User talk:Ddcc/Archive Jan 2007

Welcome to VandalProof! 1.3
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ddcc! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS sorry the last bach of welcomes failed to go out if you have readded your name can you please remove it thanks

Fair Use in portals amendment
Hey, ddcc. Did that amendment pass, or what? What's our status on it? Thanks.  Dooms Day34  9  23:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very confusing. Perhaps we should prompt on the main fair use page?   Dooms  Day34  9  02:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

re VP
AmiDaniel merged the VP 1.2.2 and the 1.3 userlist, because VP1.3 is about to be fully released and in that merge some usernames have gotten lost. I posted a note on the vp page abour that its the Global Notice and I have been trying to fix whoever got droped sorry for the mishap you should have 1.3 access. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)`

Dragons of the Dwarven Depths
Ok...I will give it a shot. I just finished the book yesterday so everything is pretty fresh now. I have to say that it wasn't such a great book in comparison to the Chronicles and Legends. Hopefully, the next one will be better. --MetsFan76 21:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair use in portals again
The proposal itself had not received feedback in two weeks before Radiant commented there three days ago. I believe that qualifies as an inactive one. I was going to suggest to post a note at the Village Pump again, but seems you have already thought about that :-) Unluckily, unless more people come to review the proposal, consensus won't be achieved, and without it, as stated by Radiant, the proposal is to be rejected. If consensus is usually achieved at 80%, as with most RFAs, then it would need at least 10 support opinions more with no new rejections.

The proposal was turned into a historical one, but revived by another user. However, if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. I believe it would be better to rewrite the proposal and present a new one. Although most of those who had voted negatively may continue doing so, you may attract more editors if it is makes use of stronger arguments, examples or more restrictions. Note that having the foundation lawyer stating this goes against the idea of Wikipedia is a very strong argument that many would consider. Even if his opinion is not binding, it reminds everyone that we should act for freedom and not beauty. Personally, only User:Angela's or User:Jimbo Wales's opinion could be considered stronger than Brad's one, and don't think either would agree to support this amendment. Maybe in some time? -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rey, it was a good effort, but I doubt this will go through. Best to let it sit; you could contact Jimbo if you really wanted to, but I'm not sure if he'll reply.  The opposition to this is big; and having a lawyer say "no" is definetly a big thing.   Dooms  Day349  18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal fair use
No problem. Cheers! ( Radiant ) 12:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)