User talk:Oden/Archive 2

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar! :) Enjoy your wikibreak! Nat91 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A well-deserved award. Congratulations on the featured article, and I am very impressed by your effort in replacing the fair use image with a free image. Keep up the good work! --Oden 21:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I have some concerns of this comment of yours. It violates WP:NPA, in the sense that we shouldn't really be discussing other editors in this manner. I'm not quite sure what it proved by pointing out people's blocks logs, and such comments can only sidetrack the discussion. In fact, it was quite provocative. Please don't make such comments like that again. Violations of WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Harassment are considered a very serious matter—and usually end with blocks with the length being increased each time. Khoi khoi 02:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, however I strongly disagree with your assessment; such comments are justified in this particular context. In a RfC the topic of discussion is the editor who is subject to the RfC, but it is also relevant and sometimes even necessary to discuss the past behaviour of the other contributing editors. ´

WP:NPA states: "Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks."

WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."

Finally, WP:RFC states: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors".

If you had contributed to that RfC I would have examined your block log in the same manner that I examined every other editor who contributed to that RfC. I would also have mentioned my own block log if it contained any items.

However, I do agree that outside of a RfC such comments would be considered inappropriate, since talk pages in Wikipedia are provided in order to discuss improvements in an article (which might be why you have reacted so strongly as to actually issue a warning).

On a more general note: the entire process of a Request for Comment regarding a user could be regarded as a violation of WP:NPA, WP:Harassment, and also quite provocative. --Oden 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the warning is way too soft but the dismissive response from this particular user was only to be expected. His disrputing the user conduct RfC with trollish remarks totally unrelated to the subject in question is pure trolling as well as endless discussions the user conducts very much in line with WP:DFTT#Pestering. The defence above with selective citing policies that obviously do not apply to the user's behavior is not even worthy a responce. --Irpen 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on User talk:Khoikhoi but apparently User:Khoikhoi is too lazy to respond (diff). I think I understand the reason for a lack of response though, and I will let the matter rest. No hard feelings on my part! --Oden 06:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Oden, just because I'm lazy does not mean I wasn't going to respond. ;-) Now, reading the post by Irpen at WP:AN/I, and skimming through the RfC's talk page, I'm going to have to agree with User:Sebbeng here. Ok, I agree with you that your comment wasn't really a personal attack, but it was incivil nonetheless. It's important to not pour petrol on the flames, and the purpose of my warning was to explain to you that saying what you said wasn't very helpful at all. Some people might even see it as trolling... All I really want is things not to get out of hand. Khoi khoi 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What gives?

As someone who was actually defending Abu badali, I'm surprised you felt it necessary to attack me personally. Not only that, but with a weak poke about a mark on my block log, caused by a misunderstanding, that says nothing of my character. What on Earth would make you think that this kind of behavior is appropriate? -- Ned Scott 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't defending User:Abu badali (read my comments on the RfC under User:Quadell's opinion). I was responding to this statement by User:Sebbeng: diff. Take a look under the heading warning (above), this was not a personal attack, it was an attempt to place the block log of User:Abu badali in the light of the other editors participating in the RfC (which is permitted). If you have taken offence then it wasn't my intention. Sincerely, --Oden 13:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly misinterpreting that part of WP:RFC. I don't care if someone "punishes" you or not, so I'm not going to play this game. I will simply tell you this: I am insulted by your comments and they were not appropriate for an RfC. -- Ned Scott 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to interpret "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors" in such a way where public logs (which are "public for good reason") are not included. The only thing I can say is that I respect the serious contributions of any editor which improve Wikipedia. If you were insulted it was not my intention, and you are free to browse my logs and make any suggestions which might improve my contributions. Sincerely, Oden (contribs • logs • block user • block log) 13:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulted that you told other people that I had been blocked, I'm insulted that you used that to say something misleading about my character as an editor. -- Ned Scott 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the statement by User:sebbeng was to show that other editors also had items in their logs (in that context User:Abu badali was not different from many of the other editors participating in the RfC). If you (and as it appears several others) interpreted it as a misleading statement or even as an accusation (which it was not intended to be) then I really have communicated this comparison very poorly. I will try to be more clear in the future. --Oden 13:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the AMA!

Hello Oden, I see that you have decided to join the AMA. I'll be the first to say welcome! We're always in need of more advocates, especially since were backlogged most of the time. Just a few pointers for what we do. We communicate by putting a template on our talk page. The template is {{AMA alerts}}. The AMA also has it's own IRC channel which reports new cases to us, and also new alerts. If you'd like to jump right into a case, you are free to check out WP:AMARQ, which is our new request for advocacy system. The instructions for how the technical part works is on it's talk page. You can also use the AMA userboxes that appear under here. If you have anymore questions about the organization, just ping any advocates talk page, including our coordinator, Steve Caruso. Again, welcome to the AMA! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Oden 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pose

I contacted Frank; I should have the all clear to go ahead and use the copyright / released tag on it like the other images in the article and get rid of the fair use. In all honesty it isn't the album cover, but rather an insert. --Zeality 22:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Oden 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

My personal blocking was completely unjustified, and thus I still feel "without sin" in your metaphor. It was for a violation of the 3RR on one of those silly April Fools joke pages. Totally stupid, but anyways. You do have the freedom to say what you did, but I still stand by my position on the issue. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the block log doesn't always reflect a user's character, and that a few errors in judgement (especially far in the past) isn't that big of a deal. User:Sebbeng used the word "guilty" regarding User:Abu badali, implying a criminal act (diff).

I wanted to contrast that by showing that by such a standard many of the editors contributing to the RfC would be considered "guilty" of something or another. So I went through the page history of that RfC and listed all the user with items in their block log.

I'll try to be more polite when making this point in the future, and strive for fairness without tipping the scales in the opposite direction. --Oden 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ElianeElias1.png

Could you please review this page and see if there is any opportunity for a self-revert? Thank you. Tvccs 01:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag it, it was tagged by User:Abu badali (diff), so I can't revert. I'll leave a comment on the talk page. --Oden 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello.

could you please pick a replacement pic for the north korea one you removed from my userpage? the aesethic is all off balance now. something feisty. thanks. k zz * 03:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hid the fair use image you were using in your user namespace since it was against policy. For free images on this topic try Commons:Category:North Korea. --Oden 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

QEII Image

Thanks for finding a free Image of Her Majesty, it's good we finally have one uploaded.

I have cropped that image, so it fits on to pages better. Brian | (Talk) 07:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for cropping it, I couldn't figure out how to do it losslessly. --Oden 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for suggesting the free image, I hope you didn't get discouraged by being called "disruptive", as there's a pretty solid concensus now supporting your proposal :) --kizzle 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! --Oden 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images Uploaded by Anthony5429

Sorry about that. Actually, I would like to delete the image. How would I go about doing that since I'm the creator and no one else has linked to it? --Anthony5429 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been orphaned, so it should be gone in seven days. --Oden 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would also like CVU2.png deleted since the SVG is now available. How would I go about doing that?

It looks like alot of users still use that image (if you scroll down further on the page you can see where it is being used). So maybe there's no need to delete it quite yet? --Oden 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. For The rule.png, I actually know Ryan Liestman - the leader of that band, and he gave me permission to use that image on Wikipedia. What licensing tag should I use to specify that? --Anthony5429 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo looked very professional, are you sure that the copyright holder released it under the GFDL? Remember that this applies not only to Wikipedia, but to anyone else using the image under that license. --Oden 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the following in the edit summary: "I am good friends with Ryan Liestman and have direct permission from him to host this self-gimped image on WP". The GFDL applies outside of Wikipedia, so if this a restriction then the image does not meet the license requirements. It could be a fair use image though.--Oden 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - okay. I will just upload a photo I have actually taken of the band - will that work as GFDL? --Anthony5429 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image really is licensed under the GFDL, then it is ok (i.e. the copyright holder knows what the GFDL is and releases the image under that license, including any use of the image by anyone else, even for commercial purposes).

If the image isn't licensed under the GFDL, then a free image would be preferable. --Oden 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check Fair Use Corrections

Hello, Oden! I was wondering if it would be possible for you could double check my revisions for image fair use descriptions and criteria for the following: Image:Jigme Singye Wangchuck.jpg, as well as Image:Perry Christie.jpg. I have made corrections and posted better rationales based on what I have seen from other Wikipedia users. I'm hoping that you can look at them and and make edits so the images won't be deleted. I searched several extensive free license sites and databases and found nothing. (Though I did find one of Perry Christie, but with his back turned to the camera, which in my opinion, is not a good substitute). Thank you very much for your time. Have a great day! Scanlan 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use criteria #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. [...] However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."

Regarding (Image:Jigme Singye Wangchuck.jpg), here is a image of Mr. Jigme Singye Wangchuck from the Library of Congress website: [1]. It might possibly be public domain. Otherwise, the subject in this case is still alive, so a photograph could be taken (and an example of a amateur photo can be found here: [2]).
Regarding Perry Christie (Image:Perry Christie.jpg), here is a free image of Mr. Christie meeting U.S. Secretary Rice: [3]. This image is public domain, so I have uploaded it (Image:2006 0322 rice 600.jpg).

--Oden 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:fair-use imges

Hi, you recently tagged a lot of the fair use images I uploaded. Many were from Biography articles, which I uploaded before the stricter rules for fair use came about. I assume then that it is no longer adequate to have screenshots of actors on Bio articles. Is this right?

However some of the images that have been tagged are actually screenshots of television characters, which are included in the article about the television character i.e. this one Image:Carol jackson branning.jpg is an image for this article Carol Jackson. Is it ok to remove those tags, as I believe that those images fall under fair use, as they provide critical commentry of the television programme?

Many Thanks Gungadin 14:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images of fictional characters are often unrepeatable. However, many times these images have also been used improperly to illustrate what the actor looks like, and if the actor is still alive this is not allowed under the fair use criteria. In such cases I have removed the images from the article on the actor, and left it in the article on the fictional character. (Note that a fair use image is allowed in a biographical article to illustrate what a actor playing a role looks like under certain conditions.)

I have tagged images which only serve to illustrate what a living persons looks like as replaceable (although I appear to have made a mistake regarding Image:Carol jackson branning.jpg, which I have self-reverted).

Also note, I have only gone through your most recent uploads, I have not reviewed your first 500 uploaded images. If you want to, you can tag any replaceable images you find with {{subst:rfu}}. Sincerely--Oden 14:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying this. So it is ok to have a small image of an actor playing a certain role, so long as it is not being used solely to illustrate the person and is just being used to illustrate the actor in a role and also ties in with the text. Is that right?

I will work through my uploaded images like you suggested and tag where necessary. Gungadin 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, assuming the image meets the fair use criteria. For instance:

Criterion #3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
Criterion #8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose."

Don't place any fair use image at the top of a article when the the article covers a living person, place the image in a section which covers their acting career (if the article is too short to have sections it is probably a indication that it needs to be expanded before any fair use image is placed there). --Oden 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this has been a big help. I appreciate your advice.Gungadin 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EnChor

What differrence does it make whether one uses {{db-group}} or {{a7}}? - CobaltBlueTony 17:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None that I can see, since they both refer to CSD Article 7 (A7). They also seem to redirect to the same template. On a personal note, it goes alot faster to type {{a7}}. --Oden 17:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you have the letter-number meanings memorized. Otherwise, the abbreviations work very well. - CobaltBlueTony 17:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the hard part is usually remembering the different criteria for speedy deletion. --Oden 17:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking/Replaceable fair use images

After I commented on your unseemly behaviour, you seem to continue your ad hominem-motivated crusade by specifically targeting images uploaded by me. WP:STALKing is strictly forbidden and may lead to blocks. Your selective attacks will be under scrutiny on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Oden. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you are being stalked then you are free to do so. However, I must point out that WP:STALK states: "This does not include [..] reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." --Oden 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You follow my edits after I criticised your selective and ad hominem approach. This is totally unacceptable. That's what stalking and harrassing is about. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it upon myself to review the upload logs of many contributors in order to make sure that the uploaded images are in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines concerning the use of images. If you feel that I have tagged an image incorrectly you are welcome to dispute this (but don't remove the tags). You are also free to review my contributions Oden (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you don't contibute new articles and images to Wikipedia, instead harrassing those wikipedians who do. Your activities seem aimed at deteriorating the level of Wikipedia and your understanding of our policies is faulty. Please cool off, contribute several articles (preferrably featured) and return to productive editing with the newly-acquired understanding of what WP is all about. Thanks for your efforts, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have uploaded over 1000 images to Wikipedia, a small portion of them are replaceable ({{rfu}}). Most of the rest are Public Domain and can be moved to the Wikimedia Commons ({{NCT}}). I am doing both those things. --Oden 14:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I have no problems working with wikipedians who are not as aggressive as you are. When they tell me that some image may be replaced, I obtain the permission to use an alternative image in Wikipedia and replace them one by one. Furthermore, most fairuse images were uploaded when Template:PD-USSR was considered valid. Then, out of the blue, its use was deprecated and hundreds images were either retagged as fairuse (in en.wiki) or simply deleted (in Commons). Therefore I would appreciate if you don't move any images to Commons and approach me with one image per day, so that I could negotiate a suitable free replacement. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you removed the {{rfu}} tags from the images I have tagged as replaceable, I have stopped tagging the rest. I will post a list of these images for you to review on your talk page and here:

Needs better rationale:
- ~~Image:Kubrat sword.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Sarmatian crown.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Permic bear.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Scythian resurrection.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Pazyryk deer.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Scythian tatoo.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Hermitageswan.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Phanagoria sphinx.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Shubin.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Grigory Vladimirovich Orlov.jpg~~
- ~~Image:Amberroomdetail.jpg~~

Fixed fair use rationales for these images. --Oden 15:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a building:
- Image:Chateauhavre.jpg
- Image:Yelets.jpg
- Image:Saratovbridge.jpg (note:not tagged as replaceable by me, but by User:Bogdangiusca (diff)
- Image:Surgut bridge.jpg
- Image:Irtyshbrudge.jpg
- Image:Kikin.jpg
- Image:Ferapontovo.jpg (note:not tagged as replaceable by me, but by User:Bogdangiusca (diff)
- Image:Oldrussa.jpg
- Image:Lidacastle.jpg
- Image:Kirillov2005.jpg
- Image:Sudak.jpg
- Image:Hutyn.jpg
- Image:Gorokhovets.jpg
- Image:Volotsk.jpg
- Image:Valaam.jpg
Photograph of a monument:
- Image:Vladimir novgorod 1862.jpg

Some of these images depict buildings which anyone can photograph. Others are from a museum website, and anyone can probably visit the museum and photograph these items. Note: fair use images which you have uploaded and which I have considered non-replaceable I have left untagged. This does not preclude that another editor might tag them as replaceable in the future. Sincerely, --Oden 14:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag you added says: "The tag added without an explanation or with a frivolous explanation can be deleted". Case closed. Now you try to insinuate that taking photographs is allowed in the Golden fund of the Hermiatage museum. I wish you would procure one image here and upload it to Wikipedia. That would have been fine. I am not aware of any possibility of doing so. As for "buildings which anyone can photograph", it would be great if you provided replacement images. For my own part, I replaced dozens if not hundreds fairuses with free replacements and I intend to continue doing so in the future. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the images from the museum are not replaceable, then it would be helpful if this was stated on the image page. (I briefly examined the museum's website which did not mention any such restrictions.)
As for buildings, it is not necessary to replace an image: if the image could be replaced then it does not meet the fair use criteria. --Oden 15:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose all fairuse images uploaded by me after OrphanBot started operating and fairuse rationales became compulsory do contain rationales. As for buildings, I will replace Kikin.jpg, Oldrussa.jpg, and Yelets.jpg with free pictures later today, but I can't replace them all in one minute, you know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your help on the Kubrat sword. You know, once upon a time, I started tracking unfree images with the object of their deletion. These were mostly Persian and Polish images: there were huge images of new shiny buildings tagged as fairuse. Every article I opened was infested. When I started complaining, I was dodged: the uploaders simply retagged or reuploaded images as private domain and everyone forgot about it. Now I see them galore on Achaemenids and Warsaw (Image:Warsawsynagoga.jpg, Image:Wawka.jpg, Image:Wawka2.jpg, etc), to name only a few articles, and nobody seems to care. That's why I disapprove of the selective approach. Those who honestly tag the uploaded images as fairuse are persecuted. Those who upload unfree images as private domain have impunity. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed fair use rationales for some of the images mentioned above which can be objectively regarded as "very difficult to replace" (perhaps even close to impossible to replace).

Some of the images you have uploaded I have not mentioned (since I consider them next to impossible to replace), but they could use a better fair use rationale:

Image:Коч.jpg
Image:Batalov.jpg
Image:Ярослав Мудрый.jpg
Image:Timerevo.jpg (might be able to make a drawing which replaces the photo?)
Image:Arkaim.jpg and Image:Arqaim.jpg (are two photographs necessary? this needs to be addressed)

Since you are aware of the need to replace fair use images with free ones, I will leave it up to you to review the images mentioned and provide a suitable fair use rationale. However, there is a risk that User:Bogdangiusca, who is an admin, might get involved with your contributions since he has already tagged two of them with {{rfu}}.

Sincerely, --Oden 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Bogdangiusca for ages and I think his intentions were good. I am surprised that he did not notify me about tagging, however. I just uploaded free replacements for Yelets.jpg, Kikin.jpg, and Valaam.jpg and removed them from the articles. I also uploaded a new image for Kondopoga (the previous one looks suspect to me). I will continue sorting out images that you pointed out, although my time online is limited today and I will probably be offline until Monday. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if there is anything I can help out with regarding your images. Otherwise I will leave it to your best judgement to determine whether an image is replaceable or not. (A side note: thank you for your contributions!) --Oden 16:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you. I replaced both images tagged by Bogdanguisca with free pictures and sorted out images on Kirillov-Belozersky Monastery, eliminating fairuse. I will try to negotiate more free replacements next week. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BangladeshBooty alt.jpg

Please, go ahead and delete it. I have no use for it anymore. Still I'd like to point out that it was used to prove a point - Bangladesh Booty isn't that non-notable a film, and the information about it may stay. I guess I did it partly out of worry that it may look non-notable to warrant a removal. Thanks. - Aditya Kabir 19:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC) - please, reply to my talk page[reply]

I tagged it since it wasn't being used, I did not take the image itself or what it depicts into consideration. If the image was accidentally removed you can return it to the article in question and remove the tag from the image. Othwerwise, if the image isn't being used, it should be deleted. --Oden 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

No problem. —Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking/Log review

I know that WP:STALK says that it "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy", but there are points when things get too far. The same page also says:

"The important part [of stalking] is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful.",
"The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors." and
"Constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy".

Policy violations are routinely addressed by patrolling images by topic, at random, by alphabet, by license, etc. Also by following known problem contributors. Not by picking contributors purely based on their disagreeing with you on unrelated matters and attacking all their work.

It has come to my attention at WP:ANI that both users criticizing your actions in totally unrelated matters prompted you to respond by analyzing that users many months of editing and tagging their images with various tags. This could not possibly have been a pure coincidence and the aim of your action doesn't appear to be the general compliance of images with policies—but causing the annoyance and distress to the particular users.

This sort of behavior is seen as disruptive. Please don't do it again. Khoi khoi 03:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed these contributer's upload log since their comments gave the impression that they either did not understand or did not wish to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding the use of images. (I have also reviewed your contributions, since your previous comments on this talk page suggested a gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in regard to a RfC).

I am concerned that this sets a precedent where it is not acceptable to review a editors contributions in good faith when there are indications that the contributions in question need to be examined. I am also concerned that some editors upload over 1000 images to Wikipedia (many of which belong on the Wikimedia Commons) without greater reflection. All of this suggests a form of ownership of the material in question.

I will take some time away from Wikipedia to reflect upon your comments.--Oden 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy and Stalking

Oden, in a few recent months we significantly increased our requirements to the Fair Use images. Thus, while scrutiny of the past uploads is a very important job it is critically important that your interactions with the uploaders were in positive manner. Any shadow of doubt that your efforts are intended to the good of the project or that you somehow use the copyright matters for a personal interests, e.g. for harassing users you have a conflict with are absolutely unacceptable. And I can't help but notice that your interactions with User:Irpen and User:Ghirlandajo are very doubtful.

Please find a way to make these interactions positive rather than negative. If you are having problems with communications or it somehow unacceptable please find another job on Wikipedia. Here you are dealing with long term good faith contributors and act as the face of our project. Wikipedia has nothing but a community of devoted volunteers. Do not destroy it. Alex Bakharev 10:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ghirlandajo also started a heading on this talk page titled "thanks" on this talk page (diff), which suggests that the interaction had a positive outcome.
User:Irpen on the other hand has vandalised pages and posted trollish comments, and such an editor must always be subject to review.
I will take some time away from Wikipedia to reflect upon your comments. --Oden 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting your userpage

Hi, I see you request your userpage to be deleted. Fine, I will do it. But I have to say, don't leave. You are needed here. Images is one big mess and Wikipedia badly needs help sorting it out. Ghirla has the "untouchable" aura about him. Don't you dare to critisize him, don't you dare to touch him with the little finger, otherwise you will be accused of all sins that there are. I been through that myself. I know what it feels. And it's a shame that you became one of his victims. Don't let that happen, please. You are better, and you are right. Stand up and fight! Renata 04:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to back up Renata3 comments. You have been doing a good job sorting out the Images on wikipedia. Have a wikibreak and have some time out Brian | (Talk) 05:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you come back soon, as well. —Chowbok ☠ 05:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings here...I appreciate the fact that you took the time to be helpful, as I have commented elsewhere, regarding maximizing and perfecting the FUR's you recently listed by the dozen in my images. I also appreciate the fact that you were willing to discuss matters in a reasonable manner in that area, and in the images you contacted me on, were also willing to admit that you were mistaken regarding possible copyright violations, and self-reverted, although I wish you would have made that perfectly clear at my user talk page as well. At the same time, I did not appreciate being targeted to have to defend dozens of images in such a short timeframe while others you know who share your views on "free or nothing" attacked dozens of my other images in a coordinated effort. I radically disagree with both the premise and methods under use on the entire subject, and with those employing them, and hope they are stopped, somehow, and soon. I also hope you return. Best wishes. Tvccs 07:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I am taking a little time off for things to settle down a bit.--Oden 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

My mistake, I thought the tempalte said replace it with fair use disputed, not add it. Please don't assume I did this under bad faith, as this was not the case. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Oden 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate

You created User Oden/Boilerplate. Can I assume you really meant to create User:Oden/Boilerplate? Right now it's in the main namespace. eaolson 15:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made a mistake (twice: User Oden/Boilerplate and User Oden:Boilerplate). Subpages are a little tricky to create (it's my first). --Oden 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]