User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Wikidemon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

License tagging for Image:GeniBeta.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GeniBeta.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Genipage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Genipage.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

New Wine Discussion (by Agne) : Input Requested

Dear Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wine member:

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Vintage_Infos_.28part_II.29 that has become

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide

Please add your comments/input to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide.

Thanks! Regards -- Steve.Moulding 20:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Niman ranch logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Niman ranch logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Niman ranch logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Niman ranch logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent name discussion

You were supposed to be told before the discussion started, not sure what happened there, but there was a discussion about your name and it was found to be just fine. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Wikidemon. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the archive. You do not need to change your username. However, if you ever wish to do so, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name: simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Mediation Cabal case

Good Evening (GMT time); I have accepted your Mediation Cabal case - requested by Wikidemo - on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I am prepared to commence mediation as soon as possible. I would like to start by enquiring if you wish for mediation to be conducted at the Mediation Cabal subpage, or on the article talk page.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to Contact Me; I will try to answer all your questions as fully as possible in so far as it does not compromise my neutrality.

Kind regards,

Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]}
00:19, Monday November 25 2024 (UTC)

Wikidemo, looks like the case has been resolved Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01_TechCrunch. Anthony cfc and I have restored and edited the TechCrunch article. And of course, I blogged about the process. :) Thanks very much for inviting me into this mediation, it was a neat learning experience. Best regards, Jonathan Stokes 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, thanks for reverting Swdavis67. It appears this user's entire contribution to Wikipedia is to revert TechCrunch#criticism, so I am skeptical of offering this user another mediation... I notified this admin just to have an admin in the loop in case Swdavis67 reverts again. I guess we watch and wait. Jonathan Stokes 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, looks like we're still fighting the good fight! As far as I can tell, my attempts to contact administrators have been ignored or deleted. If nothing happens by tomorrow, I will simply post this issue in the community portal for everyone to see. It is possible I don't know the appropriate protocol for contacting an administrator, and that is why this is being ignored. Thanks for being my comrad in arms! Jonathan Stokes 05:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

...Trying to explain the swdavis67 issue on the community portal and meeting some skepticism... Can you corroborate my story? Would be great to put this behind us. Thanks! Jonathan Stokes 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediating cases for MedCabal

Hi I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01 Cave Clan. You don't have to be a member of MedCabal in order to mediate a case; in fact MedCabal has no official members. If you are interested in that case I encourage you to mediate it. We always have more work than we can handle and could use your help. --Ideogram 00:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this official policy?

Does this template (Template:COI2) represent official Wikipedia policy? If so could we modify it to get a more specific link to the policy that discourages people with a conflict of interest from editing articles? If it is not policy, I suggest that it's inappropriate (akin to mild vandalism) to affix the tag to the top of articles simply to point out that an editor has a conflict of interest -- that can be done in the discussion page or elsewhere.

The reason I ask is that the tag was recently attached to an article I'm working on, where one of the subjects of the article subsequently made what I consider minor (and valid) corrections to what I wrote. I don't think I'm the one being accused. Can't the subject of an article correct a date, a spelling, a number, something like that if there's no real controversy? I don't see any POV issue there.

Please forgive me if I'm overlooking something. If I am, other people may too -- hence the request for a clearer link on the template. Thx. 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC) - unsigned comment by User:Wikidemo.

It does represent Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which is a guideline - i.e. a generally accepted standard, rather than an unbreakable rule. I created the template, and there was consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to keep and use it. The hyperlinked phrase "conflict of interest" in it links to the WP:COI page, which explains the limits. You'd really need to read that, and take it up at WP:COI/N if you think the application at Rapleaf was unfair. Tearlach 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Actually, reading closer I see that the template applies only when the creator or main contributor has a conflict of interest. I think the template's reasonable. But here, nobody has proposed or discussed that the creator or main contributor to this article had a conflict so I'll probably do a request for consensus on what to do. My main concern is to improve the article by overcoming any POV cloud, to the point where the template can be removed. Wikidemo 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Abreu vineyards logo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Abreu vineyards logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Br cohn chardonnay.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Br cohn chardonnay.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Foundersfundlogo.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Foundersfundlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Nimanlogo.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Nimanlogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Rapleaf logo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Rapleaf logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Smartboost2.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Smartboost2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Amateur-night fair use rationales

Hi, I saw the paragraph you added at Wikipedia talk:non-free content about the sense in having a few properly quality-assured standard rationales for standard cases falling into objective use criteria that could be verified by bots, compared to the madness of totally subjective standards, and trying to get everyone to write their ad-hoc amateur individual rationales.

Is there any chance you could post something similar at the current main locus of the discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/FURG, perhaps under a new heading "A lawyer writes..." ? I have tried to make the case there, but I'm not a lawyer, just somebody that has spent more time than is probably good for me tangling with IP activism, and I fear otherwsie what I've written is just going to be for the birds...

I don't think people at the moment really have any perception of the damage it could do to Wikipedia's reputation, and the pillorying WP could get, if it looks like it's endorsing a multitude of very dubious rationales, which left to amateurs this process must inevitably create.

~~Please, see if you can get people to wake up and smell the coffee. -- Jheald 12:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)~~

Probably no longer relevant. But I'd value your view, just in my talkpage, as to whether my long 19:54 edit here is accurate on Wikipedia and album covers. Jheald 21:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Steve Berman (lawyer), to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A tag has been placed on Steve Berman (lawyer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Coren 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from articles you have created yourself, as you did with Steve Berman (lawyer). Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Coren 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of John Henry Browne

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on John Henry Browne, by Edward321 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because John Henry Browne seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting John Henry Browne, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate John Henry Browne itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You probably should have added a hangon tag. Instead, another editor has removed the db tag, which is fine since they were not the original creator of the article. Since he has done so and you have improved the article, I see no reason to relist for speedy delete. (I have no delusions of being correct in every edit I make.) BTW, thanks for your very civil response, most people would not have responded in such a reasonable manner. Edward321 05:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of defunct bands

Thanks for your contribution to this deletion review. Just in case you weren't aware, there is a discussion along the lines of this very topic going on at WP:FUC (discussion topic is here), so check it out and feel free to contribute! Drewcifer3000 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, sorry, just noticed you already posted something there. My mistake. Drewcifer3000 19:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, Wikidemo, and welcome to WikiProject
San Francisco Bay Area!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the Bay Area. Here are some points that may be helpful:

Our main aim is to help improve Bay Area-related articles, so if people ask for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page. It is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, which you are welcome to participate.
Our system for improving lower-quality articles is Jumpaclass. If you'll be editing stub, start, or B-class articles, consider using Jumpaclass to track your progress.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign Bay Area topics.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project.

Peter G Werner 07:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revenue Sharing Citation

I responded to your message here. Thanks :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And left you another one :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

and a long one User_talk:Cumbrowski#Revenue_sharing_citation --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 00:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wording

Hi, could you take a moment to tell me what you mean by "the wording on the policy page does not reflect a policy consensus and should be deleted"? Has this wording recently been changed, without consensus, to be more stringent? Thank you, Badagnani 16:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Logo rationale

I have been advocating this sort of thing for a while now. Thanks and please make more! -- But|seriously|folks 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

And now that it's up and running . . .

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For grabbing the Fair Use Rationale bull by the horns and leading us towards solutions that will make Wikipedia easier to illustrate for novice and expert alike while still safeguarding us from the evils of copyright infringement, I award this well-deserved barnstar of brilliance. -- But\|seriously\|folks 06:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't take you long to figure out where to hang it! -- But|seriously|folks 06:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope that's not some kind of off color double meaning thing there... Wikidemo 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Second that! Thanks for fixing it. Λυδαcιτγ 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Tempalte:album cover fur

You've been creating this with a misspelled title. I moved it to Template:album cover fur. NawlinWiki 12:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From that template, "discography - as item in a discography (* controversial, may get deleted)" No, WILL get deleted. Controversial or no, this is how it is handled. Phrasing things like this on the template is improper and supports the flawed idea that this is not supported in policy and practice. --Durin 16:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And same for {{Album cover fur}} --Durin 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Some nerve to accuse me of being improper in designing fair use helper templates. Wow. Wikidemo 16:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Excuse me? I could have just changed it myself. I brought it up to you to change. I thought I was being considerate, since you've put so much work into those templates. Based on recent interactions, apparently anything from me addressed towards or even near you is worthless.
  - The reality is fair use images in galleries of discographies are being removed everywhere. Take a look at Category:Discographies. I just did a random 20 pick and every one I touched does not have fair use images in galleries on them. Instructing users of your templates that this action is merely controversial is inaccurate and will lead to future debates rehashing the same thing over and over again. Far better to correct it now. --Durin 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - You like to pick fights, I think. There's always a barb. I'm making template to report as neutrally and accurately as possible how images are used for on Wikipedia, not how you or I want them to be. The truth is that the issue is controversial and there is a huge number of album covers used in discographies not categorized as such. For example Chicago (band). Thousands, as compared to the 200 in the category. I should think you would support rounding these up. Just look for the phrase "Use=discography" or "Use=other" in the template. If people go ahead and classify something as a discography, after we warn them, they're on fair notice that they'll be deleted. They already are in my wording but it's a work in progress, it might be another day or two, and we can discuss wording at any time. If you can point me to a clear, unequivocal statement (not an argument, not an opinion, but a direct prohibition in a policy or guideline) that discographies are not allowed on Wikipedia I'm more than happy to point people to that. Otherwise, we already do point them to WP:FURG and WP:NFC. Wikidemo 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      - No, I don't like to pick fights and I don't appreciate the characterization. If you want the template to report accurately, it shouldn't indicate that images in discographies is in any way acceptable; it isn't. It's not a matter of how you or I want them to be. This is how it is being done. You cite Chicago (band). I just deprecated the use of images in the gallery there because it is not acceptable. Of course I support rounding them up. That's why I have User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse and User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. They're not on fair notice they'll be deleted; instead you're making it sound like it's debatable as to whether it's acceptable or not when it clearly is not. The direct prohibition is in policy. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #8 "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" Discographies are acceptable. Having fair use images in galleries of discographies is not. --Durin 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        Okay, if that's all there is the prohibition is not specific or direct of course. The words "dicography" and "album cover" don't even appear. You're saying it's an obvious interpretation or result of the policy that they're prohibited. I don't necessarily agree, but like I said it's not the point of a template to come down one way or another on shifting policies. Here's a solution that I think works for both of us. It should say something to the effect that use of album covers on discographies will subject your image to removal from this article under item #8. That doesn't pass judgment on anything, not even the likelihood of enforcement, but it sure does tell them it's likely to be deleted. How likely depends on how fast you guys are. . . but this is going to help your efforts, not hurt them. I think it's best to include categories for all of the disputed and even clearly prohibited image classes just as a means of grouping things. Something very obvious, like if I ever get to the promo photo section, using a promo photo of a living celebrity. That would be akin to the "just found it on the web" option for license tags. It traps people who did it and keeps them honest. We could even if you want make the template refuse to save or put a big red "Don't do it" message when people select a problem category. But for now there's a huge backlog of images as I said a whole bunch of album covers used in various discographies. Wikidemo 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The album covers are being removed from the discographies. Already a large number of them have, whether on sub articles or band articles. I'm talking hundreds, even thousands by now. Producing a honey pot isn't useful; if the image lacks rationale for the use, it's toast anyways unless it is in use elsewhere with an adequate rationale. --Durin 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just not going to agree that #8 is even valid or approved, much less that it directly bans all discographies. In the context of the current discussion of #8 I might agree to hold my peace if we can nail this issue down once and for all. If we're going to open the thing up for debate and consensus building then all the recent controversial changes to #8 are on the table. You have your issues, I have mine. I think there's a compromise, a consensus if you will if we can recognize what tohers are saying, that's best for Wikipedia and is closer to what both of us understand it to be. Wikidemo 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - Given the debate that has been going on now for three months, it's highly unlikely any agreement will happen. I also note that the templates you've created have boiler plate rationales. I was in support of templates to create rationales, not in support of templates to be rationales. --Durin 21:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - The templates are what they are. You would look very foolish to oppose efforts to add legitimate fair use rationales. Wikidemo 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Plenty of people, apparently you included, think I'm <insert negative epithet>. Adding "foolish" to that list will not affect my behavior. I do not believe legitimate fair use rationales can be created using boiler plate templates. I noted that I'd support templates that assisted rationale creation. I did not support boiler plate rationales and never have. These templates are doing precisely that. In my opinion, they should be either dramatically modified to remove the boiler plate justifications or they should be put up for deletion. I already know you disagree with this. --Durin 21:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        By foolish, I mean that if you devote you devote yourself to obstructing rather than helping the effort to comply with FURG you're going to lose some legitimacy. Whatever makes you act the bully on this is not my concern. If the use is valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, it is not up to you or anyone else to question how it came to be. The purpose is complying not a didactic one. Go ahead, delete my templates. I dare you. Wikidemo 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        You know, in just one day you've inferred or directly stated me to be a disruptive revisionist, extremist, foolish, bully and who knows what else. Enough of the personal attacks against me. If you can't discuss things without degenerating into epithets with the person whom you are discussing, I will simply refuse to discuss things with you. --Durin 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        I'm the one attacking you? Perhaps a little reflection is in order. You've been following me around here to debate on my talk page, calling me inappropriate, and threatening to delete templates I am creating. You say you get called names. Do you wonder why that is? I rarely ever do. If you can take a deep breath please see that I am offering you compromises, olive branches, opportunities to deal, but you are not acknowledging them. We're not far off at all really. On the Rule #8 you, I, and the others have bridged about 80% of the gap. Hang in there. Wikidemo 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of entreating with you if you are unwilling to recognize the personal attacks you have made. I expected an apology, and instead am told that I am attacking you. Enough of this. If you can't discuss things without insulting me, I refuse to discuss things with you at all. There is a massive gulf of difference between disagreeing on topics such as the templates you are creating and whether or not to delete them as opposed to saying "you're a &*(@#$&@# IDIOT for creating those templates". I have not once attacked you personally. I dispute your positions, not you. You on the other hand have called me a bully, revisionist, fight picker, extremist and foolish. If you can't debate the points being raised without attacking the person, you have no argument to make. I am done discussing fair use issues with you because of your refusal to act in appropriate ways. I have no interest in continuing to be personally attacked by you. Good day. --Durin 22:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly how long have you been on the Internet? You seem experienced enough to avoid flame wars. I'm confused. Wikidemo 22:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - So it is I who is inducing flame wars by asking you to stop making personal attacks then? --Durin 22:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    - I believe we have both asked that of each other :) Wikidemo 23:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      - Then please cite personal attacks I have made against *you* and I will gladly apologize for them. I seriously doubt that I have. --Durin 23:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        I think this is the point in the flame war when people tell us to take it to email or get a room. If you say you didn't mean to, and that you sincerely believe I'm the one who started it, I'll take that at face value. I sincerely believe that you were hounding me inappropriately. Perhaps it started with your defending Betacommandbot. I have half a mind to let him get away with it. If he tags 170,000 images for deletion without any effort to sort out the legit ones, my prediction is there will be a rebellion, arbitration, intervention by the Foundation, news disaster, etc., and things we can't predict happenning on their own without me having to be the one to raise it. Maybe I'm wrong and this will all pass, we'll get a text version of Wikipedia and to fill the void people will be driven to donate lots of images to the public domain. If your issue really is free content for the world, I'm solidly behind that as much as you are. It's just a question of how to get there. The fair use rationales are incredibly murky and impossible to deal with. If I were their lawyer -- and I think I know how Mike will advise them -- I would tell them to start over from scratch. Perhaps that really will mean dumping all the non-free content and re-introducing it under new rules. Or it will mean accepting lots of content but treating it as equally suspect. I just don't see the tagging going on as helping anyone to deal with anything. Maybe influencing editor behavior, that's about it. Wikidemo 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        As I previously noted, I have no intention of discussing fair use issues with you until you cease with your personal attacks. Your above commentary speaks nothing of this desire. I asked you to cite where I attacked you personally, offering to apologize. Instead, you abstractly referred to hounding you. I am a free content advocate. I am quite happy to defend the mission of the project and sometimes vociferously defend the ideals on which it is based. This does not constitute a personal attack. You have degenerated into personal attacks and are still unwilling to recognize your actions in this manner. --Durin 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
        That is truly weird. I'm completely sure you started this but it is a complete waste of time to engage in that kind of digging through the record or talking about who owes whom an apology. I'm trying to work constructively with you; you refuse. It's not your place to impose conditions. If you're not willing to participate in the discussion I can't make you. Wikidemo 13:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your position is clear. You're unwilling to recant/apologize for the obvious personal attacks against me. I am not willing to work with someone, however cogent their non-insulting remarks may be, who is willing to engage in ad hominem personal attacks. To make this more formal, I am attaching the appropriate warning template so that other admins can take necessary steps if this behavior continues. --Durin 13:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't do that, that is vindictive. I believe you are simply trying to dispute my position, and trying to have your by accusing me of inappropriate behavior is abusing the system. I would take a look at any warning template to see if it relates to your behavior, not mine. Wikidemo 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  - There is no justifiable reason to personally attack me using terms such as disruptive revisionist, extremist, foolish, and bully. That is what the warning is for. You are quite welcome to debate points I or anyone else raises. You are not welcome to personally attack me or anyone else for raising those points. --Durin 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    - Okay, I've removed it. I'm not attacking you and I am not going to attack you. Telling me you won't participate in discussion unless you get an apology is childish, and carrying through on a threat to deface my talk page for disagreeing with you is simple vandalism. Please, again, stop sparring and help us reach a constructive solution to the non-free image question. Unless there's something you're not telling me, the proposal on the table gives us both what we have been asking for. If it is truly a matter of wording as we can suggest we can fix it. That's what words are for. Wikidemo 14:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What a mess

This is quite the mess. On one hand, you have a contentious issue, about which many users are prone to get emotional. I can understand tempers running high and the tone being contentious.

What we can't have is uncivil rhetoric, nor people calling each other "bully" or "prone to picking fights". I haven't dug deeper in your contribs, but I've seen a pattern of this.

Wikidemo, you need to put a stop to this incivility immediately. I'm not terribly impressed with the tactic of deflecting Durin's call for you to stop this incivility with an apparently baseless accusation that he's been uncivil to use. Durin has stopped engaging you in discussion because such discussion sees him called "foolish" and sundry other things.

I think demanding an apology is a bit much, but Wikidemo, you have been uncivil and it has got to stop. I think stating that you won't be uncivil in the future, then following up on that, will more than suffice, and then we can put this ugly matter behind us and focus on productive issues.

In any event, you do need to conduct yourself in a civil manner. This is a non-negotiable point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not do that. No, I have not been uncivil, but thanks for the perspective. You make the understandable mistake of taking Durin at his word when he makes false accusations and takes mock offense. I am careful with my words and do not call him disruptive, revisionist, foolish, or an extremist. I describe something in broad terms and he jumps in and says I was talking about him. I say, in broad terms, that Wikipedia is in the midst of an attack by disruptive revisionists who wish to remove most of the copyrighted content from the encyclopedia. There is absolutely nothing incorrect or improper about saying that, and describing things that kind of way is what discussion is all about. It is disruptive to delete 170,000 images, and that is an act of revision. It was clearly not directed at him or anyone else in specific. What else does he say I called him? Sometimes he just types silly mock cursewords ("$#*$$#%%") for what he imagines me and others say about him. He plays that rhetorical game all the time. On his side he is quite forceful in argument as well. He wants to dish and not take. Durin has indeed been following me from place to place and opposing things I do, as far as I can tell for no reason other than to cause annoyance because he and I disagree on a matter of policy. His "foolish" gripe is just plain word games. He comes to my ~~thread~~ talk page to say I'm "improper" for designing templates that he thinks disagrees with his position on policy, and goes so far as making a direct, credible threat to delete them while I'm working on them. I told him he would look foolish if he did that, as indeed he would. He knows better, I hope, than to misbehave like that but the very threat is bullying behavior. The behavior is uncivil, not calling it out as such. I have stated that I do not wish to be uncivil, and if you do look at the record I have offered olive branch after olive branch, emoticons even, invitations to work together. So again, I do appreciate your taking the time to look this through but I believe if you were to look in detail you would find I am not one to be uncivil. Look just above and below this discussion -- I just got a barnstar for my work on the templates, and below an editor complements me on maintaining civility in the face of aggressive debaters who don't. Durin admits that his actions on Wikipedia cause lots of friction. Mine don't. You've warned the wrong guy!Wikidemo 15:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Look. I don't need Durin or anyone else to tell me that this is not okay. Saying that it's not a personal attack because it's incivility directed to a diffuse subject instead of a specific one is silly.

I don't mind forceful argument. I'm not going to get after you for arguing forcefully, and things are bound to get a little heated when emotions are running high. But calling people foolish and saying they enjoy picking fights and just generally personalizing things is Not Okay. This and this and this are NOT OKAY.

All I want, here, is for you to tell me you'll be careful in the a future, and then do so. I don't care about scoring points over what you did or didn't do in the past. I want this to end in the nice way, which is you taking my advice to heart and continuing to argue forcefully for the points you believe passionately in while being careful to not personalize things, instead of the nasty way, which ends in me having to spend a lot of time keeping an eye on you blocking you when you make uncivil comments.

Which way do you prefer? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I disagree, I am certainly going to take your advice. I don't want to offend, will not try to offend, and I admire that Durin cares and devotes so much effort to things. I hope he feels the same, and will not be singling me out individually for criticism and opposition. I think we can work together quite nicely. Back to work, okay? Wikidemo 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think we can put this issue behind us, and I'll talk to Durin to get everyone on track and talking to each other civilly again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks for your help with this. Wikidemo 16:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

hang in there

As a lurker on the FU pages I appreciate your attempt to bring a rational discussion to the pages. I am very impressed by your ability to withstand the invitation to sniping and to keep your temper. It was more than I could do. thanks. --Tinned Elk 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

World's Most Detailed Rationale

In an attempt to keep the non-free content patrol off my back, I drafted the longest possible rationale. Didn't work, but I though it might interest you. Mosquera 04:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That is funny, but isn't there a rule against using Wikipedia as a soapbox, for humorous edits, and for proving points? I think the bot is simply programmed not to recognize templates other than the one at WP:FURG for purpose of figuring out which images have rationales and which do not. So you probably ought to roll up your sleeves and write a non-contentious rationale. I think the bot should evaluate templates and I think it will someday, but it does not now, so now that you're aware of the issue the easiest thing to do is bow down and put your rationale in the text, not transclusion. Wikidemo 16:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I introduced this the wrong way. I wasn't trying funny or contentious. I drafted a standard rationale that covered every base plus more. In reality, I'm unsure what function rationales play within Wikipedia politics. Admins who want to delete any image simply put up a dispute tag, wait and delete. Sometimes they don't even wait. One admin plus nobody equals consensus. Mosquera 02:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Weatherbilllogo.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Weatherbilllogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How is a bot able to discern an image to actually make a coherent dispute anyway? Mosquera 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, thanks. But the notice is insufficient, which means it's invalid. It says a couple days, the real time is seven days; hence, people who log into Wikipedia after three days may incorrectly think their image was deleted and give up. yet another goof by the robot. Wikidemo 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Book covers

Hi Wikidemo, I saw the work that you are starting to do at {{Book cover fur}}. Do you mind if I jump in there and help work on that? Several of us at WikiProject Novels have been discussing the criteria for fairuse on book covers and we're eager to have a working template because currently over 500 book covers are tagged for deletion and we'd like to save most of those! --JayHenry 03:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Happy to help. My templates aren't ready for prime time yet. It's clear to me that I will have to improve and reorganize them so that they are strictly "helper" applications that allow editors to fill in some information specifying the details of the image and inmage use, then based on that produce pieces of suggested rationale language to go in the officially sanctioned master template, {{Template:Non-free media rationale}}, discussed atWP:FURG#Template. You would then take a close look at what the template offers, give some thought as to whether that truly describes the situation, modify if necessary, then save. What should be saved on the image file is not my template or any non-standard template, or any actively transcluded boilerplate language, but simply the master template with its various fields filled in.

That may take a few days and I know images are being deleted in the meanwhile. I would advise people to do their best in the meanwhile, and if they're sure the images are appropriate but simply having trouble with the rationale, download the disputed images so they can re-upload them once they have a good rationale. That is something you should put in your instructions anyway; anybody uploading an image should leave a copy for safekeeping on their hard drive in case it gets inadvertently deleted. One thing that would be a huge help to me is if you can gather some of the rationales that you think are well written and appropriate, and illustrate the span of different legitimate circumstances in which the images appear. So I can decide which parameters to include, what is nearly always the same and what are the things that routinely change from case to case? How often might you know who the individual artist is who designs a book cover, for instance? Is the copyright always held by the publisher, or does the author or cover artist (or someone else) sometimes hold it? What are the usual sources for the images -- scans? Publisher websites? Amazon.com? I see there is a preference for first editions; what are the various other options for editions and how would you describe different editions? Are there common improper situations you come across that I should incorporate as warnings for people to avoid (you can see Durin and I had some heated words about just how sternly people should be warned to avoid inappropriate use)? Based on those kinds of things I can develop better templates.

In my own dry run I found that I could use templates to add rationales at the rate of about 2 minutes each, and that's doing it the right way, looking very closely on a case-by-case basis with as much care as I would have spent typing the rationale out from scratch. With a helper application that would open the windows up for me without my having to click and cut and paste, I could probably do it in a minute each. I'm not enough of a Firefox or php whiz to do that but perhaps someone is -- the image deletion bots are at that level of sophistication and maybe someone else working on the project is willing to help once we have good templates. But even at two minutes each that would mean 1,000 minutes for 500 disputed templates. Yes, a lot of work but one person could easily keep up with the nightly deletion tags and even get ahead of them so that eventually they aren't getting tagged at all.

You may find, incidentally, that some of the book cover images you come across while trying to fix the rationales are truly not appropriate fair use candidates. When I was investigating the record albums, perhaps 10-20% of the images simply should not have been there or were too complicated for me to fix and remove the tag in good faith. Also, be aware that policies are changing and some of the change is coming directly from the Wikimedia Foundation. Book cover images are fine as per present policy. But it is possible that at some time in the future the Foundation may simply decide that copyrighted book cover images should not be associated with book articles in that way, and delete them all. Wikidemo 13:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been using the album cover template this morning, maybe at rather less than one every 2 minutes, though I was being quite relaxed about it. WP:AWB is a great help -- it's well worth getting yourself a driving licence for it, if you're an upstanding Wikipedian of good repute. For the straightforward case of album images on infoboxes of the album's own article, the template looks production-ready to me. I see that I have added 49, and passed over another 21 that were being used on artist page discographies etc (though I do now think -- much more than I used to -- that the WP is shooting itself in the foot by deleting them, even if they accompany just a a somewhat cursory list; which is more liberal than what I thought before). For a list of threatened book covers under dfu, see User:Jheald/BCbot/dfu_by_tem#Template:Non-free_book_cover and User:Jheald/BCbot/dfu_by_tem#Template:book_cover. Jheald 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing that maybe is overly restrictive is the Artist rationale in the template though. I think it can be fair use, per policy, to use a cover to show what someone looked like who's now dead, or at the height of their career, if that was back in the '50s or '60s. So I've used the "Artist" tag a couple of times on the template (for images on articles Jacques Thibaud and Jackie DeShannon), where I think the usage is appropriate, even though the text as it is at the moment doesn't strictly apply. I'd welcome your thoughts. Jheald 14:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The "artist" tag is intended for using the album cover to illustrate something in an article about the artist rather than the album. That is a special case where you need to think through whether there really is a good rationale. Using an album cover for that purpose is very similar to using a promotional shot or some other photo; it's not for identification of the album but rather to illustrate something notable where no non-free use is alternative. That's a bit of a trap for the unwary because some people who aren't careful might use the album inappropriately just to spice up the article about the artist, i.e. mere decoration. So it's important to give it some thought. And if the rationales provided by the template are not sufficient you can go to a handwritten one or use the "override" fields to make it more specific. And then the "section" option is for when the album cover really is for the album but the artist's albums are listed as different sections in one master article instead of one article per album. One thing I ought to do is make all the variable names and parameters case-independent. Wikidemo 14:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Durin's just pulled me over for using 'section' on Jasmine Guy -- I'd be interested in your opinion, is this fair game? I think it's a bit hard to call her only album a discography. Jheald 14:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a close call but I would side with Durin on this one. The example we put into the WP:NONFREE guideline allows for album images to identify the album in articles or sections about the album. This section isn't really about the album, it just shows or lists the album. I wouldn't call it a discography though. A list with one item isn't really a list. But it doesn't actually talk about the album. It's implicit that there should be some narrative text. How much, I don't know. If you moved the discussion of the album down from higher in the article, and perhaps added a second or third sentence about the album, then there is truly some discussion of the album. At that point, whether you make it a separate article or keep it as a section within the artist's article is a style issue, not a fair use issue. But I do think his position is closest to what we all agreed to yesterday. Wikidemo 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend creating an article about the album, and using the album cover there. That side steps orphaned issue completely. --Durin 15:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added new "override" text for the two 'artist' albums. Jasmine Guy has also come up at WP:AN/I. I quoted your advice. Hope that's okay. Jheald 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello there! Per your requests above, here are a few book cover rationales I've done over the past couple of weeks, in the hope that it will help you define your parameters. These include two first editions, an important edition that is not a first, a first of an adaptation, and a cover used in connection with articles on the characters depicted. Thanks for doing this!

-- Karen | Talk | contribs 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dumb license question

Hi, Wikidemo - I was hoping to tap into your copyright expertise. My primary gig on Wikipedia lately is seeking out free images from copyright holders, and I have several that were released under either public domain or GFDL. I've uploaded these to Wikipedia, but I want to upload some of these to Flickr, which uses Creative Commons licensing. (Basically I'm just trying to demonstrate to the photographers I contact that I am a bona-fide Wikipedia contributor and not someone out to make money off their pictures). Can I tag those uploaded images as CC-by or CC-by-SA, or should I mark them as 'all rights reserved' since I didn't actually create the content myself? Sorry, I don't know a whole lot about downstream use. Thanks for your time! Videmus Omnia 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Album cover fur

I don't know if you noticed, but this template had quite a bumpy ride last night! (See history). First User:Ned Scott tried to gut it, then User:Thebainer tried to kill it outright, and replace it with translcuded text saying "Delete me". Might be worth keeping an eye on, when the Australians come back online tonight. Jheald 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think these users are vandalistic editors? We might have to warn them and/or protect the templates if they're subject to this kind of mischief. Deliberately changing a template so that 500 images say "delete me" is a serious act of vandalism / contentions editing. Wikidemo 20:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they may actually both be quite long-standing respected admins. I filed a note about it this morning at WP:AN (here), and was told the place to go was Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I'm afraid I've had my two reverts for the day, but it would be sad thing if it came to an edit war. Jheald 20:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But of course one should try to talk to them first. Not that it got me very far with User:Thebainer this morning... Jheald 21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Long-standing respected admins are not given special privileges to conduct vandalistic edits or rule Wikipedia by decree. NedScott blanked the template again recently, even after you warned him that it was vandalism and would result in disruption to several hundred images. As with the stunt on WP:NONFREE, he and brainer have been issuing edicts and, when they find that people don't do what they want, simply reverting and deleting things to suit their liking. Wikidemo 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good faith edits, no matter how destructive you may think they are, aren't vandalism. Describing them as such only leads to unnecessary antagonism. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking an entire template in order to cause hundreds of images to be deleted is not a good faith edit. It is action, not editing, and the purpose of the action is the intended result. Wikidemo 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking an entire template because the user in question feels that it is not a valid fair-use rationale and that the images should indeed be deleted is a good faith edit. Accusing someone of vandalism is accusing them of being destructive for destruction's sake, and it's a fairly serious accusation you shouldn't toss around lightly, especially when it isn't what you mean. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He has not said it is not a valid fair use rationale. He said it is subject to misuse and that it is not a proper method of producing fair use rationales. That is a legitimate dispute, and I disagree with him on that. But I believe he is making that edit for the sole purpose of facilitating the deletion of a bunch of images for lack of fair use rationale that clearly do have fair use rationales. Whatever you call it, deleting templates in that way is serious overstepping. Wikidemo 21:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's midnight here. I'm off to bed. I just vented my frustration at WP:AN. Probably a mistake. But then probably no-one there will pay it any attention. Just ignore it, like an unsightly pool of somebody else's sick on the pavement, and walk on by. Good luck. I'm impressed by how you remain so calm, and steady, and professional, in the face of all the provocations. But then in the end, that's probably where you succeed. I've moved Image:JeffBeckWired.jpg to point to your devel template, so at least people can see one Infobox rationale as intended. Jheald 23:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the level of aggression and officiousness is rather astounding. But if you ever begin to take it personally, that's where you lose. You're pointing at the wrong template, btw. At User:Steel's suggestion I moved the development / illustration template to Template talk:album cover fur/development. The template indicates that it should not be used. Although I don't agree with what they did, I don't think we should sink to the level of the people who would argue policy by making contentious edits. Wikidemo 00:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "it is subject to misuse and that it is not a proper method of producing fair use rationales" malicious or destructiveness for destruction's sake? Describing it as "serious overstepping" is both clearer and less inflammatory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about it being inappropriate is a legitimate, though incorrect, position. Deleting rationales and images simply because you don't agree with the methodology is indeed destruction for the sake of destruction as a form of agenda-pushing. The inflammatory conduct is deleting things over other people's objections when you don't agree with them. Wikidemo 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's destruction for the sake of pushing an agenda. If there's a reason other than malice or boredom, then it's not vandalism.

It's far too easy to ignore a critic that uses vocabulary that marginalizes himself or herself. I'm not trying to harp on you, just help you be clearer and harder to ignore. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The people who want to behave themselves have a much higher burden than those who provoke? Perhaps. I shall call it agenda-pushing by deletion, then. Thanks. Wikidemo 23:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone is accusing you of vandalism, then I'll talk to them, too.

Without getting into whether it's right or not, it's really easy to marginalize yourself by making social gaffes. When you're already arguing for a compromise of the "free" in "free encyclopedia," it becomes easy to become portrayed as someone who "doesn't get it" and can thus be ignored. Hysterical language, particularly misuse of oft-misused terms, is needless static, obscuring the message you want to convey.

Honestly, I think you're not going to be successful. I would rather you not be successful as someone who argued from his heart and just didn't succeed in convincing someone than as someone who was driven off as "not getting It", when the fact that you care about this so much is clear illustration to me that you really do care about this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no social gaffes. When people are out of bounds it's fair to call them so. Meekness in the face of impropriety is just as marginalizing as an emotional reaction. I am never going to please the partisans, and no point trying. People who simply revert and delete, and sabotage when they do not get their way are not going to be impressed that I appease them. I try to actually understand an issue; a few people around here are simply against anything that could be seen as facilitating non-free content, including attempts to clean free content up so that it complies with the rules. Steady resolve, that's the most appropriate. Wikidemo 00:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop

I understand you are trying to act in good faith, but a number of changes to WP:NFCC need to be reverted. For one, this change did not clarify the 48 hour policy, but changed it to only apply to images missing fair use rationale (the 48 hours applies to any image that fails any part of NFCC). Another change converted the list into HTML. Another added an unnecessary examples link. You need to calm down and get this chip off your shoulder (regarding the FUR templates). -- Ned Scott 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you are getting upset about? -- Ned Scott 03:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ned, thanks for the communication and thanks for explaining. I tried to undo my restoring your reverts now that I see you have started to explain them, but you beat me to it. I don't believe I have a chip on my shoulder at all; quite the contrary, I am identifying constructive solutions to the logjam over policy due to the long-term disputes, and also the question of a messy image compliance and deletion approach. People asked rhetorically, if you don't like things, why not improve them instead of arguing and complaining? So I took up the challenge. I brokered what I thought was a positive agreement to settle the debate over non-consensus changes made to the policy beginning in May, and got both sides on board a consensus solution. Rather than continuing to bemoan a bot and program of image deletions that I consider improper, I've concentrated on working with the image deleters to get the images in shape instead.

On the specifics, the first change you refer to was indeed an improved summary of the policy; the original version is not a correct statement as to time periods and it mis-characterizes things. Moreover, it seems to be a helpful instruction to readers regarding what may be found on other policy pages (WP:CSD), and is not itself an operative part of policy. I am not upset over anything, but the other change you mention is a vast improvement over a poorly worded and inadequately discussed policy change that was previously inserted, particularly the conceptually pointless recent addition of the only-in-Wikipedia concept of decorative use.

Thanks for the civility and assuming good faith. I will do the same. But please, you should realize that there are other people with opinions too. I'm going to carry the rest of the discussion over at the policy talk page. Wikidemo 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Non-compliance" was added to WP:NFCC before it was added to CSD. It actually took a while to get CSD updated to reflect the update. So it's not a matter of NFCC reflecting CSD, but CSD needs to reflect NFCC. It was added one year ago as a result of this discussion. "Non-compliance" was added as policy, not as helpful instructions.

The only exception to this is for orphaned images, since they are hard to track (as in, an image does not have a history of what pages it was once on) and can be removed by accident or by vandalism. Same with vandalism to the image description page, where someone might have blanked the page, removing source info and FURs (but that's much easier to track and correct). -- Ned Scott 04:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. So where does the policy reside? Logically it ought to be in one place, not two. WP:CSD is more complete and detailed, and does conflict with the statement here, so I assumed it is the one that is controlling. CSD sets forth a number of seven-day periods, and candidates for other than speedy deletion have a 5-day period under Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Rather than trying to duplicate and explain all that here, or have inaccurate statements, best to simply say that images failing the test are subject to deletion, and point people over to the policy page for that. Wikidemo 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD is not the controlling policy in this situation, WP:NFCC is. "Non-compliance" for images that fail any part of NFCC can, and have been, deleted in 48 hours of the uploader being notified. Do not change this part of the policy again. -- Ned Scott 02:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How does one know the basis of policy when there is a conflict between two policy pages? And what kind of imperative is that? Wikidemo 02:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

We correct the situation by making changes to WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. Maybe we can fix that after we get through the current more pressing policy issues. As someone who's not sure of all the sources of policy, how can one tell which is the better page? I don't see mention on either which is controlling, and a common rule of construction is that the specific overrides the general and the new overrides the old. Is there some way in this case or in general to know which page is controlling when there seems to be a conflict? Wikidemo 03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, Non-compliance is one of the newer changes to policy, and is very specific. Many of the reasons we have for longer deletion periods is because of technical reasons. For example, image undelete is now an option, but in the past it wasn't, so image deletion was used with much greater caution. Now, when we make a mistake, we can undelete the image, so the extra caution is no longer needed.

I'd like to point out that there isn't actually a conflict between the two pages. It might appear as such, but that's not the case. For some images, if they don't have something like a FUR, but no notification is given to the uploader, they have a longer time to correct the problem. If the uploader is notified, the image can be speedy deleted in 48 hours. -- Ned Scott 03:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And non-compliance is a part of WP:CSD#I7. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a replacement for consensus.

Polling is not a replacement for consensus. In fact, it can undermine consensus. That is why the poll is closed and SHOULD be closed. I'll bring this up elsewhere. There's no reason for this poll, and it undermines our efforts. --Durin 19:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The reasons given in the essay don't match our situation. They mention lack of consensus discussion, potential for using sockpuppets, etc., none of which are at issue. We've already had plenty of discussion and we're continuing to have discussion. We're merely trying to get people figure out where everyone stands. Wikidemo 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And a poll is useless for that purpose, degrading people's opinions into buckets of "yes" and "no". It's far more complex than that. Polls completely undermine consensus generation and run rough shod over complex issues such as fair use. The poll is useless. --Durin 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at what is going on in the talk page, that is not borne out....other than arguing about the appropriateness of the poll.Wikidemo 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Which shows that the poll is useless. If we're trying to have a reasonable poll, having all sorts of meta discussion about the poll shows it isn't serving it's purpose. I for one refuse to participate in it as a consensus building device, thus the poll is without my input and probably others as well. It's worthless. --Durin 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You're the one going all meta on it. If you start your own meta-discussion you can hardly blame people for having a meta-discussion. But I tell you what, let's set out an area for people to discuss the change outside of a poll.Wikidemo 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what we've been doing before this poll started. This poll is a complete distraction and undermines consensus generation. --Durin 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I see your point. If we were to close it, can we do it in a way that acknowledges what people have said so far and sends them to an ongoing consensus discussion? I'm in favor of that, and I'll explain my reasoning to Jhead and anyone else. Wikidemo 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Poster child.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Poster child.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone found a suitable free use alternative image. Yay. Wikidemo 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re :Suggestions

Thanks for your suggestions. I would be grateful if you could help me to improve the "how to help" section. The 300px limit comes from this note. It's probably arbitrary but I thought that it's a good idea to give people some rule of thumb so they don't mark really big images as "low resolution". Of course, reducing the size of an image is the perfect solution and it should be mentioned. Jogers (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deadpile

Great idea. I would hate to see the Indian Thriller forgotten. the_undertow ^talk 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

NJ Turnpike logo

I don't know what the actual copyright and trademark issues are for that logo. Do you? It may be that the logo is actually free, in which case there is no need for a long discussion about it. Do you know if there are actually any unfree (not just tagged unfree) highway signage images? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming the NJ turnpike logo is copyrighted but I have not taken the time to find the actual language. Whereas all federal works are public domain, not all state works are. You are right that if all or nearly all highway banners, railroad banners, and the like, are either public domain or under an unrestricted license, the point is moot. But if it's just the NJ Turnpike that is outside of copyright, there is possibly a large class of comparable logos that is copyrighted. The discussion is about the general principle of sign usage, not this particular example. Wikidemo

Thanks. I agree that's the general principle, but the discussion seems premature if we don't actually have an example of a nonfree sign. Whether we use a particular nonfree the sign would seem to depend on the exact restrictions on its use; if different ones have different licenses, it might not be possible to have a general policy covering them all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the people who have been removing highway signs from the articles? Have they cited any license restrictions? My argument would be for a general policy permitting them all whatever the license restrictions might be, because there is a valid reason to include them and no real argument to exclude them. That operates under fair use / non-free use, not the license. Wikidemo 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in this because I have been going through and removing some (not all) nonfree images from templates, per WP:NFCC#9. If we are going to allow these images under our nonfree image policy, the current policy framework is not ideal, because it does not allow them to be used on templates and requires separate fair use rationales for each article on which they are included (WP:NFCC#10), which will be a lot of articles for highway signage images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. Allowing copyrighted highway signs on templates isn't part of the discussion I brought up, but administering the fair use rationales for highway signs is an issue, and I can see how the template question could follow. Wikidemo 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Citiapartments logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Citiapartments logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Wikidemo 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Fact check?

Here, we find one of the leaders of the current anti-fair use movement writing:

Copyright law is byzantine and draconian, and very few people realize this. Most people have no idea that it is illegal to draw a picture of Mickey Mouse, or post a picture of Pikachu on their website, or photocopy a WWII-era photo, or copy a music CD for personal (non-archiving) use, or sing "Happy Birthday" at a party, etc. Most people are very incredulous to learn how restrictive and counter-intuitive copyright law is. In particular, the myth that "I'm not making money off it, so I can't be breaking copyright law" is extremely prevalent.

I stopped counting after he got four things wrong. Any chance you could stop by and correct the most obvious of his flat-out misstatements? (Please note: This user's opinions are fine; I honestly don't have a problem with them - but blatant misstatements of fact need to be corrected.) Thanks, and keep up the good work. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 03:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Patent Troll

Thanks for beginning the process of cleaning up patent troll.--Nowa 10:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, regarding the discussion on road signs being ineligible for copyright, Commons has this same issue, and some people make the very dubious claim that since these images are all derivative of the federal handbook on making federal signs (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) they are all also public domain, which may be acceptable for commons:Image:Texas 251.svg but I don't buy it for commons:Image:K-53.svg. It's just something that has bothered me for a while, and I wondered if you had any views? Is there something obvious I'm missing? commons:Image:Stop sign MUTCD.svg is a clear case, but the ones where it's a state government and there is clearly some artistic input seem a little fishy to me. If this seems too boring and you'd rather not look at sign crap that's cool too :) - cohesion 15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fan Sites

Thanks for your comments here [1]. I hadn't noticed but in the midst of the edit war on the Eagles page someone vandalised the link to the The Fastlane site - I fixed the link (well I did before it was lost in the edit war) you might change your views if you click on the right link. Thanks again for pointing it out. Kelpin 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Weatherbilllogo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Weatherbilllogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Attorney Copyright Opinions

So now that we're finally getting official copyright advice from the WMF attorney (like here), we need a place to keep track of his opinions, so he will be less inundated with inquiries and so we can use them as precedent. I'm thinking a subpage of WP:C makes sense. What do you think? Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense. Attorneys are always a little concerned about who their client is, whether something is just an "opinion" or legal advice about a specific instance versus an off the cuff remark, etc. Something I might be happy to say in one sentence if we're just talking, could be worth three paragraphs with appropriate details, disclaimers and qualifications. So we might need that page to have some disclaimer language, and also make sure he's okay with it. Wikidemo 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Page is Wikipedia:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays, and I'll let him know. -- But|seriously|folks 00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks, good idea. Wikidemo 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Confit byaldi 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Confit byaldi 1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WikipProject Food and Drink

Welcome to WikiProject Food and Drink, I look forward to working with you on the project. If you get a chance take a look at the Food Portal linked on our page which the Project maintains. There is a current newsletter on the main page to tell you what we are up to plus a plethora of other things, see you there soon.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology

Sorry for lashing out at you. After having discussed some of these issues for so long, you get convinced that some people are just out to take shortcuts. Clearing my head a bit, I don't think you are one of those people. I don't always agree with how you go about the debate, but I believe you when you say you are trying to help.

Please realize though, on sensitive issue like these, especially for issues like these, we don't just take two days to discuss things. Even if everything is in good faith, there could be steps of miscommunication, or simple matters not yet considered. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the message. It is really heartwarming. I'm sure we'll settle down to a warm working relationship on Wikipedia....please feel free at any time to call me aside (best over here) and let me know I'm missing something. You'll see that I can and do change my opinion when convinced, either by a good argument or facts I hadn't considered. My own personality / weakness is that I respond a lot better to a friendly slap on the back than a frontal challenge. Take care, Wikidemo 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

I think you're raising some valuable points, so please continue weighing in on the page and don't let yourself be shouted down. I suggest you ignore the editor to whom you left that civility warning (which he deleted, I see).--Mantanmoreland 02:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I think you meant to put this on WT:BLP. Cheers, THF 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was looking all over for that. I'll take the liberty of editing and cleaning it up in light of your comments so far before adding it in the right place. Wikidemo 09:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology

I have read your comment re: "civility" on my talk page; although I deleted it after reading it, I want you to know that I did read it. As I have just stated in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, I was logged out of Wikipedia after that and doing other work, but this has been on my mind, so I had just come back to post this comment here. I did not intend to upset you, although clearly you are upset. I was simply trying to respond to each one of your comments in turn in that talk page. I think all of us want the Wikipedia's WP:EL to be clear and to be clearly based on the other Wikipedia poicies that it cites, refers to, and/or links to; the same is true of the policy page in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. By logging off Wikipedia for an extended period of time, I am hopeful that other editors (including seasoned administrators) may be able to resolve whatever contradictions may still exist in the policy and guideline statements in WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:EL. I suggest that perhaps if you do the same (though I am not saying that you have to do so), the language may become as effective as [possible] in both the policy page (WP:BLP) and the guideline page (WP:EL), so that (especially) new Wikipedia editors will have clear policy statements and clear guidelines to follow. I wish you all the best in this endeavor. (I am once again logging off Wikipedia). --NYScholar 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I correct my own typographical errors in my own comments in Wikipedia; I do preview, but, the more tired I get, the less able I am to catch them all in "preview" mode. That was just the case again. I am an academic editor and I can't stand seeing my own typographical errors. That is my editing practice, which I mention in my archived talk pages somewhere. I do not intend to have so many edits. In the case of your changing the main subheading to which I had originally replied and after you asked for future subheadings, I tried to comply with that request; that led to a lot more edits. I hope that it is easier to follow the page now. Please add your own signature to the one place where I placed an "unsigned" template (when you have a chance) and then delete my bracket comment, which I gave you permission there to do. Thank you. --NYScholar 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not upset, more like perplexed and confused about how to deal with some very odd debating methods that go beyond anything I have seen in my time here. I do a lot of work, mostly constructive changes in the main namespace to articles that do not implicate any of these policies. I don't think I've ever added a new link to a fan page or the like and have no personal stake in this; I'm just alert to positions that would seem to overturn existing practice. I too am a stickler for precision in the language, and between that and my tendency to make lots of typos, creates a similar urge to go back and revise. I've learned the hard way that it's sometimes better to let a mistake lie than jump back in the fray. It is very sweet and thoughtful that you've made the effort to approach me personally so we can all keep things in perspective. Thanks again, Wikidemo 03:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)