Jump to content

User talk:Durin/archive2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The content of this page is an archive of User talk:Durin. Please do not modify it.

{{Coatofarms}} → {{GFDL}}?

[edit]

See Special:Contributions/Askewmind and as an arbitrary example [1]. -62.253.52.19 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to discuss exactly that. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Askewmind. —freak(talk) 02:29, Jan. 1, 2007 (UTC)

  • The former {{coatofarms}} template can not automatically be shifted to {{gfdl}}. Affirmative, provable evidence of a copyright holder releasing material under GFDL must be available. All of these replacements need to be undone, unless there is such proof. --Durin 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I did revert all of his edits without hesitation, I was merely seeking broader input on whether to block him. In any case the thread was more or less ignored and is now archived here. Although... I guess if he doesn't use that account anymore it doesn't really matter that much. —freak(talk) 09:47, Jan. 2, 2007 (UTC)

Orbiter Online speedy deletion

[edit]

Help, please (you've already posted once on this topic, to which I've replied). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AMMalena I would appreciate any insights you can provide to make this article for Orbiter Online work. Thanks. Anthony 21:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)AMMalena[reply]

Images in templates

[edit]

If they were to be deleted and substituted, can the images be added back? --Howard the Duck 04:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use and userboxes

[edit]

Argh, isn't there a simple way to know whether I can use an image or not in a userbox? I'm rather simple minded and technical jargon makes my head spin. By the way, although I find it irritating that I have to redo my userboxes often, I have to grudgingly commend your efforts to make sure Wikipedia doesn't get sued and whatnot. Rougeblossom 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the compliments, even if they are given grudgingly :) As to images and whether they can be used; look for the term "fair use" on the image's description page...anywhere on it. In major browsers, you can do this with ctrl-f, and typing in fair use on the resulting dialogue box. --Durin 21:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images, fair use and templates

[edit]

Durin, thank you for expanding my understanding of fair use of images and where it applies in Wikipedia. As a result of the change you made to Template:WayneCountyNY, I tried an alternative by creating a different template, Template:Summarybox Wayne County NY, which accepts an argument for the image on the article page, thus moving the image reference out of non-article namespace. You can see an example of this on Williamson, New York (hit edit and look at the bottom of the page for the code) —

{{Template:Summarybox Wayne County NY | image = [[Image:WayneCountyNYUSASeal.JPG|100px|Wayne County Seal]] }}

Is this an acceptable solution to using images with templates? This is my first attempt at using parser functions with templates, so any suggestions are welcome.

Two last questions: (1) does the section "Images in templates" above apply to this situation; and (2) why is it okay to use the New York state flag in the template, but not a governmental subdivision of the same state? Thanks again for my education.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  : 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)>[reply]

  • The code you used is fine. But, the use here in the template at the bottom of the page is a decorative use. That violates Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #8. If it were used on the infobox for the town, (as another seal is) it would be ok. In this case, it isn't ok. --Durin 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

google image

[edit]

the image you requested for deletion, was beeing used as an image for userboxes.

thank you

--•Tbone55•(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX) 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Use of fair use images in signatures

[edit]

(aeropagitica), please stop using the fair use tagged image Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png. This image has now been scattered over a large number of non-main article namespace pages, and will need to be removed to adhere to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I stopped using that ages ago, when first alerted to a problem! My sig now links though to my talk page and contains no image or other html/wiki code. Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, new year problem. I saw 5 January 2006 and read 5 January 2007. My apologies. Some help removing it from the various places it appears would be nice. --Durin 17:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png

[edit]

This image is a fair use image and may not be used outside of the main article namespace. Please do not re-insert this image as it constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. --Durin 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look closely at the edit. THATS THE UN FLAG. If you arent going to at least review the contents of my edits, do not bother reverting them. --Cat out 17:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use images

[edit]

As a result of the deletion of Comparative ranks and insignia of Star Trek, these images are now orphaned and subject to deletion in seven days unless used in a main namespace article. --Durin 20:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this image at this instant! Thank you! (uploader) --Cat out 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on my user page

[edit]

24.60.115.76 has vandalized my page twice. Looking into his history, all he has done is vandalize pages, blanking out the Ukraine page and adding a troll comment to another page. Could he be blocked or warned or something? Thanks! Pacdude 06:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for images

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
You arguably do the most thankless job in Wikipedia in policing images, and are probably the best at it. Sure, I don't like all the images you tag and remove, but I know it's policy and I proudly respect you for your contributions and not letting any angry users get to you. Wizardman 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Husnock sockpuppetry

[edit]

Dear Mr. Durin, do you have some kind of problem with me? I see you are posting things about me on these pages because I answered a question about the Husnock case. I'm an english lit professor and couldnt care less about who that is or what he did. I was just pointing out that the page was linked in a newsgroup. Please come to me and say things to my face instad of posting this material about me on this webpage. -Pahuskahey 15:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, big man. Call me a happy sock and walk away when I have a problem with it. Dirty SOB. -Pahuskahey 16:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal symbols

[edit]

Well, it seems to me that the actual royal symbols would contribute to an article on royal symbols. Is it then simply the list/gallery format? Otherwise, it seems the article should simply be deleted - especially after your thorough purging. --G2bambino 21:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. --G2bambino 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying

[edit]

I am fervently trying to do as you have asked. I need to remove them myself I guess. I am trying. I do not wish to be bocked. Also another question, how do I upload pictures? --Zazzer

  • There's a link on the left side menu that says "upload file". You use that. But, you need to be careful about properly sourcing and license tagging images that you upload. See the instructions on the "upload file" page for more information, and/or ask me if you've done it right after you've uploaded an image. I'll be happy to help. --Durin 01:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did take the photograph. --Zazzer

Please teach me to remove fair use tags, if it is possible. I am sorry. I will try to be more responsible. --Zazzer

  • The easiest way to determine if an image is fair use is to look at the image's description page and search for the term "fair use". If you find that term, assume the image is fair use and can not be used on a userpage or template. If you're not sure, ask me BEFORE adding it to your userpage. --Durin 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of album covers in band articles

[edit]

Hi Durin. In the light of my conversation with NSR77, I'd be interested to have your opinion of the use of fair use album cover images in Red Hot Chili Peppers. Best wishes, --Guinnog 03:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to nag but this has now come up at The Beatles as well. Is there any way you can give an opinion on whether fair use album covers are usable:
In album articles only (as I think)
In album articles and also in discography articles
In album and discography articles and also as a gallery on the entry for a band?
The wording of the fair use provision seems unambiguously to point to my interpretation but I would appreciate the opinion of an expert as I believe you to be. Very best wishes, --Guinnog 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to mention I raised this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as well. --Guinnog 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Guinnog 11:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

matt harding dance

[edit]

The edit to that was right u dick head, y do u delete stuff wtihout checking it, knobhead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.220.235 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It may very well have been accurate. However, unsourced/uncited differing claims of facts, made without the benefit of an edit summary, tend to be viewed with skepticism. It is quite common for vandals to change factual numbers in such a manner. Thus, your edit was reverted as vandalism. If you'd like, you can re-make the changes but this time cite/source them properly. --Durin 13:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:7 RAR Vietnam (AWM EKN-67-0130-VN).jpg

[edit]

Thanks for notifying me that the link to this image had been removed. I have linked it to the two main articles on Australia's participation in the Vietnam War. As the image is widely regarded as being an iconic photo of Australia's involvement in the war I believe that it is OK to claim 'fair dealing' status for its use in these articles under Australian law. It should also be noted that the Australian War Memorial, which owns the photo, has its copyright status listed as 'clear' on its database, though I'm not sure that this is actually the case and don't think that it should be uploaded to the commons, etc. --Nick Dowling 08:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Template:User Decemberists

[edit]

Hi,

Sorry to make you take an image out of my userbox. I'll try to find something outside of fair use to replace it with. --Sk128234 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfB

[edit]

I saw more recurring complaints by the dissatisfied mass at RfB talk, and realized I might be able to help do something about the widespread perception that RfA is broken if I became bureaucrat, although I had to will myself into putting in the work to do this. Plus, part of the "right now, today" comment was that I knew I would attract time-of-service opposition, so I waited a few weeks to make sure that would be less of a factor. Grandmasterka 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew. Maybe being a bureaucrat isn't my thing... Grandmasterka 02:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More harassment! Jeez

[edit]

I've gotten harassment from user User:Tucans recently over a silly vendetta that took place outside of Wikipedia. I've handled this as maturely as I can but this needs a mod's intervention. Is there anything you can do? Pacdude 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops

[edit]

Woops. Sorry didn't notice that I couldn't put the image on my page. Sorry won't happen again. Sodaplayer 21:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, Durin. A newcomer made an edit that looked like vandalism, but when I examined his contributions, I saw that he had uploaded an image that would be relevant to the article he was trying to edit (I make no comment about legality), so I presume he was trying to add the image to the article. I suggested that he stop (as he was being reverted both by me and by a bot) and try just to do some normal editing for the moment, and that you or Jkelly would probably be happy to look at the image, help him with source tagging if it's an image that can be used here, and walk him through the steps. Of course, if the image isn't free, it will have to be deleted. If you have time, could you take a look at User talk:Kirbylee545454? Thanks. Musical Linguist 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a shock

[edit]

A wikipedia admin who happens to be a petty little nazi asshole. How is that IP banning working out for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.102.159 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

[edit]

This is to thank you for your early support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and especially for the suggestion that I seek adminship and your offer to consider nominating me several weeks ago. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

[edit]

I reverted a userbox from which you'd removed an image, saw your comment, and decided to put in a "fairer" image. The userbox was template:User Democratic Party. If the current version is not acceptable either, then I apologize. Creationlaw 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hahahihihoho

[edit]

I'd just like to bring this to your attention. User:Alkalada is the sockpuppet, and he's freely admitting it. As his main account is banned, he should be banned to, because if he's not, then the ban on his main account is redundant. His POV, policy violating edit style has not changed, and all his socks should be banned, but I'm getting a really slow response from administrators. —KingIvan 11:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This had already been reviewed by ArbCom member Fred Bauder, who as you know unblocked him on January 20. I'm reluctant to undo an unblock by Fred. However, I have left a message at Fred's talk page which you can view here. --Durin 13:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

[edit]

That would explain why they kept disappearing :-) . I'll find some other graphic. Thanks JNAllen 14:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it would. Thanks :) --14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned Image

[edit]

After looking at other pages similar to the one in which I was working, I was no longer sure it qualified under fair use. Therefore I removed it from the article on which I had placed it. I am currently trying to locate another one that I can be sure about the copyright. Still Learning JNAllen 14:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Learning's perfectly fine. Any chance you can get a camera and go take a picture of the stadium yourself? I realize it might not be as pretty as the one you uploaded, but we are focused more on free than pretty here. Of course, both would be nice, but we'd far prefer free. --Durin 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alkalada

[edit]

Durin, please.. look what Ivan is writing, he is taking away SOURCES ARTICLES!

Come on, I really am chocked if I am getting banned, I really put sources and he is taking them away without any reason why he is doing that, he just do it.

I suggest you to ban Ivan for vandalism.

If you say I am broking the rule, PLEASE... AND I REALLY MEAN IT, PLEASE....

PLEEASEEEEEE... TELL ME WHICH RULE AM A BROKING? Alkalada 15:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will not revert 3 times on 24 hours. But I really must say that if I did so, it wasnt ment to be on that way, then I forgot about that rule. I am sorry for that if I forgot that rule.

I am only editing articles which is not true. For example, somebody born in Bosnia cannot be Croatian, he can be etnic Croat and I statet that in the article. But if you are born in Bosnia, then you are Bosnian, I think you agree on that.

And when I do edit, I put sources like in the Bosnia and Herzegovina article. I put sources!!!

I put sources, then it isnt vandalism. Alkalada 15:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point is not that you violated WP:3RR. You didn't. The point is you continue to engage in contentious editing, for example with revert warring. One of the Wikipedia:Five pillars is to respect your fellow editors. If you become embroiled in a content dispute, the proper course of action is to first discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. I found no evidence that you did so on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Instead, you engaged in revert warring. You were already aware you were on thin ice in being granted a reprieve from Fred Bauder. The issue is in his hands. From my chair, it appears you did not take the lessons to heart that lead to your being banned in the first place. --Durin 15:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, sir, I will discuss the subject on talk page before I edit. And I will put fully and complicated evidence and sugestion why I edit and sources for what I edit.

Is this okey then? Alkalada 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not the person you need to be talking to. I did not overturn User:Fred Bauder's decision to unblock you. I simply recommended he do so. It's up to him to review and decide the proper course of action. I recommend you take this up with him. In general, what you suggest in this latest message is proper. --Durin 15:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I will then use talk pages much more and put sources on everything. But really... things like Bosnia was never a modern state really piss me off... Alkalada 15:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether it angers you or not should not affect your editing. Describing it as "vandalism" is improper. You are influenced by your POV. Bosnia indeed has not been a modern state; no state by that name has existed in quite some time. Thus, there is no modern state of Bosnia. That's one way of interpreting that. If you're interpreting that as Bosnia being backward, you're interpreting in another potential way. --Durin 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Alkalada for a week and will during that time discuss issues with him. Fred Bauder 16:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:58.10.102.159 is spamming me

[edit]

Please read User talk:58.10.102.159#This user is spamming my e-mail address and tell me if I have any recourse other than to delete the e-mail address. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through a lot of trouble to get this one. It's not a DEA. I am replacing both of the addressed on my user page with a DEA because of this.

BTW: You might want to extend this user's block. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renée Fleming image

[edit]

Hi Durin, sorry for spamming you (I'm sending this to a few others as well!) but if you have time, I'd welcome your comments at Talk:Renée Fleming. It's about a rather poor quality photo, taken by one of my students, which could replace the fair use image, but I have doubts as to how poor the quality can be and still have Wikipedia prefer it to fair use. Cheers. Musical Linguist 01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (I've changed my signature because I've seen so many complaints about people causing confusion by having signatures that were different from their usernames, but I'm still Ann!)[reply]

Gene Klaus

[edit]

I created this article and it came up for speedy deletion, then another editor (not myself) contested it, I personally would just like to see this resolved one way or the other, if you could take a look and see what you think it would be greatly appreciated.--Joebengo 02:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-day

[edit]

Thank you for the message. Hard to believe I'm still here ;). FYI, I added a 6 month rolling average to my stats page because of our past discussion about how statistically significant the trends are. Cheers, NoSeptember 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I may at some point. But as time goes on, I feel that as long as there are enough active ones around, there isn't a great need for more, although there also is no reason not to promote any qualified candidates that come along. So it isn't a pressing issue for me. If all our active ones get distracted, maybe I'll stand. NoSeptember 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're more active on WT:RFA than anyone in the last rolling year. You compile more statistics than anyone. You have more involvement overall in RFA than anyone else out there. It doesn't make any sense for you not to be a bureaucrat. I've never much felt there was a lot of validity to the "we don't need more bureaucrats" argument. We do periodically have minor backlogs anyways. For example, right now we've got a two day backlog at Wikipedia:Changing username with 22 requests unanswered. That's not a huge backlog, but nevertheless it is a backlog. By far, the most active bureaucrat there is Essjay (~80% of name changes). Not surprisingly, Essjay's been absent for two days. I don't think any of our processes should have a single point backlog causation. --Durin 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little award for beeing nice, to people, like me

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to tell me how to use "fair use images" --•Tbone55•(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX) 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of crossings of the Rivière des Prairies

[edit]

Why would you remove all the railway-related images quoting decorative fair use, and not remove the highway related ones?

Alex@MTRL 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to contact Durin on this matter, he will explain this to you. MakeChooChooGoNow 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the highway related ones are available under a free license as opposed to fair use. Fair use images may not be used in a decorative manner. Free license can be used any way we see fit. --Durin 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

andrew cornforth

[edit]

andrew cornforth is an infamous figure in the isle of wight. i suggest you re-instate the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommi moore (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nice of you

[edit]

Nice of you to explain the fair use policy. I think my Userbox looks much better with public domain ;)) Cary Grant anyway! Esparagon 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox Fairuse

[edit]

Hi Durin, I'm wondering why images that are already listed in an article such as image:Byuhlogo.jpg are being deleted out of userboxes I have created? I'm following the template from dozens of other boxes that have their pictures intact - putting a size restraint on the image so it fits inside the userbox. Does a shrunken version of the image violate fair use? Thanks :) --Nhansen 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, decided to actually take the time to read other userbox fairuse questions on your talk page. I get the impression that images in a userbox should be avoided :( --Nhansen

  • Hi! Yep :) Some images are permitted but not all. Any copyrighted/fair use image is not permitted. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. That policy states that copyrighted images may not be used outside of the main article namespace. This means that fair use images such as Image:Byuhlogo.jpg may not be used on templates, such as userboxes. They may only be used on articles. That's why the image was removed. I notice that you re-added the image. I'm re-removing it. If you have any more questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. But, please understand that that image may not be used on a userbox. Thanks, --Durin 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I re added it before reading all of this. No worries though, I'll find a way to complete the userbox without it! Same for the Nanook image too ;) --Nhansen 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks from Esparagon

[edit]

Thanks, by the way it really amazes me how diligent and considerate you are! --Esparagon 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I forgot to sign again; I'm just getting used to. --Esparagon 23:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help this user understand fair use limitations

[edit]

I spotted and removed some fair-use images on the user page of Mahal11. Now he seems confused about something. I don't know what. Could you visit the conversation at [[User talk:Mahal11#Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages}}? Below is a list of the images that I removed. The edit was 18:40, January 23, 2007 (rm fair use images that are not legal here).

Will (Talk - contribs) 00:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can Image:Irpen reka.jpg be on user pages?

[edit]

Irpen has this image on his or her page. Is it legal? It isn't fair use, but not truely free either. The page includes the template {{attribution}}, which states that "This image is copyrighted, however the copyright holder allows the image to be freely redistributed, modified, used commercially and for any other purpose, provided that their authorship is attributed." Will (Talk - contribs) 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it's legal to use as if it were a freely licensed image. The crux of most cases is whether or not commercial use is allowed by the license holder. If not, we use it on fair use (if we want it here at all). If so, then we basically treat it as free license. --Durin 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the ownership/copyright information have to appear everywhere the image is used or just on the image description page? Will (Talk - contribs) 03:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

[edit]

Hi, I received a message about this image. A quick look at the history reveals that an IP removed the licensing information from it. I am removing the message from my talk page and have reverted the changes (vandalism?) which the IP made to the image tag. Bubba hotep 08:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image use

[edit]

Is it possible to have a userbox without just plain text as it's icon? What alternatives do I have that do not violate the policy? Sunshine 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plain text is boring, that's all. Is there a category of pages that link to {{gfdl}} or {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} images? Sunshine 15:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK Copyrighted Content

[edit]

Hi, don't know if you recall but we had a good discussion about fair use images in userboxes (specifically logos from St Edmund Hall and the County of Wiltshire). Well I've done some more investigating and I am told that there is no concept of fair use in current UK copyright law. There are some motions in the process of being presented to parliament to introduce the concept (specifically driven by the fair use copying of CDs to MP3 players) but there seems to be no such provision at present. Does that then mean that any item subject to (or derived from a work subject to) a UK Copyright will have to be removed from the pages of Wikipedia unless explicit permission is granted? AulaTPN 15:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The concept of fair dealing is within UK law. It's not precisely the same as fair use, but they share some common traits. In general, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution in regards to the use of copyrighted material. So, to answer your question; yes, when in doubt it's better to remove the potentially copyright violating content. Thanks for investigating! I appreciate your diligence! --Durin 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Boondocks images

[edit]

Your work in enforcing fair use rules is appreciated, but simply deleting images in templates that are placed on Wikipedia pages could be construed as vandalism, too, in the sense that doing so leaves a blank space where the image once existed. My advice to you is to make sure to adjust any template you alter to account for the changes you make. I've taken the courtesy on the Boondocks templates, but I consider it discourteous for an admin to replace an image with nothing, and I warn that continuing doing so will leave others feeling the same way.
—GrittyLobo441 01:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every situation is the same. You could have very easily replaced the image with the words "The Boondocks," so that the purpose of the templates wouldn't have been lost completely. Simply stating that your "job" on Wikipedia is to delete these images doesn't supersede your responsibility of making sure that each and every edit you make is to the ultimate benefit of Wikipedia, which your cut and run strategy inherently contradicts.
—GrittyLobo441 04:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry that you feel this way. Nevertheless, the policy stands. If you disagree with the policy, I recommend you take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation. Please be advised that a bot is in the works that will make these removals. It will of course not pay any heed to replacing a fair use image with an equitable replacement since the priority isn't whether a template looks good or not, but that we do not violate copyright which could endanger the very existence of the project. I find no compelling reason why the aesthetics of a template should supercede the need of the project to adhere to copyright policy and law. Thus, failing presentation of some other reason to stop than you have voiced above, I intend on continuing. I do welcome such input, but what you have presented so far is a matter of aesthetics vs. copyright. That's not compelling to me. If you continue to feel that my efforts in this regard constitute rank vandalism, then I recommend you file a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where an admin will read your complaint and block me for the vandalism I am apparently committing. All the best, --Durin 04:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on RFA talk

[edit]

Argh, not numerical criteria *and* reduction of Bureaucrat discretion still further.

However, if you just state that Bureaucrats are advised to pair up, it actually makes perfect sense. So I almost agree with you, but not quite. And yet by starting a poll, all the wrong things go wrong. :-/

So, I'm also trying to reach you on IRC... as well as making noise everywhere to try to reduce problems I percieve coming from this poll.

See also your wikipedia e-mail

--Kim Bruning 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd thought I had made it perfectly clear that this did nothing to reduce bureaucrat discretion, nor did it reduce the focus of RfA being about consensus, not a vote. All it does is say to the bureaucrats, "If the raw vote percentage is below 75%, check with another bureaucrat before promoting". That's pretty simple, and goes a long way to avoiding the controversy that has ensued over Ryulong and Carnildo's promotions. I'm not available on IRC today. --Durin 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you say it doesn't but then you go on to propose things that ... effectively reduce bureaucrat discretion and effectively also reduce consensus. <looks at you... and the words with a very odd look>. Maybe it's just me and I'm going crazy? I mean... more crazy than I am just for being here? ;-) Ok, so I'm crazy... but not that crazy.. am I? I think I'm going to bed, and will look at it again in the fresh light of dawn.--Kim Bruning 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're crazy :) Nothing I proposed suggested reducing bureaucrat discretion. All it did was provide a rull of thumb that others would expect to see followed that if there's a likelihood that a promotion is contentious, you get a second opinion...and that only if you're going to promote. --Durin 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank goodness. I was worried I was going sane. Could you explain your reasoning a bit more? I'm still somewhat worried that your rule of thumb will become a rule of iron. (the folks going "69.9995%!? ZOMG! you can't promote until 70.0001%" sort of strike a chord with me ... :-/) --Kim Bruning 11:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the proposal says is that if it's below 75% on raw vote percentage that a second bureaucrat should be involved to concur that the first bureaucrat's estimation of consensus is correct. It's really very simple. But, there's enough opposition now that the proposal's shot down anyway. *shrug* I don't care much either way. I think the bureaucrats have, on occasion, made some stunning poor decisions. But, any system will have that where humans are involved. And, for all I know, maybe the opposite decision to theirs would be stunningly poor. --Durin 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

User:Disavian has a question at User talk:Disavian#Fair use images aren't allowed in user pages that you may need to answer. I figure the answer is no, but you might know more. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info re username change

[edit]

Thanks for the info - I'm brand new to editing on Wikipedia. Everything takes so long at first! Hephzi 19:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the owner of a copyrighted fair use image display it on their user page?

[edit]

It looks like User:DavidShankBone took a picture of a piece of art by Robert Frank and then uploaded it as Image:Mabou.JPG with a fair use license. Mr. Bone now has the photo on his user page. Given that he holds the photo's copyright, but not the copyright for the art, can the image be on his user page? Will (Talk - contribs) 23:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. He has rights to the image in that his creative effort went into the creation of the photograph. But, the artist retains rights to the artwork being depicted. He can release his own rights to the image, but he can not release the rights to the artist's work. This is a general type of image where more than one person holds rights to the image. Both (or more) parties need to release rights to the image in order for the release to be complete. Thus, this user may not display the image on their page. I'll remove it, and leave him a note. --Durin 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, and a question

[edit]

Thanks for the fair use change to the userbox I made - I had no idea of the rule, and it looks better without the second image anyway.

I was wondering if you could clarify a point for me: I have several photographs that I took in the studio of artist Ed Paschke that show his paintings. I don't even know the names of the paintings; some weren't finished. Do I own the copyright to those photographs, or does the artist's rights (or, alas, his estate's rights) to the painting override my right to the photograph? I'd quite like to share them with the world.-- stephan.com 19:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're welcome! As to the paintings, the scenario is a bit different. You retain rights to the creative effort needed to create the photographs of the artistry. However, the estate of the artist also retains rights to the artwork. Thus, neither you nor the estate can use the photographs without both you and the estate agreeing upon whatever terms the image is to be released on. Neither set of rights override the other. They coexist, and must agree in order to release. --Durin 20:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: block inquiry

[edit]

Although I have seen that admin around who issued that block, I know nothing of the matter. I hope you assume good faith for I have never even been warned of vandalism from an admin. Gilliam 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had one interaction with that admin before. He nominated an article for deletion for a tennis professional who was ranked in the top 50 in the world. Rather surprising, and the AfD went overwhelmingly against deleting. Everything else I've seen from you shows considerable capability. I'll add my comments to the RfA. --Durin 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image work and one userbox

[edit]

Hi David! I just wanted to stop by and say I was very impressed with some of the wedding imagery you've done. In particular, I really enjoyed Image:Wedding-rings-02.jpg, Image:Ringbearer-boy.jpg (that expression on the girl is fantastic!), Image:Bridemaids-girl.jpg, and Image:Bride-groom-walking.jpg. Nicely done!

Also, I wanted to let you know that I removed a fair use image (Image:Democratslogo.svg) from User:Mactographer/Userboxes/Demsupport. The use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted per terms of our policy at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Thanks, --Durin 15:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Durin. Thanks for the compliments =) and nice intro into why you felt you had to edit my userbox per "the current understanding" of the Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. The reason I used "quotes" was it seems there is a bit of a dispute over what the policy actually should or shouldn't be. In fact, as you know, it's currently locked at the moment due to the disagreements re: the policy. But I will work around it ... whatever the policy may or may not be now or in the future.
Maybe you can tell me if you would see any problems if I generated wholly original artwork. If there are no issues to my creating a donkey shape and overlaying it with a flag, I might go that route. In the mean time, I hope using "DEM" will not put me in policy violation as it may or may not be at the moment.
In any case, thanks for your tactful approach to my violation. =)
--Mactographer 23:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "current understanding" of fair use policy was implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation. Any comments from users aside, its highly unlikely it is going to change. I hope you understand my compliments on your images were sincere. I've done thousands of these image removals without commenting on people's talk pages. --Durin 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were very kind. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My question was sincere about creating my own image. Will it fly, or is there another wiki rule I might be breaking? Thanks! --Mactographer 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So long as the original shape of the donkey is not from the Democrat Party donkey, you'll be fine. If you want me to review it after you upload it, feel free to ask. --Durin 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I was just uploading it now, and wasn't quite sure I liked how it shows up small in the userbox. So I tried a cropped version ... didn't like that either. So I'm just gonna leave it for now and try to improve the 45pix version later. But I didn't even get a chance to notify you before getting your message. Called it a flag donkey so as to avoid any logo issues via naming convention. Thanks for the notice! --Mactographer 22:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USNA and Bobby Ross vandalism

[edit]

It seems that a cadet at the USMA finds it funny to repeatedly vandalize the USNA article and add nonsense to the Bobby Ross (Army Football Coach) article. I just wanted to bring this to your attention to see if it might be necessary to block the IP address.--Joebengo 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this as an anon so i don't get wikistalked by him

[edit]

I'm certain that another indefinite ban is appropriate on this user. I mean, come on - two seconds after he gets unblocked, he gets straight back into edit warring, POV pushing, unwillingness to discuss. If there was any justice in the world, he would be banned and never given another chance since he will never change his ways. (I also posted this on another admins page, but I wasn't sure if he was a sleep or not in his part of the world, so i sent it to a few more as well.)

I applaud you.

[edit]

You recently (and correctly) removed an image from my page that was fair-use. After reading all the stuff you've written about this particular problem, I'd just like to say I am very impressed with your thorough handling of fair-use image misconduct situations. Kudos to you for your hard work! --Hemlock Martinis 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I get lots of flak from a small subset of the people whose pages I affect. It's nice to hear the kind words from another subset. Thank you so much! --Durin 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will concur: that's hard work and worse public support for removal of images. At first glance of my Vigil template I said "Say what!?" I don't necessarily like the image as much, but it's much better (if that makes sense). Keep up the good work! —ScouterSig 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"African" categories

[edit]

Hi, why do you say in each African music category that the artists linked "appear to be" African, when the first sentence of each states that they were born in Manhattan, Detroit, Houston, or other U.S. cities? I think you ought to edit more thoughtfully, slowly, and carefully, perhaps in this case going back and looking at the articles linked, then modifying your comments. They don't show that you even took the time to do that before deleting. Thanks. Badagnani 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did take the time. I took this into account. Strictly speaking, no they are not African. More properly, might be African American. Nevertheless, the proper way to go about this is not to delete the category but remove those from it who do not belong on the category. A category is not invalid because it has bad entries on it. Does that help make it clearer? --Durin 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

I'm sorry about the copyrighted image situation, I didn't realize this was the case. I certainly wasn't trying to flaunt the rules, I didn't get an explanation the first time. Will I be able to upload the images as fair use? Merlin33 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Merlin33[reply]

  • Not in the way you want to do so. We do not permit galleries of fair use images on Wikipedia. If you were to create an article about a specific edition of the magazine, then it would be appropriate to have the specific, relevant cover appear in the article. However, it would not be appropriate to do as you have been doing; creating a gallery of covers. --Durin 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I understand that now. If I want to try to re-add the content later closer to your guidelines, will I be able to do this? Also, will links to music reviews remain since they refer to a specific article? Merlin33 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Merlin33[reply]
  • I'd be happy to work with you when you want to upload images. Just drop me a note and I can assist you. As for the review links, I'm sorry but I'm removing them. TheMagazine simple isn't notable enough as a link. --Durin 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry this wasn't more fruitful for you. Thanks for working within our policies though. Many users get quite upset when this sort of thing happens. I appreciate your calmness. --Durin 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Burns Photo

[edit]

Hello again, Durin!

I've located a PD image for the Ken Burns listing. The author wrote to me the following:

Dave,

You're welcome to upload the photo to Wikipedia with a photo credit of "Photo by UNCW/Jamie Moncrief"

All of our state-produced images are indeed public domain and can be re-published with appropriate credits.

Thanks for checking!

Cheers,


Jamie Moncrief
Coordinator of Photographic Services
UNCW Marketing and Communications

University of North Carolina Wilmington
601 South College Road
Wilmington, NC 28403-5993

Photo Dept. 910/962-3601
Switchboard 910/962-3861 - Fax 910/962-3847

moncriefj -at- uncw -dot- edu


However, I'm not sure I found the best fitting EDU appropriate PD tag for it. The author states it is "state-produced" and is in the "public domain." But the school isn't a federal school, so most of the {{PD-whatever}} tags don't look like a perfect fit to me.

I've looked here, but I can't seem to find the PD tag that best fits. Can you help?

Thanks, --Mactographer 00:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So I guess the PD tag I used is good enough then? I thot maybe some kind of {{PD-USGov-edu}} might exist. But haven't heard anything from you, so I assume the tag I used will do? --Mactographer 02:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I missed replying. The tag is probably fine. I would include a copy of the text above on the talk page of the image's description page, and provide a note on the description page that license release is available on the talk page. --Durin 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Be careful what you ask for :)

[edit]

Hello, I want to thank you for your comment on my talk page and offer to review me to determine if you can nominate me for adminship. I'm definitely quite interested. That said, real life is a bit stressful for me right now, so I'm not really sure this is a good time for me to make an RfA. Things may improve within a week or even a few days, mind you. I don't know if you would feel like reviewing me now anyway, or if you'd rather wait until I feel ready to go ahead and make a run at adminship (not totally sure how you work that). But anyway, that's where I am now. I'm definitely grateful for the consideration you've given me thus far. Heimstern Läufer 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Durin, my stress level has subsided enough that I'd be ready to approach an RfA sometime soon. Weekends do that. :-) Anyway, I don't know if you've already begun a review of me at all, but if you haven't, I think I'm ready for you to do so. Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon! Heimstern Läufer 20:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I'll begin my review. Keep in mind this takes some hours, and is usually spread over a few days. If I have any questions for you, I'll drop you a note. --Durin 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. I'm in no hurry. Heimstern Läufer 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huzzah! Well, we'll see how it goes! I guess I better get ready to answer the questions, eh? I'll re-read your guide about what to do when I'm nominated, too. Heimstern Läufer 23:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! I'm writing the nom now. Not sure I can get done before I have to stop for the evening due to other commitments. But, there's no rush here, and you should rush in your answers on the RfA either. I'll drop you a note when it's ready. --Durin 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UMiami Userbox

[edit]

Uh, maybe because the previous userbox (1) had the wrong colors, (2) did not follow the standard format (did not say "This user attends or attended..."), and (3) was ambiguous (saying merely, "This user is a 'Cane!" and making no actual mention to the University of Miami). However, rather than delete someone else's work and co-opt the "User University of Miami" address, I've decided merely to supplant a subpar userbox with a better one, in conformity with other like university userboxes, on the education userbox page. Next time you claim your reverts are "well reasoned," please try and do a little investigative research beforehand. I don't mean to offend, but I do think this was a bit of lazy-editing on your part.-PassionoftheDamon 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for communicating. Please understand that engaging in a revert war is very negative behavior, most especially when people are attempting to communicate with you. Being dismissive of other people's opinions and refusing to communicate is bound to lead to additional problems. I recommend you avoid this sort of behavior in the future. I'd also like to point out that neither userbox's colors match those of the logos found at either [2] or [3]. Further, your userbox does not follow standard naming conventions. Userboxes have all sorts of verbiage in them and there is no particular standard. The userbox you disagree with also does link to the University of Miami. In short, you're acting on your opinion alone and have been quite reluctant to engage in conversation to build consensus or to achieve an amicable compromise in this dispute. Rather than continue to revert people (and someone has reverted your change, again) I recommend you contact the people listed at [4] who have the userbox you do not like transcluded, and begin a discussion on the issue, perhaps at Template talk:User University of Miami. --Durin 14:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, wrong on all counts. The colors in the previous userbox did not match the shade of the University of Miami's colors. What's more, the userbox made no mention of the fact that it was as "University of Miami" userbox (including nothing more than the phrase, "I'm proud to be a 'Cane!"). As these are userboxes listed on an "education" userbox page, a userbox should make some mention to the actual university in question, not just an ambiguous reference to the school's sports nickname. This proposition is further supported by the fact that just about every other userbox on the page includes language identical to "This user attends or has attended...". Perhaps if you would have taken the time to compare the prior userbox to the one that it was replaced with, these changes would have been apparent. But as I stated before, you engaged in egregiously lazy-editing, which is all the more troubling considering you're an administrator. In the future, it would be a good idea to actually take a look at the changes that were made before reverting. Otherwise, your reversions, as in this case, are bound to lack a reasoned basis--let alone a "well reasoned" one.-PassionoftheDamon 16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted before, the colors in BOTH boxes did not match. There is no standard on what verbiage a userbox must have within it. I did look at the histories and your characterization of my efforts in this regard as "lazy" is off the mark. Again, I invite you to engage in discussion rather than continuing the revert war. --Durin 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong once again. The colors do indeed match, and are the same colors used on the football page as the designated team colors. Simply stating your naked opinion that the colors "don't match" doesn't hold up. Furthermore, there is a standard as to what verbiage is used in educational userboxes--try taking a look at the page in question, rather than being so lazy in your editing. In fact, here's an exercise: of all the userboxes on that page, tell me how many do not contain matching language. Even NThurston has dropped his objection. Again, I urge you to quit being so indolent in your editing in the future.-PassionoftheDamon 16:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pointed you to the explicit location of the graphics I used as reference for the colors. This is not a "naked opinion". The colors do not match. For example, in the previously cited graphic at [5], the green color is #003300. For the one previously cited at [6] it is #1a5238. The green color located on the "U" graphic on the official U. Miami page located at [7] is #0f572f. The green color on your userbox is #223732. I.e., your color matches none of these. Thus, your assertion that your color is the "correct" one is in fact not correct. I'm sorry you disagree with these facts, but they are immutable facts. The "standard" you describe does not exist in any Wikipedia guideline or policy. With regards to your continued insults, please have a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You can engage in conversation with someone without describing them as "lazy" and "indolent". I encourage you to do so. All the best, --Durin 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


206.219.87.130 vandalism

[edit]

Thanks for the patient explanation - I'll keep a closer eye on the dates of t4 warnings. I've reported many vandals on the basis of an IP's edits being vandalism-only, with warnings posted. This seemed sufficient evidence for issuing a block, but I realize I've been ignoring the chronology. - Special-T 16:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock

[edit]

The case has closed and the results are posted at the link above.

  • Husnock is desysopped without prejudice to his re-applying for adminship via a Request for adminship.
  • Husnock is cautioned regarding improper use of alternative accounts or inappropriate postings by alter egos.
  • Husnock is cautioned to conscientiously follow Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research and image copyright policies when he returns to regular editing.
  • Husnock, who has been desysopped due to unblocking himself and apparently sharing the password to an administrative account with another user, is cautioned to strictly conform to Wikipedia policies should he again be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
  • Several of the users who contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive66#Death Threat Accusation added comments which served to inflame the situation (such as this sockpuppet [8]) rather than resolve it on mutually acceptable terms. They are encouraged to be more insightful and helpful in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 00:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

picture use

[edit]

Sorry I did not know not to use fair use image in user pages, and following the deletion I instead used a non-fair use picture in wikipedia for that page, is that OK? Wooyi 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Peter M Dodge

[edit]
The Barnstar of Good Humor
I'm not saying that I either agree or disagree with this dispute, and I am not taking sides...but this was some funny shit :P Kind regards, Anthonycfc [T • C] 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad you enjoyed :) I thought interjecting some humor might serve to lighten the mood up a bit. None of us in the little dispute are bad users or anything; we just got hung up in the "You're wrong!"/"No, YOU're wrong", "rabbit season!"/"duck season!" cycle. Needed to be broken, and walking away angry never seems like a good solution. --Durin 20:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]

Hey Durin,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

[edit]

I left you a reply here about that dusty old page of mine. NoSeptember 23:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Template wars

[edit]

Assuming the editor whom you have asked to build consensus actually does so, I will welcome such an act on their part. Apart from it being the lifeblood of this community we need to build it and abide by it even (perhaps especially) if we do not agree with its outcome. So I thank you for the firm line you are taking here.

Do you know a suitable and uninvolved experienced sditor who could close the consensus attemot on the 911ct template per se? IT doe snot have to be an admin, and must be seen to be impartial. Fiddle Faddle 23:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not believe he will be satisfied with things as they are now or are likely to conclude. I've recommended he take this to a WP:RFM as a next step. We'll see what comes of it. He obviously knows a great deal on the subject. I have no desire to push him away from the topic here; we need all viewpoints. But, the edit warring must stop. I've taken the line I have with him because he is the most egregious case of it in this matter, but he is not the only one; just the worst. Hopefully this will help resolve things. We'll see. But, this has gone on long enough without resolution and the outcomes are disruptive. --Durin 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little late

[edit]

I can't see what you removed. Using history I can't tell. It's OK if it was for a good reason, just tell me why and what you removed.
RED skunkTALK 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I need assistance changing my username from 'Kerlin Gallery' to 'info'...can you help me. --86.43.79.253 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Oalogo2.jpg

[edit]

I have created a new image for the OA templates - Image:OAArrowDevice.svg and Image:OAArrowVigil.svg. --NThurston 18:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw, quite a few days ago :) I don't care what happens to the image I uploaded. It was the one and only time I created a substitute for a fair use image that I removed from a template. Nobody was ever really satisfied with that image, and I expected it to eventually be replaced anyways. --Durin 20:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself as a albums wikiprojects

[edit]

Hi,

For some reason i have been blocked from editing completely everything on wikipedia. I have been a member for over a year now and feel that it is very unfair that i am blocked. Is there any chance thet i can get unbloked? Thank you. DuranDuran 12:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You haven't been blocked. When you are blocked, the only things you can edit are your talk page and your userpage. Since you posted here, on my talk page, you have not been blocked. I checked your block log as well at [9], and you've never been blocked. What problems in particular are you experiencing in editing? Also, you had two fair use tagged images on your userpage. I removed them as they are not allowed to exist on your userpage per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. --Durin 13:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Name Change

[edit]

Hello. I wish to change my user name. On the "Changing Username" wiki page it says specifically to not "copy the format of the last request on the page" but to use the template. So I hope the following is the right way to do it, since I really don't want to anger any admin:

Stop_The_Lies → Maîtresse

[edit]

Is that a proper request? Thank you so much for your time! Stop The Lies 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies[reply]

Question:

[edit]

Please, about placing photo substituting of Angelina Jolie on my User page. --Mahal11 19:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you placing photo substituting of Angelina Jolie on my User page?--Mahal11 18:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?? It is absurd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahal11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because while some users are happy to help others design their userpages, I prefer to focus my efforts elsewhere. I'm sure if there are free license images of her available that you will find them and be able to place them on your userpage. --Durin 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready

[edit]

Hi there: I've answered the questions. I'm not quite ready to transclude it yet (want to give it at least one more read through) but thought maybe you might also want to check it over and see if I've made any egregious errors or if anything looks less than good. Thanks so much for the detailed and thorough nomination! Heimstern Läufer 20:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good with two exceptions: 1) Don't forget to accept the nomination. 2) Minor correction in wording on the third question. Change "try simply ignore this" to "try to simply ignore this". When you do transclude, don't forget to update the time stamp on the RfA to be equivalent to when you transcluded it to WP:RFA. Looks great otherwise. --Durin 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair-use or no?

[edit]

In the article on Christopher Eccleston there is no fair-use image introducing the article (i.e. in the infobox), but accompanying each paragraph describing specific characters he has portrayed, there is a fair-use image of the character accompanying. I question the validity of that fair-use claim since there is nothing significant about his portrayal of those characters that would require a specific image, i.e. he doesn't look particularly different, nor do the images convey anything particularly unusual about his portrayal -- effectively, just how he looks. What's your thoughs on this? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

[edit]

You removed the coat of arms of Canada from the Template:Infobox Canadian government departments. I understand why. What I would like to bring to question is why then is it alright to put it on Template:Infobox Country or territory? → Icez {talk | contrib} 03:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because that coat of arms image does not actually exist on the template. When that template is invoked, it is called with the image such that it appears on the article where it is invoked, but does not appear on the template. Appearing on the template is not permitted. Appearing on the article is fine. Does that help explain? --Durin 04:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does! Thanks for clearing up!:) → Icez {talk | contrib} 17:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

I love you. 71.93.12.88 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How old are you and what's your name? 71.93.12.88

Image:UDaytonLogo.jpg

[edit]

This image really isn't orphaned. It is used in the {{user UD}} template:

UDThis user attends or attended the University of Dayton.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathonReinhart (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • It is orphaned because a fair use image must be used in a main namespace article in order not to be orphaned. Templates, userpages, project space, etc do not count towards this. The image is also a replica of Image:Udlogo.gif, which is used on the University of Dayton article. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to help. --Durin 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gotcha - I didn't realize that image was on University of Dayton - Do you think you could help fix that template? I'm not really good at that, and I just copied it from another Userbox. Now the image is too big, and the whole template looks like crap. You can go ahead and delete the image I uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathonReinhart (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I am all for having proper licensing for everything on Wikipedia. How can I go about getting a properly licensed image for the userbox? Several other of my friends from UD also contribute to wikipedia and I want them to have a nice userbox with our logo. Should I see if one can be released to public domain? or is there another license that applies to the userboxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathonReinhart (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two basic types of images at Wikipedia; those available under a free license and those that are copyrighted and used here under terms of fair use. We try to limit the amount of fair use images used as they are problematic with regards to copyright. You can try contacting University of Dayton to gain release of their logo(s) under a free license, but it is very unlikely they would make such a release. Thus, any official logo for UD is not going to be allowed in the userbox. For alternatives, see what people have done with university userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States. --Durin 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CD template

[edit]

You do realize the template is just name after the article right? Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, notice its not called CT ... It seems your comments in reply to me were assumnig bad faith. --NuclearZer0 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're assuming bad faith on my part :) Of course I realize what you're saying above. I still see this as an ongoing dispute over whether to call it a conspiracy theory or hypothesis. Regardless of the outcome of that debate, there should be one template, not two. --Durin 19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image use

[edit]

I did not upload the images. I found them on other pages within wikipedia. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for example you removed this Template:Cities of Kent County, Michigan, however if you looked here Kent County, Michigan the image is still there. I hope you know what your doing. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here is another Wayne County, Michigan. So why is ok on the one page but not my Template:Cities of Wayne County, Michigan? --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is acceptable for a copyrighted image to appear on an article if it contributes significantly to the article. It is not acceptable for it to appear on a template. I removed the images you added to the templates. I did not touch any articles in removing those images. Per our policies at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, copyrighted images may not be used on templates. Does that help clarify? --Durin 21:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ty. --ⅮⅭⅭⅬⅩⅩⅤⅠⅠ 21:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limited licenses

[edit]

You may be interested to know that a user recreated Template:Limited license. I tagged it with {{tfd}} with intent to nominate it for deletion, then reverted when I realized how confusing the contemporary circumstances were. Do you consider it appropriate to delete? If so, on what rationale? Also, please note Category:Limited license images. I would like to nominate them because they are blank and unnecessary. I would, however, support redirecting the template to the appropriate non-free license. I would appreciate your thoughts (and insight from deleted pages). Regards, Iamunknown 05:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The history behind it is that an organization (I think, not sure, it was National Geographic) permitted Wikipedia to use some images under a limited license. Brad Patrick set up the agreement with them. The images were used for a time, and then became unused. I happened across them, contacted various parties involved, and deleted the images and the template. Later, the template was re-created as a honeypot; it's a trap. If an image is tagged with that license tag, it automatically puts it up for speedy deletion. I don't think there are image currently using the tag. I've deleted the associated category. --Durin 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think its a good idea to put the template in Category:Image copyright tags and also an includeonly-category to include it in some speedy deletion category? --Iamunknown 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you like. I don't see the harm from that. Personally, I don't like the idea of the honey pot to set up a trap for users. This is a negative process, not a positive one. I'd rather we take great effort to educate users on acceptable media, and only take negative steps in regards to users who willfully violate our policies. A trap creates a negative environment. --Durin 13:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, to some degree; what I would like to do is redirect to a speedy deletion tag, which could arguably still be considered a honeypot trap, but which I think is less negative than the current process. --Iamunknown 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hey there. I just wanted to thank you (and indirectly Kim) for the links you posted in the discussion at WP:BN. Well, I had to turn the Dunbar's Number one blue by creating a redirect, and I had to correct a typo in the external link to the "Own Worst Enemy" essay, but once I got there, both were fascinating reading. I particularly liked "Bion was a psychologist who was doing group therapy with groups of neurotics. (Drawing parallels between that and the Internet is left as an exercise for the reader.)" (and on a personal note, ignoring the obligatory typo of the name, "Go onto a Tolkein newsgroup or discussion forum, and try saying "You know, The Two Towers is a little dull. I mean loooong. We didn't need that much description about the forest, because it's pretty much the same forest all the way."), plus "And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant."" etc, etc. But the really, really scary bit is this:

"This pattern has happened over and over and over again. Someone built the system, they assumed certain user behaviors. The users came on and exhibited different behaviors. And the people running the system discovered to their horror that the technological and social issues could not in fact be decoupled."

And then there is "As a group commits to its existence as a group, and begins to think that the group is good or important, the chance that they will begin to call for additional structure, in order to defend themselves from themselves, gets very, very high." and (worth bolding) "the dense, interconnected pattern that drives group conversation and collaboration isn't supportable at any large scale" and, oh wow: "We had every bit of technology we needed to do weblogs the day Mosaic launched the first forms-capable browser. Every single piece of it was right there. Instead, we got Geocities. Why did we get Geocities and not weblogs? We didn't know what we were doing." - makes me wonder if Wikipedia will end up in the Geocities dustbin of history? And then, this kind of thing: "Samuel Pepys' diaries of the 1660's turned into a weblog form, with a new post every day from Pepys' diary" - that sounds amazing. And the combined conference call/chat/wiki model sounds like it could work well once people get used to it. And then I came across another very relevant bit: "in all successful online communities that I've looked at, a core group arises that cares about and gardens effectively. Gardens the environment, to keep it growing, to keep it healthy." And then this bit reminded me of the trust issues at RfA (or in general on Wikipedia): "Almost all the work being done on reputation systems today is either trivial or useless or both, because reputations aren't linearizable, and they're not portable." and " Users have to be able to identify themselves and there has to be a penalty for switching handles." (aha, so that is why the Wikipedia software has an contributions log built in - penalty for losing the handle...). "When we start seeing effects of scale, we shut off the new user page." - hmm, would that fly here on Wikipedia? Anyway, I've quoted far too much, but I really enjoyed reading that, and it is one of those links that I will now e-mail to loads of different people. I have a few years experience of Usenet, and now of Wikipedia, and so many of the points made in that essay resonate with me. Thanks again for pointing it out. Maybe you might want to repost it at WP:BN and other places, in case people missed it first time round? Carcharoth 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a fascinating read. Like you, I found a number of quotes that directly correlated to Wikipedia and RfA. I spent a number of years on Usenet myself, and much of what the author says resonates with me as well. I posted it at WT:RFA just now. For the people who read it in full, it will have a significant impact. Reality is most Internet users do not spend significant time reading things in depth. Books are linear, and the Internet is not. Plus, people read black text on white background on a computer screen 25% slower than the same on paper (this gets worse as contrast between the text and background goes down, if web pages have other color settings). Getting someone to read an essay on the Internet that is that long is hard. At the core of this is human behavior and how we interact in large groups. --Durin 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thought I wanted to bounce off of you.

[edit]

I wonder how much the increase in actions per an admin has been due to the fact that admin tools now have more flexibility and thus admins have more opportunities to use them. In particular, the increase in number of admin actions per an admin occured when two major additions were added: the ability to semi-protect and the ability to block anon's only on an IP. I'm curious as to what you think about this. JoshuaZ 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this more, it might explain part of what has gone on but almost certainly doesn't account for all of the increase. JoshuaZ 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin stats

[edit]

Hi Durin. I know you've been doing a lot of research into requests for adminship, and I believe you are aware of my own stats page (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfA stats). Since I have probably conflicted with your own work, do you think it is worth me carrying on? I'd rather not be wasting my time if someone else is doing the exact same work. --Majorly (o rly?) 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been pondering this myself. Have a look at User:Durin/RfA results (feel free to cull data from that if you like). That's not all the data I have. I have data from June 2005 through near current, and also from June to September 2003. I'd like to fill in the 2003-2005 gap.
  • The differences in our work are negligible except that I include failed RfAs and your work does not. Your data is easier to come by, as the number of promotions are a subset of the overall nominations and (the hard part) you don't have to go step by step through RfA to track what RfAs have been made. I'll be frank, it's a royal pain in the tookus to walk through each and every edit to WP:RFA to get information on every RfA that is put forth. It takes about an hour, at current nomination rates, to run through about 10 days worth of RfA. Uhg. I wish there were a better way, but I don't know what that might be for the reason that not all RfAs make it to the unsuccessful list (or even all successful RfAs making it to successful list for that matter! :)).
  • Ah, I've just stumbled across a thought pattern... (oddly, they happen from time to time in my brain :)). I think you'll like this, and the work you are already doing would work perfectly within this. Let me get back to you. Watch my edits, as I think I'll be working on this shortly. Feel free to chime in as it develops... --Durin 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So are you still watching this page? NoSeptember 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I added my own image Template:User Melbourne High school

[edit]

I have created my own logo, please see if it suitable. Ajindustries 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

[edit]

Well, now that it's over, it's time for me to thank my nomintor for writing such a solid and thorough nomination for me. It clearly took a lot of time to review me in such detail, and for that I am quite thankful. Indeed, comments from certain users make it clear to me that your nomination garnered me a fair bit of support. Well, I mean to continue working on using the tools as well as I can to make Wikipedia better. If you have any comments on my performance as an administrator, I'd be glad to hear them. Thanks again for the excellent nomination! Heimstern Läufer 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mhs.png Ajindustries

[edit]

I thought that if i created a similiar work i would be able to use it in my user box. I believe that this image is better than the non coloured for the main space Melbourne High School (Victoria) article. Thanks for the tips and the warnings. Durin

Ajindustries 08:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

New logo for my user box.

[edit]

What happens if I use a smaller logo inside another image of writing, am i allowed to use that on non main space posts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajindustries (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Asking nicely

[edit]

You've said some very nasty things to me and made some serious charges. I'm asking one more time that you leave me alone. I have reviewed this website's policies and you having a private opinion about me doesnt give you the right to write negative things about me or remove things from my user page. I also am telling you again that I am not Husnock and do not accept that you have ever been able to prove that. Please just leave me alone. Thank you. -Pahuskahey 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Python logo and userboxes

[edit]

The python logo i uploaded is already in use, on the page for this programming language. It is just the logo, without the word "python" on its side like you can see on the page about it. I find it strange the logo and word together would be allowed, whereas the logo only makes copyright troubles. I didn't understand why you deleted the images on some other userboxes. These images were all used on Wikipedia pages... I guess i didn't get yet what was allowed or not in userboxes, and i'd be glad you helped me a little with that. It's not that i care that much about having userboxes on my user page, i just found they look neat, and help others to get a quick idea on what subjects i can help about... arikel 11:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The use of fair use images, such as the Python logo, is permissible on actual articles of Wikipedia such as Python (programming language). As described in our policy at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, we do not permit the use of such images outside of the main article namespace. This includes templates such as userboxes. If you look at Image:Python logo.svg, you'll see a box in the "summary" section that starts out "This is a logo...". In that box, it indicates that the image is copyrighted and the use of it here on Wikipedia must be under terms of fair use. Thus, it may not be used on templates. Similarly, the logo without the word "python" (Image:Python logo.png) may not be used on templates either. I hope that helps. If you have more questions, I'd be happy to answer! Thanks, --Durin 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

[edit]

Since you're our head statistician these days :) would you happen to have any stats on the average %support of succesful RFAs, or a gauss curve graph of support percentage vs. number of RFAs that pass with that amount? >Radiant< 14:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:User:ASDFGHJKL

[edit]

I did not mean to report User:ASDFGHJKL i was only trying to rv-vandilism on his user page. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalkTodays Pick 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

[edit]

Thanks, I didn't know that, its just when I checked the external links and it matched exactly I added the tag on assuming it was a real copyvio. Thanks for brigning this to my attention so I know for the future! Tellyaddict 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANX A MILLION!!

[edit]

Dear Durin, Thanx a million for the info on becoming an administator!! Well, I followed what you said and.... DRUMROLL....I NOMINATED MYSELF!!! Please help me further!! You are THE BEST!!! If I could report you for helping a SUPER LOT I would times a million!! Okay, here is my page..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FonzieBaby THANK YOU!!!FonzieRules! 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A SANDBOX!! OOOHHHH

[edit]

Okay, I really want to thank you on all the help!! Now all that help has given birth to a SANDBOX!!! OOOHHH! Okay it may sound dumb, BUT I never understood it B4 you! So, THANK YOU!! Please visit it!! All the methods on it have come from your discussion page!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FonzieBaby/Sandbox FonzieRules! 01:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELP MEEEE!

[edit]

what is this? It appeared when I tried to change my user page!! HELP MEEEEE! "The database has been automatically locked while the slave database servers catch up to the master" PLEASE HELP QUICK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FonzieBaby (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Periodically the slave servers fall behind the master servers. Since they need to be in sync, editing is sometimes temporarily disabled. Since you were able to leave me a talk message about it, editing was re-enabled. --Durin 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not filing any complaints

[edit]

I just wanted you to know that I'm not interested in filing any complaints against you. I did visit the Wikiquette alerts page but not to start a problem, just to get outside input since no one seemed to be responding to the conversation on the pump page. The last thing I want is a fight. The pictures you were so concerned about are gone from my page, just the one of myself and my wife remain and I am keeping that as a user photo which I am allowed under Wiki policies. Delete the others if you want. -Pahuskahey 15:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are filing complaints. Whether you wish to call it an RfC, a Village Pump post, or a Wikiquette Alert, you are indeed filing complaints about me. It would be far better for you to start a formal RfC on the matter. I've pointed you to where to do that, and offered assistance to you to help get it going. RfCs are not fights. They are a means and method to gain consensus on contentious issues. Casting posts about on various different forums on this project is not an effective way to stay out of a fight. Conducting an RfC is. --Durin 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the the other page was as it says: "a streamlined way to get an outside view about possible problems with how editors are working with each other". Clearly you and I have had a possible problem and I am trying to get an outside view. Also, I couldn't start an RfC becuase it says you need two people and have to show that the problem failed to be resolved. Since the photos have already been removed/deleted, that would seem to imply the problem has been solved. That's all, good night. -Pahuskahey 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You wanted me to leave you alone. It'd be best if you do the same with respect to me as well. Just stop making accusations against me as you have, which have no basis in fact. That's all I ask. The image is gone and you seem to no longer have a desire to re-post it. Dispute over. --Durin 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

[edit]

The time has come that I must address your "clerking" at WP:CHU. My initial reaction was to simply leave the page be until you lost interest, however, it's become a serious problem that cannot be ignored any longer. There is a staff of pre-screened clerks who are perfectly capable of keeping the page in order, and are aware of the wishes of the bureaucrats with regard to these pages; that you have introduced new and unwanted activities to the page without consulting with any of us demonstrates my point. The clerks have expressed confusion and frustration over your continued activities there, and have begun submitting resignations due to it; the fact that they are an important part not only of CHU and CHU/U, but also RFCU, makes the resignation of the entire clerk corps over this a serious issue. For some time, I have found your activities there frustrating, but in the interests of keeping peace, have simply ignored the page, often leading to substantial delays in requests being performed; it now comes to the point where others are being put off by it, and I'm forced to request that you please find some other task to focus on. Essjay (Talk) 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am utterly flabbergasted by this. My every intention in this has been to help the project, not to cause any harm to it. I did check, quite some time ago, whether there were any sort of official clerks regarding WP:CHU. There weren't, at least there was no mention of it at all on the WP:CHU or on its talk page and archives, or on Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Front matter. It was only on February 15, 2007..THIS year, THIS month that the addition was made to the instructions on front matter, and only a mention of it in the archives twice, in January 2007 and late December 2006. It is clear to me this is a breakdown in communication. A clerk corps apparently has existed for nearly two months, but only in the last two weeks was anything done to make it clear there was such a corps [10].
  • I have been contributing to WP:CHU since September of 2006, and I will readily grant that I do not read the front matter every time I look at the page. I DID check to see if there was any clerk position because I saw people using "clerk note" type annotation in their postings to the page. I couldn't find anything, proven by the above, and continued my efforts. I did not consult with anyone because there wasn't a clerk corps to consult with, at least not publicly visible. I'm sorry you do not appreciate my efforts, but they were done in good faith and after carefully checking my facts...as I always do. You didn't raise this issue to me before, in our disagreement from three weeks ago, and did not ask me to stop contributing at WP:CHU at that time.
  • Would you please inform me of who has resigned due to my actions? I would like to apologize to them. --Durin 14:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When Essjay says "the entire clerk corps" he means "the entire clerk corps". ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know. I can't find any on-wiki discussion related to this. Apparently, it all happened off-wiki. According to a post on his user talk page, he does not want to state who wants to resign because of my apparent interference and disruption [11]. I wish I'd known I was apparently interfering and disrupting things before people approached him with resignation notices. I just didn't know I was considered a disruptive, interfering user. I can't possibly correct something I am unaware of. --Durin 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with fair use images.

[edit]

Greetings, I was contacted by Will Pittenger. He suggested that some images on my talk page were not allowed there because of Fair Use, you can read the conversation here. These images are my own (re)creation of various logos. They have been correctly tagged and fairuse has been certified where I have not been able to release them to the public domain. I believe that eventhough they are copyrighted, the definition of "Fair use" would mean that the person that created them is allowed to display them... In anycase I don't believe this argument is valid - an example of this is the Image:Stargate-color.png image. Obviously this image is of a copyrighted work ([{Stargate]]), but it has been allowed on numerous userpages - and if we get down to semantics it should not be allowed to be released under a public domain licence because it is of a copyrighted work. Anyway, that's my rant, have a good day - Fosnez 08:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the man...

[edit]

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise or get you down. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Hynek

[edit]

Hi, Durin: On 14:41, 18 April 2006 you reverted vandalism ("(Reverted edits by 84.133.10.155 (talk) to last version by Bwilcke"). Again and again user 84.133.etc. replaces the passage that is not to be found in the given reference ("Revelations"), I read the book and especially searched for the quote, but did not find it. Moreover, what the quote says is included in the surrounding paragraphs anyway. So I don't know why 84.133.etc. replaces the wrong passage, and he refuses to give his reasons, on the contrary, he again begins to insult me ("(Bwilcke, stubborness won't help, this just ain't right so you better shut up"). I know him, he is a German whose contributions are confined to enter or provoke edit-wars - like here - and to rare minor (mostly unreasonable) "corrections". He likes to insult not only me but also others (e.g. got blocked once for incredible contentions about the familiy of another user, unknown to him).

Could you help, please?

Bwilcke (forgot my password) -- 84.176.56.251 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Bwilcke —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesFort (talk • contribs)

Email

[edit]

You have (at least) one :) Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPs

[edit]

A whole heap of IP's just leave venom on talk pages; I assure you that this is not such a message. Just wanted to let you know that the entire community appreciates your level-headed approach to just about everything that happens over here. 70.53.130.253 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adminship

[edit]

I was thinking of nominating myself toward the middle of March, when I expect to begin a long period of free time and thus higher activity. Outside obligations over the next two weeks will limit my contributions to time-sensitive project pages and maintenance of my usual articles. Thank you for your consideration, and I would certainly appreciate your support, but when the time comes I will probably nominate myself. BTW Encephalon appears to have made 3 edits in the past 2 months so you have a very generous definition of activity! Best, Christopher Parham (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was looking at the time difference over the last 50 edits :) True; 3 edits in the last two months. I didn't see that. Still, you did say you'd approach him first and I respect and adhere to commitments. As to self nom; be careful. I will re-iterate that I don't care who nominates you, just that it's blatantly obvious you should be an admin. Be aware; self nominations, even of long experienced users have a ~20% less chance of success. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_82#2006_RfA_In_Review for supporting data backing this up. Even noms of users >10,000 edits have an 18% better chance if not self-nommed. That's significant. It's silly really; all things being equal, there isn't any reason a self nom should have less of a chance of success than a non-self nom. Maybe there's something peculiar about self-noms that causes them to do poorly, or maybe it's contributors viewing self-noms poorly, or a combination. That's hard to discern. But, the track record says; don't self nominate if you want to succeed. There's no a single category of self-nomination users (based on edit counts) that has a better than 50% chance of success. I recommend you find someone to nominate you. If you want me to, I'll conduct a review of you. --Durin 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment on your self-nom analysis—you seem to be ignoring the possibility that there is another correlation between self-noms and chances of success that is entirely separate from people using that as a basis for support/oppose. I tend to think such a correlation is a more likely explanation. —Doug Bell talk 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't ignore it. I just don't think there's a ready way to discern it. There obviously is a reason. I just don't know what it is, and I doubt anyone else does. :/ --Durin 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing: avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. But I don't know how we'd design a double-blind study on this.... Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. The only thing I draw from it, which I admit is potentially misguided, is that having someone else self nom you helps to avoid this pitfall if the pitfall is rooted in the against-self-nom opinion of people voting at RfAs. If nobody is opposed to self noms because they are self noms, then its pointless. But, if some are opposed to self noms in general, then you avoid that by getting someone else to nom you. We have seen people vote oppose because it was a self nomination. *shrug* I don't care. If he wants to self nominate he can. I just want him to be an admin, and I think the best course of action is to get a nom from somebody else. --Durin 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people indeed view self-noms as intrinsically worse, then that is unreasonable and I see little reason to endorse such unreasonableness by catering to it. If indeed there is something other intrinsic failure that is correlated with self-nomination, then either I have this failure or I do not, and whether I self-nominate or not will not be relevant. Personally I feel nomination is useful for candidates who are unfamiliar with RfA. I am, if anything, far too familiar with it, so there is really no reason why I should be incapable of speaking for myself. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

[edit]

I hope you seriously consider running for ArbCom during the next elections. With your calm approach, facilities of analysis, and respected standing in the community, you would be an asset to the project in that role. —Doug Bell talk 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • thud. <dazed, confused look> whaaa? Ok, I'll grant this; I try desperately hard to remain cool under fire. I am still deeply embarrassed by some actions of mine more than a year ago and it's served as a cold, hard lesson for me since then. That said, I've never thought I would be well suited to ArbCom. Forgive me for traipsing into the court room analogy for ArbCom, but I see myself in such situations as more of a lawyer than a judge. Maybe someday I might be interested. Not right now though. Regardless, thank you very much for the kind words. Recent events have left me feeling very despondent about Wikipedia. It'll never be enough to make me leave Wikipedia; I won't ever leave over a conflict. But, when you've been run over by the steamroller a few dozen times you get to the point where you ask "Can I please ask you to grease that wheel? Please?" :) I suspect being on ArbCom is much like having the steamroller run over you *all* the time. --Durin 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Doug Bell on this one. --Kim Bruning 22:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image use

[edit]

Well, that's arlight.

Thank you for clearing that up with me.

--> •Tbone55•(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (Autograph Book) 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

[edit]

But just one question - is there anything besides editing articles that i can do to contribute to wikipedia?

Thanks,

Norkus007

Image:Well of Loneliness - Cape 1928.jpg

[edit]

Do I take it from your edit summary that you removed Image:Well of Loneliness - Cape 1928.jpg from Portal:United Kingdom/Featured/July 2007 (twice) simply on the basis of the tag? Do you apply the same strict rationale to images that appear in Wikipedia space, such as in WP:TFA (like this one has)?

Even assuming that a brownish page bearing the title of a book, its author, a logo, all within a black border, and little else, is capable of being protected by copyright, I don't understand the relevance of 1923 to a work published in the UK in 1928. While I am no copyright lawyer, as I understand it, there is no record of who created the title page, so, by my reckoning, copyright ran out in the UK after 70 years, in 1998. (The author of the text inside died in 1943, so the whole book - not just the rather banal front cover - will be out of copyright in October 2013). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I do apply the same rationale elsewhere. The reason is that it provides a clear line of delineation; we've tagged the image as being used here under fair use. Thus, it is not to be used outside of the main article namespace. If we suspect it's available under a free license, we need to verify that this is the case and then change the tag to reflect the new, better understanding of the image's copyright status. Then it can be used anywhere.
  • There isn't anything to assume that the work is copyrightable. If I were to pen a book, title it "Nice Day", and have my publisher make the cover of the book blanch white with the words "Nice Day" in the middle of it, it is copyrightable. Even if a work is simple in nature, it can be copyrighted.
  • The author of the text is in fact the author of of the cover as well; it's his book. His estate has rights to the book that are still extant, unless we otherwise verify that this is not the case. Reviewing Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain#General gives us some direction in this. In particular, the tag {{PD-old}} indicates "for images where the author died more than 100 years ago (1907)". The author has not yet been dead for 100 years. Given that amazon.com is currently selling this book [12], it seems fair to conclude this work is still under copyright. Thus, by extension, the bookcover (even of the original) is still under copyright as well.
  • If you can provide evidence that this work is in fact available in the public domain or released under some other free license, then please do so on the image's description page and update the tag to reflect that. At that time, the image can then be used on Portal pages or any other non-main namespace page. Until then, it may not be used outside of the main namespace. Hope this helps, --Durin 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - well, strict rules create hard cases, of course. Someone has tagged this as "fair use" because it is a book cover, I guess. I wonder if book covers dating before 1923 have such tags? I have posted a query about copyright status on the image talk page, for what good it will do.
Other than its date of original publication, and going by the UK copyright rule of publication plus 70 years, or author's life plus 70 years, I have no idea whether this image is free or not - how would I find out? The fact that Amazon sell copies of a work is neither here nor there, really: ignoring typographical arrangement, which would have a new copyright in a new edition, I am sure they sell Shakespeare, Milton, etc. (The edition that you link has a very different cover, incidentally.)
I'm not sure it is as simple as saying that the author of a book automatically obtains copyright on the cover attached to her book by her publisher. It seems very unlikely to me that Radclyffe Hall created this cover (she, incidentally, and it is a celebrated early work of lesbian fiction, so your "his" is quite amusing), and I am sure she did not create the cover of the version that you have linked.
You will get the copyright on your blank "Nice Day" cover simply by the act of creating it, but you will have a devil of a job showing that my "Nice Day" poster is am infringing copy of it. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not concerned about the use of pronouns in this matter. I stand corrected, but no insult was intended in any respect if you took any.
  • The general rule of thumb we follow here is that we assume something is copyrighted until proven otherwise. I'm sorry I can't point you to more resources on how to obtain information on that edition's copyright status. I wish I could, but I'm not a UK resident. --Durin 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no offence taken (and my apologies if you thought I had). I am sure she would not mind. Anyway, I have managed to confuse myself thoroughly by looking through our many and various pages of guidance on the subject of copyright, fair use and public domain. Never mind - life is too short to worry too much about the copyright status of a scan of a book cover that it almost 80 years old. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With specific regard to WP:TFA, the featured article page has been given an exception to Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. Exceptions are rare, and to my knowledge have only been granted with regards to the main page and pages directly related to it (such as WP:TFA). --Durin 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. The rationale for this exception is to allow use that advances (the page says "necessary", but I am not convinced that even TFA is "necessary") the goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Given that the image is being used here to illustrate an explanatory blurb on a portal, just like it was in TFA, I don't see how this is any to TFA - surely a brief description of a work, accompanied by an image of it, is the archetypal "fair use"? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of fair use images on portals has been debated repeatedly before, and no proposal to allow it has managed to pass. Personally, I'd rather not see fair use images used on the main page; it's screaming out "we're free, but not really!". But, the decision isn't mine. As for whether something is fair use, maybe it is. The legal particulars though are deprecated here in favor of policy. Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 says "even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law". So, while it may be fair use, it doesn't matter. Policy trumps the use in this case. --Durin 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has it? I must have missed those debates, fascinating thought they no doubt are. It seems a bit peculiar to have a policy that denies us legal use of images, but there we are. All with the best of intentions, I am sure. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basic core of the stance goes to ease of management. If we allowed fair use when it is legal, then we'd need a defense of the legality of the fair use in that case. We have a hard enough time getting people to add fair use rationales to images, much less add fair use rationales for why it is fair use everywhere it is used. Instead, we provide a clear line of demarcation; no fair use outside of actual articles. It's easy to manage, easy to explain. We don't have to be legal experts in fair use to be certain of whether a use is right or wrong; we just follow policy. --Durin 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for speaking up

[edit]

I award you this wiffle bat for your thoughtful commentary at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Clerks. As always, you present well researched and careful opinions in a polite and courteous manner, always putting the project first, and I want to be the first to say that I appreciate it a great deal. Each time I see you speak it seems my respect for you is elevated :) Thank you for bringing your voice of reason and kindness to the project. Kyle Barbour 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tiffs

[edit]

Some bizarre things happening in wikipedia these days. All i can say is i'd rather have more like you. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's frustrating to me because my every intent in posting this in response to him was to point out that I understood his outburst was not something he had control over, and I forgave him for it. No attempt on my part was made to act or sound as if I was somehow superior to him. My every statement on Wikipedia has continually and routinely shown that I do not hold any good-faith user in any higher or lower respect than I hold myself. This includes even Jimbo, whom I have taken to task twice before for what I felt were errors on his part. Regardless, I recognized post-facto that there were other ways of interpreting my comment towards him. Because of this, I apologized twice to him [13][14]. In the last, I specifically asked him "If there's something more that I can do to make up for this error on my part, by all means please let me know." Despite this, he remains offended and continues to attack me for it. I think his userpage at this point counts as a personal attack towards me in lieu of my continued (and still extant) apologies to him. If he wants to leave Wikipedia, that's his business and I wish him the best of luck in future endeavors. But, it is inappropriate for him to use his userpage as a soapbox to blast other editors on Wikipedia. In fact, it is directly against our userpage guidelines and Jimbo's wishes. See Wikipedia:Userpage#What_can_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, and specifically the quote from Jimbo "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea". I have no means of defending myself on his userpage. It is inappropriate for me to post a rebuttal there. It's inappropriate for me to remove the personal attack, since I'm the target of the personal attack. Yet, the attack remains. I've apologized twice now. I remain at his disposal if he has a suggestion on how I can make amends. I never, ever, intended any sort of insult towards him. My intent was solely to forgive him the outburst against me and to move past it.
  • I appreciate your compliments! --Durin 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

For this~ I came across it and noticed Hitler, it got hit about fifty times in the next ten minutes. You're awesome. --Hojimachongtalk 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for some advice

[edit]

I have read User:Durin/Admin voting measures, and would like some advice about your expectations for prospective admins. My first RfA (last November) failed because I had less than 500 edits and little-to-no experience of XfDs, deletion policy, and similar matters. Since then I've chalked up over 3,000 edits, participated in hundreds of XfDs, participated actively in vandal-fighting (mainly RC patrol), and gained a lot of policy experience. Needless to say, I also have a clean history (no blocks etc.) and have never been involved in a serious dispute (except as a member of the AMA, through which I participate in dispute resolution). Would you consider me a suitable candidate for adminship? (I know I am in violation of your rule about flashy signatures, but would be willing to change back to a regular signature if it would make you more likely to support me at RfA.) Walton Vivat Regina! 19:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't support or oppose people over flashy signatures :) It does affect my choosing to nominate them, but it's really a pretty isignificant point. It sounds from the above like you've done your homework. Without reviewing you further than the above presentation of yourself, it seems like you should have an easy time at RfA. --Durin 19:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I self-nom for RfA, would you be prepared to support? Walton Vivat Regina! 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for some (image) advice 2

[edit]

Durin, I came across Image:24DNTV.PNG earlier today. The image is currently listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 3 because, as the rational says, "This image is essentially a copy of the 24 logo displayed at http://www.fox.com/24/ and it is currently labeled as in the public domain. If this image is changed to fair use, it will have to be deleted under CSD-I5, since this image is only being used on userboxes." It has started an uproar at the IFD and the image's talk page. I know you very amicably and sensibly resolved the Google-box issue. Would you consider becoming involved in this one as well? --Iamunknown 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, but no thanks. I'm stepping back, at a minimum, from any adminship duties (just resigned), FU issues, WP:CHU, and WP:RFA. Enough people have found my contributions in these areas to be damaging to the project that it is better if I step aside. For what it's worth, Image:24DNTV.PNG is a blatant copyright violation and is clearly a derivative work. People can complain if they like that "it's just numbers!". But, in reality, it isn't just numbers. You could make the same argument about the Google logo. It's just letters! It's the font used, the color on the numbers, the arrangement of the numbers...these combined create a copyrightable element. There are plenty of logos out there that are little or nothing more than letters/numbers. Yet, they are protected. Thus, any assertions that this image is fully in the public domain are absolutely wrong. --Durin 04:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind and added a 'delete' note. I was motivated to do so by the rational for it being PD at the image's talk page. --Durin 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Hoosiers

[edit]

Accepting your logic, four of them don't have articles... Lambertman 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming de-adminship request

[edit]

To steward: Confirming de-adminship request. --Durin 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To others: I am not going to discuss why this is happening. It has nothing to do with any comments anyone has made to me of late, either on my RfB or anywhere else. This is not a fit of animosity towards the project or any users. I don't expect to be able to convince some people of this, but my reasons are based in sound, rational decisions I made some months ago. For those of you who might be sad that I am stepping down as admin; forget about it. One admin of >1000 is meaningless. One editor of tens of thousands of active ones is meaningless. What any of us do here is meaningless in the grand scheme. We are all worker ants, and inconsequential by ourselves. There's been plenty of crises that Wikipedia has faced. Most recent of this was the Essjay situation. Wikipedia will continue on, and these crises will be largely forgotten. Me stepping down as admin isn't even newsworthy on Wikipedia, so it's hardly consequential. Relax. Go edit. Do something productive. --Durin 03:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're like THE go-to guy for WP:FU. Sad to see you leaving adminship. Can't say losing such a productive admin is meaningless, but if this is what you want, then we can't stop you. Hopefully w'll still see you around.--Wizardman 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find somebody else. Personally, I think the fair use system is horribly, horribly broken here. I think it's a matter of time before the Wikimedia Foundation finds itself the subject of a very serious lawsuit over copyright abuses. Only then, only then will something be done to truly enforce copyright around here. That is, if Wikimedia survives the lawsuit (though with the recent fund drive clearing a million dollars, they might have deep enough pockets to survive it now). My efforts in the fair use realm were little more than attempting to spoon-bail the entire Nile River into the desert. They were laughably inadequate. I conducted something like 3,000 fair use image abuses over the span of about a year. At one point, I know there were in excess of 45,000 abuses by one estimate. Another estimate had it over 70,000. There just isn't enough horsepower under the current system to properly police the copyright violations on this site. I've raised this issue multiple times, but nothing happens to correct this massive shortcoming. --Durin 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is shocking and disappointing. If you had made these decisions months ago, then perhaps you shouldn't have done an RfB in the first place. --Hemlock Martinis 04:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'm quite happy at the outcome of the RfB. I fully expected it would not pass. I did not submit it with the hope that it would. I submitted it with the hope that it might be enough to bring people to conclude the RfB system, at a minimum (if not the RfA system in toto) is broken. Hopefully it helps to push the cart in that direction. If by some miracle it had passed, I would have happily conducted myself appropriately as a bureaucrat and done the job I had volunteered to do. But, I considered that an extremely remote possibility. I did not lie in any respect in my RfB, nor would I. It was not a falsely based attempt at wasting anyone's time or effort. I hope some good will come of it. I don't expect it will, but the effort had to be made. If we don't make the effort, we're doomed. RfB is badly broken. Consider; if we applied the same level of expectations to WP:ARBCOM, we would have promoted just three people to ArbCom during these past elections. *3*. That's it. But, the project decided in advance that any such arbitrary measures would hopelessly gridlock ourselves into oblivion, and took a different path that allowed ArbCom to do its job. Thus, a number of candidates with less than 90% were given seats on ArbCom. I can easily argue that it would "make sense" to have the threshold at ArbCom be 95%; after all, it is the most important and most difficult to accomplish position on Wikipedia. Surely we need *really* good candidates, right? Only two candidates met that threshold. Yet, Jimbo added 7 people to ArbCom. The RfB process is, not entirely said without my tongue in cheek, gridlocked by bureaucracy and an unwillingness to see the end purposes of the project. Instead, people are too wedded to the process itself. Ironically, I'm the one being called a "process wonk". Rather funny really :) --Durin 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a lot of the oppose comments in yours were pretty foolish. Had I been available I would've argued a lot more than just my one comment. Even so, I disagree with your decision to resign. You can do far more good on the inside than on the outside. --Hemlock Martinis 07:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be the case, and it might not be. I've received enough hate spewings that it is obvious my presence in these matters is very disruptive to Wikipedia. Nothing is more important than the project. I tried for a very long time to bring about positive change, with the result being a considerable amount of hate generated towards me. I effected no change in the process. The math becomes rather easy :) Case in point; I raised the issue of clerks on Wikipedia. In particular, the WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U clerks which were created without discussion on Wikipedia, without any consensus to do so. It was unilaterally done, and became an exclusive club. When someone did something that they were 'responsible' for doing, they attacked that person (me). Now, I need to wait on a waitlist of interminable length in order to help out, to volunteer? This is blatantly, absolutely ridiculous. When I raised the issue in abstract, I was heavily attacked by multiple people. Nobody apparently sees enough of a problem with this to say "Um, this is blatantly anti-wiki". It's hysterical really. If this sort of bureaucratic mentality is allowed to prevail, Wikipedia is going to be in very sorry shape in the future. New users are our lifeblood. This sort of behavior turns people off in droves; exclusionary clubs always do. --Durin 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry (read: shocked) to see this. I've always had respect for you as an admin and hope that you will sometime choose to re-accept adminship. --BigDT 04:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There isn't any need. There's plenty of admins to fill my role. I wasn't even one of the top 20% most active admins. My admin activities have apparently been a serious detriment to the project, to boot. So, no need to keep the admin bit. The goals of the project trump every other consideration here, and every user here. There are, I'm sure, a number of people who appreciated my efforts here as an admin. But, that can be said of any admin here, even the worst ones. There is no admin forcibly de-adminned who did not have supporters. I don't mean to minimize your kind words. I just want to note that in the grand scheme I'm just as meaningless as an anonymous IP making a spelling correction from "hte" to "the". I matter not. Five years from now, you'll be hard pressed to even remember me :) As I said above, relax, go edit. --Durin 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation above (to H.M.) which sheds a little more light on your thought process, although frankly given the timing it is inevitable that people will conclude you left in response to the unsuccessful RfB, and I wish you had waited a few days if only to avoid people reaching, albeit wrongly, that conclusion. May I ask whether you intend to remain involved as an editor, as I hope, rather than leave entirely. And I would also be interested in your comments, if any, on the issue I raise here. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish I could respond to you, in full. I have the utmost respect for you. Unfortunately, I can't. I will probably contribute to the discussion at WP:RFA, since as I've noted above I think I've successfully proven the RfB system, at a minimum, is horribly broken. --Durin 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precisely...both Rfb and Rfa are lousy. Nice thing is, if you decide you want to be readminned, all you have to do is ask...and presto! (But I am deeply troubled by your desire to be deadminned and hope you reconsider...quickly) Not to disparage those that opposed your Rfb, but honestly, what is the big deal...I see no evidence you would have promoted admin nominees without a clear consensus, and well, bot flags and changing usernames...those are just more tools. So the opposition seemed to more interested in using your Rfb nomination as an opportunity to make comments as preposterous as "I cannot think of a more unsuitable candidate to occupy such a position"...a more unsuitable candidate? Okay, yeah, sure, that makes a lot of sense. As far as you nominating yourself so soon after Essjay resigned, so what...like you were standing over some guy YOU just killed off just so you could get his old job! Facts are, with Essjays leaving, there is reason to seek a replacement, and what's the sense in waiting...I simply don't get it.--MONGO 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I could be re-adminned. But, there really isn't any point. My primary work here really wasn't as an admin anyways. Yeah, I did a bunch of deletions and occasionally (very occasionally) used blocks to enforce policy. But, my work as an admin is readily replaceable. There won't be any significant harm to the project by my not conducting admin work. If instead of resigning my adminship bit I had just stopped doing admin stuff, nobody would have noticed. Same applies with giving up the admin bit. Nobody will notice in terms of actual impact on the project.
      • Rebecca (Ambi)'s comment was pretty funny. I was on her shitlist for a long time (User:Rebecca/Users to watch). People raised a massive fuss about other people's shitlists, and those were deleted. That one still exists. I expected an oppose from her, just because she hates me. It's an irrational oppose, and speaks a heck of a lot more about her than me. I also really thought Kelly Martin's oppose, which was the first on the RfB, was absolutely hysterical. Contrast her statement with a message she left on my talk page back in December [15]. Obviously two-faced. I'm perfectly willing to accept criticism when it's based in some reality. But, these comments are about as disconnected as they come.
      • Part of the reason why I wanted to give up the adminship has to do with your de-adminship. I *almost* gave it up when you were de-adminned. Your deadminning is possibly the most irrational thing I've seen on Wikipedia. The arbitrators never could satisfactorily answer the challenges I put before them. The net result of their actions proved very chilling to my actions. I almost entirely stopped editing contentious pages after that ruling. Their ruling essentially came down to that if you're an admin, and you use your privileges on a contentious page, you stand to lose your privileges. I.e., the vandals and trolls win. *shrug* If that's the Wikipedia they want...
      • The timing of the RfB opposition is just political grandstanding. It proves part of what is wrong with RfA and RfB. It's political. When someone applies should be absolutely meaningless, unless we have pre-determined election cycles as we do with ArbCom. I refuse to play these political games. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to game systems into our political favor so we can spend our volunteer times in ways that we want. Anybody running for RfB now needs a political adviser and a public relations/image consultant just to make sure they don't screw up. Oh what a tangled web we weave. --Durin 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Durin, I promised not to join in the chorus of voices, but given your engagement in the discussion I'm going to go against my previous promise. I hope you reconsider. I hope if you don't, you stay as an editor. I'll even stop saying we don't need to reform RfA and RfB if you do. You've proved your point, OK? I get it. Please reconsider. —Doug Bell talk 09:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is such terrible news. I think you have been an excellent admin, taking on the thankless task of dealing with fair use issues. I would have supported you in the RFB, though I was waiting a few days before voting for anyone. From what I've seen of you as an editor, you have done excellent work too. We need you to stick around. --Aude (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll re-iterate what I've said before. All of us are worker ants, and there's nothing that I do that is irreplaceable. I'm not even in the top 1/5th of most active administrators. My lack of activity as an administrator will not be noticed, and if I hadn't stepped down and just stopped doing admin stuff, nobody would have noticed. It's only because I publicly (by way of this talk page) did so that anybody has even noticed.
  • Nobody's yet produced any reason why I should come back. Now, don't take that wrong; I'm not asking people to say "we need you, please come back! Especially because XYZ" etc..etc..etc.. I am saying that there isn't a reason why I should come back as an admin that makes sense in the context of the worker ant analogy. We've had plenty of people considerably more involved in the project than I who have stopped doing what they do, with no significant impact to the project. Stop 1 along the tour of such people is Larry Sanger. Even if Jimbo himself left, Wikipedia would continue on. We might miss some people, but the actual functioning of the project goes on. It is important to stay focused on what it is we do here and forget any social/political ramifications of any one user staying or leaving. It's quite meaningless. If Larry can leave without the project collapsing, it sure as heck is the case that any of us can leave without any particular impact on the project. :) --Durin 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Top 1/5 of administrators? such numbers don't matter that much. I noticed you taking on tough issues, which surely will bring trolls and some backlash. I don't have the patience or temperament to handle issues such as fair use, and won't be replacing you and your efforts. I'm not sure who will. You will be missed and not that easy to replace. --Aude (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for "nobody would have noticed", I would have noticed since I now have the "User rights log" pages bookmarked and look at them and like to see what's going on. --Aude (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, losing one (good) administrator is quantitatively worse than losing one non-admin; the mean active admin is demonstrably more productive than the mean active non-admin, that's why the wind up as admins. Merely numerically, we should wish you well without your sysop bit and carry on. There'll be a new admin promoted shortly, and plenty more after that.

Numerically, though, is not what Wikipedia is about. Rarely has so much been produced by so few for so many. Rarely does something so open to abject collapse hold together. The admins are to a pretty key extent, the glue that holds this place together. (Non-admins: clearly you are of essential vitality too, but this place would be a bit like 28 Days Later without the admins, only it would not take so many days to descend.) Durin, a good admin, one who learns their way and studies their craft, who gets it right more than wrong and who has a high feedback coefficient when they do get it wrong becomes a guide for others to follow, footsteps to mark the way. Long-serving admins (yes, you are, NoSeptember says so) have an accumulated body of knowledge — institutional memory, if you will — that others, admins and non, learn from and develop in light of. A softly-spoken but unafraid admin can, by virtue of having the buttons to mean what they say, see to it that a thing is done right and not wrong. A well-established admin, Wikipedically-expert in a field can lend that guidance that the rest of us need in that field, and show how something can be done and made to stay done, or undone can caused to remain undone. Then others learn how too, and go on to teach still others. This, really, is the value of a Good Admin. You are, by all accounts, such an admin.

Now, we have some admins-emeriti that do very well, thank you, without the bit, and you will too. But I think the question has to be whether the project, in the short-, medium- and long-terms has benefit that could be derived from the experienced retaining their buttons still. That, probably incalculable, equation is the acid test. Do at least consider it. Splash - tk 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very well spoken.
  • I have to admit that the issue of "accumulated knowledge" is part of what kept me going after fair use violations. About 3-4 months into it, following my clearing out every violation in every userbox, I came to a point where I wanted to give it up. I stayed in it precisely because of the accumulated knowledge bit. With the self-training on this issue, and knowing right off when I see an image whether it is highly likely to be a violation, or one that seems likely but I have reviewed before, I was very efficient at handling it. Maybe there were others better than I; but I was good at it. I could zip through pages like Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States in seconds and immediately spot those that had it wrong. But, the fair use issue is one that is realistically impossible to fight. As I noted above, I was spoon-bailing the Nile into the desert. I think I got Repetitive strain injury from it :) So, while I did help in that realm, ultimately it doesn't matter. Nobody can beat the fair use problems. Want to know what one of the most hysterical things about fair use abuses is? On every...every...page we say "The free encyclopedia". Yet, Raul654, one of the most trusted users on Wikipedia, routinely puts up a featured article with the picture being a fair use image. We're a free encyclopedia, yet we're hawking our wares with non-free imagery. Ridiculously stupid and absurd. The culture here vis-a-vis copyrights is way, way off base and nobody cares enough to do anything about it. Nobody will care enough until there is a lawsuit. There will be one. Count on it.
  • As to getting it right more often than wrong. I'll grant that I probably did. But, enough people here have concluded that I am a highly disruptive presence. I find it absolutely hysterical that I am found at fault for eventually protesting User:Husnock's attacks against me. For more than a week he conducted a verbal assault on me, making all sorts of accusations from minor to breaking the law against him and his family. Nobody raised a finger in protest for quite some time. It was only after I pointedly talked to two members of ArbCom that anything happened, and yet STILL he went unblocked with no serious warnings. The guy was uploading a dizzying array of images in blatant violation of our policies here. When I called that into question, I was roundly attacked for it. I have enough patience to watch paint dry on a few dozen houses while he flailed wildly against me. Apparently, I should have never said anything, else I'll lose in an RfB. Oops, can't do my job here because I might upset somebody enough to protest me at any turn. User:RickK was right. Read his userpage. I encountered someone who was worse than a vandal or troll. I encountered someone who was blatantly violating copyright. For trying to get that resolved and protect the project, I am prevented from volunteering my efforts in ways that I think can help. For doing the right thing, I am prevented from doing the right thing. That's a fatal flaw.
  • The net sum of this is that it doesn't matter if I can provide a guide or not. Oddly enough, I did provide a guide at WP:GRFA. For my efforts, I was soundly attacked and accused of all manner of things.
  • Wikipedia is not a meritocracy. As a result, it suffers from a huge number of problems. Of course, it would suffer from other problems if it were. What Wikipedia operates on is social currency. If people like you, then you can do what is right. But, if you do what is right too much then people won't like you. If people don't like you, you won't be allowed to volunteer in ways that you can help. Within this framework, it's impossible for me to do what I am best at. I can't do the right thing.
  • Want to know what the RIGHT thing is? The right thing is for me to go and remove any mention of clerks from WP:CHU and restructure the page to be more user friendly and accepting of people. Essjay (forgive me for walking on graves, I know not what I do and can't imagine why I should care about the political ramifications of that) unilaterally decided that WP:CHU should have clerks. He didn't discuss it in the open with anyone. He didn't bring it up on the WP:CHU talk pages. He didn't bring it up at WP:BN. He just instituted it. To hell with consensus, to hell with working within the community. Have a look at the now deleted User:Essjay/Never pee in the sandbox. Essjay was deliberately and blatantly creating a little fiefdom for himself and his pet clerks. Anyone who dared mention this was problematic was shredded. Now, if I go to WP:CHU and do the right thing, I will be labeled as disruptive. If I keep it up, I'll be blocked. Ridiculously absurd! But you know what? Nobody's going to do a damn thing about it.
  • Every person here should be fighting tooth and nail against this ridiculous bureaucratic growth. Yet, nobody will. Count on it. Nobody is stupid enough (well, apparently except me) to raise issues with these things. To do so spends social currency. To do so means that down the road you're going to be prevented from doing things because you can't win an election. So, unless you become a mainspace gnome and stay out of the way of the social (read: non-mainspace) areas of the project, you're screwed. It's a silly, stupid system but that is what has been wrought.
  • The lobster is being boiled. But, the only people in a position to do anything about it are the other lobsters in the pot. You're all victims of yourselves. --Durin 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed your RfB, sorry i could not comment. If you are getting opposed by the likes of Kelly Martin and Ambi, and you not a trolling vandal (you're not), then you must be doing a lot right. You would have got my vote for sure. I realised long ago that the social element was a problem here. Esperanza was an open version but clearly there are similar groups operating behind closed doors. There are just too many who care about the clubs and cliques rather than the encyclopedia itself. There must be a thesis in this for someone. David D. (Talk) 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I once noted that rather than being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is an experiment in sociology and that indeed someone could base their PhD work on it. There's certainly plenty enough raw data. --Durin 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feelings echo what Splash has said. Just because we all are "worker bees" does not mean that we shouldn't fight to keep each worker bee going, especially the veterans. The project may not miss the work you do as an individual, but that is a quantitative measure. Wikipedia was not built on the sum of this type of quantitative measure -- it was built because of the influence every member of the project has had on every other member of the project and their work. This makes members of the project, especially proven veterans like yourself, much more valuable than their individual work. -- Renesis (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we label the group of people in opposition to me as a minority (which I doubt), it's still a significant enough minority that there really isn't a reason why I should not view myself as a disruptive, interfering, officious, inflexible user. I'm using about 1/5th of the pejorative terms used against me :) Maybe 1/10th :) I'm in the way. The needs of the project outweigh my needs...which are none. I have no 'need' to edit here, or 'need' to be an admin. A better expression of support for the project would be to take every measure to correct the attitudes of people like User:Sumoeagle179 and User:Gmaxwell, who opposed my RfB because I eventually became irritated, after days and days and days of verbal onslaught and nobody raising a finger to help me, with User:Husnock's blatant attacks upon me. I bent over backwards to accomodate Husnock, doing everything under the sun to educate him, help him, and get him to understand the copyright issues here. Instead of being told I did the right thing, I was treated like crap, and worse told that if I raised an issue with how I was treated, I was "inflexible" and "overly sensitive to criticism". I guess my even raising this issue here proves I am overly sensitive. Ok, I guess we shouldn't be overly sensitive to a user blatantly and willfully violating our copyright policies. Better yet, we should tear down any user who stands in support of our copyright policies; they are inflexible policy wonks after all. --Durin 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC) PS: Congrats on the username usurpation :)[reply]
    While you may have had your share or more than your share of insults thrown at you, I disagree with your assessment that they are correct and/or representative of enough people to label you as in the way or disruptive. In addition, anyone who opposed you "per Kelly Martin" should be ashamed of themselves, as her statement was completely out of line, unhelpful, and a pathetic appeal to those who are sorry for the loss of Essjay (as if we should mourn for a period before we make sure we can get done without him what was being done with his help). -- Renesis (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully expected Kelly Martin to oppose my RfB. She is still bitter about the failing of her RfB, and blames me for it. An interesting contrast to her position is this edit she made leaving me a message on my talk page back in December. I also fully expected Gmaxwell and Rebecca to oppose; both have hated me for as long as I opposed Kelly Martin. *shrug* --Durin 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, apparently that's what you get for spending your social currency! :) -- Renesis (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Brother/sister, can you spare a dime?" :) --Durin 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use image thought

[edit]

Durin, I know that you've probably thought of this before, but here goes: would it feasible to find out, by analyzing a dumped Wikipedia database, which fair use images are being used in non-article space? Would you consider helping out with that? I would like to, although I admit I would be unable to contribute to the analysis of the dump. --Iamunknown 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's actually been done. That was one of the estimates that arrived at a figure somewhere in the 40 thousands of fair use image violations. That was roughly a year ago. Not sure when. But, yes, it's been done. It's a great idea of course. The crucial thing that is really needed is to have something to act on that data. There's been calls for a bot to do the work by more people than myself. Nothing has come of it yet. One of the chief underlying problems to all of this is that there are a *dizzying* array of people who simply do not care whether they are violating copyright. I recently ran into a user who was mad as heck at me because I was making his userbox not look pretty. So, if we have a bot enforcing fair use image abuse, people will intentionally tag images improperly so it gets past the bot. If we had 50 people working every day on fair use image abuse, we'd incur similar problems. It's pretty much a no-win situation. That's why I think it will take a serious lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation before anything is really done about this.
  • And you want to know what the kicker in all of this is? This is just *images*, which are usually relatively easy to figure out. I don't even want to think about the textual copyright violations that are all over the site. It's a wonder to me that a lawsuit hasn't been filed yet. --Durin 13:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are people who are in power to make policy among the dizzying array? If not, then we might be able to get copyright violations to be a blockable offense. --Iamunknown 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All policies at Wikipedia are editable by anyone. So, I assume you mean people in board and/or ArbCom positions? I don't know of anyone at those levels who is making copyright violations. People do get blocked if they repeatedly violate our copyright policies. --Durin 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree. Even if Wikimedia itself can survive a major lawsuit or two, one of our goals is to produce a body of open content that others can use... Given how frequently we find copyright problems, and how ineffective our process for discovering and preventing copyright problems is, it really degrades the value of the content we distribute, because it's nearly impossible for someone else to comb through and try to fix all the copyright issues. --Interiot 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The very thing that makes Wikipedia work, an open model, can ultimately not work within the constraints of copyright and have any chance of success. There will be a lawsuit. When it happens, Wikipedia is going to have to take a very long, very hard look in the mirror. What we are ultimately can not be. Other major sites have been sued before, most recently youtube. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. --Durin 18:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for resigning

[edit]

Durin, I wish that you hadn't resigned. I know you felt it appropriate because you felt that your activities weren't appreciate and, even worse, spurned. I'm sorry I never supported you; I always admired your work with fair use images. Besides going on a fair use removal rampage, is there anything you think I could do to help you out? And further, is there anything you think I could do to help out Wikipedia at large? --Iamunknown 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I need to separate this out and respond to the apparent reasons. I did not resign because my activities weren't sufficiently appreciated or because they were spurned. I resigned for private reasons that are tied to a decision I made some months ago. I do feel that I am sufficiently enough an obstacle to Wikipedia that my presence is unwanted and disruptive. I can cite a large number of users who believe this. Some of these same users insist I am inflexible and incapable of taking criticism. The proof against that is my willingness to step away. If, as they say, I am as bad as they think then obviously the best course of action is to remove myself from editing. If that's not proof of being flexible and open to criticism, I'm at a loss as to what I could do to prove otherwise. Regardless, it has little to do with why I resigned my adminship. I've probably blurred that distinction in some posts of mine. Consider the error on my part corrected, and take this statement in whole. --Durin 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to what you can do to help the project; you're a volunteer. Find things that interest you here, and conduct yourself appropriately. It's that easy. I think you already know what to do. So go do it :) --Durin 19:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know which users you are referring to, I'm going to talk with them. --Kim Bruning 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24DNTV.PNG

[edit]

When you undo someone else's edits to put in a tag they removed, it would be helpful to review the rest of their edits to see if they were helpful. I had to merge your edit with that of another editor because of this lack of care. Nardman1 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Husnock/Durinconcerns

[edit]

FYI, User:Husnock/Durinconcerns has been nominated for deletion. Since it concerns you, you may wish to offer a !vote on it. --BigDT 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia has been an amazing source of comedy for me today. Months back, Husnock launches a full-on assault against me, accusing me of a dizzying array of actions consistent with gross misconduct, including even breaking the law in real life. Nobody dares to step in and actually do something about it. Can't step on any toes now can we? That would be unseemly and others might not like what we do. So, let Husnock go on his week+ long diatribe against Durin. So, Durin eventually fights back.
  • Months later, at his RfB, Durin's RfB is torpedoed in part because he eventually fought back.
  • A day later, someone comes along and says "Gosh, maybe that blatant attack page against Durin wasn't such a hot idea afterall".
  • This is just _too_ funny! I dare anyone to write better comedy than this stuff. Robin Williams would have a hay day with this!
  • In the end, it doesn't matter if it's deleted or not now. It already had the effect of, at least, partially destroying my persona on the project. That it was allowed to exist at all is proof positive of the ridiculous lackadaisical attitude taken with regards to personal attacks. It might even be best to leave it undeleted, as a monument to incompetence; not to Husnock of course, but to the others who should have stepped in and nipped it in the bud. --Durin 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional images galour

[edit]

Durin, I've decided to start tagging promotional images for speedy deletion if the image is in fact repeatable. I created a custom template, and have only orphaned and tagged one image / notified one uploader. Since you have experience with fair use images, would you consider offering any suggestions? Feel free to dirctly edit my template at User:Iamunknown/promomsg or comment on the talk page. I've invited Calton as well, since I know that s/he has a lot of experience with tagging user's pages. Thank you, Iamunknown 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further

[edit]

Just wanted to restate what I said earlier...that I am disappointed that another seasoned admin had relinquished their tools...but if the decision is the best one for you, then I support your action. I also agree with your commentary above...if you do much more than wikignome your way around the project, then an Rfa is going to have some opposes and an Rfb is going to be nearly impossible to achieve...needless to say, I haven't noticed exactly how many have attempted to get a crat slot, but as you know, we haven't promoted anyone to that level since June 2006...that's a long time on this website. I believe the chance for a successful promotion is so low, it keeps a lot of potential candidates away since, well, who likes to lose. I really hate seeing people not learn to forgive(?) petty disagreements or use Rfa/Rfb oppose votes for revenge purposes. I suppose it is hard for some people to let go of past disagreements...and that to me, as it seems as well to you, to be simply a sign of immaturity. I'm about to hid out to the middle of my state and see if I can't get a few images of the half million Sandhill Cranes that fly through here every March...check the webcam I just checked it but only saw Mallards:[16]--MONGO 14:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some time ago, I set out on a particular plan of action with regards to bureaucratship and adminship. The vast majority of what I have done since then, in so far as it has related to those roles, has been in support of that plan of action. Being at the point I am now, after months of effort, provides me the podium on which to lampoon RfA and destroy it. It needs to be destroyed because it is destroying the project by way of interfering in our purpose here; that of building an encyclopedia. RfA has for quite some time now contributed to preventing us from achieving that goal. I have to admit that it was hard to countenance the idea of spending every scrap of social currency I have here in order to achieve this goal. But, the needs of the project outweigh any other consideration. Nevertheless, it's been a hard road for me. A few things galvanized me along this path. One was the essay at http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html. Two was the absurd (and provably so) forcible de-adminning of you. Three was the amazingly ridiculous attack upon me for helping out at WP:CHU by Essjay and his clerks.
  • One other aspect that galvanized me was Essjay, though not in relation to his actions towards me but rather the way in which he was previously revered. I anticipated something happening to Essjay. I didn't know what, but I expected it to happen. Why? Because the higher you rise in any structure, the further you have to fall, and the more firm your foundation must be to prevent that fall. No other user other than Jimbo himself had the kind of power that Essjay had on Wikipedia. He had every bit that you could have here; checkuser, oversight, admin, bureaucrat, boardvote, arbcom. He achieved all of these things in less than two years at Wikipedia. Astronomical, meteoric rise in responsibilities and privileges here. If you view yourself as nothing more than every other editor on Wikipedia, as a nobody who happens to have some extra privileges, then you're probably ok. Essjay was anything other than this. He was exceptionally proud of his accomplishments here, wore them as badges, and displayed them all over his userpage. To me, that was a sign of impending doom, especially in a system that is tied to respecting every user from the outset, and not having any significant meritocracy structure. To me, what I thought was the last straw that foretold the impending doom was when he was (a) hired by Wikia and (b) appointed to ArbCom when a significant number of other candidates who had actually run garnered enough support from the community to be well capable of filling the role. I bear no malice towards Essjay. In fact, I feel sorry for him because within a very short time span he was ripped from his lofty position, trashed in the dirt, and forced to resign. Worse, because of its real life effects, he had to quit his job at Wikia. Somewhere in Kentucky there is a very despondent person who was thoroughly addicted to Wikipedia and has been treated like shit and tossed out into the cold on the nearest rubbish heap. Deserved or no, his current emotional state is probably exceptionally low, and his prospects for getting a job are affected since his name is now all over the press.
  • These things proved to me that the system is broken, and horribly so. It was time to add my voice to the maelstrom of people who insist this system is broken. For my own part, my position is the system is broken because we have drifted very far away from our core principles. I believe the core principles are solid and can work because they rely on the presumption that the vast majority of humanity will work towards the common good. I still believe that. I think we all must believe that on some level or we'd call it quits from humanity. --Durin 14:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd largely agree with the above. Generally when people seek every status that was coded into the software, its a problem. As for RfB, I've posted a quick expectation list here. I could image some users who could pass that, as long as we allow for people to have made some occasional mistakes. Voice-of-All 20:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I uploaded a picture but messed it up can you put it on speedy deletion so it can be deleted right away? {{[Image:800px-Kya Universe copy.png]}} -hotspot

okay thanks-hotspot

On the Fair Use of images in Userboxes

[edit]

I recently constructed two Userboxes {{Cyprus File}} and {{Rastapopoulos Panoussis}}. You proceeded to edit the photos away on the grounds that they violated the fair use criteria. I am very new with Userboxes, but I assumed that that using photos whose use is deemed fair on Wiki articles would also render their use in Userboxes fair. Is that not the case? I would appreciate it if you took some time to explain why they are not acceptable in your view. Thanks Rastapopoulos 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice about the icon on my World of Warcraft userbox. To solve the problem, I've since created a series of letter-based icons that everyone can use as I have put them in the public domain, and have already uploaded five of them. 21 more to go :) -- Richard D. LeCour (talk/contribs) 18:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cup (NSCL)

[edit]

Hi. I'd be glad if you reviewed this. It's twice reposted material. I've just been correctly admonished for tagging it as repost, as it's not been to AfD. With my A7 tag, if an admin deleted, can they salt the article without it having been to AfD? Seems an oddity of policy if that's correct. --Dweller 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't mean to be brusque, I'm not an editor anymore really. My focus is pretty limited at this point to a few specific things. You might be better served taking this up at WP:AN. --Durin 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks. You weren't brusque, just a little mysterious! --Dweller 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read this for starters :) --Durin 23:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh my. I'm too knackered to "get" the basis for the discussion, but you're clearly under some pressure. I wish you well (I'll spare you the patronising tea/wikibreak/psychiatrist claptrap). You're someone I've seen around a lot and have immense respect for. Please remember that the vast majority of rank and file Wikipedians, the ones who don't massively chime in on these debates, are immensely grateful for the help people like you offer. People like me fill your talk pages with requests for help, just as vandals fill your pages with abuse. Both should be worn like medals around your neck. --Dweller 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

[edit]

Hi Durin, I believe your extremely stressed out. Please do take a wikibreak and go on a nice and relaxing for a holiday. Thereś no point in continuing with wikipedia politics. I do hope you take my comments seriously. If you reply to this post, I will assume you are pretty stressed out. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • <hysterical laugh> If I reply it's proof I'm stressed? Let me get this right; I got myself (intentionally I might add) in a position in which I could protest a number of problems with Wikipedia. I stridently oppose a number of things that I find problematic with Wikipedia. And now I'm being told to leave Wikipedia? If you want me to leave Wikipedia on such terms, you're going to have to block me. Yet, there is no reason to do so. I have disrupted nothing. I have attacked no one. I have pilloried a number of concepts at Wikipedia, to some success I might add with the elimination of clerks at WP:CHU and WP:CHU/U. I'm sorry, but your attempt at silencing me is not working. --Durin 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I not asking you to quit wikipedia. Neither do I believe in blocking people, more so people I hold in high regard. You are stressed, your reply indicates that, these sort of replies never used to come from you. To respond to each point: 1) I have not said you attacked anyone 2) I have not asked you to quit wikipedia 3) I am not attempting to silence your free expression. 4) I am not willing to block people on mere whim. From my perspective it seems to be that you feel that wikipedia hates whatever you say. I sure assuming good faith could help here. I not asking you to leave because you are protesting. From your posts at WP:BN, WT:RFA and this page it looks like you could do with a holiday. (A real one -- for your health). You can always continue the discussion after you return. Sorry if my advice was ill taken. I wont reply any more. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your input. I do not view Wikipedia hates whatever I say. Frankly, I don't care if every person here hates what I say. It is of no consequence to me. I have no social currency here and I do not want any, as it is central to my protest. As I pointed out in an earlier edit of mine, if people want to scoff at me that's fine by me. It further proves the absurdity of their position. I'm backed up by the five pillars. They are backed up by a desire to push bureaucracy into a system that just doesn't need it. My health is fine, and I assure you that I am (a) being quite rational in my approach and (b) this is a planned out process for me, at least in overarching plans of action. Of course I can't plan out every word that I say in advance :) --Durin 18:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum; saying "I won't reply anymore"...I just don't understand. Feel free to not reply if you like, but discussions are what make this place tick. Without them, we are nothing. --Durin 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nichalp, I just wanted to add here...you are correct to an extent in the above; I took your comments too harshly and I apologize. I jumped too fast in seeing incoming knives. I'm sorry. --Durin 21:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted users

[edit]

Thanks for the note, in a lot of ways this whole issue revolves around the selection of a group of editors and identifying them as trusted. The problem there is that (no matter how hard you try to prevent it) it becomes a status symbol. Much like becoming an admin is now...not the same thing but it's become a goal for many people. The best way to do this sort of thing is to let everyone participate and if someone has a track record of not getting it or screwing things up, you have a word with them...ask them to stay away or whatever. Anyway, thanks. RxS 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right. Which is why Rdsmith4's refactor of the clerk system at WP:CHU into "assistance" was brilliant. Totally removed the status symbol. You might want to see my latest reply to the WP:BN board. Insanely long post, but perhaps worth the read. --Durin 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.

[edit]

Hear hear. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Present

[edit]

Online on wiki and irc now. --Kim Bruning 21:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durin...

[edit]

...I have gone into hibernation on Wikipedia due to several reasons, most important being other neglected priorities in life catching up with me. Also, I thought, as long as you are around, there would be a steady stream of admins mentored by you. I just noticed that you have resigned your adminship and have also got an inkling of why you have done that. I respect your decision and also thank you for spending a lot of valuable time in the construction of this project and in developing leaders. I hope (and I am definite) that you would stay on as an active user as Wikipedia needs users in good standing like you to take the project to greater heights. If you feel like dropping a reply to this, please do so on my talkpage as I would continue to be very irregular on Wikipedia and lose track of this conversation. --Gurubrahma 06:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship and dewiki

[edit]

I'm trying to contact you in IRC right now but you're not responding. sebmol 17:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship IRC

[edit]

Hi Durin, I am referring to your request on DE. I am on IRC right now, logged in as AT-wp. Cheers --Berolina 17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 22:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

I agree that social currency is sometimes a barrier to doing the right thing but I also think you undervalue it tremendously. I would still defer to you in matters of fair use images, not because I want to be your friend, but because you have taken the time to amass a level of expertise that I am unwilling to do; it is more efficient for you to know some things and for I to know others than for both of us to try to know everything. I know who in my department will help me with a problem and who will try to undermine me so I avoid him. That is applicable here just as well. The key is finding the right balance but that is true in any human endeavor. Anyway, as I said I appreciate your thoughts but not ncessarily your methods. Thatcher131 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MfD Started

[edit]

I've gone ahead and opened up the page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Durin/Husnock images/2nd nomination. I think it would be better for everyone. I did suggest merging the material into an offical page, so that your index work is not erased. Werewolfman07 06:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOTW GIF image --> uploaded SVG

[edit]

Durin, Image:Flag of FOTW.svg is licensed under CC-BY-2.5. I assume it is legally considered a derivative work of the flag at FOTW. It seems silly that the uploader can claim copyright and thus offer a license for his/her image. Furthermore, I find no indication at the FOTW website that the image is licensed as such. I just want clarification: do you think the claim is as ludicrous as I do? I intend to tag or otherwise list the image for deletion. --Iamunknown 07:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, if somebody recreates something by re-drawing it, they don't gain full rights to the image because they made it. Imagine if I drew the Coca-Cola logo and made a million t-shirts with it. Coca-Cola would be on me faster than I could put one of the t-shirts on. --Durin 13:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author erred on this one. National flags are not copyrighted, but the use of them are restricted in some countries. FOTW is not a nation, so claiming to put up a flag as cc-by-sa would be a copyvio, since the image by default would be copyrighted ('trademarked' would be something of an apt analogy.) =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:RFCU and clerks

[edit]

I saw the change this afternoon and I appreciate the message, this way I won't forget ^^. I have a lot on my hands these days so I will wait for things to settle down and I will probably give a hand later. Thanks again! -- lucasbfr talk 16:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, thanks for letting me know. I too will probably wait until things calm down a bit, and see how things are going on the clerking front before jumping straight in! Thanks, Martinp23 22:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to catch up on things...

[edit]

I was away for a few days, and inactive for several weeks (while failing to put up a wikibreak sign), and then, when I started looking around again, I discovered several things had happened. First, I found the Essjay controversy, and then I read your talk page and found that things had been happening here as well!

So... I'm wondering what to make of it all. I've read some of what you've written here, and I generally agree with it. Not quite sure what to make of the "RfA is broken" thing, but I recently have been coming to the realisation that some aspects of adminship are very different from editing. Is it not worth considering a real separation of powers, with housekeeping admin powers separated from the more controversial admin powers (blocking, for example). It has always seemed crazy to me that those wanting to just edit, and be able to edit more efficiently, have been forced to spend time on block actions and policies. Ditto for copyright enforcement. The credentials thing (Essjay) is a bit of a red herring, as the default status should be not to believe on-wiki claims about users. A textbook case of WP:V, but applied to a user, not an article. One more thing, and please don't take this the wrong way, you mentioned Essjay having badges of honour decorating his user page, saying who he was on Wikipedia and what he did. I was actually reminded of your rather nice user page, which is similarly well organised. I would actually say (though I can't remember exactly what Essjay's page looked like) that there is a fine line between a well-organised page and a self-promoting one. Anyway, just some thoughts. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Carcharoth 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't really want to comment too much on Essjay. He's an example, but there are plenty of others. I've seen an increasing number of user pages that have cute little icons in the upper right of their userpages. It's become vogue to do so, I think in part because it's different (for now anyways). Essjay had about 20 icons of different things he was responsible for either by way of volunteering or by way of appointment, all lined up in the upper right of his page. That's badge wearing to me. In the long run, it doesn't matter what a user puts on their userpage. It's not the encyclopedia. But, when the essence of badge wearing gets in the way of our purposes, then it becomes inherently bad. It helps to foment ideas like "I am better than these editors, because I've been given this trust". That's inherently anti-wiki. We trust all users, even anonymous IPs, to edit our most precious resources here; encyclopedia articles. Barriers to editing, barriers to volunteering should be torn down with vigor wherever they are found. --Durin 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin/Husnock_images

[edit]

I came across User:Durin/Husnock_images at MfD. A derivative work is a violation of a holder's copyright in many countries, including the United States, if created without permission. For this permission to be valid, Wikipedia requires this permission to be on file with the Wikipedia Communications committee. See when permission is confirmed. You do not need to ask Husnock if he has such permission, Husnock must provided such permission to the Wikipedia Communications committee. After the Wikipedia Communications committee receives the permission, somebody with access to OTRS will come along and tag the article or image with {{PermissionOTRS|ticket=http://linktoticket.org }} providing evidence of the received email and clearing the status of the item in question. Until that time, the image may proceed through a normal deletion process. If you have any questions, User:Jkelly has considerable experience with the Wikipedia Communications committee. -- Jreferee 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... just by way of background, Durin is one of our leading experts on these issues and had been engaged in addressing these issues with Husnock for months. The matter has been through lots of threads on various noticeboards as well as a lengthy arbitration case, and I think you can take it that Durin is aware of the requirements to a greater extent than just about anyone else around. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: what is the backgounrd of...

[edit]

...people using the term "!votes" and opposed to "votes" and what does the former signify that the latter does not? --Iamunknown 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hell sir, and welcome to RfA. Would you like that in chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla? That's about what it amounts to. RfA is not a vote, but it is a vote, but since it's not a vote and it is a vote it's an opinion which has the weight of a vote that isn't a vote and i'mgoingcrazyjusttryingtokeepupwithitallandinsteadi'mjustgoingtocallit "!vote". You understand the math of !x, yes? --Durin 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thank-you for informing me of the changes at WP:RFCU. Jerry 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking help from someone you never thought would

[edit]

Believe it or not, you had served to educatate me on site policies and I thank you for that. Regardless of who you think I am, you will have to agree I haven't vandalized or disrupted this site and complied with your effort to have the questioned pictures removed from this site. With that said, as you have expressed an interest in enforcing policies, please look into this [17]. You once said you would be concerned about any account abuse, not just me. Just tell me what you think of the situation above; all I ask. Thanks -Pahuskahey 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's irrelevant. There isn't going to be consensus to close this MfD as delete, so another vote by someone to keep it has little bearing on the outcome. I'd just ignore it. --Durin 05:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More fair use : bot soon to start up

[edit]

Have you seen Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BJBot 3? Bots may soon do the dirty work. Glad to see you back at work removing or linkifying fair use images. --Iamunknown 02:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SuccessRatevsEditsatRfA.png y-axis label/units

[edit]

I may be terribly confused and please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't this graph say that, for example, a candidate with about 2400 edits has about a 0.9% success rate? Shouldn't the y-axis scale be 0, 10, 20, 30, ..., 100 to match the label Success Rate %? KatalavenoTC 00:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License of Image:Newspapercover-copyright.png

[edit]

Durin, please correct me if I am wrong. I think the LGPL is a "viral" license. As such, shouldn't Image:Newspapercover-copyright.png be tagged with the commons:Template:LGPL license since Image:Nuvola apps knewsticker.png, from which it is derived, is licensed therein? --Iamunknown 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Fair Use Images

[edit]

Hello Durin! I'm terribly sorry about the logo that I used on a userbox. I was not aware that such use is not legal on wikipedia. As such, to my revelation of this new information, it is most likely obvious to you that as the uninformed user I am, it is likely that I have made this mistake previously. It should have been obvious to me, as I was feeling quite unique and innovative in being the first to include the school logo in a schools userbox! In addition to the image from a UCSD userbox, I also removed several images from Template:User UCSD Colleges that would also fall under such scrutiny for this violation of policy. Thank you for your service and education to Wikipedia and your fellow wikipedians! --Sukh17 T • C • E 06:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Sock Puppets

[edit]

I have no issue with the candidate, and i am not accusing him of sock puppetry. I am trying to explain what is happening hear and i have good faith in the candidate. However, editors User:Kashwialariski and User:Ayatollah Rhobijniehave a commonality between this edit by User:Kashwialariski and this edit by User:Ayatollah Rhobijnie. I warned the one editor to stop trying to mess with it and 1 minute later, the one stopped and the other started making the same actions. If you feel that is not enough evidence of sock puppetry, then feel free to unblock them (I only blocked for a week anyways). (Chris Kreider)]] 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not an administrator, and even if I were I would not undo another admin's actions. I would instead ask the blocking admin to do so, and if my arguments in favor of undoing were insufficient, then they are insufficient. As to the sockpuppeting, so what? This RfA was doomed to failed anyways with less than 300 edits. There wasn't any point to igniting the RfA with gasoline and accusations of sockpuppetry just to destroy the RfA. It was already destroyed when it was posted. On the chance that the original nominee just have a few friends hanging out with him working on the RfA, we should have left it alone rather than go out of our way to insult them with accusations. Everybody likes to jump on the "kill the sockpuppets!" bandwagon. I just didn't see the point here, even if they were admitted sockpuppets. The RfA is dead. --Durin 14:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect that. I did not attempt to kill the rfa, however I knew it was already going to fail. Furthermore, i stopped where I did and assumed good faith that the 2 sock puppets were the only 2, while they all look suspicioulsy like the candidate himself. I however did not have enough evidence and had to assume good faith on the part of the candidate. I have talked with him, explained why I did what I did and am trying to help him. I respect your opinion, and thank you for bringing it up. In the future, I will try to deal with such acts more tactfully. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfAs

[edit]

Thanks for the reminder. I usually do [18]- it slipped my mind as I was looking for the close templates shortcuts Chrislk02 asked for at WP:ANI... WjBscribe 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rfa - change vote mechanism to better scale?

[edit]

i saw your note on the german wikipedia, what do you think of rolling votes? --ThurnerRupert 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

[edit]

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria

My User Page

[edit]

Who do you think you are to come in and edit my user page. It's mine, not yours. I don't care what policy I may have been breaking, you are not currently an administrator so don't touch what isn't yours.
NewYork1956 07:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may not like the policy, but the policy is not flexible on this. The policy is clear; no fair use images are allowed on userpages. See Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. All images that were removed from your userpages are copyrighted, non-free license images. I am re-removing the images, and reporting this incident to WP:AN/I for further review. If you insist on having such images on your userpage, you will be willfully violating Wikipedia policies which will result in a block. Whether I am an admin or not is irrelevant. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. --Durin 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin is correct above. And furthermore: your userspace is not your property. The space provided there is graciously provided by and at the expense of the Wikimedia Foundation, its donors, and the user community specifically to facilitate your contributions to Wikipedia. It is not your exclusive domain, and it is subject to our policies and community normals just as much as any other page. If you'd like a free personal webpage which is under your exclusive control, I invite you to use MySpace. However, on myspace if you do manage to get noticed violating their policies, rather than fixing it they tend to just disable your account. --Gmaxwell 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been happy to remove them myself if it was discussed with me. You wrote "such usage is directly against our policies." "Our?" What do you mean "Our?" Like I said you are not an administrator and you certainly do not own Wikipeida.
NewYork1956 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If an administrator directly told your user page was in direct violation of "our" policies, would you even listen to them? It is irrelevant. These are our policies, because there is consensus that they are our policies. If you are unwilling to act consensually, then Wikipedia may not be the place for you. --Iamunknown 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NewYork1956, I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do. It was never my intention to annoy you or anyone else in removing fair use images. Nevertheless, from time to time there are people like you who become excessively irate when these removals are performed and complain vociferously about them. This is precisely why I initiated the RfC on this matter to see if there was consensus support for the manner in which I was doing things. The was overwhelming consensus that I was. Had such consensus not existed, I would not be doing things in the manner that I am. You can think as negatively about me as you like. I am not concerned. Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images#I.27ll_get_you_to_stop_by_hurling_insults_at_you.21. If you still insist that I am acting so terribly, then I recommend you begin taking action to have me permanently banned from Wikipedia. I make no claims of owning Wikipedia. Indicating "our" indicates ALL of us, including you. OUR policies are listed at Category:Wikipedia_official_policy. If you're not willing to abide by OUR policies, then being part of "our" (which everybody is, who is here) is perhaps something unacceptable to you. All the best, --Durin 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I can hardly give a shit. I'm not going to fight it any further.
NewYork1956 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FU userspace list

[edit]

drum roll User:HighInBC/FU in userspace. Posted at AN or ANI (forget which one) earlier today. Right down your alley. --Iamunknown 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. cat <file> | grep Image | wc ...2542 images. cat <file> | grep User | wc ...4683 violations. That's less than I would have expected. Of course, it's only userspace, not all other workspaces outside of mainspace. --Durin 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked HighInBC if his or her data collection could extend to all namespaces except articles and known exceptions, and s/he said that, with the next data collection, the query.php interface could be extended to capture all such violations. So we may have a list sooner or later. :-) --Iamunknown 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that it's not catching all the fair use images... --Gmaxwell 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ya, it's not perfect yet. I think HighInBC is trying to automate the lists with a bot to remove images that are no longer violations, update regularly, etc. Hopefully it'll work sooner or later. --Iamunknown 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Image:Wowiconjp.jpg

[edit]

Will do! Avatarfan6666 17:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting statistics problem

[edit]

I wonder what to do with all the survey forms I link to from here. Any ideas? --Kim Bruning 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! to Durin

[edit]

Have you seen WP:TROUT before? I just came across and laughed rather hard. :-D Hope all is well. I see that you are still active WP:FUC patroller, sorry to hear it isn't as satisfying. I just removed about 100 instances of Image:TugsLogo.jpg (there are still several more including caches that haven't updated yet), it was a gas. You might find all the instances of Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement.svg worth your while sometime; I've removed a few, but there are so many, its frustrating. Regards, Iamunknown 19:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen RFB YAY.... wait, you opposed?

[edit]

Actually, based on the "a group is its own worst enemy" text, having Mackensen as a bureaucrat might be favorable.

If he's the only person running on that platform, perhaps I might agree with your opposition.

On the other hand, what if some other people ran based on the same platform, so that the "single scary bureaucrat" effect can be diminished? In that case, we'd have an RFA more strongly run by consensus. An improvement, at the very least. :-)

--Kim Bruning 15:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC) *considering putting my money where my mouth is*[reply]

Kim, are you considering doing our first combined RfA/RfB? NoSeptember 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the A bit and the B bit can be set independently. :-P --Kim Bruning 15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. If I recall correctly, to promote a bureaucrat you use the admin promotion page and select the extra radio button for bureaucrat. NoSeptember 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
*Checks*. Hmmm, at the very least stewards are allowed to give Sysop, Bureaucrat, and Bot flags separately. (According to Special:Userrights on my local mediawiki install) --Kim Bruning 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA archives page

[edit]

How comes on the RFA archive page, the years cannot be edited? Simply south 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]

You have some. Haukur 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

[edit]

Thanx for closing my RfA...--Cometstyles 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:B8amack

[edit]

On User talk:B8amack, you said to the user usurpation takes 30 days. It only takes 7. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moralis

[edit]

Very interesting indeed. The sight of the RfA-bots breaking brought a tear to my eye. We'll have to see if you get bureaucrat buy-in, but I think it's a good step. Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to show some mercy by changing to Neutral, but I still think it was terribly ill-advised to conduct this experiment. It shows poor judgement both by Moralis and by those that wanted this experiment. But as he is a relatively new editor, I can forgive him for that and I hope his judgement will grow in time. Errabee 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • At least don't hold him hostage for it. Others suggested the change, I approached Moralis for agreement to modify it, and I implemented it. Moralis was barely involved. As I noted elsewhere, the value of an experiment is not affected by whether it fails or succeeds. --Durin 14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moralis RfA

[edit]

I was quite surprised that you misread my comment. I specifically said that I was not holding the format against the candidate. Is any other reason necessary to oppose than a lack of experience? You seemed to question the rationality of my grounds for opposition, as if they were incidental or something, and I do take some exception to that. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know you specifically stated that. That said, I don't see a reason to mention it on the RfA itself. Evaluate the candidate. Comments on the format can be directed to the appropriate sections of WT:RFA. As to experience, he's been here 2.5 years. I don't personally feel his "lack" of experience is a factor. In a consensus building structure, discussion and questioning of others positions should be a natural process, not one questioned. I'm sorry you feel offended. It's not my intention. --Durin 14:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment from WT:RFA:

"*Just inserting my strenuous objections here. I have no love for numbers, but the current format is so much more difficult to comprehend substantively. Trying to follow all the arguments at once is head-ache inducing. This change converts RfA into AfD -- what a disaster! When I come to a big AfD to close it, I expect to have my head spinning. If RfA follows that road, expect people to pay less attention to what others say, and worry more about making their own voices heard through endless sub-commenting. I pity the poor b'crats who will have to solve this mess! And this RfA is for a "non-controversial" candidate. Sheesh. If Danny's had been run this way, we seriously might have reached a MB of text."

I'll add a few more points. I noticed several supporters giving the candidate credit for the RfA change. I assume you will respond to them just as vigorously, telling them to separate feelings over the candidate from the format.

Perhaps you shouldn't have run this thing on a pre-existing RfA. I know that if I had commented early, and then been refactored, I would have been very confused. Try it on a fresh one.

The reason that "questioning" at RfA is very unnatural and counterproductive is: 1) way too many people go there. If everyone questions everyone, the discussion will become a massive AfD, as I say above; 2) much of the disagreement is just a difference in personal standards. No amount of arguing is going to convince me that a candidate with less than 100 WP edits is ready -- if they been here for 2.5 years, I'm even more concerned, because they're edits don't show dedication to the project. Maybe they're a fantastic writer, but they don't have the minimal "nuts-and-bolts" experience necessary for adminship yet. That's why the old format was better. Everyone said their piece, there was a small level of interplay if anyone said anything truly incorrect or absurd, and then the b'crats closed. Screw numbers -- it's not the numbers I appreciate, but the economy of the discussion, because anything more quickly spirals to an absurd proportion. We are an encyclopedia -- I don't mind wading through an AfD for an article's sake, but I cannot imagine wading through one just for a functionaries sake. That seems to me to be the very definition of process gone mad(ly inefficient.) Best wishes, Xoloz 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, AFD is currently superior to RFA. (or was... at least they're now both equally bad ;-) ) --Kim Bruning 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC) There's a big difference between the appearance of efficiency and actual efficiency. ;-) [reply]
Sometimes... but I find it hard to value the "efficiency" of any system that makes following discussion on even the simplest points next to impossible. I don't see how anyone can follow that RfA, least of the poor candidate whose never been through one before. Are we aiming to make the process as opaque as possible? Xoloz 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Kim, sometimes interjecting a quip is a substitute for confronting the real difficulties of an objection! ;) Xoloz 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way...

[edit]

Here's my thought on RfA reform: if the need for admins is acute enough that it is time to throw caution to the wind it bit (I acknowledge, from a meta-analytic level, that's probably true), then just lower the standard of promotion, by community consent, to 65% or something. That way, "conservatives" like me can still voice our concerns, but the ability of our personal high standards to forestall the growth in the number of admins will be lessened. More "bad seeds" will get through, but that seems an easier alternative than turning RfA into AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, it's not a vote. Second, if you lower the standards in time people will adjust their standards to make them stricter. It's a temporary bandage. A temporary solution to a permanent problem. Votes must die. --Durin 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe I ever used the word "vote", my friend. However, "counting" is a way to digest large amounts of information into simple, easy-to-understand form. You know those graphs you make so well? Same principle. As for me, because my objections to any candidate are something I actually take seriously, I won't be adjusting my standards for some numbers game. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on RfA reform

[edit]

I appreciate your contributions highly toward RfA reform. However, I am going to politely ask if you could please lower the tone a bit. In particular with use of the CAPS LOCK, I know you have strong feelings toward the topic, but I am trying to get involved with this reform too, and I am still a new comer, hence why I ask if you do not bite my head off to early on. Please note that I am actually a supporter of this experiment of yours. ;) Camaron1 | Chris 20:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm the heck down man

[edit]

Your comments on the Moralis RfA were uncalled for & borderline uncivil. My opinion is my opinion & if it was a normal RfA, you wouldn't have the cheek to question it - most oppsoe votes are left as is, maybe with a bit of commenting, but never as much opposition as you showed. So you're saying that Moralis, with under 800 edits, should become an admin? Now the reason I like the tally is for SNOW reasons, where a crat can quickly see if there's like a milion oppose votes to a couple of supports. Without the tally, they cannot make this quick & obvious judgement & thus, an RfA like this can go through. The only reason Moralis has that many votes is because of the format - if it was a normal format we'd all say, goodbye, try again later. I resent the fact you accused me of saying that I wish crats only to count votes & not consensus - I never said such a thing & my reasons for wishing the tally was there are stated above. I don't wish to discuss this any more with you as you're obviously in a combative mood. Thanks, Spawn Man 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have any intention of "calming down". Your comments against Moralis were *WAY* out of line. Accusing him of a stunt? Good grief. You owe him an apology.
  • As to the rest; responding to people's comments is viewed as bad in the current climate of RfA. This is bad for RfA. Discussion should be a GOOD thing in an RfA, not a bad thing. Keep in mind that votes have *nothing* to do with consensus. Nothing. I strongly recommend you divorce yourself of the notion that edit counts are some indicator of a person's trustworthiness. They are not. PLENTY of admins, in fact some of the most famous people on this project starting with Angela, were promoted with far less than 1,000 edits. I fully intend on continuing my attempts at reforming RfA. If calling a person accusing another of "stunts" way out of line is uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I and have me banned from the project. You should be ashamed, but aren't. Yes, I do think Moralis should be an admin else I would not have supported his RfA. --Durin 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me to be ashamed once more & I will report you on AN/I. Spawn Man 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. You accuse Moralis of playing a stunt, when it was me who reformatted the RfA. Then you jump on my case for supposedly making personal attacks? Fine. You should be ashamed. Moralis did nothing more than try to help Wikipedia and you blatantly insulted him for it. Worse, you hold him accountable for my actions. Go report me. --Durin 04:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the intro to your talk page, your attitude makes considerably more sense now. You're argumentative by nature. Best thing here is for both of us to walk away from each other. Good day. --Durin 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I warned, I have placed a complaint on the AN/I. I had no intention of doing so, but saying I should be ashamed again was not needed. You'll see my views & how I feel about your comments towards me there. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you didn't take my advice and walk away. Saying you should be ashamed isn't a personal attack. If that is a personal attack, then accusing Moralis of performing a stunt is 10 times a personal attack. I stand by my opinion. --Durin 12:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per AN/I - I don't see how I "ruthlessly attacked" Moralis? Nor my "subsequent outrage"? I have remained calm through this whole ordeal. I made a point to Moralis, but I was never uncivil - You can't tell me that Moralis had no part in the format of his RfA - he could have quite easily said no, but he said yes, so in a way he is responsible. I'll quite happily say sorry to Moralis if Durin apologises to me - after all, Durin is taking the high road isn't he? Puh-lease...
I suggested to not talk any further first, so you didn't take my advice. You are being pig headed & you are the one who should be ashamed Durin - You were an admin & you're acting like a 3 year old. If Moralis hadn't wanted this stunt, he could have easily said no - but he didn't so he's every bit as responsible as you. I see being called ashamed a personal attack - specifically after I told you it hurt my feelings. Yet you continued to be mean & say it. I'll stop saying it was a stunt when you stop saying I should be ashamed, just as I'll say I'm sorry to Moralis if you say sorry to me. If you're as high up on your high horse as I think you are, you shouldn't have any trouble mustering up a un-heartfelt apology right? Or are you too proud? Just go ahead with a personal attack & I'll lodge it again on the AN/I - it was your idea the first time remember? Thanks, Spawn Man 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moralis RfA

[edit]

Please have a nice cup of tea. You have now implied twice that I can't read. I did learn to read some 25 years ago, still can and still do. I believe you're taking Moralis' RfA waaaay too personally. You've made your point (without caring too much for civility) and I think it's time for you to step back. Pascal.Tesson 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that you accused me of responding, systematically I might add, to every oppose vote proves that you have not read the RfA. This accusation of yours is flatly false. In fact, a casual reading (much less a complete one) of the RfA's first ten opposes shows that I did not respond to a single one of the first ten opposes. --Durin 13:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong

[edit]

My name is David Gilmour , i'm not Dave of pink floyd, but i am freaking david gilmour becouse that's my name. I can show you my drivers licence if you want.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt

[edit]

I suppose we won't know if it works unless we actually use the format of the RfA properly. But like I said in the talk page, I'm pretty skeptical. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

[edit]

Kudos on the work on RFA (even if it fails, it's a positive move to try and change the system). Let me know if I can help. Ral315 » 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Toss your opinions in the frying pan if you like. :) Thanks for the kudos. Getting a LOT of heat about it. *shrug* I gave up on the social currency system a few months back so I don't care. --Durin 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's encouraging to see someone actually try a different approach, as opposed to simply adding to the hot air on WT:RFA. – Steel 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody marvelous. This is definitely what I had in mind. Mackensen (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying something new with RfA! (I might even have volunteered for an experimental RfA formatting, but unfortunately I passed RfA a bit before you tried these experiments). What's going to be next, a WP:DFA trial? --ais523 17:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my appreciation for the effort you've been making with this. Common sense will prevail in the end, and you've gone a good way towards helping it happen. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No hard feelings

[edit]

You've probably noticed that I've been frowning upon your RfA format perhaps too persistently. I'd like you to know that although I might sound a little bit pesky sometimes, I still salute you for being bold and creating a completely different concept. I may be staunchly against this particular one, but please don't take it too personally. I hope that you don't regard me as an annoying person, or at least not too annoying. Regards, Húsönd 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • One, that's ok. I don't hold anything against you. Two, even if I did I've totally given up on the social currency system here so it wouldn't matter here. Which leads to Three, I don't care if you hate me :) I have zero ambitions of achieving any badge of office here at Wikipedia so it matters not to me whether people like me or not. I'm more at liberty to speak now, and so I haven't been mincing words too much. That's offended some. If you're one of the ones I've offended, my apologies. I have tried hard to remain focused on concepts, opinions, or thoughts rather than focusing on any one individual, even if I radically disagree with them. Some of my comments may have been construed as stepping over that line though. Purely unintentional if they have. --Durin 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Opinions

[edit]

Here's a simple experiment. Stick to current RFA rules, but disallow contested opinions that go unanswerd. :-) I'm curious what would happen? --Kim Bruning 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Count Analysis

[edit]

If it's not too much to ask, could I also get an edit count analysis chart done for me? I saw Image:Majorly-edits.png and I'm intrigued to see what mine will look like. Thanks, Nishkid64 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I sincerely hope you do not intend to toss one of these on every RfA from now on. This is editcountitis gone too far, and the content of the graph is at best meaningless, and at worst, will make RfA even more idiotic than it is now. Please don't – Gurch 17:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one nice essay :) You should get one done, Gurch! Majorly (hot!) 17:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gurch, I understand your concerns, but I think there are some elements of his presentation that pull this away from the 'editcountitis' camp. He's showing where their edits are, timewise. The community has shown, for instance, that it has concerns about big empty spots in contribution history. If someone has just come back from a six month hiatus, as shown on the graph, it could spark a reasonable conversation about how familiar the person is with the current policies/atmosphere/etc. I don't like editcountitis any more than anyone else, but I think Durin's chart is more than a device for allowing RfA candidates to show how far they can pee, it's valuable information that others may use as the basis for good lines of inquiry. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh the irony. Gurch, I started putting those charts on RfAs back in 2005 for nominees with between 500 and 2000 edits. You know, the ones that are impossible to pass today? I did it precisely in opposition to edit counting, to get people to STOP opposing people for ridiculous edit counting. You know what? For the several dozen RfAs I did this, they had a 10% better chance of passing than for RfAs in the same category that didn't. Yet again, I am accused of editcountitis when I have been working insanely hard against editcountitis. Big, big sigh. --Durin 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in having one of these as well, but only if it isn't a lot of work. You have better things to be doing around RfA. ;-) Dekimasuよ! 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at RFA

[edit]

[19] - hey! Mine was a consensus decision, wasn't it? :P -- nae'blis 18:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Carlisle Hart

[edit]

I thought that I would let an administrator know that Kitty Carlisle Hart article might need to be protected because she died today and it is making the national news, the article may be prone to vandalism.--Joebengo 19:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin and "Asterixes"

[edit]

I'm sorry, but for a while I completely lost the ability to seriously follow a serious discussion. When I saw that Durin was accused of "the usage of asterixes & Bolding", I was overwhelmed by the image of an army of emboldened dwarves supplemented by an army of equally bold (and equally short) Gaulish warriors, the two distinguishable from each other only by the presence of beards vs. merely enormous mustaches. What other short-but-deadly forces have you kept in reserve, O king? Rock-throwing Hobbits? Leprechauns? Smurfs? -- Ben TALK/HIST 06:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hysterical :) Yeah, I found the complaint of using emphasis in writing to be rather silly myself. One of the limitations of text based communication is the inability to add inflexion. One of the ways that can be countered is the use of emphasis. But, people here apparently feel that my using caps to EMPHASIZE something is disruptive to the community. --Durin 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I honestly do not see the problem with people using this, this and *this* to give emphasis. Though, I always advice to avoid caps because it is generally looked at as SHOUTING and RANTING, I personally use italic. Camaron1 | Chris 11:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moralis RfA

[edit]

Hi - thanks for your note. With regard to the order in which I closed the nominations, I left Moralis' until last primarily because I hadn't been following it closely, and thought that another bureaucrat might have done so and be waiting to close it. As no-one did, I took the time to familiarise myself with all the discussion which had taken place - which took quite some time!

In general, I found that the new format wasn't particularly helpful in determining consensus. On the plus side, it did encourage users to explain their reasons for support or objection, but on the negative side, it led to a large number of comments mixed throughout the discussion repeating issues which had appeared earlier. This made it far more time-consuming than an ordinary RfA to determine which issues had been raised and how many users felt that these were serious concerns.

This was an interesting experiment and well worth conducting, but if it is to be repeated, I would be keen to see some sort of grouping of related issues. I am particularly interested in the format of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt, which seems to address this, but may carry some new difficulties.

I hope this addresses your question; if you have any more queries or would like to post this anywhere else on Wikipedia, please feel free. Warofdreams talk 17:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Classic" section on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt

[edit]

I understand the purpose and method of your experiment, so I have no objections to you removing this section. My intent was simply to attempt to offer general support for the candidate without getting involved in the RFC. To me, the most important "outside view" would be one that explicitly states "Nominee is fit for adminship", as this is the simple basis behind the RFA process. Other concerns brought up certainly deal with some aspects of what it takes to be a good admin, but I don't see their endorsement as a clear example of consensus-building. Which endorsed views, for instance, would be given the most weight by the closing beaurocrat? Is the whole XFD participation debate germane to selecting an admin who seeks to focus on speedy deletions?

I think that mattb would make a fine admin, but by combining this experiment with his RFA, you may have compromised his chance to succeed. If it is all right with you, I would like to move the "Classic" section to the talk page. Again, I understand that you may have a reason to oppose this move and I will respect your decision not to. Thanks for your time, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would appreciate it if you did not move it to the talk page. Matt Britt is aware of the consequences of the format of this RfA, and does not care if this causes him to have less chance to pass or fail. Not saying you are, but there is no need to "protect" Matt from the format of this RfA. He's well capable of doing so himself, and remains committed to the experiment.
  • I recognize there are limitations to this format. Nevertheless, an experiment should remain as untainted as possible until it concludes so that it can be fairly evaluated. By providing a voting section, whether on the main page or on the talk page, we undermine the experiment. As I've noted to others, there is more to be gained from this experiment than simply whether or not it fails or succeeds, or whether it not Matt Britt fails or passes the RfA. Thank you, --Durin 19:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good luck! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polling guidelines

[edit]

Hilariously, Polling is not a substitute for discussion is much more lax than Straw polls. Either way, the way folks are trying to do polls on RFA ignores both guidelines, so I've closed each of them. --Kim Bruning 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFA

[edit]

Durin, I've posted a response in your thread on WT:RFA regarding POINT issues. Although we clearly disagree with this RfA method, the main motivation behind my moves were retaining the discussion. Please see WTRFA for my entire response. If you tink that I've still edited in bad faith, please contact me on my talk page. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: (User talk:ais523) Front matter change

[edit]

Thanks! I coded that just the day before yesterday. It's so new that I haven't added the option to anything but TOCright yet. I suppose I'd better go and to TOCleft now, and maybe a non-floated version... --ais523 13:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia administrators

[edit]

I noticed that though you are no longer an admin, at the bottom of your userpage, among the categories you are in includes Wikipedia administrators. It is probably a good idea to remove this in order to avoid confusion. Captain panda 01:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA reform

[edit]

My response, in the same order as your points:

  • I am not terribly concerned about a new admin becoming rogue, but rather a lack of uniformity in RfA standards. These formats may allow passes to become easier, and having a sub class of RfAs like this could cause problems.
  • I agree, the Bureaucrats should not be using the pure tally method the current system promotes. They should be doing their job of determining consensus, by using their experience and intuition, as well as their own analysis of the user. If crats could be replaced with a bot we are in trouble.
  • How about if proposals are suggested first, and barring any major opposition given a test run? This could weed out obviously opposed systems, and let the more accepted ones be run live. This will decrease conflict, and not require the burden of consensus.
  • I disagree here: an RfA has a specific objective - to determine if a user can be trusted with admin tools. RfC is a more general process with a less objective goal, and its system discourages discussion of the single 'trust' question an RfA poses, instead splitting out into quasi-related sub sections.
  • Obviously a purely nuetral person is not going to work, no change would happen. I am suggesting that someone who isn't making the proposed system decide to test them. Hopefully this will seperate out any "this is my idea, lets try it" RfAs, and leave the serious options. This is related to the next section:
  • I apologize, I worded this rather badly. I meant to say that this 'nuetral' user would look to the talk page on what systems to test. I didn't mean that you were ignoring discussion. On the contrary I find your activity on the talk page and dedication to this reform quite admirable, especially considering the tenancy for this particular problem to be ignored by a large portion of editors.
  • Good points, however, the community controls RfA. If they won't support changes to it before testing, why will they after the testing? While I believe RfA needs to change (for reasons explained below), many people believe it should not, or that it should but can't agree how. Running test requests may help find a good system, but will it be supported?

I think that handles the major points. While I still hold some faith in the ability of the editors to reach consensus, I most certainly think change to RfA is needed. The system worked well when editors knew who they were !voting on by their edits, and through discussion with them. However, RfA is now run by 'regulars' who have little idea how an editor functions with others except for raw statistics. Since this system lets 'bad' admins through, there is a perceived need to raise the standards, which is why they go up and up and up. I hope WP:DFA shows some promise with the community. Thanks for talking to me, and I am sorry about any misunderstandings we may have had. Happy reforming! Prodego talk 03:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Flag

[edit]

I am simply writing because I am looking for clarification. I have seen multiple flags used on userboxes. I understood that the image from FOTW was fairuse and not valid for a user box so I uploaded my original image that I created a while back with paint, gimp, and a photograph. I only changed the main image to the one from FOTW because I finally found one there and it was a much better quallity image. I am confused because, from my understanding a self made image is valid. Take for instance the image used on (Template:User Indianapolis) it uses an image of the flag that was made. The second image of the Gary flag that I uploaded was not the same image as the one from FOTW. It was quite obviously not (it was terrible quallity and only looked good at a smaller size). I am just confused is all and maybe I am missing something. I just wanted some form of clarification. --MJHankel 05:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia works on the principle that an image is copyrighted unless otherwise proven to be available under a free license. Thus, for any given image if we do not have positive confirmation that the image has been released under such a license, we presume we must use it under fair use. With the Gary flag, we have no evidence on hand that it is a free license image. As such, it is fair use. Now enter the concept of derivative work; if you create a work that is substantially similar to another work, even if you created it entirely yourself, you do not gain full rights to it. You may have some rights, but not all rights. In the image that you created as a replacement, the end result was obviously intended to be like the Gary flag, and indeed in many respects was a copy. This is called a "derivative work". With derivative works, we need rights from all parties to the creation. The most restrictive right is the right that is commonly adhered to. Thus, in the case of your creation of the Gary flag, they retain rights and so do you. You can release your rights, but you can not release theirs. Since theirs are not released, the image must be used under fair use doctrine.
  • In the case of the Indianapolis flag, the rights are incorrect. It is highly unlikely that the uploader was the creator of the image, without it being a derivative. As such, even though it is on commons, the image is incorrect and should be challenged as such. Images frequently are challenged on commons.
  • Some cities retain rights to their seals and/or flags. Others do not. It's a case by case evaluation. States can not retain rights to their flags. There's debate about seals for states, and it's usually treated on a case by case basis.
  • Hope this helps! --Durin 16:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, thanks!! I do have one question than. If the city released all rights would it than be usable in all instances? I am just trying to figure out how this all works. --MJHankel 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On blithering idiots

[edit]

Hey. Until we meet to drink that couple of pints, we're bound to be two blithering idiots writing away on WT:RFA. Still, despite all our disagreements, I really do think we have something like a slightly productive discussion there and in pretty good humor. In any case, I want you to know if you don't already that I respect your position. and also that I'm right and you're wrong Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 18:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jerk :)
  • The problem that I see is there is little in the way of common ground between our positions. We can agree, in abstract, on some points...but anything else is highly disputed.
  • I've been trying to sprinkle in humor to keep things light. A lot of people are getting the wrong impression; that I'm on some war path, or that this discussion should be construed as heated. I am not, and it isn't.
  • I respect all good faith editors, even if I disagree with them. ha! my position is more idealistic than yours! you suck! --Durin 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get this wrong but I have the distinct impression that you're in a much better mood now than you were a week ago. (or maybe I'm just getting used to your sense of humor) Anyways, perhaps our opinions on RfA are impossible to reconcile but, call me crazy, that doesn't mean we can't still agree on some positive changes. Pascal.Tesson 19:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're getting used to my sense of humor :) My comment regarding beating the crap out of each other in a pub and walking out lifetime friends is really apropos. Text based communications suffer from a considerable number of limitations. Try as I might, I try to avoid these limitations as much as possible. Nevertheless, I suffer under them just as much as the next person. People read too much into stuff. I did get irritated when it appeared I was being silenced and instantly reverted during the brief ill-advised polls situation a couple of days back. Outside of that, no...no particular stress or bad mood. --Durin 19:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I think there is maybe a little something we could agree on (maybe just maybe). RfA would run much smoother (under any system) if more participants were reasonable about it. I"m afraid we might both be swinging wildly trying to figure out a better system when all it would take is a few pieces of fish here and there to keep people honest. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is what we might considerable unreasonable, others would insist is absolutely fair. It's too subjective. I think voting against someone based on edit counts is absurd. Others think it's the cat's meow. You can't get agreement on stuff like this. --Durin 19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But wait, I thought you were in favor of 3000+ edits? In any case, I'm more concerned about inconsistent opposes: we can't ask everybody to have the same criteria but we sure can ask everyone to be consistent in their evaluation. We should also make sure we avoid all of the "this user has shown poor judgement by disagreeing with me on this XfD, RfC" and whatnot. And at least once, I'd like someone at RfA to denounce IRC campaigning when it occurs. he he... how's that for a little rant? Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are words that I've written which can be used against my current position :) I have evolved over time. However, that's not one of them. Those are my guidelines for nominating someone, not for voting for/against someone. That has to do with low hanging fruit, and not wanting to go after it. It doesn't have anything to do with preventing or not preventing someone from being an admin. --Durin 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything you have written on Wikipedia can and will be used against you. :-) (that also pretty much sums up the current state of RfA)Pascal.Tesson 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're both idiots! Fancy a drink in Taipei? --Kim Bruning 20:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codelyoko193

[edit]

Um, you removed half the pictures from ym user page. If they are allowed on articles, then why aren't they allowed on my page? Yes, this is probabaly a stupid question. Tell me on my discussion page please. Codelyoko193 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codelyoko193 (again)

[edit]

Durin, could you please tell me where there are picture permitted on my userpage? Tell me on my diss. Thanks. Codelyoko193 01:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but aren't those also permitted on articles? Codelyoko193 02:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "10 to the 138th power". Codelyoko193 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codelyoko193 (once again)

[edit]

I removed the fair use images. Codelyoko193 17:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game-uh Cube

[edit]

Um, I have the same thing to say. You removed half the pictures from my user page. If they are allowed on articles, then why aren't they allowed on my page? Yes, this is probabaly a stupid question. Tell me on my discussion page please. Wikipedian64 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA experimentation

[edit]

I appreciate the experimentation in trying to come up with a new/better/more exciting format for RfA, but think that the latest test run with Matt Britt may be a bit of a misfire-- unless it was intended to demonstrate that confusing formats lead to lack of clear consensus. And while I do agree that the current RfA system isn't perfect, I'm not sure the problem can be solved by completely changing structure; by that, I mean that the discussion-format of RfC may not be more conducive to coming to a decision whether a particular editor is or isn't Admin material. Personally, I'd advocate the KISS principle, and look towards less radical reform. I, for one, would like to see RfA's be easier to edit and read than they are already, but not made more so by having multiple proposal sub-sections, each with endorse/oppose sections. Having said all that, I'd be willing to stand as a test case, if one is to be run, as I'm not particularly thin-skinned about criticism -- and I do like that you're taking a bold approach to possibly improving the inner-workings of WP. Regards,--LeflymanTalk 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure

[edit]

In rereading my comment And the recent joiner of the discussion can tell you about how that process works from the other side. it occurs to me I was a bit vague. I just wanted to make sure you knew the reference was not to you (it was to Kim). Sorry for the ambiguous wording to do you want me to clarify on the page in any way or just move on? jbolden1517Talk 00:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

[edit]

Based on recent comments on RFA, as well as your positive cooperation with someone who seems to hold the exact opposite opinion, I wish to give you this half barnstar. You can guess where the other half is :) >Radiant< 08:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin, I know we've had our differences but for you to just steal half of my barnstar, well that's just low. Pascal.Tesson 11:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Now I've got the right half. Radiant is showing great judgment. Pascal.Tesson 12:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

This jerk I know, User: drgnpcarl, is trying to vandalize my user page. He does this for fun I am sick of this please, if you can, block him from editing my user page or anyone elses!!!

PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.251.34 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose anything I said can and will be held against me

[edit]

All right, you win this round. Although I'd like to think that this is still not a sufficient reason to scrap the current system. I'm sure you understand that I never denied that ludicrous opposition isn't routine on RfA but it is just my belief that it does not play that big a role in rejected RfAs. The problem that we do have to address is the way that opposition is received. For instance, we both agree that opposition like Kelly's on the basis of a defcon userbox (good grief...) or (I guess I'll pick on Kelly again) on the basis of no WikiProject endorsement (when that endorsement would be a clear breach of canvassing rules), that kind of opposition is unwelcome. That opposition should be discarded by bureaucrats but more than that it should be eliminated from RfA culture itself and this isn't something the b'crats have shown a willingness to do actively. I think the only way that we will eliminate that from RfA culture is by systematically denouncing it (like I've been doing on a couple of current RfAs). Of course, I can see you smiling already and asking "I thought you said we should respect opposers no matter what they oppose for". Right, but everybody has to participate in good faith, not to mount a campaign for WikiProject endorsements, not to mount a campaign for a new userbox reform, not to mount a campaign for more Canadian admins, not to settle old grievances. When people get into that sort of stuff, they should be told in no uncertain terms that they're using the wrong forum. Pascal.Tesson 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem comes in the greys. No, not the aliens! :) You thought Kelly's oppose was absurd. She's now posted to your talk page indicating that her vote is serious, and it was out of line for you to call it absurd. I don't know what Kelly's purpose is. However, her stance is not unusual. Most people who's opposition is noted as being absurd will react poorly. Perhaps that's human nature. But, that's reality. You can't force people off that chair, no matter how hard you try. People have tried. And tried and tried and tried :) It doesn't work.
  • I happen to think that edit counting in many cases is absolutely ridiculously absurd. I've long fought against it, since the earliest days of my being here. Hasn't mattered. I've received a ton of criticism for opposing it, and I've also been heavily labelled as an edit counter myself. You just can't make progress against this sort of thing.
  • Who gets to decide what is absurd? --Durin 18:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind me chiming in. Any changes, especially the nomination from a wikiproject (or endorsement depending on who is talking) may well look unworkable in the current environment. Many users have been adimantly against the wikiproject idea as there is no mechanism for wikprojects to participate in the RfA process. True, if we want to stand in time, but what about two years from now? To make change we need to look ahead not back. Also, embryonic ideas for change will be inherently flawed but that is not a problem if there is enough flexability for such ideas to evolve, but how can things evolve if others dwell on the negatives rather than suggest improvement? I think finding out how wikiprojects can be more involved is a step in the right direction. To see it die because people have a bad feeling about the idea, or worse, because it is Kelly Martin's is not in the interests of wikipeda. Turf wars don't foster progress we need to stick with the ideas and improving what is on the table.
While I am here. I have a huge problem with potential admins being denied access to the tools since they do not appear to need the tools. I have seen this complaint come up a few times with accompanying remarks of needs to fight more vandalism or needs more experience in AfD. For me this is a prime reason to get wikiprojects to put weight behind candidates. We need to focus on what editors contribute to the project not how often they will use the tools. I can guarantee you that any editor who is writing articles will need the tools now and then. Possibly a page deletion is required to move an article. Possibly a controversial page needs to be semi protected for a short period, or even out right protected due to massive disruption. Clearly these editors could ask an admin to do this. But why should they? If they are trusted users they should be able to do it themselves, this is much better for wikipedia. Are users that focus on editing articles, rather than specialising in policy, vandalism or deletions, deficient in the later areas? In my experience this is rarely true, since those who edit articles are incorporating all the policies and guidelines on a day to day basis into their editing, as well as collaborating and mediating with other users to gain consensus. From my perspective, when an RFA candidate gets opposed for concentrating too much on main space it shows that there need for a reality check with respect to the standards and probably the system needs an overhaul, or at least a kick in the butt. Excuse the semi rant :) David D. (Talk) 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied to Kelly Martin here but sure, I guess it's like pissing in the rain (hopefully that idiom is a correct translation of my own french idiom). But here's the thing though. Look into your heart: you know there's something different about people using low editcount as a sign of inexperience (which is not such a great idea but not an entirely ludicrous one, I'm sure you'll admit as much) rather than using a perfectly acceptable practice like a DefCon userbox that can be found on countless admin userpages (and based on a template that has easily survived countless MfD with snowballish strong keeps). If the only perception of RfA was "oh man, if I apply for RfA I'll get people picking on me because I have 31 Wikispace edits" we wouldn't be in such trouble. The problem is that we have people trembling because they know they'll get ripped apart for things that they were never told represented even an ounce of problem. Things like you have too many userboxes, things like the 6 middle letters of your username spelled backwards is an insult in Bulgarian, things like I would never trust someone who friggin disagrees with me when obviously I'm right and you're wrong. No amount of RfA reform will cure that: the same shit would happen in the Moralis format, in the Matt Britt format or in any experimental format. What we really need to cure is this misconception that because people are more than welcome to have different standards for candidate admins, they are not by any means allowed to attack candidates any way they please. You know, I feel like Jon Stewart on Crossfire (if you have any idea what I'm talking about): "It's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America [...] Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America." Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt that low edit count is an indication of experience. People who are assessing a candidate should look long and hard at such a candidates contributions. The major flaw with edit count is at the other end, that somehow over 3000 edits makes one a slam dunk candidate. The only reason more edits are helpful is that there are more contributions to assess whether a candidate is suitable. The number alone is meaningless and should not be considered when evaluating the candidate. Patterns of edit count might be useful, but that is much more qualitative than quantitative and therefore does not really come into the more is better mentality. With regard to pissing in the wind, i think any discussion moving, even slowly, forward is worth the time. David D. (Talk) 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • People use editcountitis to oppose people more often than anyone has defcon templates. It's ingrained. If the presence of something is proof it's ok, editcountitis is a smashingly good idea. Editcountitis is, by the amount it is done, a perfectly acceptable practice.
  • Re, "The same shit". This is why bureaucrat discretion is important. This is why enabling bureaucrats to use their brain is necessary. But, RfA insists on trying to deprecate that role from bureaucrats in their discretion mode.
  • Across the pond, the idiom is "pissing in the wind". :) --Durin 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David: I have nothing against a proposal of endorsements (well, ok I do think it's a completely stupid idea, but it sure is ok to propose it). What I do strongly object to is participating in the slow destruction of RfA by perpetuating for candidates the idea that your RfA will turn out to be a debate that isn't centered on your contributions and/or capacity as an admin. By using RfAs to campaign for her proposal, Kelly is doing just that. Pascal.Tesson 19:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i think this is the inevitable response to the fact that proposals discussed on the RFA talk page never make it out of committee. I agree it is probably not the right forum, but to be fair, a neutral point is not that disruptive, especially if she would have otherwise not commented on that RfA. The disruption appears to be from those that love to be baited by Kelly. In the past I have been quite critical of what Kelly has done in wikipedia. Nevertheless, I find i can support her agenda here because it coincides with many of my own opinions developed over the years of watching RfA. She has sparked the idea and that is good. As long as she does not start trying to enforce this idea on others then i have no problem with her approach. It is our job to take what is good from her comments and weave it into a new and better RfA. Sometimes this works, and others times, not so much. But let's not kill these things in committee. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then "pissing in the wind" it is. Note however that I'm not across the pond. Just a few hundred kilometers north. Pascal.Tesson 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let go the "one of them" comment, because hey, I've got a big heart (nevermind if you don't get that joke) but I've been giving some more thought to this more substantial comment of yours: "This is why bureaucrat discretion is important. This is why enabling bureaucrats to use their brain is necessary. But, RfA insists on trying to deprecate that role from bureaucrats in their discretion mode." This is the one thing we most fundamentally disagree about. I'm reading this as "Bureaucrats will protect us from the mass of imbeciles roaming RfA" and I've got a few issues with that. For one thing, there's the irony that at some point we have to decide who our bureaucrats are and, well certainly we need to consult these imbeciles then so in all likelihood we get b'crats who aren't any good so there should be no reason to trust their good judgment in these matters. Or maybe we have b'crats appointed by Jimbo or whatnot and then we're stuck in Jimbocracy. The second problem is that I'm not sure there's such a heavy mass of imbeciles roaming RfA. Moreover, when the occasional destructive oppose comes along, we should stand up and make things right, rather than trust the b'crats will. For one thing, b'crats don't react until the RfA is over and rarely point the finger at anyone. Moreover, I firmly believe that if there's a problem with the culture of RfA then the solution won't involve a simple revamping of the RfA facade decided by 12 people on the talk page and the first thing to do is to help candidates who are being hammered by ludicrous opposition (see earlier comment for definition of "ludicrous"). Pascal.Tesson 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not get into my own profound thoughts on the matter! I was going to create a userbox stating my position but then Kelly Martin would oppose my RfA if I ever decide to go again. Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's ok. I was just hoping to get another punch in the nose, so you'd have to buy me another drink :) --Durin 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Hell of a way to get drunk...[reply]
Hmmm. Think I'll buy a full round then. Pascal.Tesson 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ;) but does this mean i get punched in the nose too? David D. (Talk) 21:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Um I just wanted to say I'm not mad that you deleted my userbox pictures. But could you tell me how I can add a picture? I don't know how to. Runewiki777 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant how I could just copy a picture from the internet and use it in a userbox.Runewiki777 20:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry for being a bother.[reply]

  • Generally speaking, you don't. Most images you find out there are not available under a free license. You know, I recognize the attraction of userboxes, but we're not here to craft userboxes. This is a free encyclopedia. Why not contribute to articles instead of worrying about userboxes? --Durin 20:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uh ok and gee you respond very quickly

Thank You

[edit]

Hello. You recently removed some copyrighted images from my userboxes. I would like to thank you for this and apologize for my mistake. I created them some time ago, when I didn't know about the fair use policies. I'm very sorry, and I thank you for alerting me of my mistake. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 21:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Explain an edit?

[edit]

There's discussion relevant to this revert of yours on Template talk:RfA; would you care to comment there? --ais523 14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

CFP

[edit]

Want to submit a paper, based on your number crunching? --Kim Bruning 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating, Mr. Holmes. --Kim Bruning 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B'crat

[edit]

Any b'crat who would ignore the well-considered opinion of any established user would be making an insane choice. He/she would be needlessly promoting discord: all s/he need say is "I considered X opinion, but it was counterbalanced by Y reason." To ignore opinions outright would lead to needlessly hurt feelings, terrible conflict, and great anger. Thank heaven that none of our b'crats are insane or stupid. I stand firmly resolved in my opinion that to ignore me would be absolutely nuts, and will not waiver from that view. That isn't empty rhetoric -- it is condemning a (potential, hypothetical) asinine choice in the full harsh language it deserves. For more on my views of RfA, you may find my response to Matt Britt at his talk page of interest. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I attempted to reason with you that your comments are incendiary with regards to Dan's position on votes such as yours. My attempt failed. As noted, I leave you to your opinions and me to mine. Have a nice day. --Durin 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably wise. :) In general, suggesting to someone that his view is liable to be ignored is unlikely to generate harmony (or his ready agreement, I'd suspect.) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was pointing out to you and others the position that Dan stated he would take in regards to such votes. I didn't expect such a position to be called insane, asinine and stupid. --Durin 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just call 'em like I see 'em! :) (Being very careful, of course, to separate the merits of the idea -- in case, it's a very stinky idea -- from the individuals advocating or seeming to advocate it.) I was actually quite careful to call the position crazy. If Dan wasn't just thinking off-the-cuff in that remark, he needs to know that his view will meet with fierce protest. Ignoring good-faith comments is really bad. I'm sorry for you that you did not foresee the intensity of my objection to the possibility of my considered opinion being ignored. Now you know. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And just so we're clear, if you really did take such a position in regards to Dan ignoring your vote, I would consider it insane, asinine and stupid. --Durin 19:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, then, we might one day be in for a debate in which each side thinks the other is advocating lunacy; as Kim said in RfA talk page... those are so much fun! :) In the unlikely event that issue comes to the forefront (it doesn't seem likely to be tested at Matt Britt 2), it will serve us both well to know of the equally great intensity of our respective commitments. :) My first reply to this talk page gives an outline of why I think ignoring a comment outright is so horrible an action. This gives you, perhaps, a slight advantage should we ever need confront the question. I still hope you'd see the wisdom of my view eventually, but I'm sure you would feel likewise. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think the view is lacking in understanding that there are plenty of people who have absolutely no clue about what admins do who make drive-by votes with outlandish requirements on people. Eventually, in a day not to far in the future, we will see people opposing noms for lack of 10,000 edits. Eventually the madness must stop. You apparently would rather have idiotic opposition be counted. David Gerard has said on occasion that RfA is a "One moron-one vote" system. It seems you think this is a good idea. --Durin 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(breaking the indent) As you know, I'm a frequent RfA contributor; I have noticed a very few such opposes; but, they are hardly a problem considering the number of "support" comments that come from newcomers, or others who appear to put little thought into their remarks. In general, I think that "morons" (using your term) are -- at the least -- likely to cancel each other out, if not add to support unduly. It is so much easier to support, after all, as a practical matter: one is rarely questioned, and gets to leave with a smile on one's face, basking in mutual admiration.
Things might always evolve, of course, but I find it very hard to conceive of a situation where moronic opposers would weigh down the system. Were that problem to develop, reform would be necessary; but, it would remain the worst alternative to "ignore" any commenters. Assigning "worthiness" to people's subjective opinions is dicey business, the quickest way I know to incite mass discord anywhere. "...Some are more equal than others,", etc. Best wishes, Xoloz
  • Have a nice day Xoloz. --Durin 20:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shoot -- I'd thought we'd hash that issue out now, as it is much more interesting than the day job! Best wishes, Xoloz 20:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We might be able to if we spoke a common tongue. Two people separated by a common language. --Durin 20:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Huh? "I think I speak English rather well, but I guess others may disagree", to paraphase my user profile. What language do you speak? You reside in the midwest, if I recall correctly. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you just made my point for me. :) You didn't get the reference. *shrug* --Durin 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've certainly seen the remark before, usually a reference to UK/US/AUS divisions around here. If I had to guess, I'd say the line probably comes from some Monty Python I've never seen. Where does it originate? I'll be very impressed if it comes from Derrida or something and I failed to notice it. It can, obviously, be universalized to refer to the evitable semantic distance that plagues every effort to communicate. That's seems hardly a reason to stop trying, though. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, please read my comments at Matt Britt's talk page. Based on your own criteria, I think you should step down from being an administrator since you are ill-qualified. --Durin 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh yes, I'm know I'm inexperienced with images. I fully expected someone to oppose me for that reason, and I wouldn't have begruded them; nobody did. I wouldn't have opposed myself, mainly because I don't give a crap about images. ;) I oppose people for low project-space participation, which includes all "XfDs", plus many other things -- a candidate need only have a thorough knowledge of one area therein to meet my expectations. I'm not Boothy, and I don't take the RfA candidate's song to absurd extremes.
              • I am, however, always available for recall. Per the terms of my RfA, my recall requires only that one established contributor state that I have abused admin functions. If you are serious, I will resign immediately, without regret, as promised at my RfA. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you insist on maintaining your objection to admin candidates (regardless of Matt Britt) based on the criteria you espoused at User_talk:Matt_Britt#RfA, then yes I am serious that you should step down based on your own criteria (but not in any respect mine). It's up to you. They are your standards. Quoting you, "...adminship is not divisible. Once you have one capacity, you have them all." You state a willingness to prevent someone being an admin because they lack experience in XfD. Yet, the candidate in question has more experience in XfD than you have with images. Images are a very active role for many administrators. By your own criteria, you are therefore not suitable for adminship. --Durin 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(breaking indent)Let me very clear about a few things: 1) I do not consider images vital to WP at all -- I do consider deletion essential, because we've got to prune around here. I, thus, think your analogy is very, very poor. I do not think there is a hint of hypocrisy to my stand, although you are welcome to.
2) If I wished, I could rebuff you here in good conscience, Durin. You haven't technically met the requirement for my recall, as you have not asserted that I have abused admin functions.
3) You didn't answer my question -- I'm genuinely curious as to the origination of the comedic/ironic line
4)Notwithstanding that I could reject your request on a technicality, I will gladly resign, if, having read the foregoing, you still wish me to do so. I have a clear conscience, and know full well that I have been consistent and justified in my RfA comments and personal conduct. I will resign if you wish it, but it will be only for the reason of your wish. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm left wondering how, when there's orders of magnitude more deletions of images, than there are deletions of articles from XfDs, that you could think image work is somehow separable from your admin duties when according to your statement adminship is not divisible. It's quite clear; if you believe an admin candidate can not be trusted with the delete button because they lack XfD experience, then you can't be trusted with it either; you might wrongfully delete images. If you believe you can fairly prevent someone from being an admin because of a lack of XfD experience, then you should step down from being an administrator because your criteria forbids you from being an administrator. This is your quandary; not mine.
  • I speak to no abuses you've made and do not find this relevant. This has to do with your insistence that, since the adminship bit is not divisible, one must be experienced in all admin appropriate areas. You've made this quandary. It isn't for me to figure out for you how to get out of it. But, if you insist, the ways out are that you drop your insistence that candidates be qualified in XfD or resign. There isn't any middle position. --Durin 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, there is a middle position. I oppose based on low project-space participation, with an eye especially towards XfDs, because deletion is a very broad heading for admins, and every admin ought to have some experience with it. As our "fair-use police" love to point out, images are eye-candy. I respect that admins do deal with them (I usually don't), but they are in no way essential to the encyclopedia. There is simply is no quandry for me here. You're welcome to insist that there must be, but my heart is light, and it will be. I thought about my lack of image experience before I ran at RfA, and concluded it didn't matter. I'm insulated from your accusations of hypocrisy, in my heart, because I really did impose my own standards on myself before I ran. That's why I waited so long to run, why I didn't especially want to run, either. If I'm wrong about images being superfluous to us, the community was free to oppose me at my RfA for inexperience there. I wouldn't begrudge that, although it would be a higher standard than mine -- I merely expect project-space experience.
All I need from you is an answer to the question of "Do you want me to resign"? I will if you wish, because you wish it; but not because of any ethical misstep or dilemma. I know I have been consistent, and you will not convince me otherwise (unless you have new, better evidence.) Adminship is not fun -- I'll be glad to quit, if you like. I will not, however, acknowledge an inconsistency in myself that doesn't exist. Best wishes, Xoloz 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleverly played, Xoloz! Not only have you deftly avoided the dilemma, but you've successfully shifted the argument to Durin, forcing him to decide between dropping the discussion and demanding your resignation for no apparent reason. Masterful, truly masterful! Kelly Martin (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not "playing" anything. I just really think lots about the philosophical positions I take. I'm goofy that way. :) Really introspective people, at least my subgroup, work hard to eliminate inconsistencies in themselves in advance. I'm sure I still have some, but this isn't one. I really believe in my standards, and that keeps my conscience clear. The consequence of my hyper-active introspection is that I don't get everybody's jokes...and I'm fat... and I smell, etc.! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I tend to agree with Kelly. I do feel played. You offered to resign if I was serious. I stated I was. At the time, you did state something about abusing admin functions, but you didn't tie it to resigning. Then you did tie it to resigning. I'm not interested in playing this game of follow the bouncing ball. It's an insult to me, and it's an insult to you. I have no wish to engage in this discussion further. I'm sure you'll find need of responding. I'm sure I'll have no need to respond. Thank you, and good night. --Durin 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UBX images

[edit]

So, which images am I allowed to use? Some of them were not deleted. Wikipedian64 22:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re

[edit]

So. I was going to go to this talk page to probably leave you a nasty message about deleting the image on my userpage, but then I saw your secret diary. I read through part of it, and realized you have done this MANY times, and people have responded back angry MANY times. However, I also noticed you have a picture on your userpage, and you crossed out "Working on removing fair use violations. Copyright violations could threaten the very existence of Wikipedia." So I waswondering, are you still doing that, or not? Oh, and I'll probably put that picture back up. Just letting you know. :) - Bagel7 15:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you put the picture back up, you will be willfully violating Wikipedia policy. Appropriate action will be taken should you decide to do that. --Durin 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durin may I ask why you seem to be so cold-blooded? I'm trying to be nice and joke around. I could have decided NOT to talk with you at all about my decision, but I even take into account that people have responded angrily to you messing with their userpages, and I attempted to be completely civil and negotiate a compromise with you. Instead, you respond with threats of blocking me. WP:CIVIL please? And anyway, since so many people use pictures "illegally" on their userpages, I feel it is unfair for you to single me out. - Bagel7 05:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't perceive your stated intention of putting the image back on your page as joke, especially seeing as how you actually did do it [20]. As you noted, I've done this many times. I fail to understand how, given your understanding that I have done this many times, you could perceive this as singling you out. I've done this literally thousands upon thousands of times. You are a) hardly alone and b) not being singled out. You violated the policy like thousands of others and you were corrected on it. Have a pleasant day, --Durin 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit graph

[edit]

Thank you very much, Durin! =) Nishkid64 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related note

Do you use a script to create these or just base the numbers off one of the edit-counters? I've noticed them popping up several places and they're quite well done. - auburnpilot talk 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Durin does it in Excel, by copying and pasting the contributions page directly. Majorly (hot!) 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, I screen scrape. I could write a bot to do the scraping for me, but I do it by hand. Had I actually continued doing these, I would have done so. User:RobyWayne actually went a considerable ways to automating this, but his activity level is low these days and I haven't seen further effort on it. An example; User:RobyWayne/Sandbox Freestylefrappe. The most time consuming part for me is the screen scraping part. Once that done, much of the rest of it is automated in Excel. --Durin 13:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badges

[edit]

I guess none of us are immune? :) --kingboyk 16:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BAG MfD

[edit]

Might I interest you in a "tag historical" or "Esperanzify" !vote? As per my new message, deleting (which would mean deleting the talk page too) seems a bit harsh. It may not even be allowable, given that the page and the group are referenced in a current ArbCom case. --kingboyk 19:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. This really isn't a power mad group though, I hope you see that - it's actually a group of pretty gentle, tech loving Wikipedians. It was when we ran into a truly power mad group that the problems began!
I suspect that if BAG is dissolved, within 6 months there will be bot anarchy and somebody will come up with a great idea... BAG. It's probably true that BAG has been carrying out a function which brings with it some power - pretty much a bureacrats' job without going through RFB - under the noses of a lot of people. Doing it quite well though...
Anyway, whatever, thanks for some rationale debate and for keeping it civil, much nicer than being called a... (no no, I won't go there again :)) --kingboyk 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I'll just go ahead and say it. You're a twit! And, you now owe me a drink :) See User_talk:Durin#On_blithering_idiots for the reference :)
  • I don't have issue really with the people on the group. The little badge wearing going on is annoying, but it's not the real problem. The real problem is the self-enforcing exclusionary, anti-community effect now in place. The group is fine; it's means of allowing contributions is unacceptable to me. --Durin 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mailing list isn't exclusionary. IRC isn't exclusionary. ArbCom is an extension of Jimbo and is a special case. To reverse the question, would you like to see an Administrator Approvals Group that is allowed to vote on RfAs, certified, and then put to bureaucrats to flip the switch? What about an AfD Approvals Group? Image Deletions Group? All with exclusionary hurdles to membership of course. :) --Durin 19:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA approvals group! Now that's an interesting plan. Do I get to name the members? O:-) --Kim Bruning 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. How do I join? :P --kingboyk 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, subversive questions! --Kim Bruning 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

north korea coat of arms

[edit]

can the vector image be left alone? i see it is tolerated elsewhere (China for example). Or if i decided to draw my own version is that acceptable even though it would still be a representation of a copyrighted work (although other coats of arms on this site are drawn thus)... Just want to understand where the wiki policy line is being drawn and who is in charge of drawing and enforcing it. thanks! Icactus 15:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is in charge of enforcing it? You are. We all are. Who is in charge of drawing it? In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation has taken a stance against non-free imagery. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy. There is no 'tolerance' of non-free imagery outside of main space. It is not tolerable. What is the case is there are literally thousands of abuses. Some estimates place it as high as ~50,000 such violations. That such violations exist does not mean the violations are acceptable, anymore than the fact that there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands of rapes in the world per year making rape any more acceptable. If you drew your own version of the coat of arms, it would be a derivative work. If it were substantially different, it wouldn't be. But then, it wouldn't be the coat of arms of North Korea, so there's not much point to it. I don't personally see why this is an issue. The flag is a quite acceptable and more readily identifiable alternative than the coat of arms. Regardless, the image is decoration only. --Durin 15:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comparing a copyright violation (and indeed, one that no-one cares about apart from yourself) to rape is just ridiculous, and detracts from your already-fragile point. Rather than getting all worked up about the use of a few coat of arms - most of which are public domain and, let's face it, no-one is going to sue or prosecute Wikipedia for anyway - perhaps your time would be better spent writing original content. A97 18:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image

[edit]

How is it not a legitimate fair use claim? The Placebo Effect 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category transclusion workaround

[edit]

I came across your attempt to transclude the contents of a category. I spent some hours with coffee, vulgarity and MediaWiki documentation looking for a solution. I believe I have found a way to effectively display the desired information. Here you can see the edit showing the functioning "hack". I used the CategoryTree extension of MediaWiki. Be well! :D Vassyana 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vassyana, I'm thoroughly impressed! Fantastic piece of work! I'm sure the vulgarity was the chief deciding factor, even if the paint in the room you were sitting in at the time didn't appreciate it :) --Durin 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vulgarity absolutely did the trick. Sometimes you just need to scare the net into giving you the information you desire. *chuckle* I can be quite dogged when I get it into my head that I need to find some piece of information. Thank you for the compliment, by the by. It certainly means something to me if I've managed to impress you. ;o) Completely off-topic, I was wondering if you had any plans to live test other RfA formats. I found the tests done so far to be interesting, both in the proposed formats and in the various responses to them. Vassyana 08:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A compliment from me is not worth much, at least if you ask around at WT:RFA :) I do plan more tests, yes. The next test I think will be quite, quite interesting. It'll be one of, if not the, most suggested format alternative. --Durin 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, disturbing the status quo is always sure to ruffle a few feathers. The compliment is worth something to me because I respect you and you don't seem too easily impressed. ;) On the tests, I'd be willing to be a test subject for one if you'd have me. I'm interested in the sysop bit, and would likely focus on dispute resolution. However, not passing RfA wouldn't cause me any undue stress, since I can easily continue doing what I do regardless of the outcome. If you'd be willing to have me as a guinea pig, let me know. Vassyana 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've garned my respect. Key to the testing process is, as you suggest your willing to endure above, an expectation that it would fail simply because it's a test. Further, you should be willing to see the test to conclusion. There has been very significant pressure brought to bear to end tests before the 7 days is up in the first two that I conducted, most especially with the first Matt Britt RfA. If you're willing to endure that pressure, and willing to accept the undoubted assaults upon you by people who criticize you for being willing to be a guinea pig, then you'd make a reasonable guinea pig so far. --Durin 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason I couldn't ride it out the full seven days. I full well expect there shall be some pointed questions and opposition due to format. A lack of the sysop bit won't stop me from participating in dispute resolution, editing articles or doing anything else I do on Wikipedia. It would give me a few more tools to work with and allow me to help lighten the admin workload, but it is "no big deal". :) Vassyana 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's launch this early next week, ok? --Durin 04:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sounds good to me. May I inquire what format I might expect? Also, I should probably let you know a few things about me. ;o) I am a MedCab participant and recently have become a coordinator. Good examples of my participation in dispute resolution/informal mediation outside of MedCab can be seen at Talk:Prem Rawat and Talk:Techniques of Knowledge. I have participated a fair amount in XfD. I've made significant edits to Taoism. Taoic religion passed as a good article mainly through my efforts to expand and source the article. I have previously undergone an editor review to help assess my contributions and actions. If you have any further questions about my participation, or in general, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The format will be "discussions for adminship", where there's discussion for three days then straight voting for four days. I suspect the format will be received as poorly as the RfC format. --Durin 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads up. I find that format interest and a potential way to spur greater discussion. If it is as poorly received as the RfC format, so be it. I am greatly interested to see what the discussion period generates. In this format, would there be any more or less expectation for a candidate to respond to comments? Am I correct in envisioning that the visible format would be similar to the current one, except the vote sections would be added after three days? Vassyana 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I had almost forgot I volunteered to be a test subject. :) The conversation below about discuss-then-vote reminded me, since that was the general format discussed. Were you still interested and willing to test the idea and use me as a test subject? Vassyana 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use criteria numbering

[edit]

Just a heads up - recent changes to WP:FU have changed the listed items and numbering, so references to #9 on that page may not be the criteria you intend. FYI. --Minderbinder 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peterborough and Cambridgeshire infoboxes

[edit]

I have noticed your little "edit war" last night and would like to draw your attention to the following page Template:Dynamic navigation box with image. Armorial bearings are not logos, please do not remove them. 163.167.129.124 13:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any image marked with a non-free licensing tag may not be used on any non-main namespace article. This prohibits their use on templates. If the image you wish to use on templates is in fact available under a free license, then by all means please provide affirmative proof that it is, and re-tag the image as appropriate per whatever free license the image is available under. Please note that there has been considerable debate as to the status of coats of arms. The general outcome has been that this must be treated on case by case basis. Thus, if you provide affirmative proof that the image is in fact available under a free license, then you are free to use it on templates. However, barring the provision of such evidence, the use of non-free imagery on templates is strictly forbidden per terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #8. Please do not undo their removal without providing evidence of them being available under a free license. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you, --Durin 13:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Civic Heraldry of England & Wales. I consider the arms to be in the public domain and their inclusion as fair use. Please also see Template:University of Cambridge and all Italian provinces for example. 163.167.129.124 13:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, if a given image is available under a free license, then per image please provide this evidence and update the tag on the image to a free license tag. Without the provision of this evidence on the image, and the image being tagged as a non-free image, they can not exist on templates. --Durin 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On goons and goonage

[edit]

Hey cool, I'm a fair use "goon" now! --Durin 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant. If it weren't for the fair-use goons and their rampant fair-use goonage, I'd get much less template-space work. (Full disclosure: I also moonlight as a fair-use goon when it suits my purposes, but no one knows this. ... Wait... Damn.) --Dynaflow 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

loosen up, seriously man

[edit]
This user needs to loosen up. Seriously, man its not good for your health.
You might want to check out some of the wonderful contributions of this editor.--MONGO 15:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup...that's part of the problem of course.--MONGO 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you know, sarcassim is the lowest form of humor, although i usually find it hilarious.I am Paranoid 20:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot-owner who deserves a barnstar from you

[edit]

Hi Durin. I don't know if you have seen User:Gnome (Bot) yet. The bot is removing all nonfree images from userspace. My stats tell me that out of the 9499 images scanned by the bot till now, 230 have been in userspace. That is 9499 less images for you to scan. See offenders list here :) - Aksi_great (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Password security

[edit]

Re: [21]. I don't think that is a good checker. It rates "Password123456" as BEST... I suggest [22]. WjBscribe 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

My adminship has been restored and let me tell you, we've got to very careful with our passwords. You know, despite the headache that this caused me, it really made me feel good to know how many friends I have in Wikipedia. The support has been incredible. I can't let my friends here down. Thanks for the birthday wish too Tony the Marine 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Since you're the person that's closest to being an image copyright expert on Wikipedia that I know, I've got a question for you. Is Image:Metaxa 7 star amphora.jpg freely licensed or not? It's a picture of a bottle with copyrighted material on it. I could see the fair use of it but, can it be used freely because it is a photograph of it? I'm confused. Thanks --Kimontalk 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]

Hey man... Sorry I've been such a dick about the fair use images, I just wanted to make my userpage look freakin awesome. I'll try to follow policy better in the future.
DarthSkynyrd

RFA/B

[edit]

Hi there - I have been reading your comments over at User talk:Cecropia#Further thoughts regarding consensus and your RfB. Thanks for the fascinating external link. Food for thought.

You said that the essay would be shocking, if read in the context of RFA, and I wanted to see what you meant.

The essay lists three things to accept, and four things to design for, to create successful interactions in large groups:

Accept
  1. social and technical go together - are we failing here? The devs seem quite disconnected from the editors, although there are clearly lots of people who overlap.
  2. members are different from users - are we failing here? Wikipedia is so large that I don't know half of the admins, let alone registered users. On the other hand, I know people that work on things that I work on pretty well, and an IP or newly registered editor is clearly different to a 10,000+ contribution old timer.
  3. the core group trumps individual rights - surely we are OK here - admins and "old timers" fiercely defend the core policies (BLP, NPOV, etc)
Design requirements
  1. handles (usernames) so people develop a reputation in their pseudonym - surely we are OK here (and the Kaycee Nicole story makes a nice counterpoint to the Essjay debacle, I though)
  2. members in good standing - I guess edit count, and the ability to review an editor's edit history to find their FAs, DYKs, etc, is a proxy for this
  3. barriers to participation - I am guessing that this is the one that you think is problematic for RFA - yes? That virtually any editor can vote at RFA, with no regard to how much they have invested in Wikipedia? And that we need to defend the "core group" from the unwashed masses? If so, some kind of account age/number of edits voting restriction would be sufficient, no? (My guess is that the bureaucrats already treat reasoned objections from seasoned editors with more weight that drive-by supports or opposes by anons or new editors.)
  4. dealing with scale - perhaps you think we have a problem here too? I'm not sure how to deal with the problem of scale at RFA, but it is a problem elsewhere too - I guess the Village Pump was originally the way to connect everyone at once, but it became too large and was subdivided. WP:AN and WP:ANI are now the ways for admins to coordinate, but there is already too much traffic IMHO for it to be that useful. Perhaps IRC is the way forward? And Wikiprojects helpfully break editors down into manageable units to collaborate by subject area.

The essay also says that a constitution is necessary - not a set of formal rules, but a core set of rules about how to make other rules. I think we are not too badly off here.

Anyway, I would be interested in your thoughts. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What jumps out at me is scaling issues. When taken with Dunbar's Number, it shows a situation that is ultimately untenable. RfA has become too large of a group to achieve consensus on anything. In April 2007, there were 231 contributors to WT:RFA. 231. Such a large group can not hope to evolve to respond to changing needs. Another issue is the barriers to participation, in the sense that one person can create a negative situation. Bureaucrats are empowered to ignore some opposition/support, but in practice rarely do. Quite a number of people argue quite vociferously that their "vote" should carry equal weight, regardless of rationale for it. Problem there is, as David Gerard puts it, one moron-one vote, and an opposition vote has three times the weight of a support vote. If RfA were a straight majority, this would be considerably less problematic. What we have now is a crossbred system that serves neither voting nor consensus garnering well. If it were a straight vote, it should just be support/oppose, and signature. No commentary. There would be no objections, no disputes, far fewer hurt feelings. If it were a consensus system, it would have to be significantly redesigned. What goes for consensus now is just drive by opinions of people who jump into the meeting, speak their opinion, and walk out without waiting for anyone to comment. Sorry if this is rambling; a bit distracted right now. --Durin 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woot, sane conversation has erupted!

[edit]

[23]

Your numerical skill would rock here. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what figures you'd like. Ratio of editors to admins? That's not terribly useful since new article creation required an account. The numbers of new accounts have sky rocketed. Ratio of edits to admins? Potentially useful. This figure keeps getting "worse" (read: more edits per admin per day) and worse and worse.
  • Something this conversation seems aiming at; defining a need for more admins. That debate is fatuous. Being an admin isn't about need for more admins. We do need admins, but need is not a requirement for more. Anyone who can be trusted should have the flag, whether they perform one admin function a year or ten thousand.
  • I would *love* to see 100 new RfAs noms in a day. That'd blow the system apart and prove the scalability problems. --Durin 17:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kim, if it helps; the number of edits per admin per day ratio has risen 26% over the last year, from ~178 per admin per day to 224 per admin per day. --Durin 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: vandalism

[edit]

I'm very disappointed in your actions Durin. How could you go as low as creating a sockpuppet to wish my death by cancer (and stairs!). Shame on you man... :-) Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstractopera.JPG

[edit]

Durin, thank you for your clear and polite message regarding Abstractopera.JPG. You said the image was OperaLogo.png, but pasted onto a different backround and I can understand why you think that; it looks very similar. However, if you take a closer look you will notice that it is not. First of all, I would like to say to keep in mind that both "O's" are the same size when comparing distances.

  • In operalogo.png (lets call that "A" to save time) the space in the hole from the first appearance of red to the second (vertically) in the "O" is 278 pixels (approximately).
Abstractopera.JPG (lets call it "B") is only about 263 pixels.
  • In "A" the width of the space in the hole (first to second occurence of red again) is 104 px.
In "B" it is 114 px.
  • In "A" the width of the area where the light is most abundant in the top left of the "O" is about 7.6 px
In "B" it is around 10 px
  • The most major difference between the two images is that "A" has (towards the bottom left section of hole in the "O") a thickness of 11 px
Image "B" has a thickness of 50.2 px

Thank You.--eskimospy (talk • contribs • count) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • The differences you note are miniscule. If I were to make similar adaptations to say, the logo for Coca-Cola and then make a million t-shirts for sale around the world, the lawyers would be on my doorstep faster than I could put one of the t-shirts on. --Durin 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq logos

[edit]

But they were NOT in a template! Why are you not going after J. League - 2007 and other alike? What is the problem? In the 06-07 series, I did it one by one - Iraq Super League (2006-2007) - so your telling me this is ok, but if I create a shortcut then all hell breaks loose? You want me to do them one by one? What is the point of templates then? Chaldean 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your telling me what I did here; Iraq Super League (2006-2007) - is right? Chaldean 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its annoying people like you that make wikipedia tasteless. Good day. Chaldean 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

[edit]

I am so embarrassed to ask since it might mean that I'm woefully lacking in procedural knowledge, and please let me apologize in advance if I'm speaking out of turn. It looked to me like the cut-off to add comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tenebrae2 is 22:33 today, but a comment was removed with the edit summary "not open yet". Help! This is all overwhelming and I feel so ignorant. Could you clear up the deadline discrepancy for me. Thank you so much for your help and patience? --Tenebrae 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The RfA was never transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. As such, it never officially opened. Being inexperienced in how to do this is perfectly acceptable. Canvassing other people to get votes is way out of line. This calls into serious doubt your ability to judge consensus on things such as AfD closures and the like. Consensus is not about voting. Trying to get friendly acquaintances of yours to support your RfA is seriously bad form. --Durin 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just found Wikipedia:Canvassing; I had gone to the what-to-do-when-you're-nominated page, and hadn't seen anything about it, and I've been contacted in the past in this manner for RfA. I just want to assure you again it was innocent.
I'll go withdraw. Truth to tell, I hadn't asked, expected or wanted a nomination; I only agreed after several days of mulling it over and deciding to do it out of a sense of responsibility. Maybe this is meant to be. Thank you again for your help. My God, am I embarrassed ... all these people I know must think I'm an idiot (although for the record, I did contact editors with whom I've clashed, in order to get a rounded picture). You've been right to point to this out. --Tenebrae 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's perfect. There's no withdrawal necessary, since it never went live. Instead, I'd recommend tagging it for speedy deletion. --Durin 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry again. I saw a whole list labeled "Admin stuff" on your user page.
That said, since it never went live, and because I believe I can do some good, I'm going forward with this, and you can and should oppose it for your valid reasons. I think my inadvertent vio here (which I've cleaned up as the page specified) needs to be balanced with the totality of my work. --Tenebrae 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your graciousness, even though we view things differently. There's no rush — I hadn't asked to be put in this position of extra work and responsibility. But now that I have, I need it to be decided so it's not hanging over my head. Given that we are all anonymous volunteers, taking time for what in my case is less is a hobby than an educational cause, I don't think that kind of closure is too much for which to ask. And as well, people do need to know about my mistake today, to judge me it totality, so I honest-to-God need you to point it out in the debate. I know you'll be fair. --Tenebrae 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'm a sentimental sort, but even so, the time you're taking, the care and effort you're giving, the encouragement and the advice ... maybe it's just the whole emotional thing about what one's peers think of one, but your last posting was very moving, and I wish the lack of facial expression in these postings don't lead to any impression but my sincerity. You are really being very nice to me, and in this hard world, I appreciate that very, very much. --Tenebrae 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

[edit]

Well, hello there! --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

[edit]

Hello. I just saw the Letterkenny Retail Park article. It uses 15 fair use logos to say what stores are in the mall. I'm sure it is a violation of some policy, but I can't seem to find it. I remember reading something about the decorative use of fair use images, but I can't seem to find it. Please help if you can. Thank you. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The issue has already been solved by User:Iamunknown. Thanks anyway! Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by copying this message and posting it on their talk page, along with a friendly message.

Image:-Burmapolice.jpg

[edit]

Instead of just tagging that I've written it wrong, help me to make it acceptable. Hundreds of police agencies around the world have their insignia on the article, it's not intended to defraud any agency, claim to be law enforcement itself, or make any profit. Your help in making it acceptable would be most appreciated, especially as you think I'm doing it wrong. Chris 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps-despite your comments, I have no doubt we respect copyrights, I'm just not skilled in how they properly should be written as you seem to be, therefore I request your help rather than continually removing images and retagging them. Chris 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I'm asking for your help on this. I'm good at a lot of things, as you can see I am a two year contributor here. Legalities and such are not my strong suit. Chris 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Will do!  :) --Elonka 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

[edit]

Why don't you put the interests of the readers ahead of your own? Wahkeenah 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I put the interests of the project ahead of my own and yours. Please read the instructions on the template. It's quite clear. I do have considerable respect for our readers. I expect that if they see a section titled "Plot" they will be able to figure out for themselves that there will be content in the section telling them about what happens. --Durin 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a guideline, not a rule. You should not be imposing your assumptions of how readers "should be" using wikipedia. That's called nannyism. Wahkeenah 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We operate, in part, on guidelines here. I'm not imposing anything on anyone. I presume that when someone sees "Plot" they can figure out for themselves that the section will reveal the plot. By adding a spoilers tag, you're essentially doing what you accuse me of. --Durin 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NetHack

[edit]

I've reverted your changes regarding spoilers on the NetHack page and created a subsection within the Talk:Nethack page for discussion about this. Entro-P 08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Company Logos

[edit]

So, why do company logos not qualify on the fact the there significance is used "it identifies the subject of an article". While it is not specifically beign discussed, it is used to identify the company through trademarks. However, I have a strange feeling that arguments about this are going to be pointless? I guess my main concern is that removal of such large amounts of information i feel will be a serios detriment to this project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geico Mech

[edit]

Yes I understand...well darnit lol I just wasnt thinking about the Geico thing. But It is my own screenshot and I did make the addons. Well thnx for the explanation anyways...

vipetheviper 17:04, 17 May 2007 (CST)

Grutte Pier

[edit]

Can you help me with the citations and references? All of them can be found at the external link-sectioon, but I don't know how to add 'em as proper facts\references within the tex! Can you help me with the Pier Gerlofs Donia article? By adding the references? Thanks, allready, from -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wry cAn'T I HaVE my FAIR uSE ImAGeS on mY UsER PaGE?

[edit]

Hopefully you will get a laugh out of my topic. In any case I'd like to thank you for comming up with the header on User:Gnome (Bot)'s talk page. The number of messages that I, and the bot receive has dropped significantly. As such, I'd like to give you this award. :)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for helping out with Gnome (Bot), and attempting to keep fair use images out of userspace, and other locations where there is no real justifiable fair use rational. —— Eagle101Need help? 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy. :) —— Eagle101Need help? 07:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adminy favour?

[edit]

An editor who already feels inconvenienced and accosted by me (User talk:pd THOR#Image constantly being removed) is continuing to violate the NFCC [24]. In lastly dealing with him, I made it plain that I would elevate the issue over this behaivour if he continued. ... and here I am. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

I am sorry. I had not heard from you in a week and I know you've been very busy. I had already touched base before and I did not want to pester you. Then, someone else offered and I accepted. I should have at the very least left you a courtesy note here or by email. Please accept my sincere apology for my lack of thought and courtesy. Vassyana 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was so thoughtless of you. I think I'll oppose your RfA! Just kidding :) No worries. I was mildly disappointed because I thought you'd make a good guinea pig, but it's no biggie. --Durin 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I wonder what I would have to do to offend you enough to get you to !vote in the Oppose section. :D Kidding aside, it was a bit thoughtless of me. Thank you for being kind about it. If elected President-General of the Grand Sacred Electorate of the Hidden Holy Cabal of Jimboism, I promise you six shrubberies and a plastic pine tree. :) Vassyana 14:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're in luck!! I live in a town just outside of Buffalo known for its plentiful pink flamingos. (Seriously.) My supply here is plentiful and cheap. While in some ways it's fascinating and cool, in other ways it's pretty frightening. Vassyana 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep. The bridge is about a 20 minute or so drive from me. Any other photos from the area needed? I think I have tons and tons of Falls photos. :P I can do some photo stuff over the weekend. (Neat. I've never contributed photos before.) I don't drive (yech), but I can get around. Oh, and aboot da flamingos.[25] Vassyana 14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Toya Jackson discography

[edit]

Fine, whatever. I'm so exausted and annoyed that I've wasted my entire morning trying to add Fair use rationales to EVERY La Toya Jackson album and single cover. I've already spent nearly an hour on it and am not going to go back and remove where it says "Fair use rationale in... and La Toya Jackson discography". I still have tons of single covers to go, and am extremely annoyed and frustrated that the policies on Wikipedia have become so overbearing that I've considered not contributing any further. Rhythmnation2004 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry this is a burden to you. There's no intent whatsoever to push you off the project. These guidelines and policies are an outcome of the stance taken by the Wikimedia Foundation regarding non-free licensed material. See m:Resolution:Licensing policy. It's exceptionally difficult to make all people happy in any sufficiently large group. Before the Foundation took this stance, there were people equally upset that fair use was being heavily misused and in many cases abused outright. So, these people are happy, but people who'd like to see a more liberal policy are angered by it. There's no 'winning' this in such a way that everyone is happy. We have to stay focused on our goal. Our goal is to create a free encyclopedia. Fair use, copyrighted images are not free. Thus, the Foundation's stance on limiting their use. --Durin 15:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discography discussion

[edit]

I noticed your message to Rhythmnation2004 on his talk page. I am interested in getting the pointer to the discussion of fair use discographies to use as I clear some out today. Thanks. ~ BigrTex 15:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd tried to find the LoE discussion by searching the WP:AN archives and was frustrated that I couldn't find it. Apparently, I started monitoring WP:AN about the time that the discussion was moved. ~ BigrTex 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Licencing Issue

[edit]

I don't realy understand what your problem is with my evidence about those images but the licence on that website does not specify what the word "text" means (only the included "text" of the site or everything).

And I'm saying that because there is no seperate image or graph policy on that website. The only policy is the one i provided, so it is assumable that it refers to the whole content of the website. However I will look into it more carefuly, BUT, in case of one and only policy proved (which includes the word "text" and that word ony), I'm quite certain the pictures should be posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kompikos (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The site license says "All TEXT is available under the terms of the GFDL" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say anything about the images. It's as if I copied the logo for Coca-Cola onto a webpage, then wrote about the logo. I can release rights to the text under GFDL, but the rights to the logo are held by Coca-Cola. That website does not have rights to the images. Hope this helps, --Durin 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

[edit]

Okay, you've made your point. But recently RfA's have been passing virtually unanimously at seemingly a record rate. So, when do you want your adminship back? :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana's RfA

[edit]

Hi Durin,

I hope you don't mind me contacting you directly. Yes, you are perfectly justified in asking for clarification. In fact, I've done the same in the past. My concern, however, is twofold: first, when I first read your question, I mistook it as sarcasm as well. It's only when I recognized your name (from your RfB and the WP:CHU thing) and reread your comments, that I eventually figured out that you were serious. Second, as you are aware, there is sometimes only a fine line between discussion and disruption. Discussing the matter is fine. Asking someone who opposes a candidate you (and I) support for a rundown of his decision making process, however, is a bit much and, frankly, I'd rather not have that discussion disrupt the RfA.

Granted, in this case, there's very little chance of such a disruption actually derailing the RfA but, nonetheless, it's not exactly ideal.

Do me a favor and reread your comment and try to put yourself in the shoes of a less experienced contributor. I think you'll see how someone might consider your response a bit harsh, if not outright aggressive. To make myself clear, I have no problem whatsoever with you asking for clarification. It's just that I think you could have phrased it a bit better (especially since this isn't a controversial RfA and there's no way it's not going to succeed). No offense. -- Seed 2.0 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left my final response on Vassyana's RfA

[edit]

I've left my final response to your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vassyana. I wish you had simply respected my view that Vassyana needed more experience. The endless back and forth has made it appear that I have a grudge or something against Vassyana (which is not true). The discussion also distracts from the RfA. Perhaps I shouldn't have responded to you, but your insinuations that I was opposing Vassyana's RfA b/c of Editcountitis or for no reason at all was wrong. As I said all along, I would support Vassyana for admin with a little more experience. If you can't accept that statement, then there's nothing more I can do to change your mind. --Alabamaboy 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while I have changed my "oppose" to neutral b/c the debate over my opinion was distracting from the RfA, I did leave a specific response to your request for diffs. --Alabamaboy 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not treat RfA as a vote. I treat it as a consensus garnering mechanism. My queries to you were to attempt to discern what your basis for opposition was, when it appeared highly contradictory. I am sorry you are offended by my queries. --Durin 12:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

[edit]

Hey Durin. Man oh man are you ungrateful. After I've patiently helped you clear all of these misconceptions you had about the RfA process you still don't participate (or vote) in my second go at RfA? You're breaking my heart. :-) Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 13:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You ungrateful sot! I spent a week perched on top of a lonely mountain (albeit with a nice wireless connection) in prayer for the success of your RfA. I sacrificed a number of virgins, burned a number of immature pigs alive, coated my body in ochre and endured the raving pillages of a thousand mosquitoes all in the name of you having a successful RfA. And what happens? It passes without a single oppose, and you blast me for not contributing? All that sacrifice on my part for your ungrateful attitude? I hate you. Go away. That's the last time I give up a week in my concubine. --Durin 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes, my bad then. I was wondering how I managed to pass unanimously and yeah, the virgin sacrifice explains it all. Pascal.Tesson 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Uploading

[edit]

Hi Durin and thanks for your message. As far as image uploading is concerned, you probably know better than me that its impossible for most matterial that is uploaded to wikipedia to contact and hold a copyright licence from the original creator of the image, because images are not always downloaded from the original copyright holder and most of them are found on websites that upload them without having contacted the original copyright holder. With that in mind, it is impossible for me to find and contact each time every copyright holder and wait for reply, so i choose to download them from secondary uploaders on other non copyrighted websites and edit them, avoiding to download images from official websites. I realy don't know any other way to post images, almost everyhting on the web belong to someone (copyrighted or not), but is found posted again almost everywhere. If i can't find a way to upload images in a manner that noone is legaly ofended, every article will be just plain text and nothing else. I would love to get your help over this. Thank you -- kompikos 13:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is the original copyright holder still retains rights, even if you found the image on a non-copyrighted website. I recognize this can make it difficult for people to find images to go with some articles. Nevertheless, Wikipedia strives to have free license content, not copyrighted content. Even if this means some or even many articles lack imagery, we prefer that over an article with a copyrighted image. In this case, a number of the images I am finding are ones that could be readily replicated by a wikipedian having a camera and some time on his hands. For example, there's an image of academy graduation. Though I was not able to positively verify that Image:Orkomosia.jpg, I strongly suspect it is a copyright violation. Someone with a camera could just as well attend a graduation, take some pictures, and upload them here, under a free license.
  • At Wikipedia, we assume something is copyrighted unless we have absolute proof that it is available under a free license. Thus, finding something on the web does, even if from a non-copyrighted website, does not necessarily clear it of copyright. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload, and note where it says "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted." We're quite serious about this. I assume you live in Greece? Grab a camera and take a trip to the Naval Academy and/or a naval base. Take lots of pictures, upload the best ones here, and release them under a free license. --Durin 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes i live in Greece, but Durin, especialy for the military pages i'm involved with editing, its absolutely impossible to take pictures of military equipment and/or officers without permission in Greece because one can be acused od spying (this is the law). All uploaded images on the internet of greek military equipment or facilities are either directly released by the Armed Forces General Staff, or taken by officers (who have the right to post them under direct permission). A civilian cannot do this unless it's greek military equipment photographed in a foreign country or a graduation image photographed by a parent. I haven't uploaded anything that has been directly released in the official armed forces websites (because they are strictly copyrighted), but only pictures released with the above credentials i've mentioned. In these cases, the copyright may indeed be hold by a civilian or officer but has been given permission to be released on public domains on the internet. In other cases, unofficial military sites upload these images and copyright them under their domain. I haven't used such images either. Anyway, I don't know what I should do but I understand your concerns and wiki policy. However if the above clarifications help you look into it about greek military images and adjust in a legal way the policy, that would be great. Thanks again -- kompikos 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "release" mean? Images can be released for a number of purposes, and this does not necessarily mean they are released under a free license. For example, Reuters news agency routinely releases images for use to subscribers of their service; this does not place the images under a free license. Can you cite the Greek law covering this? If the images are strictly copyrighted, it does not seem they have been released under a free license. Unofficial sites that take these images and host them on their sites may be breaking copyright; we have to know what the original status of the images in, whether that is codified in law or if there exists specific releases for these images. I'm interested if there is Greek law supporting all images by them being in public domain. In the United States virtually all images taken by military personnel are, by law, in the public domain. Is there are similar law in Greece? Can you cite it? --Durin 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images copyrighted by the armed forces are "released" for promotional purposes of equipment and work and are not free. Images taken by military personnel on the other hand are uploaded after given permission (by their superiors) but have the exact status like in the US (they are free). I'll find the law and i'll get back to you -- kompikos 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

There's always a few, hmmm? Funny story, I think you were my first introduction to the words 'fair use' - you removed a logo from one of my userboxes waaaay back last year :) Anyway, take care! Riana ⁂ 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In any sufficiently large group, yes there are always a few :) Can't be helped. Yes, it's funny about the turn around...you responded positively. Some, well...don't. --Durin 15:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

[edit]

Yeah, what NYB said above. When delivering your guinea pigs I meant to express my horror that you had resigned your adminship!!! I understand that frustration can drive you to implement desperate measures on occasion, but this ... ?

To repeat the mantra, "Adminship is no big deal". Although many people on both sides of the fence work feverishly, by words or actions, to disabuse people of the simple truth encapsulated therein, it's still a refreshingly appropriate view of what it should be. You could do so much more with the tools, and as you often point out, it matters not whether an admin uses them once, once a year, once a month, day, hour or minute. If they are used wisely for the betterment of WP, that's a good thing. Which is what RfA really is all about, selecting suitable editors to use the additional tools appropriately.

Now that your holiday weekend is over, go and get your tools back. BTW, I missed your RfB nomination but I'll definitely catch the next one :-) We do need more crats. As for feedback on the essay, well I'll ponder that for a bit longer. Hell, it might even inspire me to go and write one of my own - not something I'm usually inclined to do. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't be running another RfB. When I ran, it was with full knowledge that it would fail. It was part of a larger strategy that began in January of this year upon realizing a number of things. I've written extensively elsewhere on this, and I'd be happy to point you to various diffs regarding this if you like (short on tonight though), but in a nutshell; I intended to resign adminship all along, and felt the need to do so as part of a larger reform effort. Once my efforts are done either successfully or unsuccessfully, my purpose at Wikipedia will be complete. I'll step away. That's not to say that I think Wikipedia is bad or anything like that, just that my work is done. I largely gave up on the main namespace near three months ago now. I gave up on images too, but went back into that sandtrap to help get fair use things in order. I've been especially pleased by the introduction of a fair use bot to remove fair use abuses outside of mainspace. There's other things I could do here, but there's other things in the 'real' world for me to do as well. --Durin 21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for diffs, the one half of my eyeball pair that was working during my break caught most of them, the other half can track down the rest (I think).
I understand your frustration, and desire to reform, but I don't think this is the way to achieve it - by walking away. My time tonight is also limited - (Horlicks and all that, not that I've ever consumed it : ) All I'll say for now is that you popped up, out of the blue, to plonk me up for RfA when I was pretty disillusioned with most things around here and your words of encouragement were decisive in my decision to accept the nomination, and to continue working here. Those very same words should be directed back to you now, because they apply equally well.
Wikibreak, recreation, family, friends, foreign travel, strong coffee, whatever - take some time out and reconsider? I'll hopefully expand on this later, but whatever the outcome, I'll respect your decision.
The debate over Wikipedia as a successful / reliable / viable long term endevour is another kettle of fish entirely. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)--Cactus.man ✍ 22:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perhaps not making a clear distinction. I'm not disillusioned with the project as a whole. I do think it faces some serious obstacles. Regardless, my desire to leave has little to do with the obstacles. It's likely I'll hang around a bit, poke at things here and there. But, my involvement is eroding. --Durin 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at the RfA

[edit]

Dear Durin,

Thank you for your providing your honest evaluation of me at the RfA. I wish to address some of the points you have raised. It is not my goal to try to get you to change your opinion or to justify my actions, but simply to shed light on the issues you've highlighted.

  • Regarding my comment to Tony Sidaway. I did and do not view his suggestion to be either reasonable or polite. That said, my comment was hostile and the last two sentences were entirely inappropriate ... there is no excuse for it and I regret having written it.
  • Regarding my comment to David Gerard. David Gerard had "started noting when a given oppose is irrelevant to the question "is this person likely to cause damage with the admin tools?" and suggest[ing] it be ignored" in multiple RfAs. I did and still do consider this an inappropriate practice. In my comment, I asked him to stop his postings (not to stop posting to RfAs altogether but to stop requesting that the comments of other editors be ignored). Though my claim that his posts "come off as disrespectful and arrogant" was perhaps worded strongly, it was my honest evaluation that any call to simply ignore another editor and forgo the option of engaging them in discourse is disrespectful.
  • Regarding my views on Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. Quite simply, consensus cannot be determined by numbers and percentages. So, why do I still believe percentages should be taken into consideration when closing RfAs? Well, for two reasons. First, I view RfA to be primarily about trust ... something as basic and personal as that can often not be affected by the limited amount of communication that usually takes place in RfAs. Second, I would prefer to see the RfA process combine consensus-making and voting for the sake of efficiency ... though I generally dislike votes, the simple fact is that they're faster. This is why I recommend that RfA be governed by voting in the 0-65% and 80-100% ranges and by bureaucrats' evaluation of consensus in the 66-79% range.
    • My views on RfA do not carry over to my views on XfD, which is where admins have discretion (please see, for instance, this comment I made to Walton monarchist89). I believe XfDs should be closed on the basis of policy-informed consensus. The only thing that matters in deletion debates is the strength of the arguments made and how they do or do not reflect existing policies and guidelines. Numbers are only useful as a cautionary device. If an admin is closing a discussion against the recommendations of the supermajority of participants (excluding socks and SPAs) in an XfD, he or she should more carefully consider whether his or her understanding/application of policy is indeed correct. In that case, the closing admin may wish to confer with others, to leave the closing to someone else, or to become a participant in the discussion and express his or her take on the situation. If my RfA succeeds, I will naturally start by closing less controversial deletion debates and will progress to more controversial closings as I acquire experience.

I both understand and respect your position, and hope my reply addresses (even if it does not alleviate) some of your concerns. Best, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your RfA will pass easily. I was conscious of this when I left my comments. Nevertheless, I left them anyways because it is important to convey opinions that shed light on negative behaviors. You admit above that you acted improperly with respect to Tony and David. These should be cautionary to you. When you become an admin, you're going to come under a lot more fire than you've come under before. So far, I've not been impressed with how you've handled yourself under fire. Nobody is perfect; this is simply an area you need to work on. --Durin 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will take your comments to heart and will indeed work to improve myself in this regard. I hope to ensure that there will not be a repeat of the above. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durin. My RfA was closed as successful a short while ago and I want to thank you again for bringing to my attention something that I need to be mindful of. I sincerely hope to disprove your prediction that my being an admin would create "more problems for the project than [it] would solve" (and I'm sure you do as well). Anyway, if you ever find me making any mistakes, throw something my way and I'll promptly fix them. :) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do I get to choose how much mass the thing I throw at you has and whether or not it contains explosives? ;) Congrats on passing. I hope I am proved wrong too. --Durin 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain to me..

[edit]

I'm am trying to figure out how to make this image Image:IDF new.jpg legal on wikipedia.. it is just the emblem of the IDF.. there is no reason why it shouldn't be up there. --Acidburn24m 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the cost of blocks

[edit]

(Replying here as the AN/I discussion is already getting too long.) Blocks are for harm reduction. I see more harm in a block here, than in Giano giving his blunt, even harshly worded, assessment of someone's edits. He's also allowed to say "go away, I have better things to do" if someone comes to his talk page with things he considers time-wasters. If you feel he was out of line, by all means, tell him. There no need for a block to tell him his comments weren't acceptable- that's the kind of message that's better sent with words. Being uncivil already has a cost, even without a block- you spend your social capital when you don't play nice with others. Friday (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't give a pair of dingos kidneys about social capital. I believe it is one of the chief problems that undermines our efforts here. Giano might not like what someone else is saying/doing with regards to an article. That gives him no leave to refer to that person as a menace to the project. Hemlock was entirely in the right for attempting to cool him down, and entirely in the right for blocking him when Giano insulted him. Hemlock was a messenger only. He was aside from the dispute, and attempted to remain outside of it. Giano assaulted him anyways. And what happens? Giano gets backed up, and Hemlock is left out to dry as making an inappropriate block. Insanity. Pure insanity. --Durin 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps there's no seeing eye-to-eye here. But, just for another perspective, it almost appeared to me like Hemlock saw that his message was not well-received and then decided to block because his warning wasn't given the respect he apparently felt it deserved. To me (and, I think, to others) it looks like Hemlock was "throwing his weight around" in an inappropriate way for an admin. Friday (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durin, if you really believe Wikipedia needs to be such a namby-pamby place that people should be reflexively blocked for pointing out in less-than-PC-terms that the sum total of someone's edits do more harm than good to the encyclopedia (for that is what Giano's statement means), then you yourself are the menace here. Hemlock's block was bad, and he should be hung out to dry. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Fair Use images

[edit]

Hey, I notice that you removed some fair-use images from my user page. I certainly have no problem with the policy, I just wish you would have sent an accompanying message so I understood without having to look at my history page. Thank you. 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermore27 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charts and Logos

[edit]

Hello, if you are going to be removing logos from charts and such like you did at Kootenay International Junior Hockey League, please refrain from leaving the chart in tatters. DMighton 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be harsh, I was just asking you to take notice that's all. This fairuse rational thing from Betacommandbot has me retagging things left, right, and centre, it has been mildly frustrating. Either way... carry on. DMighton 15:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did take notice. I made attempts to fix the chart away from three columns and the attempts I made were unsuccessful. So, I left it for someone else to fix. Believe in the power of m:Eventualism. The important thing is the fair use violations were removed. Whether the chart still looked perfect or not is a secondary consideration. --Durin 15:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How very dare you !

[edit]
  • Accusing me of uploading images without Fair Use rationale. I haven't!
  • Messing around with my User Page. What a pathetic way to spend your time!

PaddyBriggs 16:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a well established practice on Wiki that Book Covers may be used. Maybe the rules have changed. As I have said I really don't care. If it pleases you to do what you seem to find amusing that's sad. But don't hide behind a "Bot". It's human intervation. It's you. And it sucks. PaddyBriggs 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book covers can be used. But, a fair use rationale must be provided. I've provided you with a link with instructions on how to craft one. I recommend using it. Complaining to me won't change our policies. I'm sorry. As to the rest, why thank you for the compliment! --Durin 16:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images from templates that are already on Wikipedia

[edit]

You recently removed links to already established images in some templates I made. If the images are already on Wikipedia, and fair use has been established, what is wrong with me linking to them? -- Elaich talk 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer "Because we do not permit images which are copyrighted to be used on templates" seems too pat. The answer should include, somewhere, the "why". In other words, why is one use of a logo allowed, but not another? How is its use in one fashion considered ok legally, but not in another fashion? Ccrashh 14:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the use of fair use images in decorative manners, which is almost always the case on templates, is not permitted by law. Wikipedia therefore takes a stance against such use, and draws a line in the sand saying use in templates is not allowed. This makes management of this issue considerably easier, rather than trying to puzzle through whether the usage in one case is ok when another case like it it is not. --Durin 14:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your online handle

[edit]

Durin, I just finished re-reading The Hobbit, and of course I thought of Wikipedia in the process. I'm curious, did you get your online handle from Tolkien's mythological character (or from the Norse mythological character it is based upon)? --Iamunknown 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse

[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I added a note to the top of User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse to let users know to tag unused fair use Images with Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced, although it's common sense, some people forget to do this. I wanted to also let you review what I did to Zorro before continuing on removing Fair Use Images to see if I was correct in doing that. Regards, — Moe ε 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:One_Star_DB.png

[edit]

Fair use outside of mainspace, with at least 4 templates, and 3 other related images. I am going to bed shortly, but could you look into this? Thanks. —— Eagle101Need help? 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trainweb

[edit]

I don't agree that this is free.

You may post TrainWeb photos to other websites or use them in print media without charge and without any further permission from TrainWeb. However, "www.trainweb.com" must be printed either on or near the photo, or in another area where credit is provided to photos used in your material or on your website. You may use small font sizes as long as the credit is readable. Web Sites must include a link to "www.trainweb.com". Your cooperation is appreciated. If the photos will be used in print and you are providing credits for all photos in that publication in a location that is not directly on or next to each photos, that is acceptable, but less preferred than placing the credit right on or by each photo.

"You may post" would not include derivative works, "websites or use them in print media" is restrictive (Wikipedia CD is not print or a website), and commercial use is not explicitly granted. Also, please see the discussion about this on my talk page and Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates. Kotepho 04:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling and Sampling+ are non-free licenses for the purpose of Wikipedia. Sampling alone only gives permission for "Re-creativity" and Sampling+ allows you to use a whole work (without the "Re-creativity") in non-commercial circumstances. Kotepho 13:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging this as I replied when you were repling to someone else and didn't get the ugly orange bar--if I'm wrong, sorry. Also see Template:Cc-sampling and Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates about cc-sampling too. Kotepho 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping pang. Thanks for the ping :) This was my first exposure to that particular license. It seems to me it's free. You feel it isn't. That's fine. Retag it as non-free, but I'd modify the template to have a red C or some such. --Durin 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Fair Use Overuse

[edit]

Hi, in User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse, Bounts in Bleach has been given the all clear. Is that really okay? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Debatable. There's not been a clear stance (that I know of) regarding articles like this that are list of characters. It's probably not acceptable in general, but specific cases may vary. --Durin 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent fair-use debate

[edit]

Hi Durin. I don't want to seem like I'm wiki-stalking you, but I saw that you suggested the Signpost to write about the recent debate. That's a good idea I think. Just some comments. I think this debate is different form the previous ones. I completely agree with you about fair use images in project space. There is no way we can claim fair use for that. I can agree about large galleries too. Fair use does only allow limited use after all. But for one low-res image of the box of a computer game on the page about that game, I think we definitely can. I support the free content movement and I wish we could have only free content. But for things like logos and album covers, there is now way we can make a free version. Even the Wikipedia logo is not free. Good night :-) --Apoc2400 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No album covers??

[edit]

I fully agree with Apoc2400. Are all album covers outside of bands with a Creative Commons license to be deleted? At the risk of being human, I have to wonder if these actions would be truly in the spirit of Wikipedia, or merely pedantic. I'll wager on the latter. --K d f m 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for accusing me of being pedantic. I'm honored! Nobody is suggesting that all album covers be deleted. What is being asked for is that a fair use rationale be provided for each use of each image. This is per our policies. It is no different than asking people to provide a license for an image they upload, or for people to avoid revert wars, or any other policy based actions here. --Durin 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution for the Fair Use Rationale problem

[edit]

Hey there. These are some thoughts i posted on betacommand's page, but you seem to be taking more of an active role in this situation now than he. Many people are upset about what betacommandbot is doing - tagging pretty much all fair use images for deletion. The reason why this is such a problem is because it is not clear in any way that individual rationale needs to be added for every "fair use" image. The upload page is overwhelming, and the only mention of fair use rationale is in some brackets for the box marked "summary." Most people just ignore this box, thinking it isn't really necessary. Rationale is supposed to be given in a specific form (found on Template:Non-free_media_rationale), or it is preferred if it is given in that form. What should be done is that if an image is uploaded with the "fair use" template selected, it should bring up another page to fill out the fair use rationale (asking if its low resolution, etc.). This would make it so that hopefully, the bot would become superfluous at some point in time. What do you think? SECProto 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen similar suggestions. This could work, but it requires a code change. I'm not a developer. I think suspending CSD I6 until such time as we get a better handle on this problem is an equitable solution. I don't think suspending the bot is the right way to go, because the bot is doing a fantastic job of identifying those images missing the rationale. --Durin 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had never considered that, actually. I agree that, if it's needed, all images should certainly have fair use rationales added. My main concern was that many images which were fine, but simply lacking a rationale, would be speedy deleted. I would certainly agree with suspending CSD I6. SECProto 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

[edit]

Yeah, I heard about not using the fair use images like album covers on certain pages. I just didn't get round to removing them (exams!) Therefore have only been doing a few edits, and mainly just answering anything left on my talk page. I don't really have time to put comments on all those images, but I agree with the deltion of them all! Asics talk Editor review! 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIfference between these Images

[edit]

In effort of trying to understand the Fair Use Policy, what is the difference betwenn these two images: *Image:Rebel Alliance logo.png


And these two:


[[Image:Rebel Alliance logo.png]] was on a Userbox, but you told me it couldn't be used on {{User:Tyty1234/rebeloverempire}} and {{User:Tyty1234/empireoverrebel}}. But [[Image:LimeWire.jpg]] is being used and I was wondering why it can be on the Userbox {{User:Xenocidic/UBX/LimeWire}}. The PSP and The DS pics are part of a userbox too. Can you let me know? Thanks! Tyty1234 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rebell alliance logo is copyrighted and rights are reserved. Thus, it must be used under terms of fair use. Our fair use policies do not permit the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. The Limewire logo comes from a free software package. Commons presumes that while Limewire may retain copyright, there's no profit loss possibility from the use of the logo since it is freely available. Thus, not used under fair use. In the case of the last two, it's images of potentially copyrighted works. Technically, the makers of the objects retain rights. In practice, this rights tend not to be of concern here. --Durin 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

[edit]

Durin, I must say that I am impressed with essay on transformative and derivative works. And I am glad that you put out that we simply do not know whether or not specific uses are "fair uses". I think people often forget how little the United States code defines what is a "fair use" (compared to, say, the United States tax code ;)) (only two paragraphs and a four-part list!), and to what extent case law defines what is a "fair use". Anyways, I must say that your essays are masterfully written and researched, and were some of the most informative copyright-related information I've read in a while (that said, I'll make not to take what you wrote as legal advice). (And on a separate but not wholly-unrelated note, what do you think of Image:Univision logo.png? Fair use or not?) Cheers, Iamunknown 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the compliments :) My own understanding of fair use has been evolving over the last year. It's been an educational experience. What is clear is that fair use law is not clear. To use one judge's terms (in an unrelated case) "there is no bright line" at which a usage becomes fair or remains piracy. If there were a bright line, this would be considerably easier to judge.
  • Since we can not definitively define a narrow line in the sand, it is far safer for Wikipedia to stay well clear of cases that might be questionable. Certainly purely identifying uses are not within that realm of clear of the line.
  • If we were to accept pure identification of a given thing as reasonable fair use, then in the vast majority of cases where we use fair use images we could simply say "for identification purposes" and be done with it, which is essentially what has happened at Image:Univision logo.png. This is the sort of case a number of people in opposition to BetacommandBot are arguing in favor of. This sort of fair use rationale could be done with a template, and does not need to identify any particular article.
  • Yet, as some have pointed out, the legal ramifications of this are purely a small subset of the greater ramifications of fair use in our project. There is a clear legal threat that descends from this use, that much is certain. That it has not yet been acted upon does not minimize this threat or making it worthy of derision as "paranoia". But, the larger set is our purpose, our mission. In understanding this, it is important to read m:Mission which says in part "...under a free content license" Under no definition can fair use be considered as contributing to that element of our mission as it is not free content. Thus, fair use images are contrary to our mission. Jimbo has taken a clear stance on this, though in so doing has stated this is not policy. In sum, he has said that he wants fair use to be as limited as possible, preferably to a small handful of highly important historical photographs. For example, an image taken right after Kennedy was shot (Image:Altgens mary ferrell.jpg) would be allowable under his philosophy. But, a base album cover would have no standing. This is a very important concept, and one that is lost on many of the people in favor of fair use images. We are here to build a free content encyclopedia. Anything that detracts from this is contrary to our purpose.
  • My personal stance at this point is that we should eliminate fair use in all cases but an extreme minority. My position is very similar to Jimbo's position.
  • My current understanding of our fair use principles (as opposed to personal stance) on Wikipedia is that if a fair use image is to be used, it must contribute significantly to the article (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8) and from that same policy, that the use of such images in "user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative". I regard info boxes (such as Template:Infobox Album) as being user-interface elements. They are not there for the purposes of critical commentary, and do not constitute any sort of intellectual labor regarding the copyrighted work (per Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342).
  • To clarify this, a navigational template located on the bottom of the page (for example Template:General Motors brands could just as well have a fair use image (Image:Gm2.jpg) because it serves to identify the company in question on the template. Yet, we strictly *forbid* such use, even it it is not hard coded into the template, but coded into the page itself. If we forbid it on navigational templates for identification purposes (which, according to some, is sufficient for fair use defense) then why is it ok for identification purposes on an infobox?
  • Thus, in sum, I do not feel Image:Univision logo.png constitutes fair use in its current form. From cursory review, it appears the logo is not actually discussed, but only serves identification purposes. This, in my current understanding of our principles here, is not allowable and should be deprecated. Hope this clarifies my position :) --Durin 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I gotta stop typing![reply]

Fair Use Rational

[edit]

"What is being asked for is that a fair use rationale be provided for each use of each image." What should one write? And why is the tag not self-explanatory? Is this not why we have tags? If you could give me an answer as to what I could write, I'd appreciate it. I just want your bot off my case. --K d f m 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update of number of 'Fair Use' images

[edit]

I'd appreciate you running whatever robot it is that collects stats on the number of fair use images per page. I noted that the page I wrote was linked to some list that gave the total as eight, so I removed all but one image. However, the page is still listed as having eight images for which "fair use" was (fairly!) being claimed. The robot should have been activated when I saved the page, and the list ammended accordingly. Sa cooke 06:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list is not updated automatically. In fact, it's working off a data set ~1 month old. If the page you are concerned about has had fair use usage reduced, you've nothing to worry about. --Durin 12:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Commons image really free?

[edit]

Hi, Durin. I normally go to Jkelly with my questions about image copyrights, but I know he's very busy at the moment, and I know you're an admin at Commons. I recently found a lot of "fair use" images in userboxes and templates at French Wikipedia. In particular, I found that Harry Potter's signature was in a userbox and in various templates for Wikiprojects, etc. I found a free Harry Potter image at Commons. (Many Harry Potter images at Commons are or were up for deletion as derivative, but I thought this one looked okay.) Since a lot of these userboxes and templates were transcluded, I managed, in about five edits, to remove that signature from about two hundred non-mainspace pages. I then asked Jkelly about how the fair use policy applies to French Wikipedia. He suggested that if I brought it up at the French Village Pump, an administrator would probably take care of it. I did, here, and a French administrator removed the images from the boxes I had mentioned. Then, someone else called "Ironie" began to put free images in instead. Instead of the McDonald's and Burger King logos, there was now a simple image of a hamburger. However, Ironie's edit to the Disney userbox was rolled back without comment by an administrator. Someone else re-inserted the Disney logo, and the administrator rolled back again. You can see the page history here.

If the image that Ironie tried to use really is free, it should be okay, but I know that sometimes some non-free images are uploaded to Commons, and that the non-free status remains unnoticed for a while. Would you mind taking a look at Commons:Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (6).jpg and telling me if the licence really is okay before I go back to fr: and query the removal? I understand that the really important thing is to get the unfree logo out of the box, but since I was the one who brought up the issue, I'd like, if possible, to keep everyone happy by leaving the userbox looking okay. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image appears to be ok. There's a general habit to view screenshots from movies prior to 1964 as being public domain. So, this one is probably ok. I am uncertain if this is supported in law, but this is generally how we handle it. --Durin 12:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks. I'll go back to fr: and ask the administrator about it. It's possible he didn't see what the image was and thought that Ironie was putting the logo back, which, in fact, another user did later. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update. I asked the administrator at fr, and he said that the image isn't free in all countries, mentioning Switzerland in particular. I think the issue has been satisfactorily resolved, as someone has now added Commons:Image:Magic Kingdom castle.jpg, but I'm puzzled at what the "free in some countries but not in others" means for the Commons free images policy, when it's a website with the servers in one country, a person uploading an image in another, a person adding it to a page in another, and a person looking at it in another. I've asked about it here. And, while I'm at your page, thanks very much for your supportive comments in my RfA. I have already decided that, regardless of whether it succeeds or fails, I'm not going to leave a pile of boilerplate thank yous, as I know that while some appreciate it, others find it annoying, and I don't know how individual people would view it. So, I'm just thanking people while I'm at their pages for some other reason. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical commentary

[edit]

What is your definition of 'critical commentary'? This is in regards to your deletions in The Beatles Collection and The Beatles Box Set. Steelbeard1 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've commented elsewhere about this. In short, if you're going to use a fair use image, at least discuss the contents of the image. Commentary could include why the image is significant, what significant thing it portrays that can not be recreated, what effect it had on society, what new ideas were expressed in the image, was it a first for something, etc. Something about the image. Just displaying it for identification purposes is insufficient. --Durin 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The items included were: album title, record label, catalogue number, original release date, highest chart position and track listings. Steelbeard1 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The album cover is one of the principal means of identifying the the album - the assertion that it is "merely decorative" is not justified. Your allusion to a similar discussion regarding screenshots from an episode guide is not relevant. If the discography pages had random pictures of the band or singer in them then it would be analagous, but the fact that the cover of an album is the principal marketing vehicle and one of the two princiupal means of identifying the said album the cover is not decorative, it is as intrinsic a part of the album as the songs itself. When you buy the album you also buy the cover art (unless you get it on iTunes) and in the days of Vinyl a great deal of effort often went into producing album covers that were works of art and not just pieces of cardboard (e.g. Sticky Fingers, School's Out (album) and Physical Graffiti etc.) Jooler 17:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And identification alone is not enough. The fact that it is the principal marketing vehicle makes our need for fair use restrictions even stronger in this case. The amount of work that goes in to the album art is irrelevant if it is not discussed within the article itself. --Durin 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not quoting policy when you say "identification alone is not enough". The aid to identification which the cover provides does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" (from 8 on Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria) the images certainly fall wel within the criteria of the other points. Certainly in the case of point 3 a single image will not suffice. As for "The fact that it is the principal marketing vehicle makes our need for fair use restrictions even stronger in this case" this is complete rubbish. Firstly the copyright owners of those images are only too happy to gain a larger exposure for the images (because it sells more records) and secondly the images fall within point 2 and 3b of the policy. I did not state that the amount of work that goes into an album cover had any relevance to this issue - I was merely pointing out that album covers are creative works of art that are purchased along with the songs. Jooler 22:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I am not interested in debating this with you any further. Both you and Jheald take every opportunity to refute any point raised that might have the slightest effect of countering your position. You are not interested in the policy. Rather, you are interested in twisting and squeezing every ounce of potential connotation out of it to your benefit in the name of having fair use images scattered hither and yon everywhere on this project. It is quite blatantly obvious to me that you are not interested in the mission of the project, that of creating a free content encyclopedia and distributing it throughout the world. Rather, you are interested in using fair use images as much as possible.
  • Quite simply, this stance of yours is unacceptable. If you insist on pushing fair use galleries into articles as you did with the Beatles discography, I expect you will be unhappy with the results. --Durin 01:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh yes your 100% correct. Of course you've looked back at my history and seen how I spend all my time scattering free images hither and thither. Yes it's my principal reason for being on Wikipedia. I scatter free images in Wikipedia for by own self-agrandization. Yes I'm not interested in the encyclopaedia just my self. It makes me feel great to do it and I've been doing for the last 6 years at Wikipedia. <In case you've had a sense-of-humour bypass that's called sarcasm>. What utter rubbish you spout. Jooler 09:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Codelyoko193 (for the last time)

[edit]

I would like to thank you for your help in showing me the correct images to use on my userpages.

It's not official, nor is it a real barnstar per se, but... Codelyoko193 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!This is a Codelyoko193 Would Like to Thank You "Barnstar"

Question about mugshot

[edit]

Hello again. If you have moment, can you weigh in here, please? I'm out of my depth. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see...

[edit]

...this Codelyoko193 Talk 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF policy

[edit]

I noticed that you still tell users in a lot of discussions that the WMF policy doesn't allow uploading fair use images, except in very few cases and with a proper "critical commentary". Please note that the official WMF licensing policy resolution specifically allows using a FU images for the sake of identification (point 3) as long as it has a fair use rationale. Your personal view that WP should be a free-license only encyclopedia isn't shared by the majority of users and it is not the official position of the WMF. You're of course entitled to your own opinion on what Wikipedia should be, but suggesting to people that your personal view would be the actual policy of the WMF is dishonest and not acceptable, IMO. Malc82 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your understanding of that policy is flawed. To quote, "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works." Our stance is logos do not require critical commentary. Our stance is that other uses do require critical commentary. If you read, you will understand that this is what the licensing policy by the WMF is stating. I thank you for your accusation that I am dishonest. Since my being dishonest is not acceptable behavior, I formally request you report me and have me banned from the project, since I fully intend on being dishonest in this manner in the future. --Durin 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for misreading your comments regarding the use of logos. However, I still fail to see which point of the WMF policy specifically says that cover art can only be used when the image is discussed in the text and notable in its own right. As far as I interpret the policy, low-resolution cover art is included in “to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works”, which leaves to us the question of what “narrow limits” means. I know that WP:FUC currently has the stance that you support, but since a reform of this policy is exactly the topic at hand in these debates, this can hardly be used as an argument. Malc82 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand a number of people wish to reform the policy. I consider this highly unlikely, as we are focused on being a free content encyclopedia. Permitting greater, more liberal use of fair use images is not contributory to that goal. --Durin 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton University

[edit]

You removed the image under the fair use policy from my userspace. I understand why. What I don't understand is how that image got loaded without any seeming rationale for its use in the first place. Am I missing something on the image page that discusses how the logo fits under fair use policy. I spoke with an admin from the University, and they were surprised it was there. Ccrashh 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image does need a fair use rationale. For instructions, please see WP:FURG. Such copyrighted imagery can be used under fair use law in the United States in restricted circumstances. --Durin 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there isn't one, and the image was uploaded in January...how long is it allowed to remain until it is deleted under WP:FURG? Sorry about all the questions! Ccrashh 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to apologize for questions. Ask away! The image hasn't been tagged as missing a fair use rationale. Thus, theoretically, it could stay indefinitely. Once tagged, it's seven days. But, the image *should* be tagged as missing a fair use rationale. It's likely it will be soon. --Durin 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:Beatlescoll2.jpg

[edit]

Added requested rationale. Steelbeard1 15:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin

[edit]

Hello: I saw that you took the album covers out of the gallery. Yesterday, I took down several concert photographs from this page because none of them had fair use rationale provided for use on this page. I'm kind of new to the whole fair use issue, but this was I think the right thing to do. Do you agree? thanks. —Gaff ταλκ 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


For enduring the grind

[edit]
The Working Man's Barnstar
I cross paths with you often as I'm patrolling the recent changes and I can't help but often notice your excellent contributions in the mind-numbing grind of fair-use work. My hat goes off to you. Trusilver 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to get worked up?

[edit]

I'm not sure you've had the pleasure of reading through this depressing RfA. So just in case you're missing out on all the fun, I'm sure you'll enjoy a distraction from the fair use debates. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding EngPlacesKey template

[edit]

It seems pretty ridiculous to remove the images. If they're allowed to be used on normal wiki pages then why not on templates? the policy is stupid unless there's some kind of underlying copyvio. Please explain the reasoning behind that policy and I will kindly stop. 84.65.197.183 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

request - fair use images

[edit]

Hi I been looking into Australian articles specifically school lists which have extensively used Fair use logos, could you isolate Australian articles in you lists and I'll tackle them. Gnangarra 08:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh

[edit]

Instead of stating a bunch of self-invented Wiki-Talk, maybe you should clearly explain the Wikipedia policies to every person you harass. State clearly what one was done out-of-bounds so one may learn what they did wrong. It's not polite to threaten others - so, please, stop. And explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SugarFREEgum (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did explain, both here and here. You've chosen to continue to violate our fair use policies [26][27]. As I previously indicated, I'm quite happy to answer questions about this policy. However, continuing as you have to willfully violate it despite having it explained to you twice now is completely unacceptable. If you have questions, ask away. However, the warning stands and is now a final warning. If you continue to place copyrighted, fair use album cover images into discographies I will recommend you be temporarily blocked. --Durin 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed, I changed the articles back. Yes, I had reverted to the version with the pictures the first time, but then I changed it to suit your needs. I think that warning should be taken back. Also, you did not have to refer to your statements as I had left them on my talk board (so I technically did not violate any of your said Wiki-policies). Another thing, I messaged you so you can explain your rude statements. They did not make sense. I have questions and they're still not answered. Why can't said album covers be posted? Do they have to be in their own pages (ie refer to a BoA album)? Yada yada...—Preceding unsigned comment added by SugarFREEgum (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What would you have me do? The first time I brought this to your attention, you deleted the message from your talk page and reverted me, willfully violating our policies in the process. Of course I warned you. It was the logical thing to do. If you find it rude to warn you when you deleted my message and violated policy, then so be it. I'll continue being that rude. Sorry.
  • As to the images; they can appear only on the album's article, not in discographies.
  • As to why, please see WP:NFCC. We are a free content encyclopedia and strive to have as little use of copyrighted content as reasonably possible. Thus, galleries, lists, discographies, etc of copyrighted images is not in keeping with our mission.
  • Other questions? Ask away... --Durin 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you recently deleted all of the album covers from the discography page of Anna Vissi. I understand wikipedia's mission to limit copyrighted images on pages, but lets not forget the meaning of a copyright. It's so that someone does not take the image and claim it as there own. Having the album cover on both the artist's discography page and their album page is a service, for its easier to find the album someone may be looking for and it looks nicer. The thing with album covers is that no one made them themselves, someone is not going to make a cd and use the same cover, thats just plain stupid. The copyrights obviously belong to the record company. A little more advertising does not seem too bad. I bet they love to see their images linking artists to their albums. Grk1011 02:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State seals are public domain

[edit]

Every single state seal on Wikipedia either comes from the U.S. Mission to Germany website, or is identical to the image on the U.S. Mission to Germany website.

See http://usa.usembassy.de/disclaimer.htm "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the U.S. Mission to Germany web site is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission."

State seals are public domain. Please stop removing them. --M@rēino 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • STOP. Just because they are on that website doesn't make them public domain. --Durin 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that you are "raising this issue in other places." Could you tell me where? I would much rather resolve this once and for all than play chicken with the 3-revert rule. --M@rēino 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rockstar: The seal is not copyrighted because the state"officially adopted the seal on October 2, 1849", so it's now public domain. Now reread the page that you linked to. "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. Furthermore, the unique branding of the site and various official seals and marks may not be used without permission of the State." It's not saying that the seal is copyrighted. It is saying that the seal may not be used without permission of the State. Why? Because California, like most other states, has either a statute or a policy of preventing commercial bodies from using the seal in ways that could confuse ordinary citizens into thinking that the state endorses their business. If you're concerned about that state law, write the Calfornia secretary of state. But they don't have a claim under copyright law -- that's federal jurisdiction. --M@rēino 21:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work Mareino. If that seal is the same seal as today, then indeed the image is in the public domain by way of age, and California can not make any case that it isn't. This is the case by case evaluation that I was referring to. There is no blanket law that covers all seals in this manner. Some seals are old, some are not. --Durin 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that State Seals aren't under the federal jurisdictions. The farthest you could take the issue would be the state supreme court. In fact, there's a case like that that occurred recently... User:Rockstar915
        • Rockstar, see my analysis of that case at [28]. In short -- yes, you're right, state seals aren't under the federal jurisdictions. But you forget that since they're not under federal jurisdiction, that means they can't be copyrighted, because the Constitution specifically reserves copyright law for the federal government. States cannot make up their own copyright laws; if they want to restrict the use of their seals, they have to use other means, like anti-fraud statutes. --M@rēino 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C) 21:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Durin, if I've done anything wrong in my recent revert to images , feel free to say so, and I'll happily self revert. I'm relying on your expertise and on my own belief that in doubt, it's better to take the safer course. ElinorD (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"10,000 edits????????"

[edit]

I hope WJB (whilst I was sleeping) and my follow-up comment cleared this up. I would never expect a candidate who does non-repetitive, non-decision-making work need 10,000. Daniel 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn;t because of the quantity of edits, but rather in making that number the candidate didn't demonstrate discretional abilities needed by an administrator. See my response linked at the RfA (I've replaced my original statement with a more clarified one, and linked to the old one). Daniel 04:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Gonna Tell You Like This

[edit]

Okay, I see you are one of the editers against having album covers on the artist's page because it's "fair use". Not having those covers on the artist's page iz an outrage. For years wikipedia had the policy of having the wikitable with the album covers on them. But then in 2007 some administrators (aka nerds with power on wikipedia/tyrants) decided that even though wikipedia will never be sued for this action, that they were gonna take all the album cover off the pages. But a few bold editers such as my self, did not except nor like this change and continued to put the album cover on the page due to the fact that's where they belong. I have been blocked 3 times for this and am sick of it. I'm not saying all administrators are a bad, I have even read comments by some that said that they would rather have the covers included. I also was visiting a admi. page and read "Even the most anti-album cover administrater agrees that wikipedia will never be sued for the album covers. You know what I'm sayin' Loc? We want album covers, man. Whether it be you, Steel, Spellcast, Mel Ethis, Shadyaftermathgunito or whoever keeps deleting the album covers, you guys got to stop. Do you guys get paid for every album cover you remove? That is the only reason I can think of for you guys being so anti-album cover. Damn, we only live once. I suggest a revolt, a reconsider, a vote, anything. You administraters don't run the world. Peace. Payne2thamaxx

  • One, I am not an administrator. Two, we are a free content encyclopedia. Fair use images can not be in anyway construed as being free. Thus, such images do not contribute to our m:Mission. I am committed to our mission. If that makes me, in your eyes, a tyrant then so be it. I would rather have you committed to our mission as well, but if you insist on not being so I am not concerned if you consider me to be a nerd/tyrant for eliminating fair use abuses. Sorry. Enjoy, have a nice day. --Durin 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images from Guster discography

[edit]

I was going by the discography setup in Daughtry (band) at the time (and many others that I saw, but forget who now). Now, I see that at least his article no longer has the album cover (I don't know about the rest), so precedent shows that they should go. Thanks for letting me know, and I wouldn't have put them there in the first place if I didn't see that that was how it was done on other discography pages. Thanks, and happy Wikying!  hmwith  talk 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTW on ANI

[edit]

Thankyou for you comments, the whole issue was driving me mad. I couldn't understand why people weren't taking action, why people were not taking the issue seriously, and why people were just not showing any interest. J Milburn 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate you

[edit]

You don't know how long it took me to but in those damn pictures. The only thing I hate about wikipedia is it's corrupt Idea of citing images and the ways you use them. Colinstu 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry that you feel that way. What you hate isn't me, it's the policy. I'm merely enforcing the policy. Your best chance of getting a change to the policy is to bring it up to the Wikimedia Foundation. Their contact information is located at Foundation:Contact_us. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. All the best, --Durin 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tireless efforts

[edit]
The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless efforts, working on fair use problems and enforcing policy, despite the grief some users give you. Your efforts in doing this very important work are highly appreciated. --Aude (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got 2 know

[edit]

Durin Do-Right, The Wikipedian Wrecker, The Crown Prince of Fair Use, are you looking at my contributions? I ask this because it seems as if every music page I have ever edited, probablly all music you have never heard because no offense, you are probablly whiter than sour cream, the album covers are disapearing from the pages. You claim you are on a mission, but it's Mission: Impossible. Eventually even you will not cair about the album covers and until that time I will lay low, alright G, I'm out. Payne2thamaxx

Fair Use Overuse

[edit]

When you have a minute, could you take a look at Family Guy DVDs? I've removed the DVD covers twice, and an anon user has replaced them both times. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, and they have only responded in edit comments. Another user removed the {{orfud}} tags from all of the DVDs after the first revert. I think they are just decorative, but the anon seems to think that they are useful for distinguishing among the different releases. ~ BigrTex 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discographies

[edit]

Thank you for your explanatory comments on discographies. Yes it was upsetting, but I will get over the discography for Rosalie Sorrels being denuded. I might suggest then, that the licensing for album covers, etc. include information about discographies and lists not being an appropriate or rather allowed usage of album covers. It would save some of us from wasting time creating a magnum opus and having it gutted. Had I realized the futility of my efforts, I wouldn't have wasted time scanning in all the images I did. Now the bot will delete them as orphaned images. Oh well, there are articles and articles to go before I sleep. --Robbie Giles 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice Robert Frost reference :) I'm sorry this caused you frustration. I don't think we can modify the licensing templates really to indicate all potentially wrong ways in which to use fair use images. :/ --Durin 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the used discover

[edit]

if u click on the image, it tells u where its is copyrighted and the license and who it belongs to and all, how much more does it need to be posted there??? i even changed the look of it the way it use to be whnen no one tried to deleted it so whats the problem? -xotheusedguyox

...so we can have the album covers on the page about the album but we can't have them on any other page in the discovery, ive seen many discoveries that are like that and don't get deleted, theres not really a point of uploading the image and putting the license on it if we cant even use it and i barely understood what you meant in your response about getting the copyright privillege nor do i feel like going crazy trying, i guess ill have to re-organize the discovery cause it looks like crap now with the pictures

...ok if that is how it works, wiki is a bit confusing some times but okay, but i wouldnt be surprised if someone else treid to change it back

Best Admin Ever

[edit]

Thanks, I appreciate your comments and at least they did make sense to me once you clearing explained it to me. Lots of admins on this site just like to give out the rules and then, that's it, no answer really why except a bunch of info that's hard because of the verbiage it's written in. You gave me a great answer to the question and....I agree with you, it makes sense and thanks again for taking the time to explain and drill it down for me.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page image removal

[edit]

The image you removed from my user space was used under acceptable use conditions of the copyright holder.

  • This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice and imagery metadata) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your family or organisation[29]

I fail to see what rationale you have used to interfere with my user page. Please stop your vandalism. Ozdaren 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

[edit]

Eduemoni has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wiki Bully Warning

[edit]

Why on Earth have you randomly singled me out to bully! I had not even heard of you until you started your attacks on me. I don't even give a brass razoo about you. You cite civilty. I have posted nothing to defame you on a public space. Just go away. Leave me in peace. I don't want to interact with a person such as you. Take your school yard tactics elsewhere. Ozdaren 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have posted nothing to defame you on a public space"-- you don't think that calling someone a "little pathetic excuse for a man" might count? Marnanel 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have never used those words in English to describe this person, your attribution to me is wrong. Though I don't disagree with the tone of what you have written. Edit summaries on my own talk space are not posted with the idea of being a generally viewed part of my page. Since what you are trying to hang me on is a point of view, was Durin's actions pathetic in nature? I think so.
Durin's whole attitude to me is that of a bully. He/She rides rough shod over me and expects no reply? Durin has no sensitivity to other users. Durin has employed tactics aimed at goading a response from me. I am only a minor W/P user. What I do, all be it small in scope, is of reasonable quality and adds to W/P. Why single me out from all of the users? Please do not fan the flames of this dispute. Ozdaren 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point by point;
  • Whether you use English or not for the insult, it is the same. Calling someone a pathetic excuse of a man can in no way be construed as being civil.
  • The fact the insult is in an edit summary vs. a post itself is of no difference. It is still uncivil. Edit summaries are just as generally viewed as anything else here. People have frequently been blocked for uncivil edit summaries, regardless of their location.
  • You are not being taken to task for your point of view. As I've noted previously, I do not care if you hate me. Your opinion of me is of no consequence to me. What does matter is when you take those opinions and express them on Wikipedia. We have a policy regarding this and repeated violations of it will not be tolerated.
  • In no respect have I ever attempted to goad you. I'm simply immune to insults such as that levied by you against me as a "vandal". If you doubt this, please see the upper right of my userpage. Lots of people call me lots of things. Personal insults have no effect on my editing habits. If you wish to have my edit habits cease, you'll need to have me banned from the project. I remain at your disposal if you would like assistance in how to go about achieving that.
  • There is no way in which it can be construed that I am singling you out. I have removed fair use images from literally thousands of userpages over the last 18 months.
I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that you can not have fair use images on your userpage. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that it causes you to refer to me as a vandal, and a pathetic excuse of a man. Nevertheless, the policy remains. If you disagree with the policy and would like to see it changed, I recommend you take the issue up with the Wikimedia Foundation. --Durin 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair use question

[edit]

Is it a valid fair use reason to use a photo of a book by an artist on the article about the artist rather than about the book? RJFJR 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Botts. I created a stub on him (a really good calligrapher) and wanted to illustrate his calligraphy so I took a photo of the cover of one of his books. I guess we'll have to remove the link and delete the image. (I suppose I could create an article on the book and then link to it, but I'm not sure the book is ntoable though I'd argue the calligrapher is). RJFJR 13:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a paragraph on how the cover of the book demonstrated his mastery of many different 'hands' (styles of calligraphy). That works well. Thank you. RJFJR 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done! Now, add a fair use rationale (see WP:FURG) to the image noting how the image is used on the article, and that it is important to the article due to the article discussing the nine different hands used on the cover. All fair use images must have a fair use rationale. --Durin 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the automatic

[edit]

Why have you removed the images, there are many many articles that use imagery. these images are fare use. In the past week this article and all the work i have put into it has been completlely ruined so what is your shitty geeky little reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.18.177 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok sorry. Just in the past week this article, and a lot of work i have put into writing it, and making it as good as it can be has been undone, and the only help i have been given is to go read through entire articles about fare use ect ect. Even then it does not really say how i can make an image fare use, logo fare use and other images all fare use. So yes sorry, just other people on wikipedia just seem to want to undo my work and not help. --Jacksack 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please log in :)
  • Second, yes there's lots to read. Fair use is not a simple subject. To make it short, and to the point; we do not permit the use of fair use imagery to depict, for identification purposes, living people. Reason; a free alternative is readily available. You like this band. Fine. Go to a concert where you can get a camera in legally. Take a picture. Post it to Wikipedia (or better yet, Commons) under a free license. Done.
  • Now, for album covers; there's been long debate about the use of album covers in discographies. In short, we do not permit it.
  • On both of these topics, I'd be quite happy to go more in depth if you want to read more.
  • Also, while I have your attention :), The Automatic untitled second album should probably be deleted. Please see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Note that articles are frequently deleted under this. For example, there was a fair bit of press coverage for the Beer Hall of Fame. An article was created on the subject based on the media coverage, and the article died...and rightfully so. Plans for the hall died, and it's never been built or talked much about since then. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer Hall of Fame. When this album from The Automatic is actually titled, has significantly more press coverage, perhaps a single release from it, maybe some cover art, a release date, etc. then an article is warranted. Not yet though; it's mostly speculation right now. --Durin 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right logged in, ha. yeah well i have pictures of them (live ones i have taken, and friends have taken), just wasn't originally that sure about using images, like Theautomatic.jpg i thought if it was available on there Myspace, Purevolume, and available on there website to download then there would not be a problem with it.
  • Album arts i have already been talking to someone about that, so they won't be added back into the discography. I have still tried to add sumarys on the album arts i have uploaded, why it is fare use ect. The Automatic untitled second album i was unsure of what the guidlines were in regards to situations like this, for example when bands like Jimmy Eat World, Rancid, Sum 41, All American Rejects are all examples i have seen at different points with articles simular to what i have done with The Automatic untitled second album, a lot of the work i have done i just working around what other articles are like and trying not to overstep the line. But yes that can be deleted until more infomation is made available.
  • with regards to Theautomaticlogo.png what sort of guidlines are there to uploading and using logos. This logo is taken off of a single (TheAutomaticMonster-cover.jpg) but heavily edited (by me) to fit wikipedia. Id quite like to get that back in? But how can i make it (if possible) fare use? Thank you for your help.--Jacksack 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, happy to help and thanks for becoming civil :)
  • Second, logos of bands are generally acceptable to use on the articles about the band in question. In the various inclusion/removals that were done several times over Image:Theautomaticlogo.png was removed from the article. It can be added back in, in the infobox, without difficulty.
  • Third, the images you took are perfectly acceptable if you release them under a free license and you could use them in the article without concern. Images that a particular group uses for promotional work, even if published on a website, are not automatically available under a free license simply because they have been published. Thus, getting images from their myspace site doesn't eliminate copyright concerns. --Durin 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for the fair use rationale heads-up concerning image:Makeup.jpg. I really hate it when admins just go all willy nilly and delete stuff without letting people know. Just so you are aware, I am not actually the one who uploaded that photo, it was User:Sachabrunel. However, I have responded to the deletion proposal on the orgininal image's deletion review entry (here). Drewcifer3000 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image:Makeup.jpg

[edit]

Hey there. Thanks for the fair use rationale heads-up concerning image:Makeup.jpg. I really hate it when admins just go all willy nilly and delete stuff without letting people know. Just so you are aware, I am not actually the one who uploaded that photo, it was User:Sachabrunel. However, I have responded to the deletion proposal on the orgininal image's deletion review entry (here). Drewcifer3000 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use question

[edit]

Hey Durin. I brought up our little conundrum at WP:FUC (you can find the discussion topic here). I hope I presented your side of the debate faithfully, but feel free to change anything about it. And, of course, please contribute to the discussion! (Oh, and sorry for the double post earlier) Drewcifer3000 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Help Me

[edit]

You removed my "Piston Cup" pictures from the article. I don't want them to be deleted but I don't know where to put them. Help me! --TimySmidge 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC and Fair Use

[edit]

I agree with your concerns; I used to always ping Jkelly when I had questions, but I grew tired of bothering him. If you wouldn't mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States housing bubble, it is one that concerns me—a lot of magazine covers, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have a look. --Durin 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Shredded more like. There's considerable problems with the images. --Durin 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for dipping in to FAC; participation there may be the fastest route to getting the culture to change and helping more of us understand Fair Use. It's still Greek to me, which frustrates me endlessly. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's time consumptive. Each review I'm doing is taking quite a bit of time. Maybe it will help. Maybe it won't. There's been some resistance so far, but some agreement too. Time will tell.
      • Part of this is education. There's a large subset of editors who simply do not understand fair use (like you), some who argue for it with reasons that have been thoroughly trashed before ("It makes the article look good!"), and some who willfully violate the policies anyway, in some cases as a form of civil disobedience. For most of these people, a better means of understanding fair use and how it is used here on Wikipedia would help tremendously.
      • I've also been thinking of a tool of sorts to aid people who do not know what to do with X image. I'm working on developing a flow chart that ultimately I think will lead to a series of subpages that ask questions with forking opportunities based on the answers to the questions. For example, "Is this image tagged as being copyrighted and not available for free use?" Yes---> "Does this image exist on pages outside of the main article namespace, such as on templates or on user pages?" Yes---> "Remove the images from any non-main namespace pages". In each page, have references to basis in policy, prior debates, example actions, etc.
      • I'll tell ya, I've been working on this fair use stuff for a year and a half now. I'm *still* learning. It's complex, and not easy to understand. At times, I feel myself getting lost in it and have to struggle to get back to the concept of free content and what it really means to us. And *I*, a jackbooted-gestapo-member-tyrant-fair use cultist, struggle with this. I imagine those less committed to our mission just can't get back to the core.
      • As an aside, I was surprised to find you are not an administrator. I dug through your talk page archives to see if it came up, and it did on many occasions. Kudos to you for maintaining your stance :) --Durin 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The politics of adminship ... ugh ... too much work to do. Anyway, I think another flow chart of how to deal with Fair Use would make people like me throw up their hands even more. I need a friendly face I can talk to when I have images questions — I think a WikiProject where we can go with questions and for help would be better. I've given up trying to understand it, and was embarrassed at how often I had to bug Jkelly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith.

[edit]
Yes, by all means please do assume bad faith on my part

Believe it or not, I was not looking for a flame war. My comments on assuming good faith were an attempt to be conciliatory, actually, not shut off debate. Clearly either I horribly misphrased them or you horribly misinterpreted them. Possibly both.

That said, I am (obviously) still frustrated that you don't seem to be addressing the points raised, but rest assured I am not in doubt that you are acting in good faith. SnowFire 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate what you've just said above. I also appreciate [30], specifically the new "Clarifying the issue at hand" section. If I overreacted to your statement on "trying to assume good faith", I apologize. I've simply become disgusted with the tolerance of uncivil behavior on Wikipedia that is treated as de rigueur; if you're not insulting someone, or making accusations of violating a guideline or policy, nobody will take you seriously. I refuse to work with people who use these methods. Text based communications has its limits. When I see "trying to assume good faith" it reads to me like "I *know* this person is acting in bad faith, but rather than making a blatant accusation, I'll say it this way" --Durin 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

[edit]

Stop being such a girl man..stand up for what is right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibm44 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Blanc and the Reichstag

[edit]

Hi Durin!

Hmm... in my view the Mont Blanc decree did look very similar to the Reichstag in basic gist. Both were in the "If you are upset about something, don't do some attention-seeking ridiculous drama gimmick utterly unrelated to Wikipedia" mold, and I felt that JzG got there "firstest with the mostest" and had the moral patent on this joke.

I did consider looking the other way when I saw it was a creation of yours... but then I thought about Geogre's advice ("vote on the article, not the person"), so I went ahead with the MFD (so you could say that the MFD was all Geogre's fault). Perhaps I should have informed you about the MFD, and I have some regrets about not doing so, although usual practice in deletion nominations is not to do so.

Best wishes, Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looked similar because I modeled the form of it after the reichstag essay. The intent of mine was that ongoing format disputes do little to foster a better project. The reichstag intention is very different. I don't have any problem with voting on the article and not the person; I am personally disgusted with the social currency system here, so kudos to you for not giving this a pass because I wrote it. But, I seriously would have preferred being dropped a note about this to at least defend the article. I'm not wedded to it in any respect; don't care about it that much and it didn't seem to pick up links to it, so no worries about it being gone. I won't take it to the absurd cesspool that DRV has become that's for sure. I understand it's usual practice to not be informed. I was just rather shocked when I went to revisit it and *poof* it was gone and redirected to an article with entirely the wrong meaning. --Durin 14:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robot imitations

[edit]

That was great. Thanks for lightening my day; and that's not something I normally say after reading WT:FACR. Mike Christie (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Glad you enjoyed :) We needed a light hearted moment in there, and Brian kicked that effort off nicely. Thought it might be fun to pig pile on his idea and make some fun with it :) --Durin 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to understand WMF's licensing policy as regards fair-use

[edit]

I'm trying to understand WMF's licensing policy as regards fair-use, and specifically the 10 criteria. How would they apply to the images at Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. I rescued these pics after deletion and wrote fair-use rationales for them. Someone rewrote (or rather, templated) the rationale for the main pic. What are your views on the pics and how we are using them? Carcharoth 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the images are fine. The rationales are provided, and indeed critical commentary on the work itself is provided in the article.
  • Often, there's not a clear cut line as to whether an image is acceptable for us. It's a case by case analysis frequently. In this case, if the particulars of the photo shoot were not discussed, the second image would be useless and unacceptable. If the first image was not discussed at length, but in passing (hard to do given the nature of the article), it too would be unacceptable. In each case here though, it seems to clear our hurdles. --Durin 17:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks. Carcharoth 17:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny :)

[edit]

Hey, I was just having a pity party for one. If you can't laugh at life and yourself, what's the point. Have a great weekend. --Robbie Giles 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown FAC

[edit]

I've removed the fair use images and I hope you'll re-review the FA candidacy of the article. CLA 03:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images removed

[edit]

I see you removed images from Wintley Phipps and though I disagree, I will not challenge it. However, to be fair, they should also be removed from Michael W. Smith, White Heart, Bon Jovi, David Lee Roth, and Van Halen. --Maniwar (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's literally thousands of articles with fair use overuse. Other articles will be tended to in time. Fairness isn't judged by whether White Heart has such images removed or not. Though, I'll remove them there too. --Durin 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Martha Sherwood

[edit]

I believe that I have addressed the image concerns you raised for Mary Martha Sherwood. Please indicate on the the FAC review whether or not it has your support yet. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 22:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image from the template I'd created

[edit]

I was surprised to see the image in my Western template had disappeared. Although I'm still new to Wikipedia, I'm fairly tech savvy and was able to find your explanation page.

Point taken.

I had put in the image because I'd seen images on other similar university/college templates. In fact, I'd used the McGill template to create mine (I don't know enough Wikipedia code yet to have created it from scratch). That raises a question: do, for example, the marlet in the McGill template and the Q in the Queen's template not fall into the same non-free category as the UC Tower? Or have you simply not yet "caught" those or others like them? No, I'm not trying to ask "why me and not the other guy?"; I'm trying to learn from this experience so I don't cross the line in the future. I was going to create team templates for my favourite pro teams using their logos instead of the two- or three-letter abbreviations they now have. Of course, now I know why such templates don't exist.

I will delete the template I created (if I can...I haven't tried that yet) and will revert to the one I'd been using previously. If I can't delete it, I'll just leave it there.

Thanks for the explanation.

Now I'm going to throw another question at you. Although I don't have a userbox to this effect, I'm incredibly anal about grammar, usage, style, etc. Would you like me to edit your explanation page to clean up some of your "errors"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zatota (talk • contribs) 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The break point is whether something is reasonably, correctly tagged under a free license or copyrighted. If the latter, they may not appear on templates or any other non-main namespace article on the project. Yes, logos for pro teams are almost all copyrighted, and thus why such templates do not exist. Blanking the template isn't enough to delete it. You can add {{db|I created this, it is unused, and I would like it deleted}} to the template and an administrator will come along and delete it. Feel free to edit the explanation page. You can edit anything here! Also, please remember to sign all of your comments with "~~~~". --Durin 00:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD COVERS

[edit]

DVD cover artwork enhances and improves the article as a whole. This gives the viewer an adequate description as to what they are looking at for example with the I Dream of Jeannie set, Roseanne, Married with Children, etc... Jdcrackers 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why has this been going on for years?Jdcrackers 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common practice had been to craft such articles in that form for a long time. However, a recent resolution by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation (see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy) refocused our attention on the use of copyrighted material, and on our mission (see m:Mission) to create content under a free content license. A number of efforts have been undertaken to more strongly adhere to our mission. This is one of them. --Durin 14:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See All In the Family

[edit]

As you can see All in the Family, has DVD covers and it improves the quality of how neat the box is covering the DVD artwork, number of seasons, episodes and the year it was released... Jdcrackers 04:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well you go ahead and delete every cover DVD on Wikipedia!! I want to see all the covers deleted!! I think this is unappropriate and I am sure you will have many complaints...Oh go to Medium TV series and delete their covers too ...I am sure there are thousands of DVD covers you will be deleting today! Jdcrackers 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not thousands, but perhaps hundreds today. Thousands of articles are being affected. Have a look at User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse for a list of some of them. Yes, there have been complaints towards me and quite a few other people regarding this activity. Have a look at User:Durin/Fair_use_overuse_explanation#Prior_debates for a sampling. While I am happy to educate people on these matters, the complaints are not sufficient reason to stop the work. What I am doing adheres to our mission and foundation resolutions. That trumps the complaints. --Durin 14:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered that you will lose many viewers? Personally when I read an encyclopdia, I learn more from looking at pictures and it furthers the education experience!! If one's books did not include any pics then people probably wouldn't be reading them as much in high school or college. Biology and Psychology books are great examples the same with articles on great TV shows... It's just quite sad in my opinion that this is going on, because many people enjoy seeing DVD covers, music covers, single covers, etc... I feel it makes the article much more enjoyableJdcrackers 18:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 15:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Candidates for you

[edit]
Some worthy candidates?

Hi Durin, I heard you were looking for Guinea Pigs, so, herewith: Nibbles and Strips, both fine specimens I'm sure you'll agree.

I've been keeping half an eye on things during my extended break. I'm not sure what the RfA solution may be, or even that the intrinsic "process" is really that fundamentally flawed, alhough the current working of the process probably is. My initial gut feeling is that any probable solution revolves around the Bureaucrat issue - more of them, wider discussion of disputed promotions etc. After all, they are there to judge consensus and implement the will of the community. More explanation, transparency and openness about these matters never hurts, usually always helps and is the way things should be done.

I also think LateNightDoubleFeatureCreature deserves recognition for Username of the Year. If I find a suitable barnstar I'll lob it on your page to add to Rhetorical rhino, Flippant,One-man wrecking ball, Wiki Bully!, The Boss, and Proud Blithering Idiot.

:) --Cactus.man ✍ 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh :) Yeah that name popped out of my deranged head. Further evidence I need help :) Other than "blithering idiot" the other badges of honor were said of me, so that's how they got there. I've frequently been referred to as an idiot though, thus "blithering idiot". Glad you read the essay. Feedback? Thanks for heads up on the rodents. Holiday weekend and all, it'll have to wait until next week at least. --Durin 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Instructions for people who want to help with image problems

[edit]

Hi, Durin. As you know, I'm an administrator now (and thanks again for your support). I would like to start helping with image copyright cleanup, but am completely baffled as to where to start. On the few occasions where I have helped before, Jkelly spent more time explaining to me what to do than he would have needed to spend if he had done the little bit that I did. His messages now are buried in my talk archives, so there's nothing for me to refer to quickly if I need some more help.

I have found a lot of helpful pages such as Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, and have added links to my user page in order to be able to find them quickly. Also, I find Wikipedia:Non-free content very useful. But while there are pages that explain the copyright policy and pages that tell you what tag to use when you're uploading an image, I have so far not been able to find a page that gives you the information you need if you want to remove non-free images, tag images that don't have a proper fair use rationale, or that don't have a proper licence, or where the fair use is disputed, etc.

Something just showed up in my watchlist where an editor referred to {{dfu}}. It's useful to know of the existence of that tag, but I wouldn't have known where to find it, except that I happened to see it.

Is there a page that tells people about templates such as {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}}, {{subst:nsd}}, {{subst:nld}}, {{PUIdisputed}}, and other similar ones, and that tells them what they should do when there's a problem with the image, and how they should inform the uploader and list some images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. It would be great to have all that information available in one place. People like you and Jkelly seem to know exactly what you're doing, and obviously know the names of all the appropriate templates from memory. I feel I need some kind of "how-to" guide for people who don't know all these things but who would like to help. I'm tempted to create something in my own userspace, with the possibility of moving it to project space later, but don't want to waste time on that if an appropriate page already exists.

Any advice? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Such a page does not exist that I know of. I've been thinking about such a page, based on a flowchart. Start with Image:X, go to question free license or not? If not, then...etc. Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of? --Durin 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I certainly wasn't thinking of a flowchart — in fact, I had to look at the article to see what it was. But it does seem a very good idea. (Of course, if it's that complicated and technical, I certainly wouldn't be starting the page!) I was thinking of some of the information Jkelly gave me here. If there had been the kind of page I was thinking of, it would have been quicker for him just to have wiki-linked to the appropriate section. My idea was a simple page with lots of headers for different sections dealing with what you should do if you find an image where you disagree that it's PD, or that it's an appropriate use of fair use, etc. There are certain templates that you should use on the image, there are pages to go to in order to report that the PU status is disputed, and you need to know how to notify the uploader. So, I was thinking of a page with detailed instructions not for what you should do if you're uploading something, but for the steps that you should take in every possible case where you think that there's something about a particular image which is not in keeping with policy, and the page should give a list of all the templates for no licence, orphaned fair use, licence disputed, etc. ElinorD (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Fair Use & Image Deletion

[edit]

I noticed that you have deleted quite a few of the DVD cover's that I have uploaded. I have also read your comments and the page you provided a link of and I am still not exactly clear on what is going on here. From my understanding it appears that 'no images whatsover' are allowed on Wikipadia unless I created them and agree to allow them to be displayed on this site- correct?!

Let me say that this will become one VERY DULL website without any images. Pictures are a part of life, there are many (including myself) who learn by seeing- Visual learners we are called. This is one way that people learn things, by seeing something, just like others learn by doing or hearing. Images and photographs can be a very useful tool and not just for decorative purposes. Seeing as how this is an encyclopedia, there are certain topics that should have images included in the article to allow people to fully comprehend what is being discussed. You can't just have reams of text with no images whatsoever, that is crazy. Its like the difference between sitting in on a lecture for 3 hrs listening to someone go on and on and attending a workshop where you get involved in the discussion as well as listening to others.

Bottom line: Under Wikipedia policy is there any way these images can be retained or will they all be deleted? (You have your work cut out for you because I have personally uploaded hundreds!) If they can be retained, please give me a clear explanation of what can be done to keep them. What about corporate logos, are they history too? I don't really understand your logic about these being copyrighted images, I can go anywhere on the net and copy them to my harddrive. If they were copyrighted, they would be protected meaning you would not be able to save them only view them- sort of like Read-only Memory. I noticed further up on this talk page you mentioned to someone that their is supposed to be a fair use rationale for each use of the image. How do you go about doing that, where do you insert the rationale? I feel that these images are relevant and not just useless crap, noticed how the section of an article looks with images and how it looks without- quite a profound difference IMO!

I await your reply so I can decide what to do with these images, whether to re-insert them or not. I guess that is pointless because they will just be deleted again. HeMan5 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The visual appearance of an article is not of any weight when it comes to copyright concerns. Thus, whether a copyrighted image enhances an article or not is of no value to us. The issue is whether it is copyrighted or not. We area free content encyclopedia. Thus, copyrighted imagery should be used as little as possible. DVD covers, screenshots, etc. are all copyrighted. Just because you can download them to your hard drive does not mean they are not copyrighted. Corporate logos are acceptable on articles about the corporation in question. As for deleting images, I am not an administrator so I will not be deleting them. However, we have over a thousand administrators and if the images do not meet our fair use inclusion requirements I am confident an administrator will eventually delete them. The size of the task is also not a stopping factor for handling this situation. As for fair use rationales, see WP:FURG. I strongly advise against re-inserting the images. The galleries are not permitted and will be removed. Other questions? Ask away! Happy to answer! --Durin 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you failed to answer a few of my questions, I assume its because you are not an admin, then what is your involvement in this issue- an assistant?? Do you know any admins who could clarify this issue about copyright images for me? By galleries do you mean the images or the information, I hope that is not deleted as well because then we have a problem. The images are one thing but deleting the info is not acceptable and a very valid reason should be given as to why it is being deleted. You did not answer my question about whether ALL images will be deleted from Wikipedia or just these DVD covers, because other types of images can also be classified as 'copyrighted' not just DVD covers?! I still fail to understand this notion of copyright, frankly I think everyone is going a little nuts with this copyright stuff nowdays, like the stupid RIAA and royalties for songs. If the damn thing was copyrighted it would be protected and I would have to pay to obtain a copy and/or use it in some way like uploading it to this site, so why was I allowed to upload hundreds of images without any trouble?? Where are the owners of all these images, I don't see anyone beating down my door asking me to pay for using them. In the end Wikiedia is not my site, so if these are the rules you want to have in place then so be it. Just know that the number of hits that Wikipedia receives will fall dramatically as a result of these actions to delete all copyrighted images. The site will be gutted and only text will remain- enjoy!:) HeMan5 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I do not know what questions you feel I did not answer. My role here is as an editor. All of us are equals. We do not need to be administrators or any other title on this project in order to serve the project in conjunction with our policies and our mission. This applies to you as well. I'd be quite happy to clarify this issue for you; simply ask, and I'll answer.
  • There are hundreds of thousands of images on Wikipedia. The images in question are fair use, copyrighted images that we do not have permission to use, but must use under fair use law of the United States, as well as with respect to our fair use policies, which are a superset of the law. It's not even a matter of removing all copyrighted works. It is a matter of only removing those items which do not contribute significantly to the project. Galleries of fair use images (which discographies, videographies, and DVD release lists) have long been regarded as not contributing significantly to the project and are thus deprecated.
  • I'm sorry you do not understand copyright, and disagree with its application. Regardless, it is important to understand that our primary purpose here is to create a free content encyclopedia. Copyrighted works go against that philosophy. You were allowed to upload hundreds of images without trouble because you ignored our fair use policies. I'm not saying this to be harsh or critical, but evaluative. You will observe that on the image upload page [31] it says quite clearly "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted." I recommend a thorough, careful re-reading of that page.
  • Whether someone asks you to pay for using them is irrelevant. The point here is use under fair use which does not come with a charge. But, to use an image under fair use it must be thoroughly justified. Vast quantities of images fail to meet these requirements (one estimate put it at over 170 thousand images). In time, they will be deleted.
  • Wikipedia will not be gutted of images. In fact, there are more than a million free license images available on Commons, many of which are in use here on Wikipedia. I've uploaded several hundred myself. Some fair use images will remain, and believe me, the articles will be plenty interesting without the fair use imagery. Understand; no other significant Wikipedia language project allows fair use imagery. None. Yet, they not only succeed, they thrive. The idea that participation would drop off significantly is not borne out by the evidence at hand.
  • If you have other questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand you talk about copyrighted images, now you are talking about fair use, which is it? As I mentioned before, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of copyrighted images on Wikipedia, if all those are deleted (as you alluded to) then what will be left- not much?! How come an image I uploaded which was a cast photo of a particular TV show was deleted, that was not a DVD cover and I feel it contributed significantly to the article?! The article is about a TV show, so would a photo of the cast of the show not be a suitable image to insert into the article?? This whole issue is very arbitrary, what I think is relevant you may not and vice versa. Who is the final judge and jury on the case as to what contributes significantly to an article? 60 billion people in the world, they may all have differing views on the issue, who decides and why them?!HeMan5 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyrighted works are almost all used under terms of fair use. For the purposes of this discussion, fair use may as well be the same as copyrighted. There are two orders of magnitude more copyrighted images on Wikipedia than thousands. There's hundreds of thousands. As I've noted several times now, there's more than a million non-copyrighted images available. I'm hard pressed to understand how that can be construed as "not much" As to the cast photo, I don't know the image you are referring to and thus can not speak to the particulars. There are less than 7 billion people in the world. As to who decides, we function largely under consensus as a group unless that consensus is in opposition to the policies. Policies can and do change. But, the policy you are arguing against is fundamental to what we are; a free content encyclopedia, and unlikely to change. More questions? Ask away! --Durin 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Artwork

[edit]

I don't understand why you are so dead set against DVD artwork, album covers, singles as long as they are approved? This is going to be a very dull site and it was a site I used to visit daily, but if this is the case, I am just going to start going elsewhere! I believe that the DVD covers, Album covers, etc... enhances each article as a whole and provides the viewer with information incase they are wanting to know for instance when a particular DVD was released and what it looked like! If they can get away with this, next it will be removal of pictures completely... I just disagree with this, so good luck I won't revert anymore!! Enjoy your site.Jdcrackers 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Jdcrackers, this is just plain stupid, there are copyrighted images EVERYWHERE on the net, looks like just another crackdown to tighten the grip on the Internet- the last bastion of freedom left in the world. This site will be like one big textbook, dull and boring, without any images. One big hellhole if you ask me. So much for Wikpedia being 'for the people', time to jump ship folks, this ones sinking fast. HeMan5 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key is #8 in the explanation:
8. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.
To be honest, if you think about it, cover art in lists is mostly for decoration. The general description gives information that it exists. An alternative might be giving an ISBN (do DVD's have ISBNs?) or catalog number. Amazon has an ASIN, but that is probably too commercial. You could give a general description of the package. External links may be OK, if they are not stores or other commercial interests.
In general, I do think some discussion needs to be done to find acceptable alternatives. Andyross 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of you... I just feel like this Durin came out of the blue and just started deleting everything left and right... is there anyway we can contact Wikipedia and find out all the rules? I do believe DVD's are like textbooks and have ISBN numbers...I just pulled out my IDOJ season 2 and the ISBN for it is 1-4248-1414-6 and Bewitched Season 4 is 1-4248-2907-0 ... another thing we could consider would be asking Sony if we could get these pics on here and have a link for people to purchase them, but I don't know how that would fly over with Wikipedia... Like I said earlier, I loved editing for this site, but Heman says it best, it is going to be one dull place with no pictures to look at or anything... and all three of us have spent a great deal of time trying to improve these articles to make bring more to the article for the viewer!! Just seems odd that they don't give us ample warning...kinda ticks me off in a way.Jdcrackers 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't come out of the blue and begin arbitrarily applying policy as I saw fit. I encourage you, again and again and again, to read User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation as this explains this issue in far greater detail. If you want to contact Wikipedia, you're doing it. This is Wikipedia, just as much as any other aspect of it is. If you question the policy, you can bring it up at places such as [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)] or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. But again, I encourage you to read the explanation page I have pointed you to several times now. This debate has been hashed out before on a number of occasions, and every time the debate has resulted in the images being removed.
  • You are welcome to contact Sony to request their release of the images under a free license. To do so, please observe and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It is not enough to gain permission to use the images here on Wikipedia, as such images are either deleted or treated as fair use images. You must get free license release of the images. It is highly unlikely the companies who hold these rights will release rights to the images, as they have strong vested commercial interest in them but you are certainly welcome to try.
  • Also, adding links to purchase a product would not be welcome on Wikipedia, as such links would be advertising.
  • As I responded to HeMan above, there will still be a huge, huge number of images here. The images we are talking about are a small subset of the total, and we're not even talking about all fair use images.
  • As per warning, the policies are the warning. It should have been clear from the upload page. I'm sorry if you found it was not clear, or you did not read it. If you have suggestions on how to improve that page, feel free to suggest. --Durin 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some warning time?

[edit]

I think much of the anger of people is due to the changes being made with absolutely no warning. Not everybody knows all the little details of Wiki policy. Since this seems to be more about policy than legality, I don't see the reason for editing without warning.

I propose that some warning time be given. A template should be created (if a usable one doesn't already exist) and added to the page with a warning about the overuse, including related links explaining the reason. Then a reasonable amount of time (I say at least 7 days) should be given for regular users/editors to correct it themselves, or make their case to keep it. This would give time for people to calm down, read through similar stories, and make a decision. This would cut down on all the reverts, and lower many people's blood pressure. Andyross 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frankly and bluntly, no. I'm sorry, but the policies are warning aplenty. If people do not wish to abide by the policies, so be it. I'm quite happy to educate people and take the time to discuss the issue with them, but I'm not interested in suspending policies, providing warning times, etc. This undermines our mission and makes it increasingly impossible to enforce the policy. --Durin 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then maybe Wikipedia should forbid anyone from editing unless they register, read a manual, and pass a test proving they know and understand every little policy. Everything tends to be scattered around. 90% of what I've learned about using Wikipedia has been through trial and error. Andyross 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same for me. In time, we learn the ropes of the areas we find ourselves gravitating to. It's an imperfect system. But, really, no system is perfect. The result though has been a resource that is rather amazing, and critical commentary not withstanding, has produced something that has stood up well in comparative tests. --Durin 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policies

[edit]

I notice you keep referring to policies, policies and more policies. May I ask why these policies were not enforced from the beginning?!? Rules are put in place in a society to keep order or else chaos would ensue. Certain rules have been put in place by Wikipedia owners to ensure things are done as they want them to be done, so why are these not being enforced?? You can't just arbitrarily pick a time and say from now on rule X will now be enforced, everyone has to abide by it. You enforce it from the beginning (in this case from when Wikipedia first went online) and thus ensure consistency. If this fair use rule had been enforced from the BEGINNING then I and many others would not have uploaded hundreds of images because we would not have been allowed to upload them in the first place! It seems, like in the real world, people in power due as they wish and to hell with consistency. ENFORCE THE RULES ON A CONSISTENT BASIS (FROM THE BEGINING) OR DON'T BOTHER HAVING ANY WIKIPEDIA!!!HeMan5 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image upload page quite clearly indicates under what requirements images are to be uploaded. You are bothered that the policy wasn't being enforced, yet complain when it is enforced. This is contradictory. You are allowed to edit anything on Wikipedia, even Jimmy's page. It follows that you can upload anything. Vandalism happens. Inappropriate edits happen. Incorrect uploads happen. This sort of thing goes on all the time, day in, day out. Stuff is being deleted from Wikipedia constantly in a never ending process. That someone didn't get to what you uploaded until now doesn't mean it was ok to upload it. We are all expected to adhere to the policies. --Durin 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this?

[edit]

I was wondering if you think this image [32] passes muster? There is no evidence that the copyright holder has in fact released it. I am not sure what evidence is required and would appereciate your advice. Argos'Dad 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • On first pass, the cited source doesn't show the image. So, the source might be bad. I can not verify if there is a release statement from the site as I can not read the language. Can you? My suspicion is the image was just grabbed from that website, without regards to copyright. --Durin 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemax Images

[edit]

Now you are starting to tick me off bud, but unfortunately for you you picked the wrong person to play ball with. Why have you deleted the Cinemax Channel logos, what the heck is wrong with these now?! I understand your logic (albeit barely) regarding DVD covers but why the hell are these being deleted?? These are LOGOS, THEY IDENTITY THE BROADCASTING STATION THAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT! You can't purport to tell me that you think these are 'decorative', because that is just ludicrous and crossing the line.

Straight from the horses mouth, the damn article you gave me a link for it says the following and I quote: "Fair use law is deliberately vague". This to me and anyone with half a brain means that its open to interpretation, which means I can interpret my way and you can interpret it your way. To me these images ARE VALID and should stay, to you they are useless garbage. Any idea if wiki-freakin-pedia has any sort of arbitration system, because its time we step things up a notch regarding this damn fair use shit. I would like to officially challege this issue and specifically the deletion of these images. HeMan5 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. However, WP:NFCC item #8 specifically prohibits the use of fair use images in galleries, such as you have done (again) on Cinemax. The policy states, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." It is a routine matter to have galleries such as this deprecated. It is perfectly acceptable to have these logos being displayed on articles pertaining to these specific channels, if such articles existed. It is not acceptable to use them in gallery form such as you have done. I have reverted your change.
  • If, despite being shown policy on this, you still believe this is a matter worthy of dispute resolution the appropriate steps are to first take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If after some administrators become involved this does not resolve in a satisfactory way for you, then next step after that is for you to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Please note that taking this matter to the Arbitration Committee is a last resort, not a first resort. However, if you still feel motivated to use them as a first resort, please do not be surprised when it is rejected for review by them. Thank you, --Durin 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Aloud band image

[edit]

Ok, i read your guide and i understand why the image i uploaded of Girls Aloud had to be removed. However, the only free image currently available of the band is at least 3 years old and only shows 4 members of the band. As i understand it, the only way you can usually get a free image of a band/musician is to take a photo of them at a live gig, which isn't immediately possible.

The Wikipedia entry for Girls Aloud is vandalised practically every day and i'm looking to improve the quality of the article which among other things obviously involves having either a live or official promotional image of the band as is the standard for Wikipedia entries for musicians.

Unfortunately i can't find a suitable image anywhere and doesn't the fair-use terms include the line say a fair-use image can be used 'where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it '.

Obviously, you know way more about this subject than me which is why i'm asking if you could give any kind of further guidelines as what i should do to get an image which can be used to depict the band. Any help you could offer would be much appreciated.

Winterspell 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band is still active. With that in mind, it's entirely possible for a Wikipedian to go and get a photo of them. This is similar to not allowing copyrighted images of living people; someone can conceivably go and get a photo of them. Thus, any copyrighted imagery to display the band is currently replaceable. As a result, it's not permitted under our fair use policies (see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #1). If you know the band's schedule, and are proximate to a performance site of theirs, you could go and get a shot yourself. Alternatively. you could create montage of the individual images located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Girls_Aloud. All the images there are available under a free license. --Durin 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons

[edit]

Just in case you don't normally follow featured article candidates after you've commented on them, I've requested some clarification of your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons. Would you be so kind as to take a few moments to field my questions there? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your concerns have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you here but....

[edit]

There is a draft proposal for the updated NFCC language. I will sign off on it if you do; if we get the language through in its present proposed form I promise I will forever hold my peace on the question of lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements, or that this language includes discographies. If you and I endorse it I think it's pretty clear we have consensus, at least among the Monday evening Wikipedians. Wikidemo 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat

[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congratulations! Given your recent inexperience, I hope you will hold back on closing contentious RfAs until you get more experience under your belt. --Durin 12:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

[edit]

Durin, have you seen the Abu badali RFAR lately? If not, go and have a look. --Iamunknown 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of that RfAr at all. Interesting. --Durin 16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page of the proposed decision is particularly interesting, as various people involved in image cleanup are trying to point out that anyone who is heavily involved in this thankless work is likely to annoy some other users severely, and that having several users annoyed with you over this issue does not necessarily mean that you're doing anything wrong. I've actually mentioned you by name on that proposed decision talk page, as one who is patient and courteous but still manages to provoke accusations of stalking. I've noticed before that when you remove a non-free image from a userpage, and the user reverts you, that user will invariably feel that you're "targetting" them. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I very much appreciate the work you're doing here. ElinorD (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to show this much self-pity. Have you ever thought that you get lots and lots of accusations because you harass lots and lots of people and ruin lots and lots of valuable contributions? You know, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and all that. Those who think they enforce policy might try following it. Mosquera 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said a word about this issue until deletionists starting vandalizing my contributions. When you go around tagging perfectly good images as "disputable," then post your pet policy interpretations on peoples' talk pages, that ain't good faith. You deserve complaints when you commit bad acts. Mosquera 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mosquera, many of the images you uploaded are not perfectly good images. They are images that "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information" and are thus eligible to be tagged with Template:Replaceable fair use. Several people, including those uninvolved in the act of tagging and notifying, have you told so. Yet you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that fact. Oh, and if I need to clarify, that is good-faith. --Iamunknown 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin, in the sentence beginning "Abu badali ostensibly left this message to me" on the proposed decision talk page, did you mean "Mosquera ostensibly left this message to me"?

Mosquera, I'm not sure what you mean by "self-pity". If you're referring to me, I've done very little work with image policy (though I intend to start doing more), and consequently have not been a target for the kind of abuse that Durin and Abu badali get on a daily basis. Believe me, I am not at all suffering from self-pity — more from solidarity. ElinorD (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

[edit]

Please do not dig through my history to delete images which disagree with your political ideology. Do not post harassing messages on my talk page. You do not have consensus on your own and you do not speak for Wikipedia. Your interpretation of policy is not policy. Period.

  1. The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Wikipedia, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
  2. The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
  3. The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

Please cease stalking me now. Do not send me boilerplate excuses about how you are just enforcing policy, because they aren't true. Repeating the same distortions over and over changes nothing. Learn civility. Leave me in peace, as I intend positive contributions to Wikipedia. Mosquera 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry that you feel encouraging our images to be in compliance with policy is vandalism. You dispute that copyrighted images of living people can not be used for depiction purposes of those people. I'm sorry, but you clearly in the wrong here. The governing body of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation has stipulated in a resolution from March of this year that such images are not permitted as they are replaceable in almost all cases. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy item #3. This is not a cavalier interpretation of policy, it is not speaking for Wikipedia, it is not an interpretation of policy. This is essentially inviolable law so far as Wikipedia is concerned. If this does not make this issue clear, I do not know what can. The Foundation rules against them, we must comply. I'm sorry. The images you have uploaded of living people, regardless of how well thought out the rationales are, are not acceptable if they are used solely for depiction purposes. They are not acceptable regardless of how good faith your efforts were.
  • As to stalking, I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Harassment where it says that stalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices" Your claims that various people are stalking you are improper. Problems have been observed in your image editing/uploading habits. Others, myself included, are checking up on other such work by you to ensure this work is in compliance with our policy. This is not stalking.
  • If you have questions about any of this, I'd be happy to answer. Accusing me of stalking, attempting to enforce my own interpretations of policy, etc. is not helpful. All the best, --Durin 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to avoid your responsibility for wikistalking and other bad acts is just plain mean, especially when the evidence stares you in the face. Apologize, make amends, and be done with it. At the very least, you will sleep better. All the best, Mosquera 02:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After 15,000 edits and an adminship, you know better than to tamper with a man's user page. Mosquera 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "instruct." You ripped down content. As I said, apologize, make amends, and be done with it. Mosquera 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for correcting the barnstar to indicate the source. I appreciate this act. There is nothing on my part to apologize for, or I would readily do so. Thank you, --Durin 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three barnstars, but only one is posted, as I don't care that much. I am dishonored that you consistently behave as though I am sullying your pristine social experiment. Two days ago, I didn't know you. Now you're in my face, all over a 75px jpeg file. Good grief.

Once again, I must insist that you apologize for putting technocratic ideals over simple human decency. I attempted to pleasantly instruct you that human beings matter more than political abstractions. I'm sorry you took offense, but in no way was it my intention. Thank you and have a pleasant day. Mosquera 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When may I expect an apology? I am a human being, not an ideological cipher. Please treat me with the basic civility that is the basic benchmark of Wikipedia. Mosquera 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am treating you with considerable civility. If I felt an apology was warranted, I would give one. I've shown you the basis on which I acted, which is entirely proper. You're offended by my actions even though you've been shown this. You've also been offended by people removing replaceable fair use images of living people when such are clearly against policy, and expect people to apologize for that as well. I see no reason to apologize for those actions either. I'm sorry you feel an apology is warranted, but it isn't. I truly am sorry that you feel the way you do, but that's the extent of the apology you can expect to receive from me. I do hope you have a pleasant day. All the best, --Durin 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You even feel the need to "correct" my signature! Words escape me. Goodbye. Mosquera 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, did I miss something? Did you correctly add it and I missed it? It appeared to be incorrect so I corrected it. User:ElinorD corrected an earlier signature of yours as well. It's common practice to correct signatures so that others may track who is making what comments. I'm sorry if you're offended by this, but it certainly seems proper and logical to correct such errors so that others are not confused by malformed signatures, don't you agree? --Durin 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tangeline.jpg

[edit]

Like I said it is due to vandalism and fair use was provied already--Migospia†♥ 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WCBU2.jpg

[edit]

I got your response on the image. My problem is that I don't understand the technical wording that people are using. If you could help put all the wording in terms that regular people could understand, I'll try to fix my mistake. Thanks. - Thunderstix33 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus not numbers

[edit]

I replied to your posting at Wikipedia talk:Consensus not numbers. WaltonOne 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I correctly understand the points you were making in "Thoughts on consensus"? As I understood it, you were making these three points:
  • Because of the 70-80% threshold, small numbers of oppose votes carry undue weight and can sink an RfA, even if the opposes are pointless. This is true; however, in the current climate at RfA, a really stupid oppose vote ("Aargh! Not enough portal talk edits!") tends to receive a deluge of criticism from other editors, and such people are often pressurised into changing their vote. Ditto with an oppose vote given without a rationale. As such, the culture of RfA has adapted to compensate for the mathematical flaws in the system.
  • Last-minute opposes can sink an RfA, without giving anyone time to respond to them. This is also true, but it's something of an inevitable flaw. Even without voting, bureaucrats would still take opposition into account, and a last-minute bombshell could still be a threat. So I don't think your preferred solution would solve this problem.
  • Users don't agree on the criteria for RfA, and the overall votes don't necessarily reflect consensus on an individual point. This is harder to answer, but I would say that users have a "right" (well, a conditional privilege, but you know what I mean) to judge the candidate by whatever criteria they think fit. In the example you gave, it's true that some people liked the candidate's answer to Q1, some disliked it, and some thought it irrelevant. But the fact remains that each individual user weighed up the candidate's suitability against their personal criteria, and made a decision. I think we can trust users to do that, rather than trying to hammer out consensus on each point and come to an overall decision.
Sorry to repeat myself, but I was hoping for feedback as to whether I'd misunderstood what you were arguing. WaltonOne 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, and I'm sorry if my persistence has irritated you - it wasn't my intention. I do, now, have a clearer understanding of your views and why you hold them; I hope, in turn, that I've clarified my reasons for advocating voting, and that you understand why I feel this way about it. Once again, sorry if I've annoyed you about this. WaltonOne 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about images

[edit]

Hey Durin, quick question: are we allowed up upload an image that has the CC Attribute 2.5 licensing but also carries with it a non-commercial only license? Thanks, Rockstar (T/C) 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8

[edit]

Was there really consensus for this? I'm looking through the talk page and don't see any sign of that, but maybe I'm being stupid. Videmus Omnia 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Guy

[edit]

It's not a discography, it's a discussion of the one album she ever made. I've been carefully skipping over covers only used in discographies, and not giving them FURs. But this case I thought was a genuine article section. Jheald 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaning fair use images

[edit]

BTW, if you orphan a fair use image, it's generally considered good practice to add a note on the image page to say where you deleted it from, to give a subsequent admin the chance to assess whether s/he agrees.

Please do this in future. Jheald 14:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you please cite the instructions for this? The template has no instruction for that. I've been following the template's instructions. Thanks, --Durin 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structural history of the Roman military

[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Structural history of the Roman military discusses one of the weirdest Fair Use issues I've seen yet; this article has book images listed with every source in the references. I hope you have time to take a look. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the Fair Use images were removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Cabal work

[edit]

I'm going to have to run, but someone brought this user's image uploads to my attention. Can you see what you can do? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:World_Trade_Center#Galleries

[edit]

New user, User:Pag293 keeps uploading fair use screenshots from television and film, wanting to add them to the World Trade Center and World Trade Center in popular culture articles. The latest edits were last night, with a comment left at Talk:World_Trade_Center#Galleries. I have tried explaining to the user about fair use, what's allowed and what's not. There are two other fair use images, which we also don't really need on the page, Image:New wtc.jpg and Image:Windows on the world window seats.jpg. Would you be willing to look at the page and advise? --Aude (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all the fair use images from the article, and replied to Pag293 on the talk page. Though, at this point, the user is clearly annoyed with me and may not listen. It's frustrating for me to handle this, but I'll try.--Aude (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use knowledge

[edit]

Durin, where have you been finding relevant information such as that regarding Folsom v. Marsh? I am interested to learn more copyright law (and case law regarding copyrights), but I am not sure where to start. Any suggestions?  :) --Iamunknown 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, go down to your local hardware store. Request the most powerful nail gun they have. Arm it with the best nails they have. Don't bother purchasing it. Just tell them "I'd like to try this out" Stick it to your head, pull the trigger. Trust me, it's a lot less painful than dealing with this crap :)
  • Joking aside, I've spent 1.5 years working on this stuff and still find gaps in my knowledge. It isn't easy, and there's no central location where it is all stored, nor is there any page that walks you through the complexities of it and makes it easy to understand. This creates two major problems. First, it is exceptionally difficult to educate the newcomer to Wikipedia regarding the use of fair use images. Second, those policing these problems have great difficulty in learning what they need to know, and even greater difficulty in imparting this knowledge onto both groups. Uhg.
  • More specifically, the Folsom v. Marsh case is available on the web under that title. One ref [34]. Another one is at [35].
  • I really should sit down and put all of this stuff together in one coherent place, and make some sort of intro to fair use images for the newbie, targeting perhaps an 8th grade reading level to make it readily accessible to all. --Durin 12:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Fair use overuse explanation" for Crowded House discography

[edit]

Quote: Q: The prior debate on episode screen shots and discographies is not the same as this! This is a new debate, and needs to be decided on consensus!
A: While some might disagree, the issues are the same on a fundamental basis. The overuse of fair use images does not contribute to our mission. We must limit copyrighted material use as much as possible in order to further our progress towards our goals.

Hi Durin,
I just want to discuss the removal of images from the discography for Crowded House. While I generally agree with not including images in a discography, there was a specific reason given for why these images belonged together. This is because of the common artist, who is a member of the band in this case (Nick Seymour). The reason this is notable because of the distinct design style used and by not being able to display these images in one central place takes away from the viewer's capacity to see the common style held amongst these images/covers. I intend to place the images back as their fair use is consistent, and in this case as there is a rationale for their use in the discography as well as in the article space is defined. Although I understand the need for a superset of rules that exceeds that of the law, this is with the superset's rules, and failing that, WP:IAR indicates that if any policy is inhibiting the practice of putting together a cohesive encyclopedia to ignore said rules, which I believe isn't necessary in this case as it fits within the rules, but I will draw attention to that if you don't believe that these imaes inclusions pass for the fair use guidelines.
Should you still not agree, my final alternative would be to create a common image providing a comparison of the images (such as is done where the Beatles Anthology album covers were merged, or where the fourfold covers of Famous Last Words were merged and shown together, so there's a precedence of this being done on high traffic pages).
My hope is that you agree with the first proposal as it's a simple re-inclusion, but failing that, the second option is "acceptable", though not optimal.
Regards, --lincalinca 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I ask you to not transclude talk pages from one place to another? I've undone your transclusion in this case.
  • As to your concerns, the manner in which you wished to use the album covers is purely decorative and not acceptable under our policies. If you want to have a section of the article Crowded House specifically discuss artwork on the album covers (in some detail, and why it is significant), then the use of album covers to support inline text might...might...be acceptable. However, the use as in here is not acceptable. --Durin 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the transclusion. I posted on the other place initially then realised that it's probably more appropriate to post here. As to it being acceptable, I'll source out some info and write a section about the album covers sharing their creator. I believe the consensus based on directly discussin the subject matter should satisfy their inclusion together (though, as I said, I did consider it to be more appropriate in the discography article, but either way, that's fine). --lincalinca 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something to look at...

[edit]

I was just wondering what you'd think of this hypothetical RfA format. It certainly isn't one I'd be inclined to introduce, but it might better reflect the way most Wikipedia processes are going. WaltonOne 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, no...the difference is that on my hypothetical format, rather than users putting up an unlimited number of views, there are 4 fixed criteria against which the candidate is measured. I think most people would agree on these basic 4 criteria for adminship: experience, understanding of the tools, trustworthiness, and civility. At the same time, they're broad enough to give users room for various differing views, e.g. those who think article-writing is the most important thing vs. those who prioritise projectspace. The problem with your Matt Britt solution was not the system itself, but the chaos caused by allowing everyone to insert new viewpoints, which led to a completely unreadable and unworkable format. Basically, I appreciate that in your "thoughts on consensus", you flagged up the problems associated with a straightforward vote. My idea is, in effect, a vote on each of the 4 criteria; this would allow us to preserve semi-democracy, while getting rid of the undue weight given to frivolous opposes. The bureaucrats would count the vote in each section, and make an overall decision; it would also allow us to distinguish between truly bad candidates, and those who just don't have enough experience (hence the "Fail Encourage"). WaltonOne 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't feel totally happy asking someone to use this format on their RfA - I recall how daunting an RfA is, and trying an untested format could only make it worse. The only possibility I can think of would be to resign my own adminship and stand for reconfirmation using the proposed process, which might be rather rash. WaltonOne 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, keep in mind that adminship is no big deal. I gave up being an admin, and have been quite happy with the decision. It's not a status symbol; it just gives you extra buttons. My status is no different since giving it up. There are potentially willing guinea pigs out there. See first section on this talk page currently. --Durin 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'll see if I can find anyone. I'm sorry to keep bugging you about stuff like this - judging from a cursory glance over earlier threads, you seem to have been subjected to a lot of aggressive complaints lately relating to your work with fair-use images. In hope of cheering you up, I've decided to give you this... WaltonOne 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Dessert of Merit
Awarded to Durin for tireless work with fair-use images. WaltonOne 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ok. Yeah, lots of complaints headed my way. That's ok. I'm generating lots of enemies, but holding to our core purposes. I'm ok with the enemies. I gave up on the social currency system here months ago, so it matters not to me. Thanks for the award all the same :) Though, looking at that jello thing...sometimes I see food like this and think, "Is that really food??? Would someone from a hundred years ago look at that and go 'yum!'"? :) --Durin 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox move

[edit]

FYI, I just deleted User:JM and User:Donor. I was only leaving them in place so that I could track down and fix the links with what links here. As soon as I had done so, I deleted the "userbox" pages.

Were you aware that placing a speedy delete tag on a page being transcluded also places all pages on which it is transcluded into the speedy deletion category? If you want to avoid this in future, place the db tag inside a noinclude /noinclude tag pair (angle braces omitted here). Thanks for calling attention to this situation. DES (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galactus Image

[edit]

One point: I didn't change it back to a link; user:Asgardian did. I did change it to experiment with something, but when I realised it didn't work, I reverted it back to display. Everything else that has happened to this point is due to Asgardian. I don't really care anymore. HalfShadow 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jmkookicon.jpg orphaned

[edit]

Ok, I have done as you've requested, sorry for the screw up. If I'm still in violation of some kind of rule, please contact me again. Thanks. Ryan(talk/contribs) 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I did as you requested! Why are you still deleting the images? Ryan(talk/contribs) 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I did as you requested and posted the image within the article Joseph McManners. Now why am I still in the wrong? Ryan(talk/contribs) 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because you may not use such fair use images on userboxes, as I've previously explained. Just because it is used on an actual article does not mean you get to use it outside of the main article namespace. You can't. --Durin 20:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So how do I have such an image in a userbox? It has to be my own image, is that correct? Ryan(talk/contribs) 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Now I understand. Ryan(talk/contribs) 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Many CD Covers Can Go On a Page???

[edit]

Durin,

You removed all of the cd cover images from the Johnny Gill page. I didn't put them there, but album art seems like it would be an ok thing to include in an article about a singer. Can you help me understand what limits or rules called for the deletion? Also, if I want to put them back on, is there something I need to do to make them stay this time (fewer, better tags, etc.)? Thank you very much for your feedback.MissKriss

  • The corresponding policy is available at WP:NFCC items #3(a) and #8. Having an album cover on an article about that album is usually deemed acceptable. Having album covers on an article about the artist most of the time is not. In this case [36], the usage was a discography. We do not accept that sort of use. You can't "make them stay" in this discography. If you want an album cover on the article, it needs to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that text can not. This is not an easy thing to accomplish; most album cover uses are simply decorative and/or for identification, which is not acceptable on artist pages. Hope this helps, --Durin 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way...

[edit]

...to establish/flag that User:38.119.112.187 and User:38.119.112.189 are the same user (and likely editing from at least another similar IP, and possibly previously editing under a registered user name)? --EEMeltonIV 10:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well the IPs are pretty obviously the same source if not the same user. As to a registered username? You need to ask at [Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser]. --Durin 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting Panic!

[edit]

As long as the image was being used to refer to the album itself (in the section about their albums, for example), that qualifies as illustrating the album. That's the rationale for using the images of albums on all the other artists' pages, as well. The word "solely" doesn't mean that the image can only be used once, it only means that it can only be used when it is completely dealing with the album, and since the section is about their albums, I think it kinda deals with them. Now, if someone was putting it in some other place that didn't deal directly with the album itself, that would be bad (that would be the "other uses"). And since there is obviously no way to obtain a non-free image of it, I think that their use on this page falls under WP:FU, which states "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The critical commentary is the context of the article in which the albums are discussed at length. And while researching this, I came across this page, which I will now defer to: Template talk:Non-free album cover. So now do not revert or remove the images in the discography section. Knight Whitefire 17:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage made me sad...

[edit]

It seems like you have lost hope in many facets of the wikipedia process :-( . Is there anything that can be done?--Cronholm144 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each of us makes our own decisions about our presence here. I do hope nobody is viewing my userpage as a reason for feeling less committed to the project. I am still quite committed to the project. I am, however, not committed to significant subsections of it that in my opinion have created a huge number of problems for the project. There's issues of scale at work (among many things) where impacts of larger groups working in concert dramatically affect prior work behaviors when the group, or sub-groups, were substantially smaller. In some areas, we're being completely overrun with absurdly ridiculous aspects of group-think that overwhelm well thought out (for small groups) processes. This is a core problem facing Wikipedia, and one not very easily addressed. --Durin 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I take the eventualist path(wherever that may lead) as you do. I guess I am just sheltered from many of the aspects of the 'pedia that you mentioned on your page. However your words just struck me as nigh fatalistic. I hope that WP brings you at least as much cheer as frustration. I, for one, wish you all the best. Cheers--Cronholm144 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an example of what I speak, take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Compliance_rate. This is a shockingly cold reality; 98% of our image uploads are done improperly. 98%. Even if that figure is wildly wrong, and it's 70% that is still a massive problem. In the first half of today alone, we have had 1172 images uploaded. If 70% are improperly uploaded, that's 820 problem images. 1640 per day. If today is average, that's roughly 5000 problem images a month. THAT is depressing. --Durin 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we forbid uploading until appropriate rational(etc...) is given? (I know that this has probably has been discussed at length but it seems that is the obvious solution.)--Cronholm144 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that was Quadell's suggestion as well.--Cronholm144 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The underlying problem there is that we are an open project. By limiting who can upload, we restrict a core philosophy. Unstoppable force meets immovable object. --Durin 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about: user Z can upload image X iff User fills out description form Y. Or User Z can upload all kinds of miscellany,no restrictions, however if he doesn't fill out form Y beforehand it gets deleted automatically and immediately. Freedom to upload, freedom to delete.--Cronholm144 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your efforts have not be for naught. I read some of your E-mail correspondences and they seem to have had a real effect in my particular arena. WP:WPM is now going through all of the non-free content on mathematics articles. Cheers--Cronholm144 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, well it's a start at least. And you know what they say about clouds.(hint:silver) :)--Cronholm144 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that stuff falls off the cloud. It's a softish metal, but it hurts like hell when it impacts your cranium at terminal velocity :) --Durin 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khan University picture

[edit]

I took that picture of the university, it is entierly my work. I removed the tag you placed on it.Zaindy87 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then you tagged the image incorrectly. The tag you used did not indicate that the source of the image was from you, just that it was under a free license. In such cases, a source must be identified so that confirmation can be made of the license. If the image source is you, then the appropriate thing to do is indicate that the image source is you. I've updated the image to indicate this, and referenced this message from you. --Durin 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stephen Colbert and Fair Use

[edit]

Last week you opposed the nomination of Stephen Colbert to FA on fair use grounds. I fixed them after a few hours, but you never came back to tell me if I made them acceptable or change your vote. Now it has failed nomination, possibly because you were half the vote. Anyway, I'm curious as to if I fixed the images in question so the next nomination made is for sure. - Boss1000 01:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did review shortly after your response, but to be honest I felt the fair use situation to still be very weak. If you want me to review again before re-nomination let me know. --Durin 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine; I just didn't know. I think I better understand what you're going for now, anyway. - Boss1000 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image advice

[edit]

Hi, Durin. Having been adminned, I'm trying to get more into image cleanup. I've already started deleting images, going through the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Today, I looked at upload logs, and tagged some images. Someone told me about User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, and I installed it, and am getting used to it.

I wasn't quite sure what to do when I came to Image:Erin burnett street signs.jpg. It's tagged as public domain, but I thought screen captures were fair use. I've left it alone, but I'd appreciate your taking a look.

And while I'm here, I've started the page I mentioned to you some time ago, to help people who want to get more involved with image cleanup. It's at User:ElinorD/Image cleanup now, though I'm thinking of moving it to project space when it becomes more presentable. If you think there's anything that should be added, please feel free. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't use Howcheng's script, not being an admin. I hope it's helpful. I wouldn't know :)
  • Image:Erin burnett street signs.jpg is a blatant screenshot fair use image. I've tagged it as such, using {{Non-free television screenshot}}. Further, as a fair use image it is missing a fair use rationale, which is required by WP:NFCC item #10(c). So, I tagged it with {{nrd}}, which adds a missing rationale warning template. Third, it's a replaceable fair use image. The subject is still alive. Per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, fair use images of living people are considered replaceable and not acceptable fair use on this project. Thus, I removed the image from the article in question [37], and tagged the image with {{rfu}}, a replaceable fair use warning template. I've notified the uploader of the issues in question [38]. There. That's how you handle that sort of thing :) --Durin 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I also tagged it as orphaned. --Durin 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll get the hang of it all eventually. By the way, on User talk:Hornetman16, you wrote, "Fair use content is always preferred, even if that fair use content is lesser quality" (emphasis mine). I presume you meant "free content"? ElinorD (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image complaint

[edit]

You made a claim that I stole an image from the Newyorkpost.com website and then somehow cropped the image. The image was taken from a online fan club and then used it with the fair use argument. I really think this title of ADMIN has gone to your head. You think you can make assumptions of everything including what is and what is not fair use. Although my previous uploads did not have the proper fair use argument/tag they were fair use. A screenshot of a program is fair use under the law. 1. There is no other replacement image. 2. It is being used as a reference point in an article. 3. It is a low resolution image of an existing work and not the work itself. - ICarriere

  • Interesting that you should make a claim that being an admin has gone to my head. All the more interesting since I am not an administrator.
  • Now, as to your non-personal topics; Taking an image from an online fan club does not mean it is free from copyright. The image source is blatantly, blatantly the New York Post article. There's no real denying that. If the fan site got it from there, it's still not clear of copyright concerns. If you look at the image from the New York Post article, and compared it to what you uploaded, it's clear it's a crop of the original. Whether done by you or someone else, it's a crop. I'm not disputing that it's fair use. I know it's fair use. The issue is that per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, fair use images of living people are considered replaceable, whether currently or in the future. Thus, even if we do not currently have a free license image to replace it, we do not use since a free use image could be made. Therefore, that and two other images which you wanted to use on the article are not permitted. If you have other questions you'd like to have answered, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 03:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC

[edit]

I know you've been to that article lately, but it sure has a ton of non-free images, and the logos are now re-uploaded and back in. I'm out for the next several hours, but when I'm back I'll see if I can help out. --Iamunknown 16:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proponents of the article are trying, I'll give them that. The way they had the images was clearly wrnog. Now, it might be wrong. I'm willing to give them sometime (say, a week) to fix it up. I think they want ot have a section for each screenshot being displayed, showing how the presentation changed. Also, a section for each logo showing how the logo changed. We'll see. --Durin 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Do it Durin!

[edit]

This is Angel David typing to you asking why did take away that image? How is it fair image use if what your doing is unfair? Images are used to illustrate Wikipedia not to be deleted by a bossy Wikipedian. You know, I think you might by a republican since you took the democrat image away.-Angel David16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More help requested

[edit]

Hi, Durin. If you get a moment, could you please have a look at these uploads. They're tagged as if the uploader is releasing them into the public domain, but they come from a website, and I can't find anything on it which suggests that the images are PD. Thanks. I'm going to orphan them while I'm waiting for your response, but I don't like to speedy them without being a bit more sure of myself. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I should have told you also that the uploader says he's the admin from the website (he hadn't told me that at the time that I first asked you). He didn't say, however, that he had taken the photos himself. I replied to him here, and have commented on the issue here. ElinorD (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas?

[edit]

Your input is welcome. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to mentor someone?

[edit]

I am having a never-ending discussion with user:Coconutfred73 about fair use rationales. I have repeatedly explained, at least I thought I had explained, what was wrong with the fair use rationales he has been adding to images he has uploaded, but I'm not getting through to him. Would you be willing to have a go at it? I appreciate any assistance you can give him, or me, for that matter. Maybe tell me how I could better explaing it to him? Thanks. Corvus cornix 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray!

[edit]

You are back! Had a nice week-long wikibreak, I hope? --Iamunknown 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Go away. ;) Being away had nothing to do with Wikipedia. Though, being away helped to reinforce my feeling that it's time for me to put my wiki-pen down. Break the habits, and it becomes easier to walk away. After the habits are broken, I'm left with little passion for the project anymore :( --Durin 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been feeling the same way. I haven't been editing as much lately (sometimes three or less edits per day :o), and I have a surprising amount of time I did not think I had previously. Wikipedia is too dramatic, cliquey, and confrontational. I used to enjoy editing at Wikipedia; it was an escape. Now I feel incredibly stressed each time I edit, and I simply don't want to regularly put myself in that kind of environment. --Iamunknown 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm dismayed by what I'm reading here. I'm very interested in image copyright cleanup, and feel it's really important to have people involved in that who are not bullies. I had already identified both of you as the kind of people we need to retain. :-( ElinorD (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It just gets tiring to battle the fair use issues endlessly. I suppose I could put up with that, but when the Foundation doesn't really care, why should I? If there was a flag to rally around, I might not care. But, there isn't. See below. --Durin 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My feelings tend to track with what you've said above. I'm tired of fighting. The FU stuff is insanely combative. I feel as though I've made my last ditch attempts at improving the situation. Ongoing efforts to come into compliance with the Foundation's resolution are constantly under attack from multiple parties. The same arguments are being put forth over and over again, and endlessly debated. Over and over again we keep having to battle this. I've come under personal attack from innumerable sources. Is progress being made? Yes, but far too slowly. At the current pace, my wild guesstimate is that it will take five years to come into compliance.
      • In frustration over the general situation, I turned to the featured article people, as a benchmark of how fair use should be handled in articles. What I found was depressing. So, I appealed to that group of people for aid in culture change, to get them to swing around to the appropriate fair use stance. I was roundly attacked for my efforts. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm the jerk and everyone else is sweet as pie..who knows. I don't care anymore.
      • So, I then went to the mailing list to try to garner support for this effort. In particular, I was hoping for the Foundation to take a stance that more clearly delineated what needed to be done to come into compliance. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077358.html. The resulting discussion generated in excess of 200 mail messages...and no progress, with the same arguments being rehashed again, ad nauseum.
      • The Foundation obviously does not care enough about this issue to become directly involved. I recognize there is merit in taking an abstract stance and allowing per-project implementation, but en.wikipedia is failing so miserably at attaining the goals set out for us that we must have outside help now if we are to achieve the goals they have established for us by April 2008. Since it is blatantly obvious that we can not achieve the goal, that they have been shown how blatantly obvious it is, and that they refuse to take action despite this situation, it is obvious that this issue is not of particular enough importance to them that I should be sacrificing myself, my time, my effort to help the project in this regard. In short, if they don't care all that much, why should I care? It's more complex than that, but that covers it pretty succinctly.
      • Recently, YouTube has come under lawsuits regarding the use of copyrighted material on their website. Their situation is different than ours, but to think we are somehow immune from lawsuits because it hasn't happened yet is asinine. Yet, this is the pervasive attitude among editors. The Foundation? I don't know what their outlook on lawsuits is. However, whether or not it is going to happen isn't really debatable. It will happen. It's only a matter of time. The Foundation's current hands off per-project approach is not legally defensible (so far as I know, with the caveat that I am not a lawyer). If we were to come under a lawsuit, the Foundation would most certainly suddenly "get religion" and do something about the atrocious situation we have, rather than merely setting out abstract concepts of free content and wouldn't it be nice if we could readily allow downstream use. YouTube got religion, and now they are much better about going after copyright violations. Us? We still have something on the order of a quarter of a million unfree images. It's just a matter of time.
      • Outside of fair use work, I've hardly been doing anything in the last six months. Tiny stuff, here and there, but nothing of significance. Take away the fair use work, and I'm not really involved in anything much anymore. I gave up on WP:RFA where I was heavily involved, and embarked on a useless campaign to foment change. Result? Nothing changes, and it's more like a vote now than ever. C'est la vie. I've hardly done any actual article contributions in forever. I don't do recent change patrolling anymore, except for the occasional romp through templates for fair use violations. I don't look at special:newpages anymore for obvious speedy deletion candidates. Since stepping down as an admin, I don't administrator work anymore. Just about all areas that I was previously involved in I'm just not doing much anymore. I got fully engrossed in FU issues, and now that's hopeless until Wikipedia is sued; we can not possibly win the fair use war without the Foundation getting religion. So, there's really nothing left I'm involved in much anymore.
      • The habits are broken, the daily trackings of various things aren't happening anymore, and I found the recent break to lead me not to care what was happening on Wikipedia. The energy's gone, the commitment is gone, and the desire is gone. So too, perhaps it's time for me to be gone. There's a lot...a LOT...of people who would be considerably happier if I'm gone anyways. *shrug* --Durin 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, for one, have to echo Elinor and say I'd be very sad to see you go. For what it's worth, you're one of the people whose actions and attitudes got me more into the project. It's your decision, but know at the least you will be missed. We need volunteers like you around. Vassyana 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]





To speak a bit more on the fair use subject and the Foundation's approach, for those that are reading...

At Wikimania 2006, a proposal was put out to achieve 100,000 featured articles by the end of 2007. This was put forth by Jimbo himself. See Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles. When I first heard of this, my immediate reaction was laughter. Later, I became fairly depressed about it. Why? Because such a goal was so obviously unachievable. At the time it was put forth, there were approximately 1400 featured articles on en.wikipedia. Over the preceding months, we'd averaged roughly 1 new featured article per day. To achieve the goal in 16 months, the rate of FA promotion would have to be increased by 200 times the then current average rate.

I am reminded of a meeting I attended when I was 19. At the time, I was working for my university's campus IT department. Some discussion occurred at the meeting regarding the possibility of using an expert system to aid in problem resolution for computer users. It was determined that it was cost prohibitive in man-hours and real dollars; we had less than a tenth of the needed resources. I, a wet behind the ears CS student said "Why can't we just build it? I'm sure myself and other student consultants can put some time into it" My suggestion was wildly naive. I had no idea what an expert system even was. Everyone in the room just stared at me. I dreamed the impossible, and was quietly mocked for it.

In essence, Jimbo did the same thing. His suggestion for 100k featured articles was orders of magnitude away from being obtainable. We'll be lucky if we attain 3000 featured articles by January 1, 2008. In fact, it's highly unlikely we will.

What this act pointed to was a severe disconnect between the Foundation and what is actually happening on Wikipedia. Sure, there's some knowledge and understanding, but realistically, no real understanding of en.wikipedia. I believe en.wikipedia has become so large that it has long since become incapable of being managed, even abstractly, by the Foundation using current structures. In short, it's somewhat like a board of directors of Toyota Motor Corporation making decisions regarding quality control at a second tier parts manufacturing facility.

If the Foundation had made the licensing policy without any sort of deadline, it would be largely ignored; it is quite obviously at severe odds with current practices on en.wikipedia. Further, since the Foundation does not get involved in enforcement, nobody would pay it any heed. In the adding of a deadline, they created a situation that is not only impossible to achieve, but those of us naive enough to believe and follow them are doing this to ourselves in our attempts to uphold their directives.

The Foundation, just as with the 100k goal, are very much disconnected from reality on en.wikipedia. Their goal is unattainable in any realistic time frame. Further, they are unwilling to offer support in achieving the goal. There's plenty of comparisons throughout history regarding governments that have engaged in similar actions. I'm aware of no successes, and many rather dramatic failures.

This isn't to say the Foundation should be ignored; just that the goals they are laying out are unachievable, and show a rather naive understanding of en.wikipedia and the monster it has become. Worse, even though people **are** willing to sacrifice themselves to further their goals, they are unwilling to support such efforts.

I've long felt that one of the greatest issues Wikipedia is facing is that of scaling. A small project worked very well under the then existing culture. But, a project as large as this has become fails under this structure. You do not run a major international corporation (an apt analogy to Wikipedia) using techniques suitable to the local corner store. You'd be out of business. Yet, this is precisely what the Foundation is not only asking us to do, but expects us to do. I'd thought the scaling issues had more to do with individual processes on Wikipedia. I'm now convinced it's much deeper than that, and runs all the way through the Foundation. It's going to take 5-10 years for this to shake out. There's a non-zero probability that Wikipedia won't make it through those years. --Durin 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stupid

[edit]

so I don't quite understand if you will do an edit graph for someone with more than 2,000 edits. But if you do, I'd love to have one. VanTucky (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Just thought you could help me out with this. I'm trying to get an FAC for for the page Steaua and I'm having some trouble with some images. I've replaced all of the earlier pictures that were incorrectly tagged but there is still one I don't know where to place.

I'm talking about a picture from the website www.uefa.com with the following URL: http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=1985/intro.html . I am currently unclear about the use of this sort of pictures on wiki, whether they are permitted or not, and if they are, what tag should I place there. Vladi 19:07, 3 August 2007 (EET)

  • The image is clearly not yours to release rights for. Therefore, it's tagging as {{PD-self}} is obviously not appropriate. I also have serious concerns about Image:Steaua23.jpg. Where did you get this image? In the case of the first image, it is copyrighted. Therefore, it must be used under terms of fair use on Wikipedia. The question then is not how do I make the image compliant. That's taking it from the stance of how do you get it in. Since we are a free content encyclopedia, the approach must be why do we really need to have this image and why can't it be replaced by a free alternative.
  • From my chair, this image is useless to the article. The article does discuss the team winning in 1986, but there's nothing significant about the image that contributes to the article in ways that words alone can not. I don't think the use of this image qualifies as legitimate under our policies.
  • Thanks for asking! If I can help in any other way, please let me know. Also, please let me know what the source of the second image is. Thanks, --Durin 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message

[edit]

Thanks for the nice message; I am back. I think I need to learn better coping skills on here. --David Shankbone 13:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Thank you for removing those copyrighted images from my userpage- I restored them as I thought I'd accidentally deleted them. I thought I was allowed to use any images from Wikipedia which were already uploaded. So how come some pictures are allowed to be on my user page and some aren't? Can you give me some info about the policy? Thank you. Jordan5001 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The policy is located at WP:NFCC. Any image which is copyrighted and used under terms of fair use on Wikipedia may not be used on your userpage. Usually, if an image has a big red "C" on the image's description page, you can't use it on your userpage. If you're uncertain about the status of a particular image, let me know and I'd be happy to help you. --Durin 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't stand Durin

[edit]

Okay you have some issues to work out. Why do you have to be so cruel!? I have put minor article parts that have been deleted by good-faith wikipedians who at least honor thier site, but you have deleted the work of other wikipedians who have dedicated thier images to Wikipedia. You say other Wikipedians do wrong doing! You say that you are doing this on the behalf of Wikipedia,but you are just a proud blithering idiot! I am not saying most of this in favor of myself but also on the behalf of other Wikipedians. Even if you are an admin (or are you?) I will still complain like this like those I have read about, calling you names on your user page. You're lucky I don't bring up the whole upset Wikipedia community against you or maybe I should just tell them about your crime. Bottom Line: bring your image vandalism act or there will be cosiquences that the upset Wikipedians will decide. However, I will not disrespect your instructions on what images not to put. I am going to be a nice guy like that. I will not have users like you accusing me of things either. Just do not take any more images away because such behaviour is not accepted on Wikipdedia! Good day and please respond on my talk page this time! Uhhh...never mind oyu could respond on this page!--Angel David?!? Presents,23:27, 6 August, 2007 (UTC)

  • I heartily encourage you to bring as many people as you think you can get to support your position. I would be very happy to help educate them on the policy forbidding the use of fair use images on userpages. If there's anything I can do to assist you in organizing such a group, please by all means let me know. This is a great idea! --Durin 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Durin, thank you for being a model Wikipedian. The first I remember becoming aware of you was in the middle of the clerks-debacle. Then came the Essjay controversy, your RfB, and your request for de-sysoping. (Actually, checking your talk page archives, I guess it was earlier in February than the clerks-debacle that I directly talked with you.)

Anyways, thank you for engaging in discussion. Looking through your 2007 talk page archive, I see that I certainly asked a lot of questions back then! But I particularly liked your advice under the section, User talk:Durin/archive2007#Reason for resigning; in response to the question,

"Besides going on a fair use removal rampage, is there anything you think I could do to help you out? And further, is there anything you think I could do to help out Wikipedia at large?"

you replied,

"As to what you can do to help the project; you're a volunteer. Find things that interest you here, and conduct yourself appropriately. It's that easy. I think you already know what to do. So go do it :)"

Thank you. --Iamunknown 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been a real pleasure seeing you work. I keep coming across you and have been generally impressed with how you have acquitted yourself. Thank you for the thank you, and bravo for the good work! :) --Durin 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of image on Kyle XY

[edit]

Other pages have DVD images for their respective seasons, and I can give examples if you want, but why remove them from just Kyle XY? Curious. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Thisted

[edit]

Hello. I am curious as to how exactly the image Image:JThisted.jpg from the Jeff Thisted article is violating fair use or any matter. I have provided rationale for fair use on the image, and the image was taken from the GSN Press website which allows these images to be used to promote and depict work and people. Thank you. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that it is a fair use image in the first place. Our Foundation's policy on the matter forbids such use. It is deemed replaceable by free license imagery while the subject is alive. Thus, we do not accept the use of fair use images to depict living people. That's why it may not go on the article. --Durin 04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I'm just not catching what you're pitching because in my three or four years on Wikipedia, I've known it to be acceptable to use images with acceptable fair use rationales in situations where no other images are available. I certainly respect you and what you're trying to accomplish, but unless I've somehow misunderstood that, I'm just wondering how all of a sudden that has changed. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 04:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair use is acceptable in limited circumstances. Fair use is not acceptable if it can be reasonably expected a free license alternative could be acquired. Such is the case with living people. We do not have to have fair use images of that person to depict them. Even if we do not currently have a free license image, we do not accept fair use for depiction purposes of living people. This was codified in the resolution passed this past Spring by the Wikimedia Foundation which I've referred to previously. --Durin 04:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, but by the way . . .

[edit]

Hi, Durin. I want to say first that I keep running into you when I'm following some image copyright debate, and I think you're doing a great job. (I wish you'd ask for your tools back as I'm sure you'd be even more useful to the Project, but of course, that's your decision.)

I asked you a question a week or two ago. You were on wikibreak then, and may have missed it if your page had too many messages when you got back. If you have any expertise to offer, I'll be very happy. If not, I'll take it elsewhere. The question is here. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me edit the image and stop changing the page

[edit]

I went to a lot of trouble and time to get that permission and I'm trying, despite being busy at work, and having people to manage, calls to make, proposals to finish, emails to send - to edit this image page.

It is being concurrently edited by THREE editors. This is beyond obsessive. I can't even have the image unlocked for 15 minutes without someone jumping on it. BlueSapphires 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no time limit for work to be done today. With the missing rationale, there's seven days to work on it. There's no immediate rush. Please see the talk page (bottom) for more information on the current problems. I really truly do appreciate you getting permissions for Wikipedia. It's great seeing a user take initiative like this. The problem is that "permission for Wikipedia" is utterly useless for us. We only accept media as either free or not free. There's no in between "permission to use" case. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. All the best, --Durin 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweetie, we're not. I've spent hours on this when I don't have time for it, and I am not a daily editor like you guys. I have serious responsibilities. I want to finish this, and then you can look at it, and if it needs tweaking, great. This manic auto-edit stuff has to stop. Now. Leave it alone for one bloody hour. Videmus Omnia just reverted something 1 minute ago. I'm NOT FINISHED. Tell him to stop it. It is really irritating. I realize it is how he is and it isn't personal against me, but I'd appreciate it if you'd give him something else to focus on for 1 hour so I can deal with the page. BlueSapphires 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU JUST REVERTED THE PAGE. That is not vandalism. LEAVE THE FREAKING PAGE ALONE AND GO SURF FOR AN HOUR PLEASE. GO FIND SOME PICTURES TO UPLOAD. CALL YOUR FRIEND. WHATEVER. LEAVE THE PAGE ALONE. AGAIN, IVE ASKED YOU HOW MANY TIMES. I AM IN A PLACE WITH A BAD NET CONNECTION AND NEED YOU TO BACK OFF SO I CAN FINISH THIS AND GET BACK TO WORK. BASTA. Jeez. BlueSapphires 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I see an anonymous ip add "== ==" to a page with an edit summary of "re09i" [39], that's vandalism. I'm sorry, but that's reality. There's no content there, nothing. It's just blank. There's no point to it. It was properly reverted. I still fail to see what adding "== ==" does to improve the image's description page. But fine, if you think it adds and reverting it somehow interferes with your ability to add a fair use rationale, then I won't revert. But, if after you're done with your change and the format is still poor, I will fix it. Lastly, please calm down. As I've said above, there's nothing that says you MUST edit this image page and fix it RIGHT NOW. If you're at work, on a bad net connection, whatever...just relax. You can do it later today, tomorrow, Friday...whatever. It doesn't have to done THIS INSTANT. Please, relax. --Durin 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Good

[edit]

Under wikipedias policy, this photo of ms. good is Legal and Useable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmummert (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amyphoto.jpg - Done with Non-free rationale / Apology

[edit]

Thank you for your patience, and apologies if I was rude. Really, you have no idea what stress I'm under right now (and you weren't a part of the marathon image DRV - which followed on the four deletion cases concerning Renner/Amy two weeks ago, that I fell into, which sucked up major time I don't have to spend). After last night I was really upset to see an additional hurdle arrive today, which entailed a warning tag - so I wanted to get it out of the way. Please, if there is anything pressing about this photo, vis-a-vis copyright matters, would you please try to put a note on my talk page? I'm not on Wikipedia much generally. It is fun, but I'm simply not in the right life-space for it, as is evident. I've far too many obligations. Thank you for helping me to sort this out; I felt this was important enough to give time and focus. Take care. BlueSapphires 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I bother you again?

[edit]

I really appreciate your patient and thoughtful answers. If you have time, your expertise might be of value here. I'll look into the images about which you answered my questions yesterday. Best regards. ElinorD (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alrite then m8

[edit]

if u can put a picture up on User:Screech123/lovesfrankspencer without breaking any 'policy' then u do it ŞĉŘεÈčḤ 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Young

[edit]

Someone is trying to delete Christine Young again. I thought you might like to know. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Young (2nd nomination) Jmm6f488 06:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Union and Meagan Good

[edit]

I only added them because when I sourced where I got them from the "risk processor" said it was ok. So I do have a question, how are any pics not taken by a camera by the editor allowable here on Wiki? They are everywhere.... I dont get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmummert (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the risk processor? Regardless, the images you were attempting to use are copyrighted, fair use images. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #1. We do not accept copyrighted material for the depiction of people who are currently living, as it is reasonable to expect that a free equivalent could be obtained. Images taken by an editor could fall into that category. In general, anything available under a free license is acceptable. Copyrighted images for the depiction of living people are not. Does that help to clarify? If not, please let me know. Thanks, --Durin 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use violations

[edit]

Can you please review History of British film certificates and British Board of Film Classification to see if the images used, which are claimed under fair use, are in violation of WP:NFCC #3 and #9. — Moe ε 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarchastic Durin?

[edit]

Was that sarchasm?--Angel David 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all. I was in ernest. You seem quite convince you are correct, and are certain there's a number of people who agree with you. It's optimal if these people and yourself are assembled together so I can educate all of you at once. It's a wonderful idea! --Durin 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Message Durin

[edit]

Okay, I have removed the thing from my user page. If you do not believe me go here


--Angel DavidCommune with Heaven Spy on my Celestial Gifts 13:40, 18 August,2007 (User Talk Contributions)

List of English countries coats of arms

[edit]

Hi Durin

Regarding this edit. If you believe that these images cannot be used, it would seem more appropriate to nom the article for deletion. A list with no content isn't really of any use. Regards. Valentinian T / C 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering: not all images on that list were fair use: a number were GFDL. Is it acceptable to include GFDL images in a gallery? If those images and those images only were reintroduced it might encourage someone to draw up images for the missing counties??? Lozleader 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them were not GFDL images, approximately 80% of them. In similar removals from other galleries, I've often removed the columns entirely because the presence of the column encourages people to put the fair use violations back in, causing the work to be done over and over again. Instead, the article should be crafted as best as possible to avoid using the images. There's nothing wrong with using GFDL galleries, but in this case so few are as to make the gallery useless. --Durin 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see how a blank space could just attract trouble. Human nature abhors a vacuum or something. :-)Lozleader 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What is your problem!?

[edit]

It is always "do this" or "remove that". How come you never text to me to say "Hi Angel David, how are you doing(?) or how was your weekend Angel David(?)" why can't you text me to say that because or tyrannical policy-obssesed idiot.

--Angel David 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I hope you sit on a tac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel David (talk • contribs)


Okay, forget the blocking from editing you and I went too overboard. Just, recommend this aty away from my user page! I don't vandalize yours!--Angel David 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would honestly prefer you report me. In this way, you would perhaps gain external input and opinion on the matter. A wider audience might do a world of good. What I've been doing on your user page isn't vandalism. --Durin 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if there was something outside of policy on my userpage I would very much welcome you editing it to correct it. Even Jimbo himself encourages people to edit his userpage. I don't see any reason to stop someone from editing my userpage if what they are doing helps the encyclopedia. --Durin 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What you know about Jimbo? He set this wonderful sight out for people to learn and see. Of course the people who dedicated thier images to help him were rebuked by you (not literal) So I don't think you are respecting him! That proves my point!Ha!--Angel David 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,but oh wait! He is the man and do to him bieng so cool he is cool about people editing on there! However,But no one is a great as Jimbo! He is level 10 on the cool charts! At least I know that!--Angel David 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough already. If you have a problem with Durin I recommend you report it at an appropriate noticeboard. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. I'd prefer he just complained to WP:AN/I and got me blocked directly though, rather than an RfC which consumes voluminous quantities of electrons. :) By the way Videmus Omnia, THANK YOU for your long service to our country! --Durin 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no I'm really...confused. You want me to report you. Because, if ou insisst I will go right away!--Angel David 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seem to still have serious issues with my editing, and still refer to my edits on your userpage as vandalism. So, yes, I'd prefer if you reported this. As I noted above, getting an outside opinion would help to clarify things. And please, stop commenting out the personal attack above. The removal makes the follow-on comments non-sensical. Thank you. --Durin 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended you blocked like you insisted taht I do! However, I feely told them they have the right to chose who is right! if, I am right you have to be blocked for a month because I think an ever-lasting editing punishment is unjust. Even for a wiki-bully like you!--Angel David 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that you've received input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_covered_by_Wikipedia_Policies from three others that what I did was in the right, I hope that this helps bring closure to the matter for you. We really truly do not allow fair use images on user pages, and the use of a template indicating a page is protected when it is not protected is not acceptable. If on the odd chance you still feel wronged and wish to take this further, please see WP:RFC. That's the next step. I would be more than happy to help you craft an RfC against me if it seems a daunting task on your own; it is a lot of bureaucratease type stuff to be sure. --Durin 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on 2007/8/20

[edit]

Yesterday, you removed my NPOV flag without discussion, then proceeded to improperly block my account. Before I lodge a formal complaint, I would like to know how you can justify these actions.Djg2006 18:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Durin's reasons for removing the tag in his edit summaries here. Also, Durin is not a sysop and thus was not the one to block you. I believe that honor belonged to Wizardman. Finally, do not threaten Durin with formal complaints -- WP:ANI is that way, but I can already tell you whose side any rational admin will take. Rockstar (T/C) 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djg2006, I think it would be best if you simply filed a formal complaint. If you need assistance on how to do so, please feel free to ask me. I'd be happy to assist you. Thank you and have a nice day. --Durin 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin, please accept my apology; I stand corrected, as you did not block me. But you did remove the flag - my understanding is that the flag is only to be removed after discussion. This what I will be complaining about in your case. Thank you for your gracious offer of explaining the greivance process - I would like to take you up on this. Djg2006 15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first step in the dispute resolution process, that of negotiation, is essentially over. The next step is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for the entire dispute resolution process. Please be aware, as you may not be already, that the {{NPOV}} tag has previously been edit warred over in this article. I don't recall the specifics. You may wish to dig into the archives of Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Regardless, your attempt at forcing a particular point of view in, view edit warring, and then when warned off of doing that to continue the dispute by attempting to force an NPOV tag onto the article is most likely not going to be looked upon kindly. Before spending the time and effort necessary to develop an RfC, you may wish to take this up at WP:AN/I. If there's anything further that I can do to aid you in getting me banned from the project, please do not hestitate to ask. Thank you, --Durin 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reading up on the NPOV flag policy, I realized that I did not post a justification to the discussion page. For this reason, you were justified in removing it, although I would have appreciated a note to this effect. Therefore, I am dropping my plans to complain - thanks again for your help.Djg2006 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

[edit]

I don't have experience with fair use images, especially uploading any. For the 7 World Trade Center article, I'm working to clarify the collapse section to make it as understandable and clear as possible. Some news footage from the day has surfaced, taken by ABC News, helping clarify the extent of damage. It is one of few images that exist to show the damage. Their footage has been subject of much commentary and discussion. A screenshot of the video would help readers understand about the damage, and about what footage exists for NIST to use in their analysis. As such, I believe would fall under fair use. I'm strict about fair use, and haven't uploaded anything like this before. But, I think this is a rare case where it falls within our policy. I have uploaded it to here and added it to the article. Please tell me if I have provided sufficient rationale and information, and if this indeed falls under fair use? --Aude (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that this general type of image, that of 7 World Trade Center on that day, would be fair use if no free equivalent exists. To my knowledge, no such free equivalent exists. All the images I have seen are taken from news sources, just as this image is. It'd be nice if the image was a bit better resolution. Your rationale is ok, but a bit weak. It would withstand common scrutiny. The image is used in the article appropriately, and contributes to the discussion. --Durin 11:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to still see this

[edit]

I saw your comments here and am sorry that you took my deadminning as badly as you did. I too felt it was a witch hunt of sorts and though I do understand that (hopefully) arbcom works off diffs that anyone can present as evidence, allowing anonymous emails sent possibly by banned editors and allowing other editors to come to the arbcom (who later were also demonstrated to be previously banned under a different username) and filibuster to "get me"...was appalling. I lost all faith in the arbitration process at that point as all I was seeking, and it was moderate, was a civility probation on Seabhcan and would have accepted the same had that been deemed necessary. The point is...if you choose to edit articles that are prone to edit wars, hostile discussions and strong POV's, it becomes almost impossible, unless you are superhuman, to avoid striking back at a few editors now and then. Lately, I was told I would be blocked for saying someone was acting like a "jerk"...yet I have been called a troll, an asshole, a giant fucking wikidick, a POV pusher...well, you name it, and in most of these cases, there are no blocks to these editors, and no warnings either. I have one article I am working on at the moment and an arbcom case that should never have gone to arbcom and after that, I doubt I will be around much at all, regardless of the arbcom outcome. However, I am glad to see that you have started editing again and hope it works out for you.--MONGO 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The state of affairs is indeed disgusting. I've been telling myself to leave for a while now. I might eventually take my own advice :) Sorry to see you are leaving. The bastards are winning on this project. The conspiracy pages are hopelessly lost, just because the sheer weight of nuttery outweighs the good that people can do here. --Durin 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I expect that my work situation is going to make it hard for me to do much that involves a great deal of involved research or sockpuppetry checks as I have recently been wasting a huge amount of time on. It really is a waste, as even if my work results in a banning, if the user departs long enough or edits away from areas he is prone to, he can evade checkuser and the cycle starts all over again. It is so easy to gain a new IP and recreate a new persona and I have no problem with that, so long as the same problematic behavior doesn't reoccur...sadly, that is often not the case since people get revenge in their hearts. The other problem is that arbcom allows too many people to use cases to exact some form of revenge on an editor, and that is inexcusable...the committee does almost no research themselves for the most part...many of them rarely comment at all on cases, except to "vote". There are a couple exceptions, but the majority of them look at the evidence and that is all...I recognize this project is getting very big, so "knowing" who is and who isn't "trustworthy" is becoming almost impossible for arbcom. Same issues are apparent in Rfa's...where a couple mistakes, some really bad and others much less so, are used as fodder to railroad an admin candidate. I know there is no way I'll ever be readminned, so I gave up that ghost a long while back. Oddly enough though, I never wanted to be an admin...but was asked repeatedly and finally did decide to run...my losing my admin bit was only bad in the way it happened. Oh well.--MONGO 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of what you speak to is scalability problems. I've written on this extensively in a number of places. One of the most hilarious scalability problems it's Jimbo's pronouncement that we should have 100,000 featured articles by the end of this year. It was so disconnected from reality as to be astonishing. I'm convinced that the Foundation in general has a fair bit of disconnect between goals and reality. --Durin 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hehe..well, I respect Jimbo for speaking about hopes and dreams, but there really is no way that will happen...maybe still something to shoot for. Part of the problem with that, as you know, is that many articles won't ever be featured until the "dust settles", even though they are generally well written and exhaustively referenced. The other problem is revisionist history, that tries to put a slant on past events and takes them out of context from what really happened...sometimes this is good, as a reassessment might bring new evidence to light, but other times is is simply a watering down of the event, as if it wasn't as big or as bad as was originally thought. I fully endorse the open editing experience, but not so sure I endorse the everyone should edit philosophy that seems to be taking over the project. I concur with the belief that everyone deserves a second chance, maybe even in rare cases, a third, but not an inexhaustible number of chances, as we waste too much time dealing with these same problematic editors repeatedly.--MONGO 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I surrender!

[edit]

Okay, I give up! I was wrong! I was wrong to question your job. I am was way too hard on you. I am sorry. I know,I know! Your probably want ask "who are you and what have you done with Angel David?" Well, just in case you ask that, I am Angel David and owe you an apology. I don't know if this covers anything but I just want to stop fighting you! I want us to stop bieng enemies because it hurts my reputation and your emotion! Let's just stop. Please!--Angel David 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apology accepted. However, please stop removing the personal attack you made above. I've asked you before, and someone else has reverted you on you attempting to remove it as well. Stop. --Durin 02:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Okay! I'll do anything to make it up to you! I will obey any fair image use policy! I will never put a semi-protected template on my userpage again until it is really semi-protected! I never make another personal attack on you again!--Angel David 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: fair use image use

[edit]

Thanks for your note, but your actions seem willy-nilly: in your initial edit, you removed the coat of arms for the UK, while retaining the image of the UK coat of arms as used in Scotland. I merely sought to make the galleries complete. Of course, someone else will likely come along and fill in the obvious blanks that the removal of these images/entries creates. Anyhow, perhaps you should move instead move to delete the galleries that exhibit these images or, in the very least, edit more carefully. Thanks. Quizimodo 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paul burke in naked city.jpg

[edit]

I did state in the rationale that a non-free image was not available. Is this not allowable under NFCC #1?--Mantanmoreland 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the person was dead, yes. But, this person is not dead. Our standard policy, per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy is that if the person is alive and the image is being used to depict the person, then we do not permit the image if the image is not under a free license. The presumption is that since the person is alive, it can reasonably be expected that a free license could be obtained. This applies even if a free license image does not currently exist. Hope this helps, --Durin 13:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any suggestions as to how a free license could be obtained for this image? --Mantanmoreland 14:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he has a public schedule, and you're in the vicinity, grab a camera and take some pictures. :) Honestly, that's how it is frequently done. It's amazing the number of times I've seen fair use images removed, only to have Wikipedians, now that an image is missing, go and make or obtain a free license image. --Durin 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to but he is retired. That is why I noted that there was no free license image available for this person.--Mantanmoreland 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the suggestion. Unfortunately, he is retired and has no agent I can find, and an email to the operator of a former fan site bounced back.--Mantanmoreland 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fair use overuse

[edit]

Anyone with half a brain knows that Image:Akatsukispread.jpg is virtually useless as it gives almost a complete lack of detail. That being said, those images are on a subpage, as it was once apart of the Akatsuki (Naruto) page but was cut onto a seperate article for length. The Fair Use Rational that was given for each image is just that, they all fit their purpose to illustrate the character in question. Unless you desire them to be filled with needless BS which niether of us want, the basic "To describe the character in question" is the best option. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheUltimate3 (talk • contribs) 19:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

  • I guess I don't have half a brain then. Thank you for the personal insult. If you have something to communicate to me and can do so without using personal insults, please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, thank you and have a nice day. --Durin 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting you read that as a personal attack. I figured you just said the Spread image as it was you know there. Regardless, now seeing how anything I (or others) do will fall deaf ear to you, the question comes in what do we do with the images? Cause simply deleting them seems a waste, not to mention as you've mentioned oh so elegantly in your Page about this "The articles look like crap" cause now I really do see it. Do we give the things that lost their images little character descriptions are do we have to get a hanky and stop our b-ing?--TheUltimate3 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The insinuation above was that since I thought the image was sufficient, I must have less than half a brain.
  • As to the issue, it is important to understand our m:Mission. We are free content encyclopedia. Copyrighted, fair use imagery must be used minimally. A significant number of people have been working to reduce overuse of images since the Foundation's Spring 2007 resolution on the matter, which can be found at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Though, that resolution essentially supported what had been policy locally on the project for a long time. We prefer free content over non-free, non-free as little as possible and only in cases of clear, absolute need. There display of something is frequently not sufficient to that metric. The image must be significant for reasons other than just identification/display. Else, it's just decorative. Note that many other language Wikipedias do not permit fair use images at all. Hope this helps, --Durin 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please clarify a couple things re. use of fair use images as you've stated them

[edit]

I pretty much get what you say, but just want to make sure.

  • On a "list of x series characters" page not 1 fair use image can be had, not even a collage of multiple characters, or for any "list of" page for that matter which would require fair use images to illustrate the subjects discussed.
  • A fair use image of y character can't be on a "list of x series characters" page, but if x character has their own article space, then it's OK there. A way of reading this is if I want to have a pic of x character but they're described on a "list of x series characters" page, I then create an article for y character, and move them out of the x series chara listing, so I can then put a pic on them up.
  • You stated that the culling includes removing album covers from discographies. Does this also apply to "list of x series albums" type articles that aren't for a particular artist?

Thanks. BrokenSphereMsg me 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think rather than focusing on specific details, it is better to focus on what our purpose here is. We're here to create a free content encyclopedia. Our policies derive from that m:Mission. Fair use images should be used minimally, if at all. That's the driving focus. Many other language wikipedias do not allow fair use images at all. There's got to be a *very* good reason why a given fair use image is absolutely necessary. --Durin 21:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some sense of a "threshold" that might be easier to understand for some users, which is why I used the examples I did. This way editors who tend to focus on specific articles can prioritize what they want to emphasize. BrokenSphereMsg me 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's been discussion before about the threshold of acceptability. Is it one image? Three? Ten? Where do we draw the line? Answer; we don't. There are general cases to observe, and if a case falls outside of those we evaluate while keeping in mind our m:Mission. --Durin 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fault-finder

[edit]
  • I have argue on the basis of common law esp. of European one, because I'm LL.B. hons. You made not a good case for substantiated demonstration. I am not able to understand your lecture, if he should be in proper style, both legal and consequential.

--Beartd_άρχης,LL.B.hons 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia policies on the use of fair use images, which is an American law concept not a European one, are a superset of American law. The law is rather starkly irrelevant. Even if something would be legal under fair use law, our policies dictate more constraints than the law allows. The simple fact of the matter is you are not allowed to have copyrighted, non-free licensed images on your userpage. It's a basic concept, and easy to understand. for more information, carefully ready WP:NFCC item #9 as I have previously directed you. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer. Thank you, --Durin 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOW you have no more the possiblity to cancel pics on my site, it was done in a not allowed manner. You are on the wrong tack. Thank you. --Beartd,LL.B.hons 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durin/archive2007&oldid=1218734931"