The content of this page is an archive of User talk:Durin. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for the comments on my talk page, I really appreciate it. About the comment on the RFA discussion page, I didn't mean for it to come off the way it did. It was not intended to scream nominate me!nominate me! I just wanted to point out that I felt kinda weird repeatedly posting on a page that was populated almost exclusively by admins. When Tito talked to me about it, I saw that there was a complete different message there. Perhaps I should remove it? Anyway, about the edit summeries. Yeah, I usually only use them for when I'm making changes to a previous edit or edits. When I'm posting or creating a new article, I don't use them that much. It shows in the histories. I'll start using them all the time now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm really quite honored that one of my favorite WPians thought of me, but my outside view at the Martin RFC really sums up my feelings at present. I find it hard even to muster the energy to do my regular rounds of maintenance and policy discussion (minimal as they've been lately) when it seems that a certain culture in the high leadership is committed to disparaging open discussion. I'm not leaving outright (because, unlike what they tried to do with you, I haven't been persecuted directly) -- I'm just a little down on the long-term fate of this noble endeavor. Certainly, if the ArbCom elections affirm specific people, my expectations will sink even lower.
Even if I weren't feeling this way, I have other reasons for enjoying normal usership. I get to be a (usually quite civil) "bulldog" (ala T. H. Huxley) for the policies I support, without having to worry about "reputation" and all that. :) I think good admins (like you, and Splash, and Radiant) need a dedicated support staff that is happy to be more anonymous.
The only thing that's ever swayed me is the change in policy that puts deletion logs behind a veil, which makes DRV hard to follow occasionally. On balance, though, I still think its better to stay where I am. I'll probably reconsider around my 8,000th edit; I have been adding edit sumaries more consistently than the last time you analyzed me! (55%) :)
Best wishes, and keep up the fight for fairness and happy 2006!, Xoloz 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback that you left on my userpage. As you noticed, I am still rather new to Wikipedia and I am trying to find my place in the community. I would like to take the credit for the message that I left on the talk page of the person whose article I requested be speedied, but it is a subst that is at the bottom of the CSD page. Movementarian 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, I've been a contributor on en. for some time now, and I would like to get some feedback regarding your evaluation my potential suitability for adminship. I've reviewed your personal requirements, and I believe that I'm the type of person who you're looking for and is well suited to the added responsibilities. I have no 'admin lust for power' (smile), but I'm always looking for ways to be a more effective contributor. A review of my history will show that I am civil, I avoid edit warring, I work towards finding consensus in conflict, and I'm an active participant in the project side of Wikipedia (often in the form of VfD nomination, but also in RFA when appropriate). I thank you for your time, and best regards. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings also, and Happy New Year!
Thanks for your kind offer to consider nominating me for Adminship. Can I get back to you on this in a few days, as I would like some time to consider whether I would accept a nomination. I have become somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia over this whole Userbox / Kelly Martin fiasco in the past few days. On the other hand, being an Admin would allow my voice on matters to be heard a bit better, and it would certainly help with the vandal fighting - something I've not done much of since Sam Hocevar's godmode script appears to be broken at the moment :( Time to test it out again!!
Not sure if I'll make the 3,000 mark by January 9th, but I'll let you know once I've considered matters for a bit. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, your prediction on my edit count was spot on and I hereby unilaterally promote you to the post of Head of WikiPrediction. Looks like all the drudge work dragged me up to 3000 after all :) And thanks for the advice, it's pretty much the conclusion I had come to over my time watching WP:AN. I am sure you understand that I was being diplomatic with my language above. As I said earlier, I intend to refrain from voting in any RfA until such time as I am either not nominated, or any nomination for me is over. It would be too much like trying to win friends and influence people for my taste, given that I know I may be in that very position soon. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether I should apply the same policy on voting for the ArbCom candidates. I change my mind on this almost hourly, but my voting finger is twitching madly!! What is the accepted ettiquette on such things? Any advice gratefully accepted, thanks. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the subject line says it all. I'm going on holidays soon and won't be able to edit wikipedia for a week, so my question is: taking into account my time zone of UTC +8, when was the last time I didn't edit wikipedia for a whole day? This has been quite hard: I've always had the urge to check my watchlist and make at least one minor edit every day for the last six months or so. When I leave on the 8th of January, I'd like to be able to think ""this is the first day I haven't edited wikipedia in xxx days/weeks/months".
Thanks, Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin! Since you are one of the users here who I respect greatly for your thoughtful insight and knowledge, do you have any advice as to how I should vote?
My current slate consists of Charles Matthews, Dmcdevit, Everyking (controversial, I know, but I think a voice who speaks against bans can be a good thing on Arbcom), Filliocht, Merovingian, Mindspillage (this is the only current arbitrator I feel like supporting just now), Nandesuka, Ral315 and SimonP.
Any others you think I ought to add to the list? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I created the article Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, English name for Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular in Portugal. Due to possible copyright problems it was temporarily blocked. In the meanwhile somebody deleted the article, forgotten that a Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp already exist.
Then I created the article Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular using the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp I had created also.
Now there is a Singaporean article in the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, for an institute from Singapore. I think we should create a disambiguation page...
There's a small confusion here with the designations.
Bye. Armindo 14:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Jokermage " Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you've posted some comment to this user regarding his unblocking, I've checked and it appears the autoblock kicked in, can you undo this?
19:37, 6 January 2006, Talrias blocked #77721 (expires 19:34, 7 January 2006) (Autoblocked...
Thanks -- pgk( talk) 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for reverting, I wasn't exactly sure, perhaps I should have asked on WT:RFA. Sorry 'bout that. NSL E ( T+ C) 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I replyed to your questions in my RFA, Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I replyed again, I honestly 100 percent never knew that I removed M0RHI comment until now and I would had fixed it if I knew. and I'm tagging the Image:Leiriadis.gif as nosource as I saw the original edit summary as PD by the user and I thought PD and that was a mistake in my part. -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Honestly this is the last chance I got in becoming a admin, I'm heading down the path of inactivty and if I become a admin, I probaly won't have time to use the powers as I got baseball season coming up, and also after baseball season ends, I'm going to have surgery for a bad arm defect that had since birth and I'm probaly going to be in a cast for months until fall, and after that I will be in my senior year of high school and my GPA is a bit low and I probaly won't be in wikipedia again. Should I withdraw my RFA, as I honestly have no time for wikipedia coming up and if I get elected I probaly won't have anytime to enjoy it. Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I withdrew, I just won't have the time. -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I'm just going to be to inactive soon, I might edit here or there around but still not planning to edit much until Fall and if I do it's going to be on commons or to get the Terry Bradshaw article into featured, thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Acually, now that I have some time in my hand, as I can't have doctors clearance for baseball because of my arm, I accpect your offer, I'm still going to be editing much less than before, and I lost my desire for becoming a admin for now. But still Thanks :) -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the formatting. It looks a lot better and now I see how the correct formatting keeps the numbers intact. David D. (Talk) 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw your discussion of people's admin criteria and was curious what you thought of mine. Besides the usual criteria like "shouldn't blow up the wiki" : there's one in particular: the candidate should have a good understanding of the policy trifecta. Since you have very strong thoughts about abuse of the ignore all rules guideline in particular, what do you think of asking candidates about their understanding of it?
Kim Bruning 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
(Note: This blurb references Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Wikipedia riots.) Hey Durin, I just read what you said about the rioting on Wikipedia. You're not the only one who has noticed this glaring problem in our little community. You've always been one of my favorite members as I've wandered about here, and this incredibly apt and timely statement you made only reinforces that thought. Now, enough stroking your ego. I'd like to share my thoughts on the issue with you, and see where it brings us. Firstly, the most glaring problem with our community as it stands relates to class, but it's actually just an "age" issue: Old vs. new. Many admins who have been here a long time have begun to exhibit signs of what I interpret as anti-wikiness, which is to say, they are hostile to newbies and their newfangled ways. I think the whole userbox controversy (which I participated in by starting that dreadful RfC which nevertheless brought the issue to the forefront; had I not done the RfC, someone else would have) is a symptom of this, and it manifests itself in other, more nefarious ways. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are nice and all, but sometimes, consensus simply is needed. Old-timey admins seem to have gotten the idea into their heads that if what the community decides to do interferes with WP:ENC, it should go. What I believe was forgotten in the whole mix was what a wiki is, fundamentally, and that is a community-driven, community-written encyclopedia. Piss off the community, and you have an encyclopedia falling apart at the seams. Not to mention you've sold out your original intent simply because Wikipedia does not as closely represent the ideal encyclopedia as it is believed it should. Is this view invalid or inferior? Perhaps not, but nonetheless I find it a disturbing development, and absolutely against the fundamental principles this encyclopedia was founded with. Your further thoughts on this would be appreciated, Durin. I think a lot of admins need to wake up, and soon, or else Wikipedia may little resemble its former self in a few short months. — BorgHunter ( talk) 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
BorgHunter/Rd232 (some of this is not direct response, but related things as well):
I would like help in creating a discussion area for us and others of similar mind to hammer out a focused statement of sorts, to outline the scope of this general problem with the intention of fostering change, perhaps with a petition drive. The problem is we'd likely be victimized by people who radically disagree with us. As such, I think this needs to be a page in user space, and not Wikipedia space. That will give us more latitude to be exclusionary to people who attempt to hijack the process (as happened at WP:GRFA at while back, when Ambi and TS stepped in). I know excluding people sounds anti-wiki. Perhaps it is, but what I am looking for is preventing abuse of process, and not really excluding people; just excluding people who insist on abusing the process. Thoughts? -- Durin 20:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! After a week here (I mean as a User), I'm hooked. (How do you get anything else done??) Yes, let's get together sometime. Just not in January, when my Real Work Life will be unusually complicated. -- MikeGasser (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Please move this to a sub-page, Durin, where we can discuss drafting a statement. Here are some ideas.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is written by an open, democratic society of equals.
The society is open because everyone can join it regardless of creed, interests or political opinions.
The society is democratic because decisions are made through an open process where every voice is heard. This does not mean that everything is decided with a majority vote. It certainly doesn't mean that we vote on what the facts about a given topic are. In fact votes are used only as a last resort while a discussion to reach a consensus is the preferred method of resolving disputes.
It is a society of equals because every contributor has the same chance to contribute. In a debate the best argument wins, regardless of the person making it.
I just wrote this in five minutes and I'm not wedded to any of it but I'd be interested to hear whether you were thinking along similar lines. - Haukur 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you just delete my fucking article? I consider all this discussion and the placing of "eviction notices" on my articles to be quite insulting. Katherinejohnson 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Durin, when you get a chance will you look over my User page and see if I am making the correct adjustments? Will you also look at the articles that I have edited today... I like them better than what was originally in place of them but I don't want to see them deleted.
Thanks xerocs 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good idea! I never thought of notifying the uploader before. I will remember to do that from now on. Raven4x4x 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I full well know my self nomination will fail, but I want to see where I could improve, I am filling out the questions now. At least with a nomination behind me, people will recognise me for when I apply next time, Wikipedia is a big place! User:Dueyfinster 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I know I was at 100%. It was our conversation and your advice (or lecture, whichever way you look at it) that made me always, ALWAYS use edit summaries. It takes but a second, but could save minutes and minutes of work. I try to answer my critics. Thanks for the advice. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You've got mail. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you ended up in the USN. I actually can't contribute anything about Iraq. That's Pentagon policy as I'm not a "spokesperson." In fact, I should probably take reference out the USMC reference completely. But I'll still contribute where I can. Semper fi! UncleFester 07:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not a pirate, but I would like to speak to you again! :) Talrias ( t | e | c) 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the tone you used in your edit to the "homework" discussio on RFA Talk. My guess is you've missed a lot of the recent flap about userboxes, Kelly Martin, MSK, and all the various RFC's that have been happening. It has gotten to the point where the politics are everywhere, and it's hindering actually contributing to the encyclopedia. I was trying to go about my business and add articles or flesh out stubs I had created, and I kept getting "You have new messages". Further, when I look at my watchlist, I see all kinds of edits to talk/user pages with seemingly unending vitriole and spite. We had something of a perfect storm at the beginning of this year -- the ArbCom votes, the userbox "scandal," and some seriously overworked or otherwise weary admins. What resulted was all three becoming various incarnations of witch hunt, popularity contest, and lynching. Character assasination is happening continually. I think that the most important flaw in the RFA process is that it has led us here. As Radiant said, we have over 800 admins. It's not like we're exactly hurting for more. The real problem is the admins we have are either involved in squabbling at length over various things or are otherwise deluged with the tide of malicious behavior. Something has to happen to help us get back on track of working on the encyclopedia, and changing the RFA process is probably the lowest hanging fruit. All the various WP:* "rules" aren't presently helping us. People are ignoring policy everywhere, and creating new policy that simply reinforces their idea that their behavior is correct or good faith. I'm interested to hear what your perception of the current situation is. Avriette 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durin! I try to comport myself to absolutely the highest standards of behavior as an admin and community member, and so whenever I hear that I've done something bad, I like to try to investigate so that I can apologize to anyone who needs an apology, and so I can learn from the error and try to improve in the future.
In this poll you suggest that I've engaged in wheel warring, but I don't really know of a case of this. I take so few admin actions that most of the cases where I do, there is some special circumstance. I hope you can be so kind as to indicate what you meant, so that I can make appropriate amends or, in the case that I disagree with your assessment of what happened, I can at least try to better explain myself.
For the record, I strongly agree with the sentiment that wheel warring is a very bad thing, and the culture around it needs to change.-- Jimbo Wales 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy matters. Rd232 talk 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally, it's done :) After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chairboy. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to update the time/date of the ending of the RfA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. -- Durin 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you opposed Fred Bauder for arbcom citing the edit the rspeer cited. Yet in that edit Fred proposes placing multiple users on probation for two reasons:
1) Dissatisfaction with the arbcom decisions -- a politely euphemistic way of saying, "This user has been a jerk and has been a jerk about the correction we've tried to apply to get him to stop." 2) The apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case
I think people are misreading #1, and I think #2 is a definitely reason why people need to be placed on probation or banned. I don't know enough about the history of that case to know for sure whether or not those reasons applied for those particular people. But I don't see anything at all sinister or misguided about Fred's statements here, other than the fact that #1 should be reworded to avoid giving the impression that we don't allow dissenting voices. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that...it is a fine line to walk and I do all I can not not seem like I am trying to push a POV. As far as I am concerned the conspiracy theorists have their daughter articles to play in, and I have no problem with them using those articles as playgrounds so long as they present it in a NPOV fashion. On 9/11 I almost put my foot through my T.V., so I have to work hard to not allow my politics to enter that situation. I certainly appreciate your commendation. Happy editing!-- MONGO 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Please admin,I will list the website address in the photos uploaded but please donot block me,i promise i will get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthv86 ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
i am sorry,i cant find a non-copyrighted source for my images,and hence i request you to delete my uploaded images.In future,i will take good care before uploading images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthv86 ( talk • contribs) 18:02 21 January 2006 (UTC)
what if i edit the photo using paint,and cut off unwanted portions,will that still be a copyright infringement?-- Jayanthv86 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the effort is necessary. There are links there to my edit count history per month and people seem to be interpreting that fine for the moment. Thanks for the offer though :-)
Jamyskis
Whisper,
Contribs
16:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin I appreciate the function of Wiki administration, however, I disagree with your deletion of all of my contributions based on the reasoning of "spam". At least as a courtesy to other contributors, I expect you to talk to me first and give me a chance to edit or correct what is not right. My guess is that you simply did not like that there are several links to the website, but you did not actually read the content. Except for one page which I myself asked another admin to delete due to its advertising language. The other contributed pages were perfectly valid and here is why..
If you search for "IIM" you will find it is an acronym for Indian Institute of Management and there are lots of several pages and external links to the organization. It also, happens that IIM stands for International Institute of Management and there was another page with a description of the organization in non advertising language. I think just like you allow Indian Institute of Management, it is only fair to allow International Institute of Management
My other point is that just like you consider yourself to know a lot about Navy and choose to contribute several pages on USS, I know a lot about management and IIM research (content) on management best practices.
I bet you know how frustrating it is to spend a day posting content to find them delete by some else. I believe it can be is counter productive to delete pages without discussion with the author. Imagine if another Admin decided to delete all your contribution on USS, without even discussion (for any reason he/she finds valid).
I urge you to reconsider you decision, review and undelete the valid pages
I’m also open to discussions, suggestions and changes to those pages
I look forward to hear from you
ok,do delete the images,i will try to get appopriate pictures which satisfies wikipedia copyright guidelines.-- Jayanthv86 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I know you are very very analytical and detailed. So I came here... to ask you if you could review my WP "confession" and give me some feedback (which I am terribly lacking). It will read more like anti-campaign, but I figure, if you like me with all these bad things, then you really like me :)
So about me:
So that's about me. Let me know if you have any questions, and you can take your time. I am myself these days involved in real life.
Sincerely, Renata 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you,will the image be there as long as the editors see it? i am sorry,that i have troubled you so much and you have taken pains to notify me about copyright violations.-- Jayanthv86 14:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
.-- A dam1213 Talk + 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
well i uploaded a image at Anna Kournikova page and the name of the image is Image:Anna12.jpg.It is a magazine cover.I have written both summary and licensing.plz tell me wether the steps i have followed is right.-- Jayanthv86 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I kind of smelled a copyvio as well. A 27k, unwikied text dump sure looked a bit suspect in that regard. :) I'm doing new page patrolling for a bit; let's see if it really does come back. Thanks for the Google search! - Lucky 6.9 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, Thank you for taking the time to explain your response.
While, now, I understand the reasons for your choice to delete my submitted pages, I still think the stated guidelines are misapplied to my submitted content . Obviously there is disagreement on this issue and probably due to the fact you stated that these pages lie in grey area. I'd like to remind you of your quote "I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. I try to work within Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as much as possible. When in doubt, I tend to leave things alone and let others work things out. For example, I think it rather silly to have articles on obscure Pokemon characters".
I only ask that there will be discussions and guidance from you before future deletions.
I do not blamce or wrong you for deletion, if I were in your shoes and did not have all the information, I would have done the samething. Therefore, I hope the following points provide necessary information to address posted comments
All of which, I belive, would qualify for reference links under relevant management and research pages
Durin – I appreciate your candid response and thank you for your advice
I will re-submit the new articles and I hope you would take the above explanation into consideration before you mark them for deletion
Maj
18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't know if a barnstar could begin to show my gratitude. Hopefully together we've convinced Jimbo of what's going on. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to thank you. Karm a fist 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. That seems a fair point, even though I don't have a problem with bureaucrats being on the ArbCom myself.
Talking of the ArbCom, I know you have strong opinions on the previous committee and I was wondering how you feel about the results of the election. I'm happy with it myself, in that I didn't oppose a single successful candidate (although there were a few neutrals). How do you feel about the new ArbCom? Raven4x4x 08:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the stub bio that I created for Melanie Mitchell? She is a important contributor to the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science. Her importance can be seen by the number of Wikipedia worthy articles that reference her, both as a corroborator with leading researchers and for her direct contributions to AI and CS. As the start of an article, I feel that it met the requirements for stub articles. If it did not, what should be added to make it a helpful contribution? Jonathan Auer 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your reference to a hypothetical
WP:ANOT. Well, I liked the idea...and there it is. Cheers. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk)
20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi! The deletion guidelines state, that "User talk pages of non-logged in users where the message is no longer relevant(...)" can be speedy-deleted. I don't think that the message is relevant anymore, because I (the addressee) have read it. So, please, insert my request again. Thanks! 80.138.108.146 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S: I don't know how this is handled here, but it is possible also to (let) delete the specific revision of the article I edited? And if yes, where to request this? I hope you can help me therewith! Greetings, 80.138.108.146 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Loose Change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.77.61 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 January 2006
Thanks, Durin, for helping so quickly with my RfA page! -- AStanhope 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Id like you to
update the graph. Thank you. --
Cool Cat
Talk|
@
13:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Right now I have no time, but it is immediately seen taht something is fishy: There is no Polish word "Nache". The suggested transaltion "our" is nasze in Polish. See you later. mikka (t) 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. You may post the question at the Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board. mikka (t) 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm on quite a tight schedule and I don't have the time to dig through history pages to find something, I don't even know where to find in the first place. If you could please dig up some links to relevant edits and discussion, I'd be very grateful. - Mgm| (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I added the speedy delete tag to Queens Park High School that you removed. I'm not very active on the deletion scene; I just add tags when I run across things on random article searches. Anyway, I thought that high school articles without a certain amount of information were speedy-eligible, which is why I added the tag. I'm not sure if they should be sent now to AfD (or whatever it's called these days), but that process is fairly involved and frankly confusing for someone that's not involved in deleting articles day-to-day. Is there any way I can flag an article for deletion or deletion-oriented review without misapplying the speedy tag or going through the whole nomination rigamarole? Thanks. - Bantman 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin!
Thank you again for your painstaking review of my contributions and your excellent RfA nomination. I look forward to getting down to work, and I thank you for the opportunity to expand my involvement in the project. Like I say below in the thanks message I'll be leaving those who voted, let me know if you see me do anything silly. Best regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
Hi, as you requested, I uploaded 4 pics to commons: Image:WTC7 with Ground Zero.jpg, Image:WTC7 from bottom.jpg, Image:WTC7 and WFC.jpg, and Image:WTC7 alone.jpg. The quality is not that great because when I got there it was already getting dark and as I said before, my camera is not the best. So if you find them useful, please add to the article. Cheers, Renata 01:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the article titled "Winstanley TV"? We are getting quite a lot of local media attention and it was suggested that we put up a summary of what our new venture is all about up here on the reliable source that is wikipedia.
I'd just like to know why, you can get in touch at "adam.m.mcclean@gmail.com".
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.240.98 ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You may put it back now, I've accepted.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Now the ArbCom has a new army of clerks who represent far-from-optimal tendencies in our administrative corps. This has dashed the tiny bit of optimism that the election engendered in me. I have been editing anonymously mostly now anyway. Copyediting is still an acceptable way to spend spare minutes, I've decided; if the project goes downhill, I will only wasted time otherwise unlikely to be spent constructively at my desk. Anyway, just wondering about your thoughts on the status quo, if you have the time to send an email. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Guidelines aren't created by polls - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. On that earlier discussion, most people agreed to snowballing as long as it's done by a bureaucrat, and considering I have the backing of a 'crat on this one, I'd say that point is moot. R adiant _>|< 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin, Rune Welsh here. We haven't interacted much before, but still I was wondering if it would be possible for you to review my contributions under your admin nomination criteria. I'm not thinking of running for admin any time soon, but I'd like to know whether I'm headed on the right direction and your criteria strike me as a particularly good measure for that purpose. Please do it whenever you feel like, and if you have any questions just ask! Many thanks. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, take your time. I'm in no hurry. Thanks! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer to reinstate my RFA I really appreciate it. I feel that I should get a chance to complete the process. Please reinstate. Thank-you -- Mb1000 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Mb1000 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, my offer to restore it was ignored. Raul654 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Following up on our conversation at RFA talk, thank you for your numbers; they're quite useful. What would you think of adding the sentence (based on your findings), "Since June of 2005, no editor with fewer than 750 edits has had a successful request for adminship" WP:RFA under the subheading "Nomination standards" (currently a rather vague paragraph). Not an instruction not to apply, certainly not an official prerequisite or change in policy, but simply a statement of fact. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Durin, would you be willing to have a look at a dispute I'm having with another user? I don't feel it's necessary to go through the "official" (or even unofficial in the case of the mediation cabal) channels, as I am embarassed that such a small article has generated such disagreement. I want to believe that a group of adults can agree on something. Anyways, if you have time and/or inclination, I'd really appreciate it. I have historically asked Radiant! for guidance, but his talk page says he's on a hiatus. Avriette 07:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Having expressed strong opposition to my
first nomination you may wish to comment on my
second.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If we discussing it let remove the image than after the discossuion we put it if the people accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.205.23 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This Discussion goes to forever. Why you remove this image until an aggrement maked? Everybody must be respect the Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.205.23 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are probably aware of this, but user Rgulerdem has deleted the image at least 4 times in the past hour, placing him in violation of 3RR, and also as he is deleting the picture against community consensus, I would consider it vandalism. I think a block might be in order. Thanks! -- Maverick 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Durin. That vandalism and reverting was getting out of hand. As you can see, there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion on the talk page to keep the image as it is. I am glad that freedom of speech and democracy has prevailed. Again, thank you :)
EuroSong
20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful to explain also on the talk page or WP:RfPP - and I trust this block will be short; Featured Articles should be editable. Septentrionalis 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not removing the image in question -- I'm trying to revert the article back to the article that includes the image within it. Please check the poll: I voted to have the image in the article and was trying to prevent the reverts of the article to an imageless one. Sol. v. Oranje 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I again must lodge a complaint that I am unfairly blocked from this article; it is Rajab who keeps removing the image, not myself. Please rectify. Sol. v. Oranje 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Dorin,
YOu cannot let an insult be posted a wiki article. What you should do is, protect it without the pictures. An insult in a wiki article is against the rule. I cannot see why you are not completely ignorant about it?
Please protect the article without the pictures. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by some of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2. I've voted "support" for now, but I want to be certain I understand your concerns, because it may cause me to change my vote as I value your opinion. I understand your concerns about scalability, but what do you mean when you say "Special:Unwatchedpages becomes undermined and useless"? I can't see how the undermining or loss of utility would occur. Similarly for "I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of vesting the protection of so many thousands of articles in the hands of just one person within Wikipedia". Isn't that what happens whenever people add a couple hundred or thousand articles from the list to their watchlist, as we've been encouraged to do? How does having a second account with administrator privileges change this? Thanks for your patience. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
how long would you consider blocking me? Rajab 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do delete it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Durin, the page was undeleted at the user's request (on my talk page). I'd still like to hear your position on when an RfA should be listed as an unsuccessful request. NoSeptember talk 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You have warned me for Edit Warring on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I am not sure I understand where I've made an edit war? Maybe it is because I am new here, but I really try to discuss things on the talk pages and refrain from reverts as much as possible. Can you show it to me, so that I can learn? -- EyesAllMine 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Wish you'd been around some more. Happy that somebody who is not "personally involved" tries to slow the edits down a little. -- EyesAllMine 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you not equate me with the other two that are linking in from that POV pushing website that uses Wikipedia comparison edits in an effort to wikibomb our articles. As far as I am concerned, those trolls are close to being banned...and timestamp your posts. [12] and check your email.-- MONGO 15:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Had a chance to think things over and I wanted to apologize for being a jerk. Sorry.-- MONGO 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding my template, {{ Myeager1}}. I was pretty happy with how that turned out, but it made my day to hear someone else agree, so that was really nice of you. If it's not a big deal, I'd kind of like to keep that template around, having it not be deleted. If I'm not mistaken, it wouldn't save any space on the servers to have it deleted, and it's got a clear enough name that I doubt anyone else would ever want it. Would that be a problem, or is template deletion "just something that happens"? Is it simply bad luck to just keep a failed RFA template around? ;) Thanks for listening. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
D -
You've made your case against the changes many times. Your position is very clear. But isn't it also clear that people aren't being swayed by the arguments you're presenting? I'm a "hard metric" guy myself, but I also beleive that some things do not lend themselves to hard metrics. Every change is frightening, and it's good to try to plan and think and mitigate posible problems, but eventually you just have to leap. What is the worst, the absolute worst thing that can happen? Some version of DfA runs for a month and everyone hates it? We either promote a pack of hooligans or fail to set the flag for a group of saints? Big deal. Nothing unfixable, really. If someone leaves the project, that's infixable, but it also happens all the time, for various reasons. I know you don't like it, but the best way to show it won't work is not by making the same arguments you've made before.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, could you help me out in deleting a couple of prank images uploaded by a (schoolboy?) newbie, User:Jay231104. They are Image:Maurice.JPG and Image:Maurice Proctor.jpg. I flagged them up on WP:IFD, and notified him as the uploader. He has now responded to me, somewhat apologetically, and asked if they could be deleted ASAP ( discussion here). Could you do the necessary, thanks. BTW, any progress on the review, not pressing you but just wondered? All the best. -- Cactus.man ✍ 13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OMG! WTF? Durin has a sense of humor! Kim Bruning 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've filled in the source information for the images which you brought to my attention. Thank you for the update, as They could've been deleted. Indeed, those were images uploaded back in my newbie days and I neglected to return and rectify the info after I became fully aware of policy.
Concerning the images recieved from the Kawaii website, they qualify as promotional due to their distributive status being released prior to each iteration, and they are displayed on the official websites as well. The qualm about not being able to see the images is because the site requires a log in before access. To this end, the disclaimer applies to fair use promotional as wikipedia is a private funded site. As I am indeed a member of the site, the images fall under the right to be utilized here, and furthurmore, for educational usage. Finally, I'd like to know which views you disagree with me on. Per my fellow wikipedian's objections conerning the quote on my userspace, I implore you to see the rfa's talk page. - Zero Talk 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you nominated me as a sysop. I am involved in a dispute in Software patents under the European Patent Convention (see talk page: Original research and EU directive and history [13]). I do not want to enter in a revert war. Could you give me your opinion about this matter? Thanks in advance. Jheald's suggestion was wise, but I only received a nice personal attack back... I'll step back for now. Cheers. -- Edcolins 08:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your input. In retrospect I was rather fast to push that button. Further reserch was required. I'll do more to avoid such mishaps in the future. Bobby1011 14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not the OA logo, not the sash logo and it's not the same color nor design. You guys worry way to much about this stuff. I'm removing the OA box from my page because no one can come up with a logo that looks good and doesn't upset the tag Nazis. Rlevse 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if you'd seen this (I don't think you made any comments on the talk page). As you seem to be interested in doing something about improving the reputation of admins (in the right way I mean not just PR!), I wondered if you could help me in continuing to develop this, and take it forward. I've never seen a proposed policy through to acceptance as official policy, so I'm not really sure how to go about it. If you could help that'd be great. Petros471 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
PS. Do you think any part of your admin watch thoughts could be incorperated into the ACC? Petros471 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You missed these in your Affilliations section clean up campaign: "User VFW"--the VFW is a private organization, not a government agency, despite what the tag says; "User former BSA" clearly uses the BSA logo (given what you said before, I can't believe you missed this one, despite the creator claiming it's his own work); "User Vigil" uses a Vigil sash, which has the entire image of what we went around about before, so I'm awe struck that it's okay to use the whole sash and not just the (modified) arrow tip. Rlevse 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please delete. Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, if you remember, quite a while ago I asked you to evaluate me for adminship. A few things changed since that time. Go for it! nominated me at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renata3 (2) (I asked him to correct the formatting before I make any decision). So now I turn to you for your say, 'cause I don't really know where are you at with the evaluation and I don't really mind waiting. Also, I have quite a few things to add to my Wiki confession above. Most notably:
Care to vote?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)
-- Striver 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't testing anything out, I was showing Americans their place by calling them 'whities'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 ( talk • contribs)
Blocked from editing or blocked from the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 ( talk • contribs)
Just matters a tad much. But I'll stop. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I noticed you deleted my user page, so I thought I'd ask you if having my account deleted is possible? I'll look for your reply here. -- CDN99 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just curious about the number of votes at this RfA: total votes. As far as you know, any record set here? hydnjo talk 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, is it difficult obtaining that information? Since it would be nice to regenerate the statistics for February, and see if things changed, or if it is really the same people who constantly run the show. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, thanks for your question, not sure where it came from, other than work on castles maybe ??. Anyway, no, I am not a Highlander .... stereotyping aside, I would probably have bright orange hair and a bushy beard if that was the case. Alas, I have neither :-) I am a Sassenach, a Lowland Scot. Nonetheless I am a still a Scotsman, and naturaly proud of that fact. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL, what a hoot of an IRC learning curve :-) How did you learn to type so fast? -- Cactus.man ✍ 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant to say, If you need any further background info on the issue just let me know. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, i noticed your sub page Trackandfield-stub. What are your plans for this? Do you want people to add to your page. personally i think this is a good idea. I wonder if a list of red linked bios would be useful too since many of the famous athletes do not have biographies. I note that one user has already been adding an informal and uncategorized stub. See this google search. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't use IRC or any other chat (that's a personal thing with a very long story; unless you have gmail and can use gmail chat...). You can email me - either through WP or by just attaching gmail.com to my username. I am busy in real life too so I completely understand and I am in no rush. In fact, I would not mind to wait till after April 15 :) (I am a future tax accountant, and no, I cannot help you with your tax return :D). And no, you are not "slower than the slowest civil servant..." You haven't met IRS... :) Renata 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that Durin, I appreciate the hard work you have put into the nomination. I only have one request for some advice: On the previous conflicts question is it appropriate to refer to anything only in general terms without naming specific users out of respect for their privacy, or is it acceptable to give names and provide relevant diffs if needed, as it's all there in the history anyway? In other words, is there any accepted 'protocol' on this? Thanks. I'll probably get it posted formally in the next couple of days. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin - please have a look at this proposal - a few ideas to stop vandalism before it takes effect. Would love to have your opinion/ideas on it. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For fixing up my application for adminship. I saw that you had a little trouble there :-) [17] ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 00:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that the Iwo Jima pic with the F-14s flying past the memorial is outstanding. I like the fact that it has the memorial and the landing beaches in the background. It finally motivated me to scan my own picture of the landing beaches taken from the top of Suribachi. Hopefully I'll get them uploaded tomorrow. Will make a nice addition to the article. -- User:Looper5920 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Durin since your the statistics guru, could you help me dig some numbers for the following:
I'm trying to come up with some hard facts to help make a counter argument against Raul's never protect the FA stance. Any other statistics you feel might be relevant/useful in making a counter argument would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help.
ALKIVAR
™
22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, I once asked you if I can help you out in preparing admin noms - you said that it would be better if I devised my own standards and nominated some one rather than me doing all the work for you (or something to that effect). Well, my standards were ready sometime back and my first nomination is up there. I know that you are busy but it wd be great if you can have a look and spare a comment or two. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 16:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, I am astonished by the support I received - now I have lots of "thank-you cards" to write!!
It wasn't at all stressful, as I half expected it to be, and your nomination clearly carries some weight with many people. As to whether it should be congratulations or condolences, time will tell :) Thanks again for your efforts in preparing the nomination, I just hope that I don't screw up and let you down in performing my admin duties. If I need advice on matters you will be my first port of call.
In the meantime, for your sterling work in broadening the admin pool with qualified candidates let me award my first ever "barnstar" - the Happy Cactus award (courtesy of the US NOAA). No doubt we'll cross paths from time to time as we work away here, so I'll see you around. All the best. -- Cactus.man ✍ 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
MathBot overwrote someone else's comment left on an RfA. See [18]. Please fix this. -- Durin 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like it if you stopped removing images from my user page without asking me before doing so. I know perfectly well about the fair use policies for images on user pages and I don't give a rats toot about it. Please stop editing my page without my consent, its my user page and not yours, so please stop being a pain in the ass. I just want to work on some articles here like I always do without someone like you getting in my way during the process. — Wackymacs 07:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why you removed the images from my user page?-- Jersey Devil 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, yes. To be honest, I was hoping someone else would step in, so as to show the author that it's not just my opinion. I suppose I should have mentioned notability more prominently in my earlier notes to him. I'm not so worried about the copyvio because I believe that he is the father copyright holder for Stephanie Staples' website. Want to take a turn with him?
FreplySpang
(talk)
20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you removed the images of a 1997 film because the odds of them taking action are about as high as winning the lottery- which is what, 4 to 1? And a logo apple stopped using eight years ago. I can understand the first one, but the multicolored apple logo? It's not as if millions of other sites don't sport them... Dan 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You have just removed an Apple logo from my personal page without having the courtesy to write and explain. It's not a big issue, the logo doesn't matter but I wonder what your intentions are. Regards.
Kleinzach 19:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you add this questions to your 'FAQ":
'Why am I removing images from the pages of users who are not in the United States and therefore not subject to US law?'
Regards Kleinzach 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No doubt there are acres of pages that can be described as 'Wikipedia policy'. I regret that I don't find that a satisfactory answer - and I am still puzzled by your intentions.
Apple distribute their logo (in the form of plastic transfers) to people who buy their hardware. They apparently want their logo displayed - not suppressed.
Regards. Kleinzach 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind putting off the delinking of solitary years for the time being, but the question is, how long should this be on hold? It's been on hold for quite a while, and it's getting frustrating.
The MoS has said not to overlink dates for a long time now, but several months ago some debate began on this. So far as I can tell, Ambi and Talrias would like years to be linked, and just about everyone else would like years to be linked only when parts of dates or when particularly relevant. Months have passed, and things are still right where they were. I see no indication that the MoS will change to allow the overlinking of years. And I see no indication that Ambi and Talrias are going to say "I'm okay with that" any time soon. So how long should this be on hold?
I'll certainly stop delinking years for the day, as you request. I don't mind putting it off for a couple days, or even longer, if it looks like progress is being made and we're not just waiting for Godot.
I apologize if I sound curt. You've been very polite; I'm just frustrated about the whole situation. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the Thank You page. Once it gets well started it was my plan that it would be moved to project space ( Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thank yous) and each successful/unsuccessful candidate would add their own message by tradition (it just needs a bit of publicity to get started) :-). NoSeptember talk 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't think what else to add. I think you very much captured the essence of what has disturbed me about this and I am extremely grateful for you stepping in to say what you did. Out of the entire process, including all discussions on the RfA page up until my edit to the project page, the only action I took that I regret was not giving the same care to that one edit summary as I did to everything else.
Reading the page just now, and seeing the comments Cecropia makes there accusing me of being uncivil, not assuming good faith and making personal attacks, I'm glad that I responded to the comment he left on my talk page without having seen that. I am now, for the first time in this whole affair, angry. The ONLY action that all of those comments could be refering to is the edit summary, and I would challenge Cecropia to find any other justification. If that edit summary warrants those characterization, well, you already made the point for me. I am definitely taking your advice (and had already done so anyway) of letting it die down. Where Cecropia mistook my previous comments as being in anger, any additional comments I would make at this point would be my first comments in anger at Wikipedia. I'd rather not go there. Thank you again, — Doug Bell talk• contrib 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for point out some good points regarding my request for adminship. Kindly consider taking part in the request, but placing your opinion. Maltesedog 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the mistake I made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination). Seano1 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course I don't think less of you, Durin; I think more, if anything. That situation got more than a bit out of hand and you exerted a calming influence. I've been known to attempt that myself, but obviously didn't on that one. My original intent was to explain that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever in AZ's non-promotion, since it seems that we have an increasing number of editors ready to go to war against "the system," the rules, the Bureaucrats, etc., with hints of dark motives anytime someone they favor isn't promoted. When I saw Mr. Bell making an inappropriate edit and comment on a policy page, I gave him notice with the intent of nipping an edit war in the bud. I guess I thought Bell was a more experienced editor than he was. "If I had it to do over again" I would still have given him the notice but I would have worded it more carefully to indicate that it was instructive rather than punitive. Anyway, many thanks for your efforts. Cheers, Cecropia 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please check my post to that page and comment. Thank you. --
Mmounties (
Talk)
02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Durin, you have done good work on this. I want you to look at [ [19]] and my response. I don't expect you to do any more on this, but want you to be aware of this. -- Cecropia 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It was that or walk away from the project for good, and that really would be a mistake. The stress on here was getting stupid and this isn't the first time I've been slated for making a minor mistake as a bureaucrat. I think it's better for everyone this way tbh. --
Francs
2000
12:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Guess I must have avoided edit conflict by hitting preview, and somehow missed it. Oh well, I'll drop a note on his talk page instead. Looking back now at the history I see Benon withdrew before a couple of other votes- do they count? Not that it makes much difference either way. Petros471 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, how come thanks and endorsements (e.g. barnstars) from experienced users/admins don't get a mention in the process. Surely, this is the trust and acceptance by the community that one is looking for?
So how far do I need to change an image to make it a new image? and in addition, I cannot find an copyright or a TM anywhere for that design (which would be in the class constitution (but I can't find it else where too)). Wouldn't that make it public domain anyway? I'm trying to do this for all boat classes, but trying to do it carefully and wiki-like.
I've sailed the 5-0 but it is too expensive of a boat for me to do on a regualr basis. Minnesota1 16:57, 31 March 2006
Sweet, thanks for the help man. Minnesota1 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Earlier today I was going to add those to the Essjay RfB, but then I noticed that unlike the RfAs the old RfBs are sans headers/footers. Do you think they should be added? NoSeptember talk 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey for those nomination percentage statistics you were compiling, are you counting self-noms as well? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin: Thank you for your message about untagged images. The ones in question have been replaced with better (clearer, etc.) images, and when I discard an image, I often remove the tag to guarantee that it will be deleted. Why? Because if I happen to find an even better image of the subject one day, the former image's title is free to reuse. That's just me trying to be tidy, and I'm sorry if it caused you inconvenience. But if you notice on the images in question, none are currently posted on a site, and each says "DELETE" where the tag would normally go. Good luck with your mission. -- Hugh Manatee 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's probably better to move the page before you delete it - deleting a heavily linked-to page is apparently a bad thing for the servers. In addition, if you want to hide the page history, it's good to actually hide it. My suggestion would be move, delete, recreate, and then move the recreated page back. Then there aren't 400 deleted versions just begging a person to look at and see why they were deleted ;) Guettarda 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I noted your response. However a different interpretation of the fair use policy is available. The fair use tags and fair use laws state that the images can be used in a context of identification. All of the fair use images on my page are in accord with that policy as no "free" version is currently available for any of the remaining fairuse images on the page. Gateman1997 16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
... and I replied to your email :) Renata 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Durin, have you done any studies on the changes in editing habits of guys who are predominantly editors (and not predominantly vandalfighters), before and after they become admins ? Tintin ( talk) 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ever flown out of there? I have. Cook truly does dominate that airport. I feel the term is extremely accurate. At one point, Cook was going to run ATC at that airport. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you redo the graph to plot all actual admins as a scatter plot, with the average passing through it? I would be interested to see the lowest numbers of edit that actually successfully become admins. Stevage 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, one I'm not sure of the need for the graph Stevage is asking for. Two, this discussion is more appropriate at WT:RFA :) Three, I agree that edit counting is a very poor metric of determining quality of a candidate. Four, no there is no way to represent quality of edits graphically. Quality is 100% subjective. There's no way to measure it in this context without strictly defining what parameters quality means in this context. Any such parameters in this context are going to be rather arbitrary. -- Durin 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't play the dupe in that twisted leprechaun's cyberstalking. By the way, since I see you like sailing, I wrote the article about the greatest yacht designer of all time: Nathanael Herreshoff. -- Hugh Manatee 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin - good work with those graphs. Have you got time to do one more...? :) I notice that the Number of RfAs per week over time has been increasing at about the same rate that the Success rate of RfAs over time has been decreasing. I think a graph of Number of successful RfAs per week over time would be a very informative addition. I suspect that you'd find that - irrespective of the number of nominations - the number of promotions to adminship has stayed almost exactly constant. Grutness... wha? 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you if those claims were cited any the article didn't read like a PR release. All it talks about are its free services, boasts its membership and even its charitable contributions! I have taken you advice and AfD's it. Hope that's cool :) - Gl e n T C 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hii...
I noticed that you removed an image of the simpsons... from my user page....i really didnt understand why you removed it and didnt realize that all the immages of simpsons were fair use....i realized that just now.... can you tell me which images of the simpsons i can use on my user page? Thanks a lot!! Cheers! Jayant, 17 Years, India • contribs 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry I lost my cool. I meant to apologize earlier. No hard feelings I hope. I appreciate your hard work and continued dedication. Thanks again.
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
To Durin for his continued contributions on helping to keep Wikipedia fair and balanced OSU80 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
Earlier today, you SD'd a page called
Salom which was heavily connected to the page
J-Stylez. However, the latter page has continually had its SD template removed as vandalism. Could you please speedy delete
J-Stylez and put a discretionary block on the IP and sockpuppets that the user has edited with. As you can see, I've done my best to abide by process, but I'm just annoyed/frustrated at this point. Thanks in advance for the help. →
\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\ •
07:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC) This was just taken care of. If there're no blocks put in place, could you please look into it?
Sorry about that; I really should have read the policy before making the hasty reversions. -- WGee 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Please check your inbox and happy Easter! Renata 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:User_Calgary_Highlander I want an explanation on why you just butchered my infobox. Michael Dorosh 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have always made my best effort to remove fair use images from user pages when I see them. I have, as you, gotten a very mixed reaction. Some say "aw, shucks, sorry" and others respond as if I had mortally wounded them personally. I was wondering if I might be able to either point to your explanation page in my edit summaries or make some semblance of it in my user space to refer to. I really appreciate your efforts in this matter, and I hope to hear back from you soon. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I get the potential issue with fair-use images in sigs (though Croat Canuck never raised this as a potential issue when I was asking him about my sig initially), but if images are the server strain you argue it is in your post on my talk page, why is anyone allowed to have any? Right above me, CC had a pair in there, and no one seems to have given him any problems. Am I home and cool if I replace my Oilers and Canadiens logos with, say, Alberta and Canada flags? Or will those, in time, be pulled as well?
Sorry about blowing up earlier, it's just that those images have been up for over a month and only now are they removed, so that's what irked me. And yes, I don't like that rogue "administrator" going around and acting malicious. Also, for Internet Explorer somebody named Malo has blocked me, even though any other troubles have been resolved. In fact all I can think about was the spat on my userpage. I have not vandalized anything else, nor is my intention to. I was wondering if you could remove the block. Thanks. - Kingsean1
Do you think you could be a tiny bit more careful and replace the removed image with some text instead of a '? (just for the future, I've corrected it this time) :P Thanks. —
nath
a
nrdotcom (
T •
C •
W)
23:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. I don't know what article you're referring to, as your message does not say. I think you're getting me confused with another user, as I neither use images, nor would I do so without permission of the copyright holder. Agendum 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, bugging you about charts again, since I'm getting increasingly concerned by the current data. So I was wondering if you might when you have time 1) extend the various charts time slots out(especially "Number of successful RfAs per week") 2) Let me know on "Average edit count of RfAs over time" what the calculated R values were? (And if you don't have time/ don't want to/whatever, feel free to ignore this). Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok ok... I understood, but this is ridiculous in my "humble" opinion. Thanks. -- Marcelo 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
One hypothesis (which is untestable) is that the voters on RFA have changed. I have noticed that the general voting public seems to shift around a lot, including a small group of hardcore returning voters, and a large group of aspinring admins and friends. It'd be cool to test whether the average edit count of the voters is changing, though I admit, it might be taking things a bit too far ;-) Cheers, The Minist e r of War (Peace) 07:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Would it make sense to note that the is was restarted by the 'Crat? The circumstances were a bit odd. JoshuaZ 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
Apparently you deleted my band's page, Shima_(band).
Please tell me why. We ARE a real band, you know, and we ARE working on an album which WILL be released in a matter of weeks. Just because we're not from the US doesn't mean we don't exist. Have you heard of "Europe"? It's a magical place somewhere outside the US.
Regards, Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondal ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2006
Nice userpage. ;) Jude ( talk, contribs, email) 00:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the image in regards to the problem of "fairuse" images for userboxes. I have read your article further explaining the issue and whether it may contribute to a copywrite violation. Do you have a suggestion for a suitable replacement licence for that logo? I checked other useboxes and they fall under the same licences but are not removed, why? I.e. Template:User Queen's University and Template:User UWO. YCCHAN 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please take a second to really think why it is wrong to remove Socialist International logo from userpages and userboxes. I know you are smart and I'm really trying to enhance my calm, but what I'm about to say really ought to be obvious to anyone who has had even a mediocre high-school education. That is: Socialists don't believe in intellectual property "rights". IP "rights" are fundamentally opposite of our political ideology. It is germane to point out that a bulk of the parties which make up SI have been at the forefront of fighting digital patents and digital rights management in Europe. Just because somebody chose the wrong copyright template doesn't give you an excuse to be intellectually lazy. Before you remove, please think first and use a little common sense. It is incumbent on you to at least do a cursory verification of the copyright type (if you look closely at SI's website you will find no ©, ®, or TM anywhere). I haven't checked, but I surely hope you haven't done the same thing with any of the Marxist or communist content. I know you are trying your best, all I'm asking is for a little care. Thank you. -- Dragon695 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza is not part of Wikipedia's policy-making or enforcement apparatus. Wikipedia policy is enforced by administrators. No part of Wikipedia belongs to you. -- Tony Sidaway 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sir, I see that you are very active regarding removal of fair use images from user spaces, etc. I have also noticed that copyright infringement remains blatant on Wikipedia through such practices, more often not because of deliberate actions of the users but because of their ignorance of law. Now, I suppose, that you might agree with me stating that copyright infringements threaten the existence of the encyclopedia. I would like to propose that fair use images should never be allowed to enter user space by making certain amends to the Wiki functioning, that will not allow the use of an image (which is copyrighted), ie. tagged by a {{ Non-free fair use in}} or any other fair use tag for use on user/user talk pages. The What links here section clearly shows, where a copyrighted image is being used on a userpage, like if an image is used on userspace it will clearly show that its linked to User:Anirudhsbh, for instance. The User part can be easily used to distinguish usage of the image on Article space or user space. Please instruct me as to where I should post my concerns, so that it becomes easier for administrators to regulate fair use images on the encyclopedia. Kindly acknowledge my post. Regards, -- Andy123 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. --
Fr
a
ncs2000
09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
So, why the image was not deleted yet? I would like to use that until it happens.
-- Osias 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
When I saw that edit summary, I had high hopes of some tasty vandalism! (I have 3 vandalisations to my user page so far... all from friends) but no, it was just a mundane correction. Thanks for that, i GUESS. I'm trying to get over my editcountitis, (ha!) so you are not helping! Grin. PS I moved all my userboxes and flags off the front page but didn't get rid of them. How's the page load time now? Seemed better to me. + + Lar: t/ c 14:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, just thought you should know that a user you warned on the 20th of April has been causing trouble again, blanking Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand. His IP is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.188.141.162 HornetMike 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
So I guess you are still not checking your email, huh?
Renata
04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for fixing up the recently closed RfAs that I appear to have botched. I was reading the instructions on WP:BCRAT and noticed the new ones about 'ending -> ended' and 'Vote here -> Final' etc. and went back to fix mine and noticed you got to a lot of them already :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed that you have removed a userbox from my userpage. I am not upset or anything. I am just wondering why you removed it. Was it a violation of some sort for me to use it?
Thanks.
Upon further reading I have come to the conclusion that it was possibly removed because of the image in the userbox. Was there a problem with the image? That might also explain why the image disappeared a few weeks ago from the other CLE userbox that I have.
What the ****?! I didn't request you to delete my user page! Are you on crack?
Please restore it, that was really hard to make!
Flame viper 12 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
G'day,
I'm the Chairman of VicRovers. Our logo has not been copywrited. Can we not ehn use it as we please, such as for a template? Cheers,
Patrick McCormick VicRovers Chairman www.vicrovers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmc82 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 May 2006
There's just got to be a way we can come to a compromise here. Will you accept a link to an alternate POV site if we can find one which isn't over-commercial? Or is your stance an absolutist one? Because it seems to me you have changed the basis we were arguing on in the article's talk page. Have a think about it and let me know. I do not have any particular POV on this but my stance is that s a point of principle, common sense and (I would argue) Wiki policy, there just has to be a link of some kind there. Once we can agree on that it just becomes a problem of finding the right link, you see... Guinnog 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your message regarding 7 World Trade Center. I agree that the discussion has become hopelessly deadlocked. I also feel, as you know, very strongly that the controlled demolition POV is highly notable, that WP:EL requires a link to it, and that all the links previously submitted have been acceptable by normal Wikipedia standards. As I'm sure you can tell, the exclusion of those links has really been bothering me.
Given that you've agreed not to use your administrator powers in connection with that article, but instead to refer any problems requiring administrative action to an administrator not involved in the dispute, I have decided not to file an RfC against you. I think that this arrangement adequately resolves the problem, and that an RfC would therefore be pointless. Again, thank you for coming up with this course of action, and for your courteous message. -- Hyperbole 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for replying. (Do you normally reply on your own talk page btw? I'd probably find it easier if you could reply on mine, though I don't feel strongly about it.) It seems to me there are three threads here, which we had best unpick if we can. These are
Now, without any accusation of bad faith here, I feel that 2 and 3 seem dependent on 1. I can see that this is a sensitive issue, but I think that particualrly some of Mongo's statements show that he seems to regard the exclusion of links to alternate theories a sacred quest (or a 'mission statement' as he puts it). Wikipedia is not a memorial [21], and even if it was, I would have thought that honouring the truth would be a better way to remember the dead (am I right to say that nobody died in WTC7, btw?) than censoring the page. It looks censored to me at present, which was what brought me to the talk page in the first place.
Remembering that "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence", according to FEMA, I think weakens your argument on 1 above. If there was an established and credible cause, I would have more sympathy. I am baffled as to why the Popular Mechanics link is also seemingly deemed unacceptable, as it provides the best arguments I have seen for the official story, although without any real supporting evidence (this may of course be because the evidence was never collected and is now lost, in which case the real cause may never be known, which is strange and noteworthy in its own right).
As to 2, you seem to be changing tack. You say above that "I've never argued against the POV", but then later that "I think we need to find if this theory on WTC 7 being intentionally demolished is notable". Have you changed your mind?
I took you seriously when you said you had nothing against the POV being expressed. I spent an hour googling and the link I suggested 911 Research seemed like a decent source, in that it is reasonably well-written and cites its sources. I would certainly have no qualms in including links like this in editing Wiki.
I think then that 3 above is indefensible, especially in the light of 1 and 2. I don't agree that it is a breach of policy; it is considerably less commercial, for example, than news sources and other verifiable sources that we all use continually.
I am as keen as you to avoid mediation; maybe if you can answer the points above we can somehow move this forward. Guinnog 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow... a great improvement. Noticed it immediately when skimming the article. Good work.
-
Roy
Boy
800
20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
<taps you on shoulder> yes, I'm around ;-) Kim Bruning 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin. As a famous nominator of RfA candidates, I noticed that you noted that one should not accept an RfA at a given time unless one will be logged in regularly for those seven days. Speaking personally for myself, I don't have internet access on weekends, and I have stated this on my userpage for the whole of this year that I have certain hours of the day only when I am around. Is this a major problem? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
... nominate me for adminship?
I have read through your admin nomination standards page and feel that I measure up to the standard described therein.
I am a deletionist, but not strictly, having saved articles such as RightNow Technologies and Rake and trail from deletion. I am active in AfD, RfA and DYK. Occasionally I also scan for vandalism on recent changes using Lupin's vandal fighter, and watchlist these pages so that I can revert future vandalism. That said, I can't describe myself as a prolific vandal-fighter. My first edit was in June last year, with high activity from November on. I have been careful to warn vandals after reverting, and use edit summaries with every edit within the last 3 months. As for making articles, I've created 9 articles of which the last 6 have been on DYK.
However, I may still be looking at myself too highly, so I'd appreciate any decision you make. Thanks and regards, Kimchi. sg 09:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I tried updating the History of CGI in Film entry today (twice) and you reverted it back (twice) despite my posting to the Talk page how a verifiable source said that something was incorrect.
I'm new to Wikipedia but I thought the idea behind the site was to keep things accurate, so why were my (correct) revisions removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnbc ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2006
Hi Durin,
Just wanted to understand why did the article get deleted once i posted it just now?
Thanks, -- Kartik.jain 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering exactly where the image fails the fair use policy. The quake logo and indeed the cover has been released to the public previously. Reason I am asking is that there are many more under the Userboxes/Games section which use logos of the games they represent. Metroid, TES, Jax just to name a few so your modification seems inconsistent. Enigmatical 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the edit someone made to an article I'm working on in my sandbox [23] Tufflaw 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I do realize anyone can edit policy pages at present. I was referring (did you see me commenting on User:Talk?) to this: Wikipedia talk:Editing policy pages. Barring non-admins from editing policy is an explicit choice there. Marskell 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried entering this on Pudgenet's talk page, but he reverted it. Regarding the Pudgenet situation, please note two things about Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. The top of that project page says "Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work." In Brian D Foy's entry, I linked to [24] to show the "blatantly inappropriate paragraph" (bottom right of the page). Given purpose of that project page, I think it's a helpful addition.
I italicized project page above to emphasize that it's not a Wikipedia article and different standards for entries apply. That's the second thing. here, Rob says "...the standard of verification is different. Article space requires independent proof they really are Wikipedians. The Wikipedia space list can be based largely on the say-so of the account holder, or what looks likely." However, I'd be glad to use the talk page for that project page to present evidence that Scarpia is Brian D Foy.
Now, how do I go about reinserting the Brian D Foy entry without getting you mad at me? -Barry- 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Durin, what can be done about this? Jbolden is clearly losing it here. He is now reverting something that has nothing to do with him, nothing to do with his mediation process, and is in no remote way "wikistalking," which is "making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information," none of which I did. I don't thinkt he fact that Jbolden and I dislike each other precludes me from making perfectly reasonable comments on a talk page for an article he is mediating. Clearly, he is the one with the "vendetta" here, and his actions toward me justify an RfA more than anything I've done to either he or Barry. But I'd rather someone simply give him a nudge and some perspective. Pudge 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: I went ahead and blocked this one even though the user had stopped, based on the history. Radio Kirk talk to me 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving a message on my talkpage about why you removed that userbox. I thought that it was fine to use because of it being a userbox. Thanks for letting me know about that.
Thank you also for informing why you removed the image from my userbox. I knew the fair use policy, it just slipped my mind. -- Alexignatiou 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames username policy outlines problematic names, including "Names of religious figures such as "God" or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs", we wouldn't permit "Mohammed on wheels", so I can't see why we'd permit this. He is more than welcome to change his username to something else. FWIW I did discuss this with a couple of other admins before putting the block in place. The user hasn't emailed me or requested an unblock on his user page (nor had he editted for a gap of 6 months prior to turning up to accept an RFA nom.) -- pgk( talk) 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I decided to unblock Jesus On Wheels, and added a few suggestions for possible new user names (JOW and J.O.W.). I doubt he'll do it, though. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 17:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you got to my user page on your "removal of non-free images" sweep through the user space today. While the deletion of two of the three images didn't surprise me, the third one ( Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg) *did* surprise me, before I went and read the licensing tag on that image. It appears that most of the U.S. state seal images uploaded in the en: image space have fair use tags, while those on Commons (like Commons:Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg, for instance) have PD tags. Anyway, I have a question and a request of you:
– Swid ( talk | edits) 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's the email exchange that's taken place between the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office and I. To be honest, I don't know exactly how I should handle this; any advice you (or anyone else you know who can also provide useful advice) can offer would be greatly appreciated.
Hopefully, I haven't gotten in over my head here... – Swid ( talk | edits) 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I will look into the copyright for the images, but I will need a few days to contact the appropriate officials to receive permission to upload the pictures. TBC found this but I'm not sure whether it applies to all Montgomery County government pages (including MCPS's website) or just their own website, so I will have to sort this out. Thank you. -- M @ th wiz 20 20 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Please ask rather than editing my user page and my userboxen page. I'm more than capable of doing it myself. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
hi, I was working on something at my sandbox, User:Preschooler.at.heart/Sandbox, and you erased all the images I had. i understand your complaint, but it's a personal wiki sandbox, not a userpage. please ask before editing it. thanks. preschooler @ heart 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to the message you sent me about Image:Kickflip.gif. , fair enough, I do not have th emeans to get the correct copyright information, so the image should be deleted.
I will create my own image and sort that out somtime in the future.
thanks for clarifying this for me.
Cheers -- Peej 03:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Petros; I decided to remove User:68.226.23.44 from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because it appears the edits were a content dispute, rather than straight vandalism. I was about to leave a message on his talk page telling him that I would not block him, but that if he refused to take it to the talk page of the article that I would and that he was on the edge of violationg 3RR. I won't undo your block of course, but you might want to reconsider the circumstances. Take a look? It looks to me like a content dispute. What do you think? -- Durin 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've come to appreciate your perspective on Fair Use Images and so I have no quarrel with you anymore. I'm sorry that others haven't come to the same conclusion. -- Dragon695 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
As you may or may not know, the nonviolent pro- democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest was indefinitely extended by the Myanmar (Burma) dictatorship. So, as I was checking the page to see if it had been updated, I noticed someone has removed her biographical image. Investigation shows that it does not have a copyright tag. Can you help me determine the appropriate copyright tag based on the this copyright statement from the website it was taken from? Thanks in advance! -- Dragon695 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Durin:
I want you to know, and have said at BN, that I don't think you're attacking me in the least. What I'm trying to point out to everyone, and what I think everyone, of all opinions, is missing is that the way the matter is being addressed isn't actually addressing the problem. I think some insight into the thought patterns involved would help to clear things up.
From my understanding, based on your comments on BN, you support closing some RfA's early, in specific, those that are overwhealming failures right out of the gate (such as candidates that post an RfA with 25 contributions, or within 12 hours of registering thier accounts). I understand your comments to mean that overwhelming failures (like the ones I referenced, where there is 75% or more opposition, and a need for 80 or more additional support votes to cancel out the existing oppose votes) are within the category of those that should be closed early. Those are exactly the RfAs that I have been closing early, and that I have seen others closing early; I don't know of any RfAs that have been closed recently that didn't fit into the criteria above.
Given that I only close dismal failures early, and that there is no accepted standard for when to close, when I hear people addressing my closures, I can't help but hear thier comments as "You made the wrong decision, you screwed up." It is entirely likely that they didn't mean to say that at all (as I said above, I don't think that has been your intent at all), but because the comments address a specific case or cases, it comes across as personal criticism. And when someone criticizes you for doing what you're supposed to be doing, it hurts.
I don't think in the least that you intended to call my judgment into question, or to say that I'd screwed up in closing any of the RfAs I've closed. I think you have been trying to call for a community standard, and to raise awareness of reasons why RfAs that don't fit into the "dismal failure" category should be left open. I think the problem has arisen because your good and valid points are attached to a discussion of an individual situation, and therefore read as a criticism of that individual situation, even if they aren't. I believe that is where the confusion has arisen; you didn't intend to take issue with any individual decision, but were read that way because general comments were attached to a specific situation.
As I tried, and I think perhaps failed, to convey on BN, I encourage the development of a community standard. You have important insight to offer into the situation, and I can tell from the amount of writing you've done on the subject (your subpages, for example) that you have given the matter a lot of very careful and dedicated consideration. I want the community to hear what you have to say on the matter; I don't think any discussion of a standard would be complete without it! I noticed that a proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Early Close of Requests for Adminship, and I hope you will be heavily involved in the discussions there.
I want to apologize for giving the impression that I felt attacked by your comments, and for not having responded to them in the best way. While I haven't felt attacked by anyone on the issue (perhaps a vandal or troll somewhere along the line, but I generally ignore them), I have felt hurt, because many of the comments from both sides have addressed individual situations where I was the decision-maker, and it felt like those comments were directed at me, as though I had failed to do my job. It would have been far better for me to take advice from the relationship-counselors and interject with "When you say 'This RfA shouldn't have been closed early (because I believe no RfA should be closed early)', I hear 'You were wrong to close it early, and have been doing a bad job.'" Perhaps if I had noted that the emphasis on individual cases was personalizing the debate and causing uninteded internalization of the comments, then the discussion could have been refocused to address the bigger issue and avoid the hurt feelings caused by examining individual closures.
I don't want you to feel like there are any hard feelings on my part; there aren't. I just want everyone to realize that we're doing a difficult job the best we can, and that when others address global issues through individual cases, it feels like that individual decision is being criticized, and it is easy to feel discoraged and unappreciated. Hopefully, we all will now realize that it's far better to have a discussion of how things should be done in all cases, rather than analyzing individual closures. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding, and my assurance of no hard feelings on my part. Yours, Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin. I just wanted to drop you a message that when tagging images as CSD I5, you can just use {{ orfud}}. Your previous method was causing the images to not correctly be sorted by date. {{ orfud}} does that for you. I have already corrected the problem images. Thanks! -- PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 08:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"Chonga" is NOT a neologism, it is an ACTUAL high school stereotype that is ACTUALLY used to describe people, the same as prep, emo, jock, etc. All of those DO have articles about them and I don't see why chonga shouldn't. I didn't just make it up. Are you insane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This protected deleted page currently has some edit history that involves the deleted content. Please clear out the edit history by deleting this page and then reprotecting it with {{ deletedpage}}. 69.117.11.27 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Michael Muhammad Knight page was deleted - he is a VERY well known author in the progressive islamic movement and the author of The Taqwacores - a book with it's own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daynamarie ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 May 2006
I am unclear as to why you delete the stansberry article I am inputting. While not internationally famous, the company is still quite known and is in the top 3 independent financial newsletter and publication companies in the world. The content I am publishing is our own material and is not a violation of any copyright material sinec we are the owners of it and are the ones creating the article. I would prefer a detailed explanation and if it is possible, what needs to be changed in order to include this on wikipedia. regards.
Remove fair use violations if you want, but don't delete other users' personal copy in the process. I doubt you would appreciate similar 'creative edits' on your own user page.-- Primalchaos 17:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't resist making this small change to fix a minor grammar fault and (I thought) make it read better. My apologies if this is unwelcome. -- Tony Sidaway 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So how are you these days? Could we finally finish things up? (sounds so mysterious, doesn't ;]) Renata 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Good Afternoon,
This was our first attempt at placing content on the site. We are part of H.H. Brown, a division of Berkshire Hathaway. I noticed that you removed some content like keywords. Were these not relevant? I want to make sure that we adhere to your guidelines. My graphic designer, Kbonner, is the one authorized to upload content and edit.
My name is Steve Schappell, Marketing Manager for H.H. Brown Work and Outdoor Group.
Thank you for your time.
schappells@hhbrown.com 800-438-7026 x 234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.69.37 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2006
You need to get over yourself.... it's just an internet website. Get a life and stop patrolling my userpage juppiter talk #c 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed you had tried to get involved in the Perl issue in mid may. I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case that was filed soon thereafter. Mediation has not been succesful due to lack of cooperation. I need administrator assistance to resolve this issue (a little bit of a stick). Are you willing to help? (I'd be asking for things like page locks, 24 hour blocks...) nothing serious and not repeated. Just enough to get their attention. You can reply here I'll monitor this page jbolden1517 Talk 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, we got there attention. Next thing I need is a block on Pudgenet. You've had problems with him, he was being highly disruptive on my previous mediation, he's trying again on this one and he's now deleted stuff I explicitly told him not to delete on his talk page. Basically a short term trolling block. I want him to have to agree to terms of behavior. jbolden1517 Talk 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Right after your warning I got this one [30]. As long as this nonsense continues I can't work with the rest of the group. jbolden1517 Talk 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your comments on my talk page at your email address. Same account name at yahoo. jbolden1517 Talk 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that you're something of an authority on the legality (or otherwise) of images on wikipedia. I've noticed the following in the Fair Use Policy:
9. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (My emphasis)
My query is about Image:Sweden lesser arms2.png. The licensing section does not say that it is copyrighted but does restrict its use in commercial advertising. Can I use this on a template (specifically this one that I'm drafting)? Does it count as a "fair use image". I assumed that, by definition, only a copyrighted image can be fair use. Also, the coat of arms is on Commons (who don't accept any unfree images, even fair use copyrighted images). But I'm no expert on this. I hope you can help. Tamino 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
So I definately can't use it on a template? Can I use the Swedish flag, or is that under the same restrictions? Tamino 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you must removie my profile images without warning, please don't leave leftover tag information to clutter up my page when i try to edit it. I have no need for blank "center"/center" tags that don't serve any purpose. RatherBeBiking 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Completed_requests for the results. the wub "?!" 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for linkifying the images on my Userpage. Can you show me the syntax so that I can do that in the future? -
Mike
(talk)
23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
is there any way that the logo of the Croatian Football Federation can be include on the Template:User_Croatia_Footbal, or does it have to be another image? Can you suggest a good image to replace the old one? Ivan Kricancic 11:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind if I made an (almost) duplicate of this page User:Durin/Removal of fair use images and put it on my user page. I want to use it the same way as you do. Maybe that would help some of the fair use discussions I had recently. Garion96 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Where did you come up with the fanciful idea that state seals were being used in Wikipedia under a "fair-use" license? The license for seals is not a fair use license at all, it discusses the types of licenses seals can covered by. The state seal of New Jersey was published in the 1700s. Please do more homework before you start deleting material. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on Image:Plymouthname.png I created the image using a license free font (King Richard) and stated so in the original upload; this information was subseqently "blanked" by someone using IP 216.55.203.100 on May 15, 2006. Everything is back to normal. I'm on a wiki vacation of sorts and trying to minimize my Wikipedia contact, so emailing is always the best course of action if you wish to ask any additional questions. Again, thanks for the heads up. Stude62 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
...on reaching 10,000 edits!! Of course, it goes without saying that we both realise that it is only a milestone on our journey and not a destination!!! -- Gurubrahma 15:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"lumping me with the dishonest" I've already apologised in the talk page for implying that your 'side' in the debate was dishonest. I am happy to repeat the apology to you personally, if you feel slighted by it.
Some of the arguments used were dishonest, as in factually and verifiably incorrect and restated after the mistake had been pointed out. I've agreed to move on from reference to this previous mistake by your 'side', so long as it is not repeated; maybe you can do the same?
Of course the 'sides' are the problem. If you, and your 'side' could listen to my (never mind my "side"'s) suggestions towards improving the article, maybe we could stop thinking in terms of sides. -- Guinnog 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Barry has filed an RFAr regarding Pudgnet. I added your name since you had been involved with him before I was. jbolden1517 Talk 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The article Leon Weil to which you contributed has been merged with Léon Weil (with an acute accent on the e of Léon), which already existed. See also fr:Léon Weil and nl:Léon Weil for versions of the article in other languages. TruthbringerToronto 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The article Strategic Policy Consulting was recently deleted along with its associated redirects. This article is referred to in the frequently vandalised article about Alireza Jafarzadeh. Strategic Policy Consulting is also relevant to a current event, the Iran and weapons of mass destruction issue. The company and its Principal provide advice that could well change the course of history in the near future. With this in mind I would like to suggest the article be re-created so that it can be expanded and linked appropriately. -- Dave 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the sharp teeth page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugaltheboy ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Durin, I copied the Crazy Frog template source information from the article that it was put on as a standard for all templates and put it on my user page and modified it a bit to make the template look better (not the picture, the text info). If you get rid of a template picture, wouldn't that mean that ALL copyrighted template pictures would be copyright violations and thus be inappropiate for userpages? Enlighten me on this subject please, I'm quite new to Wikipedia. -- Death motor 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
What do I need to do to get a Booncach page re-created without it being deleted again and without a block being put on my account? Booncach is a real word, its text definition is "broken surfboard", and it has a real web site dedicated to its further spread into mainstream. This isn’t just a word, it's a revolution. Booncach is such a universal term/word, it can literally be used to describe anything that has been broken and can also be used to heighten how severely something is broken. It's most commonly used in a sentence as an adjective but on rare occasions can be used as an adverb defining something that has been completely broken; in the adverb sense the word booncachly would be used to describe how much something is broken—this would only be used for severe cases of booncaching (notice that it can not be used as to describe something that is defective; only those tangible things that are completely irreparable of which the origin of the booncaching is either of human or natural cause). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absworan ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin,
I understand that this is your encyclopedia to administrate, but here are a few points of confusion. He was not a 'self-proclaimed' sex expert as you called it. He has since graduated from High School and has gone on to College majoring in Sex Studies. As for the matter of Google Hits, this is the first official talk about the subject, thusly it is still relatively unknown and deleting the article would only continue to keep the matter underground. Both Mr. McCoy and myself are not out to make money, we are here for the purpose of education. Wikipedia is a free tool and we thought it to be the best median to get the word out concerning the One Thrust Theory. As I previously stated, this is your encyclopedia to administrate so by all means, feel free to delete the article, but know, that it is not a load of "patent nonsense" and should be carefully considered before deletion. If some of the subject matter is a little confusing or hard to believe, notify me, and I will edited my article.
Thank you, Swboarder55 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's kind of you to inform me of this. I will keep up my editing, and I will re-apply some other time. I will remove my name from the list and remove that detail from my page. THANX again Durin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fame ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin, It's me, Fame (Wikipedia Member) again. My article was deleted, and so I am asking you, as an Administrator, to delete another article if mine has to go. Why should mine have to be deleted if others can stay? Wikipedia is treating me horribly, and if I don't have this person's page deleted, I will boycott Wikipedia, and so will my friends. I have over 1,000 contacts online, on the phone, at work, at college, and in my life. Over half of those people use Wikipedia, and they all know over 100 that also use it. SO, please delete the following page:
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am on IRC now. Pudge 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Durin. Thanks for all the work that you do with the fair use images again; we need more like you! I saw two items on my watchlist get the Durin-treatment today, which was particularly odd because I had removed fair use images from those very templates earlier (several months before). Other users had added back the seals against policy. My question is this: what do you think the solution to this issue is? Should there be a comment in the text of the template? Perhaps a more sweeping change to the edit reminders underneath the editting box? Of course, then there's the fact that we can't be sure that anonymous editors will pay any attention to what's written there. Thoughts? — Scm83x hook 'em 14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about the adminship... I'll wait til I get much more edits. Thanks again! -- Dom th e dude 0 0 1 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was not aware of " Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals" at the time; and would just like you to know that I wholly support you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I copied a large portion of your essay regarding the removal of fair use images to Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images and tagged it as an {{ essay}}. It's very well-written and comprehensive and I wanted to reference it in a new template I made ({{ fuir}}) to assist those removing fair use images from user pages. Your input on the template and the new (or rather modified) essay would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin,
Thank you for bringing the copyright issue to my attention on Template:Columbia. I did not realize that using an image which is fair-use on the main Columbia University page was not allowed on the template. How should I go about in adding some kind of Columbia-related image to that template?
Also, thank you for the detailed page explaining your actions on User:Durin/Removal of fair use images.
Matanariel 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin,
I have been removing excessive fair use images as necessary from articles pertaining to fictional characters from series of video games, such as List of characters from King of Fighters (the imagery in question can be found from the links provided within) due to lack of critical commentary and where they've served a decorative purpose. The appearance of a character is often illustrated by several images, more than what's usually needed for identification, though, my actions have been questioned by editors watching these pages and I thought it best to enquire if I am right in my judgement, or if I could perhaps forward these articles for someone else to review.
Any advice as to how I should proceed? Thanks! Vic Vipr T C 11:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
do you like lord of the rings?cause durin is the name of the dwarf and everything. Typoqueen 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Chongas are a real subculture. Look on MySpace. Don't be ignorant and say they aren't real when you haven't looked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think we have. Look on urbandictionary.com and see how many similar entries there are for chonga. Plus, ones that are REAL have many thumbs-up or thumbs-down ratings, while fake ones have few to none. JUST LOOK THERE. Tamajared 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Durin. I hope you will understand that I am a member of the State Governance of the Constitution Party, as well as a dues-paying member of the National Rifle Association. In my current capacity within both of these organizations, I am entitled to use their images for non-profit purposes such as this. I would appreciate it if you would not remove the images any further without consulting me about it. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C3H5N3O92010 ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 June 2006
Why did my disscussion page get blocked? all i did was say ok im sorry for not knowing about the fair use thing and i didn't change any thing.... thats not totally fair.... can you unblock it? i let you guys remove the pictures and didn't complain any.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konob16 ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 June 2006
like i put on my disscusion i am sorry and i didn't know -- Konob 12:56, 19 June 2006 (EST)
Would you do me a favour? Could you take a look at User_talk:Pd_THOR#Please_explain_edit and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image:Jus.jpg&action=history and tell me whether I'm interpreting policy correctly in this instance? I'd appreciate somebody being behind me should I be in the right and this continues. Thanks! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This article that I made was deleted for Advertising. Yet, in it, I made sure I did not add my own comments, and only included the details, and track listing.
Why was this deleted, yet their album information for "Hours" and "Casually Dressed" stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatesl ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello - just wondering why you deleted crests of my college and county from my userpage. Skimmed through fair use guidelines and couldn't see the problem - so wanted to ask what it was. Best, Uncantabrigian 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I imagine we'll come back to this after MONGO's RfC [31] is sorted out. I'm rather surprised you haven't participated there; I have always thought of you as a force of moderation in these discussions, even if you have adopted some knee-jerk positions (no doubt through boredom and serial irritation from long defending these pages from nonsense). Frankly, as you can imagine, it's irritated me no end to be lumped with the conspiracy theorists and controlled-demolition adherents, for trying to get a modest mention of a poll into the article. I apologise once again for my intemperate tone in some of our discussions.
Nevertheless, I think it might benefit everybody, and the progress of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be writing, if you were able to bring a voice of reason to the debate, especially as I've mentioned my encounter with MONGO (and yourself) on the WTC 7 talk page. On a wider issue, I've also mentioned the possibility of a review of if/should 9/11 related articles have special status in the project, and I thought you might have a view on that. I think the present system is onerous both on you, the admins who watch them, and also on folks like me, honest well-meaning people who want to edit the encyclopedia, with proper regard to our policies. What do you think? -- Guinnog 00:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that I hadn't realized that. I just thought it had screwed up, Please forgive my ignorance. -- MJHankel 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you did a minor edit to the article Wales (horse). This is a fake article and should be delted. As I do not know what procedure to follow, I thought you might help. Thank you. Handicapper 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry then, my mistake. If only images were always tagged correctly! - newkai | talk | contribs 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin,
You removed the image Image:Mssu.jpg from the Template:User MSSU, under the presumption that it violated the Fair Use Image question. I designed the image using part of the school logo, but not all of it. Here is a link to the original image:
Does this still violate the Fair Use, as opposed to self creation? Rather, did the image still count as a logo versus an original creation. Thanks RebelAt 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Durin. Thanks for the heads-up on the fair use images. Regards, Bryn C ( t/ c) 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote, even in opposition. I do admit having minor bouts of incivility. However, I do feel that the situation is defensible. The post you cited was made in the heat of the moment during the highway move war debate I discussed in my answers to the questions. It was made in direct response to SPUI's refusal to answer a question I made in debate.
As I said, SPUI and I have set aside our differences, and as a rule, I try to avoid incivility at all costs. -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is a guide or equivalent of some sort that explains how critical commentary works for the uninformed? Cheers o/ s/ p 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I would've appreciated a brief note on my talk page telling me what you did. Thanks. — Natha n ( talk) / 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll try to be more careful. -- Usgnus 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, we 'Bees have a pretty good handle on the language. Though, apparently, not as good a handle on the bright, shiny red don't touch this heading on some pages. Or the bright, shiny red copyright on some images. Maybe it's a green-red thing. In any event, glad you were able to see my appreciation despite my successful (I think?) efforts to remove my alterations to an archive. SO much to learn, and so little time... DukeEgr93 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Minor quibble: As per Policy, image:WelcometoDurin.gif should ideally be in png format (if not svg). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, you removed nearly all content of Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems with the explanation Removing fair use image(s) per terms of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9 (please see User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for further explanation). Since I can't see how Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy #9 should apply to an article in the main namespace, I reverted your edit. Could you please explain the exact reason why you removed the images? -- jergen 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin,
I'm writing to let you know that I just edited the Perl article, and I added a new topic to the Talk:Perl discussion page. I saw your name in the discussion of a recent moderation event for the Perl Wikipedians.
Angela Beesley has setup The Perl Wiki in Wikia for me, and I believe that this will help relieve some of the pressures that people have been experiencing with putting Perl related articles into Wikipedia.
Just wanted to let you know what I'm doing for the global Perl community.
Eric R. Meyers
-- Ermeyers 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
This barnstar is awarded to Durin for his raising of the bar on RfA nomination statements to another level. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
See User:Blnguyen/RfA for evidence of this flattery. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Before you say anything else, please look up chonga at urbandictionary.com. It deserves a page just as much as emo, prep, etc. Tamajared 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I DEMAND THAT CHONGA BE ADDED TO WIKIPEDIA! I WILL NOT REST UNTIL IT IS UNDELETED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Re this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:ATWT_history&oldid=64546975
Why did you have to do that? I mean, seriously, if you want to follow every single rule to the tee then it *probably* shouldn't be there. But can you once in your life think for yourself? No? *sigh* alright then, I'm not going to revert it like you want me to. I think it's time for Atlas to shrug. If you guys want to remove every image on this encyclopedia, it's time for us to start letting you have your way. Because every time we protest, it just contributes to your already over-inflated ego. juppiter talk #c 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin-- This is 3rdman...
Please don't talk to me the way you did in your message to me... I realized the Socialist "Red Rose" was changed, but I had no idea you removed it in the first place! I'm a fairly new user here, and I've noticed the Administrators here get really snippy really quickly if a user unintentionally violates section THIS, subsection THAT...
Give me a break OK? I don't have a chance to nerd it up by reading EVERY Wikipedia rule and article for conduct and "fair use" OK? Fortunately I have a LIFE outside of Wikipedia, and I'm too busy living it...
And if you think I had ANY intention of breaking the rules, or using the Socialist Emblem-- an emblem I personally regard most highly in my set of beliefs, in a way that would violate the "fair use" clause; YOU are the one with the problem- not me. So go back catch some naughty rule-breakers, OK thought-policeman? And stop making ridiculous assertions in my talk. -- 3rdman 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The images are not exact replicas, the smaller one is not a resize.
Please in future do not vandalise userboxes/images unless you care to do some research, and in future do not change somebodys license. It is not your right to change the creators license. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Would this image be okay to use in {{ Politics of Canada}}: Image:Canada_coa.png? -- Usgnus 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair Enough...but I think Wikipedia should look into changing this polcy. I mean, honestly, are the copyright police going to come after you for a Template?...there should be some discretion
It's sad too, because the templates look so much better with the logos.
Regardless, if your going to nail La Salle University then please fix Duke University's Template too
66.30.130.133 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea but that chapel logo is a LOGO...it's just marked as a GFDL. So since they labeled it wrong, thats OK. No way, it's clearly in violation. Lasallefan 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin, please see the discussion I started at the pump in response to your actions here. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You removed the picture of the OS X Dashboard on my user page. But that was a screenshot taken on my computer, so why cant i use it on my user page? Alegoo92 -July 18 2006
There is no image in the {{Infobox rail}} template; the image is a parameter to it. I can understand removing the image from the samples, but your removal of the explanation implies a claim that the images can't be used in the article either. Mangoe 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I need some support; if there's a consensus (or a qualified legal opinion) that this is unacceptable, I'm for checking all Category:Logos and replacing SVG images with PNG ones. Conscious 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How is having a logo like on Conrail a problem? -- SPUI ( T - C) 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Dude I GET THE POINT...I'm going to fix them up. Stop being such a jerk/nazi. Why are you doing all this to me? Jeez... Lasallefan 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me that the ESA Logo image is currently orphaned. To fix the problem, I have choosed the other image page. As it is used in other articles on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logo_ESA.png {{ user ESA}} -- Narold 13:31, 26 July 2006 (GMT)
Hi there, I made changes on the image I used for {{ user UWM}} template. It is a selfmade image. Please be careful when you delete my photo. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipedia ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 July 2006
Someone apparently created Wyandotte Caves as a copywrite violation. I began writing an article to take its place at Wyandotte Caves/Temp. I then discovered Wyandotte Cave. As you seem to be interested in the presence of an article on Wyandotte, I was wondering if you could take a look at those pages and the discussion I started as to what to do about them. Right now I'm thinking merge them at Wyandotte Caves is the ultimate solution. However, I would love additional input. Thanks ONUnicorn 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
When you decide to remove images from template etc at least have the decency to do it right! (see [34])
Notice how image tags are left there?, please use the preview button in future (it is next to the save button, the save button is under the big white box - The white box is in the middile ;-)) {Alternitivly Alt+P to preview (and S to save))
Thank you, PS: I have corrected your error. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CityofBloomingtonSeal.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, When you closed the RfA you wrote that it did not succeed but failed to attach his intention to withdraw his nomination. i think it is important to maintain that information somewhere on the page. i have been bold and added it back. Please remove if not appropriate. Thanks David D. (Talk) 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to contact you, I'm currently trying to get my article edits up to 1000, and then I owuld be happy enough. Apart from that is there anything else you could comment on? -- Wisd e n17 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Lasallefan vandalised my userpage by posting a comment straight on my userpage instead of in the talk pages. He has been harassing me and reverting my legitimate edits. Is there anything you can do to send a message that his shenanigans aren't longer tolerated?
Fair enough but would it have taken so much more effort to maintain a little courtesy and actually request i remove them myself? I dont (and im sure most users feel the same) appreciate having some random chap fiddling with my user page regardless of how valid a reason they have. In future i advise you inform people of the fact that they should remove pictures from their page and why rather than, antagonistically, doing so yourself. siarach 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue that your position of removing them was incorrect, although I think it is on thin ice. The problem is you did not show any courtesy in informing me in advance so I could review the matter and find an alternative image. What you did maybe was slightly legally protective (even though I'm confident the Louisville government wouldn't have ever sued over this), but what you did was very anti-community. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, it seems the subject of the article has intervened at length in the AfD discussion. I am not sure just how permissible this is, or if the huge speeches he's inserterd are regarded disruptive, but I guess somebody with the powers ought to look into it. --Svartalf 08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)]]
...for redirecting my navigation templates. I didn't know I was wrong. Best regards from Argentina, Luis María Benítez 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durin. As one of the editors who (I blush to admit it!) had an unfree image in a user box on her user page removed by you (can't give a diff, because I deleted the whole page some time later, to get rid of some personal information, and started again from scratch), I want to say I fully support what you're doing, and I'm glad that you noticed my copyright violation, even if I didn't. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
On 7-31 you removed this fair use image from the Christian Democracy template ( see diff). The criteria for fair use is "for identification and critical commentary on (1) the poster itself or (2) the political movement it represents". This template fits the second category; the image being old political posters that identify, represent, and provide basis for commentary on said political movement. Therefore, it should be perfectly legal to use the image for said fair use. If you don't respond in a few days, I'll assume you agree. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you changed the copyright tag on the image IMP_symb.svg from PD-self to logo. While it is indeed a logo, it is not fair use but public domain as it is an Israel Defense Forces corps symbol. However, using the website version of the Hamatzon may still require fair use restrictions because the depiction of the symbol (which is really a pin) was created by whoever built the military website. I have seen a multitude of images which were obvious derivatives of 'fair use' images tagged as PD-self. Maybe this is an incorrect image tag. However, I cannot find any template, other than {{ Military-Insignia}} (which refers only to rank insignia), or {{ PD-USGov-Military-Army}} (which refers only to the US army), which describes the copyright status of the image in question (AFAIK, PD-self would be appropriate under Wikipedia policy for this). If you disagree, please change the tag to reflect the image's true copyright status, because it is definitely PD and not fair use. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't take a bit of comedy?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As you said, I should obviously avoid user:pacdude. However, he just won't leave me alone. He constantly stalks the stuff I'm trying to do, claims I'm promoting myself, and continues to make attacks. Lokk at all this on this page for example [35]. The guy hasn't even been anywhere near the town, and knows nothing of it! (can you fix all the swearing, etc, and just put it back to its main page?) He doesn't try to help...only edits and get ballistic. He's angry over leaving WEXP is the truth of the matter. Anyway, can you do something, or give me some advice? Thanks Lasallefan 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I probably should have said something earlier, but edit summaries like Closing out properly are a very grating way to correct someone. If you feel I haven't done something right, just point it out to me. I just happen to think things like that aren't that important to building an encyclopedia so I skip it if I see them instead of taking time to correct it. That edit summary basically says I've done it improperly and I don't know what I'm doing. Now maybe that's your intent, but I'm going to assume you're not meaning to be rude. I'm bringing it up because I see a lot of similar edit summaries from you and I imagine other people find it similarly impolite. - Taxman Talk 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You need to read here i am the creator of the file as in Author i specify this, i specify the show also. I will always try not to walk a fine line and cram as much information my hands can type into the summary box as i like to be safe and specify everything i can. Plus it also allows users to contact me should they have any queries with regards to the images :) Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: Sorry, edited your userpage not your talk. Apoligies. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, Dionlogo.jpg was in fact being used on my user page; in case this does not count, it now appears in the Stéphane Dion article. Thanks. Escheffel 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a speedy tag. If you are an admin, feel free to delete it. -- iMeowbot~ Meow 10:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me be paranoid over this and do not accept congratulations... There are 1000 and 1 way that a RfA can go bust during the last hours of nomination. There dozens of idioms in my native language that says don't celebrate too early and I agree. But thank you for your support (and for not nominating me earlier, it really helped me grow). Renata 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you know that Coat of Arms is not just an image, it is a symbol of special significance. Given that there are other alternatives, I am puzzled why you chose to remove it. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I hope the PD image that I restored is satisfactory for all. Cheers. ← Humus sapiens ну? 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for using the image MeganeRS.jpg on my userbox, in fact I uploaded it but I didn't remember that I marked it with a fair use in tag. Now, I wanna ask you if those tags can be changed :) Fluence 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing those images from my user page. I didn't realize that was a problem. Ubuntu Dude
Okay, I misunderstood the policy, since I assumed if you have called the image FAIR USE and are using it on the article, it could be used in other places. However, I will contact the university and find out wherther the first image that I called GDFL, is copyrighted in law. I suspect it is a FAIR USE image and can be used elsewhere. Before you arbitrarily changed it from gdfl to FAIR USE, who did you consult, what was your source to say that shape, is copyrighted? -- Mikerussell 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You stated the object used in the userbox was- "Since the University of Windsor retains rights to the image, the use of it here on Wikipedia is under terms of fair use." Are you talking about the shape iteself? There needs to be some source for changing an image from GDFL to FAIR USE. There is nothing on the University's website itself, and that image is commonly displayed in Windsor itself, unrelated to the University, although it is incorporated into the logo.-- Mikerussell 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin, if you have a little time, I'd appreciate you looking at this page and giving me your opinion. No rush, though if you can reply by the 17th that would be nicely symbolic. If you can't, no worries as well. -- nae' blis 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of joint nominations? JoshuaZ 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:B&W-MuhammadToHeraclius.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. 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I read what you wrote about all these mirrors hosting wikpedia, and saw how the copyright image problem could get dicey, so I would ask you to delete the University of Windsor image from the userbox and also delete the Allan Bloom article image, for both of these images I emailed the copyright holder and got no response, negative or positive, but I think i didn't really relaize how many other sites take wikipedia. I don't feel right about assuming no permission to not use the image from the copyright holder is tacit approval. Since you are an admin, I hope you delete the photo from the database quickly. -- Mikerussell 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[36] What's a guy to do when he keeps ignoring moderators? Pacdude 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin. I recently archived my talk page and came across the help you gave me during my first RfA (I've had two and both failed), in which you searched the list of registered users for any that possibily matched the ideas I had of what my previous account name could be. While this was unsuccessful, I decided that it was only right that I awarded you this:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For the extra mile you went to try to help me find that elusive username. You deserve this very much! Wikiwoohoo 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you once again for your help then. Shame I couldn't remember the account. All the best, Wikiwoohoo 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
it's a bit late isn't it!!! that 'saga' about the pictures took place many seasons ago. please avert your attempts to prolong the situae.-- Paaerduag 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
after reading User:Durin/Removal of fair use images im under the impression that using this image on the indivual pages and not in the template is acceptable? -- Dan027 10:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you just clear up swearing, personal refeneces here: [37] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.62.60 ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr Durin, I wonder if you could advise me on a course of action to take in the wake of your recent actions - what kind of image can I use on these templates? I first used the royal arms, and was denied, so I designed and created this logo myself, specifically for this use - if I cannot use this image, could you perhaps suggest an image, or 'class' of these, which I could? Yours, etc -- D B D 12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin wrote:
Ah, yes, so I did. (Doh!) Somehow I was out by a factor of 10, so it's only at 10%, rather than 100%, now that I'm back. Must have missed a zero off somewhere. The intended date was in fact today, 14 August 2006... of course it didn't quite work :). I was trying to think of something something interesting to leave on my userpage and I realised I could do this... should have double-checked the numbers, but never mind. At least the progress bar seems to be drawing properly, I might have use for one of those elsewhere.
Anyway, I'd better go find out what I've missed – Gurch 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a current Afd ( here) on this article, which appears to be a recreation of an article you speedied in January ( here)? Do you have access to the content of that first article, and would you be willing to take a quick look and provide some input to the current discussion? It seems a fairly obvious case of puffery by a non-notable entity in violation WP:CORP/vanity, etc., but the antics of one of the involved parties ( User:Miro.gal) and the overzealous nominator have made this a bit of a muddle. As best as I can tell, the article's creator ( User:Ceowebmaster) and/or the anon contributor 68.224.128.98 [38] are the user Maj_IIM [39] you dealt with at that time (while Miro.gal is almost certainly closely associated as well). Thanks - David Oberst 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As I noted in the article before it was deleted, IIM spun off from a MTA group, which operates in the Middle East, so I am not surprised that there is a Cyprus outfit, as well as one working in Lebanon.
I read Nickeee's comment about me on the AfD. What is wrong with asking an inclusionist to look at an article? How does that make me a meat puppet? If you will check my edits, you will see that I have made many and I hope you will find them constructive; I don't know Miro.gal and no association 9or real interest) in the Institute and hardly qualify as an account created to vote on an AfD. By the way, there were three links, not one from the EU site.
Personally, I feel like the tone of some of the delete votes was of a bullying nature; rather than improve an article and shorten it to the length its topic deserves, there are long debates, sometimes hostile, rather than constructive. This is why I sometimes find wiki frustrating: a number of people with a lot of time to devote to a lot more heat than light. My questions in looking in the article were what was verifiable that would be a resource to someone who sees the institute and comes to Wikipedia for a neutral opinion, rather than having to search around on the web individually for several hours. What was the harm in keeping an article, if it was made objective? I'm curious as to the deletion; other cases I have seen an article kept as "no consensus?"-- Beth Wellington 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful discourse on the closure of this AfD. Just to keep you in the loop, the editor Miro.gal opened a case at Mediation Cabal regarding the deletion. I closed the case and informed them that deletion review would be more appropriate for the result they are pursuing. So, you may expect this to appear at WP:DRV. Thanks, -- Aguerriero ( talk) 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to say how impressed I was was by your detailed closing statement on the IIM AfD. This is the sort of work that really makes me enthusiastic about Wikipedia. Thanks for putting in the time and effort; it is very much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As the image currently illustrates an article on the front page, please do not delete it until the DYKes are revolved, OK? Secondly, I have only one question regarding the information left on my talk page - and why is that?
Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. The user who has been directly involved in securing the permission has (AFAIK) sent the email to permissions(at)wikipedia.org - if this was against WP policies, why wouldn't he receive a negative answer?
Durin, please accept my full and remorseful apology for what has become of this issue. You have now pointed out towards a significant difference in perception of it due to one small fact I was not aware of - that the images were tagged for speedy deletion. I am convinced they were on my watchlist, so I believe either they were tagged for deletion in a very short time before they got deleted (I was online at that time and I was checking my watchlist every now and then, where "now and then" stands for "like every 15 minutes") OR somebody embedded the speedy deletion category tag into the template, which I was not aware of. Either way, for me it seemed that I am bein a terrible goodie-goodie, asking for permission (actually asking another Dutch-speaking user to ask for permission, he wasn't informed of the whole kerfuffle yet, I have to explain it to him), doing everything as said in the "asking for permission" page, describing everything in the image summary, and this all was done because I have been told by the people updating the DYK page that it would be good to have images with nominations.
So, I was thinking I am going the extra mile to ensure everything is OK while everybody around do outright copyright breaches, and you were thinking you are going the extra mile to explain to the offender who sees the deletion notice and does nothing about that.
Again, I would like to offer my full and sincere apology for what happened and my reaction, which was caused by this misunderstanding.
As concerns WP policies etc., I've had a talk with Interiot on that too, and I believe this needs to be discussed in more detail, as this does not actually work for the benefit of Wikipedia. Interiot pointed out towards talk pages where the issue could be raised to gain further attention. I need some time to formulate my conclusions, but I will make sure you are notified of that.
One thing that makes Admins' work hard and unrewarding is that you are, for the most part, very intelligent people. You seem to assume that there are equally intelligent people on the other end of the line, which is not always the case (like now). I studied business - this can probably give you enough insight into my limited intellectual capacities. Interiot has a way with people with limited intellectual capacities like myself and is able to explain the issues to us so that we understand. You have probably done everything to explain that to a fairly intelligent person and it must have been annoying for you to find out I am not satisified with or even thankful for that. For me, it was fending me off with some legal stuff I don't understand :D (I'm talking Wikipedia "legal system" here, not the copyright law thing, this is more or less understandable for me!)
So, again, please do accept the apology of the intelectually-challenged :D
Bravada, talk - 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. I would also like to warn you of my rudimentary English knowledge - English is not my native language and I do not always understand what other people say to me the way they intended it, and I also sometimes say something that sounds different to a native speaker's ear than I thought it will.
Hi Durin, thanks for advising me on the policy on images. (I feel honoured just to have you on my talk page, and now feel entitled to use the phrase Durin's beard even in casual parlance). Take care -- Samir धर्म 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As with Interiot, I have a problem with finding a "Barnstar for a Great Admin", so let me present you with this remotely-related PSI Award - do exchange it for the Barnstar that would be appropriate, I have little experience with them, but I intend to give you one that is awarded for Great Admin Service!
I must say it was really impressive for me to read your unfalteringly courteous replies even when I was expecting some angry words. Bravada, talk - 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
<grin> Which wiki is that? I'm on at least 4 en.wikis; but I assume you were referring to en.wp.
I created this template to address a specific circumstance which developed in April. The images and license were discussed on Foundation-l. Where en.wp wants to go with this is up to the community. But thanks for the head's up about it! I really appreciate it. - Amgine 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I have asked you a question on the Ford Vedette talk page. Could you check that out in your spare time? Thanks! Bravada, talk - 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the specific circumstance was the arrangement with National Geographic to display the Gospel of Jude low-res images for 90 days from 06 April 2006—an arrangement which is now legally expired—to conclude on the end of their lease of the copyright from the original photographer. During this time it was hoped we could make arrangement with the original photographer to permanently display the images following the exclusive lease by National Geographic. I can only assume that this has not in fact yet been arranged, and so the images should be deleted. - Amgine 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You've been doing a lot of reverting to this template. Perhaps you could ask someone else to keep an eye on it too; you're the only one and you're beginning to make decisions that aren't perfectly simple and clear to everyone involved. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you regarding the copyright status; I'm asking you to voluntarily call in a second opinion or second copyright-educated user. I'm sure you'll let me know if you have any comments :) BigNate37 (T) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question, then, about copyrighting generally. What if I got a tattoo of the Triforce on my body? Am I breaking copyright law? I know of many people who've done this. They are representing themselves via the logo on their bodies. Why can't we represent ourselves via the logo in Userspace? I understand that fair use images are generally not permitted in Userspace by Wikipedia rule. But using it in Userspace to represent myself, or any other person, would not in any way claim that the icon is theirs! One doesn't imply that they have creative rights or ownership simply by using it... it doesn't make sense. Isn't there some way to credit Nintendo on the Image page and let it lie?
And I also have a point to make. My three-triangle arrangement that you reverted is NOT a Triforce. The Triforce has each golden triangle touching at the vertices at which they meet. My grouping of images leaves blackspace between the three triangles. The Triforce is never depicted this way when considered whole, and furthermore when used as an official icon. Thus, my arrangement should not break copyright. It does not use fair use images, and I would openly expect rebuttal if I had merely altered a pixel or something minute along these lines, but my version is distinctly different, especially given the natural simplicity of the icon itself—the spacing stands out all the more for that reason. It's like the pseudo-word "fcuk." It's not a real curse word, in fact it's distinctly different, but people understand what it's referencing. If you think the spacing isn't that noticable — it was at least on a few computers I checked — it could be increased to further distinguish the differences. Check again if you wish. -- Tryforceful 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I made an entry here and realized it did not belong, and I wanted to know if there was a way to clean up my own past actions in the smoothest way, not creating unnecessary pages, or who to refer to for assistance if I make an error and don’t know how to remove it. Kisida 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to bother you with copyright issues once again - User:BabyNuke has emailed Mr. Stedehouder again asking him if he would license the photos under Creative Commons 2.5 (BY), providing the link to the license text in Dutch. He answered something like "OK" (see BabyNuke's talk page for details), but I am not sure whether this is enough for us to upload the photos using the CC tag. Would you be so kind and tell us whether it would suffice or do we need something more from Mr. Stedehouder? Thanks, Bravada, talk - 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I put a speedy tag here: TourettesGuy.com. Sandy 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The coats of arms in questions are all creations of a user. He in good faith tagged them with what seemed like the right tag but is simply the wrong one. As they are creations of his he could retag them to PD-user and fix the problem in one go. Removing them is patently nuts as given that he is the copyright owner of those images he is hardly likely to sue if they remain in situ as fair use until he fixes his own tagging. Next time before ripping up templates try reading the file and contacting the owner of the image first. That way problems can be solved quickly without time having to be wasted undoing damage done to templates and the pages they sit on, where often images on the pages are linked to the size of a template and can be thrown all over the place if a big chunk of a template is unnecessarily deleted. All your actions result in as a messed up template, messed up pages, pages needing fixing, then the user fixing the tag and reinserting the image, then checking all the pages to see if things need adjusting. If you had checked with him first all that would have been needed was one quick fix on the image page. Next time please check first.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin, I didn't realize what a hornets' nest I was kicking when I placed the RoyGrec.png in the template for the Glucksburgs. I then read your postings and the discussion and I corresponded with M. Bunel, the author of the image and he has consented to the use of his Greek Royal Coats of Arms on www.wikipedia.org, so long as he is noted as the author and a link to his website is included. I have made the proper (I hope) representations and this image should now be able to be displayed. Argos'Dad 05:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Scrumshus, you violated the fair use policy again by inserting Image:Apple Safari.png into User:Scrumshus/Random project [46]. I removed it from the page [47]. I know you know these issues now, let's just be a tad bit more careful, ok? :) All the best, -- Durin 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin, the Matthew Keller images Image:Satterlee.jpg, Image:Merritt.jpg, Image:Hosmer_Hall.jpg, and Image:Crane_Banner.jpg have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike v. 2.5. Let me know if I have done everything correctly. I also created the template for the NonCommercial page. Have I done everything okay? -- Jondude11 00:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've replied to your very polite digression on coats of arms! Apologies, and thanks for the guidance. Budgiekiller 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think coats of arms in country templates for use in country article is a problem as they are clearly national symbols and are not being used in a problematic way. If you want to see a place where the use of CoAs is problematic, take a look at politcs info boxes, which appear in all politics of.... articles and their daughers. All of these should be replaces with flags or removed all together.-- Peta 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong in law. If you had a law degree you would know why. As to your ludicrous assertion that policy has not been changing all the time, you have been here a total of one year. People who have been here for longer have seen policy do u-turns over and over. I counted 9 u-turns in one 15 month period. We have allowed, then disallowed crown copyright, changed our interpretation of fair use over and over, adapted the procedure for downloading images over and over (and then had bots scurrying around accusing users of not fulfilling download requirements that have changed since something was downloaded. Users have quit in disgust at being accused in the wrong both bots and users of having broken a rule that didn't exist when they downloaded something. One user came back from two weeks holidays to find 11 bot messages accusing him of improper downloads, and with a series of attacks on him from one unxious little moran accusing him of breaking the law. The guy he was attacking is a retired very senior American judge who knows more about copyright law (because that was his speciality) than the little prick screaming abuse at him could ever know. Like so many other users that user too just quit WP in disgust.). So stop being so pompous and arrogant, Durin. Like most of the photo-brigade you don't know your law. You don't know that the rules here keep changing all the time. Amateurs with no knowledge of the law only make the situation worse, and seriously piss of credible users like Peta and others who were contributing to this encyclopaedia long before you ever heard of it.
You are right. I have been unfair. My apologies. I am sitting here on an awful internet link, with a very bad cold and the result is that I am in a very grouchy mood. I'm afraid some of your colleagues in dealing with images have seriously pissed me and others off, whether with blanket deletions without warnings, and abusive messages accusing me and others of trying to get WP into legal trouble, etc. A number of my colleagues have been driven off WP by their experience, one of them, as I mentioned a very respected judge (I was one of only a handful of people to know who he actually was. Lets just say most people would instantly recognise his name.) who was left very hurt by vicious criticism. I do apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. (I would have sent this earlier but my modem had to be switched off while the company that supplied it were trying to boost the signal strength.) Do please remember however that a lot of people have been seriously offended by their treatment at the hands of some of those dealing with images. A lot of those working with images are amateurish and have no grasp of the law, and also a pretty poor grasp of WP rules. Again, my apologies.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I would however suggest extreme care in how the issue is handled in other templates, if its usage in them is thought problematic. I have worked on a lot of the country pages and users on them can be stubborn as hell about what is in the template. Any unilateral deletions would be meant with instant reversions on those pages, I strongly suspect. I remember the nightmare of trying to diffuse edit wars that covered only 30 pages on royalty over whether to use styles (His Majesty, Her Excellency, etc). There are probably in excess of 200 templates using coats of arms and unless handled very very delicately the result could be edit wars on 200+ pages, with those deleting the coats of arms in a tiny minority. I think in that instance, the best approach is to establish the facts first and only when certain, if necessary remove coats of arms. I don't think the removers would stand a hope in hell, for example, of removing the coat of arms from the British page. At least 100 users would get themselves into edit conflicts putting it straight back again. Irish users, French users et al would queue to do the same.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Another user originally uploaded the file with a bad naming format; my only contribution was to manually rename the file and reupload it once it was already on WP. I can't provide any further source information beyond what's already on the image's infopage. Bearcat 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that (although I "have been unsigned" some times and never got offended). However, I prefer being conservative: the user may have posted another reply that got cut because of any kind of problem, and finding himself on the following day with a unsigned comment by himself will make him realize something went wrong. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You have summoned me back from my slumber of... ooh, well over a year.
First off, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I can't tell you definitively what the status of these images is. I asked the gentleman who runs the site which is linked from the image description page of all of the arms for permission to use with attribution, and he gave it. Obviously this isn't enough to be Free in the full sense of the word. I think you or I need to contact him again and ask for further permission; I suspect you have a better idea about what to ask than I do, and it's long enough now that he probably won't even remember me.
As I said, I'm no lawyer, but the copyright status of coats of arms is a difficult matter. Under Floridian law, no doubt it is similar to the status of any other image or logo, and perhaps that's all that matters here. Under English law and especially under Scottish law, however, they have special protection. The English law is pretty much a dead letter-- the Scottish law is a much more active beast, and Lord Lyon can order you to dash forth your images or even fine you-- and that's why I was only willing to upload images of the arms of English towns and counties.
I'm not even sure that redrawing the arms ourselves would solve the problem. Wikipedia has had trouble over the last few months with Image:Episcopal Church USA Shield.png, the arms of the Episcopal Church in the USA. This is presumably not armory recognised by either the English or the Scottish heraldic authorities, yet because the shield is only marked "fairuse", people haven't been able to use it in, say, userboxes that say "This user is an Episcopalian". I think this is supposed to extend to any rendition of the same heraldic shield, or I'd redraw it myself. I think, then, that similar considerations would apply to the towns and counties in question here.
In summary: I don't know much about the legalities of all this, except that it's full of unexpected complexities; and I think you or I should contact Mr Robert Young, webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk, and ask for more extensive licensing. Marnanel 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your support, and for all the good and thorough work you have obviously put in to honestly evaluate the progress I have made in the last months. Thank you most of all for being big enough to forgive and move on from the annoyance I know I caused you back then. I am honestly very moved by your generosity. I hope I will be given the opportunity to repay your trust. -- Guinnog 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
With regards to this and this edit. Perhaps a better solution would be to move {{ Scotland infobox}} to Scotland/Infobox (a subpage). Subst'ing it into the page makes for a horrid article to edit, and a much longer one too. What do you think? Thanks/ wangi 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed [[Image:Royal Arms of Scotland.png]] from the Scotland Portal, when the coat of arms is prominently displayed on all of these Wikipedia:Featured portals:
I note that the NZ image is "Fair use" too. Thanks. -- Mais oui! 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have retagged Image:Royal Arms of Scotland.png as {{ Coatofarms}} and {{ pd-old}}. These are the Royal Arms of Scotland, used prior to 1603 by the Kings of Scotland... Thanks/ wangi 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear why you have deleted the reference to page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SriAurobindoSymbols.gif from template:Sri Aurobindo, and even though the history points me to your fair use of image policy, i could not find anything to support the deletion.
The image in question is fair usage as the author has already released the image into public domain. Further The wikipedia policy states It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such symbols
* to illustrate the symbol in question * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use.
and the image in question agrees with bulleted item#2.
Please clarify. Varun 06:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You placed a message on my talk page about this image. Seeing that the content on Adobe Flash has been updated, you should probably remove it. Thanks for notifying me. -- LostAccount 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of that picture would be fine. I LOVE the new pictures that you've added. Thanks so my for your help! Bleach Babe 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question regarding your deletion of some images in my user boxes. If some cities and states can have user boxes with flags, shields, coats-of-arms, etc. then why can't I use my city's seal. It should be the same fair use policy as a flag. The same should apply to a political party's logo and the shield of a religious denomination. KnoxSGT 11:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your comment. Please direct further comments to User talk:Husnock/Travel. Also, saw you emntioend you would delete images after investigating if the claims did not meet your expectations. I politely ask you lsit them as Possible Unfree Images since you are (technically) involoved in a dispute (although not really a dispute since we are civil) and it would be up to a 3rd party to investigate and delete if warranted. Thank you! - Husnock 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)} |
Thank you for visiting my user page, and for helping me as well. I just have a question though.
You know the tables most of the people use in their Userpages? Is there any easy way to make them? What about signatures with colors?
Detlef 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Detlef 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. These are not intended to be "single-use templates", and some already are not. For instance, Template:CTB minutes/10-1940-01 is already used on five pages. These templates prevent me from having to transcribe the text at the beginning of the minutes each time I reference them. -- NE2 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure about this, and you seem to be the pointman on this subject. The following templates use an organisation logo or standard. I am not sure whether or not to remove the image. I feel that it is a violation of non-commercial use, but I'm not sure:
there are others... -- Bob 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Durin!
I wanted 2 give you an explanation about this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illyrian_helmet.jpg#file
I took this image from this website http://www.ncl.ac.uk/shefton-museum/images/helmet2.jpg
In there is not specified if it copyrighted or not. Anyway i made some changes 2 it...and i dunno if that's ok...If it doesn't comply with the rules feel free 2 delete it....thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korabi ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
just thought you'd want to know there's some more fair use images on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football that may be in use illegally, as since i can't use them in user boxes on my page without editing the actual template then maybe people using these shouldn't either (they're towards the bottom Poland, Turkey, Ukraine domestic teams) -- Chappy84 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is your problem? Noodles the Clown 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, long time no speak. I've been meaning to swing by here for some time since I discovered your "Welcome to Durin" signpost image during a vandalism revert of your userpage. It's a great idea and a great wee image, is it entirely homemade? In light of current events though, I think you need another direction board, along the lines of: "Controversy nearby" :-)
That's the real reason for dropping in, to say thanks for your ever wise and measured words of counsel offerred to all on the Carnildo promotion discussion. I, like many others, am pretty unhappy at this whole state of affairs, but have chosen not to pipe up in the meantime for fear of saying something which adds more heat than light. I agree with the comments you made, but there is much more required in way of explanation as to exactly how and why this decision was reached.
Many of the dissenting voices raise perfectly valid questions, one of which was rolled back by Danny of all people. In fact, it's Danny's position within this whole affair that I find the most troubling at present, given the lack of detail on the decision rationale. I'll comment in due course, or when it goes to RfC (however futile that will be) as seems likely to happen given the strength of feeling there is about this promotion. Let's hope things don't degenerate into another Wikipedia riot. Keep up the good work on fair use images, but don't you need a wee break from that thankless job. WP will not blow up if you take a short breather to do something more rewarding. Best wishes. -- Cactus.man ✍ 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just clarifying why you removed the images from the template; was it because of reason 9, "images falling outside of the article namespace?" Thanks.-- Gephart 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully have a new one :) Petros471 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you still interested in nominating me for RFA? Thatcher131 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What exactly would withdrawing the AfD accomplish? MSJapan 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If other proprietary search engines and car rental companies are still allowed to exist to promote their own business, it would seem both reactionary and unfair to delete and/or protect certain pages at whim.
Several edits have taken place, to remove the "advertising angle" of the article; it was neither spam nor advertising, and yet each time a sysop deleted the article. I would respectfully suggest that you look at other car rental websites, created by their own employees for the purposes of self-promotion and advertising, before systematically deleting those with which you are unfamiliar.
-- Dolce12 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for my newness - I had seen this particular company at a recent event and was trying to find out more information - I noticed that they did not have a wiki page.
One example would be Auto Europe, whose users clearly come from the company themselves. Should that article be included or deleted, per Wikipedia's policy? Just curious, as it seems one set of rules apply for some, but not others? Seeing as I am not, nor ever have been in the employ of the company, I find it slightly odd that inconsistencies abound with the way some articles are allowed through while others are not. Just my two cents... -- Dolce12 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you removed my comments from my talk page? -- Basique 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I am the maker of the image. So your basically saying that if I have the image added to an article all is well?-- A2raya07 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Re Belvedere vodka image, I deleted the box. Now if I could just get the Idaho box to come down to be in line with the two other state boxes .... Sca 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
ta! -- Mais oui! 00:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am the maker of Template: NASA and I am wondering why the Logo of NASA has been stated that it is not copyrighted but you still deleted it:
(From http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html)
“ | NASA images generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal...
NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters. Please be advised that approval must be granted by the Public Services Division (see above information for address, numbers, etc.) before any reproduction materials can be obtained. Any questions regarding application of any NASA image or emblem should be directed to: Bert Ulrich Public Services Division NASA Headquarters Code POS Washington, DC 20546 Tel: (202)358-1713 Fax: (202)358-4331 Internet: bert.ulrich@hq.nasa.gov |
” |
I am hoping for your explanation, Thanks. Narold 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me with the image. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgallagher ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that the fact that the Warsaw Pact does not exist does mean that there is no copyright for the image of its seal. It was an international organization, not a governmental organization, therefore there is no successor body.
Furthermore, as a Soviet-bloc creation from the 1950s it is quite unlikely that the image was under copyright to begin with. For the sake of argument if we ignore the fact that this is a defunct international organization, even were it extant its seal would fall under the same category as those of the UN or NATO etc.
The image in question is taken from the Parallel History Project website, which permites the reproduction of the content of its website "If cited, quoted, translated, or reproduced, acknowledgement of any document's origin must be made as follows: "Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact (PHP), www.isn.ethz.ch/php, by permission of the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich and the National Security Archive at the George Washington University on behalf of the PHP network." This information is included in the image file info. Cripipper 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What's more, the image is not tagged {{logo}}, it is tagged {{seal}}. Cripipper 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, pressed submit too soon. Logos are copyrighted. Seals may be copyrighted. I uploaded the image: it is not being used under the terms of fair use. You have asked me "The image must be used under terms of fair use here unless the body that holds copyright has been identified and has knowingly released any rights to the image." Since no body holds a copyright from which one can get release rights you are asking me to effectively prove a negative. There are two seperate issues here: is the seal under copyright, and is a reproduction of its image being used under fair use. The answer to the first is no, and the answer to the second is that reproduction is permitted provided it is credited. Cripipper 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What's more, the seal was not even an official emblem, therefore making copyrighting an impossibility. On that basis I am restoring it to the Cold War template. Cripipper 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism done to my page. I owe you one. Yours, Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, yeah sorry about that I wasn't aware, and I didn't check the history on the user box I'd made because I didn't even think to check that! trolleymusic 05:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Were you all the way done with your review? I know you're thorough; I responded on the subpage to your commentary so far, and took your advice about the userpage. -- nae' blis 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Having looked it over, I'll make changes. Thanks for the heads-up. – Ch acor 04:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Sumair1 05:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the Pacific Islands Forum Logo: Do I understand you correctly that your removal of that image bases solely on the fact that it was used in a template, and that it is not a problem to include it in the Pacific Islands Forum article? Thanks! Henning Blatt 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back, it's good to see you too :) — Moe Epsilon 14:51 September 18 '06
Thanks for your recent response via e-mail. I've sent you a response (heh, you told me to hit your talk page). Cheers. CQJ 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for helping me with my user templates, Gronkmeister | Talk/ Contrib 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You edited this template to avoid inproper use of fair use image. Could you change the template to let is show the flag when no image has been chosen. If no image is chosen now, an ugly text is showed. (BTW: I don't know how to do it). Electionworld Talk? 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is having some last minute impact (it's a heavily watched page), we shall see how much. NoSeptember 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't know if you were interested in having your Commons ID match this one.
User:Durin at Commons has no contributions and can be renamed to something else, and we will be able to move Durin-en to Durin. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This user, User:Abu badali, keeps on trying to delete fair use images that I've uploaded, especially Image:Allison Mack1.jpg and Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I have gotten permission from the websites owners to use these images, and I have written a detailed fair use rationale for both of them, and they both have the fair use tag on them. Even after a lengthy discussion, he still will not accept that they are fair use and he keeps trying to delete them! Loooking at his talk page and his contributions, he seems to think that he is the highest authority on all things "fair use", but he obviously is not. Can you please help me, or get some other administrators to help me, convince him that they are in fact fair use images and should not be deleted? It would be greatly appreciated, and he must be stopped before he lists every single fair use image for deletion. Than you. - Ivan Kricancic 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for nominating me for adminship, and for watching my back during the discussion. (I'm not dropping this on all 140+ commenters but if you don't deserve one, who does?) Thatcher131 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
...and no slight to Thatcher131, but I think Steel359 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) also went right to work once he got the bit. These admins these days, all touching buttons and stuff instead of taking a vacation to Tahiti to destress. Syrthiss 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Durin. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. — Bkell ( talk) 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can disagree (although it would be ironic if I were to disagree with that... anyway) but could you please elaborate e.g. on my talk page? >Radiant< 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. I don't have a problem with the removal of the seal from the portal, template(s), etc. , but if you're going to do so, please be consistent and remove similar fair-use seals from other state portals, templates, etc. that use them as well. -- TMF T - C 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. In almost all the articles about elections in Greece there were logos of some parties. I just added some of the remaining. I didn't know Wikipedia's policy and I am very happy you informed me. But... I think for better appereance and comprehencion of the results is better to have the logo of each party (especially if they are many ecological parties with similar names). I wait your opinion. -- Magioladitis 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Prick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.46.78 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 September 2006
I am requesting permission to edit my user talk page, seeing as my previous opinions were masked by yourself, I thought I'd come here first. 91.84.46.78 02:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm... you have now edited, changed and deleted multiple userboxes I have created without due cause. I stopped using copyrighted images to comply with your suggested changes and now you are just deleting userboxes with LETTER ABBREVIATIONS recklessly. I am sick of your egomaniacal and unnecessary need to have everything fit your VERY NARROW reading of the rules of Wikipedia conduct. Fair Use means Fair Use, not 'Durin Doesn't Like It' Use. Stop being a wiki-Nazi.
WNZ | This user is a wiki-Nazi. |
Dipietro 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You recently removed an image from Template:Infobox_Kloof. Please can you also remove images from the templates in Cape Town, [[[Durban]] and Johannesburg. - Raker 14:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! I noticed you made a lot of useful statistics for RFA. Could you please make some statistics for PROD as well? In particular I'd like to know roughly how many PRODs are made per day, how much of them get deleted and how much of them get improvement (e.g. an edit that is more than just removing the tag). Would this be possible? Thanks! >Radiant< 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Good catch on checking history on that one. Sorry that I missed it myself. I was actually scanning for uncategorized articles, not vandalism. And even then, normally I do check history before doing a speedy, but for some reason I missed that one (probably because it was so vile, it put me into shock, heh). -- Elonka 06:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Man, I hate infoboxes sometimes. When I make a mistake like that one, it's always because the information is hiding in the box. Nice catch, and thanks for setting it right. Erechtheus 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the template I created name "Adult." Templates of the same name have been deleted by consensus twice before. However, the content of my template was different, and the previous deletions do not apply to the content I created. Previous templates alerted readers that the Wikipedia page, image, etc... should not be viewed by children or labeled it with some likewise POV statement that violated WP:NOT. However, my template only alerted readers that the external link preceding the template contained adult material. Such notices are widespread and uncontested on Wikipedia with a variety of diferent verbiages (examples: [51] [52] [53] [54]), and my template only served to provide a quick method for posting them. These are especially courteous and useful on pages that are not pornographic, but that link to pornographic sites. Even if you disagree with such notices, you deleted the template out of process and should restore it. Feel free to contest the situation according to Wikipedia process. BTW, happy anniversary on being an admin (and I mean that sincerely)-- Esprit15d 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Turkish http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Fenerbahce_belirtke.gif {{{Logo}}} http://www.fenerbahce.org/eng/ http://www.fenerbahce.org/eng/detay.asp?ContentID=16
{{{Logo}}} and {{{Logo-Hqfl}}} http://hqfl.dk/layout/download.php?rowid=1395 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profesor ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi I was wondering why you deleted my DePaul University intellectual property page. I work for the center and wanted to describe the center on the wikipedia page. please get back to me via email at vshifrin@depaul.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usualsus ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 October 2006
I figured you'd be the one to ask... you posted a lot of statistics on how many RFA candidates succeed and fail and such. Would you happen to have stats on the reasons for which they fail? >Radiant< 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, you may recall you fixed an image error of mine recently. Well I had a question about deleting articles. You see I found this article, Christopher Wajda about this artist. To me it doesn't seem like it belongs in wikipedia. I mean who is this guy? we can't make a page for every single artist around. The major contributor is Washingtonsghost, whose only edits relate to the Wajda article. ISP 71.242.160.130's only edit involves adding Wajda to the July 21 page in the birth section. Would you agree that this article should be deleted? and how exactly should I go about doing it? For example, how do i tag it? I've never tried to delete an article before. Sorry if I blundered posting here. Naufana : talk 00:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
RFA is already about triple the size it needs to be (and I'm on dialup right now so god forbid I don't want to re-load it more than necessary.
Feel free to increase the size of RFA, this one is already longer than my original rfa which is nuts -- Tawker 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The image is not unlicensed =D
The image I've added is the same, but it is just an thumbnail
It is used in the Destiny's Child User template I've created
Regards -- Eduemoni 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
add images to my templates??? Should I create em? What should I do? I really don't understand all this "Fair Use" thingy =(
-- Eduemoni 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I collaborate with many articles in many interests ranges (that includes Destiny's Child and any of its members articles that I help a lot)
I'd like to express my likes and deslikes, just that, I'm not creating a homepage bacause I already have one!
Isn't your commentary a little unnecessary or a such personal attack?
Before telling or controlling someone about his/her wikiUserPage, shouldn't you look at yours and see how enhanced it is?
My userboxes just show someone where and why I like to create or edit articles on wikipedia -- Eduemoni 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I love the above page; you capture the issue clearly and to the point.
I have been taking on the images these last few days (wanted to focus on something new and fair use seemed like a great place). I am wondering if there is anything I can do to assist you in your on-going slog. I will take up the battle with you.
I was thinking of either copying over your fair use rational or see if I can use the same featrure used on AfDs to transfer the text with my own header. Figure I should have my own copy so that people will leave any message to me and not you.
On a another note, since coming to your user page, I have read a number of your personal essays and have to say, your writing style is top notch, clear, and simple but not pandering. I am going to make a guess that you are a lawyer.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Much of the information that you may be interested in, I have collated at User:Elonka/RfA ponderings, and there are some additional questions from another editor, along with my replies, on the related talk page. If there's anything else that would be helpful to you, please let me know! -- Elonka 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete my edit about William not shaging kids? Are you telling me he did? can you please prove that he did? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.160.253 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought it was vandalism as I couldn't find the removal of the images in the page's history, but ok. I never look at images' tags, so sorry about that. -- Adriaan90 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:Sumbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cedars 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure what the copyright status of these images are, but I think we need to look more closely at them. I am finding a lot of flags at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_flags_of_United_States_cities that should be looked at, but I believe one of the flags you deleted, the St. Louis city flag, could have been PD (it is now up as yet another unfree image). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there is something I don't understand and I would like your polite help in explaining it to me. (I say polite because some admin have been far from this.) Why are some images I put in a userbox not allowed, when very much the same has been included in others? For example, a picture of Queen Elizabeth II was deleted, but other boxes have Martin Luther King. Why is a logo produced by the Canadian government accepted in one (armed forces logo or flag) and not in another (maple leaf and poppy)? The policy page doesn't explain this problem that people keep telling me about. I really don't understand and no one will give me a straight answer. Please help me! Scotwood72 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
lighten up —Preceding unsigned comment added by APACOlypse27 ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
hey durin, I know your into keeping WP free of copyright infringement, I just came across this. Useing the movie poster in this way is a no-no correct? If so should I just delete it? Or do I have to tag it with something? Naufana : talk 03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with that roving IP vandal... -- Nlu ( talk) 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We got a complaint on OTRS: apparently, this debate in which demeaning comments were made on the topic of the article shows up quite fast in Google. (When I do seemingly "random" deletions it is generally from an OTRS complaint.)
In many of our deletion debates, participants say things that they perhaps should not say in this way in public. I remember in particular a debate about a bio on somebody who didn't write it (a well-meaning colleague did it), but was publicly accused of being an unimportant little boss seeking notability through Wikipedia. Needless to say, the guy was not amused. David.Monniaux 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin.
You've removed my entry on "derkunst" twice now, and I just want know if there's anything I can do to make this article "uploadable." Save for providing detailed sources.
As is true for most any cryptid, verifiable sources are hard to come by. I'm just not going to be able to use a Philadelphia Inquirer article. Or a book you consider to be reliable.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it seems as though you're being particularly tough on this cryptid entry. Look at other cryptids, like "Cherufe," and I think you'll agree.
If I significantly shorten the Derkunst entry, will it be passable?
I included every detail that's ever been told to me, and can understand if including all of these details (without sources) make the piece seem like a hoax.
Thank you in advance for your help —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Garpie (
talk •
contribs) 14:27, 17 October 2006
How many hits did the microsoft entry receive after i edited it and it displayed "EVIL!!!". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.0.22 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking user:207.73.183.6, I was hopiing that the vadlism would stop, guess that I was underestamating them.I would watch out though, after slowking man blocked them they had their revenge on his page, so I think that it would be a safe statement to say that you are their next target, just seems that you cant do the right thing without ticking off some peopleor making a new enemy. Hope that your page remains unaffected and sorry if it dosent, I will try to find out who did it but I dont think it will be posible, just wanted to say that I respect you guys and wanted to thank you for keeping the net safe. Talon35 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to add the Blu McDonalds page to recruit a player and/or to have some information on the internet for our band. Please consider this page before deletion, Mike Foreman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigheadedkitty4 ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin - I'm sorry for repeatedly trying to re-invent the wheel on this (I really did it this time!), but I was proceeding with the attitude that brainstorming is generally harmless. You are absolutely correct in your reading. What steps should we take to identify the real problems? Rama's arrow 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your notes on this page. I wonder if you've seen User:DumbBOT/UsernameChange? This automatically generates much of the information which you are compiling, and I usually check it before changing any usernames. If you've got any suggestions for improvements to it, based on the information you've been gathering, I'm sure that would also be appreciated. Warofdreams talk 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for patrolling the application of free use images. You have just removed this one from Portal:Iceland due to fair use concerns. Although I do understand such removal, I would appreciate if you could inform why does the image qualify for display on Iceland, but not on Portal:Iceland. Best regards.-- Hús ö nd 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you doing? You deleted the image from the places where it was used, then messaged me to tell me that it's orphaned and therefore will be deleted? -- ran ( talk) 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
=) Thanks for all of your hard work warning others, I know it's not the most pleasant thing to do and I'm sorry for lashing out at you without looking more carefully. I can see that you've been doing this for -- months!! o___O. I'm quite speechless.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I, Ran, hereby present you, Durin, with the Barnstar of Diligence for all of your hard work in catching inappropriate uses of fair use images on Wikipedia. Cheers! =) ran ( talk) 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
why can't you have fair use images on user pages, i dont see how that could infringe copyrights, plz tell me, but kinda dumb it down APACOlypse27 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have seen numerous user boxes using Images on Wikipedia. All State USer Boxes had State Flags. So why cant I use Orange County Seal or Coca Cola Logo on a userbox tempelate?
I mean, you have put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WelcometoDurin.gif on main space as compared to User Space? -- Asfandyar
Hi Durin
I embedded an image in userbox User Eurobeat but that image has been removed. May I know why??? Sushant gupta 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You removed images from the 2006 WA state Senate site. These are all public political party official logos and fair use. These sorts of logos are used on several other election entries, including those on the Mexican election 9:34, 23 October 2006 Mikesmash 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Durin - this matter has died down in February but doesn't seem to be resolved. Could you weight in please. Doesn't the typing in the
being discussed at
resemble and infringe upon
Image:Google logo transparent.png?? Michael Dorosh 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I will revert what ever I see fit. -- Cloveious 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm preparing for adminship. You appear to be the resident expert on admin qualifications, and since you don't like picking "low hanging fruit", I believe that makes you the right one to see. I would be very grateful if you would consider me as a candidate for adminship. I was the subject of an RfC last spring (for overzealousness), I've had my fair share of run-ins with other editors (but nothing major since the RfC), and it has been pointed out that my use of multiple accounts might be a point of contention when I attempt an RfA. My major contributions are presented on my userpage, and highlights include stirring the
Main Page redesign to action last winter, ditto the
Help page overhaul early this year, the
Wikipedia:Community Portal overhaul early last spring, and I resurrected the
Wikipedia:Tip of the day project.
Amongst the pages I have created are the
Community bulletin board and the
Wikipedia:Department directory, though I can't take full credit for those either (virtually nothing on Wikipedia was created in a vacuum: the
CBB for instance was inspired by an idea of
Renata, through whose talk page I learned of you). If you need to speak to someone concerning my performance on Wikipedia,
User:Quiddity may be a good one to talk to, being the person who filed the RfC, and whom I'm now working closely with on the contents pages of Wikipedia (or maybe it's the other way around, it's hard to tell). Renata is also famiiar with me, from a brighter angle, I hope. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely,
The Transhumanist
05:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's people like you who will destory wikipedia, you can try and bully me and ban me if you want but you need to get your head out of your ass. Your campaign of threatning other users and acting big is a waste of time, there is nothing wrong with political party logos' in articles about political parties and elections. Trust me when I say politcal parties in Canada know full well what goes on wikipedia. But that kinda common sense stuff just fly right over your head. Which is really what I would exepect from someone who, doesn't seem smart enough to contribute any usefull content, but just makes other contributors who actually do contribute miserable. -- Cloveious 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my change. Currently, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that only fully-completed nominations can be listed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a nominator would list a nomination for the nominee. My change was only meant to reflect that nominees should be the ones listing their own RFAs after they've answered the standard questions and accepted the nom, as is current practice, and not the nominators. – Ch acor 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, Durin, I'm sure you know just as well as I do that rollback is not for good faith edits. – Ch acor 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm fairly new here, so I'm probably missing something, but did you delete Itsmymarket.com? The article is there, and the history of the page doesn't have you on it, but it seems like the article has been deleted. By you. Itsmymarket.com seems to fail the speedy deletion "web" criterion. Thanks. Darkspots 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) username changed 2-2008
Reading this I can't really justify it - there is a lot of media conversation in Cornwall (an Alexa ranking for a site which is still in one small area of South West England seems good to me?) but it is almost entirely non-web based. That is part of the nature of Cornwall.
I'm not a wikipedia person on the whole, but this site is something which a lot of people have been talking about down here and people are interested in it. I didn't realise that there were specific levels of interest before a subject was considered important enough for inclusion.
Got any advice? (You were pretty quick off the mark, mind - I hadn't even finished the info box when you deleted it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manley ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright to the Quebec Autoroute Shields? i thought a wikipedia member made them. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to post on the Percy Nobby Norton talk page, must be a glitch. Anyhow, I scanned this article about Percy Nobby Norton from the State paper just yesterday. Sorry about the low quality. See it at [63]. -- Bpazolli 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
this image has no copyright it is not from any performances, video clips, music photoart or promotional pic (like single or album cover), candids, magazine photoshoot
it is from an public domain, shot by an fan during Beyonce's birthday party
the site is an fan-based site, it is not trustful at all, it is just source,
the way that is showed there resembles like they are the owner of this picture, what does not happen in fact
→ Eduemoni 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)←
++add
here you can find the copyrighted pics of this party, shot by the media press
http://www.beyoncephotos.net/thumbnails.php?album=421 →
Eduemoni
23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)←
I'm rather confused as to why Image:iTunes.png was deleted. A similar image, Image:ITunes-700-icon.png is the exact replica of the image with different colours. Image:iTunes.png was the former Apple iTunes logo. You say it falls under the fair use policy but from what I've read it's legal.
"There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.
If Image:ITunes-700-icon.png is legal for those reasons, wouldn't Image:iTunes.png have been legal also? Furthermore its use in userboxes stated under Wikipedia's logo policy would satisfy:
The list goes on and the logo satisfies all of them. For all the reasons Image:ITunes-700-icon.png was kept I don't see why Image:iTunes.png was deleted. Thanks for your time. Mkdw talk 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
No, look. I'm the one who deleted the "Nobby Norton" mess in the first place. Trust me. This is... this is an entirely new article. I was as stunned as anyone to see that there was a legitimate article buried in all that crap.
It has actual verifiable reliable sources.
I have no idea why Enknowed was creating garbage as recently as two days ago when he could have created a genuine version.
I don't want to do a Wheel War or anything, so I'm not going to be the one to recreate it. But go look at the content. DS 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You do realize that if I'm elected to ArbCom, my first act will be to indefinitely block everyone who voted for me, right? DS 14:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for reversing your edit. I had thought I had saved a wrong version or something until I noticed the picture disappear a second time. I suppose that putting Image:Nbc apprentice2 key art.jpeg in Template:The Apprentice would be equally as wrong. TonyTheTiger 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
By User talk:195.112.56.122. Just thought you ought to know - not that I would unblock these vandals. Ian Cairns 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting (by deleting) my 'unfair' (;-)) use of fair use images. I was going on the incorrect assumption that if I found it on Wikipedia .... I shall try to be guided by the info on the image page in the future. That information appears to have been clear enough in the case of the images you deleted from my userpage today. Whatever I think of the copyright law, I do respect and support Wikipedia's stated reasons for staying well within it. And I do consider your attention a valuable service. I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia added to my picture list of martyrs. Please do revisit my page to make sure my other and future edits are within policy. (Especially since I have no intention of studying copyright law or reading all the rules and regulations before I edit. Were I to be willing to do that, I'm sure I could find more remunerative activities than editing here. :-) ) O'RyanW ( ☺ ₪) 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have increased the quality of the article of Percy Nobby Norton see the page I posted below. Sorry. -- Smallcucumber 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why cannot people see the collapse videos of WTC 7? Whats soo wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.200.90 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just your best friend Starblind here. I think maybe we should unblock Percy Nobby Norton. I would do it now but I have to go. Why don't you help me out and unblock it for me. Thanks. User:..S.t.a.r.b.l.i.n.d.. - Starblind 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Durin for cleaning up my image. It's a good a good thing that I'm not a politician, those guys images are impossible to clean up (smile). I see you've been very busy lately with the images. Good job. Tony the Marine 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could update :) I'd also like a graph in commons meta and etc :D -- Cat out 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin.
This spring, I uploaded the coat of arms of Dalhousie University [ [66]] and unwittingly gave it the wrong licensing tag. You noted that my use of the arms in a userbox was inappropriate. I thought that an easy way to overcome the intellectual property rights problem would be for me to simplify and abstract the image. You then, however, determined that this was a derivative work (which of course it was) and flagged it for deletion. I must say I was a little miffed at the time because the case law on derivative work is far more lenient here in Canada than it is in the U.S. Still, it was only for a userbox, and user pages are certainly not what the Wikipedia is for.
Nevertheless, I did incorrectly tag the image's license. The design of the coat of arms in question was granted in 1818 [67]and it's been in the public domain for donkey's years. Moreover, even the artwork that constitutes the arms as they're now used by Dalhousie dates from 1950; therefore it, too, is now in the public domain.
[It may be of no consequence, but I'm an acquaintance of Dalhousie's legal counsel (recently retired) and he assures me that the university filing a copyright infringement action against the Wikipedia Foundation, even if it wasn't in the public domain, is as likely as an alien invasion.]
Trouble is, I don't know how to correct the licensing tag for this image. Is there some way this could be done? I would appreciate your advice.
Sincerely, -- OldCommentator 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the edit you just did for me. Question -- How can I edit the actual page name. I created page "Jim hoyl", but wanted to create page "Jim Hoyl"... ?
ACTUALLY... I found a way to fix it using "move", but it now is automatically re-directed from the misspelled entry. Can't the original (mistake) just be removed/replaced with the correction?
I made a change to the Lake Lemon page yesterday, changing the IU Men's Rowing Club to just the IU Rowing Club. I'm the coach of this club, and women who are ineligible to join the varsity team are allowed to (and have) joined the club team. So, if you would kindly unrevert the page from your previous version, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climis ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I really liked the clean-up that you did on my image. I was wondering if whenever you have the time if you could take a look at this image Image:Tony and Milly.jpg and maybe fix it up. That's the Marine (Me) and his wife thirty four years ago (smile). Cheers! Tony the Marine 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I told my wife what you said and she agreed (smile). Tony the Marine 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please check the copyright status on this image Image:37a Richie Ray.jpg? Thanks. Tony the Marine 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the removal. Prior to this, I did not know about the policy. Sd31415.
We had 25 reports at AIV. I didn't really appreciate joke reports while I trying to clear such a huge backlog. I blocked so I could go look at what was going on when the backlog was cleared. -- Steel 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Durin-
I was looking on an image to see if I was the only user page who the image was linked to. I was not the only user; and therefore I clicked on the other user, who was
Deadbath. It is not only a bad and innapropriate username, but it is a clear sockpuppet and threat to my page. It even says my {{user2|Wikipediaman123}} on it, not his or her's, but mine. Wikipediaman123. The header, signature, (most from first glance) were at the location that exactly of my userpage, just not created. It says User:Deadbath/(MYSUBPAGE) rather than User:Wikipediaman123/(SUBPAGE). It is unusual and serious, I will convict him of a sockpuppet. Thus it is not the exact duplicate, it is the same with some missing features. Please write to me on my talk page in order for me to remember to handle and see the progression of the page, if okay, but if you ask for it to be on this one, that is fine. You will get a peek at my signature subpage below:
-
Wikipediaman123
23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
{{User:Wikipediaman123/Signature}}:(Right here)
User:Wikipediaman123/Signature
I see, thanks for being informative. Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
...for being you and for upholding the way of the Wiki. It's appreciated. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I see you withdrew your first featured picture nomination yesterday, and while negative (and possibly nitpicky) remarks from other users may sometimes be discouraging, I hope the reviewers' critical comments do not alienate you from the featured picture selection process. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed your post because I don't believe it will help the situation. Please step away from it for 24 hours and don't post about it for at least that long unless to provide specific content details. I believe it has a good chance of getting handled from a content standpoint and that your post will only serve to inflame the situation and keep the issue focused on the wrong thing. People have already stated that they agreed with your initial handling of the situation, you don't need to rub it in. People have also stepped in willing to work out a solution, and again, that's all that's really needed. - Taxman Talk 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For all to see and digest about this concern (which is actually semi-legit)
"If he continues the ratcheting, the next step from a legal threat is legal action"
At no time did I ever threaten you with any legal action. That would be absurd for me to do, I am deployed to the Middle East in a forward unit. Dont know how I would make the court date. Rather the opposite, I am concerned about what you may be doing. You should know I received a VERY disturbing message from an unnamed source which indicated someone had sent them an e-mail asking if they knew a "XXXXX" (using my last name) who "worked for Wikipedia" and "how can I find him". Not saying that was you...cant prove a thing, but its very scary as I am in the Middle East and my family is not. Are they safe? Who knows in this world.
Regarding you concerns that I must have time to make all these changes you want because I am defending these pages with such vigor:
I am deployed with the military to a foreign country. I do not have half of the material needed to double check images. We are also in the holidays. As early as next week, this could all change and I might be off the site for 3-6-9 months. My average Wiki time each day right now is from as little as 20 minutes to 2-3 hours on an off-day. Today, I had perhaps 35 minutes. Not very much time to triple check hundres of images.
Regarding my sub-page:
My new sub-page is a record of what I hav felt you have done to me. Since we both have sub-pages on each, I frmally say I would not care if you removed the delete notice and kept your own page. I need my sub-page to document these thngs. I feel you have treated me pretty badly, hounded me, and disguised yur efforts with a viel of upholding Wikipedia sandards perhaps even subconsciously. You should also know that what threw me over the edge was when you wanted to talk to the girlfriend of my dead grandfather (the lady from Corpus who did me the favor) and my ex-finance (tickling picture). That was simply very hard to handle.
Regarding Navy images from Japan and Korea:
You should also know that I am simply flat on the floor about your blanket statement that JAG and PAO Navy officers dont know what they're talking about. You can be assured that I talked with some very senior people, in both Japan and Korea, and was told in both places that the images from CNFK and CNFJ are property of the United States goverernment. I told YOU this but you appear not to believe me. I eve said I would give you the phone number for the O-6/O-7's office where I talked to the people (although at present I would have to spend time looking for it). If you really want the phone numbers of the Korea/Japan counterparts I guess I could get them too...would you REALLY make an international phone call to someone who probably doesnt speak english to ask them something like thus? That I would I like to see. You probably would have better luck calling the Admiral's office.
Hope that all digests well since you are concerned. The rest of the dispute can be handled by mediators. - Husnock 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
My travel page, with all those flag images that you were so concerned about, is now GONE. I moved the entire thing off site. I hope you're happy. Have a beer with your turkey tonight. -22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
my name is Santo Calarco. You have been actively involved in deleting material that has been sent into wikipedia about me - as recent as August and October this year. How can I find out what the contents of the article were and who it is that is writing about me? I am a minister of religion and would like to talk with this person who obviously has something against me - maybe we can sort this thing out. Anyway, thanks for protecting me from this slanderous information. If you can send me a copy of what was written and any attempted updates that would be great.
Rev Santo Calarco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.10.219 ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently undergoing an Editor review, and am trying to get a large amount of replies. I am sending messages to those who left me a message on my talk page as a way of getting the word out. I encourage you to add your two cents to the review! Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! FireSpik e Editor Review! 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You accidentally removed Guy's vote [69] - crz crztalk 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Durin, you seem to know a lot about fair use policy. Concerning this case, can you tell me who's right (if you're online)? I don't mean who's right about it being 3RR. I mean about images for album covers only being allowed in articles about the album, not articles about the band. I'm sure I could find out if I spent a while researching it, but since you do a lot of work on fair use policy, you might be able to tell me directly. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Durin. That's very helpful. Hopefully, the dispute has will die down now. As you see, I've unblocked the user. AnnH ♫ 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I want an update ;) I also would like a graph for my commons, tr.wiki, meta pages :)
Furthermore some sort of graph for User:Cool Cat/RfAs would be nice.
-- Cat out 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is allowed in article name space. Since the main page is part of the article namespace (it's not a template image etc), why have you declared war on the main page nominations? FU images still appear on the main page selected article. Sumoeagle179 04:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel this way. Please observe the following pieces of evidence:
There's other pieces of evidence as well. I can assure you that fair use on the main page is kept to an absolute minimum, and it most definitely is not part of the main article namespace as it itself is not an article on a particular subject. -- Durin 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Fair use images as for use in templates. I think the removal of this image from the template is really petty ,Why can other band templates use images and I can't? I mean its not in my agenda to rock the boat here, but does anyone else really care about a very small picture on a template? that quite frankly is not seen by all that many people? -- The Equaliser 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Equaliser 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, all of the "Politics of Nation" templates have national emblems displayed at the top, however why do you keep on reverting North Korea's, when it has the same license as South Korea's and many others, yet they were never changed/reverted to a geographical map denoting their territory? Also, I've read your subpage about the fairuse rationale, however those aren't fairuse tags but coatofarms tags, and was their a vote by the community that national emblems with the coatofarms tags cannot be used in templates or any other namespaces excepting the main namespace? Or it was your own interpretation? You can reply here or on my IP page. Thanks much! -- 70.21.6.126 07:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review beforehand, and especially your confidence and support during my RFA. I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. Please let me know if I can do anything for you in the future, although I doubt it for some time... I may be coming to you to learn at the foot of the master with respect to coat-of-arms copyright, something that baffles me at present. Cheers! -- nae' blis 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm directed to you regarding the use of certain images, namely those in the following two cites: Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) If the images are ok there, why are they not ok on my UserPage?
Best Regards, Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please limit the images on your user page to free or GFDL images. Using copyrighted or fair use images can get Wikipedia in a lot of legal trouble. - Will Pittenger 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the copyright tags are the clue. Please check them first. If you have questions about an image, ask User:Durin. And, yes, he did remove fair use images from my page. So don't complain. - Will Pittenger 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. Now if you could teach him to go easy on the ----… Will ( Talk - contribs) 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:1934 Protocols Patriotic Pub.jpg " The Protocols" — the original 1934 300-page THE PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO. edition
Dear WP Adminstrator Durin: The image herein I have re-created: me, myself, & I.
You can appeal the decision by posting to
WP:AN. There's not much to appeal though. The image is of a bookcover, and due to it not being old enough, it is still under copyright...even if copyright wasn't claimed. We do not operate on the basis of whether someone claimed copyright, but on the basis of whether someone explicitly released their rights to the work. Thus, even if something doesn't appear to have a copyright, we assume it does unless we have proof otherwise. The image is appropriately tagged with {{
bookcover}} which is a fair use tag thus preventing its use outside of the main article namespace. Hope that helps, --
Durin
21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my logos and pages. I never knew that about those rules. Maybe I should read the rule page. user:anthonyn66
FYI: You might be interested in this user box: User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/User Removes Fair Use Images From User Pages. - Will Pittenger 06:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a page that I can have the box link to that would explain this policy in layman's terms? Something in your userspace would qualify for my purposes. Will ( Talk - contribs) 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert. I didn't notice you took the images out of my userboxes (I didn't look, because I was unaware of a problem). The image of governer Fletcher is in an article, so I'm confused why you removed the image a second time.
I accept your offer of help. First, where can I find free images of sports logos, and foxnews logos? In general, where do you find these if you cannot take them from articles. I've searched the Wikicommons, but haven't found anything. Veracious Rey 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The imiages that were used are fair use beacuse they were being used on Engilish Wikipedia for the use of describing orginazations or people. Cocoaguy (Talk) 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Durin
My friend Cocoaguy was doing me a favor by helping me create my user page, because I am not as computer savy as other users may be. He told me how you were bothering him and also hindering him about some pictures he was using or something like that, while he was trying to help me. Both him and I are in agreement that the pictures we are using do not violate any copyright rules or some sort of a wikipedia code of ethics. Now you listen to me, he and I will continue to put pictures on my user page until you or another wikipedia representative proves to us by showing us files, a private policy, a copyright rule, or something like that, stating that what we are doing to against the rules.
Sincerely,
Mr.
Durin,
My friend and I read Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and we are trying to understand it to the best of our ability. If you can, I, myself am having trouble understanding the Fair Use Criteria, because I don't understand all this computer mumbo-jumbo. Also, you said "Just working to have pages adhere to our policies". Well you know what, just because it is an official document does not make it right. What if your policies are wrong. Ever think of that??? Maybe you can ask other Wikipedia moderators and workers to amend the current policy and maybe even to draft a new one.
Sincerely,
P.S. Please respond to this to this message on my talk-page as soon as possible.
Fine!
Psdubow I agree i do not think that the policy is fair and i do not feel that it is right may i ask to bring this issue up to the WP:AMA and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hail and well met, friend Durin. I hope this missive find you well. May I request a favor? I am, as you may be aware, a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I fear that, due to my history, my questions page and (in the future) voting page may tend to be magnets for incivility and other misconduct. I have, in the past year, come to respect you for your ability to maintain coolness in situations where others might fail to do so (as you may have noted when I commented on your self-RfC some months back). Would you be willing to let bygones be bygones and do me the signal favor of patrolling those pages for uncivil conduct, dealing with any such instances which you might find appropriately? I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kelly Martin ( talk) 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand why you removed the official seal of the navy from the template. I read the fair use policy related with the templates but i need your advice. I want to put the seal there but how? Regards E104421 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thats fair enough about the Opalinida article but I need help with something totally different with the Nellie Connally article. It says that when her husband got shot she quickly tried to protect her husband which was with stark contrast to Jackie who seemed to try and jump out of the car. That info is false. Nellie did try and protect her husband but Jackie never tried to jump out of the car, she just went to grab JFK's brain that got blasted to the front of the car. So considering that info was false I deleted it and then stated in the disscussion box why I deleted it. But every time I delete it, in about an hour it comes back up. I even have this guy saying it was vandalism. What can I do?
Sure, please tell me more. I don't agree with your logic from the link on your edit summary, but I try to avoid most of the rules of this place outside of afd/rfa(i'm thinking of trying for adminship in a month), so i'll leave that to you. I'll just edit somewhere else. Just H 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin - You gonna lose your admin right if you willingly abuse them. You clearly did NOT look into the sources provided before removing my edit. Do you really want to make me have to log in and report you? Now please remove your edit, as I have shown that credible evidence towards alternative theories DOES exist, and I quote the BBC article "Two hijacked passenger airliners plunge into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the subsequent explosions and fires causing the buildings to collapse." Durin wrote, mistakenly "The BBC article you are referring to refers to the explosions of the planes on impact on the WTC, not subsequent explosions that brought the building down."
Admins like you give wikipedia and free speech a bad name, not to mention Neutrality. One more slip, and...Superscript text —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.27.5.114 ( talk) 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
This is the bit he removed: "While many disregard the controlled demolition hypothesis as complete nonsense, many mainstream news agencies such as BBC news wrote reports about "explosions" in the towers before their collapse, (ref)BBC News, US Rocked By Terror Attacks: "The explosions caused the twin towers to collapse", Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1537469.stm(/ref), and journalists reported "other explosions", cause of which still seems to be unresolved, despite inquiries.(ref)BBC's Stephen Evans Interviewed, Tue 11 September 2001, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFf56Df-F2M(/ref)." Please report this admin (Durin) for abuse, if you see the removal as unfair abuse.
Durin said: "The reality is, as I believe has already been discussed on this talk page, that any theory involving the U.S. as a major participant in causing the attacks on 9/11 is by its very definition a conspiracy." I was not saying anything about any involvement, only that there were some unexplained explosions happening there. Durin said: "As to free speech, it's not a matter of free speech." I agree - free speech must be earned, like I will demonstrate to you trough use of logic and perseverance. Durin said: "I firmly believe in scientific theory, and support additions to articles that are based on verifiability and reliable sources." And you dont regard BBC journalists writings and on-site interviews as verifiable or reliable sources? Who do you think you are kidding here. You crossed the line right there, IMHO, and now you post that comment? Interesting interpretation of scientific principles, Durin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.5.114 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Very well. But can your logic withstand the fact that people have heard explosions in the buildings not directly caused by the airplanes crashing into the buildings OR the collapse of the buildings. What does your logic need, a written statement from the president? We have two pieces of "primary" evidence here that you deem unreliable. Your logic is what I would call "the devils logic". I am considering reporting you.-- EndurinFreedom 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping we could discuss this in a civilized manner. What do you have to say about these two points:
The point was not that your requesting verifiability or reliability of sources was somehow faulty, but the fact that once the evidence is presented, you disregard it, in record time.
You edited the article so fast it was not possible for you to review the references.-- EndurinFreedom 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, now that I review the situation, you are advocating a BIASed view of the situation, where reference from Albuquerque Journal outweigh those of BBC Uk. You are d'mn right free speech doesnt apply here!! -- EndurinFreedom 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
(1) Evidence towards unexplained explosions exist, in form that is verifiable and through sources that are generally though to be reliable (BBC News website and interview footage). (2) Can you (or anyone else) invalidate this evidence, or provide clear explanation as to what these explosions were? (3) If not, can you show that it is NOT even remotely possible that these explosions were related to explosives of some kind? (4) If not, can you, therefore, by use of ARGUMENTATION, EVIDENCE OR LOGIC dismiss the proposition, that it is possible controlled demolitions of some kind by some known or unknown agent MAY have taken place (hypothesis)? -- EndurinFreedom 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin,
I'd like it if you didn't keep deleting the photo I uploaded on my userpage. Could you tell me why you did this? It's getting frustrating.
Cuyler91093 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand. Why are they non-free license images? Cuyler91093 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Durin, I don't want to be mean. I'm just trying to understand these copyright issues... :( -- Cuyler91093 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I get it... so, the pictures belong to the Carpenters because it's from a DVD, and actually originally from a television series, so I can't use it on my userpage because it's not mine. Am I paraphrasing correctly? By the way, thanks for taking the time to explain these things... I'm kinda new to editing pages on Wikipedia. ;) -- Cuyler91093 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why people are so hostile to you. You're kind and helped me understand. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I made the picture, and it is also a logo. Since I made it I could change the liscence and then it would be allowed to stay on, right? And I will put it on a page, so it doesn't stay orphined. User:Coocooforcocopuffs 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I create a userbox? I'm kinda new to this stuff, so help me if you can! Thanks! -- Cuyler91093 00:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh shucks... I'm not familiar with all that technical stuff. Do you know a human source for help with Userboxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, im new at this stuff too, I know u cant make a userbox if it has an album cover, but can you still have it on ur page, just want to know if I can keep an album cover userbox I made-- NJ Rock 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)NJ Rock
Dear Durin, if you think every "polarizing" or "subjective" comment should be removed, there will be very little left on talk pages. In fact, such actions tend to be much more polarizing than the comments themselves. I believe that most wikipedians have already read the page in question, so there is little use in starting to edit it now, when most people seem to have voted and days after the comment was made. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about Portal:Houston/Selected biography/December 2006. I know better. I must have had an insanity attack. Postoak 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edit summary says you're responding to me, but the sentence that turned you off is DerwinUMD's. Not that I don't also find that sort of thing irritating. I've fixed the formatting to set my commments off a bit more clearly. Best,-- Thomas Basboll 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care that the little duke programming logo is removed from my user page as I did that a while ago more as an experiment with markup than anything else. However, I was wondering if it really is an inappropriate fair use of a graphic to use a 10-pixel high version of the graphic. It hardly resembles the original graphic in that form. I suppose another way to ask this is if I created my own rendition of the Duke logo as a 10-pixel high graphic, would that be a violation of fair use, even on my user page? (Don't worry, this is a purely hypothetical question as I really don't care that it's gone.) It just seems that at some point of reduction that the image is of such a low resolution that it can't be considered to infringe on the copyright. — Doug Bell talk 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Feet
Has been vandalized by IPs for a good solid month or so now, and had subjective material added, and then removed, I was told to contact an Admin, I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know what to do about this. However I think Protection would be good until the popularity of the movie dies down, yes? I didn't know how else to ask, sorry if it doesn't belong here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revrant ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
For what its worth, internet where I am is apparently not going away at the end of the year. If you actually did want to pursue any RfCs, I would be able to comment. Not that you would do that by any means, I am just retracting my further statement that I would be unavailable for such things since that is no longer the case and it is only fair to state that. Cool? Cool. (But not Coolcat...) - Husnock 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
How could that be prohibited if it's still on Wikipedia?-- Hornetman16 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You can be an ass you know that. Forget it...I'LL STOP!!!-- Hornetman16 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The policy link you sent me I couldn't get to till a few seconds ago but now that I know the policy I'll follow it!!-- Hornetman16 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin,
Re: your deletion of the IMC logo from my userbox: I appreciate what you are doing, as you must feel it is a way to improve and protect the Wikipedia from lawsuits. But trust me, the Indymedia logo is public domain. The IMCs are decentralized, anarchist. There is no central authority to assert copyright. It is not a trademark, because it's about free information, and not about mercantilist trade. -- Bill Huston (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey hombre, the image is actually a screenshot from the film and qualifies as fair use, and it WAS being used - in userboxes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Eraserhead . So, what's the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NIRVANA2764 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Hi I understand removal of fair use. But could you please REVERT edits which insert fair use rather than simply removing the fair use image? It's actually easier to revert a page and put in exactly the same editing comment then it is to manually remove the fair use image. TIA, Ga rr ie 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You stepped in and mediated the fiasco involving Cecropia and me back in March, and I respect your opinion as much as anybody's here and value your ability to mediate situations with calm, reasoned persuasion. I do hope you are able to help bring the whole MONGO case to a reasonable conclusion. Whatever the outcome, I appreciate the effort—it's people like you that give me hope for this place. — Doug Bell talk 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
(1) - The two situations were; one) where a user was willfully violating WP:FUC #9, and I was the admin who was attempting to get him to stop. I placed a request at WP:AN/I and the user's page was protected and he was threatened with a block if he continued. Two) Collapse of the World Trade Center had been the subject of a revert war lasting 5 days of which I had been party to. It had undergone 38 reverts on a *section title* (of all things). It was blatantly obvious protection was needed to force all parties to the talk page. I posted a request at WP:RFP and it was quickly agreed to and the page was protected. Had I done either/both of these, I would have been potentially subject to the same censuring that MONGO is suffering.
Understood. I'll be more mindful in the future. -- Whatocean 08:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok a few things.........
Phoenix741 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your change of my TiVo userbox at User:Krellion/Userboxes/TiVo. I figured that using an image of the TiVo logo would not be possible due to copyright/trademark issues, so I thought that using a standard font (nothing like the TiVo one) and matching the colors would be all right, considering that TiVo even has a style guide [76] that includes the proper RGB color values. The TiVo page you mentioned as a reference in your comment ( http://a423.g.akamai.net/7/423/1788/00d433ecd251f9/www.tivo.com/i/0.0/0.0.hp_hd_tile) looks to point to a non-existing page, so if you could find a proper link, I'd like to see it. I'll leave the userbox as-is for now, since I don't want to cause any problems for Wikipedia, but I have to admit that it looks very bland now. :) Thanks. - Krellion 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, but what? You seem to imply that editors have less credibility than admins. Mongo is an abusive administrator. It makes sense that the ones who object to this are editors, not admins. Besides, little data can be gathered from the straw poll because it will only be seen by those who were watching that particular page. — goethean ॐ 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you mad at me? :( NIRVANA2764 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This is ironic that after the dispute with you and I where you were (wrongly) included in my real world situation where my job was e-mailed and my wife called, I have now been sucked into an accusation of threatening someone where a Wikipedia user stated they were in fear of thier life because of something I said. So, it happens to the best of us, I suppose. - Husnock 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What can be done about this user? The accusations this user is leveling against anyone supporting a review of the proposed decisions are absolutely uncalled for, completely bad faith, and totally counter-productive. I, for one, have never conversed with MONGO nor edited any of the same articles. I am not a far-right wing conservative at all, and I also did not post my opinions out of a feeling of "administrator entitlement", but rather because I think it is completely wrong to bring down as severe a punishment as desysopping for evidence as weak as has been so far presented. (In fact, 3 of the points are not only weak, they are wrong: those actions are good actions and no administrator should be made to be afraid to execute similar decisions because the ArbCom decided to act as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner with respect to protection of pages one has edited. This case is out of control: Badlydrawnjeff explicitly said one thing that MONGO did wrong was block that user six (six!) months ago, and the other was that he protected a page he had edited. If that was a wrong action, we might as well eliminate the sysop permission level, because all sysop permissions would be good for is a bunch of editors running around operating on random pages they've never seen before.) In any case, XP's dogmatic worship of Jimbo and the ArbCom is out of control, to the point that he is broadly insulting good members of the community. Does he realize when he claims that the "EXTREME" minority of the community is supporting MONGO, an even more "EXTREME" minority (1/8 of those supporting MONGO) is supporting his desysopping? I am fed up with the insults, the word-twisting, and the brown-nosing to Jimbo and the ArbCom. What can be done? -- Renesis ( talk) 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
But
this comment made me drop my gum. Have you never participated in an arbitration before? Never even watched its
slow-motion train wreck grandeur? The times the arbitration committee members actively participate other than drive-by voting are
as rare as rooster's eggs.
152.91.9.144
21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know about any of that, thanks for pointing it out. aido2002 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I was drunk and forgot about this rule. I will avoid doing this in future and go to bed now to sleep, very sorry old bean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdav69 ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words on my talk page and your support at my RfC. It is greatly appreciated. — Chowbok ☠ 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin: I think I've finally found the brain cell necessary to comprehend image licenses and userboxes images. I think. Can I use Image:YorkUserbox.png? It's just text in PS and a free-use clipart banner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drcwright ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
A number of images I uploaded were listed as fair use violations despite being tagged correctly because they appear to not be used in the main article mainspace. In actually, I did find those images in main articles on Wikipedia; it just doesn't appear that way because I use the images in userboxes, and most of them are too large to fit into userboxes. So what I did was scaled them down on an external program and then uploaded them under slightly different filenames. If you (or someone else) would please show me how to scale down images on Wikipedia, I will do that instead. Anthony Rupert 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see the main WP:RFAR page if you want to add anything. Thatcher131 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.
I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.
This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.
So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have seen some freshly uploaded images that had no source or license information. Those I do tag with {{ nsd}} or {{ nld}}. However, I have seen none with rational that omitted a fair use tag. If I have tagged such images with {{ nsd}} or {{ nld}}, please let me know. I do patrol recent changes including uploaded images. Will ( Talk - contribs) 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Please use whatever powers you have to find out who this may be and where they are posting from. The guy just posted a message on my talk page as if to confirm the sockpuppet suspicion just moments after I made my arb com statement. Someone is either trying to discredit me or this person has a warped sense of helping. I see you have already spoken to him, I need some assistance with this. Please. - Husnock 20:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What is a fair use tag? How do I not use it? Please tell me? You added the following comment to my my talk page:
"Please stop adding images tagged with fair use tags to your userpage as you did here. The use of fair use images on userpages is not permitted per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"
Please help me.
Zazzer
21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ( Need help?) 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thanks for the support and for all you have done to assist me! MONGO 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of Justice Barnstar | |
Awarded to Durin, champion of justice. I owe this to you twice, thanks. — Doug Bell talk 12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
I've added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the code to cite a statement in an article, not the whole page, but rather just a little statement said in an article? Thanks, Coocooforcocopuffs 19:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you tagged this image. I was wondering why was this done? The reason why this image looks similar to PurdueSpiritMark.jpg is because the logo of the organization does not change. This is not the official logo of the organization as the official logo is Black and gold. There is another image that is the same as the Michigan State Spartans logo but this has been released into the free domain because the user has released it to the public domain. So for the same reason, since I have created this image it should be allowed to stay as I have released it to the Public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshsharma ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed that in line with your fair use image policy you had deleted the images from the two userbox templates I had made. I've since restored them because I don't believe them to be fair use but rather public domain. I don't believe the Wiltshire county arms are fair use for similar reasons to those you cite in your related article about the U.S.S. Spruance image, it is the work of the British Government. The St. Edmund Hall arms are not officially recognised by the College of Arms and so are not officially owned by the college under UK heraldic law. Also to the best of my knowledge there has been no copyright issued to the college granting them ownership of the arms as a logo. Also the image in question was created by me but I'm guessing that has little bearing on fair use vs public domain. Would be grateful for any comments you may have. -- AulaTPN 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I'm still new to Wikipedia and really appreciate everyone's help on my path to good wiki-citizenship.
Thanks again for all your help -- AulaTPN 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this page was under the pages for speedy deletion, I do not believe that it should be up for speedy delete. I did notice that the creator of the page copy and pasted most of the original page so i went through and fixed much of the page, if anything it just needs to be cleaned up. John R. Ryan was a Vice Admiral in the Navy and served at the Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, he is now the Chancellor of the largest system of education in the nation ( State University of New York), please take time to review this case. Thanks -- Joebengo 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What right do you have to remove it from the userbox? I took the photo. In the description is a link to my original photo, not cropped, where you can see it is an amateurish snapshot of the DVD cover. You said "the original author retains rights". I am the original author. Please explain to me the loophole in which I do not have control over an image that I created. NIRVANA2764 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin, it seems to me that the images in List of Mac OS X software are allowed under the same fair use principles that Wikipedia uses to include discographies with images. -- Ellmist 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. Are galleries such as this allowed for discographies? -- Ellmist 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The content of this page is an archive of User talk:Durin. Please do not modify it.
Thanks for the comments on my talk page, I really appreciate it. About the comment on the RFA discussion page, I didn't mean for it to come off the way it did. It was not intended to scream nominate me!nominate me! I just wanted to point out that I felt kinda weird repeatedly posting on a page that was populated almost exclusively by admins. When Tito talked to me about it, I saw that there was a complete different message there. Perhaps I should remove it? Anyway, about the edit summeries. Yeah, I usually only use them for when I'm making changes to a previous edit or edits. When I'm posting or creating a new article, I don't use them that much. It shows in the histories. I'll start using them all the time now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm really quite honored that one of my favorite WPians thought of me, but my outside view at the Martin RFC really sums up my feelings at present. I find it hard even to muster the energy to do my regular rounds of maintenance and policy discussion (minimal as they've been lately) when it seems that a certain culture in the high leadership is committed to disparaging open discussion. I'm not leaving outright (because, unlike what they tried to do with you, I haven't been persecuted directly) -- I'm just a little down on the long-term fate of this noble endeavor. Certainly, if the ArbCom elections affirm specific people, my expectations will sink even lower.
Even if I weren't feeling this way, I have other reasons for enjoying normal usership. I get to be a (usually quite civil) "bulldog" (ala T. H. Huxley) for the policies I support, without having to worry about "reputation" and all that. :) I think good admins (like you, and Splash, and Radiant) need a dedicated support staff that is happy to be more anonymous.
The only thing that's ever swayed me is the change in policy that puts deletion logs behind a veil, which makes DRV hard to follow occasionally. On balance, though, I still think its better to stay where I am. I'll probably reconsider around my 8,000th edit; I have been adding edit sumaries more consistently than the last time you analyzed me! (55%) :)
Best wishes, and keep up the fight for fairness and happy 2006!, Xoloz 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback that you left on my userpage. As you noticed, I am still rather new to Wikipedia and I am trying to find my place in the community. I would like to take the credit for the message that I left on the talk page of the person whose article I requested be speedied, but it is a subst that is at the bottom of the CSD page. Movementarian 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, I've been a contributor on en. for some time now, and I would like to get some feedback regarding your evaluation my potential suitability for adminship. I've reviewed your personal requirements, and I believe that I'm the type of person who you're looking for and is well suited to the added responsibilities. I have no 'admin lust for power' (smile), but I'm always looking for ways to be a more effective contributor. A review of my history will show that I am civil, I avoid edit warring, I work towards finding consensus in conflict, and I'm an active participant in the project side of Wikipedia (often in the form of VfD nomination, but also in RFA when appropriate). I thank you for your time, and best regards. - CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Greetings also, and Happy New Year!
Thanks for your kind offer to consider nominating me for Adminship. Can I get back to you on this in a few days, as I would like some time to consider whether I would accept a nomination. I have become somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia over this whole Userbox / Kelly Martin fiasco in the past few days. On the other hand, being an Admin would allow my voice on matters to be heard a bit better, and it would certainly help with the vandal fighting - something I've not done much of since Sam Hocevar's godmode script appears to be broken at the moment :( Time to test it out again!!
Not sure if I'll make the 3,000 mark by January 9th, but I'll let you know once I've considered matters for a bit. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, your prediction on my edit count was spot on and I hereby unilaterally promote you to the post of Head of WikiPrediction. Looks like all the drudge work dragged me up to 3000 after all :) And thanks for the advice, it's pretty much the conclusion I had come to over my time watching WP:AN. I am sure you understand that I was being diplomatic with my language above. As I said earlier, I intend to refrain from voting in any RfA until such time as I am either not nominated, or any nomination for me is over. It would be too much like trying to win friends and influence people for my taste, given that I know I may be in that very position soon. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether I should apply the same policy on voting for the ArbCom candidates. I change my mind on this almost hourly, but my voting finger is twitching madly!! What is the accepted ettiquette on such things? Any advice gratefully accepted, thanks. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the subject line says it all. I'm going on holidays soon and won't be able to edit wikipedia for a week, so my question is: taking into account my time zone of UTC +8, when was the last time I didn't edit wikipedia for a whole day? This has been quite hard: I've always had the urge to check my watchlist and make at least one minor edit every day for the last six months or so. When I leave on the 8th of January, I'd like to be able to think ""this is the first day I haven't edited wikipedia in xxx days/weeks/months".
Thanks, Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin! Since you are one of the users here who I respect greatly for your thoughtful insight and knowledge, do you have any advice as to how I should vote?
My current slate consists of Charles Matthews, Dmcdevit, Everyking (controversial, I know, but I think a voice who speaks against bans can be a good thing on Arbcom), Filliocht, Merovingian, Mindspillage (this is the only current arbitrator I feel like supporting just now), Nandesuka, Ral315 and SimonP.
Any others you think I ought to add to the list? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I created the article Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, English name for Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular in Portugal. Due to possible copyright problems it was temporarily blocked. In the meanwhile somebody deleted the article, forgotten that a Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp already exist.
Then I created the article Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular using the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp I had created also.
Now there is a Singaporean article in the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, for an institute from Singapore. I think we should create a disambiguation page...
There's a small confusion here with the designations.
Bye. Armindo 14:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Jokermage " Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you've posted some comment to this user regarding his unblocking, I've checked and it appears the autoblock kicked in, can you undo this?
19:37, 6 January 2006, Talrias blocked #77721 (expires 19:34, 7 January 2006) (Autoblocked...
Thanks -- pgk( talk) 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for reverting, I wasn't exactly sure, perhaps I should have asked on WT:RFA. Sorry 'bout that. NSL E ( T+ C) 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I replyed to your questions in my RFA, Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I replyed again, I honestly 100 percent never knew that I removed M0RHI comment until now and I would had fixed it if I knew. and I'm tagging the Image:Leiriadis.gif as nosource as I saw the original edit summary as PD by the user and I thought PD and that was a mistake in my part. -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Honestly this is the last chance I got in becoming a admin, I'm heading down the path of inactivty and if I become a admin, I probaly won't have time to use the powers as I got baseball season coming up, and also after baseball season ends, I'm going to have surgery for a bad arm defect that had since birth and I'm probaly going to be in a cast for months until fall, and after that I will be in my senior year of high school and my GPA is a bit low and I probaly won't be in wikipedia again. Should I withdraw my RFA, as I honestly have no time for wikipedia coming up and if I get elected I probaly won't have anytime to enjoy it. Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I withdrew, I just won't have the time. -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, but I'm just going to be to inactive soon, I might edit here or there around but still not planning to edit much until Fall and if I do it's going to be on commons or to get the Terry Bradshaw article into featured, thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Acually, now that I have some time in my hand, as I can't have doctors clearance for baseball because of my arm, I accpect your offer, I'm still going to be editing much less than before, and I lost my desire for becoming a admin for now. But still Thanks :) -- Jaranda wat's sup 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the formatting. It looks a lot better and now I see how the correct formatting keeps the numbers intact. David D. (Talk) 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I saw your discussion of people's admin criteria and was curious what you thought of mine. Besides the usual criteria like "shouldn't blow up the wiki" : there's one in particular: the candidate should have a good understanding of the policy trifecta. Since you have very strong thoughts about abuse of the ignore all rules guideline in particular, what do you think of asking candidates about their understanding of it?
Kim Bruning 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
(Note: This blurb references Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Wikipedia riots.) Hey Durin, I just read what you said about the rioting on Wikipedia. You're not the only one who has noticed this glaring problem in our little community. You've always been one of my favorite members as I've wandered about here, and this incredibly apt and timely statement you made only reinforces that thought. Now, enough stroking your ego. I'd like to share my thoughts on the issue with you, and see where it brings us. Firstly, the most glaring problem with our community as it stands relates to class, but it's actually just an "age" issue: Old vs. new. Many admins who have been here a long time have begun to exhibit signs of what I interpret as anti-wikiness, which is to say, they are hostile to newbies and their newfangled ways. I think the whole userbox controversy (which I participated in by starting that dreadful RfC which nevertheless brought the issue to the forefront; had I not done the RfC, someone else would have) is a symptom of this, and it manifests itself in other, more nefarious ways. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are nice and all, but sometimes, consensus simply is needed. Old-timey admins seem to have gotten the idea into their heads that if what the community decides to do interferes with WP:ENC, it should go. What I believe was forgotten in the whole mix was what a wiki is, fundamentally, and that is a community-driven, community-written encyclopedia. Piss off the community, and you have an encyclopedia falling apart at the seams. Not to mention you've sold out your original intent simply because Wikipedia does not as closely represent the ideal encyclopedia as it is believed it should. Is this view invalid or inferior? Perhaps not, but nonetheless I find it a disturbing development, and absolutely against the fundamental principles this encyclopedia was founded with. Your further thoughts on this would be appreciated, Durin. I think a lot of admins need to wake up, and soon, or else Wikipedia may little resemble its former self in a few short months. — BorgHunter ( talk) 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
BorgHunter/Rd232 (some of this is not direct response, but related things as well):
I would like help in creating a discussion area for us and others of similar mind to hammer out a focused statement of sorts, to outline the scope of this general problem with the intention of fostering change, perhaps with a petition drive. The problem is we'd likely be victimized by people who radically disagree with us. As such, I think this needs to be a page in user space, and not Wikipedia space. That will give us more latitude to be exclusionary to people who attempt to hijack the process (as happened at WP:GRFA at while back, when Ambi and TS stepped in). I know excluding people sounds anti-wiki. Perhaps it is, but what I am looking for is preventing abuse of process, and not really excluding people; just excluding people who insist on abusing the process. Thoughts? -- Durin 20:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! After a week here (I mean as a User), I'm hooked. (How do you get anything else done??) Yes, let's get together sometime. Just not in January, when my Real Work Life will be unusually complicated. -- MikeGasser (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Please move this to a sub-page, Durin, where we can discuss drafting a statement. Here are some ideas.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is written by an open, democratic society of equals.
The society is open because everyone can join it regardless of creed, interests or political opinions.
The society is democratic because decisions are made through an open process where every voice is heard. This does not mean that everything is decided with a majority vote. It certainly doesn't mean that we vote on what the facts about a given topic are. In fact votes are used only as a last resort while a discussion to reach a consensus is the preferred method of resolving disputes.
It is a society of equals because every contributor has the same chance to contribute. In a debate the best argument wins, regardless of the person making it.
I just wrote this in five minutes and I'm not wedded to any of it but I'd be interested to hear whether you were thinking along similar lines. - Haukur 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you just delete my fucking article? I consider all this discussion and the placing of "eviction notices" on my articles to be quite insulting. Katherinejohnson 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Durin, when you get a chance will you look over my User page and see if I am making the correct adjustments? Will you also look at the articles that I have edited today... I like them better than what was originally in place of them but I don't want to see them deleted.
Thanks xerocs 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a very good idea! I never thought of notifying the uploader before. I will remember to do that from now on. Raven4x4x 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I full well know my self nomination will fail, but I want to see where I could improve, I am filling out the questions now. At least with a nomination behind me, people will recognise me for when I apply next time, Wikipedia is a big place! User:Dueyfinster 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I know I was at 100%. It was our conversation and your advice (or lecture, whichever way you look at it) that made me always, ALWAYS use edit summaries. It takes but a second, but could save minutes and minutes of work. I try to answer my critics. Thanks for the advice. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You've got mail. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to hear you ended up in the USN. I actually can't contribute anything about Iraq. That's Pentagon policy as I'm not a "spokesperson." In fact, I should probably take reference out the USMC reference completely. But I'll still contribute where I can. Semper fi! UncleFester 07:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not a pirate, but I would like to speak to you again! :) Talrias ( t | e | c) 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I dislike the tone you used in your edit to the "homework" discussio on RFA Talk. My guess is you've missed a lot of the recent flap about userboxes, Kelly Martin, MSK, and all the various RFC's that have been happening. It has gotten to the point where the politics are everywhere, and it's hindering actually contributing to the encyclopedia. I was trying to go about my business and add articles or flesh out stubs I had created, and I kept getting "You have new messages". Further, when I look at my watchlist, I see all kinds of edits to talk/user pages with seemingly unending vitriole and spite. We had something of a perfect storm at the beginning of this year -- the ArbCom votes, the userbox "scandal," and some seriously overworked or otherwise weary admins. What resulted was all three becoming various incarnations of witch hunt, popularity contest, and lynching. Character assasination is happening continually. I think that the most important flaw in the RFA process is that it has led us here. As Radiant said, we have over 800 admins. It's not like we're exactly hurting for more. The real problem is the admins we have are either involved in squabbling at length over various things or are otherwise deluged with the tide of malicious behavior. Something has to happen to help us get back on track of working on the encyclopedia, and changing the RFA process is probably the lowest hanging fruit. All the various WP:* "rules" aren't presently helping us. People are ignoring policy everywhere, and creating new policy that simply reinforces their idea that their behavior is correct or good faith. I'm interested to hear what your perception of the current situation is. Avriette 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durin! I try to comport myself to absolutely the highest standards of behavior as an admin and community member, and so whenever I hear that I've done something bad, I like to try to investigate so that I can apologize to anyone who needs an apology, and so I can learn from the error and try to improve in the future.
In this poll you suggest that I've engaged in wheel warring, but I don't really know of a case of this. I take so few admin actions that most of the cases where I do, there is some special circumstance. I hope you can be so kind as to indicate what you meant, so that I can make appropriate amends or, in the case that I disagree with your assessment of what happened, I can at least try to better explain myself.
For the record, I strongly agree with the sentiment that wheel warring is a very bad thing, and the culture around it needs to change.-- Jimbo Wales 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy matters. Rd232 talk 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally, it's done :) After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chairboy. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to update the time/date of the ending of the RfA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. -- Durin 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you opposed Fred Bauder for arbcom citing the edit the rspeer cited. Yet in that edit Fred proposes placing multiple users on probation for two reasons:
1) Dissatisfaction with the arbcom decisions -- a politely euphemistic way of saying, "This user has been a jerk and has been a jerk about the correction we've tried to apply to get him to stop." 2) The apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case
I think people are misreading #1, and I think #2 is a definitely reason why people need to be placed on probation or banned. I don't know enough about the history of that case to know for sure whether or not those reasons applied for those particular people. But I don't see anything at all sinister or misguided about Fred's statements here, other than the fact that #1 should be reworded to avoid giving the impression that we don't allow dissenting voices. Jdavidb ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that...it is a fine line to walk and I do all I can not not seem like I am trying to push a POV. As far as I am concerned the conspiracy theorists have their daughter articles to play in, and I have no problem with them using those articles as playgrounds so long as they present it in a NPOV fashion. On 9/11 I almost put my foot through my T.V., so I have to work hard to not allow my politics to enter that situation. I certainly appreciate your commendation. Happy editing!-- MONGO 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Please admin,I will list the website address in the photos uploaded but please donot block me,i promise i will get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthv86 ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
i am sorry,i cant find a non-copyrighted source for my images,and hence i request you to delete my uploaded images.In future,i will take good care before uploading images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthv86 ( talk • contribs) 18:02 21 January 2006 (UTC)
what if i edit the photo using paint,and cut off unwanted portions,will that still be a copyright infringement?-- Jayanthv86 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the effort is necessary. There are links there to my edit count history per month and people seem to be interpreting that fine for the moment. Thanks for the offer though :-)
Jamyskis
Whisper,
Contribs
16:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin I appreciate the function of Wiki administration, however, I disagree with your deletion of all of my contributions based on the reasoning of "spam". At least as a courtesy to other contributors, I expect you to talk to me first and give me a chance to edit or correct what is not right. My guess is that you simply did not like that there are several links to the website, but you did not actually read the content. Except for one page which I myself asked another admin to delete due to its advertising language. The other contributed pages were perfectly valid and here is why..
If you search for "IIM" you will find it is an acronym for Indian Institute of Management and there are lots of several pages and external links to the organization. It also, happens that IIM stands for International Institute of Management and there was another page with a description of the organization in non advertising language. I think just like you allow Indian Institute of Management, it is only fair to allow International Institute of Management
My other point is that just like you consider yourself to know a lot about Navy and choose to contribute several pages on USS, I know a lot about management and IIM research (content) on management best practices.
I bet you know how frustrating it is to spend a day posting content to find them delete by some else. I believe it can be is counter productive to delete pages without discussion with the author. Imagine if another Admin decided to delete all your contribution on USS, without even discussion (for any reason he/she finds valid).
I urge you to reconsider you decision, review and undelete the valid pages
I’m also open to discussions, suggestions and changes to those pages
I look forward to hear from you
ok,do delete the images,i will try to get appopriate pictures which satisfies wikipedia copyright guidelines.-- Jayanthv86 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I know you are very very analytical and detailed. So I came here... to ask you if you could review my WP "confession" and give me some feedback (which I am terribly lacking). It will read more like anti-campaign, but I figure, if you like me with all these bad things, then you really like me :)
So about me:
So that's about me. Let me know if you have any questions, and you can take your time. I am myself these days involved in real life.
Sincerely, Renata 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you,will the image be there as long as the editors see it? i am sorry,that i have troubled you so much and you have taken pains to notify me about copyright violations.-- Jayanthv86 14:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
.-- A dam1213 Talk + 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
well i uploaded a image at Anna Kournikova page and the name of the image is Image:Anna12.jpg.It is a magazine cover.I have written both summary and licensing.plz tell me wether the steps i have followed is right.-- Jayanthv86 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I kind of smelled a copyvio as well. A 27k, unwikied text dump sure looked a bit suspect in that regard. :) I'm doing new page patrolling for a bit; let's see if it really does come back. Thanks for the Google search! - Lucky 6.9 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, Thank you for taking the time to explain your response.
While, now, I understand the reasons for your choice to delete my submitted pages, I still think the stated guidelines are misapplied to my submitted content . Obviously there is disagreement on this issue and probably due to the fact you stated that these pages lie in grey area. I'd like to remind you of your quote "I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. I try to work within Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as much as possible. When in doubt, I tend to leave things alone and let others work things out. For example, I think it rather silly to have articles on obscure Pokemon characters".
I only ask that there will be discussions and guidance from you before future deletions.
I do not blamce or wrong you for deletion, if I were in your shoes and did not have all the information, I would have done the samething. Therefore, I hope the following points provide necessary information to address posted comments
All of which, I belive, would qualify for reference links under relevant management and research pages
Durin – I appreciate your candid response and thank you for your advice
I will re-submit the new articles and I hope you would take the above explanation into consideration before you mark them for deletion
Maj
18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't know if a barnstar could begin to show my gratitude. Hopefully together we've convinced Jimbo of what's going on. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to thank you. Karm a fist 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. That seems a fair point, even though I don't have a problem with bureaucrats being on the ArbCom myself.
Talking of the ArbCom, I know you have strong opinions on the previous committee and I was wondering how you feel about the results of the election. I'm happy with it myself, in that I didn't oppose a single successful candidate (although there were a few neutrals). How do you feel about the new ArbCom? Raven4x4x 08:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the stub bio that I created for Melanie Mitchell? She is a important contributor to the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science. Her importance can be seen by the number of Wikipedia worthy articles that reference her, both as a corroborator with leading researchers and for her direct contributions to AI and CS. As the start of an article, I feel that it met the requirements for stub articles. If it did not, what should be added to make it a helpful contribution? Jonathan Auer 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your reference to a hypothetical
WP:ANOT. Well, I liked the idea...and there it is. Cheers. —
BorgHunter
ubx (
talk)
20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi! The deletion guidelines state, that "User talk pages of non-logged in users where the message is no longer relevant(...)" can be speedy-deleted. I don't think that the message is relevant anymore, because I (the addressee) have read it. So, please, insert my request again. Thanks! 80.138.108.146 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S: I don't know how this is handled here, but it is possible also to (let) delete the specific revision of the article I edited? And if yes, where to request this? I hope you can help me therewith! Greetings, 80.138.108.146 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Loose Change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.77.61 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 January 2006
Thanks, Durin, for helping so quickly with my RfA page! -- AStanhope 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Id like you to
update the graph. Thank you. --
Cool Cat
Talk|
@
13:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Right now I have no time, but it is immediately seen taht something is fishy: There is no Polish word "Nache". The suggested transaltion "our" is nasze in Polish. See you later. mikka (t) 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. You may post the question at the Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board. mikka (t) 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm on quite a tight schedule and I don't have the time to dig through history pages to find something, I don't even know where to find in the first place. If you could please dig up some links to relevant edits and discussion, I'd be very grateful. - Mgm| (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I added the speedy delete tag to Queens Park High School that you removed. I'm not very active on the deletion scene; I just add tags when I run across things on random article searches. Anyway, I thought that high school articles without a certain amount of information were speedy-eligible, which is why I added the tag. I'm not sure if they should be sent now to AfD (or whatever it's called these days), but that process is fairly involved and frankly confusing for someone that's not involved in deleting articles day-to-day. Is there any way I can flag an article for deletion or deletion-oriented review without misapplying the speedy tag or going through the whole nomination rigamarole? Thanks. - Bantman 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin!
Thank you again for your painstaking review of my contributions and your excellent RfA nomination. I look forward to getting down to work, and I thank you for the opportunity to expand my involvement in the project. Like I say below in the thanks message I'll be leaving those who voted, let me know if you see me do anything silly. Best regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY ( ☎) 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
Hi, as you requested, I uploaded 4 pics to commons: Image:WTC7 with Ground Zero.jpg, Image:WTC7 from bottom.jpg, Image:WTC7 and WFC.jpg, and Image:WTC7 alone.jpg. The quality is not that great because when I got there it was already getting dark and as I said before, my camera is not the best. So if you find them useful, please add to the article. Cheers, Renata 01:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the article titled "Winstanley TV"? We are getting quite a lot of local media attention and it was suggested that we put up a summary of what our new venture is all about up here on the reliable source that is wikipedia.
I'd just like to know why, you can get in touch at "adam.m.mcclean@gmail.com".
Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.240.98 ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You may put it back now, I've accepted.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Now the ArbCom has a new army of clerks who represent far-from-optimal tendencies in our administrative corps. This has dashed the tiny bit of optimism that the election engendered in me. I have been editing anonymously mostly now anyway. Copyediting is still an acceptable way to spend spare minutes, I've decided; if the project goes downhill, I will only wasted time otherwise unlikely to be spent constructively at my desk. Anyway, just wondering about your thoughts on the status quo, if you have the time to send an email. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Guidelines aren't created by polls - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. On that earlier discussion, most people agreed to snowballing as long as it's done by a bureaucrat, and considering I have the backing of a 'crat on this one, I'd say that point is moot. R adiant _>|< 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin, Rune Welsh here. We haven't interacted much before, but still I was wondering if it would be possible for you to review my contributions under your admin nomination criteria. I'm not thinking of running for admin any time soon, but I'd like to know whether I'm headed on the right direction and your criteria strike me as a particularly good measure for that purpose. Please do it whenever you feel like, and if you have any questions just ask! Many thanks. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, take your time. I'm in no hurry. Thanks! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer to reinstate my RFA I really appreciate it. I feel that I should get a chance to complete the process. Please reinstate. Thank-you -- Mb1000 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Mb1000 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, my offer to restore it was ignored. Raul654 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Following up on our conversation at RFA talk, thank you for your numbers; they're quite useful. What would you think of adding the sentence (based on your findings), "Since June of 2005, no editor with fewer than 750 edits has had a successful request for adminship" WP:RFA under the subheading "Nomination standards" (currently a rather vague paragraph). Not an instruction not to apply, certainly not an official prerequisite or change in policy, but simply a statement of fact. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Durin, would you be willing to have a look at a dispute I'm having with another user? I don't feel it's necessary to go through the "official" (or even unofficial in the case of the mediation cabal) channels, as I am embarassed that such a small article has generated such disagreement. I want to believe that a group of adults can agree on something. Anyways, if you have time and/or inclination, I'd really appreciate it. I have historically asked Radiant! for guidance, but his talk page says he's on a hiatus. Avriette 07:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Having expressed strong opposition to my
first nomination you may wish to comment on my
second.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If we discussing it let remove the image than after the discossuion we put it if the people accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.205.23 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This Discussion goes to forever. Why you remove this image until an aggrement maked? Everybody must be respect the Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.205.23 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You are probably aware of this, but user Rgulerdem has deleted the image at least 4 times in the past hour, placing him in violation of 3RR, and also as he is deleting the picture against community consensus, I would consider it vandalism. I think a block might be in order. Thanks! -- Maverick 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Durin. That vandalism and reverting was getting out of hand. As you can see, there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion on the talk page to keep the image as it is. I am glad that freedom of speech and democracy has prevailed. Again, thank you :)
EuroSong
20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be useful to explain also on the talk page or WP:RfPP - and I trust this block will be short; Featured Articles should be editable. Septentrionalis 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not removing the image in question -- I'm trying to revert the article back to the article that includes the image within it. Please check the poll: I voted to have the image in the article and was trying to prevent the reverts of the article to an imageless one. Sol. v. Oranje 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I again must lodge a complaint that I am unfairly blocked from this article; it is Rajab who keeps removing the image, not myself. Please rectify. Sol. v. Oranje 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Dorin,
YOu cannot let an insult be posted a wiki article. What you should do is, protect it without the pictures. An insult in a wiki article is against the rule. I cannot see why you are not completely ignorant about it?
Please protect the article without the pictures. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I was a bit confused by some of your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Genisock2. I've voted "support" for now, but I want to be certain I understand your concerns, because it may cause me to change my vote as I value your opinion. I understand your concerns about scalability, but what do you mean when you say "Special:Unwatchedpages becomes undermined and useless"? I can't see how the undermining or loss of utility would occur. Similarly for "I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of vesting the protection of so many thousands of articles in the hands of just one person within Wikipedia". Isn't that what happens whenever people add a couple hundred or thousand articles from the list to their watchlist, as we've been encouraged to do? How does having a second account with administrator privileges change this? Thanks for your patience. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
how long would you consider blocking me? Rajab 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do delete it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Durin, the page was undeleted at the user's request (on my talk page). I'd still like to hear your position on when an RfA should be listed as an unsuccessful request. NoSeptember talk 11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You have warned me for Edit Warring on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I am not sure I understand where I've made an edit war? Maybe it is because I am new here, but I really try to discuss things on the talk pages and refrain from reverts as much as possible. Can you show it to me, so that I can learn? -- EyesAllMine 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Wish you'd been around some more. Happy that somebody who is not "personally involved" tries to slow the edits down a little. -- EyesAllMine 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you not equate me with the other two that are linking in from that POV pushing website that uses Wikipedia comparison edits in an effort to wikibomb our articles. As far as I am concerned, those trolls are close to being banned...and timestamp your posts. [12] and check your email.-- MONGO 15:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Had a chance to think things over and I wanted to apologize for being a jerk. Sorry.-- MONGO 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding my template, {{ Myeager1}}. I was pretty happy with how that turned out, but it made my day to hear someone else agree, so that was really nice of you. If it's not a big deal, I'd kind of like to keep that template around, having it not be deleted. If I'm not mistaken, it wouldn't save any space on the servers to have it deleted, and it's got a clear enough name that I doubt anyone else would ever want it. Would that be a problem, or is template deletion "just something that happens"? Is it simply bad luck to just keep a failed RFA template around? ;) Thanks for listening. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
D -
You've made your case against the changes many times. Your position is very clear. But isn't it also clear that people aren't being swayed by the arguments you're presenting? I'm a "hard metric" guy myself, but I also beleive that some things do not lend themselves to hard metrics. Every change is frightening, and it's good to try to plan and think and mitigate posible problems, but eventually you just have to leap. What is the worst, the absolute worst thing that can happen? Some version of DfA runs for a month and everyone hates it? We either promote a pack of hooligans or fail to set the flag for a group of saints? Big deal. Nothing unfixable, really. If someone leaves the project, that's infixable, but it also happens all the time, for various reasons. I know you don't like it, but the best way to show it won't work is not by making the same arguments you've made before.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, could you help me out in deleting a couple of prank images uploaded by a (schoolboy?) newbie, User:Jay231104. They are Image:Maurice.JPG and Image:Maurice Proctor.jpg. I flagged them up on WP:IFD, and notified him as the uploader. He has now responded to me, somewhat apologetically, and asked if they could be deleted ASAP ( discussion here). Could you do the necessary, thanks. BTW, any progress on the review, not pressing you but just wondered? All the best. -- Cactus.man ✍ 13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OMG! WTF? Durin has a sense of humor! Kim Bruning 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've filled in the source information for the images which you brought to my attention. Thank you for the update, as They could've been deleted. Indeed, those were images uploaded back in my newbie days and I neglected to return and rectify the info after I became fully aware of policy.
Concerning the images recieved from the Kawaii website, they qualify as promotional due to their distributive status being released prior to each iteration, and they are displayed on the official websites as well. The qualm about not being able to see the images is because the site requires a log in before access. To this end, the disclaimer applies to fair use promotional as wikipedia is a private funded site. As I am indeed a member of the site, the images fall under the right to be utilized here, and furthurmore, for educational usage. Finally, I'd like to know which views you disagree with me on. Per my fellow wikipedian's objections conerning the quote on my userspace, I implore you to see the rfa's talk page. - Zero Talk 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you nominated me as a sysop. I am involved in a dispute in Software patents under the European Patent Convention (see talk page: Original research and EU directive and history [13]). I do not want to enter in a revert war. Could you give me your opinion about this matter? Thanks in advance. Jheald's suggestion was wise, but I only received a nice personal attack back... I'll step back for now. Cheers. -- Edcolins 08:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your input. In retrospect I was rather fast to push that button. Further reserch was required. I'll do more to avoid such mishaps in the future. Bobby1011 14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That is not the OA logo, not the sash logo and it's not the same color nor design. You guys worry way to much about this stuff. I'm removing the OA box from my page because no one can come up with a logo that looks good and doesn't upset the tag Nazis. Rlevse 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if you'd seen this (I don't think you made any comments on the talk page). As you seem to be interested in doing something about improving the reputation of admins (in the right way I mean not just PR!), I wondered if you could help me in continuing to develop this, and take it forward. I've never seen a proposed policy through to acceptance as official policy, so I'm not really sure how to go about it. If you could help that'd be great. Petros471 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
PS. Do you think any part of your admin watch thoughts could be incorperated into the ACC? Petros471 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You missed these in your Affilliations section clean up campaign: "User VFW"--the VFW is a private organization, not a government agency, despite what the tag says; "User former BSA" clearly uses the BSA logo (given what you said before, I can't believe you missed this one, despite the creator claiming it's his own work); "User Vigil" uses a Vigil sash, which has the entire image of what we went around about before, so I'm awe struck that it's okay to use the whole sash and not just the (modified) arrow tip. Rlevse 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please delete. Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, if you remember, quite a while ago I asked you to evaluate me for adminship. A few things changed since that time. Go for it! nominated me at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Renata3 (2) (I asked him to correct the formatting before I make any decision). So now I turn to you for your say, 'cause I don't really know where are you at with the evaluation and I don't really mind waiting. Also, I have quite a few things to add to my Wiki confession above. Most notably:
Care to vote?
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)
-- Striver 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't testing anything out, I was showing Americans their place by calling them 'whities'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 ( talk • contribs)
Blocked from editing or blocked from the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 ( talk • contribs)
Just matters a tad much. But I'll stop. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I noticed you deleted my user page, so I thought I'd ask you if having my account deleted is possible? I'll look for your reply here. -- CDN99 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just curious about the number of votes at this RfA: total votes. As far as you know, any record set here? hydnjo talk 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, is it difficult obtaining that information? Since it would be nice to regenerate the statistics for February, and see if things changed, or if it is really the same people who constantly run the show. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, thanks for your question, not sure where it came from, other than work on castles maybe ??. Anyway, no, I am not a Highlander .... stereotyping aside, I would probably have bright orange hair and a bushy beard if that was the case. Alas, I have neither :-) I am a Sassenach, a Lowland Scot. Nonetheless I am a still a Scotsman, and naturaly proud of that fact. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL, what a hoot of an IRC learning curve :-) How did you learn to type so fast? -- Cactus.man ✍ 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant to say, If you need any further background info on the issue just let me know. Cheers. -- Cactus.man ✍ 10:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, i noticed your sub page Trackandfield-stub. What are your plans for this? Do you want people to add to your page. personally i think this is a good idea. I wonder if a list of red linked bios would be useful too since many of the famous athletes do not have biographies. I note that one user has already been adding an informal and uncategorized stub. See this google search. David D. (Talk) 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I don't use IRC or any other chat (that's a personal thing with a very long story; unless you have gmail and can use gmail chat...). You can email me - either through WP or by just attaching gmail.com to my username. I am busy in real life too so I completely understand and I am in no rush. In fact, I would not mind to wait till after April 15 :) (I am a future tax accountant, and no, I cannot help you with your tax return :D). And no, you are not "slower than the slowest civil servant..." You haven't met IRS... :) Renata 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that Durin, I appreciate the hard work you have put into the nomination. I only have one request for some advice: On the previous conflicts question is it appropriate to refer to anything only in general terms without naming specific users out of respect for their privacy, or is it acceptable to give names and provide relevant diffs if needed, as it's all there in the history anyway? In other words, is there any accepted 'protocol' on this? Thanks. I'll probably get it posted formally in the next couple of days. -- Cactus.man ✍ 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin - please have a look at this proposal - a few ideas to stop vandalism before it takes effect. Would love to have your opinion/ideas on it. Thanks, Rama's Arrow 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
For fixing up my application for adminship. I saw that you had a little trouble there :-) [17] ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 00:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that the Iwo Jima pic with the F-14s flying past the memorial is outstanding. I like the fact that it has the memorial and the landing beaches in the background. It finally motivated me to scan my own picture of the landing beaches taken from the top of Suribachi. Hopefully I'll get them uploaded tomorrow. Will make a nice addition to the article. -- User:Looper5920 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Durin since your the statistics guru, could you help me dig some numbers for the following:
I'm trying to come up with some hard facts to help make a counter argument against Raul's never protect the FA stance. Any other statistics you feel might be relevant/useful in making a counter argument would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help.
ALKIVAR
™
22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, I once asked you if I can help you out in preparing admin noms - you said that it would be better if I devised my own standards and nominated some one rather than me doing all the work for you (or something to that effect). Well, my standards were ready sometime back and my first nomination is up there. I know that you are busy but it wd be great if you can have a look and spare a comment or two. TIA, -- Gurubrahma 16:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, I am astonished by the support I received - now I have lots of "thank-you cards" to write!!
It wasn't at all stressful, as I half expected it to be, and your nomination clearly carries some weight with many people. As to whether it should be congratulations or condolences, time will tell :) Thanks again for your efforts in preparing the nomination, I just hope that I don't screw up and let you down in performing my admin duties. If I need advice on matters you will be my first port of call.
In the meantime, for your sterling work in broadening the admin pool with qualified candidates let me award my first ever "barnstar" - the Happy Cactus award (courtesy of the US NOAA). No doubt we'll cross paths from time to time as we work away here, so I'll see you around. All the best. -- Cactus.man ✍ 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
MathBot overwrote someone else's comment left on an RfA. See [18]. Please fix this. -- Durin 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like it if you stopped removing images from my user page without asking me before doing so. I know perfectly well about the fair use policies for images on user pages and I don't give a rats toot about it. Please stop editing my page without my consent, its my user page and not yours, so please stop being a pain in the ass. I just want to work on some articles here like I always do without someone like you getting in my way during the process. — Wackymacs 07:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why you removed the images from my user page?-- Jersey Devil 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sigh, yes. To be honest, I was hoping someone else would step in, so as to show the author that it's not just my opinion. I suppose I should have mentioned notability more prominently in my earlier notes to him. I'm not so worried about the copyvio because I believe that he is the father copyright holder for Stephanie Staples' website. Want to take a turn with him?
FreplySpang
(talk)
20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
So, you removed the images of a 1997 film because the odds of them taking action are about as high as winning the lottery- which is what, 4 to 1? And a logo apple stopped using eight years ago. I can understand the first one, but the multicolored apple logo? It's not as if millions of other sites don't sport them... Dan 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You have just removed an Apple logo from my personal page without having the courtesy to write and explain. It's not a big issue, the logo doesn't matter but I wonder what your intentions are. Regards.
Kleinzach 19:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you add this questions to your 'FAQ":
'Why am I removing images from the pages of users who are not in the United States and therefore not subject to US law?'
Regards Kleinzach 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No doubt there are acres of pages that can be described as 'Wikipedia policy'. I regret that I don't find that a satisfactory answer - and I am still puzzled by your intentions.
Apple distribute their logo (in the form of plastic transfers) to people who buy their hardware. They apparently want their logo displayed - not suppressed.
Regards. Kleinzach 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind putting off the delinking of solitary years for the time being, but the question is, how long should this be on hold? It's been on hold for quite a while, and it's getting frustrating.
The MoS has said not to overlink dates for a long time now, but several months ago some debate began on this. So far as I can tell, Ambi and Talrias would like years to be linked, and just about everyone else would like years to be linked only when parts of dates or when particularly relevant. Months have passed, and things are still right where they were. I see no indication that the MoS will change to allow the overlinking of years. And I see no indication that Ambi and Talrias are going to say "I'm okay with that" any time soon. So how long should this be on hold?
I'll certainly stop delinking years for the day, as you request. I don't mind putting it off for a couple days, or even longer, if it looks like progress is being made and we're not just waiting for Godot.
I apologize if I sound curt. You've been very polite; I'm just frustrated about the whole situation. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the Thank You page. Once it gets well started it was my plan that it would be moved to project space ( Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thank yous) and each successful/unsuccessful candidate would add their own message by tradition (it just needs a bit of publicity to get started) :-). NoSeptember talk 17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't think what else to add. I think you very much captured the essence of what has disturbed me about this and I am extremely grateful for you stepping in to say what you did. Out of the entire process, including all discussions on the RfA page up until my edit to the project page, the only action I took that I regret was not giving the same care to that one edit summary as I did to everything else.
Reading the page just now, and seeing the comments Cecropia makes there accusing me of being uncivil, not assuming good faith and making personal attacks, I'm glad that I responded to the comment he left on my talk page without having seen that. I am now, for the first time in this whole affair, angry. The ONLY action that all of those comments could be refering to is the edit summary, and I would challenge Cecropia to find any other justification. If that edit summary warrants those characterization, well, you already made the point for me. I am definitely taking your advice (and had already done so anyway) of letting it die down. Where Cecropia mistook my previous comments as being in anger, any additional comments I would make at this point would be my first comments in anger at Wikipedia. I'd rather not go there. Thank you again, — Doug Bell talk• contrib 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for point out some good points regarding my request for adminship. Kindly consider taking part in the request, but placing your opinion. Maltesedog 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the mistake I made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination). Seano1 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course I don't think less of you, Durin; I think more, if anything. That situation got more than a bit out of hand and you exerted a calming influence. I've been known to attempt that myself, but obviously didn't on that one. My original intent was to explain that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever in AZ's non-promotion, since it seems that we have an increasing number of editors ready to go to war against "the system," the rules, the Bureaucrats, etc., with hints of dark motives anytime someone they favor isn't promoted. When I saw Mr. Bell making an inappropriate edit and comment on a policy page, I gave him notice with the intent of nipping an edit war in the bud. I guess I thought Bell was a more experienced editor than he was. "If I had it to do over again" I would still have given him the notice but I would have worded it more carefully to indicate that it was instructive rather than punitive. Anyway, many thanks for your efforts. Cheers, Cecropia 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Please check my post to that page and comment. Thank you. --
Mmounties (
Talk)
02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Durin, you have done good work on this. I want you to look at [ [19]] and my response. I don't expect you to do any more on this, but want you to be aware of this. -- Cecropia 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
It was that or walk away from the project for good, and that really would be a mistake. The stress on here was getting stupid and this isn't the first time I've been slated for making a minor mistake as a bureaucrat. I think it's better for everyone this way tbh. --
Francs
2000
12:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Guess I must have avoided edit conflict by hitting preview, and somehow missed it. Oh well, I'll drop a note on his talk page instead. Looking back now at the history I see Benon withdrew before a couple of other votes- do they count? Not that it makes much difference either way. Petros471 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, how come thanks and endorsements (e.g. barnstars) from experienced users/admins don't get a mention in the process. Surely, this is the trust and acceptance by the community that one is looking for?
So how far do I need to change an image to make it a new image? and in addition, I cannot find an copyright or a TM anywhere for that design (which would be in the class constitution (but I can't find it else where too)). Wouldn't that make it public domain anyway? I'm trying to do this for all boat classes, but trying to do it carefully and wiki-like.
I've sailed the 5-0 but it is too expensive of a boat for me to do on a regualr basis. Minnesota1 16:57, 31 March 2006
Sweet, thanks for the help man. Minnesota1 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Earlier today I was going to add those to the Essjay RfB, but then I noticed that unlike the RfAs the old RfBs are sans headers/footers. Do you think they should be added? NoSeptember talk 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey for those nomination percentage statistics you were compiling, are you counting self-noms as well? Ëvilphoenix Burn! 11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin: Thank you for your message about untagged images. The ones in question have been replaced with better (clearer, etc.) images, and when I discard an image, I often remove the tag to guarantee that it will be deleted. Why? Because if I happen to find an even better image of the subject one day, the former image's title is free to reuse. That's just me trying to be tidy, and I'm sorry if it caused you inconvenience. But if you notice on the images in question, none are currently posted on a site, and each says "DELETE" where the tag would normally go. Good luck with your mission. -- Hugh Manatee 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's probably better to move the page before you delete it - deleting a heavily linked-to page is apparently a bad thing for the servers. In addition, if you want to hide the page history, it's good to actually hide it. My suggestion would be move, delete, recreate, and then move the recreated page back. Then there aren't 400 deleted versions just begging a person to look at and see why they were deleted ;) Guettarda 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I noted your response. However a different interpretation of the fair use policy is available. The fair use tags and fair use laws state that the images can be used in a context of identification. All of the fair use images on my page are in accord with that policy as no "free" version is currently available for any of the remaining fairuse images on the page. Gateman1997 16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
... and I replied to your email :) Renata 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Durin, have you done any studies on the changes in editing habits of guys who are predominantly editors (and not predominantly vandalfighters), before and after they become admins ? Tintin ( talk) 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ever flown out of there? I have. Cook truly does dominate that airport. I feel the term is extremely accurate. At one point, Cook was going to run ATC at that airport. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you redo the graph to plot all actual admins as a scatter plot, with the average passing through it? I would be interested to see the lowest numbers of edit that actually successfully become admins. Stevage 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok guys, one I'm not sure of the need for the graph Stevage is asking for. Two, this discussion is more appropriate at WT:RFA :) Three, I agree that edit counting is a very poor metric of determining quality of a candidate. Four, no there is no way to represent quality of edits graphically. Quality is 100% subjective. There's no way to measure it in this context without strictly defining what parameters quality means in this context. Any such parameters in this context are going to be rather arbitrary. -- Durin 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't play the dupe in that twisted leprechaun's cyberstalking. By the way, since I see you like sailing, I wrote the article about the greatest yacht designer of all time: Nathanael Herreshoff. -- Hugh Manatee 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin - good work with those graphs. Have you got time to do one more...? :) I notice that the Number of RfAs per week over time has been increasing at about the same rate that the Success rate of RfAs over time has been decreasing. I think a graph of Number of successful RfAs per week over time would be a very informative addition. I suspect that you'd find that - irrespective of the number of nominations - the number of promotions to adminship has stayed almost exactly constant. Grutness... wha? 01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you if those claims were cited any the article didn't read like a PR release. All it talks about are its free services, boasts its membership and even its charitable contributions! I have taken you advice and AfD's it. Hope that's cool :) - Gl e n T C 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Hii...
I noticed that you removed an image of the simpsons... from my user page....i really didnt understand why you removed it and didnt realize that all the immages of simpsons were fair use....i realized that just now.... can you tell me which images of the simpsons i can use on my user page? Thanks a lot!! Cheers! Jayant, 17 Years, India • contribs 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry I lost my cool. I meant to apologize earlier. No hard feelings I hope. I appreciate your hard work and continued dedication. Thanks again.
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
To Durin for his continued contributions on helping to keep Wikipedia fair and balanced OSU80 02:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) |
Earlier today, you SD'd a page called
Salom which was heavily connected to the page
J-Stylez. However, the latter page has continually had its SD template removed as vandalism. Could you please speedy delete
J-Stylez and put a discretionary block on the IP and sockpuppets that the user has edited with. As you can see, I've done my best to abide by process, but I'm just annoyed/frustrated at this point. Thanks in advance for the help. →
\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\ •
07:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC) This was just taken care of. If there're no blocks put in place, could you please look into it?
Sorry about that; I really should have read the policy before making the hasty reversions. -- WGee 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Please check your inbox and happy Easter! Renata 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Template:User_Calgary_Highlander I want an explanation on why you just butchered my infobox. Michael Dorosh 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have always made my best effort to remove fair use images from user pages when I see them. I have, as you, gotten a very mixed reaction. Some say "aw, shucks, sorry" and others respond as if I had mortally wounded them personally. I was wondering if I might be able to either point to your explanation page in my edit summaries or make some semblance of it in my user space to refer to. I really appreciate your efforts in this matter, and I hope to hear back from you soon. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I get the potential issue with fair-use images in sigs (though Croat Canuck never raised this as a potential issue when I was asking him about my sig initially), but if images are the server strain you argue it is in your post on my talk page, why is anyone allowed to have any? Right above me, CC had a pair in there, and no one seems to have given him any problems. Am I home and cool if I replace my Oilers and Canadiens logos with, say, Alberta and Canada flags? Or will those, in time, be pulled as well?
Sorry about blowing up earlier, it's just that those images have been up for over a month and only now are they removed, so that's what irked me. And yes, I don't like that rogue "administrator" going around and acting malicious. Also, for Internet Explorer somebody named Malo has blocked me, even though any other troubles have been resolved. In fact all I can think about was the spat on my userpage. I have not vandalized anything else, nor is my intention to. I was wondering if you could remove the block. Thanks. - Kingsean1
Do you think you could be a tiny bit more careful and replace the removed image with some text instead of a '? (just for the future, I've corrected it this time) :P Thanks. —
nath
a
nrdotcom (
T •
C •
W)
23:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. I don't know what article you're referring to, as your message does not say. I think you're getting me confused with another user, as I neither use images, nor would I do so without permission of the copyright holder. Agendum 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, bugging you about charts again, since I'm getting increasingly concerned by the current data. So I was wondering if you might when you have time 1) extend the various charts time slots out(especially "Number of successful RfAs per week") 2) Let me know on "Average edit count of RfAs over time" what the calculated R values were? (And if you don't have time/ don't want to/whatever, feel free to ignore this). Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok ok... I understood, but this is ridiculous in my "humble" opinion. Thanks. -- Marcelo 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
One hypothesis (which is untestable) is that the voters on RFA have changed. I have noticed that the general voting public seems to shift around a lot, including a small group of hardcore returning voters, and a large group of aspinring admins and friends. It'd be cool to test whether the average edit count of the voters is changing, though I admit, it might be taking things a bit too far ;-) Cheers, The Minist e r of War (Peace) 07:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Would it make sense to note that the is was restarted by the 'Crat? The circumstances were a bit odd. JoshuaZ 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi.
Apparently you deleted my band's page, Shima_(band).
Please tell me why. We ARE a real band, you know, and we ARE working on an album which WILL be released in a matter of weeks. Just because we're not from the US doesn't mean we don't exist. Have you heard of "Europe"? It's a magical place somewhere outside the US.
Regards, Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondal ( talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2006
Nice userpage. ;) Jude ( talk, contribs, email) 00:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you removed the image in regards to the problem of "fairuse" images for userboxes. I have read your article further explaining the issue and whether it may contribute to a copywrite violation. Do you have a suggestion for a suitable replacement licence for that logo? I checked other useboxes and they fall under the same licences but are not removed, why? I.e. Template:User Queen's University and Template:User UWO. YCCHAN 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please take a second to really think why it is wrong to remove Socialist International logo from userpages and userboxes. I know you are smart and I'm really trying to enhance my calm, but what I'm about to say really ought to be obvious to anyone who has had even a mediocre high-school education. That is: Socialists don't believe in intellectual property "rights". IP "rights" are fundamentally opposite of our political ideology. It is germane to point out that a bulk of the parties which make up SI have been at the forefront of fighting digital patents and digital rights management in Europe. Just because somebody chose the wrong copyright template doesn't give you an excuse to be intellectually lazy. Before you remove, please think first and use a little common sense. It is incumbent on you to at least do a cursory verification of the copyright type (if you look closely at SI's website you will find no ©, ®, or TM anywhere). I haven't checked, but I surely hope you haven't done the same thing with any of the Marxist or communist content. I know you are trying your best, all I'm asking is for a little care. Thank you. -- Dragon695 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza is not part of Wikipedia's policy-making or enforcement apparatus. Wikipedia policy is enforced by administrators. No part of Wikipedia belongs to you. -- Tony Sidaway 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sir, I see that you are very active regarding removal of fair use images from user spaces, etc. I have also noticed that copyright infringement remains blatant on Wikipedia through such practices, more often not because of deliberate actions of the users but because of their ignorance of law. Now, I suppose, that you might agree with me stating that copyright infringements threaten the existence of the encyclopedia. I would like to propose that fair use images should never be allowed to enter user space by making certain amends to the Wiki functioning, that will not allow the use of an image (which is copyrighted), ie. tagged by a {{ Non-free fair use in}} or any other fair use tag for use on user/user talk pages. The What links here section clearly shows, where a copyrighted image is being used on a userpage, like if an image is used on userspace it will clearly show that its linked to User:Anirudhsbh, for instance. The User part can be easily used to distinguish usage of the image on Article space or user space. Please instruct me as to where I should post my concerns, so that it becomes easier for administrators to regulate fair use images on the encyclopedia. Kindly acknowledge my post. Regards, -- Andy123 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. --
Fr
a
ncs2000
09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
So, why the image was not deleted yet? I would like to use that until it happens.
-- Osias 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
When I saw that edit summary, I had high hopes of some tasty vandalism! (I have 3 vandalisations to my user page so far... all from friends) but no, it was just a mundane correction. Thanks for that, i GUESS. I'm trying to get over my editcountitis, (ha!) so you are not helping! Grin. PS I moved all my userboxes and flags off the front page but didn't get rid of them. How's the page load time now? Seemed better to me. + + Lar: t/ c 14:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, just thought you should know that a user you warned on the 20th of April has been causing trouble again, blanking Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand. His IP is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.188.141.162 HornetMike 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
So I guess you are still not checking your email, huh?
Renata
04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Thanks for fixing up the recently closed RfAs that I appear to have botched. I was reading the instructions on WP:BCRAT and noticed the new ones about 'ending -> ended' and 'Vote here -> Final' etc. and went back to fix mine and noticed you got to a lot of them already :) — Ilyan e p (Talk) 01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed that you have removed a userbox from my userpage. I am not upset or anything. I am just wondering why you removed it. Was it a violation of some sort for me to use it?
Thanks.
Upon further reading I have come to the conclusion that it was possibly removed because of the image in the userbox. Was there a problem with the image? That might also explain why the image disappeared a few weeks ago from the other CLE userbox that I have.
What the ****?! I didn't request you to delete my user page! Are you on crack?
Please restore it, that was really hard to make!
Flame viper 12 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
G'day,
I'm the Chairman of VicRovers. Our logo has not been copywrited. Can we not ehn use it as we please, such as for a template? Cheers,
Patrick McCormick VicRovers Chairman www.vicrovers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmc82 ( talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 May 2006
There's just got to be a way we can come to a compromise here. Will you accept a link to an alternate POV site if we can find one which isn't over-commercial? Or is your stance an absolutist one? Because it seems to me you have changed the basis we were arguing on in the article's talk page. Have a think about it and let me know. I do not have any particular POV on this but my stance is that s a point of principle, common sense and (I would argue) Wiki policy, there just has to be a link of some kind there. Once we can agree on that it just becomes a problem of finding the right link, you see... Guinnog 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your message regarding 7 World Trade Center. I agree that the discussion has become hopelessly deadlocked. I also feel, as you know, very strongly that the controlled demolition POV is highly notable, that WP:EL requires a link to it, and that all the links previously submitted have been acceptable by normal Wikipedia standards. As I'm sure you can tell, the exclusion of those links has really been bothering me.
Given that you've agreed not to use your administrator powers in connection with that article, but instead to refer any problems requiring administrative action to an administrator not involved in the dispute, I have decided not to file an RfC against you. I think that this arrangement adequately resolves the problem, and that an RfC would therefore be pointless. Again, thank you for coming up with this course of action, and for your courteous message. -- Hyperbole 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for replying. (Do you normally reply on your own talk page btw? I'd probably find it easier if you could reply on mine, though I don't feel strongly about it.) It seems to me there are three threads here, which we had best unpick if we can. These are
Now, without any accusation of bad faith here, I feel that 2 and 3 seem dependent on 1. I can see that this is a sensitive issue, but I think that particualrly some of Mongo's statements show that he seems to regard the exclusion of links to alternate theories a sacred quest (or a 'mission statement' as he puts it). Wikipedia is not a memorial [21], and even if it was, I would have thought that honouring the truth would be a better way to remember the dead (am I right to say that nobody died in WTC7, btw?) than censoring the page. It looks censored to me at present, which was what brought me to the talk page in the first place.
Remembering that "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence", according to FEMA, I think weakens your argument on 1 above. If there was an established and credible cause, I would have more sympathy. I am baffled as to why the Popular Mechanics link is also seemingly deemed unacceptable, as it provides the best arguments I have seen for the official story, although without any real supporting evidence (this may of course be because the evidence was never collected and is now lost, in which case the real cause may never be known, which is strange and noteworthy in its own right).
As to 2, you seem to be changing tack. You say above that "I've never argued against the POV", but then later that "I think we need to find if this theory on WTC 7 being intentionally demolished is notable". Have you changed your mind?
I took you seriously when you said you had nothing against the POV being expressed. I spent an hour googling and the link I suggested 911 Research seemed like a decent source, in that it is reasonably well-written and cites its sources. I would certainly have no qualms in including links like this in editing Wiki.
I think then that 3 above is indefensible, especially in the light of 1 and 2. I don't agree that it is a breach of policy; it is considerably less commercial, for example, than news sources and other verifiable sources that we all use continually.
I am as keen as you to avoid mediation; maybe if you can answer the points above we can somehow move this forward. Guinnog 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow... a great improvement. Noticed it immediately when skimming the article. Good work.
-
Roy
Boy
800
20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
<taps you on shoulder> yes, I'm around ;-) Kim Bruning 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin. As a famous nominator of RfA candidates, I noticed that you noted that one should not accept an RfA at a given time unless one will be logged in regularly for those seven days. Speaking personally for myself, I don't have internet access on weekends, and I have stated this on my userpage for the whole of this year that I have certain hours of the day only when I am around. Is this a major problem? Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
... nominate me for adminship?
I have read through your admin nomination standards page and feel that I measure up to the standard described therein.
I am a deletionist, but not strictly, having saved articles such as RightNow Technologies and Rake and trail from deletion. I am active in AfD, RfA and DYK. Occasionally I also scan for vandalism on recent changes using Lupin's vandal fighter, and watchlist these pages so that I can revert future vandalism. That said, I can't describe myself as a prolific vandal-fighter. My first edit was in June last year, with high activity from November on. I have been careful to warn vandals after reverting, and use edit summaries with every edit within the last 3 months. As for making articles, I've created 9 articles of which the last 6 have been on DYK.
However, I may still be looking at myself too highly, so I'd appreciate any decision you make. Thanks and regards, Kimchi. sg 09:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
I tried updating the History of CGI in Film entry today (twice) and you reverted it back (twice) despite my posting to the Talk page how a verifiable source said that something was incorrect.
I'm new to Wikipedia but I thought the idea behind the site was to keep things accurate, so why were my (correct) revisions removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnbc ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2006
Hi Durin,
Just wanted to understand why did the article get deleted once i posted it just now?
Thanks, -- Kartik.jain 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering exactly where the image fails the fair use policy. The quake logo and indeed the cover has been released to the public previously. Reason I am asking is that there are many more under the Userboxes/Games section which use logos of the games they represent. Metroid, TES, Jax just to name a few so your modification seems inconsistent. Enigmatical 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the edit someone made to an article I'm working on in my sandbox [23] Tufflaw 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I do realize anyone can edit policy pages at present. I was referring (did you see me commenting on User:Talk?) to this: Wikipedia talk:Editing policy pages. Barring non-admins from editing policy is an explicit choice there. Marskell 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried entering this on Pudgenet's talk page, but he reverted it. Regarding the Pudgenet situation, please note two things about Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. The top of that project page says "Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work." In Brian D Foy's entry, I linked to [24] to show the "blatantly inappropriate paragraph" (bottom right of the page). Given purpose of that project page, I think it's a helpful addition.
I italicized project page above to emphasize that it's not a Wikipedia article and different standards for entries apply. That's the second thing. here, Rob says "...the standard of verification is different. Article space requires independent proof they really are Wikipedians. The Wikipedia space list can be based largely on the say-so of the account holder, or what looks likely." However, I'd be glad to use the talk page for that project page to present evidence that Scarpia is Brian D Foy.
Now, how do I go about reinserting the Brian D Foy entry without getting you mad at me? -Barry- 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Durin, what can be done about this? Jbolden is clearly losing it here. He is now reverting something that has nothing to do with him, nothing to do with his mediation process, and is in no remote way "wikistalking," which is "making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information," none of which I did. I don't thinkt he fact that Jbolden and I dislike each other precludes me from making perfectly reasonable comments on a talk page for an article he is mediating. Clearly, he is the one with the "vendetta" here, and his actions toward me justify an RfA more than anything I've done to either he or Barry. But I'd rather someone simply give him a nudge and some perspective. Pudge 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: I went ahead and blocked this one even though the user had stopped, based on the history. Radio Kirk talk to me 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving a message on my talkpage about why you removed that userbox. I thought that it was fine to use because of it being a userbox. Thanks for letting me know about that.
Thank you also for informing why you removed the image from my userbox. I knew the fair use policy, it just slipped my mind. -- Alexignatiou 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames username policy outlines problematic names, including "Names of religious figures such as "God" or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs", we wouldn't permit "Mohammed on wheels", so I can't see why we'd permit this. He is more than welcome to change his username to something else. FWIW I did discuss this with a couple of other admins before putting the block in place. The user hasn't emailed me or requested an unblock on his user page (nor had he editted for a gap of 6 months prior to turning up to accept an RFA nom.) -- pgk( talk) 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I decided to unblock Jesus On Wheels, and added a few suggestions for possible new user names (JOW and J.O.W.). I doubt he'll do it, though. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 17:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you got to my user page on your "removal of non-free images" sweep through the user space today. While the deletion of two of the three images didn't surprise me, the third one ( Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg) *did* surprise me, before I went and read the licensing tag on that image. It appears that most of the U.S. state seal images uploaded in the en: image space have fair use tags, while those on Commons (like Commons:Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg, for instance) have PD tags. Anyway, I have a question and a request of you:
– Swid ( talk | edits) 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's the email exchange that's taken place between the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office and I. To be honest, I don't know exactly how I should handle this; any advice you (or anyone else you know who can also provide useful advice) can offer would be greatly appreciated.
Hopefully, I haven't gotten in over my head here... – Swid ( talk | edits) 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I will look into the copyright for the images, but I will need a few days to contact the appropriate officials to receive permission to upload the pictures. TBC found this but I'm not sure whether it applies to all Montgomery County government pages (including MCPS's website) or just their own website, so I will have to sort this out. Thank you. -- M @ th wiz 20 20 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Please ask rather than editing my user page and my userboxen page. I'm more than capable of doing it myself. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon jo e 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
hi, I was working on something at my sandbox, User:Preschooler.at.heart/Sandbox, and you erased all the images I had. i understand your complaint, but it's a personal wiki sandbox, not a userpage. please ask before editing it. thanks. preschooler @ heart 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to the message you sent me about Image:Kickflip.gif. , fair enough, I do not have th emeans to get the correct copyright information, so the image should be deleted.
I will create my own image and sort that out somtime in the future.
thanks for clarifying this for me.
Cheers -- Peej 03:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Petros; I decided to remove User:68.226.23.44 from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because it appears the edits were a content dispute, rather than straight vandalism. I was about to leave a message on his talk page telling him that I would not block him, but that if he refused to take it to the talk page of the article that I would and that he was on the edge of violationg 3RR. I won't undo your block of course, but you might want to reconsider the circumstances. Take a look? It looks to me like a content dispute. What do you think? -- Durin 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I've come to appreciate your perspective on Fair Use Images and so I have no quarrel with you anymore. I'm sorry that others haven't come to the same conclusion. -- Dragon695 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
As you may or may not know, the nonviolent pro- democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest was indefinitely extended by the Myanmar (Burma) dictatorship. So, as I was checking the page to see if it had been updated, I noticed someone has removed her biographical image. Investigation shows that it does not have a copyright tag. Can you help me determine the appropriate copyright tag based on the this copyright statement from the website it was taken from? Thanks in advance! -- Dragon695 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Durin:
I want you to know, and have said at BN, that I don't think you're attacking me in the least. What I'm trying to point out to everyone, and what I think everyone, of all opinions, is missing is that the way the matter is being addressed isn't actually addressing the problem. I think some insight into the thought patterns involved would help to clear things up.
From my understanding, based on your comments on BN, you support closing some RfA's early, in specific, those that are overwhealming failures right out of the gate (such as candidates that post an RfA with 25 contributions, or within 12 hours of registering thier accounts). I understand your comments to mean that overwhelming failures (like the ones I referenced, where there is 75% or more opposition, and a need for 80 or more additional support votes to cancel out the existing oppose votes) are within the category of those that should be closed early. Those are exactly the RfAs that I have been closing early, and that I have seen others closing early; I don't know of any RfAs that have been closed recently that didn't fit into the criteria above.
Given that I only close dismal failures early, and that there is no accepted standard for when to close, when I hear people addressing my closures, I can't help but hear thier comments as "You made the wrong decision, you screwed up." It is entirely likely that they didn't mean to say that at all (as I said above, I don't think that has been your intent at all), but because the comments address a specific case or cases, it comes across as personal criticism. And when someone criticizes you for doing what you're supposed to be doing, it hurts.
I don't think in the least that you intended to call my judgment into question, or to say that I'd screwed up in closing any of the RfAs I've closed. I think you have been trying to call for a community standard, and to raise awareness of reasons why RfAs that don't fit into the "dismal failure" category should be left open. I think the problem has arisen because your good and valid points are attached to a discussion of an individual situation, and therefore read as a criticism of that individual situation, even if they aren't. I believe that is where the confusion has arisen; you didn't intend to take issue with any individual decision, but were read that way because general comments were attached to a specific situation.
As I tried, and I think perhaps failed, to convey on BN, I encourage the development of a community standard. You have important insight to offer into the situation, and I can tell from the amount of writing you've done on the subject (your subpages, for example) that you have given the matter a lot of very careful and dedicated consideration. I want the community to hear what you have to say on the matter; I don't think any discussion of a standard would be complete without it! I noticed that a proposal has been made at Wikipedia:Early Close of Requests for Adminship, and I hope you will be heavily involved in the discussions there.
I want to apologize for giving the impression that I felt attacked by your comments, and for not having responded to them in the best way. While I haven't felt attacked by anyone on the issue (perhaps a vandal or troll somewhere along the line, but I generally ignore them), I have felt hurt, because many of the comments from both sides have addressed individual situations where I was the decision-maker, and it felt like those comments were directed at me, as though I had failed to do my job. It would have been far better for me to take advice from the relationship-counselors and interject with "When you say 'This RfA shouldn't have been closed early (because I believe no RfA should be closed early)', I hear 'You were wrong to close it early, and have been doing a bad job.'" Perhaps if I had noted that the emphasis on individual cases was personalizing the debate and causing uninteded internalization of the comments, then the discussion could have been refocused to address the bigger issue and avoid the hurt feelings caused by examining individual closures.
I don't want you to feel like there are any hard feelings on my part; there aren't. I just want everyone to realize that we're doing a difficult job the best we can, and that when others address global issues through individual cases, it feels like that individual decision is being criticized, and it is easy to feel discoraged and unappreciated. Hopefully, we all will now realize that it's far better to have a discussion of how things should be done in all cases, rather than analyzing individual closures. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding, and my assurance of no hard feelings on my part. Yours, Essjay ( Talk • Connect) 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin. I just wanted to drop you a message that when tagging images as CSD I5, you can just use {{ orfud}}. Your previous method was causing the images to not correctly be sorted by date. {{ orfud}} does that for you. I have already corrected the problem images. Thanks! -- PS2pcGAMER ( talk) 08:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
"Chonga" is NOT a neologism, it is an ACTUAL high school stereotype that is ACTUALLY used to describe people, the same as prep, emo, jock, etc. All of those DO have articles about them and I don't see why chonga shouldn't. I didn't just make it up. Are you insane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This protected deleted page currently has some edit history that involves the deleted content. Please clear out the edit history by deleting this page and then reprotecting it with {{ deletedpage}}. 69.117.11.27 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why the Michael Muhammad Knight page was deleted - he is a VERY well known author in the progressive islamic movement and the author of The Taqwacores - a book with it's own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daynamarie ( talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 May 2006
I am unclear as to why you delete the stansberry article I am inputting. While not internationally famous, the company is still quite known and is in the top 3 independent financial newsletter and publication companies in the world. The content I am publishing is our own material and is not a violation of any copyright material sinec we are the owners of it and are the ones creating the article. I would prefer a detailed explanation and if it is possible, what needs to be changed in order to include this on wikipedia. regards.
Remove fair use violations if you want, but don't delete other users' personal copy in the process. I doubt you would appreciate similar 'creative edits' on your own user page.-- Primalchaos 17:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't resist making this small change to fix a minor grammar fault and (I thought) make it read better. My apologies if this is unwelcome. -- Tony Sidaway 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So how are you these days? Could we finally finish things up? (sounds so mysterious, doesn't ;]) Renata 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Good Afternoon,
This was our first attempt at placing content on the site. We are part of H.H. Brown, a division of Berkshire Hathaway. I noticed that you removed some content like keywords. Were these not relevant? I want to make sure that we adhere to your guidelines. My graphic designer, Kbonner, is the one authorized to upload content and edit.
My name is Steve Schappell, Marketing Manager for H.H. Brown Work and Outdoor Group.
Thank you for your time.
schappells@hhbrown.com 800-438-7026 x 234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.69.37 ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2006
You need to get over yourself.... it's just an internet website. Get a life and stop patrolling my userpage juppiter talk #c 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Just noticed you had tried to get involved in the Perl issue in mid may. I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case that was filed soon thereafter. Mediation has not been succesful due to lack of cooperation. I need administrator assistance to resolve this issue (a little bit of a stick). Are you willing to help? (I'd be asking for things like page locks, 24 hour blocks...) nothing serious and not repeated. Just enough to get their attention. You can reply here I'll monitor this page jbolden1517 Talk 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, we got there attention. Next thing I need is a block on Pudgenet. You've had problems with him, he was being highly disruptive on my previous mediation, he's trying again on this one and he's now deleted stuff I explicitly told him not to delete on his talk page. Basically a short term trolling block. I want him to have to agree to terms of behavior. jbolden1517 Talk 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Right after your warning I got this one [30]. As long as this nonsense continues I can't work with the rest of the group. jbolden1517 Talk 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I replied to your comments on my talk page at your email address. Same account name at yahoo. jbolden1517 Talk 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've noticed that you're something of an authority on the legality (or otherwise) of images on wikipedia. I've noticed the following in the Fair Use Policy:
9. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (My emphasis)
My query is about Image:Sweden lesser arms2.png. The licensing section does not say that it is copyrighted but does restrict its use in commercial advertising. Can I use this on a template (specifically this one that I'm drafting)? Does it count as a "fair use image". I assumed that, by definition, only a copyrighted image can be fair use. Also, the coat of arms is on Commons (who don't accept any unfree images, even fair use copyrighted images). But I'm no expert on this. I hope you can help. Tamino 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
So I definately can't use it on a template? Can I use the Swedish flag, or is that under the same restrictions? Tamino 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you must removie my profile images without warning, please don't leave leftover tag information to clutter up my page when i try to edit it. I have no need for blank "center"/center" tags that don't serve any purpose. RatherBeBiking 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser#Completed_requests for the results. the wub "?!" 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for linkifying the images on my Userpage. Can you show me the syntax so that I can do that in the future? -
Mike
(talk)
23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
is there any way that the logo of the Croatian Football Federation can be include on the Template:User_Croatia_Footbal, or does it have to be another image? Can you suggest a good image to replace the old one? Ivan Kricancic 11:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind if I made an (almost) duplicate of this page User:Durin/Removal of fair use images and put it on my user page. I want to use it the same way as you do. Maybe that would help some of the fair use discussions I had recently. Garion96 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Where did you come up with the fanciful idea that state seals were being used in Wikipedia under a "fair-use" license? The license for seals is not a fair use license at all, it discusses the types of licenses seals can covered by. The state seal of New Jersey was published in the 1700s. Please do more homework before you start deleting material. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up on Image:Plymouthname.png I created the image using a license free font (King Richard) and stated so in the original upload; this information was subseqently "blanked" by someone using IP 216.55.203.100 on May 15, 2006. Everything is back to normal. I'm on a wiki vacation of sorts and trying to minimize my Wikipedia contact, so emailing is always the best course of action if you wish to ask any additional questions. Again, thanks for the heads up. Stude62 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
...on reaching 10,000 edits!! Of course, it goes without saying that we both realise that it is only a milestone on our journey and not a destination!!! -- Gurubrahma 15:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"lumping me with the dishonest" I've already apologised in the talk page for implying that your 'side' in the debate was dishonest. I am happy to repeat the apology to you personally, if you feel slighted by it.
Some of the arguments used were dishonest, as in factually and verifiably incorrect and restated after the mistake had been pointed out. I've agreed to move on from reference to this previous mistake by your 'side', so long as it is not repeated; maybe you can do the same?
Of course the 'sides' are the problem. If you, and your 'side' could listen to my (never mind my "side"'s) suggestions towards improving the article, maybe we could stop thinking in terms of sides. -- Guinnog 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Barry has filed an RFAr regarding Pudgnet. I added your name since you had been involved with him before I was. jbolden1517 Talk 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The article Leon Weil to which you contributed has been merged with Léon Weil (with an acute accent on the e of Léon), which already existed. See also fr:Léon Weil and nl:Léon Weil for versions of the article in other languages. TruthbringerToronto 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The article Strategic Policy Consulting was recently deleted along with its associated redirects. This article is referred to in the frequently vandalised article about Alireza Jafarzadeh. Strategic Policy Consulting is also relevant to a current event, the Iran and weapons of mass destruction issue. The company and its Principal provide advice that could well change the course of history in the near future. With this in mind I would like to suggest the article be re-created so that it can be expanded and linked appropriately. -- Dave 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete the sharp teeth page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugaltheboy ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Durin, I copied the Crazy Frog template source information from the article that it was put on as a standard for all templates and put it on my user page and modified it a bit to make the template look better (not the picture, the text info). If you get rid of a template picture, wouldn't that mean that ALL copyrighted template pictures would be copyright violations and thus be inappropiate for userpages? Enlighten me on this subject please, I'm quite new to Wikipedia. -- Death motor 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
What do I need to do to get a Booncach page re-created without it being deleted again and without a block being put on my account? Booncach is a real word, its text definition is "broken surfboard", and it has a real web site dedicated to its further spread into mainstream. This isn’t just a word, it's a revolution. Booncach is such a universal term/word, it can literally be used to describe anything that has been broken and can also be used to heighten how severely something is broken. It's most commonly used in a sentence as an adjective but on rare occasions can be used as an adverb defining something that has been completely broken; in the adverb sense the word booncachly would be used to describe how much something is broken—this would only be used for severe cases of booncaching (notice that it can not be used as to describe something that is defective; only those tangible things that are completely irreparable of which the origin of the booncaching is either of human or natural cause). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absworan ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin,
I understand that this is your encyclopedia to administrate, but here are a few points of confusion. He was not a 'self-proclaimed' sex expert as you called it. He has since graduated from High School and has gone on to College majoring in Sex Studies. As for the matter of Google Hits, this is the first official talk about the subject, thusly it is still relatively unknown and deleting the article would only continue to keep the matter underground. Both Mr. McCoy and myself are not out to make money, we are here for the purpose of education. Wikipedia is a free tool and we thought it to be the best median to get the word out concerning the One Thrust Theory. As I previously stated, this is your encyclopedia to administrate so by all means, feel free to delete the article, but know, that it is not a load of "patent nonsense" and should be carefully considered before deletion. If some of the subject matter is a little confusing or hard to believe, notify me, and I will edited my article.
Thank you, Swboarder55 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's kind of you to inform me of this. I will keep up my editing, and I will re-apply some other time. I will remove my name from the list and remove that detail from my page. THANX again Durin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fame ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin, It's me, Fame (Wikipedia Member) again. My article was deleted, and so I am asking you, as an Administrator, to delete another article if mine has to go. Why should mine have to be deleted if others can stay? Wikipedia is treating me horribly, and if I don't have this person's page deleted, I will boycott Wikipedia, and so will my friends. I have over 1,000 contacts online, on the phone, at work, at college, and in my life. Over half of those people use Wikipedia, and they all know over 100 that also use it. SO, please delete the following page:
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Tony Sidaway 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am on IRC now. Pudge 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey Durin. Thanks for all the work that you do with the fair use images again; we need more like you! I saw two items on my watchlist get the Durin-treatment today, which was particularly odd because I had removed fair use images from those very templates earlier (several months before). Other users had added back the seals against policy. My question is this: what do you think the solution to this issue is? Should there be a comment in the text of the template? Perhaps a more sweeping change to the edit reminders underneath the editting box? Of course, then there's the fact that we can't be sure that anonymous editors will pay any attention to what's written there. Thoughts? — Scm83x hook 'em 14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info about the adminship... I'll wait til I get much more edits. Thanks again! -- Dom th e dude 0 0 1 21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was not aware of " Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals" at the time; and would just like you to know that I wholly support you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I copied a large portion of your essay regarding the removal of fair use images to Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images and tagged it as an {{ essay}}. It's very well-written and comprehensive and I wanted to reference it in a new template I made ({{ fuir}}) to assist those removing fair use images from user pages. Your input on the template and the new (or rather modified) essay would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin,
Thank you for bringing the copyright issue to my attention on Template:Columbia. I did not realize that using an image which is fair-use on the main Columbia University page was not allowed on the template. How should I go about in adding some kind of Columbia-related image to that template?
Also, thank you for the detailed page explaining your actions on User:Durin/Removal of fair use images.
Matanariel 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin,
I have been removing excessive fair use images as necessary from articles pertaining to fictional characters from series of video games, such as List of characters from King of Fighters (the imagery in question can be found from the links provided within) due to lack of critical commentary and where they've served a decorative purpose. The appearance of a character is often illustrated by several images, more than what's usually needed for identification, though, my actions have been questioned by editors watching these pages and I thought it best to enquire if I am right in my judgement, or if I could perhaps forward these articles for someone else to review.
Any advice as to how I should proceed? Thanks! Vic Vipr T C 11:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
do you like lord of the rings?cause durin is the name of the dwarf and everything. Typoqueen 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Chongas are a real subculture. Look on MySpace. Don't be ignorant and say they aren't real when you haven't looked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think we have. Look on urbandictionary.com and see how many similar entries there are for chonga. Plus, ones that are REAL have many thumbs-up or thumbs-down ratings, while fake ones have few to none. JUST LOOK THERE. Tamajared 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Durin. I hope you will understand that I am a member of the State Governance of the Constitution Party, as well as a dues-paying member of the National Rifle Association. In my current capacity within both of these organizations, I am entitled to use their images for non-profit purposes such as this. I would appreciate it if you would not remove the images any further without consulting me about it. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C3H5N3O92010 ( talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 June 2006
Why did my disscussion page get blocked? all i did was say ok im sorry for not knowing about the fair use thing and i didn't change any thing.... thats not totally fair.... can you unblock it? i let you guys remove the pictures and didn't complain any.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konob16 ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 June 2006
like i put on my disscusion i am sorry and i didn't know -- Konob 12:56, 19 June 2006 (EST)
Would you do me a favour? Could you take a look at User_talk:Pd_THOR#Please_explain_edit and http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Image:Jus.jpg&action=history and tell me whether I'm interpreting policy correctly in this instance? I'd appreciate somebody being behind me should I be in the right and this continues. Thanks! — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This article that I made was deleted for Advertising. Yet, in it, I made sure I did not add my own comments, and only included the details, and track listing.
Why was this deleted, yet their album information for "Hours" and "Casually Dressed" stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatesl ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello - just wondering why you deleted crests of my college and county from my userpage. Skimmed through fair use guidelines and couldn't see the problem - so wanted to ask what it was. Best, Uncantabrigian 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I imagine we'll come back to this after MONGO's RfC [31] is sorted out. I'm rather surprised you haven't participated there; I have always thought of you as a force of moderation in these discussions, even if you have adopted some knee-jerk positions (no doubt through boredom and serial irritation from long defending these pages from nonsense). Frankly, as you can imagine, it's irritated me no end to be lumped with the conspiracy theorists and controlled-demolition adherents, for trying to get a modest mention of a poll into the article. I apologise once again for my intemperate tone in some of our discussions.
Nevertheless, I think it might benefit everybody, and the progress of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be writing, if you were able to bring a voice of reason to the debate, especially as I've mentioned my encounter with MONGO (and yourself) on the WTC 7 talk page. On a wider issue, I've also mentioned the possibility of a review of if/should 9/11 related articles have special status in the project, and I thought you might have a view on that. I think the present system is onerous both on you, the admins who watch them, and also on folks like me, honest well-meaning people who want to edit the encyclopedia, with proper regard to our policies. What do you think? -- Guinnog 00:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that I hadn't realized that. I just thought it had screwed up, Please forgive my ignorance. -- MJHankel 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I see you did a minor edit to the article Wales (horse). This is a fake article and should be delted. As I do not know what procedure to follow, I thought you might help. Thank you. Handicapper 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry then, my mistake. If only images were always tagged correctly! - newkai | talk | contribs 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin,
You removed the image Image:Mssu.jpg from the Template:User MSSU, under the presumption that it violated the Fair Use Image question. I designed the image using part of the school logo, but not all of it. Here is a link to the original image:
Does this still violate the Fair Use, as opposed to self creation? Rather, did the image still count as a logo versus an original creation. Thanks RebelAt 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey Durin. Thanks for the heads-up on the fair use images. Regards, Bryn C ( t/ c) 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote, even in opposition. I do admit having minor bouts of incivility. However, I do feel that the situation is defensible. The post you cited was made in the heat of the moment during the highway move war debate I discussed in my answers to the questions. It was made in direct response to SPUI's refusal to answer a question I made in debate.
As I said, SPUI and I have set aside our differences, and as a rule, I try to avoid incivility at all costs. -- Northenglish ( talk) -- 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is a guide or equivalent of some sort that explains how critical commentary works for the uninformed? Cheers o/ s/ p 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I would've appreciated a brief note on my talk page telling me what you did. Thanks. — Natha n ( talk) / 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll try to be more careful. -- Usgnus 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, we 'Bees have a pretty good handle on the language. Though, apparently, not as good a handle on the bright, shiny red don't touch this heading on some pages. Or the bright, shiny red copyright on some images. Maybe it's a green-red thing. In any event, glad you were able to see my appreciation despite my successful (I think?) efforts to remove my alterations to an archive. SO much to learn, and so little time... DukeEgr93 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Minor quibble: As per Policy, image:WelcometoDurin.gif should ideally be in png format (if not svg). Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, you removed nearly all content of Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems with the explanation Removing fair use image(s) per terms of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9 (please see User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for further explanation). Since I can't see how Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy #9 should apply to an article in the main namespace, I reverted your edit. Could you please explain the exact reason why you removed the images? -- jergen 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin,
I'm writing to let you know that I just edited the Perl article, and I added a new topic to the Talk:Perl discussion page. I saw your name in the discussion of a recent moderation event for the Perl Wikipedians.
Angela Beesley has setup The Perl Wiki in Wikia for me, and I believe that this will help relieve some of the pressures that people have been experiencing with putting Perl related articles into Wikipedia.
Just wanted to let you know what I'm doing for the global Perl community.
Eric R. Meyers
-- Ermeyers 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
This barnstar is awarded to Durin for his raising of the bar on RfA nomination statements to another level. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
See User:Blnguyen/RfA for evidence of this flattery. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Before you say anything else, please look up chonga at urbandictionary.com. It deserves a page just as much as emo, prep, etc. Tamajared 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I DEMAND THAT CHONGA BE ADDED TO WIKIPEDIA! I WILL NOT REST UNTIL IT IS UNDELETED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Re this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:ATWT_history&oldid=64546975
Why did you have to do that? I mean, seriously, if you want to follow every single rule to the tee then it *probably* shouldn't be there. But can you once in your life think for yourself? No? *sigh* alright then, I'm not going to revert it like you want me to. I think it's time for Atlas to shrug. If you guys want to remove every image on this encyclopedia, it's time for us to start letting you have your way. Because every time we protest, it just contributes to your already over-inflated ego. juppiter talk #c 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin-- This is 3rdman...
Please don't talk to me the way you did in your message to me... I realized the Socialist "Red Rose" was changed, but I had no idea you removed it in the first place! I'm a fairly new user here, and I've noticed the Administrators here get really snippy really quickly if a user unintentionally violates section THIS, subsection THAT...
Give me a break OK? I don't have a chance to nerd it up by reading EVERY Wikipedia rule and article for conduct and "fair use" OK? Fortunately I have a LIFE outside of Wikipedia, and I'm too busy living it...
And if you think I had ANY intention of breaking the rules, or using the Socialist Emblem-- an emblem I personally regard most highly in my set of beliefs, in a way that would violate the "fair use" clause; YOU are the one with the problem- not me. So go back catch some naughty rule-breakers, OK thought-policeman? And stop making ridiculous assertions in my talk. -- 3rdman 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The images are not exact replicas, the smaller one is not a resize.
Please in future do not vandalise userboxes/images unless you care to do some research, and in future do not change somebodys license. It is not your right to change the creators license. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Would this image be okay to use in {{ Politics of Canada}}: Image:Canada_coa.png? -- Usgnus 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair Enough...but I think Wikipedia should look into changing this polcy. I mean, honestly, are the copyright police going to come after you for a Template?...there should be some discretion
It's sad too, because the templates look so much better with the logos.
Regardless, if your going to nail La Salle University then please fix Duke University's Template too
66.30.130.133 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea but that chapel logo is a LOGO...it's just marked as a GFDL. So since they labeled it wrong, thats OK. No way, it's clearly in violation. Lasallefan 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Durin, please see the discussion I started at the pump in response to your actions here. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/ email 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You removed the picture of the OS X Dashboard on my user page. But that was a screenshot taken on my computer, so why cant i use it on my user page? Alegoo92 -July 18 2006
There is no image in the {{Infobox rail}} template; the image is a parameter to it. I can understand removing the image from the samples, but your removal of the explanation implies a claim that the images can't be used in the article either. Mangoe 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I need some support; if there's a consensus (or a qualified legal opinion) that this is unacceptable, I'm for checking all Category:Logos and replacing SVG images with PNG ones. Conscious 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
How is having a logo like on Conrail a problem? -- SPUI ( T - C) 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Dude I GET THE POINT...I'm going to fix them up. Stop being such a jerk/nazi. Why are you doing all this to me? Jeez... Lasallefan 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me that the ESA Logo image is currently orphaned. To fix the problem, I have choosed the other image page. As it is used in other articles on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logo_ESA.png {{ user ESA}} -- Narold 13:31, 26 July 2006 (GMT)
Hi there, I made changes on the image I used for {{ user UWM}} template. It is a selfmade image. Please be careful when you delete my photo. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipedia ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 July 2006
Someone apparently created Wyandotte Caves as a copywrite violation. I began writing an article to take its place at Wyandotte Caves/Temp. I then discovered Wyandotte Cave. As you seem to be interested in the presence of an article on Wyandotte, I was wondering if you could take a look at those pages and the discussion I started as to what to do about them. Right now I'm thinking merge them at Wyandotte Caves is the ultimate solution. However, I would love additional input. Thanks ONUnicorn 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
When you decide to remove images from template etc at least have the decency to do it right! (see [34])
Notice how image tags are left there?, please use the preview button in future (it is next to the save button, the save button is under the big white box - The white box is in the middile ;-)) {Alternitivly Alt+P to preview (and S to save))
Thank you, PS: I have corrected your error. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:CityofBloomingtonSeal.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, When you closed the RfA you wrote that it did not succeed but failed to attach his intention to withdraw his nomination. i think it is important to maintain that information somewhere on the page. i have been bold and added it back. Please remove if not appropriate. Thanks David D. (Talk) 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was going to contact you, I'm currently trying to get my article edits up to 1000, and then I owuld be happy enough. Apart from that is there anything else you could comment on? -- Wisd e n17 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Lasallefan vandalised my userpage by posting a comment straight on my userpage instead of in the talk pages. He has been harassing me and reverting my legitimate edits. Is there anything you can do to send a message that his shenanigans aren't longer tolerated?
Fair enough but would it have taken so much more effort to maintain a little courtesy and actually request i remove them myself? I dont (and im sure most users feel the same) appreciate having some random chap fiddling with my user page regardless of how valid a reason they have. In future i advise you inform people of the fact that they should remove pictures from their page and why rather than, antagonistically, doing so yourself. siarach 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue that your position of removing them was incorrect, although I think it is on thin ice. The problem is you did not show any courtesy in informing me in advance so I could review the matter and find an alternative image. What you did maybe was slightly legally protective (even though I'm confident the Louisville government wouldn't have ever sued over this), but what you did was very anti-community. — Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, it seems the subject of the article has intervened at length in the AfD discussion. I am not sure just how permissible this is, or if the huge speeches he's inserterd are regarded disruptive, but I guess somebody with the powers ought to look into it. --Svartalf 08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)]]
...for redirecting my navigation templates. I didn't know I was wrong. Best regards from Argentina, Luis María Benítez 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Durin. As one of the editors who (I blush to admit it!) had an unfree image in a user box on her user page removed by you (can't give a diff, because I deleted the whole page some time later, to get rid of some personal information, and started again from scratch), I want to say I fully support what you're doing, and I'm glad that you noticed my copyright violation, even if I didn't. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
On 7-31 you removed this fair use image from the Christian Democracy template ( see diff). The criteria for fair use is "for identification and critical commentary on (1) the poster itself or (2) the political movement it represents". This template fits the second category; the image being old political posters that identify, represent, and provide basis for commentary on said political movement. Therefore, it should be perfectly legal to use the image for said fair use. If you don't respond in a few days, I'll assume you agree. GUÐSÞEGN – U T E X – 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you changed the copyright tag on the image IMP_symb.svg from PD-self to logo. While it is indeed a logo, it is not fair use but public domain as it is an Israel Defense Forces corps symbol. However, using the website version of the Hamatzon may still require fair use restrictions because the depiction of the symbol (which is really a pin) was created by whoever built the military website. I have seen a multitude of images which were obvious derivatives of 'fair use' images tagged as PD-self. Maybe this is an incorrect image tag. However, I cannot find any template, other than {{ Military-Insignia}} (which refers only to rank insignia), or {{ PD-USGov-Military-Army}} (which refers only to the US army), which describes the copyright status of the image in question (AFAIK, PD-self would be appropriate under Wikipedia policy for this). If you disagree, please change the tag to reflect the image's true copyright status, because it is definitely PD and not fair use. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't take a bit of comedy?-- Hamedog Talk| @ 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As you said, I should obviously avoid user:pacdude. However, he just won't leave me alone. He constantly stalks the stuff I'm trying to do, claims I'm promoting myself, and continues to make attacks. Lokk at all this on this page for example [35]. The guy hasn't even been anywhere near the town, and knows nothing of it! (can you fix all the swearing, etc, and just put it back to its main page?) He doesn't try to help...only edits and get ballistic. He's angry over leaving WEXP is the truth of the matter. Anyway, can you do something, or give me some advice? Thanks Lasallefan 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I probably should have said something earlier, but edit summaries like Closing out properly are a very grating way to correct someone. If you feel I haven't done something right, just point it out to me. I just happen to think things like that aren't that important to building an encyclopedia so I skip it if I see them instead of taking time to correct it. That edit summary basically says I've done it improperly and I don't know what I'm doing. Now maybe that's your intent, but I'm going to assume you're not meaning to be rude. I'm bringing it up because I see a lot of similar edit summaries from you and I imagine other people find it similarly impolite. - Taxman Talk 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You need to read here i am the creator of the file as in Author i specify this, i specify the show also. I will always try not to walk a fine line and cram as much information my hands can type into the summary box as i like to be safe and specify everything i can. Plus it also allows users to contact me should they have any queries with regards to the images :) Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: Sorry, edited your userpage not your talk. Apoligies. Matthew Fenton ( contribs) 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, Dionlogo.jpg was in fact being used on my user page; in case this does not count, it now appears in the Stéphane Dion article. Thanks. Escheffel 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added a speedy tag. If you are an admin, feel free to delete it. -- iMeowbot~ Meow 10:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, let me be paranoid over this and do not accept congratulations... There are 1000 and 1 way that a RfA can go bust during the last hours of nomination. There dozens of idioms in my native language that says don't celebrate too early and I agree. But thank you for your support (and for not nominating me earlier, it really helped me grow). Renata 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope you know that Coat of Arms is not just an image, it is a symbol of special significance. Given that there are other alternatives, I am puzzled why you chose to remove it. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I hope the PD image that I restored is satisfactory for all. Cheers. ← Humus sapiens ну? 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for using the image MeganeRS.jpg on my userbox, in fact I uploaded it but I didn't remember that I marked it with a fair use in tag. Now, I wanna ask you if those tags can be changed :) Fluence 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for removing those images from my user page. I didn't realize that was a problem. Ubuntu Dude
Okay, I misunderstood the policy, since I assumed if you have called the image FAIR USE and are using it on the article, it could be used in other places. However, I will contact the university and find out wherther the first image that I called GDFL, is copyrighted in law. I suspect it is a FAIR USE image and can be used elsewhere. Before you arbitrarily changed it from gdfl to FAIR USE, who did you consult, what was your source to say that shape, is copyrighted? -- Mikerussell 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You stated the object used in the userbox was- "Since the University of Windsor retains rights to the image, the use of it here on Wikipedia is under terms of fair use." Are you talking about the shape iteself? There needs to be some source for changing an image from GDFL to FAIR USE. There is nothing on the University's website itself, and that image is commonly displayed in Windsor itself, unrelated to the University, although it is incorporated into the logo.-- Mikerussell 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin, if you have a little time, I'd appreciate you looking at this page and giving me your opinion. No rush, though if you can reply by the 17th that would be nicely symbolic. If you can't, no worries as well. -- nae' blis 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of joint nominations? JoshuaZ 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:B&W-MuhammadToHeraclius.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. 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I read what you wrote about all these mirrors hosting wikpedia, and saw how the copyright image problem could get dicey, so I would ask you to delete the University of Windsor image from the userbox and also delete the Allan Bloom article image, for both of these images I emailed the copyright holder and got no response, negative or positive, but I think i didn't really relaize how many other sites take wikipedia. I don't feel right about assuming no permission to not use the image from the copyright holder is tacit approval. Since you are an admin, I hope you delete the photo from the database quickly. -- Mikerussell 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[36] What's a guy to do when he keeps ignoring moderators? Pacdude 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin. I recently archived my talk page and came across the help you gave me during my first RfA (I've had two and both failed), in which you searched the list of registered users for any that possibily matched the ideas I had of what my previous account name could be. While this was unsuccessful, I decided that it was only right that I awarded you this:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
For the extra mile you went to try to help me find that elusive username. You deserve this very much! Wikiwoohoo 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC) |
Thank you once again for your help then. Shame I couldn't remember the account. All the best, Wikiwoohoo 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
it's a bit late isn't it!!! that 'saga' about the pictures took place many seasons ago. please avert your attempts to prolong the situae.-- Paaerduag 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
after reading User:Durin/Removal of fair use images im under the impression that using this image on the indivual pages and not in the template is acceptable? -- Dan027 10:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you just clear up swearing, personal refeneces here: [37] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.62.60 ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mr Durin, I wonder if you could advise me on a course of action to take in the wake of your recent actions - what kind of image can I use on these templates? I first used the royal arms, and was denied, so I designed and created this logo myself, specifically for this use - if I cannot use this image, could you perhaps suggest an image, or 'class' of these, which I could? Yours, etc -- D B D 12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin wrote:
Ah, yes, so I did. (Doh!) Somehow I was out by a factor of 10, so it's only at 10%, rather than 100%, now that I'm back. Must have missed a zero off somewhere. The intended date was in fact today, 14 August 2006... of course it didn't quite work :). I was trying to think of something something interesting to leave on my userpage and I realised I could do this... should have double-checked the numbers, but never mind. At least the progress bar seems to be drawing properly, I might have use for one of those elsewhere.
Anyway, I'd better go find out what I've missed – Gurch 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a current Afd ( here) on this article, which appears to be a recreation of an article you speedied in January ( here)? Do you have access to the content of that first article, and would you be willing to take a quick look and provide some input to the current discussion? It seems a fairly obvious case of puffery by a non-notable entity in violation WP:CORP/vanity, etc., but the antics of one of the involved parties ( User:Miro.gal) and the overzealous nominator have made this a bit of a muddle. As best as I can tell, the article's creator ( User:Ceowebmaster) and/or the anon contributor 68.224.128.98 [38] are the user Maj_IIM [39] you dealt with at that time (while Miro.gal is almost certainly closely associated as well). Thanks - David Oberst 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As I noted in the article before it was deleted, IIM spun off from a MTA group, which operates in the Middle East, so I am not surprised that there is a Cyprus outfit, as well as one working in Lebanon.
I read Nickeee's comment about me on the AfD. What is wrong with asking an inclusionist to look at an article? How does that make me a meat puppet? If you will check my edits, you will see that I have made many and I hope you will find them constructive; I don't know Miro.gal and no association 9or real interest) in the Institute and hardly qualify as an account created to vote on an AfD. By the way, there were three links, not one from the EU site.
Personally, I feel like the tone of some of the delete votes was of a bullying nature; rather than improve an article and shorten it to the length its topic deserves, there are long debates, sometimes hostile, rather than constructive. This is why I sometimes find wiki frustrating: a number of people with a lot of time to devote to a lot more heat than light. My questions in looking in the article were what was verifiable that would be a resource to someone who sees the institute and comes to Wikipedia for a neutral opinion, rather than having to search around on the web individually for several hours. What was the harm in keeping an article, if it was made objective? I'm curious as to the deletion; other cases I have seen an article kept as "no consensus?"-- Beth Wellington 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful discourse on the closure of this AfD. Just to keep you in the loop, the editor Miro.gal opened a case at Mediation Cabal regarding the deletion. I closed the case and informed them that deletion review would be more appropriate for the result they are pursuing. So, you may expect this to appear at WP:DRV. Thanks, -- Aguerriero ( talk) 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to say how impressed I was was by your detailed closing statement on the IIM AfD. This is the sort of work that really makes me enthusiastic about Wikipedia. Thanks for putting in the time and effort; it is very much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As the image currently illustrates an article on the front page, please do not delete it until the DYKes are revolved, OK? Secondly, I have only one question regarding the information left on my talk page - and why is that?
Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. The user who has been directly involved in securing the permission has (AFAIK) sent the email to permissions(at)wikipedia.org - if this was against WP policies, why wouldn't he receive a negative answer?
Durin, please accept my full and remorseful apology for what has become of this issue. You have now pointed out towards a significant difference in perception of it due to one small fact I was not aware of - that the images were tagged for speedy deletion. I am convinced they were on my watchlist, so I believe either they were tagged for deletion in a very short time before they got deleted (I was online at that time and I was checking my watchlist every now and then, where "now and then" stands for "like every 15 minutes") OR somebody embedded the speedy deletion category tag into the template, which I was not aware of. Either way, for me it seemed that I am bein a terrible goodie-goodie, asking for permission (actually asking another Dutch-speaking user to ask for permission, he wasn't informed of the whole kerfuffle yet, I have to explain it to him), doing everything as said in the "asking for permission" page, describing everything in the image summary, and this all was done because I have been told by the people updating the DYK page that it would be good to have images with nominations.
So, I was thinking I am going the extra mile to ensure everything is OK while everybody around do outright copyright breaches, and you were thinking you are going the extra mile to explain to the offender who sees the deletion notice and does nothing about that.
Again, I would like to offer my full and sincere apology for what happened and my reaction, which was caused by this misunderstanding.
As concerns WP policies etc., I've had a talk with Interiot on that too, and I believe this needs to be discussed in more detail, as this does not actually work for the benefit of Wikipedia. Interiot pointed out towards talk pages where the issue could be raised to gain further attention. I need some time to formulate my conclusions, but I will make sure you are notified of that.
One thing that makes Admins' work hard and unrewarding is that you are, for the most part, very intelligent people. You seem to assume that there are equally intelligent people on the other end of the line, which is not always the case (like now). I studied business - this can probably give you enough insight into my limited intellectual capacities. Interiot has a way with people with limited intellectual capacities like myself and is able to explain the issues to us so that we understand. You have probably done everything to explain that to a fairly intelligent person and it must have been annoying for you to find out I am not satisified with or even thankful for that. For me, it was fending me off with some legal stuff I don't understand :D (I'm talking Wikipedia "legal system" here, not the copyright law thing, this is more or less understandable for me!)
So, again, please do accept the apology of the intelectually-challenged :D
Bravada, talk - 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. I would also like to warn you of my rudimentary English knowledge - English is not my native language and I do not always understand what other people say to me the way they intended it, and I also sometimes say something that sounds different to a native speaker's ear than I thought it will.
Hi Durin, thanks for advising me on the policy on images. (I feel honoured just to have you on my talk page, and now feel entitled to use the phrase Durin's beard even in casual parlance). Take care -- Samir धर्म 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As with Interiot, I have a problem with finding a "Barnstar for a Great Admin", so let me present you with this remotely-related PSI Award - do exchange it for the Barnstar that would be appropriate, I have little experience with them, but I intend to give you one that is awarded for Great Admin Service!
I must say it was really impressive for me to read your unfalteringly courteous replies even when I was expecting some angry words. Bravada, talk - 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
<grin> Which wiki is that? I'm on at least 4 en.wikis; but I assume you were referring to en.wp.
I created this template to address a specific circumstance which developed in April. The images and license were discussed on Foundation-l. Where en.wp wants to go with this is up to the community. But thanks for the head's up about it! I really appreciate it. - Amgine 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I have asked you a question on the Ford Vedette talk page. Could you check that out in your spare time? Thanks! Bravada, talk - 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the specific circumstance was the arrangement with National Geographic to display the Gospel of Jude low-res images for 90 days from 06 April 2006—an arrangement which is now legally expired—to conclude on the end of their lease of the copyright from the original photographer. During this time it was hoped we could make arrangement with the original photographer to permanently display the images following the exclusive lease by National Geographic. I can only assume that this has not in fact yet been arranged, and so the images should be deleted. - Amgine 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You've been doing a lot of reverting to this template. Perhaps you could ask someone else to keep an eye on it too; you're the only one and you're beginning to make decisions that aren't perfectly simple and clear to everyone involved. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you regarding the copyright status; I'm asking you to voluntarily call in a second opinion or second copyright-educated user. I'm sure you'll let me know if you have any comments :) BigNate37 (T) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question, then, about copyrighting generally. What if I got a tattoo of the Triforce on my body? Am I breaking copyright law? I know of many people who've done this. They are representing themselves via the logo on their bodies. Why can't we represent ourselves via the logo in Userspace? I understand that fair use images are generally not permitted in Userspace by Wikipedia rule. But using it in Userspace to represent myself, or any other person, would not in any way claim that the icon is theirs! One doesn't imply that they have creative rights or ownership simply by using it... it doesn't make sense. Isn't there some way to credit Nintendo on the Image page and let it lie?
And I also have a point to make. My three-triangle arrangement that you reverted is NOT a Triforce. The Triforce has each golden triangle touching at the vertices at which they meet. My grouping of images leaves blackspace between the three triangles. The Triforce is never depicted this way when considered whole, and furthermore when used as an official icon. Thus, my arrangement should not break copyright. It does not use fair use images, and I would openly expect rebuttal if I had merely altered a pixel or something minute along these lines, but my version is distinctly different, especially given the natural simplicity of the icon itself—the spacing stands out all the more for that reason. It's like the pseudo-word "fcuk." It's not a real curse word, in fact it's distinctly different, but people understand what it's referencing. If you think the spacing isn't that noticable — it was at least on a few computers I checked — it could be increased to further distinguish the differences. Check again if you wish. -- Tryforceful 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I made an entry here and realized it did not belong, and I wanted to know if there was a way to clean up my own past actions in the smoothest way, not creating unnecessary pages, or who to refer to for assistance if I make an error and don’t know how to remove it. Kisida 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to bother you with copyright issues once again - User:BabyNuke has emailed Mr. Stedehouder again asking him if he would license the photos under Creative Commons 2.5 (BY), providing the link to the license text in Dutch. He answered something like "OK" (see BabyNuke's talk page for details), but I am not sure whether this is enough for us to upload the photos using the CC tag. Would you be so kind and tell us whether it would suffice or do we need something more from Mr. Stedehouder? Thanks, Bravada, talk - 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I put a speedy tag here: TourettesGuy.com. Sandy 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The coats of arms in questions are all creations of a user. He in good faith tagged them with what seemed like the right tag but is simply the wrong one. As they are creations of his he could retag them to PD-user and fix the problem in one go. Removing them is patently nuts as given that he is the copyright owner of those images he is hardly likely to sue if they remain in situ as fair use until he fixes his own tagging. Next time before ripping up templates try reading the file and contacting the owner of the image first. That way problems can be solved quickly without time having to be wasted undoing damage done to templates and the pages they sit on, where often images on the pages are linked to the size of a template and can be thrown all over the place if a big chunk of a template is unnecessarily deleted. All your actions result in as a messed up template, messed up pages, pages needing fixing, then the user fixing the tag and reinserting the image, then checking all the pages to see if things need adjusting. If you had checked with him first all that would have been needed was one quick fix on the image page. Next time please check first.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin, I didn't realize what a hornets' nest I was kicking when I placed the RoyGrec.png in the template for the Glucksburgs. I then read your postings and the discussion and I corresponded with M. Bunel, the author of the image and he has consented to the use of his Greek Royal Coats of Arms on www.wikipedia.org, so long as he is noted as the author and a link to his website is included. I have made the proper (I hope) representations and this image should now be able to be displayed. Argos'Dad 05:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Scrumshus, you violated the fair use policy again by inserting Image:Apple Safari.png into User:Scrumshus/Random project [46]. I removed it from the page [47]. I know you know these issues now, let's just be a tad bit more careful, ok? :) All the best, -- Durin 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Durin, the Matthew Keller images Image:Satterlee.jpg, Image:Merritt.jpg, Image:Hosmer_Hall.jpg, and Image:Crane_Banner.jpg have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike v. 2.5. Let me know if I have done everything correctly. I also created the template for the NonCommercial page. Have I done everything okay? -- Jondude11 00:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've replied to your very polite digression on coats of arms! Apologies, and thanks for the guidance. Budgiekiller 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think coats of arms in country templates for use in country article is a problem as they are clearly national symbols and are not being used in a problematic way. If you want to see a place where the use of CoAs is problematic, take a look at politcs info boxes, which appear in all politics of.... articles and their daughers. All of these should be replaces with flags or removed all together.-- Peta 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong in law. If you had a law degree you would know why. As to your ludicrous assertion that policy has not been changing all the time, you have been here a total of one year. People who have been here for longer have seen policy do u-turns over and over. I counted 9 u-turns in one 15 month period. We have allowed, then disallowed crown copyright, changed our interpretation of fair use over and over, adapted the procedure for downloading images over and over (and then had bots scurrying around accusing users of not fulfilling download requirements that have changed since something was downloaded. Users have quit in disgust at being accused in the wrong both bots and users of having broken a rule that didn't exist when they downloaded something. One user came back from two weeks holidays to find 11 bot messages accusing him of improper downloads, and with a series of attacks on him from one unxious little moran accusing him of breaking the law. The guy he was attacking is a retired very senior American judge who knows more about copyright law (because that was his speciality) than the little prick screaming abuse at him could ever know. Like so many other users that user too just quit WP in disgust.). So stop being so pompous and arrogant, Durin. Like most of the photo-brigade you don't know your law. You don't know that the rules here keep changing all the time. Amateurs with no knowledge of the law only make the situation worse, and seriously piss of credible users like Peta and others who were contributing to this encyclopaedia long before you ever heard of it.
You are right. I have been unfair. My apologies. I am sitting here on an awful internet link, with a very bad cold and the result is that I am in a very grouchy mood. I'm afraid some of your colleagues in dealing with images have seriously pissed me and others off, whether with blanket deletions without warnings, and abusive messages accusing me and others of trying to get WP into legal trouble, etc. A number of my colleagues have been driven off WP by their experience, one of them, as I mentioned a very respected judge (I was one of only a handful of people to know who he actually was. Lets just say most people would instantly recognise his name.) who was left very hurt by vicious criticism. I do apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. (I would have sent this earlier but my modem had to be switched off while the company that supplied it were trying to boost the signal strength.) Do please remember however that a lot of people have been seriously offended by their treatment at the hands of some of those dealing with images. A lot of those working with images are amateurish and have no grasp of the law, and also a pretty poor grasp of WP rules. Again, my apologies.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I would however suggest extreme care in how the issue is handled in other templates, if its usage in them is thought problematic. I have worked on a lot of the country pages and users on them can be stubborn as hell about what is in the template. Any unilateral deletions would be meant with instant reversions on those pages, I strongly suspect. I remember the nightmare of trying to diffuse edit wars that covered only 30 pages on royalty over whether to use styles (His Majesty, Her Excellency, etc). There are probably in excess of 200 templates using coats of arms and unless handled very very delicately the result could be edit wars on 200+ pages, with those deleting the coats of arms in a tiny minority. I think in that instance, the best approach is to establish the facts first and only when certain, if necessary remove coats of arms. I don't think the removers would stand a hope in hell, for example, of removing the coat of arms from the British page. At least 100 users would get themselves into edit conflicts putting it straight back again. Irish users, French users et al would queue to do the same.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Another user originally uploaded the file with a bad naming format; my only contribution was to manually rename the file and reupload it once it was already on WP. I can't provide any further source information beyond what's already on the image's infopage. Bearcat 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that (although I "have been unsigned" some times and never got offended). However, I prefer being conservative: the user may have posted another reply that got cut because of any kind of problem, and finding himself on the following day with a unsigned comment by himself will make him realize something went wrong. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. You have summoned me back from my slumber of... ooh, well over a year.
First off, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I can't tell you definitively what the status of these images is. I asked the gentleman who runs the site which is linked from the image description page of all of the arms for permission to use with attribution, and he gave it. Obviously this isn't enough to be Free in the full sense of the word. I think you or I need to contact him again and ask for further permission; I suspect you have a better idea about what to ask than I do, and it's long enough now that he probably won't even remember me.
As I said, I'm no lawyer, but the copyright status of coats of arms is a difficult matter. Under Floridian law, no doubt it is similar to the status of any other image or logo, and perhaps that's all that matters here. Under English law and especially under Scottish law, however, they have special protection. The English law is pretty much a dead letter-- the Scottish law is a much more active beast, and Lord Lyon can order you to dash forth your images or even fine you-- and that's why I was only willing to upload images of the arms of English towns and counties.
I'm not even sure that redrawing the arms ourselves would solve the problem. Wikipedia has had trouble over the last few months with Image:Episcopal Church USA Shield.png, the arms of the Episcopal Church in the USA. This is presumably not armory recognised by either the English or the Scottish heraldic authorities, yet because the shield is only marked "fairuse", people haven't been able to use it in, say, userboxes that say "This user is an Episcopalian". I think this is supposed to extend to any rendition of the same heraldic shield, or I'd redraw it myself. I think, then, that similar considerations would apply to the towns and counties in question here.
In summary: I don't know much about the legalities of all this, except that it's full of unexpected complexities; and I think you or I should contact Mr Robert Young, webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk, and ask for more extensive licensing. Marnanel 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your support, and for all the good and thorough work you have obviously put in to honestly evaluate the progress I have made in the last months. Thank you most of all for being big enough to forgive and move on from the annoyance I know I caused you back then. I am honestly very moved by your generosity. I hope I will be given the opportunity to repay your trust. -- Guinnog 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
With regards to this and this edit. Perhaps a better solution would be to move {{ Scotland infobox}} to Scotland/Infobox (a subpage). Subst'ing it into the page makes for a horrid article to edit, and a much longer one too. What do you think? Thanks/ wangi 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed [[Image:Royal Arms of Scotland.png]] from the Scotland Portal, when the coat of arms is prominently displayed on all of these Wikipedia:Featured portals:
I note that the NZ image is "Fair use" too. Thanks. -- Mais oui! 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have retagged Image:Royal Arms of Scotland.png as {{ Coatofarms}} and {{ pd-old}}. These are the Royal Arms of Scotland, used prior to 1603 by the Kings of Scotland... Thanks/ wangi 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear why you have deleted the reference to page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SriAurobindoSymbols.gif from template:Sri Aurobindo, and even though the history points me to your fair use of image policy, i could not find anything to support the deletion.
The image in question is fair usage as the author has already released the image into public domain. Further The wikipedia policy states It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such symbols
* to illustrate the symbol in question * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation
qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use.
and the image in question agrees with bulleted item#2.
Please clarify. Varun 06:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
You placed a message on my talk page about this image. Seeing that the content on Adobe Flash has been updated, you should probably remove it. Thanks for notifying me. -- LostAccount 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of that picture would be fine. I LOVE the new pictures that you've added. Thanks so my for your help! Bleach Babe 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a question regarding your deletion of some images in my user boxes. If some cities and states can have user boxes with flags, shields, coats-of-arms, etc. then why can't I use my city's seal. It should be the same fair use policy as a flag. The same should apply to a political party's logo and the shield of a religious denomination. KnoxSGT 11:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I responded to your comment. Please direct further comments to User talk:Husnock/Travel. Also, saw you emntioend you would delete images after investigating if the claims did not meet your expectations. I politely ask you lsit them as Possible Unfree Images since you are (technically) involoved in a dispute (although not really a dispute since we are civil) and it would be up to a 3rd party to investigate and delete if warranted. Thank you! - Husnock 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)} |
Thank you for visiting my user page, and for helping me as well. I just have a question though.
You know the tables most of the people use in their Userpages? Is there any easy way to make them? What about signatures with colors?
Detlef 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Detlef 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. These are not intended to be "single-use templates", and some already are not. For instance, Template:CTB minutes/10-1940-01 is already used on five pages. These templates prevent me from having to transcribe the text at the beginning of the minutes each time I reference them. -- NE2 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure about this, and you seem to be the pointman on this subject. The following templates use an organisation logo or standard. I am not sure whether or not to remove the image. I feel that it is a violation of non-commercial use, but I'm not sure:
there are others... -- Bob 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Greetings Durin!
I wanted 2 give you an explanation about this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illyrian_helmet.jpg#file
I took this image from this website http://www.ncl.ac.uk/shefton-museum/images/helmet2.jpg
In there is not specified if it copyrighted or not. Anyway i made some changes 2 it...and i dunno if that's ok...If it doesn't comply with the rules feel free 2 delete it....thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korabi ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
just thought you'd want to know there's some more fair use images on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football that may be in use illegally, as since i can't use them in user boxes on my page without editing the actual template then maybe people using these shouldn't either (they're towards the bottom Poland, Turkey, Ukraine domestic teams) -- Chappy84 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is your problem? Noodles the Clown 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, long time no speak. I've been meaning to swing by here for some time since I discovered your "Welcome to Durin" signpost image during a vandalism revert of your userpage. It's a great idea and a great wee image, is it entirely homemade? In light of current events though, I think you need another direction board, along the lines of: "Controversy nearby" :-)
That's the real reason for dropping in, to say thanks for your ever wise and measured words of counsel offerred to all on the Carnildo promotion discussion. I, like many others, am pretty unhappy at this whole state of affairs, but have chosen not to pipe up in the meantime for fear of saying something which adds more heat than light. I agree with the comments you made, but there is much more required in way of explanation as to exactly how and why this decision was reached.
Many of the dissenting voices raise perfectly valid questions, one of which was rolled back by Danny of all people. In fact, it's Danny's position within this whole affair that I find the most troubling at present, given the lack of detail on the decision rationale. I'll comment in due course, or when it goes to RfC (however futile that will be) as seems likely to happen given the strength of feeling there is about this promotion. Let's hope things don't degenerate into another Wikipedia riot. Keep up the good work on fair use images, but don't you need a wee break from that thankless job. WP will not blow up if you take a short breather to do something more rewarding. Best wishes. -- Cactus.man ✍ 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just clarifying why you removed the images from the template; was it because of reason 9, "images falling outside of the article namespace?" Thanks.-- Gephart 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully have a new one :) Petros471 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you still interested in nominating me for RFA? Thatcher131 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What exactly would withdrawing the AfD accomplish? MSJapan 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If other proprietary search engines and car rental companies are still allowed to exist to promote their own business, it would seem both reactionary and unfair to delete and/or protect certain pages at whim.
Several edits have taken place, to remove the "advertising angle" of the article; it was neither spam nor advertising, and yet each time a sysop deleted the article. I would respectfully suggest that you look at other car rental websites, created by their own employees for the purposes of self-promotion and advertising, before systematically deleting those with which you are unfamiliar.
-- Dolce12 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for my newness - I had seen this particular company at a recent event and was trying to find out more information - I noticed that they did not have a wiki page.
One example would be Auto Europe, whose users clearly come from the company themselves. Should that article be included or deleted, per Wikipedia's policy? Just curious, as it seems one set of rules apply for some, but not others? Seeing as I am not, nor ever have been in the employ of the company, I find it slightly odd that inconsistencies abound with the way some articles are allowed through while others are not. Just my two cents... -- Dolce12 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason why you removed my comments from my talk page? -- Basique 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I am the maker of the image. So your basically saying that if I have the image added to an article all is well?-- A2raya07 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Re Belvedere vodka image, I deleted the box. Now if I could just get the Idaho box to come down to be in line with the two other state boxes .... Sca 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
ta! -- Mais oui! 00:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am the maker of Template: NASA and I am wondering why the Logo of NASA has been stated that it is not copyrighted but you still deleted it:
(From http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html)
“ | NASA images generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal...
NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters. Please be advised that approval must be granted by the Public Services Division (see above information for address, numbers, etc.) before any reproduction materials can be obtained. Any questions regarding application of any NASA image or emblem should be directed to: Bert Ulrich Public Services Division NASA Headquarters Code POS Washington, DC 20546 Tel: (202)358-1713 Fax: (202)358-4331 Internet: bert.ulrich@hq.nasa.gov |
” |
I am hoping for your explanation, Thanks. Narold 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me with the image. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgallagher ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid that the fact that the Warsaw Pact does not exist does mean that there is no copyright for the image of its seal. It was an international organization, not a governmental organization, therefore there is no successor body.
Furthermore, as a Soviet-bloc creation from the 1950s it is quite unlikely that the image was under copyright to begin with. For the sake of argument if we ignore the fact that this is a defunct international organization, even were it extant its seal would fall under the same category as those of the UN or NATO etc.
The image in question is taken from the Parallel History Project website, which permites the reproduction of the content of its website "If cited, quoted, translated, or reproduced, acknowledgement of any document's origin must be made as follows: "Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact (PHP), www.isn.ethz.ch/php, by permission of the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich and the National Security Archive at the George Washington University on behalf of the PHP network." This information is included in the image file info. Cripipper 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What's more, the image is not tagged {{logo}}, it is tagged {{seal}}. Cripipper 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Oops, pressed submit too soon. Logos are copyrighted. Seals may be copyrighted. I uploaded the image: it is not being used under the terms of fair use. You have asked me "The image must be used under terms of fair use here unless the body that holds copyright has been identified and has knowingly released any rights to the image." Since no body holds a copyright from which one can get release rights you are asking me to effectively prove a negative. There are two seperate issues here: is the seal under copyright, and is a reproduction of its image being used under fair use. The answer to the first is no, and the answer to the second is that reproduction is permitted provided it is credited. Cripipper 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
What's more, the seal was not even an official emblem, therefore making copyrighting an impossibility. On that basis I am restoring it to the Cold War template. Cripipper 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism done to my page. I owe you one. Yours, Philip Gronowski Contribs 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin, yeah sorry about that I wasn't aware, and I didn't check the history on the user box I'd made because I didn't even think to check that! trolleymusic 05:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Were you all the way done with your review? I know you're thorough; I responded on the subpage to your commentary so far, and took your advice about the userpage. -- nae' blis 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Having looked it over, I'll make changes. Thanks for the heads-up. – Ch acor 04:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Sumair1 05:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the Pacific Islands Forum Logo: Do I understand you correctly that your removal of that image bases solely on the fact that it was used in a template, and that it is not a problem to include it in the Pacific Islands Forum article? Thanks! Henning Blatt 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back, it's good to see you too :) — Moe Epsilon 14:51 September 18 '06
Thanks for your recent response via e-mail. I've sent you a response (heh, you told me to hit your talk page). Cheers. CQJ 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for helping me with my user templates, Gronkmeister | Talk/ Contrib 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You edited this template to avoid inproper use of fair use image. Could you change the template to let is show the flag when no image has been chosen. If no image is chosen now, an ugly text is showed. (BTW: I don't know how to do it). Electionworld Talk? 07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This is having some last minute impact (it's a heavily watched page), we shall see how much. NoSeptember 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't know if you were interested in having your Commons ID match this one.
User:Durin at Commons has no contributions and can be renamed to something else, and we will be able to move Durin-en to Durin. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This user, User:Abu badali, keeps on trying to delete fair use images that I've uploaded, especially Image:Allison Mack1.jpg and Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I have gotten permission from the websites owners to use these images, and I have written a detailed fair use rationale for both of them, and they both have the fair use tag on them. Even after a lengthy discussion, he still will not accept that they are fair use and he keeps trying to delete them! Loooking at his talk page and his contributions, he seems to think that he is the highest authority on all things "fair use", but he obviously is not. Can you please help me, or get some other administrators to help me, convince him that they are in fact fair use images and should not be deleted? It would be greatly appreciated, and he must be stopped before he lists every single fair use image for deletion. Than you. - Ivan Kricancic 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for nominating me for adminship, and for watching my back during the discussion. (I'm not dropping this on all 140+ commenters but if you don't deserve one, who does?) Thatcher131 04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC) |
...and no slight to Thatcher131, but I think Steel359 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) also went right to work once he got the bit. These admins these days, all touching buttons and stuff instead of taking a vacation to Tahiti to destress. Syrthiss 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Durin. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. — Bkell ( talk) 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, we can disagree (although it would be ironic if I were to disagree with that... anyway) but could you please elaborate e.g. on my talk page? >Radiant< 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. I don't have a problem with the removal of the seal from the portal, template(s), etc. , but if you're going to do so, please be consistent and remove similar fair-use seals from other state portals, templates, etc. that use them as well. -- TMF T - C 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Greetings. In almost all the articles about elections in Greece there were logos of some parties. I just added some of the remaining. I didn't know Wikipedia's policy and I am very happy you informed me. But... I think for better appereance and comprehencion of the results is better to have the logo of each party (especially if they are many ecological parties with similar names). I wait your opinion. -- Magioladitis 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Prick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.46.78 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 September 2006
I am requesting permission to edit my user talk page, seeing as my previous opinions were masked by yourself, I thought I'd come here first. 91.84.46.78 02:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm... you have now edited, changed and deleted multiple userboxes I have created without due cause. I stopped using copyrighted images to comply with your suggested changes and now you are just deleting userboxes with LETTER ABBREVIATIONS recklessly. I am sick of your egomaniacal and unnecessary need to have everything fit your VERY NARROW reading of the rules of Wikipedia conduct. Fair Use means Fair Use, not 'Durin Doesn't Like It' Use. Stop being a wiki-Nazi.
WNZ | This user is a wiki-Nazi. |
Dipietro 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You recently removed an image from Template:Infobox_Kloof. Please can you also remove images from the templates in Cape Town, [[[Durban]] and Johannesburg. - Raker 14:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! I noticed you made a lot of useful statistics for RFA. Could you please make some statistics for PROD as well? In particular I'd like to know roughly how many PRODs are made per day, how much of them get deleted and how much of them get improvement (e.g. an edit that is more than just removing the tag). Would this be possible? Thanks! >Radiant< 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Good catch on checking history on that one. Sorry that I missed it myself. I was actually scanning for uncategorized articles, not vandalism. And even then, normally I do check history before doing a speedy, but for some reason I missed that one (probably because it was so vile, it put me into shock, heh). -- Elonka 06:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Man, I hate infoboxes sometimes. When I make a mistake like that one, it's always because the information is hiding in the box. Nice catch, and thanks for setting it right. Erechtheus 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted the template I created name "Adult." Templates of the same name have been deleted by consensus twice before. However, the content of my template was different, and the previous deletions do not apply to the content I created. Previous templates alerted readers that the Wikipedia page, image, etc... should not be viewed by children or labeled it with some likewise POV statement that violated WP:NOT. However, my template only alerted readers that the external link preceding the template contained adult material. Such notices are widespread and uncontested on Wikipedia with a variety of diferent verbiages (examples: [51] [52] [53] [54]), and my template only served to provide a quick method for posting them. These are especially courteous and useful on pages that are not pornographic, but that link to pornographic sites. Even if you disagree with such notices, you deleted the template out of process and should restore it. Feel free to contest the situation according to Wikipedia process. BTW, happy anniversary on being an admin (and I mean that sincerely)-- Esprit15d 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Turkish http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Fenerbahce_belirtke.gif {{{Logo}}} http://www.fenerbahce.org/eng/ http://www.fenerbahce.org/eng/detay.asp?ContentID=16
{{{Logo}}} and {{{Logo-Hqfl}}} http://hqfl.dk/layout/download.php?rowid=1395 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profesor ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi I was wondering why you deleted my DePaul University intellectual property page. I work for the center and wanted to describe the center on the wikipedia page. please get back to me via email at vshifrin@depaul.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usualsus ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 October 2006
I figured you'd be the one to ask... you posted a lot of statistics on how many RFA candidates succeed and fail and such. Would you happen to have stats on the reasons for which they fail? >Radiant< 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, you may recall you fixed an image error of mine recently. Well I had a question about deleting articles. You see I found this article, Christopher Wajda about this artist. To me it doesn't seem like it belongs in wikipedia. I mean who is this guy? we can't make a page for every single artist around. The major contributor is Washingtonsghost, whose only edits relate to the Wajda article. ISP 71.242.160.130's only edit involves adding Wajda to the July 21 page in the birth section. Would you agree that this article should be deleted? and how exactly should I go about doing it? For example, how do i tag it? I've never tried to delete an article before. Sorry if I blundered posting here. Naufana : talk 00:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
RFA is already about triple the size it needs to be (and I'm on dialup right now so god forbid I don't want to re-load it more than necessary.
Feel free to increase the size of RFA, this one is already longer than my original rfa which is nuts -- Tawker 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The image is not unlicensed =D
The image I've added is the same, but it is just an thumbnail
It is used in the Destiny's Child User template I've created
Regards -- Eduemoni 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
add images to my templates??? Should I create em? What should I do? I really don't understand all this "Fair Use" thingy =(
-- Eduemoni 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I collaborate with many articles in many interests ranges (that includes Destiny's Child and any of its members articles that I help a lot)
I'd like to express my likes and deslikes, just that, I'm not creating a homepage bacause I already have one!
Isn't your commentary a little unnecessary or a such personal attack?
Before telling or controlling someone about his/her wikiUserPage, shouldn't you look at yours and see how enhanced it is?
My userboxes just show someone where and why I like to create or edit articles on wikipedia -- Eduemoni 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I love the above page; you capture the issue clearly and to the point.
I have been taking on the images these last few days (wanted to focus on something new and fair use seemed like a great place). I am wondering if there is anything I can do to assist you in your on-going slog. I will take up the battle with you.
I was thinking of either copying over your fair use rational or see if I can use the same featrure used on AfDs to transfer the text with my own header. Figure I should have my own copy so that people will leave any message to me and not you.
On a another note, since coming to your user page, I have read a number of your personal essays and have to say, your writing style is top notch, clear, and simple but not pandering. I am going to make a guess that you are a lawyer.-- Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. Much of the information that you may be interested in, I have collated at User:Elonka/RfA ponderings, and there are some additional questions from another editor, along with my replies, on the related talk page. If there's anything else that would be helpful to you, please let me know! -- Elonka 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Why did you delete my edit about William not shaging kids? Are you telling me he did? can you please prove that he did? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.160.253 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought it was vandalism as I couldn't find the removal of the images in the page's history, but ok. I never look at images' tags, so sorry about that. -- Adriaan90 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:Sumbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cedars 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure what the copyright status of these images are, but I think we need to look more closely at them. I am finding a lot of flags at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_flags_of_United_States_cities that should be looked at, but I believe one of the flags you deleted, the St. Louis city flag, could have been PD (it is now up as yet another unfree image). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there is something I don't understand and I would like your polite help in explaining it to me. (I say polite because some admin have been far from this.) Why are some images I put in a userbox not allowed, when very much the same has been included in others? For example, a picture of Queen Elizabeth II was deleted, but other boxes have Martin Luther King. Why is a logo produced by the Canadian government accepted in one (armed forces logo or flag) and not in another (maple leaf and poppy)? The policy page doesn't explain this problem that people keep telling me about. I really don't understand and no one will give me a straight answer. Please help me! Scotwood72 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
lighten up —Preceding unsigned comment added by APACOlypse27 ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
hey durin, I know your into keeping WP free of copyright infringement, I just came across this. Useing the movie poster in this way is a no-no correct? If so should I just delete it? Or do I have to tag it with something? Naufana : talk 03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with that roving IP vandal... -- Nlu ( talk) 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
We got a complaint on OTRS: apparently, this debate in which demeaning comments were made on the topic of the article shows up quite fast in Google. (When I do seemingly "random" deletions it is generally from an OTRS complaint.)
In many of our deletion debates, participants say things that they perhaps should not say in this way in public. I remember in particular a debate about a bio on somebody who didn't write it (a well-meaning colleague did it), but was publicly accused of being an unimportant little boss seeking notability through Wikipedia. Needless to say, the guy was not amused. David.Monniaux 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin.
You've removed my entry on "derkunst" twice now, and I just want know if there's anything I can do to make this article "uploadable." Save for providing detailed sources.
As is true for most any cryptid, verifiable sources are hard to come by. I'm just not going to be able to use a Philadelphia Inquirer article. Or a book you consider to be reliable.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it seems as though you're being particularly tough on this cryptid entry. Look at other cryptids, like "Cherufe," and I think you'll agree.
If I significantly shorten the Derkunst entry, will it be passable?
I included every detail that's ever been told to me, and can understand if including all of these details (without sources) make the piece seem like a hoax.
Thank you in advance for your help —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Garpie (
talk •
contribs) 14:27, 17 October 2006
How many hits did the microsoft entry receive after i edited it and it displayed "EVIL!!!". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.0.22 ( talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking user:207.73.183.6, I was hopiing that the vadlism would stop, guess that I was underestamating them.I would watch out though, after slowking man blocked them they had their revenge on his page, so I think that it would be a safe statement to say that you are their next target, just seems that you cant do the right thing without ticking off some peopleor making a new enemy. Hope that your page remains unaffected and sorry if it dosent, I will try to find out who did it but I dont think it will be posible, just wanted to say that I respect you guys and wanted to thank you for keeping the net safe. Talon35 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to add the Blu McDonalds page to recruit a player and/or to have some information on the internet for our band. Please consider this page before deletion, Mike Foreman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigheadedkitty4 ( talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin - I'm sorry for repeatedly trying to re-invent the wheel on this (I really did it this time!), but I was proceeding with the attitude that brainstorming is generally harmless. You are absolutely correct in your reading. What steps should we take to identify the real problems? Rama's arrow 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your notes on this page. I wonder if you've seen User:DumbBOT/UsernameChange? This automatically generates much of the information which you are compiling, and I usually check it before changing any usernames. If you've got any suggestions for improvements to it, based on the information you've been gathering, I'm sure that would also be appreciated. Warofdreams talk 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for patrolling the application of free use images. You have just removed this one from Portal:Iceland due to fair use concerns. Although I do understand such removal, I would appreciate if you could inform why does the image qualify for display on Iceland, but not on Portal:Iceland. Best regards.-- Hús ö nd 17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you doing? You deleted the image from the places where it was used, then messaged me to tell me that it's orphaned and therefore will be deleted? -- ran ( talk) 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
=) Thanks for all of your hard work warning others, I know it's not the most pleasant thing to do and I'm sorry for lashing out at you without looking more carefully. I can see that you've been doing this for -- months!! o___O. I'm quite speechless.
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I, Ran, hereby present you, Durin, with the Barnstar of Diligence for all of your hard work in catching inappropriate uses of fair use images on Wikipedia. Cheers! =) ran ( talk) 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
why can't you have fair use images on user pages, i dont see how that could infringe copyrights, plz tell me, but kinda dumb it down APACOlypse27 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I have seen numerous user boxes using Images on Wikipedia. All State USer Boxes had State Flags. So why cant I use Orange County Seal or Coca Cola Logo on a userbox tempelate?
I mean, you have put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WelcometoDurin.gif on main space as compared to User Space? -- Asfandyar
Hi Durin
I embedded an image in userbox User Eurobeat but that image has been removed. May I know why??? Sushant gupta 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
You removed images from the 2006 WA state Senate site. These are all public political party official logos and fair use. These sorts of logos are used on several other election entries, including those on the Mexican election 9:34, 23 October 2006 Mikesmash 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Durin - this matter has died down in February but doesn't seem to be resolved. Could you weight in please. Doesn't the typing in the
being discussed at
resemble and infringe upon
Image:Google logo transparent.png?? Michael Dorosh 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I will revert what ever I see fit. -- Cloveious 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm preparing for adminship. You appear to be the resident expert on admin qualifications, and since you don't like picking "low hanging fruit", I believe that makes you the right one to see. I would be very grateful if you would consider me as a candidate for adminship. I was the subject of an RfC last spring (for overzealousness), I've had my fair share of run-ins with other editors (but nothing major since the RfC), and it has been pointed out that my use of multiple accounts might be a point of contention when I attempt an RfA. My major contributions are presented on my userpage, and highlights include stirring the
Main Page redesign to action last winter, ditto the
Help page overhaul early this year, the
Wikipedia:Community Portal overhaul early last spring, and I resurrected the
Wikipedia:Tip of the day project.
Amongst the pages I have created are the
Community bulletin board and the
Wikipedia:Department directory, though I can't take full credit for those either (virtually nothing on Wikipedia was created in a vacuum: the
CBB for instance was inspired by an idea of
Renata, through whose talk page I learned of you). If you need to speak to someone concerning my performance on Wikipedia,
User:Quiddity may be a good one to talk to, being the person who filed the RfC, and whom I'm now working closely with on the contents pages of Wikipedia (or maybe it's the other way around, it's hard to tell). Renata is also famiiar with me, from a brighter angle, I hope. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely,
The Transhumanist
05:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's people like you who will destory wikipedia, you can try and bully me and ban me if you want but you need to get your head out of your ass. Your campaign of threatning other users and acting big is a waste of time, there is nothing wrong with political party logos' in articles about political parties and elections. Trust me when I say politcal parties in Canada know full well what goes on wikipedia. But that kinda common sense stuff just fly right over your head. Which is really what I would exepect from someone who, doesn't seem smart enough to contribute any usefull content, but just makes other contributors who actually do contribute miserable. -- Cloveious 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my change. Currently, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that only fully-completed nominations can be listed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a nominator would list a nomination for the nominee. My change was only meant to reflect that nominees should be the ones listing their own RFAs after they've answered the standard questions and accepted the nom, as is current practice, and not the nominators. – Ch acor 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, Durin, I'm sure you know just as well as I do that rollback is not for good faith edits. – Ch acor 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm fairly new here, so I'm probably missing something, but did you delete Itsmymarket.com? The article is there, and the history of the page doesn't have you on it, but it seems like the article has been deleted. By you. Itsmymarket.com seems to fail the speedy deletion "web" criterion. Thanks. Darkspots 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) username changed 2-2008
Reading this I can't really justify it - there is a lot of media conversation in Cornwall (an Alexa ranking for a site which is still in one small area of South West England seems good to me?) but it is almost entirely non-web based. That is part of the nature of Cornwall.
I'm not a wikipedia person on the whole, but this site is something which a lot of people have been talking about down here and people are interested in it. I didn't realise that there were specific levels of interest before a subject was considered important enough for inclusion.
Got any advice? (You were pretty quick off the mark, mind - I hadn't even finished the info box when you deleted it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manley ( talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Who owns the copyright to the Quebec Autoroute Shields? i thought a wikipedia member made them. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to post on the Percy Nobby Norton talk page, must be a glitch. Anyhow, I scanned this article about Percy Nobby Norton from the State paper just yesterday. Sorry about the low quality. See it at [63]. -- Bpazolli 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
this image has no copyright it is not from any performances, video clips, music photoart or promotional pic (like single or album cover), candids, magazine photoshoot
it is from an public domain, shot by an fan during Beyonce's birthday party
the site is an fan-based site, it is not trustful at all, it is just source,
the way that is showed there resembles like they are the owner of this picture, what does not happen in fact
→ Eduemoni 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)←
++add
here you can find the copyrighted pics of this party, shot by the media press
http://www.beyoncephotos.net/thumbnails.php?album=421 →
Eduemoni
23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)←
I'm rather confused as to why Image:iTunes.png was deleted. A similar image, Image:ITunes-700-icon.png is the exact replica of the image with different colours. Image:iTunes.png was the former Apple iTunes logo. You say it falls under the fair use policy but from what I've read it's legal.
"There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.
If Image:ITunes-700-icon.png is legal for those reasons, wouldn't Image:iTunes.png have been legal also? Furthermore its use in userboxes stated under Wikipedia's logo policy would satisfy:
The list goes on and the logo satisfies all of them. For all the reasons Image:ITunes-700-icon.png was kept I don't see why Image:iTunes.png was deleted. Thanks for your time. Mkdw talk 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
No, look. I'm the one who deleted the "Nobby Norton" mess in the first place. Trust me. This is... this is an entirely new article. I was as stunned as anyone to see that there was a legitimate article buried in all that crap.
It has actual verifiable reliable sources.
I have no idea why Enknowed was creating garbage as recently as two days ago when he could have created a genuine version.
I don't want to do a Wheel War or anything, so I'm not going to be the one to recreate it. But go look at the content. DS 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
You do realize that if I'm elected to ArbCom, my first act will be to indefinitely block everyone who voted for me, right? DS 14:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for reversing your edit. I had thought I had saved a wrong version or something until I noticed the picture disappear a second time. I suppose that putting Image:Nbc apprentice2 key art.jpeg in Template:The Apprentice would be equally as wrong. TonyTheTiger 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
By User talk:195.112.56.122. Just thought you ought to know - not that I would unblock these vandals. Ian Cairns 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting (by deleting) my 'unfair' (;-)) use of fair use images. I was going on the incorrect assumption that if I found it on Wikipedia .... I shall try to be guided by the info on the image page in the future. That information appears to have been clear enough in the case of the images you deleted from my userpage today. Whatever I think of the copyright law, I do respect and support Wikipedia's stated reasons for staying well within it. And I do consider your attention a valuable service. I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia added to my picture list of martyrs. Please do revisit my page to make sure my other and future edits are within policy. (Especially since I have no intention of studying copyright law or reading all the rules and regulations before I edit. Were I to be willing to do that, I'm sure I could find more remunerative activities than editing here. :-) ) O'RyanW ( ☺ ₪) 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I have increased the quality of the article of Percy Nobby Norton see the page I posted below. Sorry. -- Smallcucumber 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Why cannot people see the collapse videos of WTC 7? Whats soo wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.200.90 ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just your best friend Starblind here. I think maybe we should unblock Percy Nobby Norton. I would do it now but I have to go. Why don't you help me out and unblock it for me. Thanks. User:..S.t.a.r.b.l.i.n.d.. - Starblind 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Durin for cleaning up my image. It's a good a good thing that I'm not a politician, those guys images are impossible to clean up (smile). I see you've been very busy lately with the images. Good job. Tony the Marine 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could update :) I'd also like a graph in commons meta and etc :D -- Cat out 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Durin.
This spring, I uploaded the coat of arms of Dalhousie University [ [66]] and unwittingly gave it the wrong licensing tag. You noted that my use of the arms in a userbox was inappropriate. I thought that an easy way to overcome the intellectual property rights problem would be for me to simplify and abstract the image. You then, however, determined that this was a derivative work (which of course it was) and flagged it for deletion. I must say I was a little miffed at the time because the case law on derivative work is far more lenient here in Canada than it is in the U.S. Still, it was only for a userbox, and user pages are certainly not what the Wikipedia is for.
Nevertheless, I did incorrectly tag the image's license. The design of the coat of arms in question was granted in 1818 [67]and it's been in the public domain for donkey's years. Moreover, even the artwork that constitutes the arms as they're now used by Dalhousie dates from 1950; therefore it, too, is now in the public domain.
[It may be of no consequence, but I'm an acquaintance of Dalhousie's legal counsel (recently retired) and he assures me that the university filing a copyright infringement action against the Wikipedia Foundation, even if it wasn't in the public domain, is as likely as an alien invasion.]
Trouble is, I don't know how to correct the licensing tag for this image. Is there some way this could be done? I would appreciate your advice.
Sincerely, -- OldCommentator 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the edit you just did for me. Question -- How can I edit the actual page name. I created page "Jim hoyl", but wanted to create page "Jim Hoyl"... ?
ACTUALLY... I found a way to fix it using "move", but it now is automatically re-directed from the misspelled entry. Can't the original (mistake) just be removed/replaced with the correction?
I made a change to the Lake Lemon page yesterday, changing the IU Men's Rowing Club to just the IU Rowing Club. I'm the coach of this club, and women who are ineligible to join the varsity team are allowed to (and have) joined the club team. So, if you would kindly unrevert the page from your previous version, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climis ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I really liked the clean-up that you did on my image. I was wondering if whenever you have the time if you could take a look at this image Image:Tony and Milly.jpg and maybe fix it up. That's the Marine (Me) and his wife thirty four years ago (smile). Cheers! Tony the Marine 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I told my wife what you said and she agreed (smile). Tony the Marine 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please check the copyright status on this image Image:37a Richie Ray.jpg? Thanks. Tony the Marine 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the removal. Prior to this, I did not know about the policy. Sd31415.
We had 25 reports at AIV. I didn't really appreciate joke reports while I trying to clear such a huge backlog. I blocked so I could go look at what was going on when the backlog was cleared. -- Steel 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Durin-
I was looking on an image to see if I was the only user page who the image was linked to. I was not the only user; and therefore I clicked on the other user, who was
Deadbath. It is not only a bad and innapropriate username, but it is a clear sockpuppet and threat to my page. It even says my {{user2|Wikipediaman123}} on it, not his or her's, but mine. Wikipediaman123. The header, signature, (most from first glance) were at the location that exactly of my userpage, just not created. It says User:Deadbath/(MYSUBPAGE) rather than User:Wikipediaman123/(SUBPAGE). It is unusual and serious, I will convict him of a sockpuppet. Thus it is not the exact duplicate, it is the same with some missing features. Please write to me on my talk page in order for me to remember to handle and see the progression of the page, if okay, but if you ask for it to be on this one, that is fine. You will get a peek at my signature subpage below:
-
Wikipediaman123
23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
{{User:Wikipediaman123/Signature}}:(Right here)
User:Wikipediaman123/Signature
I see, thanks for being informative. Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
...for being you and for upholding the way of the Wiki. It's appreciated. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I see you withdrew your first featured picture nomination yesterday, and while negative (and possibly nitpicky) remarks from other users may sometimes be discouraging, I hope the reviewers' critical comments do not alienate you from the featured picture selection process. -- KFP ( talk | contribs) 16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed your post because I don't believe it will help the situation. Please step away from it for 24 hours and don't post about it for at least that long unless to provide specific content details. I believe it has a good chance of getting handled from a content standpoint and that your post will only serve to inflame the situation and keep the issue focused on the wrong thing. People have already stated that they agreed with your initial handling of the situation, you don't need to rub it in. People have also stepped in willing to work out a solution, and again, that's all that's really needed. - Taxman Talk 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
For all to see and digest about this concern (which is actually semi-legit)
"If he continues the ratcheting, the next step from a legal threat is legal action"
At no time did I ever threaten you with any legal action. That would be absurd for me to do, I am deployed to the Middle East in a forward unit. Dont know how I would make the court date. Rather the opposite, I am concerned about what you may be doing. You should know I received a VERY disturbing message from an unnamed source which indicated someone had sent them an e-mail asking if they knew a "XXXXX" (using my last name) who "worked for Wikipedia" and "how can I find him". Not saying that was you...cant prove a thing, but its very scary as I am in the Middle East and my family is not. Are they safe? Who knows in this world.
Regarding you concerns that I must have time to make all these changes you want because I am defending these pages with such vigor:
I am deployed with the military to a foreign country. I do not have half of the material needed to double check images. We are also in the holidays. As early as next week, this could all change and I might be off the site for 3-6-9 months. My average Wiki time each day right now is from as little as 20 minutes to 2-3 hours on an off-day. Today, I had perhaps 35 minutes. Not very much time to triple check hundres of images.
Regarding my sub-page:
My new sub-page is a record of what I hav felt you have done to me. Since we both have sub-pages on each, I frmally say I would not care if you removed the delete notice and kept your own page. I need my sub-page to document these thngs. I feel you have treated me pretty badly, hounded me, and disguised yur efforts with a viel of upholding Wikipedia sandards perhaps even subconsciously. You should also know that what threw me over the edge was when you wanted to talk to the girlfriend of my dead grandfather (the lady from Corpus who did me the favor) and my ex-finance (tickling picture). That was simply very hard to handle.
Regarding Navy images from Japan and Korea:
You should also know that I am simply flat on the floor about your blanket statement that JAG and PAO Navy officers dont know what they're talking about. You can be assured that I talked with some very senior people, in both Japan and Korea, and was told in both places that the images from CNFK and CNFJ are property of the United States goverernment. I told YOU this but you appear not to believe me. I eve said I would give you the phone number for the O-6/O-7's office where I talked to the people (although at present I would have to spend time looking for it). If you really want the phone numbers of the Korea/Japan counterparts I guess I could get them too...would you REALLY make an international phone call to someone who probably doesnt speak english to ask them something like thus? That I would I like to see. You probably would have better luck calling the Admiral's office.
Hope that all digests well since you are concerned. The rest of the dispute can be handled by mediators. - Husnock 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
My travel page, with all those flag images that you were so concerned about, is now GONE. I moved the entire thing off site. I hope you're happy. Have a beer with your turkey tonight. -22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
my name is Santo Calarco. You have been actively involved in deleting material that has been sent into wikipedia about me - as recent as August and October this year. How can I find out what the contents of the article were and who it is that is writing about me? I am a minister of religion and would like to talk with this person who obviously has something against me - maybe we can sort this thing out. Anyway, thanks for protecting me from this slanderous information. If you can send me a copy of what was written and any attempted updates that would be great.
Rev Santo Calarco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.10.219 ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently undergoing an Editor review, and am trying to get a large amount of replies. I am sending messages to those who left me a message on my talk page as a way of getting the word out. I encourage you to add your two cents to the review! Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! FireSpik e Editor Review! 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You accidentally removed Guy's vote [69] - crz crztalk 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Durin, you seem to know a lot about fair use policy. Concerning this case, can you tell me who's right (if you're online)? I don't mean who's right about it being 3RR. I mean about images for album covers only being allowed in articles about the album, not articles about the band. I'm sure I could find out if I spent a while researching it, but since you do a lot of work on fair use policy, you might be able to tell me directly. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Durin. That's very helpful. Hopefully, the dispute has will die down now. As you see, I've unblocked the user. AnnH ♫ 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I want an update ;) I also would like a graph for my commons, tr.wiki, meta pages :)
Furthermore some sort of graph for User:Cool Cat/RfAs would be nice.
-- Cat out 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use is allowed in article name space. Since the main page is part of the article namespace (it's not a template image etc), why have you declared war on the main page nominations? FU images still appear on the main page selected article. Sumoeagle179 04:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel this way. Please observe the following pieces of evidence:
There's other pieces of evidence as well. I can assure you that fair use on the main page is kept to an absolute minimum, and it most definitely is not part of the main article namespace as it itself is not an article on a particular subject. -- Durin 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Fair use images as for use in templates. I think the removal of this image from the template is really petty ,Why can other band templates use images and I can't? I mean its not in my agenda to rock the boat here, but does anyone else really care about a very small picture on a template? that quite frankly is not seen by all that many people? -- The Equaliser 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The Equaliser 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, all of the "Politics of Nation" templates have national emblems displayed at the top, however why do you keep on reverting North Korea's, when it has the same license as South Korea's and many others, yet they were never changed/reverted to a geographical map denoting their territory? Also, I've read your subpage about the fairuse rationale, however those aren't fairuse tags but coatofarms tags, and was their a vote by the community that national emblems with the coatofarms tags cannot be used in templates or any other namespaces excepting the main namespace? Or it was your own interpretation? You can reply here or on my IP page. Thanks much! -- 70.21.6.126 07:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your review beforehand, and especially your confidence and support during my RFA. I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. Please let me know if I can do anything for you in the future, although I doubt it for some time... I may be coming to you to learn at the foot of the master with respect to coat-of-arms copyright, something that baffles me at present. Cheers! -- nae' blis 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm directed to you regarding the use of certain images, namely those in the following two cites: Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) If the images are ok there, why are they not ok on my UserPage?
Best Regards, Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please limit the images on your user page to free or GFDL images. Using copyrighted or fair use images can get Wikipedia in a lot of legal trouble. - Will Pittenger 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the copyright tags are the clue. Please check them first. If you have questions about an image, ask User:Durin. And, yes, he did remove fair use images from my page. So don't complain. - Will Pittenger 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing this up. Now if you could teach him to go easy on the ----… Will ( Talk - contribs) 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:1934 Protocols Patriotic Pub.jpg " The Protocols" — the original 1934 300-page THE PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO. edition
Dear WP Adminstrator Durin: The image herein I have re-created: me, myself, & I.
You can appeal the decision by posting to
WP:AN. There's not much to appeal though. The image is of a bookcover, and due to it not being old enough, it is still under copyright...even if copyright wasn't claimed. We do not operate on the basis of whether someone claimed copyright, but on the basis of whether someone explicitly released their rights to the work. Thus, even if something doesn't appear to have a copyright, we assume it does unless we have proof otherwise. The image is appropriately tagged with {{
bookcover}} which is a fair use tag thus preventing its use outside of the main article namespace. Hope that helps, --
Durin
21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my logos and pages. I never knew that about those rules. Maybe I should read the rule page. user:anthonyn66
FYI: You might be interested in this user box: User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/User Removes Fair Use Images From User Pages. - Will Pittenger 06:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there a page that I can have the box link to that would explain this policy in layman's terms? Something in your userspace would qualify for my purposes. Will ( Talk - contribs) 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert. I didn't notice you took the images out of my userboxes (I didn't look, because I was unaware of a problem). The image of governer Fletcher is in an article, so I'm confused why you removed the image a second time.
I accept your offer of help. First, where can I find free images of sports logos, and foxnews logos? In general, where do you find these if you cannot take them from articles. I've searched the Wikicommons, but haven't found anything. Veracious Rey 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The imiages that were used are fair use beacuse they were being used on Engilish Wikipedia for the use of describing orginazations or people. Cocoaguy (Talk) 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Durin
My friend Cocoaguy was doing me a favor by helping me create my user page, because I am not as computer savy as other users may be. He told me how you were bothering him and also hindering him about some pictures he was using or something like that, while he was trying to help me. Both him and I are in agreement that the pictures we are using do not violate any copyright rules or some sort of a wikipedia code of ethics. Now you listen to me, he and I will continue to put pictures on my user page until you or another wikipedia representative proves to us by showing us files, a private policy, a copyright rule, or something like that, stating that what we are doing to against the rules.
Sincerely,
Mr.
Durin,
My friend and I read Wikipedia:Fair use criteria and we are trying to understand it to the best of our ability. If you can, I, myself am having trouble understanding the Fair Use Criteria, because I don't understand all this computer mumbo-jumbo. Also, you said "Just working to have pages adhere to our policies". Well you know what, just because it is an official document does not make it right. What if your policies are wrong. Ever think of that??? Maybe you can ask other Wikipedia moderators and workers to amend the current policy and maybe even to draft a new one.
Sincerely,
P.S. Please respond to this to this message on my talk-page as soon as possible.
Fine!
Psdubow I agree i do not think that the policy is fair and i do not feel that it is right may i ask to bring this issue up to the WP:AMA and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hail and well met, friend Durin. I hope this missive find you well. May I request a favor? I am, as you may be aware, a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I fear that, due to my history, my questions page and (in the future) voting page may tend to be magnets for incivility and other misconduct. I have, in the past year, come to respect you for your ability to maintain coolness in situations where others might fail to do so (as you may have noted when I commented on your self-RfC some months back). Would you be willing to let bygones be bygones and do me the signal favor of patrolling those pages for uncivil conduct, dealing with any such instances which you might find appropriately? I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kelly Martin ( talk) 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand why you removed the official seal of the navy from the template. I read the fair use policy related with the templates but i need your advice. I want to put the seal there but how? Regards E104421 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thats fair enough about the Opalinida article but I need help with something totally different with the Nellie Connally article. It says that when her husband got shot she quickly tried to protect her husband which was with stark contrast to Jackie who seemed to try and jump out of the car. That info is false. Nellie did try and protect her husband but Jackie never tried to jump out of the car, she just went to grab JFK's brain that got blasted to the front of the car. So considering that info was false I deleted it and then stated in the disscussion box why I deleted it. But every time I delete it, in about an hour it comes back up. I even have this guy saying it was vandalism. What can I do?
Sure, please tell me more. I don't agree with your logic from the link on your edit summary, but I try to avoid most of the rules of this place outside of afd/rfa(i'm thinking of trying for adminship in a month), so i'll leave that to you. I'll just edit somewhere else. Just H 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin - You gonna lose your admin right if you willingly abuse them. You clearly did NOT look into the sources provided before removing my edit. Do you really want to make me have to log in and report you? Now please remove your edit, as I have shown that credible evidence towards alternative theories DOES exist, and I quote the BBC article "Two hijacked passenger airliners plunge into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the subsequent explosions and fires causing the buildings to collapse." Durin wrote, mistakenly "The BBC article you are referring to refers to the explosions of the planes on impact on the WTC, not subsequent explosions that brought the building down."
Admins like you give wikipedia and free speech a bad name, not to mention Neutrality. One more slip, and...Superscript text —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.27.5.114 ( talk) 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
This is the bit he removed: "While many disregard the controlled demolition hypothesis as complete nonsense, many mainstream news agencies such as BBC news wrote reports about "explosions" in the towers before their collapse, (ref)BBC News, US Rocked By Terror Attacks: "The explosions caused the twin towers to collapse", Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1537469.stm(/ref), and journalists reported "other explosions", cause of which still seems to be unresolved, despite inquiries.(ref)BBC's Stephen Evans Interviewed, Tue 11 September 2001, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFf56Df-F2M(/ref)." Please report this admin (Durin) for abuse, if you see the removal as unfair abuse.
Durin said: "The reality is, as I believe has already been discussed on this talk page, that any theory involving the U.S. as a major participant in causing the attacks on 9/11 is by its very definition a conspiracy." I was not saying anything about any involvement, only that there were some unexplained explosions happening there. Durin said: "As to free speech, it's not a matter of free speech." I agree - free speech must be earned, like I will demonstrate to you trough use of logic and perseverance. Durin said: "I firmly believe in scientific theory, and support additions to articles that are based on verifiability and reliable sources." And you dont regard BBC journalists writings and on-site interviews as verifiable or reliable sources? Who do you think you are kidding here. You crossed the line right there, IMHO, and now you post that comment? Interesting interpretation of scientific principles, Durin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.5.114 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Very well. But can your logic withstand the fact that people have heard explosions in the buildings not directly caused by the airplanes crashing into the buildings OR the collapse of the buildings. What does your logic need, a written statement from the president? We have two pieces of "primary" evidence here that you deem unreliable. Your logic is what I would call "the devils logic". I am considering reporting you.-- EndurinFreedom 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I was hoping we could discuss this in a civilized manner. What do you have to say about these two points:
The point was not that your requesting verifiability or reliability of sources was somehow faulty, but the fact that once the evidence is presented, you disregard it, in record time.
You edited the article so fast it was not possible for you to review the references.-- EndurinFreedom 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, now that I review the situation, you are advocating a BIASed view of the situation, where reference from Albuquerque Journal outweigh those of BBC Uk. You are d'mn right free speech doesnt apply here!! -- EndurinFreedom 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
(1) Evidence towards unexplained explosions exist, in form that is verifiable and through sources that are generally though to be reliable (BBC News website and interview footage). (2) Can you (or anyone else) invalidate this evidence, or provide clear explanation as to what these explosions were? (3) If not, can you show that it is NOT even remotely possible that these explosions were related to explosives of some kind? (4) If not, can you, therefore, by use of ARGUMENTATION, EVIDENCE OR LOGIC dismiss the proposition, that it is possible controlled demolitions of some kind by some known or unknown agent MAY have taken place (hypothesis)? -- EndurinFreedom 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin,
I'd like it if you didn't keep deleting the photo I uploaded on my userpage. Could you tell me why you did this? It's getting frustrating.
Cuyler91093 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand. Why are they non-free license images? Cuyler91093 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Durin, I don't want to be mean. I'm just trying to understand these copyright issues... :( -- Cuyler91093 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I get it... so, the pictures belong to the Carpenters because it's from a DVD, and actually originally from a television series, so I can't use it on my userpage because it's not mine. Am I paraphrasing correctly? By the way, thanks for taking the time to explain these things... I'm kinda new to editing pages on Wikipedia. ;) -- Cuyler91093 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why people are so hostile to you. You're kind and helped me understand. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 ( talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I made the picture, and it is also a logo. Since I made it I could change the liscence and then it would be allowed to stay on, right? And I will put it on a page, so it doesn't stay orphined. User:Coocooforcocopuffs 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I create a userbox? I'm kinda new to this stuff, so help me if you can! Thanks! -- Cuyler91093 00:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh shucks... I'm not familiar with all that technical stuff. Do you know a human source for help with Userboxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 ( talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, im new at this stuff too, I know u cant make a userbox if it has an album cover, but can you still have it on ur page, just want to know if I can keep an album cover userbox I made-- NJ Rock 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)NJ Rock
Dear Durin, if you think every "polarizing" or "subjective" comment should be removed, there will be very little left on talk pages. In fact, such actions tend to be much more polarizing than the comments themselves. I believe that most wikipedians have already read the page in question, so there is little use in starting to edit it now, when most people seem to have voted and days after the comment was made. -- Ghirla -трёп- 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about Portal:Houston/Selected biography/December 2006. I know better. I must have had an insanity attack. Postoak 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edit summary says you're responding to me, but the sentence that turned you off is DerwinUMD's. Not that I don't also find that sort of thing irritating. I've fixed the formatting to set my commments off a bit more clearly. Best,-- Thomas Basboll 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really care that the little duke programming logo is removed from my user page as I did that a while ago more as an experiment with markup than anything else. However, I was wondering if it really is an inappropriate fair use of a graphic to use a 10-pixel high version of the graphic. It hardly resembles the original graphic in that form. I suppose another way to ask this is if I created my own rendition of the Duke logo as a 10-pixel high graphic, would that be a violation of fair use, even on my user page? (Don't worry, this is a purely hypothetical question as I really don't care that it's gone.) It just seems that at some point of reduction that the image is of such a low resolution that it can't be considered to infringe on the copyright. — Doug Bell talk 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Feet
Has been vandalized by IPs for a good solid month or so now, and had subjective material added, and then removed, I was told to contact an Admin, I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know what to do about this. However I think Protection would be good until the popularity of the movie dies down, yes? I didn't know how else to ask, sorry if it doesn't belong here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revrant ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
For what its worth, internet where I am is apparently not going away at the end of the year. If you actually did want to pursue any RfCs, I would be able to comment. Not that you would do that by any means, I am just retracting my further statement that I would be unavailable for such things since that is no longer the case and it is only fair to state that. Cool? Cool. (But not Coolcat...) - Husnock 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
How could that be prohibited if it's still on Wikipedia?-- Hornetman16 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You can be an ass you know that. Forget it...I'LL STOP!!!-- Hornetman16 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The policy link you sent me I couldn't get to till a few seconds ago but now that I know the policy I'll follow it!!-- Hornetman16 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Durin,
Re: your deletion of the IMC logo from my userbox: I appreciate what you are doing, as you must feel it is a way to improve and protect the Wikipedia from lawsuits. But trust me, the Indymedia logo is public domain. The IMCs are decentralized, anarchist. There is no central authority to assert copyright. It is not a trademark, because it's about free information, and not about mercantilist trade. -- Bill Huston (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey hombre, the image is actually a screenshot from the film and qualifies as fair use, and it WAS being used - in userboxes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Eraserhead . So, what's the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NIRVANA2764 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
Hi I understand removal of fair use. But could you please REVERT edits which insert fair use rather than simply removing the fair use image? It's actually easier to revert a page and put in exactly the same editing comment then it is to manually remove the fair use image. TIA, Ga rr ie 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You stepped in and mediated the fiasco involving Cecropia and me back in March, and I respect your opinion as much as anybody's here and value your ability to mediate situations with calm, reasoned persuasion. I do hope you are able to help bring the whole MONGO case to a reasonable conclusion. Whatever the outcome, I appreciate the effort—it's people like you that give me hope for this place. — Doug Bell talk 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
(1) - The two situations were; one) where a user was willfully violating WP:FUC #9, and I was the admin who was attempting to get him to stop. I placed a request at WP:AN/I and the user's page was protected and he was threatened with a block if he continued. Two) Collapse of the World Trade Center had been the subject of a revert war lasting 5 days of which I had been party to. It had undergone 38 reverts on a *section title* (of all things). It was blatantly obvious protection was needed to force all parties to the talk page. I posted a request at WP:RFP and it was quickly agreed to and the page was protected. Had I done either/both of these, I would have been potentially subject to the same censuring that MONGO is suffering.
Understood. I'll be more mindful in the future. -- Whatocean 08:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok a few things.........
Phoenix741 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your change of my TiVo userbox at User:Krellion/Userboxes/TiVo. I figured that using an image of the TiVo logo would not be possible due to copyright/trademark issues, so I thought that using a standard font (nothing like the TiVo one) and matching the colors would be all right, considering that TiVo even has a style guide [76] that includes the proper RGB color values. The TiVo page you mentioned as a reference in your comment ( http://a423.g.akamai.net/7/423/1788/00d433ecd251f9/www.tivo.com/i/0.0/0.0.hp_hd_tile) looks to point to a non-existing page, so if you could find a proper link, I'd like to see it. I'll leave the userbox as-is for now, since I don't want to cause any problems for Wikipedia, but I have to admit that it looks very bland now. :) Thanks. - Krellion 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, but what? You seem to imply that editors have less credibility than admins. Mongo is an abusive administrator. It makes sense that the ones who object to this are editors, not admins. Besides, little data can be gathered from the straw poll because it will only be seen by those who were watching that particular page. — goethean ॐ 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you mad at me? :( NIRVANA2764 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This is ironic that after the dispute with you and I where you were (wrongly) included in my real world situation where my job was e-mailed and my wife called, I have now been sucked into an accusation of threatening someone where a Wikipedia user stated they were in fear of thier life because of something I said. So, it happens to the best of us, I suppose. - Husnock 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What can be done about this user? The accusations this user is leveling against anyone supporting a review of the proposed decisions are absolutely uncalled for, completely bad faith, and totally counter-productive. I, for one, have never conversed with MONGO nor edited any of the same articles. I am not a far-right wing conservative at all, and I also did not post my opinions out of a feeling of "administrator entitlement", but rather because I think it is completely wrong to bring down as severe a punishment as desysopping for evidence as weak as has been so far presented. (In fact, 3 of the points are not only weak, they are wrong: those actions are good actions and no administrator should be made to be afraid to execute similar decisions because the ArbCom decided to act as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner with respect to protection of pages one has edited. This case is out of control: Badlydrawnjeff explicitly said one thing that MONGO did wrong was block that user six (six!) months ago, and the other was that he protected a page he had edited. If that was a wrong action, we might as well eliminate the sysop permission level, because all sysop permissions would be good for is a bunch of editors running around operating on random pages they've never seen before.) In any case, XP's dogmatic worship of Jimbo and the ArbCom is out of control, to the point that he is broadly insulting good members of the community. Does he realize when he claims that the "EXTREME" minority of the community is supporting MONGO, an even more "EXTREME" minority (1/8 of those supporting MONGO) is supporting his desysopping? I am fed up with the insults, the word-twisting, and the brown-nosing to Jimbo and the ArbCom. What can be done? -- Renesis ( talk) 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
But
this comment made me drop my gum. Have you never participated in an arbitration before? Never even watched its
slow-motion train wreck grandeur? The times the arbitration committee members actively participate other than drive-by voting are
as rare as rooster's eggs.
152.91.9.144
21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know about any of that, thanks for pointing it out. aido2002 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I was drunk and forgot about this rule. I will avoid doing this in future and go to bed now to sleep, very sorry old bean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdav69 ( talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the kind words on my talk page and your support at my RfC. It is greatly appreciated. — Chowbok ☠ 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin: I think I've finally found the brain cell necessary to comprehend image licenses and userboxes images. I think. Can I use Image:YorkUserbox.png? It's just text in PS and a free-use clipart banner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drcwright ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
A number of images I uploaded were listed as fair use violations despite being tagged correctly because they appear to not be used in the main article mainspace. In actually, I did find those images in main articles on Wikipedia; it just doesn't appear that way because I use the images in userboxes, and most of them are too large to fit into userboxes. So what I did was scaled them down on an external program and then uploaded them under slightly different filenames. If you (or someone else) would please show me how to scale down images on Wikipedia, I will do that instead. Anthony Rupert 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see the main WP:RFAR page if you want to add anything. Thatcher131 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.
I would like to propose Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.
This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.
So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have seen some freshly uploaded images that had no source or license information. Those I do tag with {{ nsd}} or {{ nld}}. However, I have seen none with rational that omitted a fair use tag. If I have tagged such images with {{ nsd}} or {{ nld}}, please let me know. I do patrol recent changes including uploaded images. Will ( Talk - contribs) 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Please use whatever powers you have to find out who this may be and where they are posting from. The guy just posted a message on my talk page as if to confirm the sockpuppet suspicion just moments after I made my arb com statement. Someone is either trying to discredit me or this person has a warped sense of helping. I see you have already spoken to him, I need some assistance with this. Please. - Husnock 20:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What is a fair use tag? How do I not use it? Please tell me? You added the following comment to my my talk page:
"Please stop adding images tagged with fair use tags to your userpage as you did here. The use of fair use images on userpages is not permitted per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"
Please help me.
Zazzer
21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ( Need help?) 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thanks for the support and for all you have done to assist me! MONGO 09:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of Justice Barnstar | |
Awarded to Durin, champion of justice. I owe this to you twice, thanks. — Doug Bell talk 12:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
I've added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the code to cite a statement in an article, not the whole page, but rather just a little statement said in an article? Thanks, Coocooforcocopuffs 19:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you tagged this image. I was wondering why was this done? The reason why this image looks similar to PurdueSpiritMark.jpg is because the logo of the organization does not change. This is not the official logo of the organization as the official logo is Black and gold. There is another image that is the same as the Michigan State Spartans logo but this has been released into the free domain because the user has released it to the public domain. So for the same reason, since I have created this image it should be allowed to stay as I have released it to the Public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshsharma ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed that in line with your fair use image policy you had deleted the images from the two userbox templates I had made. I've since restored them because I don't believe them to be fair use but rather public domain. I don't believe the Wiltshire county arms are fair use for similar reasons to those you cite in your related article about the U.S.S. Spruance image, it is the work of the British Government. The St. Edmund Hall arms are not officially recognised by the College of Arms and so are not officially owned by the college under UK heraldic law. Also to the best of my knowledge there has been no copyright issued to the college granting them ownership of the arms as a logo. Also the image in question was created by me but I'm guessing that has little bearing on fair use vs public domain. Would be grateful for any comments you may have. -- AulaTPN 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I'm still new to Wikipedia and really appreciate everyone's help on my path to good wiki-citizenship.
Thanks again for all your help -- AulaTPN 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that this page was under the pages for speedy deletion, I do not believe that it should be up for speedy delete. I did notice that the creator of the page copy and pasted most of the original page so i went through and fixed much of the page, if anything it just needs to be cleaned up. John R. Ryan was a Vice Admiral in the Navy and served at the Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, he is now the Chancellor of the largest system of education in the nation ( State University of New York), please take time to review this case. Thanks -- Joebengo 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What right do you have to remove it from the userbox? I took the photo. In the description is a link to my original photo, not cropped, where you can see it is an amateurish snapshot of the DVD cover. You said "the original author retains rights". I am the original author. Please explain to me the loophole in which I do not have control over an image that I created. NIRVANA2764 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Durin, it seems to me that the images in List of Mac OS X software are allowed under the same fair use principles that Wikipedia uses to include discographies with images. -- Ellmist 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. Are galleries such as this allowed for discographies? -- Ellmist 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)