User talk:Dragon695

1. Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.
2. I will reply to messages left here below your comment, not on your talk page.
3. Please do not reply to archived messages, but instead create a new topic on the main talk page.

Archives (in blocks of 30):

• None

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 SC User box 3 Not encyclopedic, Violation of copyright? 4 EFF userbox 5 Improper userbox deletion 6 Removing comments and/or positions on an RFC 7 thanks! 8 RfC 9 I shouldn't have but I did. 10 Wikipedia:Templates for deletion 11 Help Yourself 12 Violations of WP:POINT? 13 WP:RFA/Quarl 14 May i ask you a question 15 ubx policy 16 RfA thanks 17 MfD 18 Thanks for your support 19 Thank you! 20 My RfA 21 My RfA 22 Thank you for your support of my RfA 23 RFA Thanks 24 Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee 25 Re: Your comments on Taxman's RfB 26 Image:Red carnation.jpg 27 A comment 28 Divisive userboxes 29 Your userpage 30 A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks) 31 User Page 32 Fair use image removal notification 33 Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA! 34 Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG 35 Follow up on comments you made a long time ago 36 AFD 37 Please help 38 WikiProject South Park

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Dragon695, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page or see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. Again, welcome! --Sean|Black 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying hello! I hope to begin contributing in earnest once I get settled in. --Dragon695 06:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SC User box

Thanks for your help. I was surprised that there were none that I could find, so I made it. This my first template I have ever made.--Adam ^(talk) 02:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

pls check the talk page on this template.--Adam ^(talk) 02:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea! --Dragon695 02:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem :). Initially, I had wanted to change it is so that it would be the same height as the USA template, but you know, once I got started I decided to throw in the other changes as well. --Dragon695 02:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not encyclopedic, Violation of copyright?

How does including the lyrics to a song violate a copyright and in what way is not encyclopedic??

I believe usage of the lyrics is not covered by copyright and even if it were it would be covered under a fair use theory of law.

Definition of Encyclopedia (merriam-webster.com): a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.

(Headsinger 19:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

The lyrics were reverted at least twice before (check history). Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (nor is it a repository of lyrical source material). As to lyrics not being covered by copyright, I believe the author of that song would beg to differ. Also, it is one thing to selectively quote song lyrics, it's quite another to reproduce the song lyrics in their entirety. Reproduction of written works of any type, in their entirety, is rather dubious where fair use is concerned. --Dragon695 22:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re Uncle Fucka: Dragon695 is correct. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I second the above. Most people believe that "fair use" laws cover a far more cases than they actually do. In personal life or private websites, that is unlikely to turn out to be problematic. On a large encyclopedia that also happens to be one of the top-50 most frequently viewed websites in the world, it is a problem. It is, however, nice to have information about a song, e.g. what it's about, how fans reacted to it, or if it won any awards or sparked controversy. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EFF userbox

Please keep the width of the image at 40px, it f's up the layout for many people; userboxes are meant to have the smaller box to the left at 45px maximum. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I'll be more careful in the future! --Dragon695 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improper userbox deletion

I'm sorry - but is there some misunderstanding? Could you please refer to which actions I have conducted which are questionable? And also, I am unsure of what action you wish me to take - I am not an administrator, so I can not delete nor undelete things, so may I therefore ask you clarify your statement. Thanks! Ian13|talk 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I thought you were an admin ;-). I'll tak it to nightstallion. --Dragon695 17:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem, its just because it sounded like you were questioning some of my actions. Good luck! Ian13|talk 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh no problem, sorry if that was the impression, my beef is with Tony Sidaway. --Dragon695 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing comments and/or positions on an RFC

Is extremely, extremely discouraged. We are talking really really discouraged here. Please don't do it again (and yes I do suppose this counts as an official warning and all *sigh*) Kim Bruning 03:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me??? I didn't remove anything. Please clarify! --Dragon695 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Crap, you are correct, my sincere apologies. It was an anon, and I was briefly mislead by the way in which the anon had written it. (Please feel free to refactor this section off of your talk page, once you have read the apology) Sorry again. Kim Bruning 03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all, I was worried I accidently deleted somthing by mistake. Thanks for clearing it up. --Dragon695 03:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And here I finger the real culprit WP:AN/I#Interesting_edits_by_anon_to_congressional_RFC, sorry for the misunderstanding. Kim Bruning 03:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it! I know you probably have your work cut out for you with that RFC ;-). BTW, unless you want it, I'd kinda prefer to not delete talk entries in the interest of openness and full disclosure [please don't interpret this as malice]. I'll go ahead and put a strikethrough to indicate that it was just a misunderstanding :-). --Dragon695 04:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

Hey! Thanks for the Murrow pic barnstar thingy! Actually, I felt I didn't deserve it -- I haven't really done much work on the pedophila articles, I just put together a project structure -- so I gave it over to Lotusduck who deserves it more. But thanks! Herostratus 09:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I take it you were referring to the RfC I'm preparing against Tony Sidaway, as that's the only thing of the sort I'm undertaking at the moment. The charges are outlined, and I'll gladly add the anti-Randroid box deletion to the list of grievances. What's still needed is more diffs proving that people attempted to reason with him on all the listed violations; I haven't gotten around to that yet. If you want to help, the RfC is being compiled here. Rogue 9 12:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I shouldn't have but I did.

I thought you might get a laugh out of the story I put on the Payson, Az's vandal's user page. User:24.121.122.92--mitrebox 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it didn't work, cause all I see is a redlink :-/. --Dragon695 09:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

I see that you added this to the TfD criteria for deletion:

1. The template is not a userbox.

Userboxes are deleted reasonably regularly; there are all sorts of reasons why any template might be deleted, and many of them apply to userbox templates just as much as those outside user space. Someone has reverted your change. --Tony Sidaway 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got angry, violated WP:COOL, and added that out of frustration. However, by a certain individual's definition, all non-encyclopedic templates are therefore "qualified candidates". That just isn't true, userboxes are not typical templates. I was under the impression that an official policy was being crafted regarding them subsequent to the entire Kelly Martin affair. I don't think it is fair or fruitful to just ignore the ongoing effort to reach consensus around a policy and revert to rules-lawyering just to prove a point. And I certainly think that the whole hubbub about {{User pedophile}} was way over the top and is absolutely not a reason to resume purging userboxes. All it says is that we have some activist admins who are unable to control themselves. To be quite frank, I don't feel one way or the other about pedophiles. From a scientific viewpoint, I think that, like most of us, they're people with mental health problems (I suffer from severe bi-polar disorder and ADD myself). Honestly, I have much more important things to worry about. Yet there seems to be certain people who just have to be crusaders. There seems to be too much illogical, irrational actions around here. I understand if they feel a certain way, but overreacting to a dumb userbox is just insane and people who do it really need to seek professional help. Look, every time I see TDC's userpage, I get irked (see for yourself). But I don't go blubbering to the first admin, whining that my feelings are hurt because he seeks to imply that liberals, like myself, and Osama bin Laden think alike. Who cares if we have some similar thinking patterns? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In the end, all this drama accomplished was to spill over into and ruin a much need project to make one of the most poorly written series of articles of all of Wikipedia (those concerning inter-generational relationships and various sundry items) more accurate and encyclopedic.

Look, I probably am just another dumb user to you. That's fine. I've not done anything meritorious. However, I've been lurking around here/using Wikipedia ever since Jimbo's last major media blitz tour (culminating in C-SPAN's Q&A). I decided to sign up so that I could work on the problems listed in my TODO List(AKA My Gay Agenda [<-- that's a joke, btw]). When I first started looking at userpages last year, I thought one of the nicer aspects were the userboxes. To me they told me more about the individual as a person and made them less of a "stick figure" in my mind then any written words. More to the point, they assisted me in determining the accuracy/POV of their contribution. I make judicious use of history as a way of making sure that the article I'm reading is complete and accurate. I think the idea that people's bias is checked at the door is rubbish. That isn't possible, and anyone honest will admit that. That is why I plan to actively seek out people with opposing view points to help determine if any potentially controversial submission I make is NPOV or POV. I want to know if my bias is creeping into my work and welcome constructive critiques from those most likely to make them. Better to get things upfront rather then to get bogged down in edit war later. Anywho, that's just my POV, feel free to disagree. --Dragon695 08:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Yourself

User:Mike McGregor (Can)/code page

you know which one you want... BTW, if you know how to link to a category to group like-minded users together, please modify...Mike McGregor (Can) 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately, to do what you want, it would require the creation of a user Category object, which is almost just as contentious as userboxes :-/. --Dragon695 08:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of WP:POINT?

You stated on WP:TFD that speedy deletion of a userbox was "clearly violation of WP:POINT." I'm afraid I don't see at all how deleting those templates was disrupting Wikipedia only to prove a point. In fact, it seems to me that they deleted those templates because they thought the templates should be deleted. Your recent comments (for instance, [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] go further, stating "It is clear that there is an attempt by certain admins to disrupt userpages on Wikipedia and aggrivate editors in order to prove a point, which is a clear violation of WP:POINT." You appear to be suggesting that the responsible administrators are deleting the userboxes not because they feel they are offensive or don't belong on Wikipedia, but are doing so solely to annoy the people who use them. This is a serious claim, and it is not obvious at all to me how you are able to ascertain their motives or ascribe such reasoning to them. You're welcome to vote, discuss, and protest, but please don't make inflammatory claims like this. Just because people don't get angry when you say things like this about them doesn't mean you should keep doing it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Prove me wrong. Ever since the defrocking of Kell Martin, there has been a concerted effort to seek retribution against the userbox community. The obvious target is the thing which caused her downfall in the firstplace. Why, in the bulk of the cases, have only a few admins felt it necessary to speedy? Why have their speedy log comments seemed so joyful. Looking back on their comments during the various Kelly Martin RfA's and ArbCom nom, they seemed to be diehard supporters of Kelly Martin and weren't very pleased when she got her due. It seems like they are getting some sort of pleasure from bucking the system to somehow vindicate her. Seems to me they have an axe to grind. They hide behind a bogus CSD policy which was inserted without any discussion and inspite of the fact that there are at least 3 policy proposals on userboxes. When you try to protest, they say Jimbo put it there so it must be a good thing^TM. Well fuck that. Policy is not set by fiat. --Dragon695 08:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this comment. This sort of language is not appropriate at Wikipedia. Please rethink your approach to discussion and conflict. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Dragon695 08:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be a dick. Incidentally, as you can see from this diff, Jimbo is already aware of CSD T1. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Of course I know that he knows, after all he came up with it. I'm requesting a stop to this insanity. I say good day to you, sir! --Dragon695 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I hadn't thought of it that way, although the "conspiracy" mindset is not one I easily grasp. I think that in general, the burden of proof should fall on the more extraordinary claim. In any case, I certainly can't prove their motivations any more than you can; that's one reason why I think it's better to avoid making statements about a person's motivation rather than their actions. Regardless of their motivation, an awful lot of editors agree with their position (and many do not as well, I realize, but enough to show there is opposition beyond vengeance). And even if it were to be about vengeance, it still wouldn't be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, it would be disrupting Wikipedia for revenge. Your repeated use of that as a reason does a disservice to your argument and discredits your position. Also, I'm not certain how you decided that policy cannot be set by fiat—what gave you that idea? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, this is getting old, fast. The point I'm making as well as others is that there is no justification for using speedy deletion. If someone can explain to me why, that's fine. But it seems absurd to say that deleting the userbox swiftly is necessary, because most rational people would say it does not rise to the level of immediacy to justify that (violation of copyright, violation of law, etc). So, thinking in a rational way, what other conclusions can I draw for the desire to speedy delete. Either it's abject laziness or there is some other personal motive at play. As for our support, it is what it is. I'll admit that the whole pedo thing has been damaging to our cause because the perception is that userboxes were the cause when in reality it was irrational actions from Jimbo on down based on some bizzare outbreak of moral panic. I'm sure the antiuserbox boo-hoo brigade is quite smug after scoring such a victory for their side. You know this could all be solved if they would just revert to the status quo as of December 2005. This entire incident is a textbook case of WP:BEANS. People were implimenting solutions in search of problems. Where is the divisiveness? It seems to be the new policies and CSD T1 causing the divisiveness and not the boxes themselves (as can be seen by the userbox supporters' vast spectrum of ideolgy). And this notion that it bad to build communities of editors based on likes and dislikes is insane. People do it all the time. Acting like wikizombies isn't how human beings work. Saying what we like and dislike on our userpage is good for disclosure. Lastly, I think it is a miniscule price to pay to allow some wikifun in exchange for wikiwork. --Dragon695 00:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFA/Quarl

Hi Nicholas, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-16 12:15Z

No problem! :-) --Dragon695 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May i ask you a question

If its too personal just "x" me out, it hopefully wont offend you, because i dont mean for it to. How did you become gay? Just a FYI i have many gay friends and i have no problem with gays, their people too.--Gators222 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't become gay, that's just the way I was born. I'll respond more when I'm not so busy, if I feel like it. --Dragon695 06:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, just, wow. Some people still aren't in on the loop :-X 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ubx policy

Hi Dragon, saw you request I look at the userbox policy proposals.. I gave it a try, but to be honest, in order to form a decision I'd have to invest a good chunk of time (just to read the policy and talk pages), and I don't have that just now. But I wanted to say Good Job on being involved and voicing your opinions. Cheers. --Fang Aili 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

[edit] MfD

I hope it is not too much to access that your conduct on the project be marked with civility towards other users? Disagreement is no cause for mockery. Boo-hoo brigade indeed. You ought to be ashamed. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Thank you! Hi Dragon695, thank you for your support in my Rfa! It passed with a final tally of 86/0/0. If you need help or just want to talk let me know! Again, thank you! – Dakota ~ ° 23:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

[edit] My RfA

[edit] Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

[edit] Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee

Hello, fellow anime lover! Dragon695, I can see from your userboxes that you love cats.

Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Cat Lovers' Committee?

If you want to join, you can add yourself to the members list, and contact me, Sergeant Snopake, on my talk page, or the committee founder, GeorgeMoney, on his.

The Wikipedia Cat Lover's Committee has also been nominated for deletion.

Whether you join or not, please could you comment on the deletion page to help keep the committee going.

Please vote keep.

Thank You very much! :)

Sergeant Snopake, 12:42, 21th of April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your comments on Taxman's RfB

The use of fair use images in userspace is in violation of a policy established by the m:Wikimedia Foundation (see WP:FUC #9). If helping Wikipedia adhere to a policy established by the foundation itself is a "jihad", then I am glad for the label. As for the amount of controversy my actions have supposedly generated, I have performed such removals 567 times now, with only a very small handful of users (I believe less than 10) responding negatively to it. If you have issue with me performing this "Jihad", you've never raised it on my talk page before. I'd be happy to explain about this in more detail if you like. If that is not satisfactory to you, then I invite you to initiate an RfC. If you have further comments about me, they should be sent to my talk page or an RfC. Taxman's RfB is an inappropriate forum for airing such complaints. --Durin 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What Durin is doing is far from inappropriate or unnecessary. Your comments on the RfB were unwarranted. Johnleemk | Talk 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but like some have said in the approval area, the "reason" to oppose is pure bullshit. Also, if you want to get into what is appropriate, the way to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF is to politely ask editors to remove such images, not take it upon yourself to do so. Need we revisit the pie fight caused by the userbox wars to prove that people take their userpages very personally? --Dragon695 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Userpages belong to the community, not to individual editors. What Durin is doing is enforcing policy, unlike in the userbox issue where there was no specific policy involved. Johnleemk | Talk 10:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're covering ground which we already know. It isn't a matter of what's technically right, it's a matter of the best way in which to foster civility. --Dragon695 04:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your approach, and it is my right to question your reasons for opposing such a good candidate based on such weak grounds. While only by luck you may have not encounter such resistance (I only learned of your "operation" yesterday since I was on wikibreak for the last 2 months), I assure you that there is a significant portion of the community who do not like people messing with their userpages. I need not remind you of the various userbox insurrections which have happened this year. I don't care what the rules on userpages say because if you were to take a straw poll today, there would be no consensus on them. Ask Kelly Martin what the reward was for unilateral actions on userboxes with fair-use images. You need to understand that, like it or not, people have invested effort and time into making their userpages look good and it might irritate them for you to just take it upon yourself to change them (even if they don't say so). Asking them first, no matter how inconvienient or what the rules say, is the WP:CIVIL way to do things. --Dragon695 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC):

I fully intend to continue my work in this area. I have the backing of two different members of ArbCom whom I have consulted on this matter, and have ample edit summaries which explain the actions I take in policy and in a lengthy page with further explanations. If you feel this is improper and wish to change it, then by all means start an RfC against me. I will welcome it, as I will be happy to explain to anyone who thinks they have the right to have fair use images on their userpage why this is important and must be done. The most efficient way to do this is to remove them on sight with ample explanation rather than leaving talk page messages and continually checking and re-checking the hundreds of userpages and templates that I've done this to to see if it has been done. --Durin 21:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut out the ruleslawyering and stop avoiding the basic problem. We need happy editors if we want to keep Wikipedia in tip-top condition. This means going out of your way to polite, especially on things as sensitive as userpages. Gee, I'm terribly sorry if you find it inconvenient to be WP:CIVIL, but that's the price you pay for civility. As for time well spent, I can think of thousands of things that need to be done on wikipedia more important then being a dick. Frankly I don't care if you do have the backing of two members of ArbCom, because I don't intend to file something as useless as an RfC. However, don't expect me to sit idle while you try to mount an attempt to torpedo someone's RfB. --Dragon695 21:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• What basic problem do you feel I am avoiding? The basic problem is that the use of fair use images in userspace is not permitted by policy as established by the Wikimedia Foundation. If I were to ask every person prior to doing so, I would be increasing the workload to adhere to this policy quite dramatically. The detailed edit summary has been quite sufficient for the very vast majority of userpages and templates on which this has been done. There is no attempt here at being uncivil. In fact, quite the contrary. That's in part why I leave such a detailed edit summary. If you feel the explanation page that I provide a link to in the edit summary is insufficient, then by all means feel free to make suggestions.
• I personally can think of few things more important to Wikipedia than protecting it against lawyers from all sorts of companies that would be all too happy to file copyright lawsuits against Wikipedia. Whether Wikipedia won the suit or not is irrelevant as the cost of the defense itself would be severely damaging to Wikipedia, which operates on a shoestring budget. Copyright law is real and we must adhere to it or face the death of this project.
• As for me supposedly torpedoing an RfB; as I explained on Taxman's RfB, my fair use image removal efforts have nothing to do with his userpage being protected. I am an administrator, so I can edit any page that is protected. Unless there were extenuating circumstances, I would still remove fair use images from protected pages. Thus, whether his userpage was protected or not is irrelevant to my fair use efforts. Further, since his userpage has no fair use images on it, the point is irrelevant. --Durin 22:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignore my incivility, I was very cranky at that point. Sorry. --Dragon695 04:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Red carnation.jpg

I am unclear as to whether you read my response to your comments on my talk page. Thus, I'm placing this message here to ensure you have read it.

Regardless of whether there are any ©, ®, or TM marks anywhere on the Socialist International website or not, without there being an intentional release of their copyrights to materials generated by them, we here at Wikipedia do not have leave to violate their copyright even if we think they wouldn't mind. Lack of stating copyright does not mean an organization does not claim copyright. Unless you can find an intentional release of copyrights on their website that stipulates this image has been released from their copyrights, then the {{symbol}} tag most definitely applies, and as a result the image may not be used in template and userspace. Until such time as you positively verify the copyright status of the image, the {{symbol}} tag is entirely appropriate. If/when you find such a release, I will gladly support the change so long as their release is cited and verifiable.

I have consulted with others on this topic at Administrators' noticeboard. Two other administrators agreed with my position on this matter. --Durin 13:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't respond sooner. Actually I had a good discussion with another admin that night on IRC and he convinced me of the error of my ways. --Dragon695 02:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• (Ref: your comments on my talk page) As I noted on Bo's talk page, it is not just a matter of law. The Wikimedia Foundation has established a policy proscribing the use of fair use images in userspace, even if it is legally justifiable to use such images. In abstract, this makes a great deal of sense. Rather than have all manner of legal justifications (which may or may not be supported in law) surrounding individual cases, it is better to have a blanket policy that proscribes such use especially since the number of cases where the legal justifications would be valid is a small subset of all potential cases. The common sense I am abiding by is Wikimedia Foundation policy. I understand you disagree with the policy. There are policies here that I also find have shortcomings. Regardless, it does not give either of us leave to violate those policies as we are working towards a common good.
• I would also like to make it clear to you that your understanding of what a userpage is as being a personal webpage is flawed. Userpages most definitely are not personal webpages. Quoting from Wikipedia:User page, "It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider". Further quoting from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet". --Durin 03:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A comment

Good morning. I came to your userpage after running across an uncivil remark of yours over at TfD. I noticed that you've taken to listing sysops you don't like under "WikiPoop" and calling them "vandals," a term generally reserved for vandalism, not policy disagreements.

• Good Evening. Not that it isn't any of your concern, because I do not think it is, but I will stand by my claims. Tony, Kelly, and Mark have been chastised for wheel warring and intentionally deleting userboxes en-mass even after they were told by Jimbo to stop (there's an ArbCom case from back in Feburary and one in January). Kelly was also booted from Arbcom for a couple of reasons, amoungst which includes improper actions involving userbox deletion. They have gone out of their way, in my opinion, to be dicks (especially in their uncivil deletion log remarks) by fomenting animosity between editors and administrators. Much like GWB and the Patriot Act in response to 9/11, they used a crisis on wikipedia, which only marginally to do with userboxes, to have CSD T1 inserted without any discussion or consensus. They refuse to use TfD because they know they don't have the votes to win, so instead they game the system by using CSD, which from what I understand, was only meant for obvious cases which weren't controversial (after all, why have TfD at all if not to debate controversial deletions?). There was much anger after the first couple of times CSD was used, which should of clued them in to the fact that these cases belonged on TfD where debate could occur. Much of the hostility could have been avoided if they had only gone to the effort of respecting pro-userbox editors request that they use TfD, which wasn't unreasonable. Instead, by using CSD, they force us to list what we believe are legit userboxes in DRV, which is far less traversed than TfD (they've even moved userboxes to a subpage, further ensuring it is hidden away from the casual editor who might be interested). As everyone knows, it is much harder to get out of DRV then it is to block deletion on TfD and they are exploiting it to the hilt. Furthermore, they are CSDing boxes which have already survived TfD and DRV on numerous occaisions, for what reason I ask? Smells like votestacking to me. Efforts to reach a compromise have been met with extreme resistance (Tony has blatently said he will not compromise on even userfied userboxes) and ultimatums like "it is their way or the highway" (in so many words). I generally try to WP:AGF, but the facts don't square with the assumption. The right thing to do would have been to take Jimbo's advice and just move on, but they chose to be stubborn instead. Their bad faith has contributed to good editors, like radiant, who have been here for quite some time, leaving in disgust. I have nothing but utter contempt for them and anyone who carries their torch. However, there are some enlightned admins, which give me cause for optimism. Nevertheless, I will continue to express my snarky displeasure mildly through my Wikipoop list, thank you very much. As for what the word vandal means in the context I used it in, well that is your POV.

I've also noticed that you haven't really contributed to the article space in the last couple months, while your userpage has seen dramatic growth.

• Gee, what does this have to do with the price of eggs? For your information, I've done minor edits here and there in article space where I thought I could be helpful. I've also reverted vandalism in article space on a couple of entries. I've helped to add proper sourcing to a few. Wow, last time I checked, small contributions were appreciated just as much as large ones. Not that it should matter, but I'm working on a few requests which will improve a couple of articles once I finish. I have written the SCOTUS and am awaiting a high-quality photo of Justice Anthony Kennedy, which one of his clerks, with his consent, has been gracious enough to send me with written release under Free Art License. I have also been corresponding with Congressman Walter B. Jones, Jr. in an effort to obtain more information about his deceased father, Congressman Walter B. Jones, Sr. He's a rather busy person, so I expect it might take awhile to get what I need, which includes a good photograph. I've made some contributions to the commons, as well. There are some other items on my TODO list which probably would have been done sooner if people would just leave the userboxes alone. All in all, I'm quite satisfied with my contributions and dismiss your unfounded rubbish allegations with extreme prejudice. Eventhough I'm a socialist, in America I do have to work for a living, you know. As for dramatic growth of my userpage, that is utter nonsense. I know there are tons of editors on wikipedia who edit theirs on a daily basis, which I have not. Your comparison to my "contribution size" is, again, just a straw man.

Finally, you apparently don't accept the realities under which this project labors, such as copyright law.

• Wow, that's funny, because my one day of misunderstanding (2 days ago) regarding the socialism logo (check my edit log) was all cleared up on IRC later that night. I've done no actions in relation since, other then write to socialist internation requesting written permission. Durin's response on my page is to a message I left him 2 days ago. Wow, I guess I'm just not part of the reality based community.

We're here to build an encyclopedia. To do this, we have to be friendly to each other, or we'll just be arguing endlessly. There's already plenty of places to do that; Wikipedia's purpose is constructive not destructive. Calling people vandals because you disagree with them does not contribute to the proper functioning of Wikipedia, quite the opposite. Similarly, Wikipedia's continued legal existence depends upon the proper respect of American (specifically Floridian) copyright law. That your ample political beliefs conflict with established law and policy is unfortunate but ultimately irrelevant.

• Well, you have the way things ought to be and then you have the way things actually are. Quoting policy is nice, but it does not necessarily square with reality. Grouping and partisanship are part of human nature, and banning userboxes will do nothing to eliminate it. It is better to just accept the fact and keep it in mind when evaluating neutrality. Arguments are inevitable, so rather then whine about them, do your best to help mitigate them. In fact, having arguments in the open is really better then allowing bad feeling to stew. The arguments on the Linux kernel mailing list often get very heated and incivil, but an amazing amount of work gets done and nobody holds a grudge. Let people blow off a little steam from time to time. As for my belief on copyright, you have allowed a ill-researched snapshot of my activities cloud your judgement as to what my future actions will be. I am not just the sum of my comments on wikipedia. I will continue to advocate for the abolishment of this fair-use nonsense policy. It's a solution in search of a problem which doesn't exist. That does not mean I will not try to avoid violating policy. However, the idea that Communists or Socialists would bring a lawsuit is a clear case of WP:SNOW.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a webhost, nor is it MySpace. We're under no obligation to serve as your personal space on the Internet; that's a privilege accorded those who contribute to the encyclopedia. Please consider this a friendly warning that your use of Wikipedia is becoming grossly inconsistent with our policies and our mission. You can remedy this by being friendly to your fellow users and actually editing an article now and then. Best wishes, Mackensen (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've been on wikipedia for a lot longer then you think and I am well aware of what what Wikipedia is not. However, since you insist on straw men, how much did you contributed during the wikimedia foundation funderaising drive? I donated $50, so I have no guilt or shame on this end. Also, you are 1 out of 800+ administrators, so stop speaking in the first-person plural as if you solely run wikipedia. I assure you that there is more then one admin who feels the same way about those mentioned on my poop list. As for my contributions both present and future, I feel they are sufficient and will continue to be. No warning is necessary. Good day to you. --Dragon695 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt the need to drag relative donations into this; money is hardly the measure of someone's worth. That being said, I'm quite comfortable with the amounts I've kicked in over the last three years. Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. --Cyde Weys 15:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto Johnleemk | Talk 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Guys, this is a talk page, not ArbCom. There is no need to hear "me too" from the "amen corner". --Dragon695 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Divisive userboxes

There aren't any such thing. This whole thing is in the mind of a select few Administrators. If you believe in Libertarianism, would it be too much trouble to ask you to support the undeletion of "anti-" userboxes? Thanks! --Dragon695 00:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are divisive userboxes. If some editors are pissed off by a userbox, it is (pretty much by definition) divisive. The strong opinions at DRV/U show the divisiveness of this issue.

That said, I may or may not give a shit about the divisiveness of a template. Let's say I have a "This user thinks Osama bin Laden is evil" template. I'm certain you could find somebody on Wikipedia who would complain that their viewpoint is being maligned. Frankly, I'm glad, since any fan of terrorist shouldn't be skulking around my userpage anyway.

Libertarians don't deny that some beliefs are offensive. Instead, we affirm the right to be offensive itself. We think that, within reasonable limits, it's good for people to be offended once in a while. If I was in charge of Wikipedia, I'd allow many of the anti-boxes, and tell people to suck it up - don't visit userpages if you can't handle what you find there.

But of course, I'm not in charge of Wikipedia. And I think that a radical position that supports, for example, an anti-transhumanist box, is bound to fail in the long run. User:Karmafist is a living example of what happens when you try to start a revolution in Wikipedia. So instead of voting completely in accord with my personal beliefs, I've acceded somewhat to the wishes of the community, and I now vote against the anti-boxes (as a general rule). I'd rather have them as templates, but having to subst: them into userspace is no big deal.

So, in general, I think moderation is good in the userbox debates. We need to show that our side is reasonable - whether or not the deletionists are. And you'd be surprised how valid the other side's arguments are when you've looked at them objectively. Of course, you are free to vote as you like, but I'd suggest that voting against the anti-boxes would be in your long-term interest. TheJabberwʘck 02:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I restored the heading to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. Please comment on the talk page if you disagree with the header, but I think it's pretty much policy since it was copied from WP:DRV itself. TheJabberwʘck 02:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Well, since you weren't doing anything on your own, I did it for you. You're welcome to fix up any HTML that I may have broken with my simple removal, but any re-addition of the content you were warned about will lead to reversion and protection. --Cyde Weys 08:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I reverted your changes since there is nothing wrong with them. Many users have userpages which have lists of people they do not like. Coolcat comes to mind. I have legitimate complaints that these people are abusing their power and causing much grief. Please respect my opinion as I respect yours. --Dragon695 18:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not point fingers here, that others disobey rules does not mean they're not rules anymore... Listing people as 'Wikipoop' is clearly a personal attack, and as such not allowed, opinion or not. --JoanneB 19:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you're 27. You should know by now that the moral equivocation of "other people are doing something bad, so it's okay if I do it too" is invalid. If other people are putting personal attacks on their user page then they need to be dealt with too. That doesn't create an excuse to stoop to their level, though. --Cyde Weys 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, yes it is rather sophmoric of me to cite others as justification, but I am really not in the mood to waste anymore time debating this. First, there is nothing which says that they are wikipoop, that's just the heading of a section (like the people under wikilove are not being called wikilove) that expresses how I feel. Feelings are not personal attacks. I have clearly asserted that I do not respect these people for the reasons given. That is my opinion and not ment as a personal attack. I would gladly remove the persons if I saw a good faith attempt on their part to be reasonable. However, as they continue to speedy userboxes created BEFORE the moratorium was put in place (in which both sides were asked to stop creation and deletion), I have no choice but assume that they have some personal vendetta. Well not assume, since on numerous occasions they have publicly stated that they don't care what our side thinks, they'll just continue on as they please. We all know what happened in January and Feburary, so I don't feel it necessary to rehash the entire userbox wars here. Personal attacks are claims with no merit. My claims, at the very least, are a legitimate grievances. Therefore they are not personal attacks. I have listed what I think are their areas which need improvement. Lastly, the previous message asked me to be more productive in article space, so I am trying to do that. I look forward to working with you in the future on making wikipedia a great encyclopedia, but on this we'll just have to agree to disagree. --Dragon695 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Dragon695, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS talk to me 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

Per my comment on User:Aaron Brenneman's talk page I have contacted Cyde about unprotecting your talk page. As I said there I see what he was getting at, some of the stuff on there really pushes at the boundaries of good taste and civility and WP:NPA, at least in my opinion. I think an undertaking to not do that sort of stuff again going forward and not get into revert wars with admins if they remove stuff that they, in their judgement, think crosses the line would be really helpful. Would you be willing to make such an undertaking? ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde has unprotected it. But it's on my watchlist and his. Please give considerable thought to how others might perceive what you say before you add things so we can avoid a repeat of this unfortunate incident. I really do think an undertaking such as I suggested would be a good thing to do. Please feel free to reply here or via email or whatever, my door is open if I can be of assistance. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 14:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw your reply at my talk page. It's important to remain civil even with those you strongly disagree with... easy to suggest, hard to do, I know. I think saying "editors I have serious concerns about" would be a better way of getting the point across, than putting their names under "wikipoop"... that just sets folk off. My email is always open to you or anyone, it goes with being an adminstrator who tries to care. And feel free to continue the conversation here, I tend to like to keep conversations in one place. ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image removal notification

I've previously removed fair use images from your userspace, and you have raised a concern about it. I've started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. You may wish to review and comment. --Durin 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• (Re:comment you left on my talk page) Given that you were quite upset with me before about this subject, this means a great deal to me. I really appreciate your kind words. Thanks! --Durin 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem! To be quite honest I must say that this policy poll has me really excited (and thus lowered my general crankiness)! I think we're finally going to break through the Sideway stalemate, resolving this userbox debate once and for all. --Dragon695 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Dragon, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! I particularly appreciate your support, as you know. Thanks again, and I will do everything I can to justify the trust you've placed in me! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

[edit] Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG

I've modified Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG to have a {{Fair use in}} tag, which I feel is appropriate given the copyright statement you cited. That statement is somewhat contradictory, with the most restrictive statement being personal use only. Thus, it's not clear of copyright claims for use in Wikipedia. As a result, the fair use tag is probably the best tag to apply. I've re-added the image to Aung San Suu Kyi. --Durin 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification :). --Dragon695 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up on comments you made a long time ago

"If what you say is true 70, why do people like you (moral supremists) who insist on trying minors as adults? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? You say on the one hand that they aren't mini-adults, incapable of sexual feelings (which is nonsense biologically), yet on the other hand as soon as one of them commits a crime overzelous prosecutors will try an 8-year old as an adult just to get the maximum vindiciveness. I don't condone Clayboy's POV, but I also don't condone hypocrites. --Dragon695 06:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC) "

I don't believe in trying children as adults. Children do have sexual urges, but they aren't the same as adult sexual urges. Clayboy belives they are no different. Stop playing devil's advocate, and but in on conversations you have nothing to do with. In case you are wondering the IP is different because I have relocated.--195.238.53.244 11:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

As an inclusionist, please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of relationships with age disparity and please take a side. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. By the way, you're welcome to ask for my vote to keep any information on this website. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject South Park

I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project:

• Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
• Merge/lengthen the many character articles
• Improve the South Park main page

I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison