Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Query about a Count Pahlen (governor of Wallachia and Moldavia)

Hi everyone. I am currently involved in gathering info about an article on Russian administration in Wallachia and Moldavia (1828-1854). Romanian sources are quite casual in mentioning early Russian administrators, and I need to find out the full name (with ot without patronymic) of a certain Count Pahlen, a diplomat and concillor to the Czar, who served as governor of the two countries in between 1828 and February 1829. He is only mentioned by family name in the texts I am dealing with, and enwiki only has an article on his famous ancestor (father?). If you can help, please drop a note on my talk page. Many thanks. Dahn 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think this was Count Fyodor (or Fedor) Petrovich Pahlen (Федор Петрович Пален) (02.09.1780 - 08.01.1863), son of Petr Alekseevich Pahlen. According to http://www.genealogia.ee/genealogy-diplomat.htm Пален фон дер, Федор Петрович (Митава 02.09.1780 — Петербург 08.01.1863) — барон, граф (1798 г.), действительный тайный советник, член Государственного Совета, Новороссийский генерал-губернатор. Посвятил себя дипломатической карьере. При Российских посольствах в Стокгольме, Париже и Лондоне граф Пален подготовил себя к дипломатической работе. Затем был посланником в Вашингтоне (1809 — 1811 гг.), в Рио-де-Жанейро (1811-1815 гг.) и в Мюнхене (1815 — 1822 гг.). Сын графа Петра Андреевича Палена. I believe Moldavia and Wallachia were parts of the Novorossia Gubernia there the guy was the governor. abakharev 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Wikipedia

Я думаю все из вас знают что есть так же [русския версия википедии]. Всё бы хорошо, да вот только многие статьи там очень маленькие и де факто стабы. У меня призыв ко всем. Мог бы каждый из вас когда пишет новую статью для английской википедии, так же делать русскую версию...? Elk Salmon 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

reply to Ghirlandajo. я не говорю о том, что всё должны дружно сесть и начать переводить всё статьи которые есть о россии и вообще в русскую википедию. я имею ввиду, что если кто-то делает новую статью для английской вики, то почему бы не сделать и русскую версию. всё же для родной страны тоже работать надо. ведь большинство народа в россии не знает английского... Elk Salmon 17:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, the verifiability principle in the Russian part of the Wiki is at risk. If you are active in the Russian Wiki, take a look at ru:Википедия:Голосования/Проверяемость and make your choice. The voting ends on August 29, 23:59 (UTC).
Коллеги, принцип проверяемости в русскоязычной части Википедии под угорозой. Если вы принимаете участие в редактировании русскоязычной части Википедии, обратите, пожалуйста, внимание на страницу ru:Википедия:Голосования/Проверяемость и проголосуйте. Голосование заканчивается 29 августа в 23:59 (UTC). Alexei Kouprianov 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pd-Soviet tag

  • Copyright nazis are once again attacking our template, following their failure to remove it from en-wiki back in February they are now trying to take it down from commons Commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet. --Kuban Cossack 15:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Not just from the Commons—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Somebody going to revert it? Elk Salmon 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    Ezh you are an admin, if this nazi gets his way we are talking about losing some 1000+ images. Since when does he have the final word? Народ, это наплевательское отшения к нам нельзя позволять. --Kuban Cossack 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    I have restored Template:PD-USSR it to the original pre-assault version, Ezh permalock it from editing. --Kuban Cossack 20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I somehow missed this. Well done KK! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If he continues, I will start spreading the word to ru-wiki. People we need to work together to crush this parasite. Spread the word to all ex-USSR wikipedias and portals. He upset a mountain, now he'll get an avalanche. --Kuban Cossack 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
BTw, don't we need reverting MediaWiki:Licenses too??? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That was a clear abuse of admin power - WP:RFC/ADMIN I see no alternative. Someone draft it. --Kuban Cossack 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Support. Anyone else thinks so (I hope :)? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
more in Category:Pre-1973_Soviet_Union_images Elk Salmon 21:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted the commons template itself, absoloutely everybody there is finding the suggesting ludicrous. --Kuban Cossack 23:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Потому что этот Лупо ***** и *****... (ну всем понятно в общем, да? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Everyone please have a look here and support us in our defence against this silly copyright nonsense. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for vandalism to these two templates, top is commons, bottom is enwiki. Revert immediately--Kuban Cossack 23:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Public domain
 The works originally published in the Soviet Union before May 27, 1973, were not protected by International Copyright Conventions. It is believed [1] that they belong to the public domain in many countries including the U.S. However in some of the ex-Soviet countries, some of these works might still be protected by copyright.
This image was uploaded under good faith using the above tag: however, it may be under United States copyright if it was first published on or after January 1, 1923 and was still under copyright in a successor state to the Soviet Union on January 1, 1996.[2]
  • The pre-1973-PD reasoning is wrong: The Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention on May 27, 1973. The UCC very clearly states in its paragraph VII that it applied to all works that were still copyrighted. Hence all Soviet works that were still copyrighted in the USSR in 1973 were internationally protected, even if they were published earlier.
  • Russia joined the Berne Convention on May 13, 1995: Since 1993, Russia had had a copyright law that placed Soviet/Russian works published after 1943 (or 1939 for veterans of WWII) or where the author died later under copyright. Thus a "pre-1973" rule on Soviet works outside Russia is invalid at least since 1995/1996, in the U.S. and also in other members of the Berne Convention.
  • The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 19, 2006. decided (decision (in Russian) that the 50-year copyright term defined in the Russian copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) was retroactive and even restored the copyright on works on which the old 25-year copyright from the old Soviet code had elapsed.
  • There was a legal case on that matter in the US: The case Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 154 F. Supp. 2d (2d Cir. 2001) and 250 F. Supp. 2d 432 (2d Cir. 2003). This was a complicated case about a copyright infringement (committed in the U.S.) on Soviet cartoons. The case was about many different Soviet animated films published from 1936 to 1991. Some of these films were of Cheburashka, which is considered by many people in Russia a kind of national property; the childrens' books that served as the base for these films were written by Eduard Uspensky in 1966. In that case (154 F. Supp. 2d at 448) the court clearly stated that these were "restored works", i.e. works that had their copyright in the U.S. restored under the URAA (17 USC 104A). (see From Itar-TASS to Films by Jove: The Conflict of Laws Revolution in International Copyright)

For further details see Commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet and Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Soviet.

  1. ^ L.I. Podshibikhin, K.B. Leontiev, Realization of Bern declaration in Russian Federation
  2. ^ 17 U.S.C. §104A
Public domain
 The works originally published in the Soviet Union before May 27, 1973, were not protected by International Copyright Conventions. It is believed [3] that they belong to the public domain in many countries including the U.S. However in some of the ex-Soviet countries, some of these works might still be protected by copyright.
This image was uploaded under good faith using the above tag: however, it may be under United States copyright if it was first published on or after January 1, 1923 and was still under copyright in a successor state to the Soviet Union on January 1, 1996.[4]
  • The pre-1973-PD reasoning is wrong: The Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention on May 27, 1973. The UCC very clearly states in its paragraph VII that it applied to all works that were still copyrighted. Hence all Soviet works that were still copyrighted in the USSR in 1973 were internationally protected, even if they were published earlier.
  • Russia joined the Berne Convention on May 13, 1995: Since 1993, Russia had had a copyright law that placed Soviet/Russian works published after 1943 (or 1939 for veterans of WWII) or where the author died later under copyright. Thus a "pre-1973" rule on Soviet works outside Russia is invalid at least since 1995/1996, in the U.S. and also in other members of the Berne Convention.
  • The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from June 19, 2006. decided (decision (in Russian) that the 50-year copyright term defined in the Russian copyright law of 1993 (No. 5351-1) was retroactive and even restored the copyright on works on which the old 25-year copyright from the old Soviet code had elapsed.
  • There was a legal case on that matter in the US: The case Films by Jove, Inc. v. Berov, 154 F. Supp. 2d (2d Cir. 2001) and 250 F. Supp. 2d 432 (2d Cir. 2003). This was a complicated case about a copyright infringement (committed in the U.S.) on Soviet cartoons. The case was about many different Soviet animated films published from 1936 to 1991. Some of these films were of Cheburashka, which is considered by many people in Russia a kind of national property; the childrens' books that served as the base for these films were written by Eduard Uspensky in 1966. In that case (154 F. Supp. 2d at 448) the court clearly stated that these were "restored works", i.e. works that had their copyright in the U.S. restored under the URAA (17 USC 104A). (see From Itar-TASS to Films by Jove: The Conflict of Laws Revolution in International Copyright)

For further details see Commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet and Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Soviet.

  1. ^ L.I. Podshibikhin, K.B. Leontiev, Realization of Bern declaration in Russian Federation
  2. ^ 17 U.S.C. §104A
  3. ^ L.I. Podshibikhin, K.B. Leontiev, Realization of Bern declaration in Russian Federation
  4. ^ 17 U.S.C. §104A

.

Guys, I would stongly suggest that you stop personalizing this. Calling other editors nasty words such as "nazi" or "parasite" is a flagrant violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Lupo 08:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And twice neglect of our existance is NOT and a violation? And abuse of admin privliges? --Kuban Cossack 12:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, can an admin revert this, please? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I have started it Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo. --Kuban Cossack 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement part complete. Any user that still want the Easter Europe part of Wikipedia to live is wellcome to comment!!! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
я вообщем новенький во всех этих делах внутренних. подскажите что там надо сделать? просто подписаться где остальные подписались? Elk Salmon 15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ага. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Так чего у нас с лупо этим? [1]. Он уже собирается полностью советские фото, которые моложе 70 лет... Elk Salmon 00:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, I strongly recommend you to avoid comments in Russian. This is not ru.wikipedia, and the conversations should be conducted in English. It is just a brief comment about the form of the debate. As for the subject matter, the copyright law (whatever we may think of it) is (1) a tricky thing (2) a thing to be observed, and the issues raised by User:Lupo should be considered and made a subject of an intense research. Alexei Kouprianov 08:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Is it really matter? I was refereing directly to some people, who know Russian. Is it forbidden? It's Russian portal finally and it's not an article, but just discussion... Теперь вернусь на Русский, ибо не всё могу перевести. Я глянул ру.вики. Там есть тот же таг [2]. Так вот насколько то важно, что советский закон не имел обратной силы? Elk Salmon 13:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It does. Because this is an English speaking community and this is impolite to speak here a language which can be not understood by some of the parties interested in the debate. After all, this looks like a Russian conspiracy plot, which does not make things better.
As for the template, the question is not whether the copyright law is retroactive (because it always is) but whether the images and texts published in Russia before 1973 can be considered as being in the public domain worldwide, especially in the USA, where the Wikipedia servers are physically present. After all, it will be not us, editors, but the Wikimedia foundation, who will be sued for copyright violations. This is not a matter of our national pride (which produces a lot of bias around this topic), this is a subject matter of a much needed research to be done. Personally, I do not have enough information to prove or disprove the Lupo's point. So, definitely, more research is needed. I've fonud this table most useful, but it rather poses questions than answers them. Alexei Kouprianov 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at template. Slowly they started attak on pictures that are under this license. At begin somebody updated it demanding to stop uploading pictures. Elk Salmon 08:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pd-Soviet tag is under assault again

See ru:Обсуждение шаблона:SovietPU, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Soviet (⇐PLZ, Vote Here!), commons:Template talk:PD-Soviet, en:Template talk:PD-USSR, en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo --jno 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NKVD massacres of prisoners

Статью хотят удалить. Предлагаю спасти её, улучшив. Заодно перейти от однобокого упоминания расстрелов польских военнопленных к полной выборке массовых расстрелов (гаранинские расстрелы и т. д.). MaxSem 09:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

English language is official here. Really. //Halibutt 22:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Translation. They want to delete the article. I propose to save it by improving. Since we are here lets move from the one sided mentions of the executions of Polish POW to the whole history of the mass executions (e.g. Garanin's executions). MaxSem Translated (and supported) by abakharev 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
TINC. Really. ;) MaxSem 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Nyah, you got me wrong. Out of all the people out there sniffing conspiracies everywhere I'm probably among the very few who actually speak Russian ;) //Halibutt 23:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, currently the article mentions three places in the USSR, but there were probably more. The article could surely benefit from some more Russian editors dropping in and adding more places to the list. (tell me I'm not going to regret this...) //Halibutt 15:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Transliteration redux

Can't anybody work out precise rules of Russian transliteration at last? With current guidelines, every spelling is possible. Therefore guys move Yuri Dolgoruki to Yury Dolgoruky, back to Yuri Dolgoruki, then to Yuriy Dolgorukiy, etc, etc, which results in a redirect mess. The same situation with Yuri Luzhkov, which was moved to Yuriy Luzhkov and back again. Nixer constantly moves Moscow railway stations to and fro. Why can't we decide which spelling should be preferred in WP once and for all? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a GOST for it: Транслитерация ГОСТ 16876-71. One may chose ISO 9 - 1995. I'd notice that a GOST is a russian law. --jno 10:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we have to create our own policy since these two are slightly (and even not so slightly) outdated. And using a ž for ж bothers my conscience... :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with GOST? Cyrillic and latin alphabets have not changed much over that time. GOST doesn't use any diacritic and other odd chars. And zh for ж looks pretty fine for me. --jno 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
As for GOST, й transliterated jj is kinda weird too. Never seen anything like that personally... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Since nothing is transliterated as "j", that "jj" must be a misprint. "jo" for ë probably is too, since they have "yu" and "ya" elsewhere. Not sure, however. Are there any other sources for this norm?--Pan Gerwazy 15:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, this is well post-talk remark, but there are different problem domains, for which different standards may apply. Therefore, scientifical, bibliographical, cartographical etc., e.g., all-CIS GOST 7.79-2001 (verbatim ISO 9:1995) for bibliographicals, Belarusian Instruction on transliteration for cartography. Also there are such things as BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Russian. BTW, I may be mistaken but GOST 16876-71 is possibly obsoleted, and superceded by (I don't remember what). ---Yury Tarasievich 14:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't believe I missed this discussion. You folks surely are aware that WP:RUS is alive and kicking, and that's what we are supposed to use until something different emerges through WP:CYR? GOST was deemed to be a poor choice because it is unintuitive to English speakers (we are editing the English edition of Wikipedia here, remember?) and generally not common in English academic works and media. On the other hand, as Ghirla rightfully noted, WP:RUS is ambiguous in some cases, but isn't it a good enough reason for all those who care to kick catatonic WP:CYR in the butt and start participating, hopefully getting rid of ambiguities and inconsistencies once and for all? If we end up with using different conventions for different cases, as Yury suggested above and of which I thought more than on one occasion in the past, so be it, but let us at least define these cases, assign a transliteration convention to each, document the whole thing, and adopt it as a policy. I don't mind having to do all the work myself, but I really despise the thought of having to hunt uncaring Russian editors down one by one and then begging them to participate in the discussion and voting, so the final result could be called a "consensus" and not "stuff that crazy Ezhiki came up with and then passed it as a policy".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

GOST 16876-71 was superceded by GOST 7.79-2001 (inter-CIS standard) in 2002. On the other hand, GOST 7.79 is the ISO 9:1995, verbatimly translated. System (or table) B of the GOST 7.79 is quite adequate, as it uses only ` ("weak stress sign") in-line at that, however, even this look of words may be quite unusual for all concerned. Does one have to learn the ISO 9/GOST 7.79 just to write or even read WP, eh? Of course, BGN is the best choice. All said, the ISO/GOST was created in order to facilitate univocal transliteration. And who would really really need it here in WP? ---Yury Tarasievich 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian language

Hello. Do you think some template like {{Arabic}} should be created for Russian language ? Any ideas ? - Darwinek 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I find the Arabic template very useful in cleaning up articles, and there seem to be people who can read Arabic who fix them. Getting the original spelling in the article makes it more complete and makes it easier to find or check interwikis. I think there should be a similar template for all non-Roman alphabets/writing systems. I would suggest there be a single template for all Cyrillic alphabet languages (which is the case with the Arabic template). Rigadoun 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This sounds good. There are surely more Russian language-users than Arabic so I think we can keep it real. Would you go ahead and create that template? - Darwinek 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created it at Template:Cyrillic and placed the articles needing cleanup at Category:Articles needing Cyrillic script (now empty, since I don't know any articles needing it off the top of my head). Tag away! Rigadoun (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It has now been populated with some articles. Feel free to stop by from time to time :) Punkmorten 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] onpointradio.org caller criticism

Listen to the 12 minute and later of the interview. some very serious criticism of Russia-related Wikipedia articles. Comments? Mieciu K 22:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative words for Germans

Does Russian have alternative words for Germans, as in slang? If so please add them, with a small explanation and perhaps translation at the following article: Alternative words for Germans. Thanks in advance, Rex 15:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes involving User:Nixer

Russian editors are welcome to state their opinions on Talk:World_War_II#Saying that the war was started by Germany, where some guy dismisses information that it was Germany that started WWII as "racism". Nixer is the only Russian editor opposing all this revisionism now. He is also involved in this delicate discussion], where his opinions are indefensible, I believe. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of historical national capitals

Please take a look at this list. It mentions Glukhov and Baturyn as former national capitals of Ukraine but fails to mention Vladimir, Novgorod and Kiev as former capitals of Russia. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letopis vs Khronika

From [3]:

Несмотря на то, что за рядом публикуемых в томе памятников закрепилось название «хроника», все они являются летописями, так как записи в них ведутся по годам

Please explain

  • the difference,
  • its importance
  • whether this difference is reflected in English terminolory
    • If not then whether it should be

Thank you, `'mikka (t) 20:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the difference is material; it is not reflected in English usage, to the best of my knowledge. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -ra

Can someone explain the following grammatical form in Russian language:

  • deti->detvora
  • nemtsy->nemchura
  • ...figa->figura (kidding :-)

BTW, is there a reverse Russian vocabulary somewhere online?

Thx, `'mikka (t) 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boris Teplov

The article is currently {{prod}}ed. Could someone take a look whether it is notable enough? Pavel Vozenilek 16:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Most are quite impressive. abakharev 00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some sources of free Russian-related pictures

  • According to [4] all Russian and Soviet stamps are {{PD-RU-exempt}}
  • See also {{MosNews}} and {{Kremlin.ru}}

[edit] Soviet copyright redux

как на счёт того, что бы выложить там большой баннер с фоткой советского флага над рейхстагом - "голосуйте за сохранение и не дайте нацистам удалить эту фотку"? Elk Salmon 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting that on Template_talk:PD-USSR actually... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk. Naughty boys. Lupo 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Translation please? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Translation: How about to put a big banner with photo of soviet flag over Reichstag and title "Vote for 'Save' - don't allow fascists to delete this photo" --jno 09:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Jno, I was refering to Lupo's statement. I speak Russian and understood what Elk said (and replied him before) :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how alienating people who otherwise could listen to the arguments would help us. Besides pictures published anonymously in the Soviet Union before 1954 are PD-old abakharev 11:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Does anybody have Grand Duchy of Lithuania on one's watchlist? The article is a ridiculously Russophobic version of Russian history, with claims such as "the reason of creation of separate Russian state was the fact that Muscovy remained under Mongol political and cultural influence. From this point of view, the reason of divisions amongst inhabitants of Ruthenia was Mongolian influence on Muscovy", etc, etc. I hope that Ukrainian and Belarusian editors will rewrite this article completely. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, to touch any GDL theme not in pro-Western fashion is not a mean enterprise, as the story with Lithuanian Metrica has shown. I am actually planning to have a good look at GDL and History of Belarus, however, I'll have to complete the reworking of the Belarusian language before that. If there'll be any other people, concerned with the GDL issue, please, let me know. Yury Tarasievich 14:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles listed for deletion

Although this isn't the perfect noticeboard for this, it appears to be the best available. The following articles have been listed at AFD.

Please contribute to the discussions, especially if you can help with locating and citing Russian language sources. Uncle G 11:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You do know that some of these Pop "Idles" are not Russian/Kazakh, but Slovak or Serbian? My first inkling was let's get rid of the whole she-bang, not notable, but on second thought: keep those who finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Some of the others will have been in the news, but I am sure after next year's edition no one will remember them having been on this show, except for family and friends of course. I say one of them has the same name as a class mate of my daughter, and another one sang a song by Vaya con Dios so this has been a hard decision to make... ;>) (NOT)--Pan Gerwazy 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did not notice Makpal "First Kiss" Isabekova. Though I actually saw her on Ukrainian TV in the summer of 2005. That is going to be a hard one, because her article is a mess. It looks more like an advertisement for Pop Idol Stars KZ than the others mentioned here. I hope no one objects to me recreating it when it does get deleted.--Pan Gerwazy 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you may also want to check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhail Lebedev. I don't care about the guy's notability, but it's sad that User:GoOdCoNtEnT engaged in wide-scale disruption and vandalism on this account and now he is about to be permabanned for doing so. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for now I consider the articles to be interesting. In addition, otherwise the main article (TV show) would become substanceless and boring. The articles use layout, they include a picture. My suggestion is to keep them for now, and review them later on, if they have expanded. Even if they do not meet WP:MUSIC in more than a few cases, they are definetively noteable. I would it consider sorry to let them see go. Definetively wikipedia improves from pleasant articles. There are other, rather unpleasant, articles about minor music records. Editors, this includes me, are too scared to touch them for deletion. Sorry i do not know an example. Just noticing loads of minor records articles created recently, many of them just two/three lines. It is possible to delete a few of the articles, if they do not turn out to be noteable enough. User:Yy-bo 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sem40.ru

Site Sem40.ru gives free copyright to their materials. Should be a good picture source for the Russian Jews. I have made a template {{Sem40}}. Please use abakharev 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD-Soviet

  • (Personal attack removed) всё никак не успокоются. Теперь пытаются удалить все рисунки PD-Soviet из немецкой википедии. [5] Особенно показательно с этим рисунком - [6]. Я так же предлагаю убрать все диспуты из шаблонов. В конце концов решение об удалении не было принято. Elk Salmon 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Translation: (Personal attack removed) want not rest. Now they try to remove all the PD-Soviet pics from de.wiki. [7] It's especially illustrative on this pic [8]. I propose to remove all the disputes from templates. There was no decision to remove, at the end. --jno 13:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This particular picture is {{PD-Russia}} on commons (Khaldey was an employee of TASS, thus, copyright belonged to TASS and expired in 1995). I am affraid we would eventually lose the battle over the PD-Soviet template unless a good research over the validity of the template will be performed and my litigation skills are not enough here. Meanwhile if we tag all the eligible PD-Soviet images with PD-Russia, PD-RU-exempt, etc. we would make our life easier. It is not normal that Russia-related things that are public domain in Russia are labelled by tag that makes them illegal to be stored or reproduced in Russia. abakharev 03:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyway. I have deleted that german sign. It's out of place for US servers. And i don't think we gonna lose this template. All reference to Russian laws was given. Everything is clear. We just should push on pronazi with the same press as they are trying to review the history and to delete anything that working against their image. I have not deleted dispute yet. But clearly we should do it. Elk Salmon 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Now they starting using adminship to protect this template. Can any of Russian admins revert it? Elk Salmon 17:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
And more about nazi. Look they have removed full PD picture from Battle of Berlin article [9]. And look at the result of battle! Elk Salmon 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Watch your words, and WP:AGF. I guess they removed that image because they had some concerns about copyright, not because they don't like it. Whether their copyright concerns on this image are justified is another matter... Lupo 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, now any national wiki will be turned into "national POV", huh? I hate nazi. I hate copyright. I'm about to use russian mat... --jno 09:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No Lupo. They don't. Picture is in PD in the entire world, including Russia. Plus Occupation of Berlin as a result of a battle is an Original Research. All those things and the fact that mostly Germans are leading against of PD-Soviet, ignoring other partially adopted in the world PD licenses, like CC, says that we have significant neo nazi movements on the wikipedia, that trying to review the history into pronazi image. It is Unacceptable. Elk Salmon 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
First off, Lupo, please don't tell me to "watch my words", such a formula is at best impolite and at worst insulting ("watch your mouth", like) <_< Second, one can't assume AGF on such moves. If someone edites the Holocaust article and said that's all an invention, would you AGF? Probably not, at least I dare think so. Well, it's the same thing here. When one starts pushing such a POV by removing a world-wide known pic and turning the article into OR feast, i can't assume good faith. I do not believe in coincidences and consider that the fact this move was attempted on de wiki is quite significant. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Tovarishchi! I feel I must intervene. Although there is certainly OR in the article (and I wished my German was still good enough to have my say there), there is no reason to assume the worst from the phrase used under result. In fact, German wiki has been trying for a long time to avoid simplistic phrases like "Deutscher Sieg", "knapper Sieg der Franzosen" (still used on Borodino), or "Sowjetischer Sieg" (still used at Schlacht um Moskau, however). Particularly in WWII articles they prefer to put the consequences of the battle under "Ergebnis". In case you doubt my words, have a look at: Stalingrad, Aachen, Kursk (another image deleted there). Note that the editors pushing for the deletion believe that the fact that he worked for TASS does not change anything: [10]. In case you do not understand, Dab first uses the argument "Ralph has talked to the grand-daughter of the guy who made the picture: she would like to claim the rights, but she does not have the money to start a court case." The guy wondering why his pictures got deleted answers: "I know who made the picture, Khaldey, and he did it as part of his work for TASS. Does that alter anything?" Answer by Dab: "No, still expires in 2068, Author's right is not transferrable, only exclusive using rights are." So, they are not even considering the possiblity that author's right or intellectual property belonged to TASS. I wonder if Khaldey's granddaughter realizes what this means. First of all, she is not going to get a kopeck. Second, the result of this drive will be that people will no longer be able to admire her grandfather's work. If I were her ... Note that I have a slight suspicion that if she put this photo in the public domain, some people will start claiming that of course intellectual property belongs to TASS and will never be in the public domain. In the meantime, should the Borodino result be changed into "Occupation of Moscow by French troups who then leave Russia"? --Pan Gerwazy 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose clarification of the "image copyright" part of my last statement is in order. In many countries, when someone creates something when in somebody else's employ, whatever his/her conditions of employment were - (s)he keeps a limited author's right. The right to say "I made this" = the eternal right to ask or expect everyone to mention this when using the work. For many people, this means the work is not 100% PD and may actually never be. 2 remarks here: for me too AGF is difficult when every time PD-Soviet is mentioned on German wiki, there is someone who mentions the Reichstag photograph. Why bring up this photograph when it is listed as PD-Russia now, and even Lupo seems to start accepting it as so? A nice example. Please do not ask me to translate "völlig unbedarfte User mit den dümmlichsten Argumenten", which I do not think any German can say without producing foam on the lips. This also makes a good read, so we know what is happening when suddenly a lot of Germans are proposed as admins at Commons. Remark two: it now seems one of the Wikipedia servers is located in the Netherlands. That happens to be the strictest country as far as "Portrait right" is concerned - the right of normal members of the public not to be portrayed recognizably on media open to the general public. I am not going to write everything I know about that here, but have the Wikipedia lawyers already considered that problem, in view of the fact that some German users still seem to be uploading onto Commons photographs that are only OK in Germany based on "Panoramafreiheit", which does not exist in the Netherlands, and not even in the US. I had a look at files recently uploaded onto Commons. While this is probably only technically a portrait right infringement (you would expect them all to have agreed, but it is not mentioned), but this one is a clear violation - there is a person on the right who looks into the camera, and one slightly suspects he did not expect to get onto Wikipedia this way. Note that although the first picture is probably an infringement by oversight, it is a big one, because the uploader is not German or Italian but ... Dutch.--Pan Gerwazy 19:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also tell them that the USSR has only one succesor - Russia. Hence all works published in the USSR by official USSR publishing houses, particulary those in the RFSFR are not to be restricted by Georgian copyright laws or any other nearabroadstani bs. --Kuban Cossack 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Googling for "successor state of the Soviet Union" makes clear that what Lupo seems to think (all 1991 member states except the Baltic states) is not universally accepted. Lots of people seem to think that the Baltic states are successor states too. Some people think only the Russian federation is the successor. The US Congress (and Latvia, and Estonia, who sponsored this event, of course) definitely thinks so: [11]. Actually, I have to confess something: I have no problem with someone claiming that "all these works must be thought to have been published in the twelve republics at the same time." Because it makes a joke of the claim of retroactivity for all these laws. One of the reasons why courts do not like retroactivity is because it causes uncertainty at law. How is this for uncertainty: in order to find out whether a 1935 published newspaper photograph taken in Moscow of a Moscow scene by a Moscow photographer is public domain, not only do we need to know when the photographer died, we will also need to know what Turkmenistan's laws say about copyright, what Turkmenistan's laws say about retroactivity and in what capacity does Turkmenistan consider itself a successor state of the Soviet Union (and replace Turkmenistan by the eleven others). This is the definition of a legal quagmire, and it does not surprise me that some of the anti-Soviet PD people are now claiming that present copyright laws in the 12 republics are "fairly similar". On the other hand, I am afraid that Soviet PD is lost - the powers that be will refrain from saying that it is copyright infringement, they will say that it is contrary to established wikipedia practices. "My two cents, though I do not like it a farthing."--Pan Gerwazy 20:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reichstag flag

The above discussion brought my attention to anther issue. In Image:Reichstag_flag.jpg the Soviet soldier has two watches on both hands and the text says that Stalin told to retouch one watch away.

The question is: is there a reputable source that says this an not that the second watch was added to the pic, say, by neo-Nazi? Such serious things must be properly referenced. `'mikka (t) 15:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, the source for this statement (and also the "smoke having been added") is Khaldei himself. He gave at least one interview where he admitted to and explained these manipulations. But you're right, it should be sourced. Lupo 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I can think of at least two times actually, the first one in a TV doc' on him, and the second one in a book called "The top 100 photos of the 20th century" or something like that... However, we need an academic source, admitting it exists. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In his interview he said a joke about himself: "What a cosmopolitism is? It is when you are wearing wristwatch and compass." [12] Indeed it well may be an officer's Andrianov compass. Probably it was painted out because it's hard to explain this nuance to every foreigner. --Nekto 09:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viktor Ponedelnik

3rd opinion needed - is cat:Russian Footballers appropriate when he already gets cat:Soviet Footballers? Please opine. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since he never played in times of Russian independance, I personally think that aforementioned category is not needed. But heck, some people here in Russia call people like him "our Russian (footballer/writer/soldier/etc.)", so there's probably a need to define a global criteria for such cases. MaxSem 12:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
So if you agree, plz revert this - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rusakov Workers' Club

Further fall out from the PD-Soviet tag issue - we've got a lot of images in Constructivist architecture that are affected. We're retagging most of the drawings with fair use criteria. The photographs are a bit more problematic - and even more problematic for buildings that still exist, paritcularly the Rusakov Workers' Club. Does anyone know of any free images (Or could someone go and take some photographs) of this building? I'd be greatly appreciative. Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there is no article Rusakov Workers' Club. Do you mean "Stromynskaya square, 10"?
UPD: or "Stromynskaya square, 6"? Or just "Stromynka, 6"?
UPD2: this building? --jno 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought they were talking about this image abakharev 02:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I may try to walk to the adresses listed and take some shots. --jno 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It would have been the best solution. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin

Proposed move to Nikolay Karamzin. Opine on Talk:Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/s/Portal%7ERussia_Russia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board_Archive04_8c5e.html"