User talk:Duk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editing since 2003, Administrator since dec 2004.



This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duk.



Contents

[edit] ultrasonic welding

Hi Duk,

I'm working on the ultrasonic welding article. I've been trying to add more information and make the site more factual. I'd like to add some visuals to the ultrasonic welding article but am having trouble finding pictures that aren't copyrighted. Also, I'd like to add some more information about process parameters. I noticed that you have done some editing on this article and was wondering if you would take a look.

Thanks, Marylee23 (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marylee23, I'm not really active at wikipedia for the time being, but thanks for the invite and keep up the good work. The article is coming along nicely. --Duk 10:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City of Dreams deletion

Hi Duk,

I am not sure why you thought my info on the "City of Dreams" is spam.

Wikipedia has info on other hotel casinos that are currently in development, such as CityCenter in Las Vegas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citycenter

You probably are not aware, but Macau takes in more gambling revenue than Las Vegas, so actually, the Las Vegas development information on CityCenter is for a smaller market than Macau.

If the policy is to not provide info on hotels that are currently under construction, than the Las Vegas CityCenter info should also be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockedinvegas (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shockedinvegas, If you want to write an article about your hotel please choose an appropriate name like 'City of Dreams (hotel)'. See City of Dreams for examples (I've reworked the page into a disambiguation list). If it reads like spam (again) it will be deleted. --Duk 16:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] Flowbee

Is it ture that you could buy a Zac Efron Limited Edition w/ gold plating os ture!!??:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.16.116 (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STBotI unblocked

I've unblocked the bot because it seems to be working just fine; if you have a problem with its operation, it needs to be brought up with the user in a civil manner before admin tools are used. I realize you've tried this, however I've taken a look at the example you gave (Image:BanqiaoDamAfterFailure.jpg) and I don't see a rationale there. I might have tagged that myself if I was picky enough, and I can certainly understand how a functioning bot would mistake that for useless text. "Educational use" is incredibly vague and does not explain why we're allowed to use it. Please, if you are having issues with the bot and are having difficulties working with the operator, try WP:DR or bring it up at WP:ANI for wider attention. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. What about the other four examples I gave?
  2. You're arguing over the quality of the rationale, fine, but bots may not make that judgment.
  3. Your unblock note said 'try talking with the user'. I did. He called me stupid. But I kept on for another twelve hours? Did you miss that. --Duk 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. Bots aren't perfect. Deal with it. If it's wrong, and you know it is, ignore it.
  2. See above.
  3. No, I saw that, and other avenues should be sought out before blocking. Blocks are a last resort. You're an admin, you're above being called stupid. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STBotI unblocked (again)

I've unblocked User:STBotI again as it was an inappropriate block. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I have agreed to SCZenz's suggestion that I take a step back from this particular conflict. I disagree however that the bot is functioning properly. Its accuracy is poor. It leaves misleading edit summaries, tags and userpage notes - sometimes they are just plain wrong, and sometimes it incorrectly taggs images for deletion. This is because the bot owner is surly, slovenly and lazy. --Duk 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Grr... let's try to be nice, please. All bots and programs can always use improvement. ST47 has a bug tracker and a large note at the top of his user talk page indicating that users who would like their issues resolved should use it. Perhaps try filing a few bugs? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth should I be expected to go to another site that requires registration to tell a bot owner his bot is screwed up? Ridiculous. I left clear and concise suggestions for ST47 here and he still hasn't responded. And let's be very clear, that bot doesn't even come close to satisfying Wikipedia:Bot policy;
  • In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: ... uses informative messages, appropriately worded, in any edit summaries or messages left for users .
  • Good communication: Users who read messages or edit summaries from bots, will generally expect a high standard of cordiality and information, backed up by prompt and civil help from the bot's operator if queries arise. Bot operators should take care in the design of communications, and ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.
And that's just to start with. --Duk 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And you thought a block of the bot (twice) was the most effective and / or appropriate course of action? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
On the bot's user page there is a link:
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it.
Of course I tried to talk to the bot owner first, but the first sentence out of his mouth called me 'stupid'. Neither the bot owner or the bot satisfied the requirements of Wikipedia:Bot Policy. If I had it to do over again, I'd block them both instead of just the bot. --Duk 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride, let me ask you a question. Do you want another, possibly more virulent Betacommandesqe replay of history in the form of ST47/STBotI? I don't. I think this is a good opportunity for the community to enforce the existing standards of behavior required of both bots and their owners as put forth in the Wikipedia:Bot policy. --Duk 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see far more common sense from all users of this site. We have a template for fair use images. What's the issue with using it (e.g., here)? It standardizes image description pages and certainly aids the Foundation goal of making image description pages "machine-readable format so that [they] can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." --MZMcBride (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. I did, in fact, use that template. See the very first version in history [1]. And I pointed this out to ST47 [2]. --Duk 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant using {{Non-free media rationale}}, which has parameters that bots can easily read. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I agree and made that exact suggestion to ST47; To fix this, I'd suggest ... or b) propose at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline that Template:Non-free use rationale be required to aid bot work. --Duk 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Then let's move in that direction. : - ) It would seem to be a far better use of time than blocking people. Shall I post there or shall you? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead, I'm a little weary of this at the moment but maybe I'll follow up tomorrow.
Using that template is a good idea, however, it has nothing to do with ST47 and his bot failing to meet Wikipedia:Bot policy's requirements. The community should send a clear message that nasty Betacommandesqe behavior won't be tolerated from bot owners. --Duk 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ST47 and STBotI

I agree with most of your points, I am frankly baffled by the insistence of a number of several users on unblocking the bot. I found a new malfunction and re-blocked it, and begged everyone to participate in the discussion rather than unblocking again. I am still working on this; I hope people do not keep unblocking in place of participating in a discussion in which valid concerns have been raised. I am trying to think about the way forward if this continues; all I can think of would be seeking an injunction from ArbCom. Let me know if you have any ideas... -- SCZenz (talk) 08:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As stated at ani, I think the bot community should be pressured to enforce some standards of behavior (to start with), but I'm not hopeful on this. I think an RFC will be needed - in preparation of an arbitration case. --Duk

[edit] Email

Hi ;-), Look for an email from me. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I've replied and copied Mike. --Duk 17:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

This is unacceptable, and uncalled for. If I see that kind of edits again coming from you, I won't hesitate to issue a block. -- lucasbfr talk 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And yet you have no problem with Mike's comment that I was replying to? I assume that's the case since you didn't warn him. You are clearly biased. Go away. --Duk 21:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have told Mike about his comment, but you are way out of line here. -- lucasbfr talk 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Duk, please just back away and leave Mike alone. Your comment was a personal attack, regardless of perspective. So back down, both of you, and go edit some encyclopedia or something. It's not worth getting blocked over .. - Alison ❤ 23:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's refreshing to hear the phrase 'both of you' for once, but I make no apologies for giving as good as I got.
And I object to some of you (not you or Flo) for coming down on the person defending himself in kind, but not on the person who opened this door. --Duk 00:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Like everyone here is saying, both of you need to back away from the keyboard and take a breather, because your next personal attack (or his) will result in a block. Consider this your "only warning". Tiptoety talk

[edit] RE: STBotI

Hi, Duk. Thanks for your patience in waiting for a reply for me, and my apologies for the delay. I've had a bit of stuff come up in real life (a lot of assessments, I'm in my final year of high school), and therefore, while I've been able to do a bit of development and so forth, I haven't been particularly responsive to queries.

As for STBotI, I agree with point four of what you said (bot operators shouldn't call users who complain about their bots 'stupid'), but I disagree with the rest of it. The Foundation has made clear that fair-use rationales ought to be readable by automated processes such as bots, for precisely the reason that we can run bots like STBotI to weed out insufficiently rationalised fair use. It is therefore quite unsuprising that your image was tagged as having no rationale by an automated process which is designed to recognise these machine-readable rationales.

From my skimming of the discussion that occurred in my absence, the rest of the community seems to have come to the same conclusion as I.

Thanks, — Werdna talk 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Werdna, there was also a consensus that the bot's messages and edit summaries and were sometimes unhelpful and inaccurate, needed to be improved before the bot is unblocked. -- SCZenz (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Werdna, thanks for getting back to me and sorry for all the drama on your rfa.

About machine readable fair use - I asked ST47 to refer me to that policy but he couldn't. I was under the impression that the image had to be machine readable as fair use, and that the copyright tag carries the burden, not a fill-in-the-blank rationale tag.

As someone who signs off on fair-use bot approvals, can you show me where this policy is? Does it specifically state that the rationales have to be machine readable?

I have more to say, including specific feedback for STBotl, but I'd like to see first if it is even worth my breath. Thanks. --Duk 06:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Details on fair-use rationales being machine-readable can be found here. Note point 2: Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.. — Werdna talk 09:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Werdna,did you even read my question? The link you gave me says that content used under the fair use rationale must be machine readable as fair use, NOT THE RATIONALE. Can you please acknowledge this. --Duk 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(EC with Duk on this but:) And that is why we require non-free content copyright tags to be applied to every non-free image, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the Foundation statement. At the moment our image guidelines say nothing about requiring template, and indeed specifically discuss examples of non-template statements. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note about the copyright tag carrying the burden - that was previously the case for a number of years, but over the past couple of years, we have been deleting un-needed non free content for many many months now, and we have been adding a machine readable fair-use rationales for a considerable period of time. I don't wish to come down on you like a ton of bricks, but your entire argument (both with ST47 and with Werdna via his RfA) stems from your ignorance of current policies and practices when it comes to non free content - you've clearly not followed all the changes to policy that the Foundation have mandated, and that have been agreed here locally by editors of en.wp. The copyright tag now states "To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed non-free use rationale." - perhaps it should also include an explicit mention of the requirement for a machine readable fair use rationale, as this would likely have stopped any of this confusion from ever occurring. I would say that ST47 calling you stupid was unjustified, but you've gone and done something very similar to Mike H, so that's all swings and roundabouts, really. Nick (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick. Unfortunately, that's not the whole argument at all. An additional problem is that the machine-readable requirement isn't made very clear, especially in the edits by the bot in question. If it requires a specific machine-readable format, it needs to make it clear that the problem might be that the rationale is ok and the wrong template was used — rather than stating (sometimes incorrectly) that the fair use rationale is missing. Whatever our policy on non free content, WP:BITE still applies, doubly-so because users can't talk to the bot if they're confused. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nick, where is the requirement for machine readable rationales? (hint, there isn't one) --Duk 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The Foundation statement does not exclude the rationale from being machine readable, nor does it make it compulsory. A sensible interpretation would be that whilst a machine readable rationale isn't required, it's a very good idea, and images without a machine readable rationale might be inadvertently tagged by a bot, especially, as in the case of your image, the non machine readable rationale is missing some essential requirements. I've no idea whether or not STBotI is incapable of processing non machine readable rationales or whether it tagged your image because essential information was (and still is) missing.
The other thing I would like to ask is do you have any objections to making machine readable rationales a mandatory requirement for all non free images, and would you object to having a machine readable rationale added to all images over the course of the next 3/6/9/12 months or whatever and in the interim, bots flagging images without machine readable rationales for manual investigation rather than deletion ? Nick (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • whilst a machine readable rationale isn't required, it's a very good idea ... I agree.
  • I've no idea whether or not STBotI is incapable of processing non machine readable rationales ... STBotI appears to be capable of parsing non-templated rationales. See here (despite the misleading edit summary and enormous image page tag, the bot recognized the rationale and asked that an article link be added per WP:NFCC#10c).
  • any objections to making machine readable rationales a mandatory requirement for all non free images ... No objections in principal. In fact I made that very suggestion to ST47 (look further up in my talk page for the quote and link). But it needs to be done formally, and only for new images, and it should be practical and easy for non-lawyers to do.
For existing images, however, we have to be very careful not to barrage long time editors with threatening tags and misleading edit summaries, and I don't think we should place the burden of updating existing rationales to templated form on the original uploaders.
  • and in the interim, bots flagging images without machine readable rationales for manual investigation rather than deletion ? ... I have no opinion on this one.
  • your image because essential information was (and still is) missing ... Yes, I'm aware of that, as mentioned here. I was kinda hoping that a newly enhanced bot would come by with a friendly and clear note explaining what I need to do, but maybe that's wishful thinking. (I'll take care of it in a bit.)
--Duk 17:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)



[edit] To Duk regarding the exchange on Werdna's RfA

Duk, chill out. If you think ST47's bot use is a big problem, then keep your eye on that. You seem to be trying hard to turning this into a wider fight, and creating that wider fight in the process. That will not help you achieve your legitimate goals or improve the wiki. Sometimes, even if you think someone is being unreasonable, you have to let it go rather than upping the ante. -- SCZenz (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try --Duk 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:HarveyHubbell.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HarveyHubbell.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. βcommand 14:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)