User talk:Shustov

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome!

Hello Shustov, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I know, thanks! Shustov 19:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the copyright of File:Simple rollers BI.jpg?[edit]

Icon no license.svg
Question copyright.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Simple rollers BI.jpg, but:
1.svg The file needs some copyright information soon to stay at Wikiversity. Please place {{information}} on the file page and fill out who the owner is and the copying terms. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about using files because of copyright law.
2.svg Who owns the rights to this file? Usually this is the work's creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Only the person or company who owns the rights can give permission to use this file freely.
3.svg What are the terms for using this file? Wikiversity accepts open content, public domain, and fair use works (see Wikiversity's Copyright policy). You can place a {{copyright template}} on the file page to signify the copyright terms.
4.svg Please remember to do this for any other files you have uploaded or will upload. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the Wikiversity community at the Colloquium. Thank you.

Thenub314 17:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • It is not me, it is the Japanese company who infringed my rights on Earthquake-Protective Building Buffer (please, see my response of 19:42, 29 October 2011) by calling it Metallic Roller Bearings and installing into their building complex without even mentioning my name as the author of this technique.Shustov 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
We can't really get into those issues. The use of the technology might be an infringement of your rights, but the image might belong to them. It may be possible to assert fair use for this image. It certainly does illustrate the resource better than the diagram. Thanks for contributing to Wikiversity. --Abd 12:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no objections against fair use of the image. Do I need to do anything in this regard? Shustov 08:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You will need to assert the fair use. Use the following at the bottom of the image page.

{{Fairuse rationale
|user        = Who asserts this rationale
|article    = The page where this media is to be used
|copyrights  = Who owns the copyrights to this media (and for what years if known)
|source      = The source of the media (provide a web address if possible and not already provided)
|not free    = Why free licensed or public domain alternatives cannot be used or created
|rationale   = Why a book or module requires the use of this media
|missing     = Some required information is missing
}}

I suggest the following, but you may have better information, it's up to you.

{{Fairuse rationale
|user        = Shustov
|article    = Simple roller bearing
|copyrights  = not known [Shustov, see if you can get this information from the web site]
|source      = http://www.okumuragumi.co.jp/en/technology/building.html
|not free    = no alternative available
|rationale   = to illustrate actual usage of the technology, much more clearly than a diagram
|missing     = Some required information is missing
}}

You will also need to place an additional copy of the template for the other page where the image is used, Seismic fitness. (One template must be placed for each resource where the image is used.) Thanks. --Abd 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the copyright of File:Earthquake-Protective Building Buffer-1.gif?[edit]

Icon no license.svg
Question copyright.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Earthquake-Protective Building Buffer-1.gif, but:
1.svg The file needs some copyright information soon to stay at Wikiversity. Please place {{information}} on the file page and fill out who the owner is and the copying terms. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about using files because of copyright law.
2.svg Who owns the rights to this file? Usually this is the work's creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Only the person or company who owns the rights can give permission to use this file freely.
3.svg What are the terms for using this file? Wikiversity accepts open content, public domain, and fair use works (see Wikiversity's Copyright policy). You can place a {{copyright template}} on the file page to signify the copyright terms.
4.svg Please remember to do this for any other files you have uploaded or will upload. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the Wikiversity community at the Colloquium. Thank you.

Thenub314 17:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If your the inventor that is great but all media files to contain this information on page of the file. Just fill out a information template like so:
Description

A meaningful description

Source

My own creation.

Date

1/1/0001

Author

Me

Permission
(Reusing this file)

See License section.


and create a license section and place an appropriate license template in the licensing section. The end result of the information displayed will be very similar to the link to commons that you've given above. Thenub314 21:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems all the information requested by you is and has been presented in the File:Earthquake-Protective Building Buffer-exploded.png. Do I need to add anything more? Shustov 06:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No nothing more, but you need to add that sort of information to each and every file uploaded to WV. Thenub314 03:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Shustov 09:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, and I will do my best to help. I have no interest in deleting useful stuff, so if you need help getting these templates put up on the pages mentioned on your discussion page I would be glad to lend any assistance I can. I would do it myself but I don't know which license you plan to release them under, who took the origina photo, etc. Thenub314 19:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Usually, I use the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license for my contributed photos and gifs. Best! Shustov 21:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Shustov, we'll need you to actually add that so that you are formally asserting your right as owner to do it. --Abd 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the copyright of File:Fluid viscous damper.jpg?[edit]

Icon no license.svg
Question copyright.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Fluid viscous damper.jpg, but:
1.svg The file needs some copyright information soon to stay at Wikiversity. Please place {{information}} on the file page and fill out who the owner is and the copying terms. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about using files because of copyright law.
2.svg Who owns the rights to this file? Usually this is the work's creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Only the person or company who owns the rights can give permission to use this file freely.
3.svg What are the terms for using this file? Wikiversity accepts open content, public domain, and fair use works (see Wikiversity's Copyright policy). You can place a {{copyright template}} on the file page to signify the copyright terms.
4.svg Please remember to do this for any other files you have uploaded or will upload. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the Wikiversity community at the Colloquium. Thank you.

Thenub314 17:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

  • You may remove the file. No big deal! Shustov 20:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
mmm.... the file is in use at Hysteretic damper. Are you sure, Shustov? Do you own the file? --Abd 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not mine, but this technology was funded by one of the U.S. government agencies. Shustov 07:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Then it may be public domain. Where did you get the file? --Abd 12:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of Wikimedia Foundation projects[edit]

Hi. :) I notice that you've been creating articles by copying content from corresponding subjects on Wikipedia. I need to make sure that you know that content on Wikimedia Foundation projects is not public domain. While you are welcome to reuse it on Wikiversity or other projects, you are required to give proper attribution. I don't know if Wikiversity has a page explaining how this is done, but Wikipedia does; w:Wikipedia:Copying with Wikipedia. Since the minimum attribution required is a hyperlink and edit histories must be retained for compliance with GFDL, you should put a statement in edit summary when you copy content saying something like "content taken from w:article title, which see for attribution". It may be safest to put a note on the talk page as well with a link to the source, but the note in the edit summary should be legally sufficient. Can you please provide attribution for content you've already copied? --Moonriddengirl 17:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I, practically, always provide links to Wikipedia, Commonscat and Wiktionry. Exception is Simple English Wikipedia because I do not know the proper template for this. Besides, all my contributions to Wikiversity are based on my articles from the above projects I either created by myself or contributed to. Anyway, I will provide this Note on my talk page too. Thanks! Shustov 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice contributions[edit]

I stumbled across your contributions and they are good. - Sidelight12 Talk 13:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Files Missing License Information[edit]

Thank you for uploading files to Wikiversity. See Wikiversity:Media for copyright and license requirements for Wikiversity files. All files must have copyright and/or license information added to the file.

Instructions for adding copyright and/or license information are available at Wikiversity:License tags. Files must be updated within seven days or they may be removed without further notice. See Requests For Deletion for more information.

The following files are missing copyright and/or license information:

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 03:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

alternate accounts[edit]

I see that you are apparently editing here using alternate accounts names. Looking at your cross-wiki contributions, I see that you have been blocked on a number of wikis. We are not concerned with that, but the use of alternate accounts here, especially when you edit the Shustov user page, creates maintenance problems. We ordinarily do not allow users to edit the user page of other users.

The accounts I see are User:ShustovVal and User:Vshustov. I see that those users have redirected here, so that is disclosure from one end. Please acknowledge, here or on your user page (better), logged in as Shustov, that these are you. If you cannot do that for some reason, please explain.

Vshustov was also blocked on en.wikipedia, and it is completely obvious why, totally predictable, just from reading the user talk page there and knowing that Shustov is blocked.

Sometimes I'm able to assist users who run into trouble. If you would like to discuss that, you may respond here, or my email is open. Thanks, and thank you for your contributions to Wikiversity. --Abd (discusscontribs) 14:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Shustov, that makes no sense. What your computer responds to and what you enter in the login are different. If you want to use Shustov, log out and log in as Shustov! If you have lost the password, you should be able to reset it, you should be able to confirm this with email, assuming you still have access to the original email account. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you @Abd: and sorry for delay. I did manage to log in as User:Shustov for my Wikiversity account at last. Let's hope for the best! Shustov (discusscontribs) 07:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, mr. Shustov. We like your pictures and contributions. You can join Wikisage (it's Dutch/NL). You can write article's there (in dutch) and there is a local upload possibility. Kind regards, Nomen Nescio - 84.105.131.79 (discuss) 19:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@84.105.131.79: Hi, Nomen. Will you specify what your Wikisage means, please? Thanks! Shustov (discusscontribs) 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Your problems at Commons[edit]

I'm posting this here because you referred to some problems on Commons, so I looked at your user talk page there. You have had a lot of images deleted. However, what leaped out at me was this: [1]. This was about behavior of a Wikipedia administrator. Very inappropriate to use your Commons User talk page to complain about Wikipedia problems. Sure enough, you were warned there, and then short-blocked. First discussion, closed with warning. Second discussion, closed with intensified warning, and you were finally blocked for one day, after insisting on pursuing your agenda. You actually continued, but not so blatantly enough that you were blocked again.

(Looking at the problems on Wikipedia, you were indefinitely blocked there, and are still blocked there, by that administrator.[2] The admin had previously unblocked you, per an agreement. see [3].

Now, basic error. Arguing with an administrator. This is why Shustov is still blocked on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. It is like arguing with a police order. It can get you tossed in jail, if you disregard the order. Even if you are right. With an administrator is not the place to argue! This would guarantee that no administrator would unblock you.

By the way, I have a fairly nasty history with that administrator, this is not about him. It is about what has led to your defacto ban from Wikipedia. You could be unblocked, but you would need to take some steps.

It would be a lot of work to go over your Commons history. I could probably explain why your images were deleted. Commons, however, follows copyright policy very strictly, and it can be difficult to understand. If you want me to look, I will. Otherwise, please do not complain about users on other wikis, on Wikversity. It's one of the few things that can get you in trouble here. Good luck. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

  • On a hunch, I also looked at User:ShustoVal on Commons. This is very recent, just three days ago. I highly recommend you immediately apologize. It can sometimes take days for the wiki community to respond. You are in danger there of having Shustov blocked, not just ShustoVal. Yes, you have had a problem with autoblock. It happens. I would think you could edit as Shustov now. If not, you would get a very specific message. You will need to copy that message exactly to resolve the problem.
  • You created a huge mess by using the other account. Then, with ShustovVal, you questioned every deletion notice on your talk page. Deletion discussions are not held that way, they are handled on the linked page. I've looked at a few discussions. You simply did not understand what was going on, but you were quite sure you were being treated unfairly. When a user comes to see things that way, it is predictable that they will be blocked. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As an example of what I saw indicating lack of understanding, on the Talk page of your other sock, I saw you refer to a speedy deletion notice as "vandalism." That was placed by a user I happen to know. Young fellow. Used to be a probationary custodian here. Calling him a vandal isn't going to help. He did not vandalize anything. He saw a file that appeared to him to be copyright violation and he tagged it. He did not delete it. An administrator did. Slow down, Shustov, you are making mistake after mistake, and the other wikis are not like Wikiversity. Here, your education, your learning-by-doing, is part of our mission. So, usually, we will explain things, you can make mistakes and we will help you fix them, and so forth. On the other wikis, sometimes you may get this help and sometimes not. And when you start calling users "vandals" and complaining about how what they are doing is "ludicrous," and so on, you will *not* get help, and certainly not from them!
  • If a file is speedy deleted there, it is possible it could be quickly undeleted, but you would need to follow process, not just complain on your user talk page, that will do *nothing.* And complaining about the misbehavior of others is never a way to get it done. Few, if any, are reading your user talk page! However, when you have accumulated many file deletion notices, those who placed them may have your user page on their Watchlist, so *they* will see, and if you have insulted them, they then focus on what is wrong with your work. What would you expect? I already see a sign that this has been happening. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Abd: I highly appreciate your above comments and will do my best to behave accurately. My best! Shustov (discusscontribs) 09:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's likely to take some training and education. Are you up for it? I spent some time today commenting in deletion discussions on your Commons uploads. What is see is that your past reactivity has set up conditions where users don't assume good faith. If you get angry with them for that, you will just make it all worse. So ... my suggestion, take a deep breath. These are wikis, which means that anything can be fixed. Deleted files can be undeleted, they are not actually deleted, they are merely hidden. Blocked users can be unblocked. Now, I need to go pick up my daughter, 13. I'm 70, and she's the sixth of seven children.... She has nieces and a nephew older than her.... Good luck, we can chat later. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am up for your training, you may consider me your eighth kid if you wish. Shustov (discusscontribs) 08:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, we start today. First, a rule to take on. If you think something is being done that is stupid, wrong, biased, against you, or ridiculous, stop. Do not write while you think that. Wait. Instead of acting, email me. Point to the situation. If I don't respond within a day or so, email me again! Remember, it's a wiki. Any mistake can be corrected. And the reward of patience is patience. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Commons file deletion discussion[edit]

Anyway, I voted in this discussion but you should fix your account access problem ASAP and only use Shustov. As to that photo, I guessed that your comment about "courtesy of" was not about permission to use the photo, but was about the taking of the photo. Is that correct?

  • No, it was not about permission. All courtesies were addressed either to my son, or to his wife, or to both for providing me a possibility of taking some photos and clips of my grandson. That simple! Shustov (discusscontribs) 05:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Box/Please do not edit[edit]

The template you created as 'User:Box/Please do not edit' used the User: namespace and created an entry for a user named 'Box'. There is no such user, and you wouldn't be allowed to edit that user's space anyway. I have moved the page to User:Shustov/Box/Please do not edit. I would correct the link from your user page, but it's clear that you don't want others editing it, so you'll need to correct the link yourself. Note that, with the inclusion of the kicking image, this is a resource specific to your own user account rather than something we would want as a generic template (Template:) available to all Wikiversity users. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally, the box is a Bad Idea. We generally disapprove of users editing the user page of another user, so your user page is protected anyway, against disruptive editing. The box will not stop bots from editing your page, such as CommonsDelinker from removing links to deleted Commons images. It simply looks unfriendly! And it did not allow Dave to correct the error, which he surely would have done. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the reason that this userbox worked on ru.wiki is here: ruwiki User:Box. This could not be done here because of Single Unified Login! They created an account to accommodate userboxes. The account is blocked. See [4]. The bots that are working on username unification are going to create quite a mess. I think those accounts will be automatically renamed and then any user boxes using them will fail. --Abd (discusscontribs)16:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • So, shall I remove my box right away? And what about just changing the text there for "Please, edit your own User Page if you wish" ? Shustov (discusscontribs) 20:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There are two different issues here. Abd is warning you that problems are about to occur on the Russian wiki with the User:Box equivalent because of the renaming of accounts for Single Unified Login. Separately, the box on your account here is more of a cultural interpretation. You're welcome to include whatever you'd like on your user page that the community is willing to accept. But since the only ones editing your user page are you (under three separate accounts) and two bots, the warning seems unnecessary, no matter what the warning would say. To choose media to go with the warning that implies you're going to kick someone if they edit your page could be interpreted as quite hostile. This may go over well in Russian culture, but it seems unnecessarily violent from a western perspective. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no clear statement in the standard template warning {{userpage}} that only a particular page user is allowed to edit any part of his/her user page. This fact has inspired me to insert a very polite and delicate Notice saying: "Please do not edit. This is a Wikiversity participant's page." On the other hand, your interpretation of Notice "as quite hostile" which "may go over well in Russian culture, but it seems unnecessarily violent from a western perspective" looks for me as a medieval-like prejudice and discrimination of all people with Russian background. Sorry!

By the way, your editing of my Notice template proves that above Notice wasn't so unnecessary! Shustov (discusscontribs) 04:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that your notice template was not edited. It was moved, because it violated another (non-existent) user's space. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Shustov, you have a tendency to easily react to the comments of others as hostile or wrong in some way. I don't think Dave was, for example, displaying a prejudice against Russians, only speculating on a possible cultural difference. Yes, you could take it the way you did. But why take it that way? A habit of taking things that way can and has gotten you into trouble elsewhere. Others may also be reactive and then you have made an enemy, and it can snowball, as on Commons. So a hint: notice your own reactivity, it will have some clear signs. And then make conscious choices. "Do I actually want to irritate or alienate the major active custodian of Wikiversity, who has been trying to help me?" He is quite tolerant, so don't worry about him. I'm pointing to your response here.
As he points out, your template was not edited. He has not warned or threatened you, he simply notified you that the template was moved, and left the editing of your user page, to point to the new location, to you, because of your request not to edit. The move was necessary, we don't normally allow users to create pages in the user space of another, which is what you did (i.e., User:Box/Please,do not edit). Because his move damaged your user page display, he then notified you and explained.
Nobody is demanding that you do or not do anything here (beyond maybe "don't create userpages for other users.") The userbox with you as the kickboxer is perhaps mildly offensive, and also mildly funny. However, my own suggestion is that the whole thing comes off as indicating easy offense. Without that request, Dave would have fixed your userbox link (fixing things like that is a common exception to the rule not to edit others' user pages, because it is obviously helpful).
So how about a new Shustov, who has mellowed and now enjoys life, sharing that with others? Is it possible at your age? Or are you stuck with whatever you decided to be years ago?
I'm old enough that I can firmly say to you, yes, it is possible, if you choose it. Good luck. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both, Dave and Abd, for your patience and spending so much time on me while I am growing. I did change the image on the Notice; however, if you believe the Notice itself is no good, I will take it off right away. Your brand new but, anyway, Shustov (discusscontribs) 17:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Files Missing Information[edit]

Thanks for uploading files to Wikiversity. All files must have source and license information to stay at Wikiversity. The following files are missing {{Information}} and/or Wikiversity:License tags, and will be deleted if the missing information is not added. See Wikiversity:Uploading files for more information.

MaintenanceBot (discusscontribs) 15:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the file File:635-lbs squat.gif history, you will find out: at the Date=2015-02-17 there was the Permission={{self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|GFDL}} there, but at the Date=2015-02-17 it was gone. The same story is with the other files mentioned above. Who did it and why??? Shustov (discusscontribs) 17:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
These files are not your own work. You are pictured in the image / video, and so could not be the author. You must provide proper attribution and licensing for these images. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Dave Braunschweig: I do not see the answer to my above question. Therefore, I am asking again: "Who destroyed all 11 (eleven) licensing permissions from my files, when it was done and why"? Thanks, Shustov (discusscontribs) 21:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Mass copyright violations. The files are not properly attributed or licensed. Please correct this. If it is not corrected within seven days, the files will be deleted. Also see Special:CentralAuth/Shustov. Your account is currently indefinitely blocked on five different wikis. Please be careful in responses and approach, as any violations of Wikiversity:Blocking policy will result in a block here as well. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
At first, restore my eleven Permissions, please. And then, indicate precisely, for each file individually, what is wrong there. Thanks, Shustov (discusscontribs) 21:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
There is evidence, documented at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Shustov, that you are the subject of these videos. If you are the subject of the videos, you are not the person holding the camera, and they are not "selfies". The camera moves in the shots, so it is being held by someone else. The person holding the camera created these videos and has copyright to them. You must explicitly give credit to that person as the source of the videos. Any of these videos tagged as "own" or "selfie" will be deleted as invalid licensing. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Dave Braunschweig: If I understand what has happened correctly, it's MaintenanceBot, who (or which?) deleted all my licensing permissions. Anyway, I assume that those permissions will be restored sooner or later and my primary task now is to respond to your remarks presented above, namely:
  • I won't argue about seven GIF-animations (as you called them "videos"), which, as you noticed, "move" but
  • What's wrong with the other four still images there?
Thanks, Shustov (discusscontribs) 05:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Shustov, I think you already know that you need to specify the name of the person holding the camera while creating these videos and photos. Since it's clear that there was a person assisting you while creating these videos, it's pretty natural that someone was assisting you while shooting these photographs as well, that's why you have to provide the author's name for these four images as well. --Good Will Hunting (discusscontribs) 07:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It was brought to our attention that the original licensing was inaccurate and invalid. The inaccurate licensing was removed. In addition to accurate source information, accurate licensing consistent with the source must be provided on all files uploaded by Shustov and ShustovVal. Files that are not appropriately licensed and attributed will be deleted. I appreciate your desire to challenge the process, however, that is not going to be a productive approach. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Dear Dave Braunschweig! Just FYI, I'm currently trying to walk Shustov through the entire process once again (we're mostly talking on ruwiki pages). As you may have noticed, I already changed the name of the author on the following image File:635-lbs_squat.gif, and currently I'm trying to figure out what would be the best way to get confirmation from the person who made the actual images / videos via OTRS system. --Good Will Hunting (discusscontribs) 14:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Good Will Hunting, Kagan Yalaman still helped me with these files: File:Intensive training with barbel.gif, File:Partial squats with 585-lbs barbel.gif, File:Pulling 250-lbs weight.gif, File:Pulling-up 250-lbs weight (front).gif. Thanks, Shustov (discusscontribs) 17:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will shoot him an email a bit later. --Good Will Hunting (discusscontribs) 20:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Rejuvenation[edit]

Hi Shustov!

Your Rejuvenation resource appears well developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Hi, Marshallsumter: Wouldn't it be better for me to keep a low profile after all that has happened before? Vshustov (discusscontribs) 01:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Shustov! It's entirely up to you! I read your Rejuvenation resource and liked it! If there's no problem with your photographs, the resource is likely okay too. If there is, let me know, the photos can usually be handled by Fair use, especially if they occur on the web. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You know, Marshallsumter: I have no problems with my photographs but some of our administrators may. Anyway, please, do as you believe is reasonable. Best! Vshustov (discusscontribs) 05:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi Shustov! I looked for this image on the web including your Norridge home page, but it's not there! Did these two images come from your personal collection? And, did you combine them? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, Marshallsumter: these two images came from my personal collection and I, really, did combine them together as the proof of possible Rejuvenation. Vshustov (discusscontribs) 06:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not the images came from your personal collection, and whether or not you combined them is not relevant to the discussion. As before, the issue is who took the photographs, and what rights you have to publish their work. As before, your continued avoidance of addressing the question suggests that you do not have the right to publish these photos. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You know, Dave Braunschweig, your word "discussion" above is the key point here. It was 18:07, 9 May 2017‎, when you, without sending me any message to provide a chance of "discussion", did what you did. Do you believe you had any right to behave like this? Vshustov (discusscontribs) 17:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
See Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Mass_copyright_violations. Your contributions show a continued pattern of copyright violation. You are already blocked on five wikis due to copyright violations, self promotion, and interaction with other users. I encourage you not to continue this approach. Supply accurate copyright and license information for the file in question, or accept that the file will be deleted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The notification would have been added by bot, and may be still be added the next time the bot is run. But I didn't run the bot because you had already indicated your awareness of the issue at [5] and [6]. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The image is currently licensed as Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. If Dave puts the file up for deletion again the image can be put under Fair use. US copyright law, section 107, Fair use, does not require the copyright holder to be stated or known, nor does it require a source be stated or a rationale. We supply source, author, and rationale as a courtesy to users who view the file. The information you've supplied is acceptable for fair use. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Because Shustov is in the picture, Shustov cannot list own as the source. Someone else took the picture and must be credited for it. That photographer determines the licensing. Fair Use is not relevant to the discussion, as WV:EDP requires that "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder". -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, selfies have been around for a long time. On older cameras they were a timer on the shutter. The photographer set the timer, took a position in the field of view and waited for the click. Fair use can be used for two reasons: (1) fair use is US law which does not require the copyright holder at all and (2) WV:EDP has never received any consensus approval, probably because some involved knew about point (1). So under fair use the burden of proof shifts to those claiming own is not the case. If any copyright holder wants their image taken down, we voluntarily comply, but until then if Shustov wishes to use fair use, the user can. For Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported, Shustov would have to prove own. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
We've already been around this block. See discussions above from February. Shustov needs to indicate the photographer and appropriate license. A claim of Fair Use means that Shustov isn't the copyright owner and has no license to use the images. Without a source, they will be deleted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
As I mentioned with respect to fair use the copyright holder is irrelevant. It can be anyone or unknown. The letter and spirit of section 107 is an exemption from copyright holders. The fair use license is relevant if Shustov wants to use it. A source is not required for fair use, but we supply one as a courtesy. Shustov can be the source. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussions are extensive. I recall a notice on "Request for Custodian Action" that I responded to with the comment that these images could be handled with fair use. I refrained from any further involvement as Shustov did not ask for help or indicate any interest in fair use, similar so far to here regarding the latter. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
If Dave decides to, your composite image could be up for deletion again. If you like I can change the current license to fair use and fill in the appropriate information from your responses above. Fair use allows you to keep the image free from deletion so your resource wins, your learners win, and Wikiversity wins! I hope this helps. If you do not like it, I can change it back. It's up to you! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 05:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to WV:EDP items 6 and 8. "Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine must be properly attributed to the copyright holder.", and "Media files containing copyrighted material that do not comply with the intent and spirit of this policy can be deleted by custodians at any time." Unfortunately, your refusal to indicate the copyright holder of these images has resulted in a situation that violates Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy regarding Fair Use files. The file has been deleted. You may request Undelete at WV:RFD. It will be up to the community to determine whether the file may be restored. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Vshustov is the copyright holder and author for the composite of the two images! Now, I'm sorry but you have offered no proof that Shustov is not the copyright holder of the individual images. The first image may have been a selfie, given to the user with permission implied or otherwise to use as the user wishes, or inherited. The same may be true for the second. You have to prove otherwise and you have not done so. Proof does not consist of stating sections of an EDP that never received any kind of consensus. Nor does it consist of arguments. Proof must be factual! In addition the user owns their own image, if they give permission to have their image photographed with the expressed or implied consent that ownership, including copyright of that photograph and negative or digitally stored image, is legally transferred to the person photographed, then they own the image and copyright. Please restore the image. This is not a matter for "You may request Undelete at WV:RFD." --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 15:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is in response to your, Dave Braunschweig, post dated 13:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC) where you said: "...your refusal to indicate the copyright holder of these images has resulted in ... The file has been deleted." Now, see what happened: 1) At 18:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC),‎ you deleted my name as the copyright holder from the file description and put the deadline for my new (??) indication of the copyright holder, namely May 16, 2017 (UTC). 2) Then, the above deadline disappeared(?!). 3) At 13:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC), you deleted my file. My question is: "what is the reason for that rush?" Vshustov (discusscontribs) 19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
[7] indicates source as own work and Shustov as the author. This is incorrect, as the original images are not your own work. You are the subject, not the creator. If a file at Wikiversity is improperly licensed, it may be removed after seven days. However, a Fair Use file is not an improperly licensed file. It is an unlicensed file. Unlicensed files that do not credit the source may be removed at any time, per WV:EDP. If you want the file to be posted at Wikiversity, you must credit the creator of the original images. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, we've been through this before. WV:EDP in any form cannot violate US copyright law which includes section 107. WV:EDP states: "Author: The media file creator, especially if different from the copyright holder." The composite is the user's own work. So the user is the creator or author of the composite. Section 107 does not require "author" or "creator" be stated! Nor do sections 106 or 106A or 104. We supply a source (not required by Section 107) and an author (not required by Section 107) as a courtesy. To require it is a clear violation of US copyright law specifically section 107. In the USA everyone is presumed innocent of a crime, violation of the law, unless proven guilty. Being forced to violate US law is a federal crime called duress. Whether a selfie or a commissioned portrait, you must prove they are not the user's own work, which you only assert. If an author or creator existed other than the user, anyone wishing to use the images or the composite, in this case, must discuss it with the user as all rights are the users. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 23:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Physical fitness[edit]

Hi Shustov!

Your Physical fitness resource appears ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Violations[edit]

Your account is blocked for repeat copyright violations. See discussions at [8] and [9] for background information. Files in violation have been deleted. To be unblocked, you must explicitly state here correct understanding of who owns the copyright to pictures that are taken and why indicating own work on pictures with you as the subject is invalid. You must also agree to stop tagging pictures with you as the subject as own work'. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)