So it't can't be a photo of TTCD. http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/%7Esus/crime%81@q.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nanking_Massacre#.22Ten_Thousand_Corpse_Ditch.22_attribution Some still objected to deletion because, they argue that, it is still somewhere "around" the time and area of Nanking Massacre, I call it an "episode" theory. That's their personal POV and hence being an original research. They have to show from verified source that battle of Huschow is a part of Nanking Massacre. As far as I know, two battle are treated separatedly. If there is a historian who include battle of Huschow to be part of Nanking, then NPOV demands that clear POV attribution is made. Anyway, that's still doesn't justify labbeling the photo as TTCD. I don't object to the presentation Japanese militarly atrocities, but "massacre" side tend to treat historical material too carelessly. This photo is a good example. If it is from proper historical work, each photo would have source citation. None of photos from the Princeton Galley have one. It's a amature's work without verified reliable source, hence it fail wikipedia criteria. I got tired of debating with people who see wikipedia policy as a mean rather than the end. So I left the debate. I was FWBOarticle, btw. Vapour

Let me know when the arbitration process or VforD start. Vapour

If there is a photo of a chimp and it is described as a photo of a gorilla, it is "categorically" wrong. "It's still a related primate (i.e. massacre) so gorilla description should stay" isn't a workable argument. It's just show that how a partisanship could defie common sence and logic. Another related issue is whether the photo should remain in the Nanking Massacre article. Verification criteria demand reilable source(s) which designate Battle of Huschow as part of Nanking Massacre. War Crime Tribunal certainly didn't. In that instance, Nanking is defined as the city and it's suburb. Even if one apply a broader area definiton of Nanking Massacre, which is Nanking special municipality area, Battle of Huschow fall outside of it. So far, their personal POV that it does fall into Nanking massacre doesn't count because it is an original research. Stick to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and you should be fine. Vapour

Hmmm, it's bit confusing because you made delete application of so many photos. I don't think you need my help in Ten thousand corpose ditch. The original source is verified and demonstrated so the photo just have to be renamed. You don't need my help in regard to copyright violation. Fairuse, in my opinion, doesn't apply in this instance considering that the copyright holder can expect to gain monetary gain by licencing such photo. On the other hand, those photos whose original source are unknown but still pop up in the like of Alice Chang's book is a bit of grey in term of wikipedia policy. It is sort of "unverified published" material, which is a bit of contradiction in term of verification policy. In my opinion, photos without original source, require POV attributio. That is it should be shown as, for example, "Alice Chang claim this photo represent such and such atrocities" rather than presenting Chang's POV as a truth. Vapour

Image:Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle.jpg

see my response on my talk page.

For images with sources that are an Internet link - do expect that link to last forever?

--Duk 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Gaule96.jpg

Hi John. I had my "sorry but it wasn't me" response all ready when I read the image title, but it was indeed me who uploaded the image (a long time ago). I can't honestly remember were the image came from. Given the large amount of free alternatives I agree it should be deleted. Let me know if you'd like me to list it for deletion or let the 7 day tags run their course. Sorry for your trouble, this was back in my very early days – if you take a quick look through my recent image uploads you will see no such mistakes. Regards, Mark83 21:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Mark83 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Look.

I'm tired of this. Some say these images are authentic. Some say these images are faked. Both sides have their own list of evidence. Both sides discredit the other. What's POV here is to take either side's views entirely, like you are doing by trying to delete these images based on a single chapter in a Japanese book. I have included the Japanese revisionists' claims that these images are fake. Happy now? I have taken the first step. Will you? -- Миборовский 18:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Fake: not real; false, fraudulent. Your sites are claiming these pictures were used in the context of civilian deaths in Nanking when they were not, therefore they are fradulent, and therefore fake.
2. See #1.
3. A revisionist is someone whose theories goes counter to currently-accepted conventional wisdom. One does not have to claim the Massacre never happened to be a revisionist. For example, the Holocaust. Holocaust deniers now centre around the theory that AH was not aware of the Holocaust/Jews are using the Holocaust as the "Holocaust Industry" instead of refuting that Jews were killed. Same thing here.

-- Миборовский 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Revisionists claim that this photo was used fradulently by those who used it as evidence of the massacre. Happy?
2. As above.
3. Support/Oppose??? Of what? Of the Armenian Genocide??? Entirely wrong and inappropriate word choice. No wonder they didn't take your suggestion.

-- Миборовский 19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1&2. What current edits? I added in those sentences. You mean YOUR edits? Because they're POV. To those who believe these images to show Chinese civilians in Nanking, it is "known" whether these images represent them. By saying "it's unknown" you're taking the side of the revisionists, who are the ones doubting the attribution of these images. Now it's my turn to ask: Why not just leave the current edits? Is there a factual mistake you spot in the sentence?

3. Okay so they're not your suggestions, but still bad suggestions which you supported. A heading like that really makes no sense, see?

-- Миборовский 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FFS, read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and find out why clauses like "Some academics claim" are not to be used. -- Миборовский 12:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with "revisionist" and "fake"? -- Миборовский 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism is not necessarily a negative term. Read historical revisionism. I'm not using "fake" in the sentence. -- Миборовский 00:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes

Per Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes, a good way to spot PRODable articles is to see who is linking to it. Note here that about 10 users are linked to it. For what? User:Bourquie seems to have contributed to the article. Hence, he will vote for it. User_talk:Miorea also seems to have made contributions.

So what is the strategy to delete? Perhaps label it contraversial. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. You tell me. I will vote for removal, but I think there are too many people with an interest in this. meatclerk 04:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai pictures

those pictures were scanned from photobooks regarding the second sino-japanese war. They are all fair use. Based on your previous conduct I don't really understand your quest to tag perfectly fine pictures. They don't even have anything to do with the nanking massacre. BlueShirts 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hsuchow/Xuzhou/Suzhou

Hi there, just wanted to leave a note that Hsuchow = Xuzhou because the sound romanised as "Hs" in W-G is the sound romanised as "X". If I'm not mistaken, the old name of Suzhou used to be Soochow or Suchow. Cheers, --Sumple (Talk) 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Nanking Massacre

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Your reverts on Nanking Massacre

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)