User talk:Durin/archive2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

Contents

[edit] {{Coatofarms}} → {{GFDL}}?

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

  • Oww. --Durin 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Orbiter Online speedy deletion

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

[edit] Images in templates

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

  • Yes, since they would be used on a main namespace article only. --Durin 13:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use and userboxes

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

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

[edit] Images, fair use and templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] google image

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

thank you

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

[edit] Re: Use of fair use images in signatures

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

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

[edit] Use of Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png

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

Please look closely at the edit. THATS THE UN FLAG. If you arent going to at least review the contents of my edits, do not bother reverting them. --Cat out 17:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Mistake noted and apologized for. According to the file links section on Image:United Federation of Planets flag.png, it was still in use on your page. I saw an image closely resembling, and removed it, admittedly knee jerk. --Durin 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thats ok, I guess the problem is that since my userpage wasn't updated so far the servers still think the image is transcluded. That linkage should go away in a few minutes/hours I suppose when chaches clear. --Cat out 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use images

  • Image:Cardassian Logo.png
  • Image:Klingon Logo.png
  • Image:Romulan Logo.png

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

Delete this image at this instant! Thank you! (uploader) --Cat out 21:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. --Durin 22:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on my user page

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

  • I warned him. --Durin 13:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much! Pacdude 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for images

The Working Man's Barnstar
You arguably do the most thankless job in Wikipedia in policing images, and are probably the best at it. Sure, I don't like all the images you tag and remove, but I know it's policy and I proudly respect you for your contributions and not letting any angry users get to you. Wizardman 01:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Much appreciated! It is at times quite thankless, but not right now :) --Durin 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Husnock sockpuppetry

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

  • I have nothing to say to you. --Durin 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

  • You are already aware of WP:NPA. --Durin 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royal symbols

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

  • Indeed. In fact, a very similar article (Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry) was deleted on the same grounds as it could never successfully be encyclopedic given that fair use restrictions prevented it from displaying what the article hoped to achieve. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of United Kingdom academic heraldry. The images in question are already used in articles regarding those respective arms. There's nothing to be gained from a gallery of them, and galleries of fair use images are not permitted anymore. --Durin 22:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. --G2bambino 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying

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

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

I did take the photograph. --Zazzer

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

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

[edit] Fair use of album covers in band articles

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

Sorry to nag but this has now come up at The Beatles as well. Is there any way you can give an opinion on whether fair use album covers are usable:
In album articles only (as I think)
In album articles and also in discography articles
In album and discography articles and also as a gallery on the entry for a band?
The wording of the fair use provision seems unambiguously to point to my interpretation but I would appreciate the opinion of an expert as I believe you to be. Very best wishes, --Guinnog 20:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I meant to mention I raised this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as well. --Guinnog 22:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The general case is that album covers are allowed on the specific albums they are of only. --Durin 06:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. --Guinnog 11:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] matt harding dance

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

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

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

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

  • No worries. I agree, the copyright status as "clear" is ambiguous. --Durin 13:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Template:User Decemberists

Hi,

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

  • No worries! --Durin 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfB

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

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

[edit] More harassment! Jeez

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

  • The soonest I can do anything about this is Friday. You might want to report this to WP:AN/I. --Durin 02:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    Just to jump in...I've taken care of it. --HappyCamper 16:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --Durin 16:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woops

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

  • No worries! --Durin 21:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request concerning newcomer and image copyright

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

  • I left him a few messages. The image has been tagged for deletion in seven days if it does not have source/license affixed to it. --Durin 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, good to see you back following the passing of your mother. I know it's not easy. I've had to deal with it myself. --Durin 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a shock

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

  • I'm sorry that you feel that blocking someone for blatantly violating WP:NPA constitutes poor behavior. --Durin 13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You petty jackass. Why do you wee nazi twerps think banning will save you from the truth? Your behaviour is fascist and betrays an underlying intellectual weakness. Banning so effective (and childish), don't you think? Not that thinking is your strong point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.25.135.68 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
      • I have to admit it took me a while to figure out what you are on about. I have no interest in Canadian politics. I do have an interest in preventing people from blatantly and willfully violating policies that are in place to preserve the integrity of this encyclopedia. As long as you continue to do so, your access points will be blocked. I'm sorry you find the policies here so limiting to your ability to express yourself. --Durin 21:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • As long as this encyclopedia is administered by petty fascists such as yourself, it has no integrity. The IP banning simply doesn't work...I suspect this theme of dysfuntion runs through all aspects of your life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.25.131.157 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
          • If you want to effect what you believe is positive change here at Wikipedia, the way to go about it has nothing to do with going around and insulting people. You're just wasting your own time, and guaranteeing that your point of view will fail to find expression here and your IP access points will be blocked. --Durin 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • What an asshole -- stephan.com 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Imagine that, an American acting unilaterally to impose his way on the world-at-large. Good luck, fascist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.19.228.162 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
    • As long as you continue to behave in the manner that you are, your edits will continue to be reverted by myself and others. You are wasting your own time more than anyone else's. --Durin 13:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fighting freedom-hating wikiterrorist/admins is never a waste of time. How is that IP blocking working for you, nazi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.91.220.140 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
    • As I noted above, you're doing nothing more than wasting your own time. --Durin 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That IP banning is working great, keep up the foul work, nazi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.198.12.167 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Certainly. --Durin 13:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You nazi asshole, how is that IP banning working out for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.102.23.116 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Just fine thank you. Takes less time to do than it does for you to type in comments like the above. --Durin 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You must really hate freedom, you evil-doing, nazi asshole. IP Banning, is that something Osama Bin Laden told you would be effective? You are such a snivelling little asshole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.214.222.68 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 22:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I know you wikiterrorists love to limit free speech but you have to admit that IP banning is foolish, if that is your best option then you are a fool. Keep being an asshole Duran, it is your only talent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.76.92.33 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 02:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You petty nazis will just have to keep blocking IP's because I ahve access to thousands and thousands of them. You will have to resort to the terrorist tactic of locking pages. It is the only way to keep your lies intact. Suck it again, twerp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.76.92.46 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I notice that you added Cheri DiNovo's name to the list short story contributors at the New Yorker Magazine article. Would you care to mention a single short story she contributed to that magazine? What issue(s)? You can't because you are lying. You gay NDP supporters have real problems with the concept of truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.102.143 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Incidentally, just for the record, a quick perusal of the article history indicates that Cheri DiNovo's name was added to the New Yorker article by User:58.10.102.70, who also falsely added DiNovo's name to {{Earth, Wind, & Fire band}}. Repeatedly iolating WP:BLP is one thing, but it's really the height of inappropriateness to insert deliberate lies into Wikipedia oneself, and then use one's own disinformation to attack other editors' credibility with. Bearcat 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The class is still waiting for you to post the links that prove Cheri DiNovo has written short stories for the New Yorker. You edited that particular to page, adding her name to the list of contributors. Therefore, she must be a contributor, right? Or did you add nonsense to wikipedia? Prove that Cheri DiNovo has never published a single sentence that appeared in The New Yorker and you knew that was true before you added her name to the article? Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.25.149.134 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 January 2007.
    • Thank you. --Durin 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Durian? That's the smelly fruit, right? So, among all the attack queers, you're the foulest? Thank's for giving my work top-billing here on your snivel sheet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farginbastages (talk • contribs) 15:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Durin, the foul-smelling fruit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.25.133.176 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You are such a snivelling little cunt, I suspect that is what comes from having your head dunked in toilets all through your school years. You foul fruit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.25.129.12 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're still a snivelling little cunt and the foulest of the fruits here on wikipedia. You attack queers should chip in and get one real life between you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.91.222.8 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Thank you. --Durin 13:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newyorkbrad's RfA

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

  • I'm sure you'll do fantastic. --Durin 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use

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

  • The image you put in place is fine as it is available under GFDL. Thanks! --Durin 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hahahihihoho

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

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

[edit] Logos

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

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

[edit] Orphaned Image

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

  • Learning's perfectly fine. Any chance you can get a camera and go take a picture of the stadium yourself? I realize it might not be as pretty as the one you uploaded, but we are focused more on free than pretty here. Of course, both would be nice, but we'd far prefer free. --Durin 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunantly, I am 4 hours away from the stadium :-) but I think I should be able to get a replacement or the permission to that one... just gonna take some time. JNAllen 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh well :/ --Durin 15:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alkalada

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

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

I suggest you to ban Ivan for vandalism.

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

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

  • You continue to engage in contentious editing, violating the spirit of WP:3RR. --Durin 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] User:58.10.102.159 is spamming me

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

  • No, I'm sorry. If he has your e-mail address, there's nothing we can do to stop him signing it up for all sorts of spam. --Durin 23:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Renée Fleming image

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

[edit] Gene Klaus

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

  • I'd recommend taking it to WP:AFD. Best course of action when the speedy deletion is contested. --Durin 03:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks for all the help.--Joebengo 04:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-day

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

  • So when are you going up for bureaucrat? You're as addicted to RfA as I am :) (no, don't ask me when I'm going to run) --Durin 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I may at some point. But as time goes on, I feel that as long as there are enough active ones around, there isn't a great need for more, although there also is no reason not to promote any qualified candidates that come along. So it isn't a pressing issue for me. If all our active ones get distracted, maybe I'll stand. NoSeptember 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're more active on WT:RFA than anyone in the last rolling year. You compile more statistics than anyone. You have more involvement overall in RFA than anyone else out there. It doesn't make any sense for you not to be a bureaucrat. I've never much felt there was a lot of validity to the "we don't need more bureaucrats" argument. We do periodically have minor backlogs anyways. For example, right now we've got a two day backlog at Wikipedia:Changing username with 22 requests unanswered. That's not a huge backlog, but nevertheless it is a backlog. By far, the most active bureaucrat there is Essjay (~80% of name changes). Not surprisingly, Essjay's been absent for two days. I don't think any of our processes should have a single point backlog causation. --Durin 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little award for beeing nice, to people, like me

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to tell me how to use "fair use images" --'•Tbone55•(Talk) (Contribs)(UBX) 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You're quite welcome! Thanks for the barnstar! --Durin 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of crossings of the Rivière des Prairies

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

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

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

[edit] andrew cornforth

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

[edit] Nice of you

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

  • No worries. Be aware; the replacement image is up for deletion on Commons. --Durin 18:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you check my current Userbox please? --Esparagon 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I checked. Looks fine. Good job! --Durin 21:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox Fairuse

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

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

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

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


[edit] Thanks from Esparagon

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

  • :) Thanks! --Durin 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

  • The normal way to do it is to put your signature after your comments. :) --Durin 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help this user understand fair use limitations

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

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

  • You were correct. I commented as much on his talk page. --Durin 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    • Just on the image description page. --Durin 04:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image problem

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

  • Ok, that's fine. --Durin 14:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image use

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

  • Yes, plain text is fine. Many userboxes do that. You can also use any image which is available under a free license, such as {{gfdl}} or {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}. --Durin 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Well, you could start at Wikimedia Commons. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Commons has more than a million media files. There's also Category:User-created public domain images and Category:GFDL images for example, but neither of those is well organized. --Durin 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To use an image from commons, you refer to the images just as you would an image directly from Wikipedia. The Wikipedia server looks it up. For example, have a look at the code that I use to display this image: It's the same code as using any other image on Wikipedia. --Durin 15:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK Copyrighted Content

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

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

[edit] Deletion of Boondocks images

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

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

[edit] Poll on RFA talk

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

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

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

See also your wikipedia e-mail

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

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

[edit] User needs your help with legal of fair use images

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

  • I responded on his talk page. --Durin 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info re username change

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

  • We all start somewhere! No worries. --Durin 13:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks for the edit, and a question

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

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

  • You're welcome! As to the paintings, the scenario is a bit different. You retain rights to the creative effort needed to create the photographs of the artistry. However, the estate of the artist also retains rights to the artwork. Thus, neither you nor the estate can use the photographs without both you and the estate agreeing upon whatever terms the image is to be released on. Neither set of rights override the other. They coexist, and must agree in order to release. --Durin 20:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • thought that might be the case, that's why I didn't upload them. Too bad, the article could use a picture. I suppose I could contact his family. I do have rights to some artworks he made with my group, but those aren't really exemplars of his most well known pieces. But that's for a later time.-- stephan.com 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • You can use imagery of such under fair use doctrine here. --Durin 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: block inquiry

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

  • I've had one interaction with that admin before. He nominated an article for deletion for a tennis professional who was ranked in the top 50 in the world. Rather surprising, and the AfD went overwhelmingly against deleting. Everything else I've seen from you shows considerable capability. I'll add my comments to the RfA. --Durin 20:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you, he acknowledged that he had made a mistake. - Gilliam 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image work and one userbox

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

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

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

[edit] USNA and Bobby Ross vandalism

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

  • I'll investigate sometime today. --Durin 06:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

  • I'll investigate. --Durin 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I applaud you.

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

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

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

  • Thank you :) Very much appreciated! --Durin 03:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "African" categories

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

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

[edit] Images

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

  • Not in the way you want to do so. We do not permit galleries of fair use images on Wikipedia. If you were to create an article about a specific edition of the magazine, then it would be appropriate to have the specific, relevant cover appear in the article. However, it would not be appropriate to do as you have been doing; creating a gallery of covers. --Durin 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, I understand that now. If I want to try to re-add the content later closer to your guidelines, will I be able to do this? Also, will links to music reviews remain since they refer to a specific article? Merlin33 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Merlin33
  • I'd be happy to work with you when you want to upload images. Just drop me a note and I can assist you. As for the review links, I'm sorry but I'm removing them. TheMagazine simple isn't notable enough as a link. --Durin 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's disappointing, but I appreciate the explanations. I look you up when the hits start improving. Merlin33 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Merlin33
  • I'm sorry this wasn't more fruitful for you. Thanks for working within our policies though. Many users get quite upset when this sort of thing happens. I appreciate your calmness. --Durin 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Burns Photo

Hello again, Durin!

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

Dave,

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

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

Thanks for checking!

Cheers,


Jamie Moncrief
Coordinator of Photographic Services
UNCW Marketing and Communications

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

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

moncriefj -at- uncw -dot- edu


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

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

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

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

[edit] Re:Be careful what you ask for :)

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

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

[edit] UMiami Userbox

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

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


[edit] 206.219.87.130 vandalism

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

  • No worries. Happy to help! --Durin 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Husnock

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

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

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

[edit] picture use

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

  • The picture you used in replacement is fine. Nice job! --Durin 03:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Peter M Dodge

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

[edit] My RfA

Hey Durin,

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

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

[edit] reply

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

[edit] The Template wars

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

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

  • I do not believe he will be satisfied with things as they are now or are likely to conclude. I've recommended he take this to a WP:RFM as a next step. We'll see what comes of it. He obviously knows a great deal on the subject. I have no desire to push him away from the topic here; we need all viewpoints. But, the edit warring must stop. I've taken the line I have with him because he is the most egregious case of it in this matter, but he is not the only one; just the worst. Hopefully this will help resolve things. We'll see. But, this has gone on long enough without resolution and the outcomes are disruptive. --Durin 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with you. Frankly it does not matter what the consensus is as long as there is one and we abide by it. Fiddle Faddle 10:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little late

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

[edit] User:Kerlin Gallery

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

  • This is what you need to do; log in as User:Kerlin Gallery, go to WP:CHU and follow the instructions. That's all. --Durin 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Oalogo2.jpg

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

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

[edit] Myself as a albums wikiprojects

Hi,

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

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

[edit] User Name Change

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

[edit] Stop_The_Lies → Maîtresse

  • Current name: Stop_The_Lies (talk • contribs)
  • Requested name: Maîtresse (change username)
  • Reason: Current user name attacked as trying to impose 'propaganda' & discredit others' contributions, also, current user name made as angry response to an article. -- Stop The Lies 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

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

  • The request looks properly formatted. Now all you need to do is post it to WP:CHU. --Durin 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question:

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

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

  • No. --Durin 04:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?? It is absurd! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mahal11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

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

[edit] Almost ready

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

  • Looks good with two exceptions: 1) Don't forget to accept the nomination. 2) Minor correction in wording on the third question. Change "try simply ignore this" to "try to simply ignore this". When you do transclude, don't forget to update the time stamp on the RfA to be equivalent to when you transcluded it to WP:RFA. Looks great otherwise. --Durin 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's done. I had panned to accept the nomination as the last thing before transcluding. Anyway, it's live now. Let's see what happens. Heimstern Läufer 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fair-use or no?

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

  • It's overkill. A depiction of his appearance in each movie on that movie's page would be fine, but not all over this article. --Durin 20:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

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

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

[edit] Hi

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

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

[edit] Image:UDaytonLogo.jpg

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

UD
This user attends or attended the University of Dayton.

. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonathonReinhart (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

  • It is orphaned because a fair use image must be used in a main namespace article in order not to be orphaned. Templates, userpages, project space, etc do not count towards this. The image is also a replica of Image:Udlogo.gif, which is used on the University of Dayton article. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to help. --Durin 17:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Gotcha - I didn't realize that image was on University of Dayton - Do you think you could help fix that template? I'm not really good at that, and I just copied it from another Userbox. Now the image is too big, and the whole template looks like crap. You can go ahead and delete the image I uploaded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonathonReinhart (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
      • I do not fix userboxes as a general rule. I just remove fair use images violations from them. I'll go ahead and delete the image. --Durin 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I am all for having proper licensing for everything on Wikipedia. How can I go about getting a properly licensed image for the userbox? Several other of my friends from UD also contribute to wikipedia and I want them to have a nice userbox with our logo. Should I see if one can be released to public domain? or is there another license that applies to the userboxes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonathonReinhart (talk • contribs) 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
      • There are two basic types of images at Wikipedia; those available under a free license and those that are copyrighted and used here under terms of fair use. We try to limit the amount of fair use images used as they are problematic with regards to copyright. You can try contacting University of Dayton to gain release of their logo(s) under a free license, but it is very unlikely they would make such a release. Thus, any official logo for UD is not going to be allowed in the userbox. For alternatives, see what people have done with university userboxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United States. --Durin 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CD template

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

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

[edit] Fair use image use

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

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

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

[edit] Limited licenses

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

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

[edit] Those links at WP:BN

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

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

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

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

[edit] A thought I wanted to bounce off of you.

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

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

[edit] Admin stats

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

  • I've been pondering this myself. Have a look at User:Durin/RfA results (feel free to cull data from that if you like). That's not all the data I have. I have data from June 2005 through near current, and also from June to September 2003. I'd like to fill in the 2003-2005 gap.
  • The differences in our work are negligible except that I include failed RfAs and your work does not. Your data is easier to come by, as the number of promotions are a subset of the overall nominations and (the hard part) you don't have to go step by step through RfA to track what RfAs have been made. I'll be frank, it's a royal pain in the tookus to walk through each and every edit to WP:RFA to get information on every RfA that is put forth. It takes about an hour, at current nomination rates, to run through about 10 days worth of RfA. Uhg. I wish there were a better way, but I don't know what that might be for the reason that not all RfAs make it to the unsuccessful list (or even all successful RfAs making it to successful list for that matter! :)).
  • Ah, I've just stumbled across a thought pattern... (oddly, they happen from time to time in my brain :)). I think you'll like this, and the work you are already doing would work perfectly within this. Let me get back to you. Watch my edits, as I think I'll be working on this shortly. Feel free to chime in as it develops... --Durin 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination data. Please do not populate Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nomination data/All nominations; I'm going to dump all of my data into it, which is a superset of yours (at least through mid-January 2007). --Durin 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So are you still watching this page? NoSeptember 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am. I just haven't had a large block of time yet :) --Durin 19:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I added my own image Template:User Melbourne High school

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

[edit] RfA thanks

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

  • You're quite welcome! It was a pleasure to do. I'm sure you'll do quite well as an admin. --Durin 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry Mhs.png Ajindustries

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

Ajindustries 08:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New logo for my user box.

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

  • Wherever the logo is used, the original copyright holder retains rights. --Durin 13:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asking nicely

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

[edit] Python logo and userboxes

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

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

[edit] RFA

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

[edit] RE:User:ASDFGHJKL

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

[edit] Cheers!

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

  • No worries. Glad to help! --Durin 18:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THANX A MILLION!!

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

[edit] A SANDBOX!! OOOHHHH

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

[edit] HELP MEEEE!

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

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

[edit] Not filing any complaints

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

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

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

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

[edit] Changing username

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

  • I am utterly flabbergasted by this. My every intention in this has been to help the project, not to cause any harm to it. I did check, quite some time ago, whether there were any sort of official clerks regarding WP:CHU. There weren't, at least there was no mention of it at all on the WP:CHU or on its talk page and archives, or on Wikipedia talk:Changing username/Front matter. It was only on February 15, 2007..THIS year, THIS month that the addition was made to the instructions on front matter, and only a mention of it in the archives twice, in January 2007 and late December 2006. It is clear to me this is a breakdown in communication. A clerk corps apparently has existed for nearly two months, but only in the last two weeks was anything done to make it clear there was such a corps [10].
  • I have been contributing to WP:CHU since September of 2006, and I will readily grant that I do not read the front matter every time I look at the page. I DID check to see if there was any clerk position because I saw people using "clerk note" type annotation in their postings to the page. I couldn't find anything, proven by the above, and continued my efforts. I did not consult with anyone because there wasn't a clerk corps to consult with, at least not publicly visible. I'm sorry you do not appreciate my efforts, but they were done in good faith and after carefully checking my facts...as I always do. You didn't raise this issue to me before, in our disagreement from three weeks ago, and did not ask me to stop contributing at WP:CHU at that time.
  • Would you please inform me of who has resigned due to my actions? I would like to apologize to them. --Durin 14:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • When Essjay says "the entire clerk corps" he means "the entire clerk corps". ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 17:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know. I can't find any on-wiki discussion related to this. Apparently, it all happened off-wiki. According to a post on his user talk page, he does not want to state who wants to resign because of my apparent interference and disruption [11]. I wish I'd known I was apparently interfering and disrupting things before people approached him with resignation notices. I just didn't know I was considered a disruptive, interfering user. I can't possibly correct something I am unaware of. --Durin 17:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/r/User_talk%7EDurin_archive2007_4389.html"