User talk:Durin/archive2006

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

Me and Adminship
Thanks for the comments on my talk page, I really appreciate it. About the comment on the RFA discussion page, I didn't mean for it to come off the way it did. It was not intended to scream nominate me!nominate me! I just wanted to point out that I felt kinda weird repeatedly posting on a page that was populated almost exclusively by admins. When Tito talked to me about it, I saw that there was a complete different message there. Perhaps I should remove it? Anyway, about the edit summeries. Yeah, I usually only use them for when I'm making changes to a previous edit or edits. When I'm posting or creating a new article, I don't use them that much. It shows in the histories. I'll start using them all the time now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no worries about the comment. I didn't find any problem with it! It perked my curiosity, that's all. All the best, --Durin 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just concerned other people will get the same wrong impression (which is understandable), because it kind of comes off that way. That's why I'm considering removing it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but...
Hi,

I'm really quite honored that one of my favorite WPians thought of me, but my outside view at the Martin RFC really sums up my feelings at present. I find it hard even to muster the energy to do my regular rounds of maintenance and policy discussion (minimal as they've been lately) when it seems that a certain culture in the high leadership is committed to disparaging open discussion. I'm not leaving outright (because, unlike what they tried to do with you, I haven't been persecuted directly) -- I'm just a little down on the long-term fate of this noble endeavor. Certainly, if the ArbCom elections affirm specific people, my expectations will sink even lower.

Even if I weren't feeling this way, I have other reasons for enjoying normal usership. I get to be a (usually quite civil) "bulldog" (ala T. H. Huxley) for the policies I support, without having to worry about "reputation" and all that. :) I think good admins (like you, and Splash, and Radiant) need a dedicated support staff that is happy to be more anonymous.

The only thing that's ever swayed me is the change in policy that puts deletion logs behind a veil, which makes DRV hard to follow occasionally. On balance, though, I still think its better to stay where I am. I'll probably reconsider around my 8,000th edit; I have been adding edit sumaries more consistently than the last time you analyzed me! (55%) :)

Best wishes, and keep up the fight for fairness and happy 2006!, Xoloz 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sorry to hear you don't want to be an admin. I think you would be excellent. I would like to say that despite your general despair, that being an admin is important even if you find yourself in such a situation. This is in fact part of my underlying reason why I decided to stick it out. There are plenty of people in any sufficiently large group with whom you are going to radically disagree. I found one in KM. That's easy enough to understand and accept. But, if that group that radically disagrees with you makes attempts at controlling whatever it is the group is doing, then there is an underlying fundamental philosophical question that needs to be addressed. That question can't be satisfactorily addressed by having those who disagree with the radically disagreeing subset leave the project. So, then the question devolves to; is satisfactorily addressing the issue(s) a worthy goal? That devolves even further; is Wikipedia itself a worthy goal? I think the answer is yes; and I think you do to, since you're still here despite your reservations.
 * In particular on your points:
 * I don't think you'd have to worry about reputation if you became an admin. I used to be concerned about it. Now, I'm not. I really don't care what my reputation is anymore. What I do care about is upholding the highest ideals of the project as best I see and can do. I can not reasonably expect everyone to never find fault with my actions. All I can do is act in good conscience, and to heck with reputation. I think you could find the same.
 * In specific regard to the outside view you mentioned; note that of the current 12 who support the view, fully half of them are administrators themselves. Your sentiment is obviously one that several people share. How do we best go about solving the problem? As noted above, not by leaving the project. Instead, we become *more* involved and seek advice from each other and discussion among everyone to help foster a more positive project. These are wiki-growing pains. We can't get past them by having the very people who could solve these problems walking away.
 * Anonymous support staff? :) Well, to be bluntly honest...I have no friends here. I've never desired friends here, and I don't look to others to gain support. See my comments about reputation. I don't need anonymous support staff. That's not arrogance, it's just recognition that I can't please everyone all the time. So, I go about doing the best I can all the time, and that's the best I can do. If some more anonymous people agree with me, so be it. But, it's never been a goal. So, if you became an admin you would not be depriving me (or, I think, really anyone else) of an anonymous support staff. In looking through your edits, I was frankly surprised to see you'd contributed to my RfC. I got curious to see what you said. You were largely supportive; but I didn't remember that.
 * Yes, your use of edit summaries is now 86.6% over the last 500 edits :)
 * One of the things I like about you as a potential admin is that you'd have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar to say "I do" :) I don't nominate people who are actively seeking adminship, or who heavily flaunt themselves. In your comments, I've found you to be a thoughtful, reasonable person. These are great qualities! I've also seen your distribution in admin appropriate areas is radically different then others I have nominated or reviewed; 161 edits to WP:MFD, and 206 to WP:DRV. That kind of participation in those areas is rare. My only concern on you so far is whether you're too much of a deletionist for my taste, but your comments on your user page about saving articles from the brink speaks volumes on that count. 1051 edits to WP:AFD? Good lord. You're an AFD machine! Wikipedia *needs* you as an admin.
 * So, tell me again you don't want to be an admin :) But, think it over first. You've already admitted you have a need for the priviledges inherent in being an admin; ability to see deletion logs. With admin privs, you'd be a lot more effective at WP:AFD and WP:MFD as well. I won't continue my review of your contributions until you say "yes", but everything I've seen so far is very, very promising. Come on! Say it! The priest is waiting...two little words..."I do" :) Holding a ring (or is that a ball and chain? :)) and tapping my foot, Durin 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reply is quite funny, and certainly put a smile on my misshapen face. :) First, old business... I had typed an additional comment that actually just "edit conflict"ed with you. :)  Below:


 * Coincidentally, I just happened across your "generational" comment at RFA talk, and find it quite interesting and likely correct. Much as I love reading King Lear, I'm not much for living in a giant recreation of it, so my wiki-mood will probably pick up when (and if) the elders learn to accept reality or die off. Xoloz 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, as for what you've said: I completely agree, first, with your philosophy on Wiki-friends; I don't use this place to socialize, and I don't go looking for allies. I do make mental lists of contributors I find to have the highest judgment, and I am fiercely loyal in defending them, if only because I believe sound judgment is the key virtue in any quest to compile the world's knowledge.  This is what I meant by "anonymous support staff" -- I don't want you, or anyone, to remember me in particular; my goal is simply to give my sometimes verbose, rational support to those views (and their advocates) most likely to make this place sane, harmonious, and efficient.  I have my wiki-friends (or wiki-models, I guess) who probably don't even know that I deeply respect them.  I wouldn't have had occasion to let you know previously, except that you were persecuted, and I don't take well to the persecution of the just.


 * Afd... yes, if you'll look at the study of AfDs listed on User:Scimitar's page, you'll see I was almost in the top 30 at that time, and my votes were very close to 50/50, I'm proud to say. :) I don't vote religiously any more, for timesaving reasons, because I put a tremendous amount of thought into the votes.  I consider that my tiny vote obliges me to ask whether the topic belongs in the corpus of human wisdom, and I don't vote delete unless I'm sure that the article needs to go.  I count User:Kappa as one of those users whose judgment I honor, and (among the many reasons I decline adminship) I am happy to remain a normal user as long as he does.  I now frequent DRV more often, to stop abuses of process, and help stop unilateralists (through reasoned argument) from acting before consensus is reached.


 * Your philosophical appeal calling me to adminship was not unpersuasive. :) I agree that the project will only improve if rational actors increase their involvement (I am self-deprecating by nature, but I will admit that I'm at least a rational actor.)  Your argument has clearly lifted my spirits, and given me reason to renew my dedication, following your example. :)  I'll need time (probably quite a bit) before I agree that I'm to up the adminship challenge, though, so you shouldn't wait long at the altar, handsome though you are, I'm sure! :)  One thing you, and everybody, should know is that (if and when I ever do take up the yoke of admin responsibility), I intend to resign and resubmit myself to RFA at least yearly.  I believe strongly in the Cincinnatus/Geo. Washington example, and I'd like it if all admins did this. (You don't need too, of course, nor the others I admire... but something needs to be done to bring unilateralism to heel, and a change in community standards must start somewhere.)  As I said, that consideration is for the future, because I'm content and well-suited to usership for now.  Thanks so much, though!  Your effort was even more intelligent and compelling than I'd expect, and I have high expectations of you. :)  Best wishes, Xoloz 23:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback
Thank you for the feedback that you left on my userpage. As you noticed, I am still rather new to Wikipedia and I am trying to find my place in the community. I would like to take the credit for the message that I left on the talk page of the person whose article I requested be speedied, but it is a subst that is at the bottom of the CSD page. Movementarian 20:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops! To many such templates these days to keep track of. Regardless, your intent was spot on. Good show! --Durin 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Suitability for adminship
Hi Durin, I've been a contributor on en. for some time now, and I would like to get some feedback regarding your evaluation my potential suitability for adminship. I've reviewed your personal requirements, and I believe that I'm the type of person who you're looking for and is well suited to the added responsibilities. I have no 'admin lust for power' (smile), but I'm always looking for ways to be a more effective contributor. A review of my history will show that I am civil, I avoid edit warring, I work towards finding consensus in conflict, and I'm an active participant in the project side of Wikipedia (often in the form of VfD nomination, but also in RFA when appropriate). I thank you for your time, and best regards. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to review you! Give me about a day, ok? --Durin 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 02:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm starting work on the review. According to Kate's tool, you are a tool. No wait, that's what your userpage says :) You've got 996 deleted edits. That's a lot! Are the majority of these speedy taggings, or what? --Durin 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd guess that about 990 are from speedy delete taggings, one is from a misguided but well intentioned Guide to moving article I wrote back in 2004 before learning what Wikipedia was WP:NOT that was VfD'd (Votes for deletion/Guide to Moving), and the last couple are probably articles that I cleaned up or copyedited at some point that were merged or VfD'd after the fact. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wanted to let you know, I am working on your review. I'm nearly done with everything except reviewing your user talk and mainspace talk page contributions (that takes a while). I think I should complete this tomorrow. Everything looks good so far. --Durin 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the update! - C HAIRBOY (☎) 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about you or anything. I only got so far on Friday. Time hasn't been in my favor of late. --Durin 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No hurry, thanks for the heads up. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 05:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to thank you again for working on this. Looks like you've got quite a crowd of people vying for your attention!  If you'd like to do this some other time, I'll totally understand, just let me know.  Best regards, C HAIRBOY  (☎) 04:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Beyond minor edits, you're first on my list of wiki-things to do. Some real world things are greatly impacting my wiki-time. I'm trying; really, I'm trying! Thank you for your patience! :) --Durin 13:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In anticipation of the RfA, I created a graph of your edits. Would you like to have this graph included on your RfA? --Durin 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That'd be great, thanks! I had a bit of a dry spell after my first round of edits because of work, the graph would probably be reassuring to anyone concerned about the edits per day ratio that resulted. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Possible RfA nomination
Greetings also, and Happy New Year!

Thanks for your kind offer to consider nominating me for Adminship. Can I get back to you on this in a few days, as I would like some time to consider whether I would accept a nomination. I have become somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia over this whole Userbox / Kelly Martin fiasco in the past few days. On the other hand, being an Admin would allow my voice on matters to be heard a bit better, and it would certainly help with the vandal fighting - something I've not done much of since Sam Hocevar's godmode script appears to be broken at the moment :( Time to test it out again!!

Not sure if I'll make the 3,000 mark by January 9th, but I'll let you know once I've considered matters for a bit. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just noticed your Admin related subpages - lots of useful reading there to help!! And, no, I am not going to read the section with the advisory health warning about falling asleep and whacking your forehead on the keyboard. Looks like good advice to me :) -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of any disputes happening (and they are always happening) having a diverse admin base is important to the success of the project. As I related to another individual, if there is a problem with the project we can't solve it by walking away. Thus, the question becomes...is the project worth it to solve the problem? I think the answer is yes. Considering your activity level, I think your answer is yes too. Ref User_talk:Durin for more on this. Take your time; like I found in Xoloz, one of the things I like to see in someone is to not actively be seeking adminship. As for advisory health warnings; *laugh* :) (or is that maniacal laughter? ;)) --Durin 15:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again Durin.


 * Your assessment is correct. My recent disillusionment left me feeling particularly uncreative, so I have been working away on drudge tasks instead. The only possible conclusion is that I obviously do believe that the project is worthwhile, which is why I am still here. I have been reading your admin pages and looking at the various reading materials for prospective and actual admins, and doing a fair bit of thinking about your original question.


 * I agree with you that a diverse admin base is a good thing. I have followed discussions on WP:AN and related pages for some time now, and think some of the behaviour and decisions made there are questionable. I have rarely contributed because I felt that either it was more in the realm that admins only should comment on or, as a "little person", my opinion would be unheard or ignored. I realise now how wrong that view is, and everybody's voice should be heard if they have something valid to say. After the New Year "Wikipedia riots" I determined to become more active in these areas, and also matters like voting in RfA and the upcoming ArbCom elections. Ironically, your message arrived out of the blue as I was reading through the RfA pages, considering starting to vote. I have avoided this for the time being until I resolved whether I would accept your potential nomination or not.


 * I have decided that I will accept a nomination, if I meet your various criteria for potential nominees. I am probably a bit light in some contribution areas, but that is something that I have already determined to address. I leave that evaluation up to you. So, I will leave you to do whatever it is you do for 2 hours, whenever that may happen, and thanks again for considering me for nomination. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your thoughtful words above prove all the more to me your worthiness as a person, wikipedian and potential admin. I have another nomination review in the que that I am working on, so it might be a little bit before I can begin yours. Also, as I predicted, you cleared 3,000 edits on January 9th :) I would like to note something to you regarding speaking up regarding questionable actions of admins: I've attempted to do this myself, and have met with mixed results. It is possible that if you take similar action, that you will incite the wrath of some particularly defensive admins. I believe too many admins view adminship as a permission slip to behave in very nasty ways with impunity. This is counter to the project, but from this chair it appears ArbCom is unwilling and/or incapable of intervening. I'd like to see this change, but until it does be very careful and polite in how you address admins that you feel are behaving improperly. It can lead to a great deal of stress and wikihardship for you. --Durin 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Yes, your prediction on my edit count was spot on and I hereby unilaterally promote you to the post of Head of WikiPrediction. Looks like all the drudge work dragged me up to 3000 after all :) And thanks for the advice, it's pretty much the conclusion I had come to over my time watching WP:AN. I am sure you understand that I was being diplomatic with my language above. As I said earlier, I intend to refrain from voting in any RfA until such time as I am either not nominated, or any nomination for me is over. It would be too much like trying to win friends and influence people for my taste, given that I know I may be in that very position soon. I would appreciate your thoughts on whether I should apply the same policy on voting for the ArbCom candidates. I change my mind on this almost hourly, but my voting finger is twitching madly!! What is the accepted ettiquette on such things? Any advice gratefully accepted, thanks. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

When was the last time that I didn't edit wikipedia for a day?
Yes, the subject line says it all. I'm going on holidays soon and won't be able to edit wikipedia for a week, so my question is: taking into account my time zone of UTC +8, when was the last time I didn't edit wikipedia for a whole day? This has been quite hard: I've always had the urge to check my watchlist and make at least one minor edit every day for the last six months or so. When I leave on the 8th of January, I'd like to be able to think ""this is the first day I haven't edited wikipedia in xxx days/weeks/months".

Thanks, Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * September 15th and 16th of 2005 (adjusted for your time zone) you had no edits. --Durin 14:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) PS: Keep in mind this does not include deleted edits, of which you have 186. I have no time stamp for them. --Durin 14:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. That's kind of scary that I've been editing for 112 days straight - I must be addicted! Most of my deleted edits were marking speedies, and I always did those after a ton of minor edits, so I think that figure is accurate.


 * As for being an administrator, I'd like to, but not yet. The main problem I have is that I sometimes do things on impulse which I will later regret. For example, what exists now of talk:procrastination, when I removed a significant chunk of info without discussion just because user:kyrex said it didn't belong. If I was elected to adminship, I would use my powers carefully, knowing that they are a privilege, not a right. Therefore, I'd like to know what I can do to improve for adminship, thinking about a future nomination.
 * I am also quite surprised that there are not more people with a vision impairment on wikipedia. The only admin I know of who uses a screen reader is user:Academic Challenger, and I know that user:Weichbrodt and user:Cannona also work a lot on blindness-related articles. I tried to teach a blind friend of mine how to use wikipedia, and the biggest problem she had was the links, because jaws paused after reading every link title. There are other ways to get around the site which are easy once you get used to them, but they require the user to be knowledgeable about how their screen reader functions on the internet. Most screen reader users do not employ the full power of their screen readers, especially on the internet. Most don't know how to use forms effectively, and I guess that is why not many blind people contribute to wikipedia. Graham/pianoman87 talk 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom advice
Hi Durin! Since you are one of the users here who I respect greatly for your thoughtful insight and knowledge, do you have any advice as to how I should vote?

My current slate consists of Charles Matthews, Dmcdevit, Everyking (controversial, I know, but I think a voice who speaks against bans can be a good thing on Arbcom), Filliocht, Merovingian, Mindspillage (this is the only current arbitrator I feel like supporting just now), Nandesuka, Ral315 and SimonP.

Any others you think I ought to add to the list? Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult question. I myself have not fully answered it. I can tell you who I am not voting for and the reason for it. First, the reason: There is a very serious and growing problem within Wikipedia. Some of the nature of this problem is outlined by me here. But, that does not cover the entire problem. I've been pondering how to scope the problem for a while, in an attempt to clearly define exactly what the problem is and do so in as concise a manner as possible so as to gather people within Wikipedia in a unified voice to declare the problem as real and in need of being solved. I've been in discussions with a number of people both here and offline in trying to achieve this. At this point, I don't think I'll be able to complete this work before the elections begin, and I certainly won't be able to garner support sufficient to sway people's voting patterns to produce an ArbCom that is willing to tackle the issue. I wish I'd really understand the gravity of the situation some months ago, but I was not as fully aware of it then as I am now. As much as I understand it at this point in time, these are the factors that play into this problem:
 * Casual disrespect for new users by admins, some members of ArbCom, and even Jimbo. Not only must you be an experienced user to have your voice heard (and even being an admin doesn't count as experienced anymore), but you must also be acceptable by some nebulous standard before your voice carries any weight. In short, if you're not in the 'in' group, your voice lacks merit.
 * Willful ignorance of policy and guidelines by some admins, and ArbCom supporting their actions in many cases.
 * ArbCom's utter unwillingness to hear a case against some people yet clear willingness to hear cases against other admins who behaved much in the same way. I.e., major bias within ArbCom.
 * ArbCom's several recent decisions and explanations which have, in summary, left all policies as meaningless. Policy is, according to ArbCom, defined as "common sense" and by how we do things. Both of these definitions of policy are nearly entirely encompassed within individual judgement rather than community judgement; this is starkly against what so much of Wikipedia tells us it is supposed to be; consensus.
 * As one of the people I am working with said, Wikipedia is no longer "genuinely free and intellectually open" and may never have been so. Yet, it defines itself as such. This leaves the project in a constant quandary. The ongoing utter disrespect for new members of our community is causing quite a number of people to leave, even if they aren't the ones being disrespected. They realize that we can not long live if the project insists on casting asperions on the very lifeblood of our work. Further, they realize we can not change this with the status quo as it is; an unrepentent ArbCom that refuses to enact change, and Jimbo supporting them in such at every turn. Thus, the project to them is untenable. Their view has merit, and I am increasingly becoming of the same view.
 * ArbCom must change to heal this problem. It will take some very dedicated, intelligent individuals to solve this great problem. I believe the following people are either utterly incapable of helping to heal the growing rift or are actively contributing to the problem (in alphabetical particular order, and I am not going to cite evidence for each; very time consuming): Aranda56, Fred Bauder, Golbez, Kelly Martin, Ilyanep, Jayjg, Jdforrester (James F.), Luigi30, NSLE, Snowspinner, Tony Sidaway. Were David Gerard running, I would vote against him for abuse of checkuser priviledges. But, he's not. Nevertheless, I fully expect David Gerard to be re-appointed to ArbCom by Jimbo at some point. There may be others that I will vote against on the same grounds as above. I haven't completed my analysis yet on a number of candidates.
 * The only candidates on your list that I have reviewed to some extent are Mindspillage and Nandesuka. Mindspillage I am leaning somewhat in favor of based on the evidence I have seen of recent. But, I have to say I have a gut feeling this might not be a good choice, but I have nothing to support that feeling right now. I will most likely vote in favor of Nandesuka. I think he will do a great deal towards solving the problem. Hope this helps, --Durin 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your well thought out response. Some of the people you mentioned are ones who I have had good and positive experiences talking with, including Kelly Martin (mutual support on each of our RFAs my conversations with her have been good), Tony Sidaway (always treated me well personally), and Golbez (brilliant vandal hunter). Yet, I know that the liberal interpretation of IAR professed by means that I will be opposing them which will be really painful. It will be made especially painful by this being an "open ballot" rather than a closed one. I guess I will have to tell myself that I am judging their suitability for Arbcom, and not their worthiness as Wikipedia editors. With Golbez I can tell myself that putting him on Arbcom will mean taking a powerful vandal fighter out of the RC patrol arena (which is a horrendously bad thing which should immediadately disqualify him for ArbCom).
 * There are two problems which I think are quite serious with Wikipedia right now, problems which I feel have increased since I registered my username in March. First is the increasing amount of vandalism which is overloading the RC patrollers. Today, I find myself reverting old vandalism which has slipped past the RC patrol more often than I have ever done before. The second is an overreliance on the IAR guideline by administrators, those charged with upholding our policies, something which, I agree with you, has been backed up too much by the ArbCom. I'll admit, I have invoked IAR a few times, for instance, today I decided to speedy keep this AFD debate without any real policy support it apart from taking a chance that nobody will protest. But I have seen more and more invocations of IAR since last summer, invocations used to override community consensus rather than to expediate it. It motivated my decision to write an essay on IAR in my userspace.
 * The Arbcom I'm looking for will be a bit more eager to accept cases like this one and the "Wheel warring" case brought by Radiant!, and a bit less eager to accept cases like this one. I feel that the Webcomics case was a horrendous waste of time, and after a lot of bickering and ill will in the workshop, it ended in the ArbCom telling everyone to play nice and that saying that someone is "not capable of making reasonable judgments of notability" is not a personal attack (Well, I think that 4-3 is insufficient and that you need five supports to pass it, I'll give some merits to Kelly, Fred and Jayjg for being sensible on that finding). It is because of the same problems you mention that I am intending to vote for only one of the incumbants.
 * Well, I feel it's time for a break now. At any rate, thanks for your thoughts. You are looking for the same qualities in the candidates that I am looking for, and I think that our votes in the election may look quite similar. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular
I created the article Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, English name for Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular in Portugal. Due to possible copyright problems it was temporarily blocked. In the meanwhile somebody deleted the article, forgotten that a Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp already exist.

Then I created the article Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular using the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology/Temp I had created also.

Now there is a Singaporean article in the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, for an institute from Singapore. I think we should create a disambiguation page...

There's a small confusion here with the designations.

Bye.Armindo 14:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your explanation, and good work! I've deleted the temp page now. --Durin 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Subpage deletion
Thanks! Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 15:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Xerocs
I noticed you've posted some comment to this user regarding his unblocking, I've checked and it appears the autoblock kicked in, can you undo this? 19:37, 6 January 2006, Talrias blocked #77721 (expires 19:34, 7 January 2006) (Autoblocked... Thanks --pgk( talk ) 21:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. That's what happened. The block created a xerox of itself. :) Yeah, I'll look into it. --Durin 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Durin, for talking with Xerocs. It looks like you're off to a good start with showing him the Wiki-ropes. FreplySpang (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA
Cheers for reverting, I wasn't exactly sure, perhaps I should have asked on WT:RFA. Sorry 'bout that. NSL E (T+C) 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RFA
I replyed to your questions in my RFA, Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I replyed again, I honestly 100 percent never knew that I removed M0RHI comment until now and I would had fixed it if I knew. and I'm tagging the Image:Leiriadis.gif as nosource as I saw the original edit summary as PD by the user and I thought PD and that was a mistake in my part. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly this is the last chance I got in becoming a admin, I'm heading down the path of inactivty and if I become a admin, I probaly won't have time to use the powers as I got baseball season coming up, and also after baseball season ends, I'm going to have surgery for a bad arm defect that had since birth and I'm probaly going to be in a cast for months until fall, and after that I will be in my senior year of high school and my GPA is a bit low and I probaly won't be in wikipedia again. Should I withdraw my RFA, as I honestly have no time for wikipedia coming up and if I get elected I probaly won't have anytime to enjoy it. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just came to add a separate note but see you wrote this here Jorge. I would not withdraw your nomination. You have to realise that you need thick skin to go through these type or peer review. Those that are critical are trying to be constructive. You have many supporters too. You saw what Celestianpower and Christopher Parham said in your defense. Just let it play out. More importantly if you show you do not have a thick skin this may go against you with regard to adminship too.  This very issue came up in your first two RfA's


 * Other points that I think could help you along are the following. 1) If I were you i would not play the broken toe card (or arm for that matter) it can only go against you since it might seem like you are trying to get the sympathy vote. 2) Think hard before replying to criticism. Be humble and definitely not overly defensive.  Other editors will come to your defense if the criticism is too harsh. So often I have seen RfA's turn for the worse when the candidate gets defensive. 3) Don't say to other users this is my last chance i am not editing in wikipedia for another nine months.  the obvious reply is then come back in a year. So again, just let it play out. David D. (Talk) 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew, I just won't have the time. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm just going to be to inactive soon, I might edit here or there around but still not planning to edit much until Fall and if I do it's going to be on commons or to get the Terry Bradshaw article into featured, thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Acually, now that I have some time in my hand, as I can't have doctors clearance for baseball because of my arm, I accpect your offer, I'm still going to be editing much less than before, and I lost my desire for becoming a admin for now. But still Thanks :) --Jaranda wat's sup 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Formatting an RfA
Thanks for fixing the formatting. It looks a lot better and now I see how the correct formatting keeps the numbers intact. David D. (Talk) 01:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Criteria
I saw your discussion of people's admin criteria and was curious what you thought of mine. Besides the usual criteria like "shouldn't blow up the wiki" : there's one in particular: the candidate should have a good understanding of the policy trifecta. Since you have very strong thoughts about abuse of the ignore all rules guideline in particular, what do you think of asking candidates about their understanding of it?

Kim Bruning 03:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey! You're back! Does this mean your dissertation is done? How did it go? Revisions? If so, how bad? Oh wait...nevermind (just looked at the block log)...you're visiting somewhere and the unblock is temporary :/ Bummer! As to your questions; yes I think asking an admin's interpretation of WP:IAR would be a good idea as a 4th question. As for reviewing your criteria, my wife is expecting me to get off the computer right now so I gotta run :) I'll get you some feedback over the weekend. --Durin 03:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia riots
(Note: This blurb references Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship.) Hey Durin, I just read what you said about the rioting on Wikipedia. You're not the only one who has noticed this glaring problem in our little community. You've always been one of my favorite members as I've wandered about here, and this incredibly apt and timely statement you made only reinforces that thought. Now, enough stroking your ego. I'd like to share my thoughts on the issue with you, and see where it brings us. Firstly, the most glaring problem with our community as it stands relates to class, but it's actually just an "age" issue: Old vs. new. Many admins who have been here a long time have begun to exhibit signs of what I interpret as anti-wikiness, which is to say, they are hostile to newbies and their newfangled ways. I think the whole userbox controversy (which I participated in by starting that dreadful RfC which nevertheless brought the issue to the forefront; had I not done the RfC, someone else would have) is a symptom of this, and it manifests itself in other, more nefarious ways. WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are nice and all, but sometimes, consensus simply is needed. Old-timey admins seem to have gotten the idea into their heads that if what the community decides to do interferes with WP:ENC, it should go. What I believe was forgotten in the whole mix was what a wiki is, fundamentally, and that is a community-driven, community-written encyclopedia. Piss off the community, and you have an encyclopedia falling apart at the seams. Not to mention you've sold out your original intent simply because Wikipedia does not as closely represent the ideal encyclopedia as it is believed it should. Is this view invalid or inferior? Perhaps not, but nonetheless I find it a disturbing development, and absolutely against the fundamental principles this encyclopedia was founded with. Your further thoughts on this would be appreciated, Durin. I think a lot of admins need to wake up, and soon, or else Wikipedia may little resemble its former self in a few short months. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of you. I was actually contemplating starting an RFC on this issue at Requests for comment/Means vs Ends, and playing with the idea that Ends and Means were two users of Wikipedia... not sure it would work though, and would be quite a lot of effort. What else is there, though? Seriously propose User Sanction Review? (See Requests for comment/Talrias.) Form a Wikipedian group, Wikiproject:Wikipedians for Due Process, to coordinate efforts to enforce and develop policy? (I think part of the problem is that policy hasn't kept up with community needs, which leads to excessively loose interpretation and associated arbitrariness.) In general, there are too many people who don't seem to understand why respecting due process (with as little bureaucracy as possible, of course) is in Wikipedia's best long-term interest, even if on any given day it's a pain in the arse. Finally, I'd like to see Jimbo agree not to intervene in everyday affairs (I'm thinking of the Marsden affair), because it's like the President making a citizen's arrest on a suspected mugger: (a) he's surely got better things to do and (b) it subverts ordinary processes, which is not in Wikipedia's long-term interest. Rd232 talk 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing that might help in the very long term would be a fundamental revision of how editing works; I call it "WikiSquared". At the moment, all revisions go public immediately, and any peer review of whether the revision should be made occurs after the fact. But ideally, changes should be reviewed before being made public to the ordinary reader, with edits made to a temporary version, and being reflected automatically in the public version under certain rules (eg the edit is a revert; is to an article with only one contributor; is supported by X other editors; is unopposed after X minutes, etc). With appropriate rules (which needn't be fixed, or apply to all articles), this would more or less kill vandalism, and reduce the risk of edit wars being played out in public. It would require a massive software change though. (It also sounds a bit complicated, but done right, with the software doing the heavy lifting, it would be very simple.) Rd232 talk 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BorgHunter/Rd232 (some of this is not direct response, but related things as well): I would like help in creating a discussion area for us and others of similar mind to hammer out a focused statement of sorts, to outline the scope of this general problem with the intention of fostering change, perhaps with a petition drive. The problem is we'd likely be victimized by people who radically disagree with us. As such, I think this needs to be a page in user space, and not Wikipedia space. That will give us more latitude to be exclusionary to people who attempt to hijack the process (as happened at WP:GRFA at while back, when Ambi and TS stepped in). I know excluding people sounds anti-wiki. Perhaps it is, but what I am looking for is preventing abuse of process, and not really excluding people; just excluding people who insist on abusing the process. Thoughts? --Durin 20:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I dare say that not only are we not the only ones who have observed this, but I am of the opinion that if we put together a well thought out petition regarding the global issue, we'd get hundreds of signatures.
 * Have a look at this. In particular, "Respected editors also respect the anarchic "accept all comers" approach". This is utterly false in practice. The "elite" have made disregarding the opinions of newcomers routine. As one person who would stand against us put it, "It's not how many sign, but WHO signs". The reality is, there is a social strata in Wikipedia. Our documentation says otherwise. The disagreement is disruptive. The people who insist on their being a social strata are way out of line. This includes much of ArbCom as it exists now and Jimbo himself (in my opinion...I will need to research this more to understand his view better).
 * Have a look at this, especially item #3. Juxtapose one ArbCom member's (granted, taken out of context but relevant anyways) comment "Screw process". Note that the page says these foundational issues are "essentially beyond debate". Interesting, no? ArbCom has turned their back on the foundational issues and casually disregarded them.
 * As another ArbCom member put it, policy is "common sense". Of course, what is common to you or me might be labeled as insane by someone from a very different culture than either of ours, yet they are contributors to Wikipedia. "Common sense" based policy for a community as large as this leads to anarchy. Nickptar outlined a great example of how this can go horribly wrong. Another hypothetical example; imagine if I went on a deletion spree against elementary schools or pokemon character articles!
 * Extending the second point above, the idea of "community" is casually disregarded as well. The community does not matter, according to some, because we are not here to build a community. Thus, the idea of community is irrelevent. This is, of course, absurd. Without the community, you wouldn't have contributors.
 * What constitutes a riot on Wikipedia? Note that this is not the easiest of questions to answer. It's not the same as in person; we don't have thousands of people rushing the streets with police in riot gear chucking tear gas canisters and hosing people down with high pressure water cannons. As a result, I think quite a few people are failing to recognize just how serious the problem is because what we think of a riot (as imaged above) simply can not happen at Wikipedia. So, defining exactly what a riot is can help to show just how bad the situation is. There's many things which can point to there being a riotous environment; how frequently are good editors leaving (this is very hard to gauge)? How often are wheel wars happening? How frequently are admins becoming inactive? Can you guys think of others? These might be important metrics to help gauge the health of the community. Or, the state of unrest.
 * User sanction review might be a great idea. As Mindspillage said on WP:RFA talk, "[Arbcom isn't] actually equipped to handle really fundamental issues of Wikipedia culture such as are being brought up". So, perhaps there does need to be another structure in place. Right now, there is little enforcement of anything going on. I believe a state of anarchy exists. I can't find where I read it now, but I read another ArbCom member saying that ArbCom isn't punitive, but corrective. I.e., ArbCom won't punish for past actions. ArbCom will only take action to prevent future damage to Wikipedia. Personally, this is ridiculous. Let's take real life. A person robs ten banks, knowing it is against the law. He is arrested and brought to trial. He then says under oath, "I promise not to do it again". The judge rules that since his future risk to society is non-existent thanks to his promise, that he can go free. ArbCom isn't a court, but the notion that we should not be taking punitive action because someone promised not to do it in the future is frankly absurd. Wikipedia related behavior; KM and TS. KM has still not made any assurance that she won't go on a userbox deletion spree again. TS, after the whole debate began (and he was well aware of the debate...he had previously commented on the RfC) went on a userbox deletion spree exactly akin to KM's. But, according to ArbCom, since he stopped there's no reason to intercede. I.e., so long as you stop doing , there's no consequences for having done .
 * Wikipedians for due process might also be a worthy idea. But, it will be adamantly opposed just like sanction review would be.
 * Hypocrisy is, in my opinion, rampant among a number of these people. I hate to use this as an example, as I really do not want to focus on KM, but note that even a week after this deletion spree began by her in part to delete userboxes that had fair use images in them, KM has a fair use image in a userbox on her user page. The use of it there is illegal under copyright law. The idea of "do as I say, not as I do" is rampant in this general group of people who have decided policy is meaningless.
 * I think one of the chief problems isn't that policy hasn't kept up, but rather that policy can be changed by anyone, anytime. If it is "OFFICIAL policy" (emphasis mine) why is it that anyone can edit it at any time? All policy and guideline pages should, by default, be protected. This might seem anti-wiki, but you can't have a system of laws (and really, that's what policy/guidelines is interpreted as by many people; rightly or wrongly that's how they see it) that can change on a whim, with little or no community input. It'd be like changing from week to week whether marijuana is legal or not. Result? People who want to dabble in  activity but want to stay within the bounds of the law can end up getting caught in a "gotcha" because policy keeps on changing, right underneath their feet. Example; I recently put a non-notable band article up for AfD on the grounds that it failed WP:MUSIC. Little did I know, CSD A7 had changed a few weeks earlier to allow such articles to be speedied. If another user saw me do this, they could easily think "Hey, he's an experienced user and admin. He thought it should go through Afd!" and follow suit on other articles.
 * Rd232, I agree that Jimbo shouldn't be involved as you noted.
 * WikiSquared sounds like a great notional idea. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to be implemented because so much in the way of the software would have to change.
 * Vandalism is a very serious issue threatening Wikipedia. I saw an editor recently who noted that he looks at the last 500 (as opposed to last 50) recent changes when doing RC patrol, and looks at the oldest changes first. I started doing this and found an amazing amount of undetected vandalism. The number of changes per day per admin continues to increase. I.e. the number of changes that should be reviewed measured as "work load" is going up (and rapidly). I recommend both of you start doing as this editor suggested and I do now. Jimbo's reaction to vandalism? Stop IPs from making new articles. Result? The number of changes per day per admin continues to rise at the same rate, and not surprisingly the number of new users heavily spikes. Yes, I have data to back this up. I'm taking a snapshot of Special:Statistics every day.


 * One problem, as I see it, is that those who see a conflict between the interests of the encyclopedia and the interests of the community don't have the right mental model of how this thing works. The interests of the community are the interests of the encyclopedia since the former is building the latter.


 * "But", some honest editors think, "when the community decides to do things that go against the interests of the encyclopedia I have to act against it even if I need to ignore all rules in doing so."


 * But the problem with this approach is that you're substituting your own judgement for that of the larger community. You could be wrong. In fact it's fairly likely that you're wrong. The community never decides to go against the interests of the encylopedia. There doesn't ever arise a situation where everyone agrees that action X is bad for the encyclopedia and yet X has huge support within the community. What does occur is that people disagree whether action X is bad for the encyclopedia or not - a fundamentally different problem. - Haukur 11:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A very valid point, and does a good job of encapsulating a good portion of the problem. More on this on a subpage. --Durin 16:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Greeting
Thanks for the welcome! After a week here (I mean as a User), I'm hooked. (How do you get anything else done??) Yes, let's get together sometime. Just not in January, when my Real Work Life will be unusually complicated. -- MikeGasser (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As with anything, balance. I'd be happy to meet with you. This place is a fantastic resource, and despite criticisms does pretty well overall. This article from Nature magazine compares Wikipedia to Britannica, and Wikipedia does well. There are significant issues that face this project however. Some of them can be quite depressing. General advice; ignore the idiots as much as possible and press on with the work and knowledge you have.
 * I don't believe we've ever met before...we might have, but I'm not sure. We definitely know each other through one handshake; I know Fred C., Raja S. (you know he's over at the B school now?), Devin M., Cathy R., etc. If memory serves, you were on Devin or Cathy's committee (or both)? --Durin 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Avoiding the idiots seems like great advice. (I've already seen one of "those kinds of discussion" that was tempting, but I could see it could end up being a huge time and effort sink.)  Yes, I was Devin's co-advisor and knew Fred well (I was on his committee, and he was once my AI). -- MikeGasser (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Statement thoughts
Please move this to a sub-page, Durin, where we can discuss drafting a statement. Here are some ideas.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is written by an open, democratic society of equals.

The society is open because everyone can join it regardless of creed, interests or political opinions.

The society is democratic because decisions are made through an open process where every voice is heard. This does not mean that everything is decided with a majority vote. It certainly doesn't mean that we vote on what the facts about a given topic are. In fact votes are used only as a last resort while a discussion to reach a consensus is the preferred method of resolving disputes.

It is a society of equals because every contributor has the same chance to contribute. In a debate the best argument wins, regardless of the person making it.

I just wrote this in five minutes and I'm not wedded to any of it but I'd be interested to hear whether you were thinking along similar lines. - Haukur 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia talk:Process is Important. I was thinking about a more general statement of principles but this essay is also excellent. - Haukur 17:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete my article
Why don't you just delete my fucking article? I consider all this discussion and the placing of "eviction notices" on my articles to be quite insulting. Katherinejohnson 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it isn't "your" article anymore, and we have processes/procedures in place to manage deletion of articles. Please see Articles for deletion and Criteria for speedy deletion for reference. More questions? Happy to answer! --Durin 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Todays Articles
Durin, when you get a chance will you look over my User page and see if I am making the correct adjustments? Will you also look at the articles that I have edited today... I like them better than what was originally in place of them but I don't want to see them deleted.

Ellsworth AFB

Aviano AB

Thanks xerocs 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:AnnapolisGraduation.jpg
That is a very good idea! I never thought of notifying the uploader before. I will remember to do that from now on. Raven4x4x 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I full well know my self nomination will fail, but I want to see where I could improve, I am filling out the questions now. At least with a nomination behind me, people will recognise me for when I apply next time, Wikipedia is a big place! User:Dueyfinster 21:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, there is so little to go on people are most likely all going to say the same thing; insufficient experience. I'll give you a tip; don't put comments at the top of people's talk pages. Put them on the bottom :) --Durin 21:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My edit summaries...
I know I was at 100%. It was our conversation and your advice (or lecture, whichever way you look at it) that made me always, ALWAYS use edit summaries. It takes but a second, but could save minutes and minutes of work. I try to answer my critics. Thanks for the advice. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark)  01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You've got mail. -- LV (Dark Mark)  01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, dood
Sorry to hear you ended up in the USN. I actually can't contribute anything about Iraq. That's Pentagon policy as I'm not a "spokesperson." In fact, I should probably take reference out the USMC reference completely. But I'll still contribute where I can. Semper fi! UncleFester 07:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yo ho ho
No, I'm not a pirate, but I would like to speak to you again! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 22:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AAP

 * Please take a look at Admin accountability poll. I think I'd like to pose those questions to the community. If it needs rewording or if I've missed something, I'd appreciate your opinion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Broken RFA
I dislike the tone you used in your edit to the "homework" discussio on RFA Talk. My guess is you've missed a lot of the recent flap about userboxes, Kelly Martin, MSK, and all the various RFC's that have been happening. It has gotten to the point where the politics are everywhere, and it's hindering actually contributing to the encyclopedia. I was trying to go about my business and add articles or flesh out stubs I had created, and I kept getting "You have new messages". Further, when I look at my watchlist, I see all kinds of edits to talk/user pages with seemingly unending vitriole and spite. We had something of a perfect storm at the beginning of this year -- the ArbCom votes, the userbox "scandal," and some seriously overworked or otherwise weary admins. What resulted was all three becoming various incarnations of witch hunt, popularity contest, and lynching. Character assasination is happening continually. I think that the most important flaw in the RFA process is that it has led us here. As Radiant said, we have over 800 admins. It's not like we're exactly hurting for more. The real problem is the admins we have are either involved in squabbling at length over various things or are otherwise deluged with the tide of malicious behavior. Something has to happen to help us get back on track of working on the encyclopedia, and changing the RFA process is probably the lowest hanging fruit. All the various WP:* "rules" aren't presently helping us. People are ignoring policy everywhere, and creating new policy that simply reinforces their idea that their behavior is correct or good faith. I'm interested to hear what your perception of the current situation is. Avriette 20:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you disagree with my tone. I readily admit to be a bit tired of hearing it's all RfA's fault, yet not a single person has been able to present evidence that RfA is to blame. I am well aware of the riots that broke out around the beginning of the year. Though I did not comment on the userbox fiasco, I closely watched it. You might like to see my edits here and here for some output from me regarding this situation. I believe it is quite serious. As for having "enough" admins; one of the primary tasks for admins is reverting vandalism. One metric for determining whether we need more admins or have enough is the number of edits per day per admin; i.e. the number of edits that need to be reviewed per admin, on average, to ensure that vandalism does not creep into the encyclopedia. You might be surprised to know that this number has shown an 80% increase over the last 10 months. Indeed, it appears RfA isn't promoting admins fast enough, even though the rate of admin promotions has been increasing as well. At this juncture, there is no evidence to suggest that RfA is the problem. It's conjecture. Are there bad admins getting through? Yes. RfA's fault? Hard to establish that, and even if there were that we could come up with a process to fix the problem. The source of the problem isn't, in my opinion, RfA. It's ArbCom and Jimbo. For example, for refusing to take a stance on wheel warring, and in fact in Jimbo's case engaging in it to a degree himself. See WP:RFAR. So far, it's 3-0 rejected. ArbCom has effectively vacated policy; it no longer applies. What matters is "common sense" and experience of past traditions. This is a terrible situation. You might like to have a look at User:Rd232/WikiProject Policy Matters (proposal) and Process is Important. These are a step in the right direction I think. We are too large and too diverse of a community now to rely on "common sense". What is common sense to you might not be so to me, and vice versa. Process and policy must develop in consensus developed ways, and be enforced as such. --Durin 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not interpreting my comment as an attack. I had hoped that wouldn't come across as one. I'm not convinced we disagree on this subject. I agree with everything you said, but I think I would generalize it and say that "something is wrong," and to find the "source of the wrongness" is quite hard. Further, because the community is so embroiled and polarized right now, coming to a level headed decision would be hard. For that matter, I don't know that a level headed decision in this community anymore. It seems that we've reached a sort of critical mass. I don't think the problem is that RFA isn't promoting admins rapidly enough, it seems to me that the admins aren't doing enough, or the software isn't protecting itself well enough. I'd rather come up with a way to protect the site through the software than depend on people who (understandably) get upset. The state of the site and the recent "riots" have led to people crusading on one front or another, and this too hurts any chance for reconciliation from the... wetware. Avriette 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we have different vantage points with some similarity in views. I wouldn't say we disagree really. I've despaired that there is any one person who can solve all of the problems or find a core problem that undermines the impact of the other problems. I think we can induce change that corrects some of the problems. One of these is the current ArbCom election which is unseating a number of current ArbCom members. Re: vandalism. Yes, it's hard work fighting vandalism and the software needs to evolve to handle it far better than it does now. I've some thoughts about this here. For my own part with regards to the riots, I haven't gotten involved. I am very self-strict about sticking to policy. With an exception, this has kept me out of trouble. I have seen the impact of the riots, and I am quite upset about it. --Durin 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading all of the comments on your above links, I am deeply saddened to agree with most of it. Hopefully it's not all as dire as it seems, especially since it seems to have happened so rapidly. That having been said, I am not sure I see a solution. The RFA modification "brainstorm" seems to be a feature of the greater ill. Avriette 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring - inquiry
Hi, Durin! I try to comport myself to absolutely the highest standards of behavior as an admin and community member, and so whenever I hear that I've done something bad, I like to try to investigate so that I can apologize to anyone who needs an apology, and so I can learn from the error and try to improve in the future.

In this poll you suggest that I've engaged in wheel warring, but I don't really know of a case of this. I take so few admin actions that most of the cases where I do, there is some special circumstance. I hope you can be so kind as to indicate what you meant, so that I can make appropriate amends or, in the case that I disagree with your assessment of what happened, I can at least try to better explain myself.

For the record, I strongly agree with the sentiment that wheel warring is a very bad thing, and the culture around it needs to change.--Jimbo Wales 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * From December 27 to December 30 of 2005, Marsden was blocked/unblocked a total of 13 times. This series of blocks was preceeded by an indefinite block on him on December 15 by Snowspinner. Note that Snowspinner placed no message on Marsden's talk page, nor did he place any template on his user page. From that block on December 15 forward, Marsden made exactly one edit outside of his talk page. Despite this, Marsden became the subject of a wheel war. At the tail end of this wheel war, Snowspinner decided to reverse his decision and give Marsden "One last chance". It was following this unblocking that Marsden made his last edit (and only outside of his talk page since the 15th). Following this last edit, you decided to block him once again, stating that Snowspinner was right. See log of blocks against Marsden. Snowspinner himself reversed his decision, yet you thought it proper to undo his reversal. Were you anybody else, the knee-jerk reaction by the people in this wheel war would see a continuance of the wheel warring. I think it would have been much better if you'd taken a hands off approach and let the problem work its way out. You could have suggested to the wheel warring admins what they should be doing to resolve the problem, and then let them resolve it. Instead, a hammer was applied with Marsden as the victim. You usurped the will and actions of the admins that were attempting (however imperfectly) to resolve the situation. Because you are who you are, this was essentially just another form of wheel warring. You had more power to enact a block simply by who you are; you knew it would stick (and it has..he hasn't been unblocked). I don't view your contributions here on this Wikipedia as being any more or less significant than the first time user making their first edit. From that perspective, your block of Marsden is simply a continuance of the wheel war. Marsden has every right to be quite angry with all of you who have engaged in this war. Whether he was guilty of whatever sin or not, the treatment of him was terrible, and any editors viewing it rightfully concerned about the abuse of powers that happened.
 * If you want wheel warring to stop, then take a public stand; change blocking policy to state admins may not undo the blocks of other admins. Any admins violating this will be blocked for (x) time. ArbCom is so far rejecting the wheel war case before it 3-0. Admins are getting a free pass to engage in wheel warring.
 * Others have noted that you take a hands off approach with respect to other language Wikipedias. This most likely is due to language barriers, which is certainly reasonable. I think you should be taking the same approach to this language Wikipedia. By your own admission, you do not use admin powers frequently. Are you truly familiar with the current norms and customs of Wikipedia and able to use your admin privileges in appropriate ways? I routinely check myself for accuracy in using admin privileges and I use them far more frequently than you do. Wikipedia is your baby certainly. But, if Wikipedia is to evolve, you have to let go. Anybody truly devoted to this project hopes Wikipedia is around long past any of us still breathes. If you don't let go and allow Wikipedia to grow without your hands involved in micromanagement aspects, it will be doomed to fail. Your time is precious. You're the one with the vision. I can appreciate the desire to keep your finger in the pie, to keep your hand on the pulse of the project. But, CEOs of a large company are very rarely found trying to figure out a shipping problem down at the loading dock. This is roughly the equivalent of what you did in blocking Marsden. Whatever solution you come up with, right or wrong from the perspective of the people in the trenches, is the one that is going to stick. Nobody's going to be foolish enough to cross swords with the CEO. Well, I'm being so foolish. What you did was wrong. It was out of process, harmful to all of us, and as a result detrimental to the project. Sure, you can be Patton standing at a crossroads being a traffic control cop. But, nine times out of ten such an action is wasting your time and detrimentally affecting the rest of us who get on with the day to day duties of an admin.
 * I also take issue with a posting you made a day after your block of Marsden . In that post, you note "norms and traditions". This is very akin to words I have heard recently from some ArbCom members who noted that policy isn't what is written down; it is common sense and understanding of the way we've always done things. Your post, along with ArbCom's words on this matter, have essentially invalidated policy; it is now meaningless. WP:IAR liberally applied is the only thing that matters now. Common sense isn't common. Wikipedia is a global effort. The sun never sets on contributors to en.wikipedia.org. There are people from a dizzying array of cultures, nations and religions all making contributions here. What you think is common sense, from an American living in Florida, isn't likely to be common sense to an Indian living in Gujarat or an Australian living in New South Wales. I'm not in favor of processes hamstringing our ability to act. But, in a community this large (and no matter how much some people insist the community isn't important, it's fundamental) we must have some sense of structure for people from so many backgrounds to be able to effectively work towards a common goal.
 * I am making no exaggeration in noting there is a very large number of people who are very depressed with the state that Wikipedia is in with regards to these issues in general. You can view my talk page to see comments left by some to this effect. I have made contributions noting this problem here and . Work has just begun to attempt to coalesce a number of aspects of this problem into a coherent catalyst for change, . There is quite a bit more work that needs to be done. Very worthy editors are leaving the project with strong dissatisfaction about the current state of affairs. Few, if any, seem to care.
 * The stratification of editors must stop. Every one of us started with just one edit. There are no mechanisms to evaluate based on one edit whether an editor is going to be pivotal to the future of 1,000 articles or turn into a hopeless vandal. Yet, we treat new users like crap on a routine basis; their words matter less, their contributions to various debates are viewed with cynicism, and the old hands frequently view them as being subjects to their rule rather than equal participants in a grand project. I know of a new user (MikeGasser) who is a newcomer to this project. His userpage outlines his areas of expertise and knowledge background. I know him; not on a personal level but I know him. He is brilliant and very well regarded within his field. This man can (and already has begun to) make massive contributions to this project. Yet, if he were treated as poorly as some newcomers have been treated here by "old hands", he would leave and take his knowledge with him. Our newcomers are our lifeblood. We must be ever vigilant to support them, care for them, and treat them with due respect. We must be careful to fairly and equitably admonish those who work against this ethic. Yet, right now, crushing the hapless newbie seems a sport rather than a despised activity.
 * I could go on for a while, on many other topics that I feel need to be addressed. Forgive me for rambling, and thanks for listening. --Durin 02:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Was it really necessary to cross post this? Couldn't you just have responded, "Answered on my talk page" with a link? Just sayin' is all. -- LV (Dark Mark)  03:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a habit of mine. Lots of people state their talk page policy. I don't have one. Trying to remember everyone's is not easy. So, I assume it's easier for the user to see it on their page rather than taking active action to hunt it down on my page. I sort of feel it's polite to do so. *shrug* --Durin 04:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just wonderin'. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark)  04:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. What an eloquent and insightful analysis. (Sorry, just came by here after (mostly) deciphering your admin charts, and was reading through when I hit a goldmine). -- nae'blis (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've created WikiProject Policy matters. Rd232 talk 00:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
Finally, it's done :) After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Requests for adminship/Chairboy. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to update the time/date of the ending of the RfA and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. --Durin 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm honored, and I thank you again for spending the time to review my contributions! I've updated the page and will be posting it to RfA shortly, thanks! - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

rspeer's complaint about Fred Bauder
I noticed that you opposed Fred Bauder for arbcom citing the edit the rspeer cited. Yet in that edit Fred proposes placing multiple users on probation for two reasons:

1) Dissatisfaction with the arbcom decisions -- a politely euphemistic way of saying, "This user has been a jerk and has been a jerk about the correction we've tried to apply to get him to stop." 2) The apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case

I think people are misreading #1, and I think #2 is a definitely reason why people need to be placed on probation or banned. I don't know enough about the history of that case to know for sure whether or not those reasons applied for those particular people. But I don't see anything at all sinister or misguided about Fred's statements here, other than the fact that #1 should be reworded to avoid giving the impression that we don't allow dissenting voices. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 15:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can reasonably expect people to be happy about decisions that go against them. For ArbCom to take action against somebody because they are unhappy with the decision seems virtually like double jeopardy. If the user who was unhappy about the decision then took actions based on that dissatisfaction, then there would be cause for further action against them. Based on the diff cited, that did not appear to be the case. But, to place someone on probation because they do not like the decision is, in my opinion, improper. --Durin 15:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

re:WTC
Thank you for that...it is a fine line to walk and I do all I can not not seem like I am trying to push a POV. As far as I am concerned the conspiracy theorists have their daughter articles to play in, and I have no problem with them using those articles as playgrounds so long as they present it in a NPOV fashion. On 9/11 I almost put my foot through my T.V., so I have to work hard to not allow my politics to enter that situation. I certainly appreciate your commendation. Happy editing!--MONGO 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

from jayanthv
Please admin,I will list the website address in the photos uploaded but please donot block me,i promise i will get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthv86 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You have seven days to provide the information. It is not sufficient to supply an address as you did with Image:Cier.jpg saying "www.e-go.gr". I went to that address. The page that displayed did not contain the image. For an example of how it should be done, have a look at an image I uploaded Image:USS Dolphin AGSS-555.jpg, and note the line where I said "Source cropped from [1] at [2] ". That way, we can see the original image and the page that it was located on. This gives us the ability to verify the copyright status. In general, images from websites are copyrighted unless the website specifically states the images are not copyrighted, even if the website does not have a copyright statement. If I can help in any other way, please let me know. Thanks. --Durin 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

REGARDING IMAGES
i am sorry,i cant find a non-copyrighted source for my images,and hence i request you to delete my uploaded images.In future,i will take good care before uploading images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayanthv86 (talk • contribs) 18:02 21 January 2006 (UTC)

pictures of jayanthv
what if i edit the photo using paint,and cut off unwanted portions,will that still be a copyright infringement?--Jayanthv86 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Derivative works of copyright images are still covered by the copyright. In short, yes it would be copyright infringement. --Durin 22:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Chart
I'm not sure the effort is necessary. There are links there to my edit count history per month and people seem to be interpreting that fine for the moment. Thanks for the offer though :-) Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Complain
Hi Durin I appreciate the function of Wiki administration, however, I disagree with your deletion of all of my contributions based on the reasoning of "spam". At least as a courtesy to other contributors, I expect you to talk to me first and give me a chance to edit or correct what is not right. My guess is that you simply did not like that there are several links to the website, but you did not actually read the content. Except for one page which I myself asked another admin to delete due to its advertising language. The other contributed pages were perfectly valid and here is why..

If you search for "IIM" you will find it is an acronym for Indian Institute of Management and there are lots of several pages and external links to the organization. It also, happens that IIM stands for International Institute of Management and there was another page with a description of the organization in non advertising language. I think just like you allow Indian Institute of Management, it is only fair to allow International Institute of Management

My other point is that just like you consider yourself to know a lot about Navy and choose to contribute several pages on USS, I know a lot about management and IIM research (content) on management best practices.

I bet you know how frustrating it is to spend a day posting content to find them delete by some else. I believe it can be is counter productive to delete pages without discussion with the author. Imagine if another Admin decided to delete all your contribution on USS, without even discussion (for any reason he/she finds valid).

I urge you to reconsider you decision, review and undelete the valid pages

I’m also open to discussions, suggestions and changes to those pages

I look forward to hear from you

Maj


 * Thank you for contacting me. This is a fantastic first step in helping you and helping Wikipedia. There are guidelines within Wikipedia regarding individual or group vanity. While it may not appear to you that your contributions were falling into this realm, it was apparent to myself and several other people that they were. Wikipedia takes a stance against this. This is outlined at Vanity guidelines, and is also referenced from Spam item #4. I would also like to reference What_Wikipedia_is_not. I readily grant that there is some gray area between how an article such as the ones you have created should be treated in that it may fall under a candidate for speedy deletion or an article for deletion. I used my best judgement based on what I was seeing. In particular, the criteria that I applied was Criteria_for_speedy_deletion #3. With respect to individual articles, you created "International Institute of Management - An Executive Education and Development Organization" which had three sentences plus a link. "Human Resources management" had four sentences and a link. "International Institute of Management" had three sentences and a link. Please note that I did not deleted the article EUEMDIS which you created.
 * Additionally, a considerable amount of the edits you were making were what we call "link spamming". In particular, I'd like to point you towards External_links, items 2, 3, and 8. You modified a significant number of articles to include references to iim-edu.org (,,, and many more). Myself and several other people removed these links.
 * There is a considerable amount of gray area that is frequently debated at Wikipedia regarding standards of notability. One admittedly crude test that a number of people use is the Google test. I performed such a test against iim-edu.org. I searched for "International Institute of Management" and noted that within the first 100 links none of the links returned by google were for iim-edu.org. This sends up a red flag to me that supports the possibility that what is being added to Wikipedia referencing this site is spam, and not encyclopedic in nature. I further ran an "Alexa test" (which tracks Internet traffic) and found that iim-edu.org's ranking was well in excess of 2,000,000 . Typically, articles about sites that do not rank in the top 10,000 are removed from Wikipedia.
 * All of this together created a picture of someone who was trying quite hard to advertise their product, and indeed iim-edu.org is attempting to sell a product; courses. As noted above, this is not acceptable behavior for Wikipedia as it is not encyclopedic in nature. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to provide free resources for companies to market their products.
 * If after reading the above, you firmly believe that the articles that you created should not have been deleted, I invite you to recreate them. I strongly urge you that should you do so that you provide a considerably greater amount of content per article. We can then place them for deletion which will allow a number of people to provide their input into the decision. This process is covered by Articles for deletion. Articles in such a category remain for at least seven days, and a number of independent editors can review the contribution and decide whether the article(s) should be kept or not.
 * I would like to suggest that you consider the eventual content that may be here at Wikipedia regarding your organization. If other people feel that the organization is notable enough, eventually somebody will find their way here and write an article about it. It might not be today, or even this year, but eventually somebody will. We have nearly a million articles here now, on subjects across a very broad spectrum. Eventually, assuming continue health of the project, there will be an article on your organization if it gains enough notability and significance to warrant inclusion.
 * Finally, if you believe any of the articles I created on U.S. Navy related topics should be deleted, then by all means please ask for them to be deleted. This is a community effort; if others find the work to be not worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, I would have no problem with having it deleted.
 * Thank you for contacting me. If there's any other way in which I can assist you, please do not hestitate to ask. I'm here to help. All the best, --Durin 14:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

regarding images
ok,do delete the images,i will try to get appopriate pictures which satisfies wikipedia copyright guidelines.--Jayanthv86 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, I do not delete articles or images that I place for deletion. I placed some of your images for deletion, and requested that others review your additions as well. I'm content to let others decide if the content should be deleted or not. --Durin 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Me for admin?
Hi, I know you are very very analytical and detailed. So I came here... to ask you if you could review my WP "confession" and give me some feedback (which I am terribly lacking). It will read more like anti-campaign, but I figure, if you like me with all these bad things, then you really like me :)

So about me:
 * 1) 3700+ edits since July (hopeless WPholic). My main interest - Lithuania. Major contributions are on my user page. Another major interest - clean ups. For example, the other day I was going through the special:shortpages and expanding/wikifying/speeding/redirecting those sub-stubs. However, I am not a mamber of any WikiProject.
 * 2) Almost 300 deleted edits (almost all - speedies). Would have been more if I could remember all the speedy tags.
 * 3) I do reverts on my watchlist; I tried a while ago RC patrol, but that is completely not my cup of tea. I watch almost every article related to Lithuania plus a bunch of quite random stuff (accounting, problem pages, etc.) About 800 pages in all (which is pretty sad because only that much is here about Lithuania). I am much more interested in WP backlogs - requested moves, deletions, copyvios, etc etc. I want a mop, not a bat :) Like for example:  I made this list here and I get no responses. If I had the mop, I could deal with all of these.
 * 4) I use edit summaries like 100%; if I missed something, then it is just by accident.
 * 5) I use preview button extensively. Examples: Lithuanian litas (6 hours - 1 edit) and Paper Clips Project (4.5 hours - 1 edit). Contra examples: Vulture (StarCraft) (3 edits to fix a redirect...)
 * 6) My wiki mistakes:
 * 7) *at the beginning I know I have orphaned some deletions (the whole procedure is far too complicated for a newbie).
 * 8) *I created Portal:Lithuania, but it took me 5 months to complete it (sad, huh?).
 * 9) *At first I uploaded 60 maps of Lithuanian municipalities locations to en WP. I should have done it on commons (now it's there, but I have created bunch of work for other users).
 * 10) *I have created about maybe 40-50 articles that are 1-line stubs and have a nice infobox (see all Lithuanian municipalities). My plan is to write something there, but it is going veeeeeery slowly.
 * 11) *Also, I have started, but orphaned discussion at Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up: I have realized I have no technical knowledge to merge/clean it up and no volunteers appeared...
 * 12) *Just recently I have closed several AfD discussions that I should not have touched
 * 13) *Can't remember anything else major
 * 14) You should be aware of Polish-Lithuanian wars that are going on about various naming conventions & etc. At first I wanted to get involved, but then saw that it is completely not worth it. What does it mean if you change one word in an article (eg city name) when the whole article is a pathetic 5-line stub? I personally hate to see Polish contributors calling Vilnius Wilno, but I let it go. Over the Vilnius region nonsenses: I have no opinions about that, except that it is a complete nonsense to write 50 pages over few words. The one discussion I got really involved in was over renaming Partitions of Poland. See if I made any unsuitable comments. Ask User:halibutt what he thinks about me.
 * 15) Actually right now I am involved in a revert war over Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms. I requested semi-protection. But the user registered an account. Very silent and very persistent user.
 * 16) Major bad user conflict I had was with user:talrias over the community portal and maintenance collaboration. I made a personal comment about him, but latter apologized twice, but he put me in what I call "radio silence." Anyway, it is over now and that was like the only personal comment about a user.
 * 17) My talk page policy: I use user talk (not page talk) whenever possible to make sure they get the message. My article talk is pretty low because of that and because I edit "non-popular" pages. I know if I leave a message there, it will be ignored for a looong while. Also, I leave messages just for nothing: nice user page, nice work, nice nickname, etc. It is just some random kindness I stumble upon. Also, I leave constructive criticism when users do something against WP policies. But I don't always follow up.
 * 18) I don't use IRC or chats or messengers. I realize that I miss a good portion of WP community life, but I have my principles.
 * 19) I don't really contribute to Lithuanian WP. I make comments there, I ask for help, for resources, etc. but I don't write articles there.
 * 20) I nominated 2 users for admin. Both unsuccessful (one because he wanted to, another because with 5000 edits nomination was past due). 1 picture for feature. Unsuccessful. 1 list. Still in progress.
 * 21) I was almost determined to wait silently till someone nominates me. But I figured, that will not happen anytime soon because WP is very ungrateful :)

So that's about me. Let me know if you have any questions, and you can take your time. I am myself these days involved in real life.

Sincerely, Renata 09:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Take your time, really. I knew you are backed with stuff, but I came here because I knew you are very thorough. You should have been an accountant :) As for ungratefullness, I ment exactly the same: unless you accidently cross paths with somebody who is not hesitant to give a barnstar, nominate you for RfA, or simply say thanks, you won't receive any of that. That is why I feel pretty lonely here :) As for WTC, I'll go down there. Just my camera is not the greatest. Renata 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, some random weirdness: Requests for adminship/Renata3 Renata 22:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

images
thank you,will the image be there as long as the editors see it? i am sorry,that i have troubled you so much and you have taken pains to notify me about copyright violations.--Jayanthv86 14:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The image will be available until such time as it is deleted. They may be deleted in a few days perhaps. It's not a trouble per se; I think the vast majority of us are very happy to help someone who's heart is in the right place, even if you don't have the experience yet. You're learning, and that's the important thing! --Durin 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my RFA up
.-- A dam1213 Talk + 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

images
well i uploaded a image at Anna Kournikova page and the name of the image is Image:Anna12.jpg.It is a magazine cover.I have written both summary and licensing.plz tell me wether the steps i have followed is right.--Jayanthv86 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes! You got that one right. Good job! Also note that when you are putting a link to an image in it should look like this in the editing window: Image:Anna12.jpg . Note the colon before "Image". Without the colon, the image is shown. With it, it's just a link to the image. --Durin 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio
I kind of smelled a copyvio as well. A 27k, unwikied text dump sure looked a bit suspect in that regard. :) I'm doing new page patrolling for a bit; let's see if it really does come back.  Thanks for the Google search! - Lucky 6.9 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Complain
Hi Durin, Thank you for taking the time to explain your response. While, now, I understand the reasons for your choice to delete my submitted pages, I still think the stated guidelines are misapplied to my submitted content. Obviously there is disagreement on this issue and probably due to the fact you stated that these pages lie in grey area. I'd like to remind you of your quote "I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist. I try to work within Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as much as possible. When in doubt, I tend to leave things alone and let others work things out. For example, I think it rather silly to have articles on obscure Pokemon characters". I only ask that there will be discussions and guidance from you before future deletions.

I do not blamce or wrong you for deletion, if I were in your shoes and did not have all the information, I would have done the samething. Therefore, I hope the following points provide necessary information to address posted comments

All of which, I belive, would qualify for reference links under relevant management and research pages Durin – I appreciate your candid response and thank you for your advice I will re-submit the new articles and I hope you would take the above explanation into consideration before you mark them for deletion Maj 18:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Vanity and spam - I'm not hiding my intention... my ID is Maj_IIM  and I'm proud of the IIM institute, just like every alumni and group pride themselves with their associations and institutes. However only submitted factual pages and links (no sales links!)
 * 2) IIM is an acronym for International Institute of Management - It is self-evident fact! If you consider submitting an IIM page about IIM having a description about the Institute is vanity or a spam practice, then, to be fair, all acronyms leading to other institutes including Indian Institute of Management should be deleted too.
 * 3) I grant you that I should have added more content to establish credibility and I will next time. (thank you for the advice).
 * 4) Except for one page that I recognized and I myself asked for it to be delete, the rest of the pages are written in factual language. - When you feel otherwise, please let me know and I can change it.
 * 5) Ranking on Google. Granted that IIM do not rank high on google, but it ranks high on MSN which is another respected Search Engine . Please feel free to check
 * http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=International+Institute+of+Management+-+IIM&FORM=MSNH&srch_type=0
 * 1) As for the fact IIM sells courses, so does every other institute included! – Again fairness is requested.  I'd like , also, to bring to your attention that IIM funds invaluable open projects and free content to the community free of charge, I hope you would take the time to check these links.
 * http://iim-edu.org/Management_Research/Research.htm
 * http://iim-edu.org/Management_Society.htm
 * http://iim-edu.org/Management_Library/Management_Library.htm
 * http://www.iim-edu.org/Management_Gurus/index.htm
 * http://iim-edu.org/IIM_Publishing.htm
 * I will not knee-jerk mark articles for deletion. However, I have to be honest and state that I don't find your institute to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. That's not to say that I will go out of my way to make certain your articles are deleted. I will however mark them for deletion if I feel that deletion is warranted. I'm comfortable with any consensus that forms either in support of the article(s) or against. As for IIM; there are a dizzying array of organizations that use "IIM" as an acronym. As for the links, adding those links as "references" isn't terribly useful for the articles in which you did that. Individually, those links may be pertinent in some articles, but as a posted group will be considered by many here to be link spamming. All the best, --Durin 19:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo's Talk Page
Thank you. I don't know if a barnstar could begin to show my gratitude. Hopefully together we've convinced Jimbo of what's going on. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to thank you. Karm a  fist  02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Golbez RFA, plus a question
Thanks for pointing that out. That seems a fair point, even though I don't have a problem with bureaucrats being on the ArbCom myself.

Talking of the ArbCom, I know you have strong opinions on the previous committee and I was wondering how you feel about the results of the election. I'm happy with it myself, in that I didn't oppose a single successful candidate (although there were a few neutrals). How do you feel about the new ArbCom? Raven4x4x 08:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please and displeased. I think it will take some time to see if this ArbCom is any better than the last. However, I am doubting now that ArbCom can handle the problems that plague us at this time. The prior body had on multiple occasions stated their lack of intention to work on punitive matters. While this is probably a correct stance for an arbitrating body, it leaves a significant gap in structure when we are working with thousands of people, some of whom refuse arbitration as a means to an end. That said, I do hope and feel that the new ArbCom is less likely to encourage elitism and non-equal treatment of editors. This disparity in how people were treated was a serious failing of the prior committee. Sadly, the wheel warring rfar has been removed now, after just five voices rejected it. Sigh. --Durin 13:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose only time will tell. I for one am interested to see how they handle Requests for arbitration/Freestylefrappe. Then we'll see if they treat admins equally. Raven4x4x 00:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Melanie Mitchell
Why did you delete the stub bio that I created for Melanie Mitchell? She is a important contributor to the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science. Her importance can be seen by the number of Wikipedia worthy articles that reference her, both as a corroborator with leading researchers and for her direct contributions to AI and CS. As the start of an article, I feel that it met the requirements for stub articles. If it did not, what should be added to make it a helpful contribution? Jonathan Auer 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted it under the conditions of WP:CSD A7, an article about a person which does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. At the time that I deleted the article, it stated she is a professor at Portland State University. Other than that, there was no claim to any sort of notability. There is still some debate regarding the notability of professors as to whether simply being a professor in and of itself is notable enough. Generally speaking, from what I've seen of the debate, there doesn't appear to be a lot of support for the being a professor as being notable enough by itself. You can view some of the debate at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. I would suggest to you that if you recreate the article that you include information regarding her being a leading researcher in her field and cite references to support that claim. Simply stating it of course is insufficient. Contrast with Douglas Hofstadter. All the best, --Durin 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat's RfA
I noticed your reference to a hypothetical WP:ANOT. Well, I liked the idea...and there it is. Cheers. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bwahahahaha! Fantastic! Needs a category or two, and WP:RFA needs to link to it. Nicely done! --Durin 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

IP-User Pages
Hi! The deletion guidelines state, that "User talk pages of non-logged in users where the message is no longer relevant(...)" can be speedy-deleted. I don't think that the message is relevant anymore, because I (the addressee) have read it. So, please, insert my request again. Thanks! 80.138.108.146 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Durin 21:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your cooperation! 80.138.108.146 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S: I don't know how this is handled here, but it is possible also to (let) delete the specific revision of the article I edited? And if yes, where to request this? I hope you can help me therewith! Greetings, 80.138.108.146 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. Sorry. Unrelated; why not create an account? It's free, and if you're worried about anonymity it's MORE anonymous than your IP, which tells me where you are. --Durin 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

'stumbles forward towards accuracy'
Loose Change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.77.61 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 25 January 2006

RfA
Thanks, Durin, for helping so quickly with my RfA page! --AStanhope 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Graph
Id like you to update the graph. Thank you. -- Cool CatTalk 13:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Image:CoolCat-edits2.png. --Durin 13:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nache
Right now I have no time, but it is immediately seen taht something is fishy: There is no Polish word "Nache". The suggested transaltion "our" is nasze in Polish. See you later. mikka (t) 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. You may post the question at the Polish Wikipedians' notice board. mikka (t) 17:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat
I'm on quite a tight schedule and I don't have the time to dig through history pages to find something, I don't even know where to find in the first place. If you could please dig up some links to relevant edits and discussion, I'd be very grateful. - Mgm|(talk) 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag
Hi, I added the speedy delete tag to Queens Park High School that you removed. I'm not very active on the deletion scene; I just add tags when I run across things on random article searches. Anyway, I thought that high school articles without a certain amount of information were speedy-eligible, which is why I added the tag. I'm not sure if they should be sent now to AfD (or whatever it's called these days), but that process is fairly involved and frankly confusing for someone that's not involved in deleting articles day-to-day. Is there any way I can flag an article for deletion or deletion-oriented review without misapplying the speedy tag or going through the whole nomination rigamarole? Thanks. - Bantman 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's been a great amount of debate regarding notability concerns for schools (of all types). You might want to review WikiProject Schools and Schools for more information on this. In general, there are no criteria under Criteria for speedy deletion which easily apply in this case. The appropriate action to take (if any) is to submitted the article to Articles for deletion. There are instructions on that page (see "How to list pages for deletion") on how to nominate an article for deletion. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to help. All the best, --Durin 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Do you think there would be any support for creating some sort of deletereview template for casual editors to flag for review by someone more familiar with the deletion rules and procedures?  I know the procedures at AfD, but they really are rather involved for someone who doesn't do it frequently, and I'd think things would be much more efficient if editors could easily refer to the deletion crew for further thought. - Bantman 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There certainly might be support for something thing like that. --Durin 19:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My succesful RfA
Hi Durin!

Thank you again for your painstaking review of my contributions and your excellent RfA nomination. I look forward to getting down to work, and I thank you for the opportunity to expand my involvement in the project. Like I say below in the thanks message I'll be leaving those who voted, let me know if you see me do anything silly. Best regards, C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

WTC7
Hi, as you requested, I uploaded 4 pics to commons: Image:WTC7 with Ground Zero.jpg, Image:WTC7 from bottom.jpg, Image:WTC7 and WFC.jpg, and Image:WTC7 alone.jpg. The quality is not that great because when I got there it was already getting dark and as I said before, my camera is not the best. So if you find them useful, please add to the article. Cheers, Renata 01:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Renata! The pics will do nicely. --Durin 18:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Winstanley TV Deletion
Why did you delete the article titled "Winstanley TV"? We are getting quite a lot of local media attention and it was suggested that we put up a summary of what our new venture is all about up here on the reliable source that is wikipedia.

I'd just like to know why, you can get in touch at "adam.m.mcclean@gmail.com".

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.240.98 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was deleted under Criteria for speedy deletion A7 where it says "Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". --Durin 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

RDH's RfA
You may put it back now, I've accepted.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need me to do that :) I just removed it for lack of acceptance. Once it's accepted, anyone can add it. --Durin 13:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Things...
Now the ArbCom has a new army of clerks who represent far-from-optimal tendencies in our administrative corps. This has dashed the tiny bit of optimism that the election engendered in me. I have been editing anonymously mostly now anyway. Copyediting is still an acceptable way to spend spare minutes, I've decided; if the project goes downhill, I will only wasted time otherwise unlikely to be spent constructively at my desk. Anyway, just wondering about your thoughts on the status quo, if you have the time to send an email. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowballs
Guidelines aren't created by polls - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. On that earlier discussion, most people agreed to snowballing as long as it's done by a bureaucrat, and considering I have the backing of a 'crat on this one, I'd say that point is moot. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I to conclude then that even if we did run a poll at WT:RFA on this matter that you would ignore the results of it if it was in opposition to your stance? --Durin 16:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I abide by consensus, I just do not think that polls are a good way of creating consensus. It seems to me from the earlier debate that most people don't object to obviously failing nominations being removed; however, several people thought only bureaucrats should remove nominations (and can snowball if they want). I do believe that, like adminship, bureaucratship is a set of extra abilities, not a higher level in the hierarchy. For the same reason, non-admins can (and do) close AFDs that do not result in deletion. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A kind request
Hello Durin, Rune Welsh here. We haven't interacted much before, but still I was wondering if it would be possible for you to review my contributions under your admin nomination criteria. I'm not thinking of running for admin any time soon, but I'd like to know whether I'm headed on the right direction and your criteria strike me as a particularly good measure for that purpose. Please do it whenever you feel like, and if you have any questions just ask! Many thanks. -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 21:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to, but it's going to take a bit. I've got two other editors in line in front of you :) and I'm a bit back logged :( --Durin 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, take your time. I'm in no hurry. Thanks! -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My Rfa
Thanks for your offer to reinstate my RFA I really appreciate it. I feel that I should get a chance to complete the process. Please reinstate. Thank-you --Mb1000 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's reinstated now. --Durin 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mb1000 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, my offer to restore it was ignored. Raul654 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I just put the offer on his talk page, since sometimes people do not followup on the talk pages where they left a comment. --Durin 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Some kind of warning. ..
Following up on our conversation at RFA talk, thank you for your numbers; they're quite useful. What would you think of adding the sentence (based on your findings), "Since June of 2005, no editor with fewer than 750 edits has had a successful request for adminship" WP:RFA under the subheading "Nomination standards" (currently a rather vague paragraph). Not an instruction not to apply, certainly not an official prerequisite or change in policy, but simply a statement of fact. Thoughts? Chick Bowen 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to go down that road, feel free. That's a third rail for me. I ran into very significant resistance from a vocal minority when I tried to instill some reality based observations into some discussions about RfA. I'm not terribly inclined to go down that road again. I come here as a volunteer. I am not paid to do this, and without pay there's not much incentive to endure the kind of hate filled diatribes I've faced on this general issue before. --Durin 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll think it over; if I make an attempt it will come from me and not you.  Thanks again. Chick Bowen 21:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

informal mediation
Durin, would you be willing to have a look at a dispute I'm having with another user? I don't feel it's necessary to go through the "official" (or even unofficial in the case of the mediation cabal) channels, as I am embarassed that such a small article has generated such disagreement. I want to believe that a group of adults can agree on something. Anyways, if you have time and/or inclination, I'd really appreciate it. I have historically asked Radiant! for guidance, but his talk page says he's on a hiatus. Avriette 07:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit backlogged right now, but yes I can have a look; just no guarantees that I'll have all the time needed to give it a thorough rundown, at least not in the next day or two. --Durin 14:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a few minutes (it would probably take 20-30 to do the reading, although any guidance is probably going to take some additional time for digestion), please have a look at User Talk:Avriette as well as Talk:Leet. I have also given neto a note on his talk page. It also looks like Radiant is a little more active than the note on his page would suggest, so perhaps he will be able to chime in. I also note with some chagrin that neto i blocked. (frown) Avriette 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Having expressed strong opposition to my first nomination you may wish to comment on my second. brenneman (t) (c)  05:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh... "major things are waiting in the wings". That's perked up my ears.  So that we may share the teasers around, watch this space for WP:AFD365DAYS. -  brenneman (t) (c)  00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy photo controversy
If we discussing it let remove the image than after the discossuion we put it if the people accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.205.23 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied to on your talk page. --Durin 18:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This Discussion goes to forever. Why you remove this image until an aggrement maked? Everybody must be respect the Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.205.23 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia operates through the use of consensus building mechanisms. We do not control what content goes into an article by engaging in revert wars. I have restored the article to its state prior to the dispute over the image, and have directed you to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. This is where it should be done, as a first step. The dispute might seem to last forever, but before we can get to any sort of agreement, we have to discuss things. We can't do that by continually reverting work of other editors. That sort of behavior is combative, rather than collaborative. Also, please understand that I intend no offense to any religion in saying this; Wikipedia does not operate under the guidelines of any religion. How we operate is dictated largely by Policies and guidelines. Lastly, please sign your comments on user and article talk pages by tacking on " ~ " onto the end of the text you are adding. Thanks, --Durin 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are probably aware of this, but user Rgulerdem has deleted the image at least 4 times in the past hour, placing him in violation of 3RR, and also as he is deleting the picture against community consensus, I would consider it vandalism. I think a block might be in order. Thanks! --Maverick 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm aware. I took the action of protecting the article instead and agreeing a poll should begin. Protecting seemed warranted because multiple people were engaging in the revert war. By protecting, we stopped everyone for now. A block would only stop one person for now. I'm not taking sides on the issue; just wanted to stop the revert warring. --Durin 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Durin. That vandalism and reverting was getting out of hand. As you can see, there is an overwhelming consensus of opinion on the talk page to keep the image as it is. I am glad that freedom of speech and democracy has prevailed. Again, thank you :) EuroSong 20:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we're not a democracy here at Wikipedia :). I just wanted to stop the revert warring. Once the poll is complete, we'll have a referenceable point that will be useful in preventing or stopping future revert wars. --Durin 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know Wikipedia is not a democracy; that's not what I meant. I was referring in general to the freedom of speech and democracy which we have in the Western world, which allows us to publish relevant news items such as this one without censorship. I also know that the poll is not a democratic "vote per user", but it is nonetheless useful in showing how large the consensus of opinion is. Anyway.. again, thank you for your valued efforts in trying to stop the revert war :) EuroSong 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful to explain also on the talk page or WP:RfPP - and I trust this block will be short; Featured Articles should be editable.Septentrionalis 20:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not removing the image in question -- I'm trying to revert the article back to the article that includes the image within it. Please check the poll: I voted to have the image in the article and was trying to prevent the reverts of the article to an imageless one. Sol. v. Oranje 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I again must lodge a complaint that I am unfairly blocked from this article; it is Rajab who keeps removing the image, not myself. Please rectify.Sol. v. Oranje 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I was trying quite hard yesterday to get the revert war shut down. I saw this diff by you, and saw it as removing the image. It's clear you did, but perhaps this was an error on your part as the last edit you made on that article prior to that was, indeed, putting the image back in. --Durin 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. The time I removed the image was because when I had reposted the article the moment before, somehow two copies of the image were posted into the article, and I figured to remove the extraneous copy. It was crazy just trying to keep up with all the re-edits; your action actually calmed me down, regardless, as I had to take a breather on the situation to begin with. So, actually, thanks for chilling me out! Sol. v. Oranje 09:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Block
Dorin,

YOu cannot let an insult be posted a wiki article. What you should do is, protect it without the pictures. An insult in a wiki article is against the rule. I cannot see why you are not completely ignorant about it?

Please protect the article without the pictures. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully understand that it is an insult to you. As I've explained before, and as others have noted, Wikipedia is not guided by various stipulations of religions as to what is and what is not offensive. For example, a significant religion in North America is the Pentacostal faith. They believe that women wearing anything other than skirts is an offense to God. Similarly, they believe a woman cutting her hair shorter than its natural length is also an offense. To them, such women are offensive. We do not edit Wikipedia to prevent women wearing pants and/or having short hair from appearing on Wikipedia. As was noted before by someone else at Content disclaimer, "Wikipedia contains ... content you may find objectionable". I invite you to continue the debate on the article's talk page. Outside of protecting the page and attempting to stop the revert war, I have not taken sides on this issue except to explain to you why we do not delete content that some people find objectionable. --Durin 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about your RFA comments
I was a bit confused by some of your comments at Requests for adminship/Genisock2. I've voted "support" for now, but I want to be certain I understand your concerns, because it may cause me to change my vote as I value your opinion. I understand your concerns about scalability, but what do you mean when you say "Special:Unwatchedpages becomes undermined and useless"? I can't see how the undermining or loss of utility would occur. Similarly for "I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of vesting the protection of so many thousands of articles in the hands of just one person within Wikipedia". Isn't that what happens whenever people add a couple hundred or thousand articles from the list to their watchlist, as we've been encouraged to do? How does having a second account with administrator privileges change this? Thanks for your patience. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a reason that Jimbo had Special:Unwatchedpages added as a feature to the codebase. Honestly, I don't fully know his rationale. As you and others have noted, if someone watches a given page, then the page is not on the list; therefore just one person could be watching it anyways. However, coming up with this particular solution to the problem (and it is a problem of sorts) of Special:Unwatchedpages may dramatically undermine Jimbo's intent. Right now, I don't think we know.
 * The reason pages are not on Special:Unwatchedpages is generally from one source; the articles not on the list have generated enough interest/concern to be on someone's watchlist. Broadly speaking, the articles not on the list are watched by someone who has some knowledge of the topic of the article. By creating this adminsock, we are effectively creating another reason why pages would not be on the list, but in this case we are asking a user who may have absolutely no knowledge of the topic to decide whether something should be in the article, is inappropriate for the article, or is some form of vandalism. If you don't know much about a given article's topic, you may not recognize something as being legitimate content. Geni's suggesting 5,000 articles. He can't possibly be knowledgeable on all of those topics or even a significant minority of them.
 * I think Geni's notion that having a list of unwatched pages publicly available would encourage vandals to go after those pages is flawed on two fronts. First, how many vandals are going to find a subpage of his that contains such a list? This is especially true if he does not link the page to his main userpage. If it's a disconnected subpage, few (if any) vandals would ever find it. Second, what if they did? Since Geni has such a list, then the pages are effectively being watched. Furthermore, other admins could replicate such a list and we could have many admins watching the unwatched pages. So, I don't think the argument that you must have a secondary account to have a secondary watchlist holds water.
 * Geni also notes another advantage of having a secondary watchlist would allow him to populate such a list with 5,000 articles in under a month. This too does not hold water; I can create a list of the top 1,000 unwatched articles and create a subpage out of it in minutes. 5,000 would be 5 times a few minutes...not a month. In fact, I just ran a test of this. I was able to create such a page with the top 500. I did it in 3 minutes. You can see the results at User:Durin/Unwatched. Click on "Related changes" in the toolbox on the left and you can see the results of activity on those 500 pages. So, this assertion by Geni fails as well.
 * I understand and appreciate Geni's intent. I just do not think there has been ample enough opportunity to discuss this issue. I'll readily grant it's a very valid issue . I just don't think the issue and it's solution should be raised all at once with the only possibility being to a binary accept/reject this solution as the answer to the problem. I feel that we need to discuss this, mull it over, and see what other solutions we could come up with that could answer the need without having to create this very unusual precedent.
 * I hope this clarifies my rationale. I would ask of you that if the above should cause you to change your vote, that you please do not couch the change of vote as "Durin convinced me", but more along the lines of "After querying Durin on his rationale...". I never try to sway people's vote, and I'd rather note have someone think I tried to do so :) Thanks. --Durin 15:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

how long?
how long would you consider blocking me? Rajab 16:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How long isn't the point. What is the point is to attempt some means of getting you to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and encourage you to engage in consensus building. I gather you are unhappy with the consensus that is building, and thus have continued revert warring. This is unacceptable behavior. If you do not like the consensus, I'm sorry but the reality here is that we work through consensus. This isn't about religion. It isn't about offending someone. It's about how we build an encylopedia. We don't do it by effectively having you rip a page out, having it put back in, and having you rip it out again. Surely you can see this isn't constructive. If your arguments to have the image removed from the article have not been persuasive to date, then I encourage you to review Policies and guidelines and find some basis in them underwhich it would be appropriate to have the image removed. --Durin 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Yes, please do delete it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I object. Just because no one got a chance to vote doesn't mean that seeing his previous answers to questions etc. might not be useful to some people next time. Limited value, yes, but it makes it seem like you are hiding something if you delete it. It was accepted and transcluded, so it was legitimate.  NoSeptember   talk  22:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Criteria for speedy deletion General criteria 7, since CanadianCaesar was the only editor (other than a bot), it is deletable. Since he is now requesting it, it will be deleted. --Durin 03:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really about deletion policy, but is about having one more thing this user has to explain away next time (the hiding of a previous RfA attempt). We shouldn't create new problems for candidates to deal with.  Is he going to use a different subpage name next time? or else use this one with its history showing deleted edits? This can't be hidden, but now we will have to let CC deal with it when his RfA comes up next time. As for CSD, Francs2000 qualifies as a non-bot editor ;-). Cheers,  NoSeptember   talk  07:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we make a compromise and undelete it if I ever want to run again? That way you can see what's there, I can edit it if anything has changed and you can just look at the edit history.  Right now it's just a little embarrassing. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 07:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no reason for you to be embarassed, you did a swell job, even the edit summary explaining your withdraw was very good. This is more an issue of general policy for removed RfAs. We used to track RfAs that were not even accepted by the candidate (at Unsuccessful admins), now we don't, and we revert their transclusion at sight.  Durin seems to want to go further here and delete an RfA that was accepted and transcluded properly on the RfA page. CC, I'm sorry your RfA is the one involved in this, it's not about you and you shouldn't worry about it.  My RfA was involved in the Masssiveego/Freestylefrape controversy, but it had nothing to do with me.  Those are the breaks :-). NoSeptember   talk  09:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your compliments. Hamster Sandwich spoke some words of encouragement to me today, so I'm thinking, although it may be a bit unorthodox, if we undelete it, should we relist it?  (Mind you, some people are known for opposing for running again so soon, some might look upon it as being unready...) CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Durin, the page was undeleted at the user's request (on my talk page). I'd still like to hear your position on when an RfA should be listed as an unsuccessful request. NoSeptember  talk  11:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see there being a particular debate here. WP:CSD G7 is clear. The user wanted it deleted, it was not edited by anyone else, I deleted it. Even if a page is linked to from a 100 different pages, G7 can still apply. Had he not wanted it deleted, I would not have deleted it. He changed his mind, and it was undeleted. I have no problem with that. I'm not taking anything "further". Cite me a prior case where nobody but the originator had edited an RfA that was transcluded and then withdrawn and then we can discuss precedent. --Durin 13:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit War?
You have warned me for Edit Warring on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. I am not sure I understand where I've made an edit war? Maybe it is because I am new here, but I really try to discuss things on the talk pages and refrain from reverts as much as possible. Can you show it to me, so that I can learn? --EyesAllMine 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. Wish you'd been around some more. Happy that somebody who is not "personally involved" tries to slow the edits down a little. --EyesAllMine 14:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm referring in your case to this diff. You only reverted another's change once (as did I, in the other direction). That's fine. I was tossing the warning out to all involved that it needed to stop. There had been seven reverts in the last 24 hours over that particular piece of content. --Durin 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey
I'd appreciate you not equate me with the other two that are linking in from that POV pushing website that uses Wikipedia comparison edits in an effort to wikibomb our articles. As far as I am concerned, those trolls are close to being banned...and timestamp your posts. and check your email.--MONGO 15:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the edit warring occurring over the inclusion/removal of the mergedisputed tag. In particular, you reverted the inclusion of that tag here and here. I'm not taking sides on this issue, nor am I attempting to lump you in with anyone. What I wanted to see stop was the edit warring on this particular tag's inclusion or lack thereof. We don't resolve disputes by revert each other. This applies to me just as much as it does to you; I reverted the tag once myself. --Durin 15:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well aware of that...these two troglodytes are just trolling, they have added nothing to article space aside from their POV...not anything of merit here whatsoever and the whole deal of creating a new article of the misinformation that we have all chimed in as being non notable and then immediately trying to merge it into the main article again appears to violate WP:POINT and numerous other concensus related policies. As far as I am concerned, and please assume good faith, my edits were reverts of vandalism based on that issue. The project comes before policy...always.--MONGO 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am of course assuming good faith. What I did not want to see was a revert war. This is not simple vandalism. I don't want anyone to run afoul of WP:3RR, and I'd rather see there be some discussion on the issue. Following my revert requesting SkeenaR discuss it on the article's talk page, discussion began. This is good. Revert warring over it is not good, regardless of our stance. I for one am against the various conspiracy theories. That said, I'm also against revert warring to try to accomplish something; it rarely works and usually results in negative outcomes. There's been a lot of debate on this article. Prior to today, there's not been a revert war (at least not recently). I'd rather not see one break out. With seven reverts over the same content in the last 24 hours, I think that qualifies as a revert war. Let's all work together. Once consensus is shown to not have the tag, then any attempts at inclusion are clearly vandalism. To them, that might not be the case just yet. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt too. They are engaging in discussion at least. That's better than anonymous vandals. --Durin 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, we can agree to disagree then.--MONGO 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Had a chance to think things over and I wanted to apologize for being a jerk. Sorry.--MONGO 21:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My template
Thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding my template, Myeager1. I was pretty happy with how that turned out, but it made my day to hear someone else agree, so that was really nice of you. If it's not a big deal, I'd kind of like to keep that template around, having it not be deleted. If I'm not mistaken, it wouldn't save any space on the servers to have it deleted, and it's got a clear enough name that I doubt anyone else would ever want it. Would that be a problem, or is template deletion "just something that happens"? Is it simply bad luck to just keep a failed RFA template around? ;) Thanks for listening. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter to me if it's kept or not. I just figured you would want to have it deleted now that you're done with it. Unless of course you're planning on failing another RfA ;) --Durin 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

DfA
D - You've made your case against the changes many times. Your position is very clear. But isn't it also clear that people aren't being swayed by the arguments you're presenting? I'm a "hard metric" guy myself, but I also beleive that some things do not lend themselves to hard metrics. Every change is frightening, and it's good to try to plan and think and mitigate posible problems, but eventually you just have to leap. What is the worst, the absolute worst thing that can happen? Some version of DfA runs for a month and everyone hates it? We either promote a pack of hooligans or fail to set the flag for a group of saints? Big deal. Nothing unfixable, really. If someone leaves the project, that's infixable, but it also happens all the time, for various reasons. I know you don't like it, but the best way to show it won't work is not by making the same arguments you've made before. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c) 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to change. I am opposed to this change because it's poorly thought out and conducted. There's a very large difference. --Durin 23:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with a newbie
Hi Durin, could you help me out in deleting a couple of prank images uploaded by a (schoolboy?) newbie, User:Jay231104. They are Image:Maurice.JPG and Image:Maurice Proctor.jpg. I flagged them up on WP:IFD, and notified him as the uploader. He has now responded to me, somewhat apologetically, and asked if they could be deleted ASAP (discussion here). Could you do the necessary, thanks. BTW, any progress on the review, not pressing you but just wondered? All the best. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the images, and removed the entry from IFD. Review; you're #1 on the list. I've been active here doing a number of things, but nothing that requires considerable time, such as a review. So, please do not take my activity and lack of a review of you as having forgotten you; I haven't. You are #1 on the list of "big" things to do. There's three others in line behind you, too :) --Durin 13:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was mighty quick, and explains why I couldnt find them on IFD when I went to add a comment for "speedy at user request" in case you were not on-line :-) No worries about the review, I'm not in any desperate rush, particularly with the politically charged atmosphere around the place right now. Just keeping my head down and plugging away. Whenever you get the chance will be just fine. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  13:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Durin, this page is still on my watchlist, especially, as I learn a lot from it :). Was wondering if you need any help from me in reviewing contribs of any potential rfas - could get back to you with the review in a week, max. and wd be willing to nominate as well if the person getting nominated doesn't have any probs. In return, you may want to review "my" activities after becoming an admin, whenever you are free ;) --Gurubrahma 14:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Help! Help! I'm under a microscope!" (ref: this page being on your watch list :) ). If you want to develop your own standards and nominate people against them, you are certainly welcome to do so. If you find someone worthy of being nominated and nominate them before I get around to it, that's fine too. Directly helping me with a nom? *shrug* might as well nominate them yourself! :) I would love to spend more time reviewing admin contributions and evaluating performance of various admins. Unfortunately, I just don't have time :( I've never review the contributions of any admin I nominated after they became an admin, except maybe in passing. I presume (hopefully correctly) that given the nature of my review process, they won't have any problems once they are admins. --Durin 21:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OMG
OMG! WTF? Durin has a sense of humor! Kim Bruning 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Images
Hi, I've filled in the source information for the images which you brought to my attention. Thank you for the update, as They could've been deleted. Indeed, those were images uploaded back in my newbie days and I neglected to return and rectify the info after I became fully aware of policy.

Concerning the images recieved from the Kawaii website, they qualify as promotional due to their distributive status being released prior to each iteration, and they are displayed on the official websites as well. The qualm about not being able to see the images is because the site requires a log in before access. To this end, the disclaimer applies to fair use promotional as wikipedia is a private funded site. As I am indeed a member of the site, the images fall under the right to be utilized here, and furthurmore, for educational usage. Finally, I'd like to know which views you disagree with me on. Per my fellow wikipedian's objections conerning the quote on my userspace, I implore you to see the rfa's talk page. -ZeroTalk 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for working on the images. Second, I'm still concerned about the other images. Third, what views I disagree with you on isn't really important, is it? It's guaranteed that some people will disagree with you here. No worries, as I didn't find anything in my cursory review that stood out as bad, other than the image work. Fourth, hey...you should be thanking me for finding that diff for you that contradicted the quote from Tony on your page :) I think that does a better job of exonerating you than the talk page message. --Durin 22:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As in other images, you are refering to the Mega Man images...? Yes, those also qualify as promotional, per their usage on the official websites and pre-distribution status. To this effect, they are utilized to promote the work of the respective game before its release. I am sorry for misplacing your faith in my knowledge of image policy, but I assure you I am now well versed. users Kelly martin, Sherool, and Cool Cat have evicerated my ignorance in that area. And about the quote contridiction, yes, thank you for appealing that fact. I do not endorse it, I simply support it as an "eye opener", as I had not fully aticipated comments such as that at the time. I'm sorry opposing editors are taking it as I am a loose canon or "Tony Sidaway clone". I don't plan on engaging in such behavior, and only wish the admistrative tools to assist wikipedia. -ZeroTalk 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel the promotional use element here is grey area that needs to be verified. Since I can't source the images, and copyright tags associated with them, I can't verify your claims. It's not a matter of trusting you; it's a matter of being able to verify their status, and I can't. I sincerely appreciate that you've worked hard to improve your understanding of copyrights. --Durin 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for understanding comments nonetheless. If it's any relavence, the official sites here, here and here might evicerate any qualms. Please do not hesitate to raise any more concerns, as I welcome critism and always reply promptly.-ZeroTalk 22:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Software patents under the European Patent Convention
Hi, you nominated me as a sysop. I am involved in a dispute in Software patents under the European Patent Convention (see talk page: Original research and EU directive and history ). I do not want to enter in a revert war. Could you give me your opinion about this matter? Thanks in advance. Jheald's suggestion was wise, but I only received a nice personal attack back... I'll step back for now. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Jheald's suggestion is the way forward, and a reasonable compromise. If the anon-IP is unwilling to do this, then I would find that he is acting in contravention of this compromise, and would be POV pushing rather than attempting to achieve consensus as a way forward. This isn't a blockable offense, but it's certainly grounds on which to revert his edits in this regard until he's willing to work on building consensus. Be careful; it's already a slow revert war. --Durin 20:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I'll be careful. --Edcolins 08:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok.
Ok, thanks for your input. In retrospect I was rather fast to push that button. Further reserch was required. I'll do more to avoid such mishaps in the future. Bobby1011 14:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OA box
That is not the OA logo, not the sash logo and it's not the same color nor design. You guys worry way to much about this stuff. I'm removing the OA box from my page because no one can come up with a logo that looks good and doesn't upset the tag Nazis.Rlevse 21:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The image in question, Image:ArrowheadBW.jpg, is a derivative work as I noted. I base this on the fact that the image is a reduced size image of the logo from the BSA website . You will note that the image referenced at the site is labeled "oalogo.gif". While the arrow shown in Image:ArrowheadBW.jpg is indeed a different color than, the arrow is the same, if only smaller. The arrangement of the white areas on the arrowhead on each image is identical. The relative proportions of each image are identical. The angle of each image is identical. The designs of the arrowheads of each image are identical. The image at is protected by copyright. Please see BSA's copyright statement. Under copyright law, derivative works of a copyrighted image are copyrighted just the same as the original image. Therefore, the derivative image that you created based on BSA's OA logo are protected by BSA's copyright. Fair use policies dictate that such images may not be used for the purposes you intended it to be used. Please note that at Userboxes it states, "The use of copyrighted work as fair use is not allowed on templates". This isn't being a "tag nazi". This is protecting Wikipedia against copyright infringement lawsuits. I am sure you can appreciate the potential hazards such lawsuits present to Wikipedia, which is a volunteer organization run on donations. I hope this adequately explains the matter to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. If you'd like, I might be able to create a logo for your template that would in fact be public domain. Interested? --Durin 00:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Administrator Code of Conduct
I was wondering if you'd seen this (I don't think you made any comments on the talk page). As you seem to be interested in doing something about improving the reputation of admins (in the right way I mean not just PR!), I wondered if you could help me in continuing to develop this, and take it forward. I've never seen a proposed policy through to acceptance as official policy, so I'm not really sure how to go about it. If you could help that'd be great. Petros471 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Do you think any part of your admin watch thoughts could be incorperated into the ACC? Petros471 11:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
You missed these in your Affilliations section clean up campaign: "User VFW"--the VFW is a private organization, not a government agency, despite what the tag says; "User former BSA" clearly uses the BSA logo (given what you said before, I can't believe you missed this one, despite the creator claiming it's his own work); "User Vigil" uses a Vigil sash, which has the entire image of what we went around about before, so I'm awe struck that it's okay to use the whole sash and not just the (modified) arrow tip. Rlevse 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just going through and removing ones that have fair use tags on them for now. I'm not analyzing images for veracity of their non-fairuse tags at the moment. Feel free to do so, if you feel inclined. --Durin 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By doing that you're not treating them equally--they're still violations, which is why you said you do this.Rlevse 18:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are free to interpret my actions however you wish. Have a pleasant day. --Durin 19:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think asking why the ones removed can't be used in a userbox and this can be is a totally fair question.Rlevse 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're attempting to engage me in a discussion on which I have made no stance. As I noted, you are free to interpret my actions. I've explained myself previously. Apparently, that was not adequate explanation for you. C'est la vie. --Durin 19:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly wasn't and your actions themselves are the taking of a stance. You're being inconsistent and avoiding the issue. Rlevse 00:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that I have given you such a mistaken impression, and I am sorry that you feel the way you do. Have a nice day. --Durin 01:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Yes, please delete. Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Renata's RfA
Hi, if you remember, quite a while ago I asked you to evaluate me for adminship. A few things changed since that time. Go for it! nominated me at Requests for adminship/Renata3 (2) (I asked him to correct the formatting before I make any decision). So now I turn to you for your say, 'cause I don't really know where are you at with the evaluation and I don't really mind waiting. Also, I have quite a few things to add to my Wiki confession above. Most notably:
 * I have now two featured lists under my belt
 * I declared myself an overseer of WP:CBB
 * I got involved with WP:BSNB
 * I quite messed up trying to create Collaborations of the Week/Constitutional democracy
 * I could be credited with starting (or maybe, not letting die?) a straw pool over the search box on the main page draft. I used the word "lame" there and made one edit to the draft that now I consider to be a mistake.
 * Today there was some stormy editing over Vilnius massacre, Vilnius Incident , January Events. Renata 20:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Renata; you're second on my list behind Cactus.man who is patiently waiting as well. I expect to be able to get to both of you this week. --Durin 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have declined it. I will wait for your verdict :) Renata 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Tulane

 * The logo was not used under fair use, but by specific permission granted by the owner of the mark. See User:Dystopos/Tulane Shield.
 * Thanks for pointing that out. --Durin 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD
Care to vote?

Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

--Striver 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Message from 199.197.125.5
I wasn't testing anything out, I was showing Americans their place by calling them 'whities'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 (talk • contribs)

Blocked from editing or blocked from the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 (talk • contribs)
 * Does it matter? You've stopped vandalizing. That is good. Keep it that way. Thank you. --Durin 20:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just matters a tad much. But I'll stop. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.197.125.5 (talk • contribs)

Deletion of my account
Hi, I noticed you deleted my user page, so I thought I'd ask you if having my account deleted is possible? I'll look for your reply here. --CDN99 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's RfA
Just curious about the number of votes at this RfA: $$75+78+23=176$$ total votes. As far as you know, any record set here? hydnjo talk 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope... BD had more than that many support votes... User:Zzyzx11/RFA_nomination_records. -- LV <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, how quickly we I forget! ;-)  hydnjo talk 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it ended up that Karmafist missed a tie with BDA by only 2 votes (new list) NoSeptember   talk  19:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin/Admin activity
Hey, is it difficult obtaining that information? Since it would be nice to regenerate the statistics for February, and see if things changed, or if it is really the same people who constantly run the show. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It takes in total about an hour to generate. I'm not flush with free time right now, so I haven't done it for February yet. Not sure if I will. It did not generate a bunch of interest. --Durin 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Question for you
Hi Durin, thanks for your question, not sure where it came from, other than work on castles maybe ??. Anyway, no, I am not a Highlander .... stereotyping aside, I would probably have bright orange hair and a bushy beard if that was the case. Alas, I have neither :-) I am a Sassenach, a Lowland Scot. Nonetheless I am a still a Scotsman, and naturaly proud of that fact. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit of an IRC virgin, I installed it a while back but haven't done anything with it. Give me a couple of minutes to see what I can do.-- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am on #wikipedia but I don't see you there. Maybe I have stuffed up, but I think I am on the right channel. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, what a hoot of an IRC learning curve :-) How did you learn to type so fast? -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say, If you need any further background info on the issue just let me know. Cheers. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  10:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Trackandfield-stub
Hi Durin, i noticed your sub page Trackandfield-stub. What are your plans for this? Do you want people to add to your page. personally i think this is a good idea. I wonder if a list of red linked bios would be useful too since many of the famous athletes do not have biographies. I note that one user has already been adding an informal and uncategorized stub. See this google search.David D. (Talk) 19:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I started the sub-page during stub sorting as a means to keep track of stubs that I ran across which might generally fit within that stub category. You may feel free to add to it if you like. Once there are sufficient articles to warrant the creation of a new stub type, then we can create the stub category. To do that, we'll need at least 50 if not 100 articles in stub status that should be within that stub category, and preferably more. --Durin 13:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll add them to your page as i come across them.  I'm not sure how many are out there now but i know there are many red links, so this potential category is likely to grow in the future. David D. (Talk) 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I started poking around and found this Category:Track and field athletics biography stubs. David D. (Talk) 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then my sub-page is not needed, so long as the few articles I have currently listed there are appropriately tagged as needed. I'll do that now, and then delete my sub-page. Thanks for finding that! --Durin 16:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, now I know it exists I will start using it too. David D. (Talk) 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi



 * -) ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  21:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update
Hi, I don't use IRC or any other chat (that's a personal thing with a very long story; unless you have gmail and can use gmail chat...). You can email me - either through WP or by just attaching gmail.com to my username. I am busy in real life too so I completely understand and I am in no rush. In fact, I would not mind to wait till after April 15 :) (I am a future tax accountant, and no, I cannot help you with your tax return :D). And no, you are not "slower than the slowest civil servant..." You haven't met IRS... :) Renata 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks for posting that Durin, I appreciate the hard work you have put into the nomination. I only have one request for some advice: On the previous conflicts question is it appropriate to refer to anything only in general terms without naming specific users out of respect for their privacy, or is it acceptable to give names and provide relevant diffs if needed, as it's all there in the history anyway? In other words, is there any accepted 'protocol' on this? Thanks. I'll probably get it posted formally in the next couple of days. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In the interests of full disclosure, it might...might...be best to provide diffs and person you were in conflict with. It's a judgement call. --Durin 13:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Defense of content
Hi Durin - please have a look at this proposal - a few ideas to stop vandalism before it takes effect. Would love to have your opinion/ideas on it. Thanks, Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
For fixing up my application for adminship. I saw that you had a little trouble there :-)  ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  00:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Great pic
Just wanted to say that the Iwo Jima pic with the F-14s flying past the memorial is outstanding. I like the fact that it has the memorial and the landing beaches in the background. It finally motivated me to scan my own picture of the landing beaches taken from the top of Suribachi. Hopefully I'll get them uploaded tomorrow. Will make a nice addition to the article. --User:Looper5920 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I frequent www.navy.mil's photo section to see what they have recently added. The images there are all public domain as produced by the US government. Sometimes it's a great source for images. --Durin 22:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistics/Graph request
Durin since your the statistics guru, could you help me dig some numbers for the following:


 * 1) percentage of Featured Articles that lost their FA status
 * 2) approximate number of edits (and percentage of total edits) between time it gained FA and lost FA
 * 3) which of these articles were on the main page
 * 4) comparison of vandalism to valid edits during this time

I'm trying to come up with some hard facts to help make a counter argument against Raul's never protect the FA stance. Any other statistics you feel might be relevant/useful in making a counter argument would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. ALKIVAR &trade; 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, but I honestly don't know if I can help. I mainly keep stats on WP:RFA. I don't have direct DB access for SQL queries. --Durin 13:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

heads-up
Hi Durin, I once asked you if I can help you out in preparing admin noms - you said that it would be better if I devised my own standards and nominated some one rather than me doing all the work for you (or something to that effect). Well, my standards were ready sometime back and my first nomination is up there. I know that you are busy but it wd be great if you can have a look and spare a comment or two. TIA, --Gurubrahma 16:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * With nominations like that, I'm not unique anymore. *laugh* Job well done! I would love to see all nominations receive this much attention and effort. I took the liberty of making a cleanup edit on your standards page. I hope you don't mind. Also, hoping to clarify if needed; I wasn't rejecting your help; I was just hoping you'd create your own standards and evolve them over time as I've evolved mine. You might come up with something better. At your first go, you're already on par with my nominations so it looks like that pathway is bearing fruit! :) --Durin 17:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton for your warm words and kind deeds, Durin. --Gurubrahma 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations on becoming an admin!
Hi Durin, I am astonished by the support I received - now I have lots of "thank-you cards" to write!!

It wasn't at all stressful, as I half expected it to be, and your nomination clearly carries some weight with many people. As to whether it should be congratulations or condolences, time will tell :) Thanks again for your efforts in preparing the nomination, I just hope that I don't screw up and let you down in performing my admin duties. If I need advice on matters you will be my first port of call.

In the meantime, for your sterling work in broadening the admin pool with qualified candidates let me award my first ever "barnstar" - the Happy Cactus award (courtesy of the US NOAA). No doubt we'll cross paths from time to time as we work away here, so I'll see you around. All the best. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: mathbot
MathBot overwrote someone else's comment left on an RfA. See. Please fix this. --Durin 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That was a subtle bug when the bot encountered edit conflicts. I wrote that specific code with much more care now, so it will either try to merge its changes in, or fail, but not overwrite others. Hope it will work as expected. Thanks for the note! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I would like it if you stopped removing images from my user page without asking me before doing so. I know perfectly well about the fair use policies for images on user pages and I don't give a rats toot about it. Please stop editing my page without my consent, its my user page and not yours, so please stop being a pain in the ass. I just want to work on some articles here like I always do without someone like you getting in my way during the process. — Wackymacs 07:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Copyright policies must be respected on Wikipedia. By removing those fair use images from your userpage, I in no way affected your ability to contribute to the main article namespace. You do not have absolute control over your userspace. If your userpages are in violation of Wikipedia policies, they can and may be edited by others to conform to Wikipedia policies. This is most especially true when it comes to copyright policy, where Wikipedia could be the subject of a copyright complaint and possible lawsuit because of copyright violations. I am sorry that you feel that observation of copyright law is a pain in the ass. However, the Board of Trustees has been clear about this in their expression of policy with regards to this copyright issue. If you still feel that my removal of the images from your userpage constitutes vandalism, you are certainly free to post an alert at Administrator intervention against vandalism or make a request at Requests for investigation. All the best, --Durin 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed pictures
Can you explain why you removed the images from my user page?--Jersey Devil 17:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Please see the edit summary where it says "Removing fair use logos per terms of Fair_use item #9". All of the images that I removed from your userpage are tagged with a fair use tag of one sort or another. The use of fair use images in your userspace is not permitted by fair use policy on Wikipedia, as decided by the Wikipedia Board of Trustees. --Durin 17:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Staples
Sigh, yes. To be honest, I was hoping someone else would step in, so as to show the author that it's not just my opinion. I suppose I should have mentioned notability more prominently in my earlier notes to him. I'm not so worried about the copyvio because I believe that he is the father copyright holder for Stephanie Staples' website. Want to take a turn with him? FreplySpang (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok..
So, you removed the images of a 1997 film because the odds of them taking action are about as high as winning the lottery- which is what, 4 to 1? And a logo apple stopped using eight years ago. I can understand the first one, but the multicolored apple logo? It's not as if millions of other sites don't sport them... Dan 06:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Apple Computer logo
You have just removed an Apple logo from my personal page without having the courtesy to write and explain. It's not a big issue, the logo doesn't matter but I wonder what your intentions are. Regards.

Kleinzach 19:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you add this questions to your 'FAQ":

'Why am I removing images from the pages of users who are not in the United States and therefore not subject to US law?'

Regards Kleinzach 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is already explained elsewhere in Wikipedia policy. --Durin 04:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No doubt there are acres of pages that can be described as 'Wikipedia policy'. I regret that I don't find that a satisfactory answer - and I am still puzzled by your intentions.

Apple distribute their logo (in the form of plastic transfers) to people who buy their hardware. They apparently want their logo displayed - not suppressed.

Regards. Kleinzach 11:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether you are in Florida or Timbuktu, the policies apply. It should be obvious that Wikipedia can not write policies that are variable depending on what country you live in, as any such modification of policies would cause them to be enormously cumbersome. I'll restate what has been said earlier elsewhere. Please refer to Fair_use item #9. That is not acres of pages; it is one paragraph. The very beginning of that paragraph states "fair use images should only be used in the article namespace". The Apple logo is tagged with a fair use tag. Per this policy, it may not be used on your userpage, whether you feel it should be allowed or not. If you disagree with this policy, you are contesting it with the wrong person. I am executing policy on this issue, not making it. If you feel this policy is in error, I suggest you take the matter up for consideration before the Wikimedia Foundation. My intentions are to not have Wikipedia in violation of copyright, most especially when it comes to corporations, many of which have defended their copyrights vigorously. Wikipedia can ill afford lawsuits. I'm sorry that we seem to be locking horns on this. It is not my intention to upset you or anyone else by trying to protect Wikipedia against lawsuits. All the best, --Durin 13:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can give examples of lawsuits against Wikipedia relating to company logos used in user pages? Regards. Kleinzach 14:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There really is no need. There's plenty of precedent in law. Copyright law is well established worldwide. --Durin 02:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Delinking years
I don't mind putting off the delinking of solitary years for the time being, but the question is, how long should this be on hold? It's been on hold for quite a while, and it's getting frustrating.

The MoS has said not to overlink dates for a long time now, but several months ago some debate began on this. So far as I can tell, Ambi and Talrias would like years to be linked, and just about everyone else would like years to be linked only when parts of dates or when particularly relevant. Months have passed, and things are still right where they were. I see no indication that the MoS will change to allow the overlinking of years. And I see no indication that Ambi and Talrias are going to say "I'm okay with that" any time soon. So how long should this be on hold?

I'll certainly stop delinking years for the day, as you request. I don't mind putting it off for a couple days, or even longer, if it looks like progress is being made and we're not just waiting for Godot.

I apologize if I sound curt. You've been very polite; I'm just frustrated about the whole situation. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration. But, if I might suggest, have some faith in Eventualism. This debate might rage for years. Who knows? In the meantime, there isn't any serious harm being caused by having the dates linked. It does not affect the functionality of Wikipedia and offers at worst minimal intrusion into readability. Five years from now, this will have been resolved. Maybe you, Ambi and Talrias won't be party to the solution of it. I don't know. But, it will have been resolved and at that point in time people can refer back to the solution.
 * You know consensus is very important to Wikipedia. Of course, with ever larger groups building consensus is more difficult than ever. But, it's fundamental to our forward progress here. Neither you nor I can do everything here. We have to believe that somebody will eventually get around to it. So, if you don't get around to delinking every date that needs to be delinked in the project, it's no big deal. In fact, I doubt you could get around to all the 1 million articles and do it. Have faith that it will be done. In the meantime, do your best to help facilitate consensus on the issue.
 * If you think Ambi and Talrias stand alone, then see if that's the case. Identify their core issues, and see if you can address them yet still delink the dates. Work towards the compromise. Please don't plow ahead with more date delinkings as it does nothing but fan the flames of the debate. In microcasm, it's kind of like the userbox war. It would have been very bad idea for someone to delete userboxes en masse during the height of that debate. Likewise here, it is not a good idea to plow ahead with more date delinkings...even if this debate takes another couple of years, given the notable lack of damage being caused to the project by having dates linked. --Durin 22:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks :)
Thanks for starting the Thank You page. Once it gets well started it was my plan that it would be moved to project space (Requests for adminship/Thank yous) and each successful/unsuccessful candidate would add their own message by tradition (it just needs a bit of publicity to get started) :-).  NoSeptember   talk  17:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I can't think what else to add. I think you very much captured the essence of what has disturbed me about this and I am extremely grateful for you stepping in to say what you did. Out of the entire process, including all discussions on the RfA page up until my edit to the project page, the only action I took that I regret was not giving the same care to that one edit summary as I did to everything else.

Reading the page just now, and seeing the comments Cecropia makes there accusing me of being uncivil, not assuming good faith and making personal attacks, I'm glad that I responded to the comment he left on my talk page without having seen that. I am now, for the first time in this whole affair, angry. The ONLY action that all of those comments could be refering to is the edit summary, and I would challenge Cecropia to find any other justification. If that edit summary warrants those characterization, well, you already made the point for me. I am definitely taking your advice (and had already done so anyway) of letting it die down. Where Cecropia mistook my previous comments as being in anger, any additional comments I would make at this point would be my first comments in anger at Wikipedia. I'd rather not go there. Thank you again, —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Maltesedog RfA
Thank you for point out some good points regarding my request for adminship. Kindly consider taking part in the request, but placing your opinion. Maltesedog 21:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I spent some time reviewing your contributions, and felt I would end up being neutral in voting. From my chair, you have plenty enough edits, but your edit rate is lower than I like to see. Your edit summaries have improved, which is great. Some of your image contributions aren't quite properly tagged, as a number of them are missing sources, but they were license tagged...which is good. I just felt I couldn't vote support, and couldn't vote oppose either. I have been avoiding neutral of late, so I chose not to vote. All the best, --Durin 21:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching the mistake I made on Articles for deletion/Kristi Yamaoka (second nomination). Seano1 21:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note
Of course I don't think less of you, Durin; I think more, if anything. That situation got more than a bit out of hand and you exerted a calming influence. I've been known to attempt that myself, but obviously didn't on that one. My original intent was to explain that there was no wrongdoing whatsoever in AZ's non-promotion, since it seems that we have an increasing number of editors ready to go to war against "the system," the rules, the Bureaucrats, etc., with hints of dark motives anytime someone they favor isn't promoted. When I saw Mr. Bell making an inappropriate edit and comment on a policy page, I gave him notice with the intent of nipping an edit war in the bud. I guess I thought Bell was a more experienced editor than he was. "If I had it to do over again" I would still have given him the notice but I would have worded it more carefully to indicate that it was instructive rather than punitive. Anyway, many thanks for your efforts. Cheers, Cecropia 22:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If I had it to do over again, I would have left a completely different edit summary, but I would still have edited the policy page. I've taken responsibility for my mistake and offered true apologies where warranted.  I just think that's what someone of character does.  Cecropia, I can't imagine that you would have been granted the privileges that you have unless you had character, which is why I can't understand your unwillingness to do the same. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Doug, I don't want to undo the fine work that Durin has done in calming this down. If he should decide to run for ArbCom, he will have my support in a heartbeat. Please tell me as briefly and succinctly as possible what it is I haven't taken responsibility for. I am not a hypocrite, I think, so I am not going to guarantee an "apology" in response, but you will have an honst response to your concern. -- Cecropia 23:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd like to be on ArbCom. That might change someday, but right now its definitely not something I would want to do. Thanks for the vote of confidence all the same :) --Durin 13:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats
Please check my post to that page and comment. Thank you. --Mmounties ( Talk )  02:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Doug Bell
Durin, you have done good work on this. I want you to look at [] and my response. I don't expect you to do any more on this, but want you to be aware of this. -- Cecropia 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't read all of it, but did read your short response. There are times when it is best to just let something be and let time pass. This is perhaps one of those occasions; there's nothing hinging on resolution of this debate, so not addressing it here and now does not harm the project. --Durin 13:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

De-bureaucrating
It was that or walk away from the project for good, and that really would be a mistake. The stress on here was getting stupid and this isn't the first time I've been slated for making a minor mistake as a bureaucrat. I think it's better for everyone this way tbh. -- Francs2000 12:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Edit to Benon RfA
Guess I must have avoided edit conflict by hitting preview, and somehow missed it. Oh well, I'll drop a note on his talk page instead. Looking back now at the history I see Benon withdrew before a couple of other votes- do they count? Not that it makes much difference either way. Petros471 14:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From my chair, it's not a matter of whether they counted or not as the RfA was withdrawn, but rather that those comments were made before the RfA was closed out by me, and yours was after. Ultimately doesn't really matter, I just think we want to stop closed RfAs from being updated. --Durin 16:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, thanks for letting me know. Petros471 16:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA

 * Hi Durin


 * Thanks for taking the time and trouble to explain some points. I have now withdrawn my application, and had I known before what I know now, I would not have put one in. The stated policy is quite clear, but the practice brings in all kinds of considerations that are not mentioned in guidelines and policy. I felt I could have made a useful contribution and have already demonstrated responsibility, and that should be apparent if anyone took the time to look through what I have contributed. I have also shown the ability to conduct dialogue and understand technical complexities etc. The trouble is, people rely on automated assurances.


 * However, I wasn't taking issue with people because they felt I didn't meet the policy standards you mentioned, and that their standards were too high. I felt they were false standards, and they weren't doing their job properly, apart from one editor who took the time for dialogue, asked questions and actually looked at some of my work. I didn't reference Requests for adminship/Standards. It was other pages I referenced, sometimes more than one page with similar information, that, to all appearances, are still current.


 * I have put my case, and it is a matter of genuine concern, as I think the biggest danger ultimately to Wiki will not be the enemy without, but the factions within, and the unifying factor throughout is policy and guidelines, as it is objective. I see there is a mention even on todays RfA talk page about possessive enclaves.


 * I spend as little time as possible doing anything other than contributing articles and maintaining them, and that is what I needed the admin tools for primarily. I see this as perfectly valid, and one doesn't have to do all the jobs to merit gaining access to the tools. As it is, I am getting a bit fed up with manual rvs, - as I said in my request - and I shall be cutting back. That's not pique - it's just time.


 * I have taken part in discussions and disputes, which show that I am perfectly capable in that area: it's just that I didn't take part in them in the right area of wicki, because I was getting on quietly with things, not realising that doesn't count.


 * I'm afraid I don't like playing the game, and it is a game, not the truth. Do five edits, where you could economise and do one, then people know you're prolific. Go on VfD and similar spaces and you will be successful, even though your votes might be pretty crazy ones. All those things show up on the counters. No one mentioned the amount of rvs I've done or the test templates I've left on vandal talk pages, for the simple reason there isn't an automated counter, and only one person took the time to look through any of my edits, by the sound of it. Yet these are admin-type tasks, which I have been doing diligently.

Furthermore, how come thanks and endorsements (e.g. barnstars) from experienced users/admins don't get a mention in the process. Surely, this is the trust and acceptance by the community that one is looking for?


 * Regards Tyrenius 16:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mainly because anyone can give a barnstar for any reason at any time. There's no standards. I've received barnstars of which I was pleased and ones that I was totally confused about. They don't matter for much. Their main purpose is really just for one editor to tell another that they are doing something right. But, that's not always the case.
 * When I do a nomination for someone, I do take the time to review their edits, looking at how often they've done reversions, their distrition and rationality of votes on AfD, reviewing every user talk page edit they've made for evidence of incivility or lack of understanding of standards, and much, much more. I've nominated seven people, with six of them being reviewed against substantial standards that I developed for nominations that I make. All seven have been successful. Unfortunately, doing one of these reviews takes a minimum of two hours. I just don't have the time to do that for every candidate I see up on RfA. As a result, my standards for voting on RfAs are lower than for nominating, but I still take time to do them. Mostly, by the time I could get around to do them the fate of the RfA has already been sealed. I never vote just to pile on as it's pointless and wasteful of time.
 * Few people have the time to do a serious review as above. As a result, they fall back to the next best tools that are available to them. What they are doing with edit counting isn't wrong per se; most people are just doing the best they can with the limited tools and time they have. Some people just vote to vote. Regardless, there's not much we can do to change that.
 * RfA as it stands does a pretty decent job of filtering out candidates that really aren't suited to the job. Flipping that around, it does a somewhat good job of promoting those that are ready. In some cases, it does a poor job in that area. But, to correct that, people can apply for adminship as often as they like. Thus, if the system fails once, wait a month and it's likely to self-correct itself. --Durin 19:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

505
So how far do I need to change an image to make it a new image? and in addition, I cannot find an copyright or a TM anywhere for that design (which would be in the class constitution (but I can't find it else where too)). Wouldn't that make it public domain anyway? I'm trying to do this for all boat classes, but trying to do it carefully and wiki-like.

I've sailed the 5-0 but it is too expensive of a boat for me to do on a regualr basis. Minnesota1 16:57, 31 March 2006


 * Even when a copyright or trademark notice is not associated with a work, it must be presumed that it exists. A couple of years back, another dinghy class (Star, Finn, something...don't remember) took a shirt making company to court and won because that company was using their class logo. So, in general, Wikipedia always presumes something is copyrighted unless it is specifically stated that it isn't, or it is licensed in a matter compatible with use on Wikipedia. In the case of the 505 logo, fair use policy allows us to use it on the article about 505s. Similarly, you can use logos from any class association for articles about that boat class and/or association. --Durin 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for the help man. Minnesota1 18:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfB headers/footers
Earlier today I was going to add those to the Essjay RfB, but then I noticed that unlike the RfAs the old RfBs are sans headers/footers. Do you think they should be added? NoSeptember  talk  22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably. It's not big deal if they aren't, but if you want to go through and do the ~50, go for it. I figured I'd get around to eventually when I was seriously bored :) --Durin 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination statistics
Hey for those nomination percentage statistics you were compiling, are you counting self-noms as well? &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 11:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Of course, with three or more RfA noms, they'd have to have at least two non-self noms (this is the 100%ers) --Durin 12:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Untagged images.
Dear Durin: Thank you for your message about untagged images. The ones in question have been replaced with better (clearer, etc.) images, and when I discard an image, I often remove the tag to guarantee that it will be deleted. Why? Because if I happen to find an even better image of the subject one day, the former image's title is free to reuse. That's just me trying to be tidy, and I'm sorry if it caused you inconvenience. But if you notice on the images in question, none are currently posted on a site, and each says "DELETE" where the tag would normally go. Good luck with your mission. --Hugh Manatee 15:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were requested to be deleted but not by you. That's why I removed the request, because it was claimed to be by the author and seemed invalid. So, I removed the delete request and placed the nosource/nolicense tags and prompted you to get more information. Both of the images in question are not used anywhere; if you want me to delete them, I will. --Durin 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User page deletion
It's probably better to move the page before you delete it - deleting a heavily linked-to page is apparently a bad thing for the servers. In addition, if you want to hide the page history, it's good to actually hide it. My suggestion would be move, delete, recreate, and then move the recreated page back. Then there aren't 400 deleted versions just begging a person to look at and see why they were deleted ;) Guettarda 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Kind of after the fact now. Oh well. :/ --Durin 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
Hi. I noted your response. However a different interpretation of the fair use policy is available. The fair use tags and fair use laws state that the images can be used in a context of identification. All of the fair use images on my page are in accord with that policy as no "free" version is currently available for any of the remaining fairuse images on the page.Gateman1997 16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Gateman1997, thank you for your response. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this. While different interpretations may or may not be valid, the Wikimedia Foundation has taken a firm stance against fair use images being used in userspace. Please see the policy I noted above. With particular respect to your claim, that policy states "All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided". Therefore, while your claim of fair use might be legal, it's proscribed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Therefore, the images need to be removed from your babel subpage. Thanks, --Durin 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think that's just copyright paranoia. But to avoid any conflicts I've removed them until a policy change is effected.Gateman1997 16:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One left; the Giants logo. --Durin 16:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Gateman1997 16:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it
... and I replied to your email :) Renata 23:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing habits
Durin, have you done any studies on the changes in editing habits of guys who are predominantly editors (and not predominantly vandalfighters), before and after they become admins ? Tintin (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, sorry I haven't. --Durin 13:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Monroe County Airport
Ever flown out of there? I have. Cook truly does dominate that airport. I feel the term is extremely accurate. At one point, Cook was going to run ATC at that airport. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have flown out of there on multiple occasions. Yes, they do dominate operations there. I still feel the word "dominate" is too strong of a word for an encyclopedia entry. --Durin 15:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA edit count graph
Could you redo the graph to plot all actual admins as a scatter plot, with the average passing through it? I would be interested to see the lowest numbers of edit that actually successfully become admins. Stevage 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for butting in but i am interested why you want to find out this figure? At the other end of the scale a massive number of edits from a user can lead to a massive number of support votes. See a curret RfA for CSCWEM. The reliance on edit count is quite disturbing given that CSCWEM has little interaction with users on talk pages. It seems quite possible that users with relatively low edit counts have more experience than CSCWEM with respect to being an admin and yet their RfA's would undoubtly fail due to low edit counts (and this is probably right).  It seems voting in rfa should be more about quality but the more we consider edit counts the more arbitrary the RfA process becomes. Just my 2 cents.


 * As an aside, is there any way to represent quality of edits graphilcally? Excluding revert type edits might be one possible solution. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok guys, one I'm not sure of the need for the graph Stevage is asking for. Two, this discussion is more appropriate at WT:RFA :) Three, I agree that edit counting is a very poor metric of determining quality of a candidate. Four, no there is no way to represent quality of edits graphically. Quality is 100% subjective. There's no way to measure it in this context without strictly defining what parameters quality means in this context. Any such parameters in this context are going to be rather arbitrary. --Durin 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, I know, wrong place to reply, but what about taking the smallest diff (total chars) between an edit and the edits by say the last three users? This would tend to eliminate reverts and would give a quantitative figure for average edit size that could roughly be used as a qualitative measure of edits. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Word of advice
Don't play the dupe in that twisted leprechaun's cyberstalking. By the way, since I see you like sailing, I wrote the article about the greatest yacht designer of all time: Nathanael Herreshoff. --Hugh Manatee 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Twisted leprechaun's cyberstalking? Huh? --Durin 21:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA graphs
Hi Durin - good work with those graphs. Have you got time to do one more...? :) I notice that the Number of RfAs per week over time has been increasing at about the same rate that the Success rate of RfAs over time has been decreasing. I think a graph of Number of successful RfAs per week over time would be a very informative addition. I suspect that you'd find that - irrespective of the number of nominations - the number of promotions to adminship has stayed almost exactly constant. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  01:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. See Image:SuccessfulRfAsPerWeek.png. It's trended up slightly, but you're right, averaged out it's virtually flat at 10-11 successful RfAs per week. --Durin 14:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks very much - pretty much as I suspected. Its interesting that it should have remained that stable when the number of rfa candidates has varied so much! Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  02:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Out (website)
I completely agree with you if those claims were cited any the article didn't read like a PR release. All it talks about are its free services, boasts its membership and even its charitable contributions! I have taken you advice and AfD's it. Hope that's cool :) - Gl e n T C 13:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine. Understand that articles are in constant state of development. Articles that have been around a long time are usually pretty complete. New articles share no such luxuries. Thus, this new article could become something considerably more substantial, and less like a PR release. Given that the website the article is about has claims to notability, I think something more could be done with the article. --Durin 13:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally agree and if you check out its AfD page I have given the contributor some advice. I'm pretty certain he'll scrub it up quite nicely. - Gl e n T C 14:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

fair use..
Hii...

I noticed that you removed an image of the simpsons... from my user page....i really didnt understand why you removed it and didnt realize that all the immages of simpsons were fair use....i realized that just now.... can you tell me which images of the simpsons i can use on my user page? Thanks a lot!! Cheers! Jayant, 17 Years, India  • contribs 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you because I don't know. If you find one that's not tagged with a fair use tag, then feel free to use it. --Durin 21:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh...i'll start searching right away!! and please tell me if you find any images without the tag... Thanks a lot!! Jayant, 17 Years, India  • contribs 21:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Yeah sorry I lost my cool. I meant to apologize earlier. No hard feelings I hope. I appreciate your hard work and continued dedication. Thanks again.

Speedy deletion and blocks are needed
Earlier today, you SD'd a page called Salom which was heavily connected to the page J-Stylez. However, the latter page has continually had its SD template removed as vandalism. Could you please speedy delete J-Stylez and put a discretionary block on the IP and sockpuppets that the user has edited with. As you can see, I've done my best to abide by process, but I'm just annoyed/frustrated at this point. Thanks in advance for the help. &rarr; \\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\ &#149; 07:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC) This was just taken care of. If there're no blocks put in place, could you please look into it?
 * The situation seems to have calmed down now. If it fires back up, let me know. --Durin 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair use images
Sorry about that; I really should have read the policy before making the hasty reversions. -- WGee 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. --Durin 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You have got new mail
Please check your inbox and happy Easter! Renata 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Calgary Highlanders image
Template:User_Calgary_Highlander I want an explanation on why you just butchered my infobox. Michael Dorosh 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First, it isn't "your" infobox. As an editor of Wikipedia, once you click "save page" you release any rights to your submissions under the terms of GFDL. Second, I removed Image:Ca-calhd.gif from the userbox because the image is tagged with logo which is a fair use tag. Specifically, this places legal restrictions on the use of the image. More directly, Wikipedia policy (see WP:FUC #9) as set by the Wikimedia Foundation on this point proscribes the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. Thus, use on userboxes (template namespace) intended for use on userpages (user namespace) is not permitted. This policy is not negotiable and must be adhered to for the protection of the project against copyright infringement claims. If you have further questions on this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 19:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)



Fair use warning page
I have always made my best effort to remove fair use images from user pages when I see them. I have, as you, gotten a very mixed reaction. Some say "aw, shucks, sorry" and others respond as if I had mortally wounded them personally. I was wondering if I might be able to either point to your explanation page in my edit summaries or make some semblance of it in my user space to refer to. I really appreciate your efforts in this matter, and I hope to hear back from you soon. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 22:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It might even be worth creating an explanation page at Fairuse Image Removal and creating some templates. --Doc ask?  23:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a great idea to me. Feel free to pillage User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for any potentially useful text for the page. To both of you; thanks for the encouragement. I've received mixed reactions too, and getting the negativity from some respondents is a real downer when you're doing something you feel is helpful to the project. So, thanks for the thanks!Doc; nice barnstar :) You should make it official! And, thanks for giving it to me :) --Durin 00:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I get the potential issue with fair-use images in sigs (though Croat Canuck never raised this as a potential issue when I was asking him about my sig initially), but if images are the server strain you argue it is in your post on my talk page, why is anyone allowed to have any? Right above me, CC had a pair in there, and no one seems to have given him any problems. Am I home and cool if I replace my Oilers and Canadiens logos with, say, Alberta and Canada flags? Or will those, in time, be pulled as well?
 * Also, if you're going to pull fair-use images, the least you can do is pull the whole tag so it doesn't look like ass. I mean, let's be a little more lazy here. Doogie2K (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Images in signature. It's not proscribed; you can have them if you want. I'm just noting it creates an additional strain on the already strained image servers. If we had plenty of capacity on our image servers, it wouldn't be a problem at all. You can place Alberta and Canada flags if you like. Those are most likely not fair use images. Re: pulling the whole tag; I tend to leave them in cases like that because it highlights to the user that a deletion occurred, so they can take appropriate-to-them action which could be removing the tag, replacing the image that was in the tag with an image that is allowed to be in userspace, or something else entirely. I don't dictate to people what tags they can have. I only remove the offending images. It's not up to me to decide what they want to do with the page after the image has been removed. So, call it consideration rather than laziness. If I was lazy, I wouldn't be removing the fair use images to begin with :) --Durin 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Userpage
Sorry about blowing up earlier, it's just that those images have been up for over a month and only now are they removed, so that's what irked me. And yes, I don't like that rogue "administrator" going around and acting malicious. Also, for Internet Explorer somebody named Malo has blocked me, even though any other troubles have been resolved. In fact all I can think about was the spat on my userpage. I have not vandalized anything else, nor is my intention to. I was wondering if you could remove the block. Thanks. -Kingsean1


 * Regardless of how long an image has been improperly used, it still requires being fixed to eliminate copyright violations. I am unclear as to what you are identifying as being rogue administrator behavior. In looking at the block logs for you, I don't see any blocks . Since you are able to post to this talk page, it appears you are not blocked anymore. It might have been possible that you were finding yourself blocked as a result of an administrator blocking an anonymous IP because of behavior on the part of the person operating from that anonymous IP, and you happened to pick up that IP after that person was done with it...depends on your ISP/connection setup. --Durin 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I note that you created Requests for adminship/Kingsean1. At this time, you have less than 400 edits. Since June 27, 2005 there have been just three admins created from users who had less than 1,000 edits at the time they made a request for adminship. The lowest of these had more than twice the number of edits you currently have. You may wish to review some of the charts at User:Durin/Admin charts, in particular Image:SuccessRatevsEditsatRfA.png. According to that chart, tour chances of success will be at their best after you clear 2,000 edits. All the best, --Durin 17:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be a little bit more careful :)
Re: template user RCSI

Do you think you could be a tiny bit more careful and replace the removed image with some text instead of a '? (just for the future, I've corrected it this time) :P Thanks. —   <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:navy; font-size:small;"> nath  a  nrdotcom  ( T •  C  • W)</b> 23:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see this. It applies to textual replacements as well. --Durin 03:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Confused?
I'm confused. I don't know what article you're referring to, as your message does not say. I think you're getting me confused with another user, as I neither use images, nor would I do so without permission of the copyright holder. Agendum 22:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You had a fair use image on your userpage in one of your userboxes. I removed it. --Durin 22:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA Charts
Ok, bugging you about charts again, since I'm getting increasingly concerned by the current data. So I was wondering if you might when you have time 1) extend the various charts time slots out(especially "Number of successful RfAs per week") 2) Let me know on "Average edit count of RfAs over time" what the calculated R values were? (And if you don't have time/ don't want to/whatever, feel free to ignore this). Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The R values aren't strong. There's just not enough data points. I'll extend the charts at some point, but not today or early next week. So you know, I'm currently working on collecting data on every single RfA that's ever been posted to WP:RFA. This dates back to June 2003. I've not made a ton of progress yet. I'm in mid-July right now, and 28 completed RfAs so far. There's still roughly 370 to go to catch up to June 23, 2005 which is when I began collecting. Once I have this data, the trends will be considerably more definitive. --Durin 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is any way I can assist with data collection, let me know. JoshuaZ 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's mind numbingly monotonous, and I'd love the help. Problem is, it's difficult to coordinate. --Durin 13:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok Ok...
Ok ok... I understood, but this is ridiculous in my "humble" opinion. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#050">Marcelo</b> 21:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hypothesis unable to test
One hypothesis (which is untestable) is that the voters on RFA have changed. I have noticed that the general voting public seems to shift around a lot, including a small group of hardcore returning voters, and a large group of aspinring admins and friends. It'd be cool to test whether the average edit count of the voters is changing, though I admit, it might be taking things a bit too far ;-) Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 07:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor RfA
Would it make sense to note that the is was restarted by the 'Crat? The circumstances were a bit odd. JoshuaZ 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Done. --Durin 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted page
Hi.

Apparently you deleted my band's page, Shima_(band).

Please tell me why. We ARE a real band, you know, and we ARE working on an album which WILL be released in a matter of weeks. Just because we're not from the US doesn't mean we don't exist. Have you heard of "Europe"? It's a magical place somewhere outside the US.

Regards, Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondal (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2006


 * Please see Notability (music). Your band does not meet any of the criteria listed under "Musicians and ensembles". This has nothing to do with where you or I are from. This has nothing to do with whether the band exists or not. --Durin 21:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Userpage.
Nice userpage. ;) Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use for Template:User McMaster userbox
I noticed you removed the image in regards to the problem of "fairuse" images for userboxes. I have read your article further explaining the issue and whether it may contribute to a copywrite violation. Do you have a suggestion for a suitable replacement licence for that logo? I checked other useboxes and they fall under the same licences but are not removed, why? I.e. Template:User Queen's University and Template:User UWO. YCCHAN 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They've yet to be removed because we can't do all the thousands of pieces of work all at once :) The coatofarms tag really isn't a license tag, and as I think you agree (?) it needs a different tag altogether. I don't have a suggestion for one; most seals/coats of arms are protected by one form of copyright or another. I think it's best to assume fair use, barring any rationale for them not being fair use. I have run across the rare case where coat of arms are permitted beyond fair use. The case in particular dealt with the Canadian Armed Forces and their copyright stance with regards to unit coats of arms. It's a case by case basis and learning who holds copyright to a given seal/coat of arms, then determining what their usage policy is. --Durin 18:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand if you say "it is best to assume fair use" but you removed it with a comment "removing fair use image(s)". YCCHAN 18:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, allow me to clarify. It's best to assume the use of it is permitted here under the terms of fair use, which precludes its use in userspace and templates. --Durin 18:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. The problem is, the McMaster crest/logo is linked to many pages. As pointed out by you, coatofarms alone is not sufficient for userspace and templates but is fine for wikipedia articles. As a result, changing the licence would be suitable in one case but not for the other? YCCHAN 16:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Think before you act
Please take a second to really think why it is wrong to remove Socialist International logo from userpages and userboxes. I know you are smart and I'm really trying to enhance my calm, but what I'm about to say really ought to be obvious to anyone who has had even a mediocre high-school education. That is: Socialists don't believe in intellectual property "rights". IP "rights" are fundamentally opposite of our political ideology. It is germane to point out that a bulk of the parties which make up SI have been at the forefront of fighting digital patents and digital rights management in Europe. Just because somebody chose the wrong copyright template doesn't give you an excuse to be intellectually lazy. Before you remove, please think first and use a little common sense. It is incumbent on you to at least do a cursory verification of the copyright type (if you look closely at SI's website you will find no ©, ®, or TM anywhere). I haven't checked, but I surely hope you haven't done the same thing with any of the Marxist or communist content. I know you are trying your best, all I'm asking is for a little care. Thank you. --Dragon695 01:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether there are any ©, ®, or TM marks anywhere on their website or not, without there being an intentional release of their copyrights to materials generated by them, we here at Wikipedia do not have leave to violate their copyright even if we think they wouldn't mind. Lack of stating copyright does not mean an organization does not claim copyright. Unless you can find an intentional release of copyrights on their website that stipulates this image has been released from their copyrights, then the logo tag most definitely applies, and as a result the image may not be used in template and userspace. Given that no such release has at this time been found to clear the image of these concerns, I acted entirely properly in removing that image from a number of templates. I have reverted your changes which re-included Image:Red carnation.png into a template, and your change to Image:Red carnation.jpg. Until such time as you positively verify the copyright status of the image, the logo tag is entirely appropriate. If/when you find such a release, I will gladly support the change so long as their release is cited and verifiable.
 * I also note that you twice reverted my supposed vandalism of User:BD2412 userpage where I removed three fair use images from his userpage. What I did was not vandalism. Re-including fair use images is, according to the two ArbCom members whom I have discussed this with, is vandalism if you know about the fair use policy governing the use of these images. Since I have cited WP:FUC to you prior to this, I assume you do know about this policy but if you do not please read it now. Do not put fair use images into template or userspace. --Durin 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are aware that User:BD2412 is a professional intellectual property attourney in located Florida? I think he knows the law down there better then anyone else on wikipedia, including Jimbo. Most institutions, include the ones he was a member of, allow their faculty, students, and alumni to use their logos on personal webpages, which is what a userpage is. However, as I responded on my talkpage, I discussed this all later that night on irc and agreed to concede to your demands. I still feel strongly that some common sense ought to apply. --Dragon695 02:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I've been in violation WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL, it was not intended. --Dragon695 02:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I noted on Bo's talk page, it is not just a matter of law. The Wikimedia Foundation has established a policy proscribing the use of fair use images in userspace, even if it is legally justifiable to use such images. In abstract, this makes a great deal of sense. Rather than have all manner of legal justifications (which may or may not be supported in law) surrounding individual cases, it is better to have a blanket policy that proscribes such use especially since the number of cases where the legal justifications would be valid is a small subset of all potential cases. The common sense I am abiding by is Wikimedia Foundation policy. I understand you disagree with the policy. There are policies here that I also find have shortcomings. Regardless, it does not give either of us leave to violate those policies as we are working towards a common good.
 * I would also like to make it clear to you that your understanding of what a userpage is as being a personal webpage is flawed. Userpages most definitely are not personal webpages. Quoting from User page, "It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider". Further quoting from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet". --Durin 03:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I know that. But we all know, especially at Esperanza's encouragement, that people have been investing a lot of time in making elaborate userpages. For better or for worse, that rule is kind of moot. My point was that userpages are not going to be distributed (it would be a colossal waste of space) in any published form, so for all intents and purposes, they are personal. Now if we could only reform our talk page system so it would be less wiki-like and more phpbb-like... --Dragon695 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza is not part of Wikipedia's policy-making or enforcement apparatus. Wikipedia policy is enforced by administrators. No part of Wikipedia belongs to you. --Tony Sidaway 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding fair use
Sir, I see that you are very active regarding removal of fair use images from user spaces, etc. I have also noticed that copyright infringement remains blatant on Wikipedia through such practices, more often not because of deliberate actions of the users but because of their ignorance of law. Now, I suppose, that you might agree with me stating that copyright infringements threaten the existence of the encyclopedia. I would like to propose that fair use images should never be allowed to enter user space by making certain amends to the Wiki functioning, that will not allow the use of an image (which is copyrighted), ie. tagged by a Non-free fair use in or any other fair use tag for use on user/user talk pages. The What links here section clearly shows, where a copyrighted image is being used on a userpage, like if an image is used on userspace it will clearly show that its linked to User:Anirudhsbh, for instance. The User part can be easily used to distinguish usage of the image on Article space or user space. Please instruct me as to where I should post my concerns, so that it becomes easier for administrators to regulate fair use images on the encyclopedia. Kindly acknowledge my post. Regards, -- Andy123  (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have had very similar thoughts to yours, that it might be beneficial to have a feature in the wiki software that would prevent certainly classes of images from being used anywhere other than the main article namespace. The one drawback that I see is that unscrupulous copyright violators would intentionally tag copyrighted images improperly with tags allowing their use outside of the main article namespace. I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. I don't know right off where to bring up this feature request. I'd suggest you post the query at Village pump. You're certain to get a response from someone who has a better idea of the answer to that question than I for feature requests. --Durin 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BEANS... —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Nod. Better that things be tagged correctly than incorrectly.  + + Lar: t/c 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop spreading FUD. Are there some copyvio's? Yes. Is it a crisis? No. Like everything, it will be delt with in time. --Dragon695 04:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't a matter of fear or anything else like that. The fact is, a number of editors are spending time trying to undo the fair use violations by a number of editors who are trying to use fair use images in improper ways. That's a lot of wasted time that could be spent building the encyclopedia. --Durin 12:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing
Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Fr a ncs2000 09:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ICQ logo
So, why the image was not deleted yet? I would like to use that until it happens.

--Osias 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't any reason to delete the image. Per our policies here, fair use images may be used in articles specifically relating to logo's origin. For example, currently Image:ICQ Logo.gif is used in the ICQ. This is entirely appropriate and permitted. What is not permitted is to use the image outside of the main article namespace, per the policy stated at Fair use criteria #9. Thus, you may not use the image on your userpages. Thanks, --Durin 01:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider such policy an absurd, I don't know who voted for this and I can't see how an ICQ user is not allowed to spread the product logo on his page(publicity), even without fair use doctrine. Think about it: why the hell Mirabilis would sue us for that?
 * But I give up. Wikipedia is full of contradictions, one more like that... one less... whatever!
 * Osias 14:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(three-->four)
When I saw that edit summary, I had high hopes of some tasty vandalism! (I have 3 vandalisations to my user page so far... all from friends) but no, it was just a mundane correction. Thanks for that, i GUESS. I'm trying to get over my editcountitis, (ha!) so you are not helping! Grin. PS I moved all my userboxes and flags off the front page but didn't get rid of them. How's the page load time now? Seemed better to me.  + + Lar: t/c 14:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hello, just thought you should know that a user you warned on the 20th of April has been causing trouble again, blanking Gary Neville and Rio Ferdinand. His IP is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:195.188.141.162 HornetMike 12:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Email
So I guess you are still not checking your email, huh? Renata 04:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right :) I've also been away for a few days. I'll check it tomorrow, when I have a bit more time on my hands. --Durin 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed RfAs
Hey. Thanks for fixing up the recently closed RfAs that I appear to have botched. I was reading the instructions on WP:BCRAT and noticed the new ones about 'ending -> ended' and 'Vote here -> Final' etc. and went back to fix mine and noticed you got to a lot of them already :) &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  01:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy to serve :) Also, please subst the headers and footers :) --Durin 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A userbox has been removed from my userpage
Hello,

I noticed that you have removed a userbox from my userpage. I am not upset or anything. I am just wondering why you removed it. Was it a violation of some sort for me to use it?

Thanks.

C&amp;R 05:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reading I have come to the conclusion that it was possibly removed because of the image in the userbox. Was there a problem with the image? That might also explain why the image disappeared a few weeks ago from the other CLE userbox that I have.

C&amp;R 05:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The image that I removed, Image:Cle.gif, is tagged with a fair use tag. Wikipedia policy as described at Fair use criteria, prohibits the use of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace. Userspace usage of fair use images is not permitted. This is why it was removed from your userpage. If you have further questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 22:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WTF mate?!
What the ****?! I didn't request you to delete my user page! Are you on crack?

Please restore it, that was really hard to make!

Flameviper12 15:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. There are times that the server, for reasons unknown to me, tags some pages as being candidates for speedy deletion. This may have been what lead me to delete your userpage. Alternatively, I could have simply made an error when flipping between tabs on my browser. Either way, I apologize for the error. The page has been restored. --Durin 22:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy that was weird. All right, well at least it got restored...all forgiven. Thanks. Flameviper12 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

vicrovers logo
G'day,

I'm the Chairman of VicRovers. Our logo has not been copywrited. Can we not ehn use it as we please, such as for a template? Cheers,

Patrick McCormick VicRovers Chairman www.vicrovers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmc82 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 May 2006
 * If you send me an e-mail to wikidurin@hotmail.com from an e-mail address obviously associated with Victorian Rovers, then yes I would be happy to change the licensing tag on Image:Rovers-Victoria.jpg to a tag that would allow its use as you indicate. --Durin 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WTC7
There's just got to be a way we can come to a compromise here. Will you accept a link to an alternate POV site if we can find one which isn't over-commercial? Or is your stance an absolutist one? Because it seems to me you have changed the basis we were arguing on in the article's talk page. Have a think about it and let me know. I do not have any particular POV on this but my stance is that s a point of principle, common sense and (I would argue) Wiki policy, there just has to be a link of some kind there. Once we can agree on that it just becomes a problem of finding the right link, you see... Guinnog 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never argued against the POV. I've argued against the link to wt7.net and later whatreallyhappened.com, and have been consistent in my opposition to them based on Wikipedia guidelines. My arguments against them are on the talk page of the article. In short, find a sight that doesn't violate copyright, does not have false authority, and is not overtly trying to sell something. --Durin 12:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. In that case, it should be possible to solve this argument without resorting to mediation I think.Guinnog 17:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's unlikely that it will not escalate. I have no interest in seeing it escalate, but there has been a distinct lack of capability on the part of both parties in this situation to come to any middle ground.
 * Regarding the POV's notability, I don't think we've established that it is or is not a notable POV. There's plenty of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. This is not surprising given the dramatic, unprecedented nature of the events on that day. Humans tend to look for astonishing answers to astonishing situations, rather than find solace in the mundane answers that might be reality. One of the conspiracy theories out there is that WTC 1/2 came down as a result of a nuclear bomb that was blown up at some depth beneath the towers. The claim of that theory is that the buildings "jumped" before they fell, and the only way that could happen is a very large force from beneath them. An astonishing answer to an astonishing situation. Is it a notable POV? From what I've seen, it isn't...but I'm not the final arbiter on what is notable by any means. I think the determination has to lie somewhere in other means, and to help that we need independently verifiable evidence that a POV has significant notability to it.
 * It might come as a surprise, but in this project we are not after the truth, first and foremost (see Verifiability). I personally do not think there's any basis in reality for concluding that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished. There's a huge, huge amount of evidence which completely undermines that flawed notion, even without a final report (as yet) from NIST. But, this theory being flawed or not is not a basis for including or not including it here on Wikipedia. Is it verifiable and is it notable? That's the criteria. We can certainly verify that this POV exists (and we can also verify that the notion of nuclear bombs under WTC that day is verifiable), but we also need to verify that it is notable. That sets it up for inclusion; from there we need to then follow guidelines for inclusion, which wtc7.net does not pass (nor does whatreallyhappened.com).
 * We include information here at Wikipedia on Chemtrail theory, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and TWA 800. All of those conspiracy theories I find (and the mass majority as well) to be crackpot 'science', with little basis in reality. But, I would mightily defend the presence of information on these conspiracy theories here on Wikipedia. They are notable and verifiable. There's no questioning that they are. For WTC 7 being intentionally demolished, I think we've yet to prove if its notable or not on its own. What is notable enough is whether people thought there was government collusion in one form or another regarding 9/11. Breaking it down from that, we get significant factionalization of the varying conspiracy theories; supposedly unmarked 767s, United 93 being shot down, no plane hitting the Pentagon, F-15s being told to stand down, SAM sites being turned off, nuclear bombs beneath the towers, demolition charges inside WTC 1,2, and 7, no muslims onboard any of the hijacked planes, all of the terrorists being reported alive, jews being warned before hand, muslims celebrating the fall of the towers watching from New Jersey, a trial in a nearby court house being disrupted by the 9/11 events, nefarious trading on the stock exchange in the 48 hours leading up to 9/11, and on...and on...and on. It virtually doesn't end. Sifting through all of that and finding what is and is not notable is difficult at best.
 * I don't personally know how notable the theory that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished is. So far, the only sites that I have seen fronting this theory have been hawking books, DVDs, t-shirts, etc. They also, to a site, use supposedly authoritative sources but none of them do. I remember one site (not the ones we're discussing here) that cited a professor as an authority figure who turned out to be (this is no joke) a professor of leisure and entertainment. I'm not making this up. The existence of such sites does not lend credibility to the idea that this theory is notable, in fact rather the opposite in my mind.
 * So, I think we need to find if this theory on WTC 7 being intentionally demolished is notable. I grant that is subjective, and there's plenty of room for argument, but it is a necessary step. Once that is done, then whatever site(s) we use to illustrate that POV needs to pass our inclusion guidelines. Then we will, I think, have achieved a happy neutral zone. However, I hope rather than believe the existing parties in this debate are capable of reaching that compromise.
 * I fully expect User:Hyperbole to file an RfC against me because of either intentional or unintentional misconstrueing of my intent. He insists that I have been defending a POV when I most definitely have not. I can easily prove this, and even he agrees in one post of his that I wasn't. It is going to go poorly for him if he does bring this to RfC. I don't want to see that happen. I really don't. But, at this time, I think it's a foregone conclusion that he is going to take it to RfC.
 * I don't know if the above has helped, but thanks for listening. --Durin 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message regarding 7 World Trade Center. I agree that the discussion has become hopelessly deadlocked. I also feel, as you know, very strongly that the controlled demolition POV is highly notable, that WP:EL requires a link to it, and that all the links previously submitted have been acceptable by normal Wikipedia standards. As I'm sure you can tell, the exclusion of those links has really been bothering me.

Given that you've agreed not to use your administrator powers in connection with that article, but instead to refer any problems requiring administrative action to an administrator not involved in the dispute, I have decided not to file an RfC against you. I think that this arrangement adequately resolves the problem, and that an RfC would therefore be pointless. Again, thank you for coming up with this course of action, and for your courteous message. --Hyperbole 21:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for replying. (Do you normally reply on your own talk page btw? I'd probably find it easier if you could reply on mine, though I don't feel strongly about it.) It seems to me there are three threads here, which we had best unpick if we can. These are


 * 1) Your (and Mongo's, which I recognise is slightly different, but recognisably similar) POV that the WTC7 (let's keep it to that please; the main towers, nuclear bombs, laser guided 757s and so on you note above are really a separate issue) was definitely destroyed by the rather vaguely described mechanisms in the FEMA report.
 * 2) Your query over whether the alternate view that the building was destroyed in a controlled way, is notable
 * 3) Your (I would say over-zealous) application of Wiki policy on external links to prevent any but the building's official site being linked from the Wiki article

Now, without any accusation of bad faith here, I feel that 2 and 3 seem dependent on 1. I can see that this is a sensitive issue, but I think that particualrly some of Mongo's statements show that he seems to regard the exclusion of links to alternate theories a sacred quest (or a 'mission statement' as he puts it). Wikipedia is not a memorial, and even if it was, I would have thought that honouring the truth would be a better way to remember the dead (am I right to say that nobody died in WTC7, btw?) than censoring the page. It looks censored to me at present, which was what brought me to the talk page in the first place.

Remembering that "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence", according to FEMA, I think weakens your argument on 1 above. If there was an established and credible cause, I would have more sympathy. I am baffled as to why the Popular Mechanics link is also seemingly deemed unacceptable, as it provides the best arguments I have seen for the official story, although without any real supporting evidence (this may of course be because the evidence was never collected and is now lost, in which case the real cause may never be known, which is strange and noteworthy in its own right).

As to 2, you seem to be changing tack. You say above that "I've never argued against the POV", but then later that "I think we need to find if this theory on WTC 7 being intentionally demolished is notable". Have you changed your mind?

I took you seriously when you said you had nothing against the POV being expressed. I spent an hour googling and the link I suggested 911 Research seemed like a decent source, in that it is reasonably well-written and cites its sources. I would certainly have no qualms in including links like this in editing Wiki.

I think then that 3 above is indefensible, especially in the light of 1 and 2. I don't agree that it is a breach of policy; it is considerably less commercial, for example, than news sources and other verifiable sources that we all use continually.

I am as keen as you to avoid mediation; maybe if you can answer the points above we can somehow move this forward. Guinnog 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One, in general my position on the article is rather radically different than MONGO's. My position on the POV of what happened to WTC 7 is completely irrelevant to this dispute; it has no bearing on my actions or what I think should or should not be in the article. As I noted above, Wikipedia is *not* about truth, it's about verifiability and notability.
 * Two, a heated revert warring was going on. I attempted to stop it with rationale and a poll to gain consensus. This was ineffective. Since the revert warring continued apace, I as an administrator stepped in to stop in. With the exception of a few additional reverts over a new link, the revert war stopped. You can call that over zealous if you like. The result was that the revert warring stopped, and people are doing what should be done...discussing it on the talk page. The outcome was precisely what was needed.
 * Three, you are correct; nobody died in the collapse of WTC 7. Or at least, so far as we know. There were efforts on the part of FDNY that day to ensure the building was evacuated.
 * Four, since I am not arguing in favor of one POV or another, FEMA's interim conclusions on the matter in so far as they apply to my position are irrelevant.
 * Five, I have taken no position regarding the Popular Mechanics article.
 * Six, not arguing against the POV and requesting that determination of a POV's notability are not mutually exclusive. Consider the difference between "The notion that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished is flawed" and "Is the demolition theory notable enough for inclusion?" are radically different statements. In the former case, it's not something I've used to direct me in any way regarding the content of the article. In the latter, I have asked that question because it is a question Wikipedia asks us to ask prior to including such links. I haven't changed my mind on this in any respect; the two points are simply not mutually exclusive.
 * Seven, the site you referenced, as I noted elsewhere, is immediately attempting to sell something; a book based on the website. Further, every image in that presentation is unattributed, and violates copyright if only for that reason alone. If something is used under fair use, credit should be given but none has been given. The site violates copyright. Further, there's no basis in authority for the site, and we have as yet no assertion that the POV of WTC 7 being intentionally demolished is notable enough for inclusion.
 * Eight, the difference between the sites we're debating and sites like cnn.com is that cnn.com isn't trying to get you to buy a book about 9/11. The sites that have been put forth so far are doing precisely that, which makes them objectionable as external links.
 * Lastly, I've offered a potential way out of this morass at Talk:7_World_Trade_Center. Feel free to agree/disagree. --Durin 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your good input. I appreciate your courtesy and good faith. I read that you are keeping an eye on this. Please accept that I too am editing in good faith. I only got involved because I saw what looked like censorship at work. My POV on this is that the degree of mystery about this building's collapse, years after the event, is weird however you look at it. I don't believe for a moment any of the laser-guided 757 theories about the WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon etc. But if a steel framed building could fall down after seemingly minor fires, and the evidence not properly collected from the scene of crime, surely that is noteworthy? And if the best we can do to reflect that is a link that you find unacceptable, would a summary of the info be any better? At the moment the article lacks either. I think we should have both an honest description of the mystery of the cause, and a link. My instinct is that a link, properly labelled as a POV one, will allow our readers to judge for themselves.
 * Anyway, thanks for reading, Guinnog 22:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:BladeRunner Deckard and Rachael.jpg
Wow... a great improvement. Noticed it immediately when skimming the article. Good work. - RoyBoy 800 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There's a number of images on that article that suffer the same problems. Some simple cleanup really improves them dramatically. I might get around to it eventually. --Durin 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. Behind. You.
yes, I'm around ;-) Kim Bruning 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA candidate being present for 7 days
Hello Durin. As a famous nominator of RfA candidates, I noticed that you noted that one should not accept an RfA at a given time unless one will be logged in regularly for those seven days. Speaking personally for myself, I don't have internet access on weekends, and I have stated this on my userpage for the whole of this year that I have certain hours of the day only when I am around. Is this a major problem? Regards,<span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Most new questions added on to RfAs happen within the first three days, and any commentary that needs to be responded to will most likely happen in that window as well. It'd be best if you could be around for the duration of the RfA, but if you must miss some days it's better to have those towards the end of the seven days rather than the beginning. So, I'd recommend in your case that you begin the RfA on a Monday or Tuesday, and at the latest a Wednesday. Hope that helps, --Durin 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to...
... nominate me for adminship?

I have read through your admin nomination standards page and feel that I measure up to the standard described therein.

I am a deletionist, but not strictly, having saved articles such as RightNow Technologies and Rake and trail from deletion. I am active in AfD, RfA and DYK. Occasionally I also scan for vandalism on recent changes using Lupin's vandal fighter, and watchlist these pages so that I can revert future vandalism. That said, I can't describe myself as a prolific vandal-fighter. My first edit was in June last year, with high activity from November on. I have been careful to warn vandals after reverting, and use edit summaries with every edit within the last 3 months. As for making articles, I've created 9 articles of which the last 6 have been on DYK.

However, I may still be looking at myself too highly, so I'd appreciate any decision you make. Thanks and regards, Kimchi.sg 09:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got one other person to nominate before you. Once I'm complete with that one, you'll be first on the list to review. --Durin 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

history of CGI in film entry
Hello,

I tried updating the History of CGI in Film entry today (twice) and you reverted it back (twice) despite my posting to the Talk page how a verifiable source said that something was incorrect.

I'm new to Wikipedia but I thought the idea behind the site was to keep things accurate, so why were my (correct) revisions removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnbc (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2006
 * Edits by anonymous IPs that are not sourced are frequently reverted. My initial reversion of the information was done correctly; it was not sourced and thus should have been reverted. You then posted to the talk page, and reposted the content. I was in error for not checking the talk page after your first inclusion of the information and my reversion. I've now reverted myself to your last version. All the best, --Durin 21:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Picsquare
Hi Durin,

Just wanted to understand why did the article get deleted once i posted it just now?

Thanks, --Kartik.jain 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alexa rank in excess of 200,000; unremarkable, non-notable website. You may wish to review Notability (web). There's no intent at deriding the site; just that it is not yet notable. --Durin 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Durin,
 * We are a start-up 5 months old. However, to give you some idea about the Picsquare, kindly visit the following link (we were featured in the San Jose Mercury News and Indiana Business Journal)
 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=mercurynews&p_multi=SJ|&p_product=SJ&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=Picsquare&s_dispstring=Picsquare%20AND%20date(last%20180%20days)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=-180qzD&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
 * http://www.ibj.com/html/story022006_2.html
 * I would appreciate if you could put up the article for Picsquare on wiki.
 * Thanks, Kartik --Kartik.jain 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Durin,
 * Did you get a chance to look at the links that I had mentioned?
 * Thanks, Kartik Kartik.jain 05:47, 17 May 2006


 * I'm comfortable with my decision to delete the article. If you check, you'll see that picsquare.com barely breaks into the top 300,000 websites. This makes it a rather non-notable website. The citations you noted in two press outlets buttress your position that it is notable, but I do not feel this is sufficient enough reason for inclusion. My basis on this is that the site is, as noted, a startup and has not yet gained sufficient traffic to be a site of considerable interest. If you disagree with this decision (and you're certainly welcome to! I'm just one person...), you can take the matter up at Deletion review. Alternatively, you can repost the article and it can be placed at Articles for deletion where its fate can be discussed by any interested party for a week. If there's any other way in which I can help, please don't hesitate to ask! Also, please sign your comments by appending a " ~ " on to the end of your comments. Thanks, --Durin 12:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Quake template image
Just wondering exactly where the image fails the fair use policy. The quake logo and indeed the cover has been released to the public previously. Reason I am asking is that there are many more under the Userboxes/Games section which use logos of the games they represent. Metroid, TES, Jax just to name a few so your modification seems inconsistent. Enigmatical 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Any image marked with a fair use tag may not be used in template or userspace. This is per WP:FUC #9. The existence of images in other userboxes that violate policy is not grounds for inclusion of other violations in userboxes. There are literally thousands upon thousands of userboxes. I am personally working through every one of them. But, this effort has taken two months already and will take more. By the time I am done, I am quite certain that a number of the boxes I previously checked will have violations in them again. Additionally, there will be plenty more new userboxes with these violations. Nevertheless, the work must be done and the presence of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is simply not permitted. --Durin 00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood, was just confused as to how you could change these when already existing ones were clearly evident and have been there for a very long time. Will keep this fact in mind for the future, many thanks. Enigmatical 05:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for reverting the edit someone made to an article I'm working on in my sandbox Tufflaw 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy pages
I do realize anyone can edit policy pages at present. I was referring (did you see me commenting on User:Talk?) to this: Wikipedia talk:Editing policy pages. Barring non-admins from editing policy is an explicit choice there. Marskell 22:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, do you have a comment for that page? I know you weigh things carefully. I'm really shocked: scratch beneath the surface, and lots of people want us to lock down pages. Marskell 22:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I saw it, but wanted more time to sift through it. If I can get some time, I'll weigh in. --Durin 22:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet revert war/related issues
I tried entering this on Pudgenet's talk page, but he reverted it. Regarding the Pudgenet situation, please note two things about Wikipedians with articles. The top of that project page says "Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work." In Brian D Foy's entry, I linked to to show the "blatantly inappropriate paragraph" (bottom right of the page). Given purpose of that project page, I think it's a helpful addition.

I italicized project page above to emphasize that it's not a Wikipedia article and different standards for entries apply. That's the second thing. here, Rob says "...the standard of verification is different. Article space requires independent proof they really are Wikipedians. The Wikipedia space list can be based largely on the say-so of the account holder, or what looks likely." However, I'd be glad to use the talk page for that project page to present evidence that Scarpia is Brian D Foy.

Now, how do I go about reinserting the Brian D Foy entry without getting you mad at me? -Barry- 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to follow up. I've been trying to keep up with User:-Barry-, but he's trying very hard these days. I don't always agree with the actions of User:Pudgenet and others who have treated him in a manner that I consider harsh, but even I've started to boil over. -Barry- is an admitted POV-pusher who has been trying to swing the Perl article to his thesis that Perl is slow, disliked and unused for over a week. Numerous editors have been reverting his POV-pushing, and complaining on the talk page. I've even demonstrated the flaws in his benchmark results with hard numbers, and yet he still won't leave. I've re-worked his edits into something more factual, and still he pushes. He has even (now) removed Perl from the list of Good Articles citing his own revert wars as a rationale! I'm out of ideas, and as the only admin to have visibly taken an interest in the Perl RfC that I put up, I am humbly requesting that you review  and his contributions for further action. Thanks and have an otherwise great day. -Harmil 06:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Durin, what can be done about this? Jbolden is clearly losing it here. He is now reverting something that has nothing to do with him, nothing to do with his mediation process, and is in no remote way "wikistalking," which is "making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information," none of which I did. I don't thinkt he fact that Jbolden and I dislike each other precludes me from making perfectly reasonable comments on a talk page for an article he is mediating. Clearly, he is the one with the "vendetta" here, and his actions toward me justify an RfA more than anything I've done to either he or Barry. But I'd rather someone simply give him a nudge and some perspective. Pudge 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: I went ahead and blocked this one even though the user had stopped, based on the history. <tt> Radio Kirk </tt> <tt> talk to me </tt> 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw. I handle such cases differently, but I don't have an issue with the way this was handled. --Durin 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of userbox from userpage
Thanks for leaving a message on my talkpage about why you removed that userbox. I thought that it was fine to use because of it being a userbox. Thanks for letting me know about that.

C&amp;R 21:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you also for informing why you removed the image from my userbox. I knew the fair use policy, it just slipped my mind. --Alexignatiou 10:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Jesus On Wheels
The Username username policy outlines problematic names, including "Names of religious figures such as "God" or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs", we wouldn't permit "Mohammed on wheels", so I can't see why we'd permit this. He is more than welcome to change his username to something else. FWIW I did discuss this with a couple of other admins before putting the block in place. The user hasn't emailed me or requested an unblock on his user page (nor had he editted for a gap of 6 months prior to turning up to accept an RFA nom.) --pgk( talk ) 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with the block. More appropriate would have been an attempt to get him to change his username rather than slapping him with an indefinite block, which had been done before and cleared on appeal. If I were this user, I'd feel pretty smashed into the dirt over this. Right now, he can't even make the username change request because he's been banned. There's no reason to believe this person is WoW or a vandal other than his username. His lack of contributions should not be used as a means of demonizing him. Please unblock him, at least to give him a chance to change his username. --Durin 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is it who believe he is WoW of a vandal? No one is accusing him of that, it's been blocked as an inappropriate username which clearly it is. I don't know of this "cleared on appeal" an admin unblocked him because he believed he isn't WoW, since I've not blocked him on the basis of being WoW I can't see the relevance of it. Nor am I demonizing him for a lack of conributions, my point was that given his inactivity he quite possibly hasn't even noticed. He can make requests for change since he can post to his talk, also he can email me. He's done neither. If you feel strongly about it by all means unblock and request him to change it. --pgk( talk ) 16:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I will not engage in wheel warring, I will not undo your actions. That's why I've been trying to convince you of the error I feel you have made. You feel otherwise. So, we smash a user into the dirt. Not to worry; there's lots more where they came from. Sigh. :( --Durin 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider it wheel warring, I've openly invited you to undo my action if you feel strongly about it. I'm not going to instantly redo the block. --pgk( talk ) 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've said what I'm going to say. Apparently, it wasn't enough to convince you. --Durin 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I decided to unblock Jesus On Wheels, and added a few suggestions for possible new user names (JOW and J.O.W.). I doubt he'll do it, though. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

U.S. state seal images copyright status
I noticed that you got to my user page on your "removal of non-free images" sweep through the user space today. While the deletion of two of the three images didn't surprise me, the third one (Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg) *did* surprise me, before I went and read the licensing tag on that image. It appears that most of the U.S. state seal images uploaded in the en: image space have fair use tags, while those on Commons (like Commons:Image:Nebraskastateseal.jpg, for instance) have PD tags. Anyway, I have a question and a request of you:


 * 1) What is the procedure when the same image has a conflicting copyright status, depending on where it has been uploaded?
 * 2) If the Commons image is OK to use, can you delete the en: image so that all the articles here link to the Commons image instead?

– Swid (talk 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that barring a release of rights by the state in question, the images of state seals are copyrighted and commons has it wrong. --Durin 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Durin, I came across your answer here and want to point out that MOST state seals have been around so long that, even if they were originally protected by copyright, they would have entered the public domain long ago. That is not to say that there might be some other form of protection, either under common law or specific state statutes, but the protection granted by the U.S. copyright statutes probably does not extend to most state seals. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably so, but we should not be making assumptions. Instead, we should not be using images of questionable copyright status in improper ways until we verify their copyright status. Our general stance is that seals and other emblems are copyrighted. Without confirmation of their copyright status, images with that tag must be presumed to have copyright protections and thus their use here must be under terms of fair use law. --Durin 12:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% that we should never assume anything is in the public domain (even a very old state can have a newly designed seal). Though I would assume that the Nebraska state seal dates back to early statehood, I would not allow a tag based on that assumption.  However, if someone wanted to use that assumption to do the research to establish that the Nebraska state seal was adopted in 1867 and determine that the original seal is still in use today  and noted that fact on the image page, then I would conclude that the seal is in the public domain. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In a fit of productivity, I sent an email to the Nebraska Secretary of State's office yesterday; I will pass along the results of my inquiry. – Swid (talk 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * May we all be blessed with such fits :) --Durin 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in a discussion of state seals and copyright, see take a look at this article (requires Adobe Reader)). Note that even if there is no copyright violation, state statutes and common law trademark law may impact the right to use a state seal, as well as federal trademark laws if the seal has been registered in the USPTO. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's the email exchange that's taken place between the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office and I. To be honest, I don't know exactly how I should handle this; any advice you (or anyone else you know who can also provide useful advice) can offer would be greatly appreciated. -
 * In response to your e-mail concerning the status of the Nebraska Great Seal, I submit the following:


 * The Nebraska Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 24 and Nebraska law, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 84-501 (1999), provide that the Secretary of State is the official custodian of the Great Seal of the State of Nebraska and shall not suffer it to be imitated or counterfeited.


 * This office is the only state agency that can allow use of the Great Seal which is limited by the Secretary to that of governmental or educational purposes. Once a request is received for use of the Great Seal, the request is reviewed for approval (of a limited use) or disapproval. Permission for use of the Great Seal is not given for commercial usage.


 * Ronald D. Moravec
 * Chief Deputy Secretary of State
 * Secretary of State's Office
 * PO Box 94608
 * State Capitol, Suite 2300
 * Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4608
 * Phone (402) 471-4071


 * Thank you for your response.


 * In that case, I would like to request approval by your office for use of the Great Seal on Internet sites hosted and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation ( http://wikimediafoundation.org/), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that operates sites such as Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/), Wikinews ( http://en.wikinews.org/), Wikisource (http://en.wikisource.org/) and Wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/).


 * The depiction of the Great Seal on these sites is solely for informational/educational purposes. An example of a page that uses the Great Seal is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Nebraska (which currently uses the seal under fair use doctrine).


 * Jesse Whidden


 * Please send a fax number or mailing address where we can forward a request form for use of the Great Seal. Once that is completed we will review the request and notify you of approval or denial for use of the Great Seal. To be up front with you, a concern that we will have is the ease with which anyone will be able to copy the Great Seal and revise it, or use it, to fit their whimsical wishes.


 * Ronald D. Moravec

- Hopefully, I haven't gotten in over my head here... – Swid (talk 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't gotten in over your head :) I seriously applaud you for your efforts! BRAVO! This is how it is supposed to be done! As to the exchange, it's pretty clear from their statement that use of the seal is under a non-commercial license. Per decree Jimbo Wales in May of 2005, non-commercial use only images are not acceptable at Wikipedia. Thus, even if you gained official release from them for educational use, we could not use the seal under any other terms than fair use. Thus, I would respond to them that you thank them for their response and effort in so doing, but that a non-commercial release of the seal is not inline with policies of Wikipedia at this time, since we strive to have images free of restrictions for use or used strictly under a fair use doctrine, which the seal is currently used under. --Durin 14:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Now, someone has to break the news to Commons... :-\ – Swid (talk 14:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Go for it :) If you don't feel capable, I can handle it...but you've got to start somewhere :) --Durin 14:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put that on my to-do list. Thanks for the barnstar! – Swid (talk 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image problems
I will look into the copyright for the images, but I will need a few days to contact the appropriate officials to receive permission to upload the pictures. TBC found this but I'm not sure whether it applies to all Montgomery County government pages (including MCPS's website) or just their own website, so I will have to sort this out. Thank you. -- M @  th  wiz  20  20  20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have contacted the webmaster of www.mcpsmd.org. -- M @  th  wiz  20  20  21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My user page
Please ask rather than editing my user page and my userboxen page. I'm more than capable of doing it myself. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Those pages are not strictly yours. They were not in compliance with Wikipedia policy, and within the bounds of that policy what I did was perfectly acceptable. All the best, --Durin 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it's considered good manners to ask me to do it first. As it is, you completely broke several of the userboxes on my page, causing all sorts of funky formatting problems. It would behoove you to not use a steamroller when something much more delicate could have been done. I appreciate your cooperation in the future should you ever feel the urge to edit my pages again. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your complaint is not isolated, nor do I expect it to be so. To date, I've done nearly 800 of these edits with little in the way of complaint regarding editing of userpages. Also, please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images. Please understand these are not just violations of Wikipedia policy, they are most likely violations of copyright law, and this constitutes a real threat to the very existence of Wikipedia. I'm sorry you incorrectly feel as possessive as you do about your userpage, but the reality is that your userpage is not "yours", and it must adhere to policy just as articles must. If you still feel motivated to insist people not edit your userpage, then please by all means start an RfC on the matter. --Durin 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that you are editing (and trashing, essentially) other people's user pages, but that you don't have the courtesy to give the person a chance do it themselves. I would support a complaint against you if Nihon started one as you did the same thing to mine.Michael Dorosh 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then by all means please do. I'd welcome it. --Durin 14:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox
hi, I was working on something at my sandbox, User:Preschooler.at.heart/Sandbox, and you erased all the images I had. i understand your complaint, but it's a personal wiki sandbox, not a userpage. please ask before editing it. thanks.   preschooler @  heart   01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether a sandbox or no, they are still pages in userspace. The use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted by WP:FUC #9. Thanks, --Durin 03:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is another example of you using a steamroller when you could have done things much more politely. Would it have inconvenienced you so much to wait long enough for Preschooler.at.heart to reply to a note on his/her Talk page? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See above at "My user page". --Durin 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues deleting Image:Kickflip.gif.
In response to the message you sent me about Image:Kickflip.gif. , fair enough, I do not have th emeans to get the correct copyright information, so the image should be deleted.

I will create my own image and sort that out somtime in the future.

thanks for clarifying this for me.

Cheers --Peej 03:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it. Thanks! --Durin 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Block of User:68.226.23.44
''Hi Petros; I decided to remove User:68.226.23.44 from Administrator intervention against vandalism because it appears the edits were a content dispute, rather than straight vandalism. I was about to leave a message on his talk page telling him that I would not block him, but that if he refused to take it to the talk page of the article that I would and that he was on the edge of violationg 3RR. I won't undo your block of course, but you might want to reconsider the circumstances. Take a look? It looks to me like a content dispute. What do you think? --Durin 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)''


 * Heh, I was rather expecting that message from you when I saw your edit summary on AIV :) It was the edits that inserted commentry into the article and  that made me block, however I also realise that this could be seen a lack of good faith. How about me dropping a note on the IPs talk page saying I'll unblock if he/she agrees to take it to the talk page? Petros471 21:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me! --Durin 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. Could you keep that IP on your watchlist in case he/she replies when I've gone off? (i.e. please unblock if a positive response appears) Petros471 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm heading out myself. But, I'll add. Going to be away for much of the (US) holiday weekend. --Durin 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Meep! And now I blocked User:204.209.59.11 as you removed him from WP:AIV :) In this case, I decided to block because there was ongoing vandalism and the IP had been repeatedly blocked before. We're just working at odds :) --Durin 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol. If it was a static I might have blocked, but being shared I generally treat them as if it's a new user at the computer. Btw, I haven't seen you at AIV much- is it the calls for more attention recently that brought you there? Petros471 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I just pop in there every so often. It's on my watchlist, and when I'm looking for admin stuff to do, I check it out (among other things). I agree the anon-IP could be a different person. My own metric is that if I can't find any real contributory edits from the IP in the recent past, and there's a history of blocks for prior poor behavior, then I move to block. Maybe that's too hasty. --Durin 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every admin has there own blocking style, and often it's only the very extreme ones that are doing anything wrong, so I'm not going to worry to much about it either way. Petros471 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm insane, don't you remember? :) --Durin 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Erm, not really... In fact I remember you as the very first user on Wikipedia I learnt to respect as being plain reliably good (and that was when I was in my lurking days well before anyone paid any notice of my presence). Petros471 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And now look at you! Now you're a rouge admin! :) --Durin 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No problems here
I've come to appreciate your perspective on Fair Use Images and so I have no quarrel with you anymore. I'm sorry that others haven't come to the same conclusion. --Dragon695 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that you were quite upset with me before about this subject, this means a great deal to me. I really appreciate your kind words. Thanks! --Durin 12:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Advise On Image:Daw_Aung_San_Suu_Kyi.JPEG
As you may or may not know, the nonviolent pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest was indefinitely extended by the Myanmar (Burma) dictatorship. So, as I was checking the page to see if it had been updated, I noticed someone has removed her biographical image. Investigation shows that it does not have a copyright tag. Can you help me determine the appropriate copyright tag based on the this copyright statement from the website it was taken from? Thanks in advance! --Dragon695 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've modified Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG to have a Article tag, which I feel is appropriate given the copyright statement you cited. That statement is somewhat contradictory, with the most restrictive statement being personal use only. Thus, it's not clear of copyright claims for use in Wikipedia. As a result, the fair use tag is probably the best tag to apply. I've re-added the image to Aung San Suu Kyi. --Durin 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: BN
Durin:

I want you to know, and have said at BN, that I don't think you're attacking me in the least. What I'm trying to point out to everyone, and what I think everyone, of all opinions, is missing is that the way the matter is being addressed isn't actually addressing the problem. I think some insight into the thought patterns involved would help to clear things up.

From my understanding, based on your comments on BN, you support closing some RfA's early, in specific, those that are overwhealming failures right out of the gate (such as candidates that post an RfA with 25 contributions, or within 12 hours of registering thier accounts). I understand your comments to mean that overwhelming failures (like the ones I referenced, where there is 75% or more opposition, and a need for 80 or more additional support votes to cancel out the existing oppose votes) are within the category of those that should be closed early. Those are exactly the RfAs that I have been closing early, and that I have seen others closing early; I don't know of any RfAs that have been closed recently that didn't fit into the criteria above.

Given that I only close dismal failures early, and that there is no accepted standard for when to close, when I hear people addressing my closures, I can't help but hear thier comments as "You made the wrong decision, you screwed up." It is entirely likely that they didn't mean to say that at all (as I said above, I don't think that has been your intent at all), but because the comments address a specific case or cases, it comes across as personal criticism. And when someone criticizes you for doing what you're supposed to be doing, it hurts.

I don't think in the least that you intended to call my judgment into question, or to say that I'd screwed up in closing any of the RfAs I've closed. I think you have been trying to call for a community standard, and to raise awareness of reasons why RfAs that don't fit into the "dismal failure" category should be left open. I think the problem has arisen because your good and valid points are attached to a discussion of an individual situation, and therefore read as a criticism of that individual situation, even if they aren't. I believe that is where the confusion has arisen; you didn't intend to take issue with any individual decision, but were read that way because general comments were attached to a specific situation.

As I tried, and I think perhaps failed, to convey on BN, I encourage the development of a community standard. You have important insight to offer into the situation, and I can tell from the amount of writing you've done on the subject (your subpages, for example) that you have given the matter a lot of very careful and dedicated consideration. I want the community to hear what you have to say on the matter; I don't think any discussion of a standard would be complete without it! I noticed that a proposal has been made at Early Close of Requests for Adminship, and I hope you will be heavily involved in the discussions there.

I want to apologize for giving the impression that I felt attacked by your comments, and for not having responded to them in the best way. While I haven't felt attacked by anyone on the issue (perhaps a vandal or troll somewhere along the line, but I generally ignore them), I have felt hurt, because many of the comments from both sides have addressed individual situations where I was the decision-maker, and it felt like those comments were directed at me, as though I had failed to do my job. It would have been far better for me to take advice from the relationship-counselors and interject with "When you say 'This RfA shouldn't have been closed early (because I believe no RfA should be closed early)', I hear 'You were wrong to close it early, and have been doing a bad job.'" Perhaps if I had noted that the emphasis on individual cases was personalizing the debate and causing uninteded internalization of the comments, then the discussion could have been refocused to address the bigger issue and avoid the hurt feelings caused by examining individual closures.

I don't want you to feel like there are any hard feelings on my part; there aren't. I just want everyone to realize that we're doing a difficult job the best we can, and that when others address global issues through individual cases, it feels like that individual decision is being criticized, and it is easy to feel discoraged and unappreciated. Hopefully, we all will now realize that it's far better to have a discussion of how things should be done in all cases, rather than analyzing individual closures. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding, and my assurance of no hard feelings on my part. Yours, Essjay  <font color="#7b68ee">(  Talk  •  Connect  ) 06:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use template
Hi Durin. I just wanted to drop you a message that when tagging images as CSD I5, you can just use orfud. Your previous method was causing the images to not correctly be sorted by date. orfud does that for you. I have already corrected the problem images. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and of course they have to always be subst: to make it work correctly. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

chonga
"Chonga" is NOT a neologism, it is an ACTUAL high school stereotype that is ACTUALLY used to describe people, the same as prep, emo, jock, etc. All of those DO have articles about them and I don't see why chonga shouldn't. I didn't just make it up. Are you insane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works on the basis of verifiability and notability. Show me a way to verify that the term "chonga" actually exists, and do so using notable means and I could see a case for inclusion of the article. Failing that, I won't undelete the article. If you like, you can take up the matter at Deletion review, rather than make attempts at convincing me. All the best, --Durin 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't you help Tamajared even a little bit? They took the trouble to contact you! :-) Kim Bruning 16:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did a little research and found a couple of articles mentioning chongas. However, they had nothing to do with the deleted material. Besides the football player, Kenyan region, and a few people with the surname Chonga, I found an interesting meaning. Chonga is the word that Japanese use for businessmen who have moved to a city for work, perhaps anticipating bringing their families along later, who basically live in the city during the week, and spend the weekends back with the family. It is a "joke label" meaning "bachelor husbands". Specifically, "To-chons" are "Tokyo-chongas" where Tokyo is the city in question. (LA Times 10-11-93; NY Times 9-11-84) Not like you really care, just thought you might find it interesting. Cheers. -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting :) I'm mainly going off of Articles for deletion/Chonga. I doubt little has changed since then to warrant the inclusion of the article, or another AfD. We have one person being very vocal about it's inclusion. This is not a unique situation to be sure :) --Durin 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think it should be recreated in its last state of things (fairly unverifiable and frankly, uncivil and ridiculing). Nor probably with anything I have found, I was just adding a little twist. Thought I'd interject a little research into things. Silly research and sources... :-) -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How dare you! Do it again and I'll ban you! ;) Wait a minute...you're an admin. You can unblock yourself. Crap. I wish I'd voted against you in your RfA! ;) --Durin 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no you didn't!! That's it, buddy. One more threat like that and it's off to ArbCom with you! ;-) -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look on MySpace. The term chonga is popularly used there. Ask anyone living in South Florida. Maybe the term isn't used elsewhere, but it is WIDELY known in Miami, Hialeah, etc. And definitely on MySpace.

PeeWipes - please clear the edit history
This protected deleted page currently has some edit history that involves the deleted content. Please clear out the edit history by deleting this page and then reprotecting it with deletedpage. 69.117.11.27 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only edit history there not from me is a page blanking. There's no reason to wipe it. --Durin 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion
I don't understand why the Michael Muhammad Knight page was deleted - he is a VERY well known author in the progressive islamic movement and the author of The Taqwacores - a book with it's own wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daynamarie (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 May 2006
 * It isn't uncommon for articles that lack any significant information substantiating a person's notability to be deleted. Feel free to recreate the article, but please do include substantial information on what this person is notable for, using verifiable sources. If you have questions on the matter, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it IS unusual for articles to be deleted in that manner - generally speaking, an article is identified as a stub and the creator of the page asked to provide proof of notability instead of just being deleted. Again, part of that common courtesy thing you've been talked to on other pages.Michael Dorosh 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And which you've failed to engage in discussion on despite repeated invitations. If you want change to happen, you need to engage in consensus garnering discussions. I'm sorry Michael, but you are quite incorrect. Please see WP:CSD A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." and see Db-bio. Biographies of non-notable people are deleted on a regular basis, and with good reason. In fact, as of right now, 39 of the last 500 articles deleted were because they were biographies of non-notable people. --Durin 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

stansberry page
I am unclear as to why you delete the stansberry article I am inputting. While not internationally famous, the company is still quite known and is in the top 3 independent financial newsletter and publication companies in the world. The content I am publishing is our own material and is not a violation of any copyright material sinec we are the owners of it and are the ones creating the article. I would prefer a detailed explanation and if it is possible, what needs to be changed in order to include this on wikipedia. regards.
 * Regarding the copyright issue; you as User:Jackemoe do not represent a copyright authority that can be independently verified as the copyright authority for this material. Since the material is a verbatim copy of one of the pages on the company's website, and since we do not have independently verifiable confirmation that this material has been released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, we must assume it is a copyright violation. If you would like to make this an official release of information, then please send me an e-mail from a recognizable Stansberry and Associates e-mail address to wikidurin@hotmail.com acknowledging the release of all posted materials under the terms of GFDL. I will then post that release on the article's talk page.
 * Regarding notability; this is often disputed for quite a number of companies who place profiles on Wikipedia. Simply because a company exists does not mean it merits an article on Wikipedia. Notability must be attained. You've made a claim on my talk page that this company is notable because it is one of the top independent financial newsletter and publication companies in the world. This was not presented in the article. Instead, the article has been essentially an introduction followed with a directory of people in the company. If you want to recreate the article, I strongly suggest you include such a claim to notability and cite a basis for that claim on something that is independently verifiable. Also, it is generally not considered to be good form for a company to write its own article. If you're notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, eventually someone will make the article who is independent of your company and can more likely write from a neutral point of view.
 * Regarding the content of the article; Please understand, Wikipedia is not to be used for indescriminate collections of information. You may wish to review WP:NOT. If the article contained substantially more information about the company, what it does, achievements, publications, etc, then a short listing of the significant people in the company would be appropriate. As is, the listing of the people is dominating the article and making it a directory of personnel at the company rather than an article about the company.
 * If I can be of assistance, please let me know. Thanks, --Durin 14:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting copy from other people's user pages
Remove fair use violations if you want, but don't delete other users' personal copy in the process. I doubt you would appreciate similar 'creative edits' on your own user page.--Primalchaos 17:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I would appreciate it if someone found images on in my userspace which in their user violated wikipedia policy. I removed fair use violations from your userpage, and nothing more. I am unclear as to what you mean by "personal copy". I retained the text of your comments on those images, just removed the images. You re-inserted Image:Isaac asimov.jpg. I've removed it again as it is tagged as a fair use image, and you are not permitted to display it as you have been doing in your userspace. --Durin 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Response here: User talk:Primalchaos--Primalchaos 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor grammar tweaks to introduction of User:Durin/Removal of fair use images
I couldn't resist making this small change to fix a minor grammar fault and (I thought) make it read better. My apologies if this is unwelcome. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember me? ;]
So how are you these days? Could we finally finish things up? (sounds so mysterious, doesn't ;]) Renata 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are you? Have we met before? How did you find my name? ;) Yes, I remember you. Been thinking about you this week in fact, as things have freed up a bit. I hope to get to it soon, possibly today (depends on a few factors). Thanks so much for your patience! --Durin 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, and I heard it somewhere before ;P Renata 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Carolina Website
Good Afternoon,

This was our first attempt at placing content on the site. We are part of H.H. Brown, a division of Berkshire Hathaway. I noticed that you removed some content like keywords. Were these not relevant? I want to make sure that we adhere to your guidelines. My graphic designer, Kbonner, is the one authorized to upload content and edit.

My name is Steve Schappell, Marketing Manager for H.H. Brown Work and Outdoor Group.

Thank you for your time.

schappells@hhbrown.com 800-438-7026 x 234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.69.37 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2006
 * I'm concerned that there may be a misunderstanding of the intent of this project. We are an encyclopedia, and not a directory of companies. Keywords are meaningless in the context of an encyclopedia. The article has been assigned by me to a category appropriate for the company.
 * Also, Wikipedia usually frowns on individuals and/or companies from producing articles about themselves. Frequently, such articles are deleted shortly after creation, as if the company is notable somebody who is not associated with the company will eventually create an article on the company. This more readily allows for a neutral point of view than an article created by a representative of the company who is inherently biased. I have not deleted the article on the company in this case, given there is some assertion of notability (being a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. --Durin 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Superiority Complex
You need to get over yourself.... it's just an internet website. Get a life and stop patrolling my userpage <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't just an internet website. It is run by a non-profit organization and can be sued in a court of law for copyright infringements. If you do not think this can happen, just look at what happened at The_Pirate_Bay. Companies take protection of their copyrights very, very seriously. The policy against fair use images in userspace was established to prevent lawsuits. I should think you would be in favor of this since preventing lawsuits aids in the continued existence of Wikipedia. --Durin 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I come to Wikipedia to have fun... I think adding information to the best encyclopedia is very fun.  Do I get paid for it?  No.  Do you?  No.  So why do something (i.e. policing wikipedia) that gains you neither money nor pleasure?  My only answer can be that it DOES give you a sick, self-important sort of pleasure, which is just pathetic. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In removing fair use images from your userspace, I work to protect the project against copyright lawsuits so that it can exist for all of us. Removing such images is boring and mind numbingly dull. I'd rather not do it. But, it must be done. I am motivated to do it because the violation of trademarks and copyrights is one of the most serious threats facing the very existence of Wikipedia. --Durin 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding information is great. Having fun is good too. Breaking the law, however, is a nono. I'm sure you didn't do it intentionally though!
 * As long as you listen to Durin carefully when he points out that something is illegal, and you won't do it again, that's fine.
 * Durin, don't forget to be nice to new folks. You did take the time to explain upfront, right? :-) Kim Bruning 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, I am not new.... I've been here since Fall 2004 or thereabouts...  I know the rules, I just don't always follow them.  <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No Kim, I did not and will not unless consensus dramatically shifts at Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. --Durin 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Perl admin
Just noticed you had tried to get involved in the Perl issue in mid may. I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case that was filed soon thereafter. Mediation has not been succesful due to lack of cooperation. I need administrator assistance to resolve this issue (a little bit of a stick). Are you willing to help? (I'd be asking for things like page locks, 24 hour blocks...) nothing serious and not repeated. Just enough to get their attention. You can reply here I'll monitor this page jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)]
 * Excellent! Can you give me a page protection (main page not the talk page) I'll probably need it for 2 days.  I'll let you know when to pull it.  Also if you can make a statement "Interfering with the mediation process will be considered trolling.  Attacking other users is forbidden."  That would be very helpful.  I can start changing the culture once I can get them to cooperate with the process. Thanks!  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. --Durin 12:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Sorry forgot to ask but can you put the protection template on the main article, I'm not sure they will know what's happening without it.  jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can do that yourself :) But yes, I'll add it. --Durin 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, we got there attention. Next thing I need is a block on Pudgenet. You've had problems with him, he was being highly disruptive on my previous mediation, he's trying again on this one and he's now deleted stuff I explicitly told him not to delete on his talk page. Basically a short term trolling block. I want him to have to agree to terms of behavior. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is dicier. I'll investigate, but I want clear basis for blocking before doing so. Removing content from his own talk page is not a blockable offense. --Durin 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Right after your warning I got this one. As long as this nonsense continues I can't work with the rest of the group. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Durin, clearly, jbolden has crossed the line. What I had on Talk:Perl/Mediation/GroundRules was not only not trolling, but it was specifically what that section of that page is *meant for.*  Please either chastise jbolden for his bad behavior, or explain to me why what he did is acceptable.  Pudge 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please understand that there is a third option. If I could only act to caution people when I caution everyone, it has the potential to become an unscalable process where I'd have to inform hundreds of people all at once in the worst case scenario. It is fully acceptable, in my opinion, to cite problems as I see them. In your case, it was a very clear cut case that you violated civility policy. Thus, the warning. In Jbolden's case or anyone else's case involved in this dispute, I need to review more; but whether I warn these people or not for any infractions, the warning to you is perfectly valid. --Durin 20:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do understand that. I also understand that I have been complaining quite a bit about jbolden's behavior, for awhile, and nothing's been done.  If the inappropriate behavior by a mediator/admin/wahetever he is, and unheeded complaints, result in an incivil tone, that speaks more to the problems in the process than anything else.  Note that I've been disagreeing with him for awhile without incivility, but he completely ignores my perfectly valid complaints about his methods, about the process, about his decisions and advocacy, and so on. Pudge 20:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your comments on my talk page at your email address. Same account name at yahoo. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you let me know if you got and haven't replied yet or didn't get? jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk  12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I replied, just now. --Durin 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a Coat of Arms a fair use image, or in the public domain?
I've noticed that you're something of an authority on the legality (or otherwise) of images on wikipedia. I've noticed the following in the Fair Use Policy: 9. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (My emphasis) My query is about Image:Sweden lesser arms2.png. The licensing section does not say that it is copyrighted but does restrict its use in commercial advertising. Can I use this on a template (specifically this one that I'm drafting)? Does it count as a "fair use image". I assumed that, by definition, only a copyrighted image can be fair use. Also, the coat of arms is on Commons (who don't accept any unfree images, even fair use copyrighted images). But I'm no expert on this. I hope you can help. Tamino 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC) So I definately can't use it on a template? Can I use the Swedish flag, or is that under the same restrictions? Tamino 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My read on it is that the image is free to use on a non-commercial basis. Such images are simply not allowed on Wikipedia to be used under such terms. Instead, a fair use tag is appropriate. The image resides on commons however. I've had little success in getting things corrected there. --Durin 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Flags don't suffer the same restrictions, generally. You're probably safe to use that. --Durin 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing my images
If you must removie my profile images without warning, please don't leave leftover tag information to clutter up my page when i try to edit it. I have no need for blank "center"/center" tags that don't serve any purpose. RatherBeBiking 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I remove images that are in violation. I do not remove other elements that are not in violation, as it up to the user to decide what to do with it after the image removal. For me to decide would be presumptuous. --Durin 01:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser complete
You made a request for a Checkuser to be run, which has now been completed. See Requests for CheckUser for the results. the wub "?!"  22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for linkifying the images on my Userpage. Can you show me the syntax so that I can do that in the future? - Mike <font face="Ariel">(talk)  23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you edit the page, you can see the syntax I used. --Durin 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Croatia_Footbal
is there any way that the logo of the Croatian Football Federation can be include on the Template:User_Croatia_Footbal, or does it have to be another image? Can you suggest a good image to replace the old one? Ivan Kricancic 11:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry. The Croatian football logo is used here under the terms of fair use. Our usage policy prohibits the use of that logo (and any other fair use image) outside of the main article namespace. Since I'm not familiar with Croatian football, I have no suggestions on a replacement. --Durin 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin/Removal of fair use images page
Hi, would you mind if I made an (almost) duplicate of this page User:Durin/Removal of fair use images and put it on my user page. I want to use it the same way as you do. Maybe that would help some of the fair use discussions I had recently. Garion96 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything on Wikipedia is open source, you don't need Durin's permission to use anything he creates here - see the free licensing agreements. :-) Michael Dorosh 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's certainly true but asking if someone minds is politeness, even if not required, and can often lead to offers to work together and make a reusable thing. Reuse by transclusion is much more powerful than reuse by copying.  + + Lar: t/c 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct, one can for instance copy someone's userpage, but it's polite to ask. And just common sense. Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And after reading some of the comment's on this page. I like to add that I also don't think it's necessary to warn a person before removing a copyright image on a user page. Which I now realise Michael was arguing against. Garion96 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So you're in favour of courtesy by discussion before action. I find it quite impossible to argue with that. You have my respect.Michael Dorosh 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a predictable response by you Michael, and makes attempts to undermine my position on another topic using completely unrelated circumstances. I'd appreciate it if you stopped using my talk page to front your position. I've invited you to contribute regarding this dispute at appropriate locations and you have categorically refused to do so. --Durin 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about we work cooperatively and have just one page? Feel free to make edits to the existing page. There's been a couple of other people (see the page's talk page) that have suggested a unified effort, and pushing some/all of the content on that page into Wikipedia space. Perhaps it's time to do that. --Durin 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see it be more widely linkable and maybe even an adjunct to the current material on fair use images, the writing is neutral and informative, very useful. I especially like the pastable edit summaries. If you read your mail, Durin, you hopefully saw something from me seeking advice on a particular fair use image usage...  + + Lar: t/c 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. Move it to wikipedia space seems like a good idea. Garion96 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

State seals
Where did you come up with the fanciful idea that state seals were being used in Wikipedia under a "fair-use" license? The license for seals is not a fair use license at all, it discusses the types of licenses seals can covered by. The state seal of New Jersey was published in the 1700s. Please do more homework before you start deleting material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the licensing tag that is on Image:New Jersey state seal.png. Observe the section for seals. On this image there is no verification that the copyright has expired. Given that absence of such, it must be presumed that the image is used under a fair use license here on Wikipedia. You may wish to see User_talk:Durin where a similar issue was discussed. In that case, Nebraska became a state in 1867, and presumably it's seal was created around the same time. Nevertheless, the state still actively protects it's copyright on the image. Failing presentation of evidence that the seal of the state of New Jersey has been released in the public domain or proof is provided that the copyright has expired and the state of New Jersey recognizes this, the image is used here on Wikipedia under terms of Fair use criteria. I am reverting your re-insertion of the image into Template:New Jersey Prep. Please do not re-insert the image without contacting the state government of New Jersey regarding copyright clearance. Thank you, --Durin 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, if I might suggest, you could use Image:Flag of New Jersey.svg instead of the seal. The flag does not carry the same copyright encumbrances. --Durin 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I did a bit of investigation and found that the New Jersey state seal was redesigned in 1928. Thus, claims that it is in the public domain because of age may not be valid. --Durin 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated blanked license information
Thanks for the heads up on Image:Plymouthname.png I created the image using a license free font (King Richard) and stated so in the original upload; this information was subseqently "blanked" by someone using IP 216.55.203.100 on May 15, 2006. Everything is back to normal. I'm on a wiki vacation of sorts and trying to minimize my Wikipedia contact, so emailing is always the best course of action if you wish to ask any additional questions. Again, thanks for the heads up. Stude62 23:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!!...
...on reaching 10,000 edits!! Of course, it goes without saying that we both realise that it is only a milestone on our journey and not a destination!!! --Gurubrahma 15:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, congrats! You must be really wiki-old! ;-) What's even more surprising is that almost all of those are very informative or constructive edits. Keep up the good work. See you at 20,000! -- You Know Who  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's transcendent. I am now superior to most Wikipedians, and have the right to be thoroughly arrogant, obnoxious, and act in ignorance of all Wikipedia policies. I think this makes me eligible for the cabal. I hope they have vacancies on the Wikipedia Assassin Squad. Thanks for the congrats :) Now, with my 10,001st edit, I announce my retirement from Wikipedia. --Durin 15:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, seriously? -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Check your calendar. Somewhere, buried deep beyond the event horizon of a black hole where time distortion is heavily induced, it is still April 1st. Of course, if you're actually able to read that particular calendar (bring a flashlight!), you're rather incredible :) --Durin 16:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's like someone told me they took the word gullible out of the dictionary. But then I went and looked it up and they didn't take it out, and I was just sitting there all confused and wundrin' what they wuz talkin' bout. Soon it's permabans for all those who try and dupe the Dark Lord! -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If the real dark lord were so easy to dupe, J. K. Rowling would still be living on state benefits in Edinburgh. :) --Durin 16:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * congratulations, you insane drama queen ;) -- sannse (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More WTC 7
"lumping me with the dishonest" I've already apologised in the talk page for implying that your 'side' in the debate was dishonest. I am happy to repeat the apology to you personally, if you feel slighted by it.

Some of the arguments used were dishonest, as in factually and verifiably incorrect and restated after the mistake had been pointed out. I've agreed to move on from reference to this previous mistake by your 'side', so long as it is not repeated; maybe you can do the same?

Of course the 'sides' are the problem. If you, and your 'side' could listen to my (never mind my "side"'s) suggestions towards improving the article, maybe we could stop thinking in terms of sides. --Guinnog 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're expecting me to do, beyond the near constant dialogue that has occurred on this subject for these last months. I feel myself heading towards yet another explanation regarding this situation, yet I am tempered with the knowledge that such an explanation will once again fail to produce anything. I have repeatedly shown basis in guidelines and policy as to where I think the article should be. If you have any concerns about where I stand, read the talk page history. It's all there. --Durin 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read the history. Your consistent record of interpreting wiki policies towards not including any reference to the doubt about specifically WTC7's collapse is a matter of record. How you can further contribute to this debate is of course a matter that only you can decide. As before, I only ask that you treat the article as you would any other and try to be fair-minded in your interpretation of NPOV, and fair, well-balanced and intellectually honest in any edits to the talk page. Thanks --Guinnog 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing that I have observed is that my stance has routinely been misinterpreted, whether by you or others. I'm not sure how I can be more emphatic about this. Please don't take this as insulting, but consider that I am saying this in mile high amazingly bright neon lights along with the biggest sound system the world has ever seen: I am not opposed to the doubt about WTC 7's collapse being in the article. I am opposed to it being in the article without any rational assertion of notability for the particular theory. Please, I beg of you, please stop stating my position as being opposed to the theory being in the article. I've stated many times now that I think the theory is absurdly ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with whether I think it should be in the article. Wikipedia is not about fact, it's about truth. There's a distinct difference. I thoroughly believe that it is a fact that WTC 7 was not intentionally demolished. Every claim that I've seen to support that theory is laughably absurd. I've been in hysterics reading some of the incredibly imaginitive stuff people have popped out of their heads on this theory. But, it doesn't matter if everyone here on Wikipedia believed it was a fact that WTC 7 was not intentionally demolished. If there were rational, reasonable basis on which to assert notability for that particular conspiracy theory, we're obligated to include it in the article. But to date, nobody has provided proof it is a notable theory. For example, Hyperbole insists the Zogby poll proves the demolition theory is notable; yet the poll makes no mention whatsoever about a demolition theory. If the above does not convince you as to what my stance is, I am at a loss as to how to communicate my stance. --Durin 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do seem to be. I am not Hyberbole, I am Guinnog.
 * I wasn't talking about any particular hypothesis, I was talking about the doubt you say you agree with including, and which the Zogby poll verifies, albeit imperfectly. --Guinnog 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Zogby poll isn't just imperfect, it's misleading. It's junk, and useless as the basis for any assertion. I've also stated this several times, but you and others insist it is useful. --Durin 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RFAr
Barry has filed an RFAr regarding Pudgnet. I added your name since you had been involved with him before I was. jbolden1517<sup style="color:darkgreen;">Talk 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. --Durin 12:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged Leon Weil with Léon Weil
The article Leon Weil to which you contributed has been merged with Léon Weil (with an acute accent on the e of Léon), which already existed. See also fr:Léon Weil and nl:Léon Weil for versions of the article in other languages. TruthbringerToronto 18:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Policy Consulting
The article Strategic Policy Consulting was recently deleted along with its associated redirects. This article is referred to in the frequently vandalised article about Alireza Jafarzadeh. Strategic Policy Consulting is also relevant to a current event, the Iran and weapons of mass destruction issue. The company and its Principal provide advice that could well change the course of history in the near future. With this in mind I would like to suggest the article be re-created so that it can be expanded and linked appropriately. --Dave 15:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/Strategic Policy Consulting. Nothing you have said above shows the situation since that AfD has changed. You are welcome to bring the matter before Deletion review. --Durin 16:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

sharp teeth
Why did you delete the sharp teeth page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portugaltheboy (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sharp Teeth is a non-notable band. Wikipedia has guidelines for article inclusion that included notability. In particular for bands, you should see Notability (music). With no album releases other than a demo tape, no profile on allmusic.com, and no press regarding the band, there's nothing to sustain notability about this band sufficient to pass the criteria established at Notability (music). Thus, I deleted the page. --Durin 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
Durin, I copied the Crazy Frog template source information from the article that it was put on as a standard for all templates and put it on my user page and modified it a bit to make the template look better (not the picture, the text info). If you get rid of a template picture, wouldn't that mean that ALL copyrighted template pictures would be copyright violations and thus be inappropiate for userpages? Enlighten me on this subject please, I'm quite new to Wikipedia. --Death motor 23:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh never mind... They deleted the template I guess... It's not there anymore... Shame...It was pretty good--Death motor 23:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait no they didn't! So can I put the normal template on my userpage, or is it still inappropiate?--Death motor 23:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is the image. Image:Bassbumpers-axelf.jpg is a copyright protected image. Fair use guidelines as set out in Fair use criteria item #9 prohibit the use of such items outside of the main article namespace. Thus, the policy does not allow their use on userpages. Does that help to clarify? --Durin 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm...Yeah, but I still don't understand why they would make a copyrighted image on a user template if the image was copyrighted, but the template itself is meant for userpages... This is very confusing and weird... so I'll just end it at this and put some text in there instead.--Death motor 20:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoever made the template made an error in adding the image in the first place. --Durin 20:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Booncach
What do I need to do to get a Booncach page re-created without it being deleted again and without a block being put on my account? Booncach is a real word, its text definition is "broken surfboard", and it has a real web site dedicated to its further spread into mainstream. This isn’t just a word, it's a revolution. Booncach is such a universal term/word, it can literally be used to describe anything that has been broken and can also be used to heighten how severely something is broken. It's most commonly used in a sentence as an adjective but on rare occasions can be used as an adverb defining something that has been completely broken; in the adverb sense the word booncachly would be used to describe how much something is broken—this would only be used for severe cases of booncaching (notice that it can not be used as to describe something that is defective; only those tangible things that are completely irreparable of which the origin of the booncaching is either of human or natural cause). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Absworan (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With no disrespect intended, there's nothing you can do. The term "Booncach" is a neologism and not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you'd like to contest my decision on this matter, you are free to take it up at Deletion review where other people can review your arguments (and that of others for/against its inclusion) and voice their support or opposition to the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia.
 * Also, please note that I did not block you simply because of your creation of the Booncach article. You kept recreating nonsense articles about players of yours in some game. These are entirely inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. You ignored my warnings regarding the recreation of these articles, and even ignored a final warning with a large red and white hand stop sign on your talk page. That is why you were temporarily blocked from editing. --Durin 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-deletion of the OTT page
Dear Durin,

I understand that this is your encyclopedia to administrate, but here are a few points of confusion. He was not a 'self-proclaimed' sex expert as you called it. He has since graduated from High School and has gone on to College majoring in Sex Studies. As for the matter of Google Hits, this is the first official talk about the subject, thusly it is still relatively unknown and deleting the article would only continue to keep the matter underground. Both Mr. McCoy and myself are not out to make money, we are here for the purpose of education. Wikipedia is a free tool and we thought it to be the best median to get the word out concerning the One Thrust Theory. As I previously stated, this is your encyclopedia to administrate so by all means, feel free to delete the article, but know, that it is not a load of "patent nonsense" and should be carefully considered before deletion. If some of the subject matter is a little confusing or hard to believe, notify me, and I will edited my article.

Thank you, Swboarder55 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It does not exist to promote anything. It exists as a reporting of the world under terms of Verifiability and Notability. As you note above, this theory is still underground, relatively unknown, and the posting of the article here was the first ever writing about it. This clearly makes it incompatible with our notability guidelines. As such, it was properly deleted. --Durin 22:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So basically Wiki isn't interested and I should just take my writing elsewhere, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swboarder55 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is interested in your writings on notable, verifiable subjects. If you still maintain that the One Thrust Theory is notable and verifiable, you may take the issue up at Deletion review where other people can review your arguments (and that of others for/against its inclusion) and voice their support or opposition to the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia. --Durin 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Durin
It's kind of you to inform me of this. I will keep up my editing, and I will re-apply some other time. I will remove my name from the list and remove that detail from my page. THANX again Durin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fame (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

PROBLEMS
Dear Durin, It's me, Fame (Wikipedia Member) again. My article was deleted, and so I am asking you, as an Administrator, to delete another article if mine has to go. Why should mine have to be deleted if others can stay? Wikipedia is treating me horribly, and if I don't have this person's page deleted, I will boycott Wikipedia, and so will my friends. I have over 1,000 contacts online, on the phone, at work, at college, and in my life. Over half of those people use Wikipedia, and they all know over 100 that also use it. SO, please delete the following page:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shanel
 * In fact, it was not deleted, it was simply moved to User:Fame. Frankly, Shanel did you a great service by not simply deleting it outright. See also WP:USER.--SB | T 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 09:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am on IRC now. Pudge 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

School template FU images
Hey Durin. Thanks for all the work that you do with the fair use images again; we need more like you! I saw two items on my watchlist get the Durin-treatment today, which was particularly odd because I had removed fair use images from those very templates earlier (several months before). Other users had added back the seals against policy. My question is this: what do you think the solution to this issue is? Should there be a comment in the text of the template? Perhaps a more sweeping change to the edit reminders underneath the editting box? Of course, then there's the fact that we can't be sure that anonymous editors will pay any attention to what's written there. Thoughts? &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 14:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments! Quite appreciated! I don't think adding in comments will help, as it will most likely go unread. In other places where a similar tactic has been used, it does not seem to work. I think the long term solution is an automated bot that reviews images for fair use tags, sees where they are used, removes them from inappropriate places leaving an appropriate edit summary for the action, and leaving a note on the user's page (if in userspace) that it was removed and why. Keeping up with the fair use image violations is an unending task. It's entirely appropriate for a bot to be doing this work. My inquiries into having someone make a bot have not yet been successful. Someday. --Durin 14:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What channels have you gone through in this attempt at a fair use bot? If needed, I could supply extra pressure to those persons if they are reluctant to go for it.  I would certainly offer myself up as a bot operator for this purpose.  Let me know what needs to be done. &mdash; Scm83x hook 'em 03:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the info about the adminship... I'll wait til I get much more edits. Thanks again! -- Dom th  e  dude  0  0  1  21:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

support.
Unfortunately I was not aware of "Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals" at the time; and would just like you to know that I wholly support you. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Copying Your Essay
I copied a large portion of your essay regarding the removal of fair use images to Removal of fair use images and tagged it as an. It's very well-written and comprehensive and I wanted to reference it in a new template I made to assist those removing fair use images from user pages. Your input on the template and the new (or rather modified) essay would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturn e r 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Columbia
Dear Durin,

Thank you for bringing the copyright issue to my attention on Template:Columbia. I did not realize that using an image which is fair-use on the main Columbia University page was not allowed on the template. How should I go about in adding some kind of Columbia-related image to that template?

Also, thank you for the detailed page explaining your actions on User:Durin/Removal of fair use images.

Matanariel 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use in video game characters
Dear Durin,

I have been removing excessive fair use images as necessary from articles pertaining to fictional characters from series of video games, such as List of characters from King of Fighters (the imagery in question can be found from the links provided within) due to lack of critical commentary and where they've served a decorative purpose. The appearance of a character is often illustrated by several images, more than what's usually needed for identification, though, my actions have been questioned by editors watching these pages and I thought it best to enquire if I am right in my judgement, or if I could perhaps forward these articles for someone else to review.

Any advice as to how I should proceed? Thanks! <span style="font-family:Georgia,arial">Vic Vipr TC 11:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In general it sounds you are in the right. Images presented for decorative purposes do not qualify as fair use. Given that there are articles on the individual characters with the fair use images, having those images on a list of characters is redundant and, I think, outside of fair use as there is little commentary involved in a list of characters. --Durin 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

lotr fan?
do you like lord of the rings?cause durin is the name of the dwarf and everything.Typoqueen 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

chongas 2
Chongas are a real subculture. Look on MySpace. Don't be ignorant and say they aren't real when you haven't looked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared (talk • contribs) 01:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't we been through this before? ;-) -- You Know Who <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  01:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think we have. Look on urbandictionary.com and see how many similar entries there are for chonga. Plus, ones that are REAL have many thumbs-up or thumbs-down ratings, while fake ones have few to none. JUST LOOK THERE. Tamajared 02:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use?
Durin. I hope you will understand that I am a member of the State Governance of the Constitution Party, as well as a dues-paying member of the National Rifle Association. In my current capacity within both of these organizations, I am entitled to use their images for non-profit purposes such as this. I would appreciate it if you would not remove the images any further without consulting me about it. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C3H5N3O92010 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 June 2006
 * Neither of these positions grants you authority to release these images from their copyrights or in any way violate the copyright claims of the organizations that hold them. Sorry, but the use of these images must adhere to Wikipedia policy. This is because to have an environment with all sorts of special exclusions, rationale, and unusual situations would create a copyright adherence situation that would be frankly untenable. The Wikipedia policy regarding fair use policy is clear, concise, and easy to follow. It is the best compromise we have for handling this situation. I'm sorry if you feel that negatively affects you. Nevertheless, the policy must be adhered to. All the best, --Durin 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Konob
Why did my disscussion page get blocked? all i did was say ok im sorry for not knowing about the fair use thing and i didn't change any thing.... thats not totally fair.... can you unblock it? i let you guys remove the pictures and didn't complain any.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konob16 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 June 2006
 * I did not protect the page, but given your prior reticence in adhering to fair use policy it is not unwarranted. --Durin 14:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

like i put on my disscusion i am sorry and i didn't know --Konob 12:56, 19 June 2006 (EST)

clarification
Would you do me a favour? Could you take a look at User_talk:Pd_THOR and and tell me whether I'm interpreting policy correctly in this instance? I'd appreciate somebody being behind me should I be in the right and this continues. Thanks! —  pd_THOR  undefined | 15:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bogdan is in the right. If it is tagged as an album cover, obviously the original work from which the image is derived, and from which descends the copyright, is the album cover. Thus, the source is of course the album cover which this is an image of. The source is implied by right of it being an album cover. --Durin 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But in the case of contestation, should I claim that I actually created that image and that the copyright belongs to me, there is no proof for either claim making them equally valid. Whereas should the image have a source showing that it originated from Amazon.com (or somesuch), that would provide ancillary proof of the correct primary source of the image as well as the copyrighting claimed.  Otherwise, we have no such checks against fradulent copyright claims.
 * I frequently run across images of celebrities or other popular culture items that the uploader illicitly claims No rights reserved, CopyrightedFreeUse, or PD in their copyright tagging. Without requiring sourcing on images, we have no checks against copyrighted material being fradulently licensed on Wikipdia.  Does that make sense?  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While waiting, since I don't have the balls to do so, I'm going to point out User:Ostrich11 with fair-use images on his Userpage.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 02:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright does not come from Amazon.com if that is where the source image was taken to be used here. The copyright descends from the original work. In the case of an album cover, that is the cover of the album..not Amazon.com or anyone who happens to scan the image. For an album cover, so long as it is possible to independently verify that it is indeed an album cover (which can be done by going to the neighborhood record store), then the album cover is plenty sufficient. The source is presumed. --Durin 02:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Final Hours at Hammersmith.
This article that I made was deleted for Advertising. Yet, in it, I made sure I did not add my own comments, and only included the details, and track listing.

Why was this deleted, yet their album information for "Hours" and "Casually Dressed" stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yatesl (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The first time I deleted the article, it was in part because it was talking about a future event. WP:NOT notes that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The second and third times I deleted it because at 1,000 copies and "bad editing" the album is unlikely to be notable, even if it was the only live CD from this tour. There are many such CDs from other bands which attain little or no notability. The other two albums you mentioned saw wide release with both albums having singles making it into the top 50 in the UK. That makes them notable. This CD has none of that...yet. It may in the future, but right now it does not. Frankly, I don't think it ever will given there being only 1,000 copies of it. The information regarding its release can and should be contained within the Funeral for a Friend article, as it mostly is now. --Durin 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Crests
Hello - just wondering why you deleted crests of my college and county from my userpage. Skimmed through fair use guidelines and couldn't see the problem - so wanted to ask what it was. Best, Uncantabrigian 20:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed Image:Keble.jpg, Image:Warwickarms.JPG and Image:Oxfordcrest.png from your userpage because the first two are tagged with coatofarms and the third is tagged with logo. In the case of the first two, that tag does not sufficiently state what the copyright status of the image is and as a result fair use must be presumed as the case for how the image is to be used on Wikipedia. As such, the images are not permitted to be used outside of the main article namespace. In the case of the third image tagged with logo, that tag is a fair use tag and again use outside of the main article namespace is prohibited. Hope this helps, --Durin 21:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet more WTC7
I imagine we'll come back to this after MONGO's RfC is sorted out. I'm rather surprised you haven't participated there; I have always thought of you as a force of moderation in these discussions, even if you have adopted some knee-jerk positions (no doubt through boredom and serial irritation from long defending these pages from nonsense). Frankly, as you can imagine, it's irritated me no end to be lumped with the conspiracy theorists and controlled-demolition adherents, for trying to get a modest mention of a poll into the article. I apologise once again for my intemperate tone in some of our discussions.

Nevertheless, I think it might benefit everybody, and the progress of this encyclopedia we're supposed to be writing, if you were able to bring a voice of reason to the debate, especially as I've mentioned my encounter with MONGO (and yourself) on the WTC 7 talk page. On a wider issue, I've also mentioned the possibility of a review of if/should 9/11 related articles have special status in the project, and I thought you might have a view on that. I think the present system is onerous both on you, the admins who watch them, and also on folks like me, honest well-meaning people who want to edit the encyclopedia, with proper regard to our policies. What do you think? --Guinnog 00:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry
Sorry about that I hadn't realized that. I just thought it had screwed up, Please forgive my ignorance. --MJHankel 02:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wales article
I see you did a minor edit to the article Wales (horse). This is a fake article and should be delted. As I do not know what procedure to follow, I thought you might help. Thank you. Handicapper 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PD and fair use on Syracuse article.
Sorry then, my mistake. If only images were always tagged correctly! -newkai | talk | contribs 14:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Image Question
Hi Durin,

You removed the image Image:Mssu.jpg from the Template:User MSSU, under the presumption that it violated the Fair Use Image question. I designed the image using part of the school logo, but not all of it. Here is a link to the original image:

Original Image

Does this still violate the Fair Use, as opposed to self creation? Rather, did the image still count as a logo versus an original creation. Thanks RebelAt 16:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, MSSU still holds copyright because it is a derivative work of the copyrighted image. Thus, I retagged the image as logo and removed it from the userbox. --Durin 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for the clarification. RebelAt 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image removals
Hey Durin. Thanks for the heads-up on the fair use images. Regards, Bryn C  (t/c) 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Northenglish
Thank you for your vote, even in opposition. I do admit having minor bouts of incivility. However, I do feel that the situation is defensible. The post you cited was made in the heat of the moment during the highway move war debate I discussed in my answers to the questions. It was made in direct response to SPUI's refusal to answer a question I made in debate.

As I said, SPUI and I have set aside our differences, and as a rule, I try to avoid incivility at all costs. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Hi there! Thank you for voting on my recent request for adminship, which did not succeed by a vote of 3/14/3. Not to worry, though; I am far from disappointed. The vast majority of the votes, even those in opposition, were quite positive. To be honest, I was not expecting it to succeed, and nominated myself on a bold spur-of-the-moment decision. Apparently, I'm not quite as experienced as I thought I was--I was sure I registered in February rather than April--but never fear! Emc² said it best: "Besides, you don't need to be a sysop to write good articles." I'll just continue doing what I'm doing, and perhaps I'll see you again in three months' time. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Critical commentary for dummies
I was wondering if there is a guide or equivalent of some sort that explains how critical commentary works for the uninformed? Cheers <span style="font-family:lucida grande, lucida sans unicode;"> o / s / p 12:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I am aware of. --Durin 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing fair use images.
I would've appreciated a brief note on my talk page telling me what you did. Thanks. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 19:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a brief note in the edit summary with links to the fair use policy and to a description page which responsds to this very request of yours. Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images. Thanks, --Durin 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read that. Still, it would be considered a nice thing to do to leave a message on my talk page, that way it's brought to my attention immediately. I suppose this is where you and I differ, but I really appreciate such messages. I know you said something in the edit summary, that's really not the point. Thanks. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 19:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done more than a thousand of these removals with very little in the way of complaint. I'm not going to double the effort require to do these removals to respond to the very, very small subset of users who might register a complaint about this. I'm sorry. --Durin 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This unnecessary duplication of messages is really starting to irk me. With all due respect, I did start the conversation here. I personally make every effort to follow-up on any conversation I start on the same page where I start it. A simple "I've repled to your comment on my talk page" would've sufficed". And as to the rest, I guess that's something where you and I differ. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 19:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many people have personal policies with regards to conversations on talk pages. Personally, I found it too cumbersome to read and identify these policies of each person. Thus, my policy is generally to respond here on my talk page to comments on my talk page and to the talk page of the person who made the comment to alert them to the response. Sorry this irks you. With that in mind, I've not replicated this image on your talk page. As to the rest, I don't think you'd be terribly keen on the idea of having the time cost of your work here doubled to achieve the same result. Related; you might wish to see Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals --Durin 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine after having read your page explaining the whole thing. Still, a small comment of "I've replied to your message on my talk page" instead of duplicating the entire conversation in two places would've been fine with me. I know you're trying to be helpful and all, but if you wanted the conversation directed at one place or the other, you can mention that too ;) I'm willing to bet that most users would comply with such a message regardless of their preferences. Thanks. I'm sure you can understand what I'm getting at. — Natha  n  ( talk ) / 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're the first person to find fault with it :) If more do, I'll rethink it. Thanks, --Durin 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Image removal from User:Usgnus/Sandbox
Thanks for that. I'll try to be more careful. --Usgnus 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Bees Who Speak English
Amazingly enough, we 'Bees have a pretty good handle on the language. Though, apparently, not as good a handle on the bright, shiny red don't touch this heading on some pages. Or the bright, shiny red copyright on some images. Maybe it's a green-red thing. In any event, glad you were able to see my appreciation despite my successful (I think?) efforts to remove my alterations to an archive. SO much to learn, and so little time... DukeEgr93 02:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Image formats
Hi! Minor quibble: As per Policy, image:WelcometoDurin.gif should ideally be in png format (if not svg). Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Another image removal (done)
Hi Durin, you removed nearly all content of Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems with the explanation Removing fair use image(s) per terms of Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9 (please see User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for further explanation). Since I can't see how Fair_use #9 should apply to an article in the main namespace, I reverted your edit. Could you please explain the exact reason why you removed the images? --jergen 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, this question is on the wrong user page, User:Ardenn removed the images and linked to your page. I'll ask him. --jergen 07:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perl related problems
Hello Durin,

I'm writing to let you know that I just edited the Perl article, and I added a new topic to the Talk:Perl discussion page. I saw your name in the discussion of a recent moderation event for the Perl Wikipedians.

Angela Beesley has setup The Perl Wiki in Wikia for me, and I believe that this will help relieve some of the pressures that people have been experiencing with putting Perl related articles into Wikipedia.

Just wanted to let you know what I'm doing for the global Perl community.

Eric R. Meyers

--Ermeyers 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
See User:Blnguyen/RfA for evidence of this flattery. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm touched! (Some say in the head, but I digress... :)) --Durin 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chongas 3
Before you say anything else, please look up chonga at urbandictionary.com. It deserves a page just as much as emo, prep, etc. Tamajared 17:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I DEMAND THAT CHONGA BE ADDED TO WIKIPEDIA! I WILL NOT REST UNTIL IT IS UNDELETED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Deletion review. You can plead your case there. --Durin

Why?
Re this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ATWT_history&oldid=64546975

Why did you have to do that? I mean, seriously, if you want to follow every single rule to the tee then it *probably* shouldn't be there. But can you once in your life think for yourself? No? *sigh* alright then, I'm not going to revert it like you want me to. I think it's time for Atlas to shrug. If you guys want to remove every image on this encyclopedia, it's time for us to start letting you have your way. Because every time we protest, it just contributes to your already over-inflated ego. <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The use of the image on that template violated fair use policy as detailed at Fair use criteria item #9. I'm sorry you're offended by that. --Durin 23:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you have nothing better to do than look around for fair use violations all day.... <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm sorry that you feel it necessary to insult people who are attempting to protect the project against lawsuits. This is also a violation of WP:CIV. --Durin 23:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So block me, jeez. In my day men took insults like men.  <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry this has to be said after the last line.... In my day men didn't throw hissy fits over editing articles about soap operas. I know this isn't my fight but it had to be said--Looper5920 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are requesting that I block you, I can do that. How long would you like the block to be? --Durin 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't be responsible for your actions, you choose. Keep in mind that I will not contribute until August 9 anyway due to a vacation I'm taking if YOU decide to block me for a length YOU decide on.  Oh, and I have priors.  <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 23:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to block you at the moment. You have violated some Wikipedia policies of late, but your behavior has not been seriously egregious and continuing in the face of warnings. Have a pleasant vacation. --Durin 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Hissy fits. That's the second violation of WP:CIV. Continued abuses of this policy will result in another block for you. --Durin 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That one wasn't me your highness <font face="Verdana" color="#000000">juppiter <font face="Verdana" color="#000000"> talk #c 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed it wasn't. I stand corrected. However, this latest comment from you certainly qualifies as your second. The warning stands. --Durin 23:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

About your comment to me Durin...
Hi Durin-- This is 3rdman...

Please don't talk to me the way you did in your message to me... I realized the Socialist "Red Rose" was changed, but I had no idea you removed it in the first place! I'm a fairly new user here, and I've noticed the Administrators here get really snippy really quickly if a user unintentionally violates section THIS, subsection THAT...

Give me a break OK? I don't have a chance to nerd it up by reading EVERY Wikipedia rule and article for conduct and "fair use" OK? Fortunately I have a LIFE outside of Wikipedia, and I'm too busy living it...

And if you think I had ANY intention of breaking the rules, or using the Socialist Emblem-- an emblem I personally regard most highly in my set of beliefs, in a way that would violate the "fair use" clause; YOU are the one with the problem- not me. So go back catch some naughty rule-breakers, OK thought-policeman? And stop making ridiculous assertions in my talk. --3rdman 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to how this, my only edit to your talk page caused such great offense. There's no snippiness there, simply a request that you do not put fair use tagged images on your userpage and an offer to answer any questions you may have about the matter. --Durin 12:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent vandalism to trekkie image/ubx
The images are not exact replicas, the smaller one is not a resize. Please in future do not vandalise userboxes/images unless you care to do some research, and in future do not change somebodys license. It is not your right to change the creators license. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 13:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The smaller one uses different colours.
 * The smaller one has diffent pixel alignments.
 * Also one has a gradient, the other does not.
 * Also you may wish to check edit historys, the author clearly prooved the image is of his creation (see the creators larger version: ) Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not sufficiently different for it to invalidate Paramount's copyright. The source of the image is very obviously Paramount's copyrighted logo. If I were to take a logo from Coca-Cola corporation, and change the aspect ration of the image slightly, change the color of the logo to being a slightly different color of red, and then printed a million t-shirts with "my" image on them, Coca-Cola would have lawyers at my door faster than a starving pirahna. Wikipedia needs to err on the side of caution to protect itself against copyright. I consulted a member of ArbCom before moving forward on the retagging and removal and that person confirmed my conclusion. Your depiction of my work on this as vandalism is also out of line. --Durin 13:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the image you cited as deviant art is blatantly a derivative work of Paramount's copyrighted image. --Durin 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is a recreation uses differnt colours etc etc, i could of given you a blanking warning but i am kinder then that. That image its self was not created by paramount and thus can not be claimed as fair use. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on use of an image from commons in Template:Politics of Canada
Would this image be okay to use in Politics of Canada: Image:Canada_coa.png? --Usgnus 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I just saw that it's a PNG image, and the licence applies to GIF images only. Sorry to bother you. --Usgnus 22:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, if it's in Commons, it's not a fair use image. --Usgnus 22:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Duke
Fair Enough...but I think Wikipedia should look into changing this polcy. I mean, honestly, are the copyright police going to come after you for a Template?...there should be some discretion

It's sad too, because the templates look so much better with the logos.

Regardless, if your going to nail La Salle University then please fix Duke University's Template too

66.30.130.133 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "They wouldn't sue over this!" and similar arguments to support abuse of copyright is not an affirmative defense under fair use law. We must assume the institutions that hold copyrights to material are interested in protecting those copyrights unless we have proof otherwise. Thus, the fair use images must remain off of templates. As for Duke, Duke's template is not in violation; the only image on the template is Image:ChapelLogoCom.JPG which has been released under terms of GFDL. Regardless, even if it was in violation, or even if every single other university's navigational template was in violation, it is still a violation. Simply because a crime is committed does not mean that subsequent incidents of the same crime are legal. --Durin 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea but that chapel logo is a LOGO...it's just marked as a GFDL. So since they labeled it wrong, thats OK. No way, it's clearly in violation. Lasallefan 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too when I first saw it, but I can't find any source for the image from Duke that show it is a violation. I searched literally hundreds of images. --Durin 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of faiuse images from templates
Dear Durin, please see the discussion I started at the pump in response to your actions here. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a followup to his village pump discussion about a slightly different scenario where template is meant for exactly one article. --MattWright (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User Picture
You removed the picture of the OS X Dashboard on my user page. But that was a screenshot taken on my computer, so why cant i use it on my user page? Alegoo92 -July 18 2006
 * Because a screenshot from a computer has copyrighted material on it, and can only be used under a claim of fair use here at Wikipedia. We do not allow fair use images on user pages, per Fair use criteria item #9. --Durin 01:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Railroad Heralds
There is no image in the template; the image is a parameter to it. I can understand removing the image from the samples, but your removal of the explanation implies a claim that the images can't be used in the article either. Mangoe 17:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit infobox rail. I did edit WikiProject Trains/Article templates to remove text because it advocates the use of the company's logo, which is proscibed by Fair use criteria item #9. I don't have any issue with an image being on the template. Lots of templates have images on them. For example, NYC Bridge has an image on it. An earlier version had a fair use violation which I removed. See . If you want to re-insert text that is appropriate, rather than referring to the company's logo, please by all means feel free! --Durin 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The use is not so proscribed, because the image isn't in the template; it's in the article. Heralds are obviously fit subject matter for articles on railroads. Mangoe 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The image was on a non-main space article. The advocation to insert fair use images on a non-main space article was there as well. Both were removed. I've since modified the wording to advocate a non-fair use image. --Durin 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It does not advocate putting images on non-main space articles. The template is used to put fair-use images on articles where they are as germane as they could possibly get. Mangoe 17:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the image is important enough to be included in the article, then it can be put in the article. Having fair use images on navigational templates serves a decorative purpose only. Such a use is not permitted under fair use law. --Durin 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a navigational template, and the image is not on the template anyway. It would be possible to enforce that the template only be used on the articles for the actual railroads, and in that context a reader of an encyclopedia would expect the herald to appear. It is only reasonable that a summary box for a railroad should include that railroad's herald-- indeed, I'd vote against featurable status for any railroad article that lacked it. And it's only reasonable that such boxes should be constructed through templates. Mangoe 18:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I know it's not a navigational template. Nevertheless, images are not permitted on templates, be they navigational or no. I have no issue with a fair use image being on an article, and I have no issue with a template uses code to refer to an image, rather than actually displaying it on the template itself, such that the fair use could be included on the article. If a template refers to an image rather than actually displaying it, the image is not on the template. No issue. --Durin 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: high res and "fair use"
I think I need some support; if there's a consensus (or a qualified legal opinion) that this is unacceptable, I'm for checking all Category:Logos and replacing SVG images with PNG ones. Conscious 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You can count on me to back you up, presuming it remains clear (I think it's already clear) that scalable images are not what fair use intended. --Durin 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just in case you're not aware of it: there's been some discussion lately: 1 2. Conscious 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

this edit
How is having a logo like on Conrail a problem? --SPUI (T - C) 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't. It was a badly worded effort (now corrected) on my part to make it clear where fair use images should and should not be used. --Durin 18:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Dude I GET THE POINT...I'm going to fix them up. Stop being such a jerk/nazi. Why are you doing all this to me? Jeez... Lasallefan 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. --Durin 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the copyright issues or what is at stake. Is it because wiki is the host of the images, that the policy is to prevent copyright images from even appearing? Would there be a way to circumvent this? An approval from the copyright owner, for example?  Can we host an image via an external link? To me this is like Ford saying you can't put their commercials on TV without paying them for the rights to air them.  Your proactive support to make sure La Salle doesn't sue, is admirable but maybe not in their best interests.  BTW, Ford has their copyrighted image on wikipedia! I don't understand rules that only apply to half of the people, half of the time.  Have you just not gotten around to deleting Ford? delinodeshields 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The crux of the matter is how the images are licensed and in how they are used. Indeed, we do have a logo for Ford Motor Company here, under Image:Ford Motor Company Logo.svg. That image is tagged with a logo tag, which is a fair use tag. Ford can not prevent us from using an image of their logo on an article about them, since such use qualifies as fair use. Other uses of their logo become substantially more difficult to justify under fair use law. Thus, the policies at Wikipedia have been written to proscribe the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. Ford Motor Company is in the main article namespace. A template, such as User Ford is not and we may not use fair use images on it. Somebody did try, but it was removed, and appropriately at that. In La Salle's particular case, the logo in question is Image:Logobigs2.gif; it was tagged improperly as having been released under terms of GNU Free Documentation License. No proof has been provided that La Salle University has released all rights to that image. Thus, the GFDL tag was wholly improper, and it has been retagged to logo. Thus, it can not be used on templates such as La Salle University.
 * So, yes, we can host images here that are copyrighted, though we prefer free-licenses images instead wherever possible. Hosting them on an external link is undependable. Being proactive in adhering to copyright law is not defending La Salle; it's defending Wikipedia. That's where the issue is and what is at stake. The Wikimedia Foundation is contacted on a regular basis regarding copyright violations. It is a matter of time before some company or group decides that it is time to sue Wikipedia. If we do not take due diligence in trying to adhere to copyright law, Wikipedia is going to find itself cast into the dustbin of history. That's what is at stake. --Durin 17:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can definitely appreciate due diligence. I read up on the policy and understand why you want to prevent images from appearing on templates. Can it rest now, is my text replacement using the same color scheme, an acceptable solution? delinodeshields 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. That representation is not copyrightable, by definition. --Durin 17:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Thanks for reminding me that the ESA Logo image is currently orphaned. To fix the problem, I have choosed the other image page. As it is used in other articles on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logo_ESA.png user ESA --Narold 13:31, 26 July 2006 (GMT)

User template
Hi there, I made changes on the image I used for user UWM template. It is a selfmade image. Please be careful when you delete my photo. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipedia (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 July 2006
 * Simply making changes to a copyrighted work does not transfer all rights of that image to you. Please see derivative work. UWM retains all their rights to the image. --Durin 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw Wyandotte Caves on your desk.
Someone apparently created Wyandotte Caves as a copywrite violation. I began writing an article to take its place at Wyandotte Caves/Temp. I then discovered Wyandotte Cave. As you seem to be interested in the presence of an article on Wyandotte, I was wondering if you could take a look at those pages and the discussion I started as to what to do about them. Right now I'm thinking merge them at Wyandotte Caves is the ultimate solution. However, I would love additional input. Thanks ONUnicorn 20:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded there. --Durin 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Image blanking.. do it right!
When you decide to remove images from template etc at least have the decency to do it right! (see )

Notice how image tags are left there?, please use the preview button in future (it is next to the save button, the save button is under the big white box - The white box is in the middile ;-)) {Alternitivly Alt+P to preview (and S to save))

Thank you, PS: I have corrected your error. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no error. In removing fair use images, I remove the image making the fair use image violation. It isn't up to me to figure out the best thing to do with the template after that point. "Image=" isn't a copyright violation. If someone wants to put an image in there, they are welcome to...just not a fair use image. Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images. I'm well aware of where the preview button is, thanks. --Durin 20:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are to lazy to remove the image part then dont edit at all, do you not realise you are messing up pages and this could be considerd vandalism on your part for not removing the image tag when blanking content. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't laziness. Again, please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images. I will continue making these removals of fair use images that violate Fair use criteria item #9. I'm sorry, but indicating that the removal leaves the template looking bad is not sufficient reason for stopping this important work. I recognize that it leaves a number of templates looking less than ideal. I believe in eventualism; somebody will eventually fix it to look right. Chances are that somebody will be considerably more knowledgeable about what is appropriate for a particular template than I, and the result will be superior to what I could do with it. If you feel this is vandalism, then by all means please report it to WP:AN/I. I wouldn't want to do something to damage the project. If you can make a case that this work is causing damage to the project, then please make it and I gladly acquiesce to whatever outcome comes from such a discussion. --Durin 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not important work, just looking at your prev 500 edits, what contributions have you made to wikipedia? None. The point is to contribute, not get up at 8AM in the morning and think uhm.. more blanking today and then go to bed. You seem to have enough time to remove the images then at least comment themfully out and leave a note in your summary to tell users to replace it. If you find it so difficult then stop compromising the intergrity of the project and let someone who is willing remove fair use images properly. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are becoming increasingly hostile about this, and I find little reason to continue discourse with you when you are acting in this manner. Twice now you have accused me of vandalism. I'm not interested in responding to these attacks upon me. Thank you, --Durin 20:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where have i accused you of vandalism~, and if i have to adopt a tone in which will help you better understand the nature of my complaint then it has to be done. You just cant mess up pages and expect people to fix things for you. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 20:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you find yourself incapable of recognizing your accusations of vandalism against me. I fully intend to continue the work on fair use images as I have been doing. Your arguments against my doing this work are not compelling. If you want me to stop removing fair use images, you will need to file a complaint. You may wish to start with WP:AN, or perhaps WP:VP. Alternatively, you may wish to start an RfC against me at WP:RFC. --Durin 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As expected you could not produce proof i have called you a vandal (which we both know i have not ;-)) Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A common tactic some people use when confronted with a person who refuses to engage them in an argument is to make a claim that they 'won' the argument or that the person they are arguing with is incapable of producing any evidence. You are certainly welcome to your beliefs, and I hope they please you. --Durin 12:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:CityofBloomingtonSeal.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:CityofBloomingtonSeal.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out. It has been corrected. --Durin 12:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus RfA
Hi Durin, When you closed the RfA you wrote that it did not succeed but failed to attach his intention to withdraw his nomination. i think it is important to maintain that information somewhere on the page. i have been bold and added it back. Please remove if not appropriate. Thanks David D. (Talk) 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:E-mail
Hi, I was going to contact you, I'm currently trying to get my article edits up to 1000, and then I owuld be happy enough. Apart from that is there anything else you could comment on? --Wisd e n17 22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't conducted a review yet. I did look briefly at edit counts, and saw article edits beneath 1,000. I don't think it would be a big problem, but it's not a bad idea to wait until it reaches 1,000. --Durin 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I should have it up to 1000 this week (as I'm around quite a bit this week, and am going to go on a bit of an article drive) so I'd be grateful if you could condct a review, to see what you think. --Wisd e n17 23:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lasallefan vandalism
Lasallefan vandalised my userpage by posting a comment straight on my userpage instead of in the talk pages. He has been harassing me and reverting my legitimate edits. Is there anything you can do to send a message that his shenanigans aren't longer tolerated?
 * Thanks for talking to him. I see he removed his entire talk page instead of archiving it again, but that's fine. Do you know of any mods whose specialty is copyright violations? I need to talk to them about stuff. Thanks!Pacdude 22:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of pictures from my user page
Fair enough but would it have taken so much more effort to maintain a little courtesy and actually request i remove them myself? I dont (and im sure most users feel the same) appreciate having some random chap fiddling with my user page regardless of how valid a reason they have. In future i advise you inform people of the fact that they should remove pictures from their page and why rather than, antagonistically, doing so yourself. siarach 17:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed at length. There was a reference to an RfC in the page that the edit summary refers to. Perhaps you missed it. The RfC is at Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals and deals directly with this issue. Thank you, --Durin 17:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Had a look through RfC and ive endorsed your summary. Regards, siarach 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Louisville seal from WikiProject Louisville templates
I'm not going to argue that your position of removing them was incorrect, although I think it is on thin ice. The problem is you did not show any courtesy in informing me in advance so I could review the matter and find an alternative image. What you did maybe was slightly legally protective (even though I'm confident the Louisville government wouldn't have ever sued over this), but what you did was very anti-community. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 14:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC that I brought regarding this very matter. You may wish to see it at Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. The consensus from that was that no notification was the best way forward with the current tools we have at our disposal. I readily grant that no notification is anti-community. I really wish there was a bot to handle this work, as a bot would be able to leave messages as appropriate without incurring human time to do so. I've made requests, and so far nobody has stepped forward to write a bot to do this work.
 * On whether Louisville would sue; we can't operate on an assumption that X group will not sue. Eventually, we'll be wrong and the costs will be too great. We have to operate on the assumption that copyright holders wish to protect their rights unless we have positive confirmation from them stating their intentions to release their copyrights and place the image under a free license of one sort or another. All the best, --Durin 14:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the image from Louisville's flag is being removed, why are the images found at Gallery of flags of United States cities remaining? If Louisville's flag supposedly falls under copyright law, is the same not true of all the other flags?Chris24 04:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Flags aren't the issue; seals are. Regardless, the presence of other copyright violations does not render other copyright violations as acceptable. --Durin 05:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that we cannot violate copyrights. However, as a matter of fairness, I request that you go after all the other city/state WikiProjects as soon as possible to enforce this rule on an equal basis.  Otherwise, it looks like we were picked out for a special violation when it was really no different from what similar projects were doing.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 05:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are literally thousands of violations of this policy on Wikipedia. Fairness isn't a central issue to handling these violations. --Durin 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If, as you state, "Flags aren't the issue; seals are.", you may want to look at the pages Great Seal of the United States, Seal of New York City, Seal of Baltimore, Maryland, Seal of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Seal of Minneapolis, Minnesota and Seal of Seattle. Also, the majority of city and state flags incorporate their respective seals in their flag designs which, according to your reasoning, should be removed as well. Chris24 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * de-indent Many flags in the U.S. are, by law, in the public domain. Seals extracted from their designs are derivative works of public domain images. As a result, those seals are PD as well. With respect to particular cases that you raise:
 * Great Seal of the United States is a work of the United States federal government. In the very vast majority of cases, works of the U.S. federal (not state or local) government are in the public domain by U.S. law as outlined at title 17, chapter 1, section 105 of the US Code.
 * The Seal of New York City (Image:Us-nycsl.png) is properly tagged with logo, and there are currently no fair use violations of that image.
 * The Seal of Baltimore, Maryland (Image:Seal of Baltimore.jpg) is also properly tagged with logo. There was one fair use image violation, which I removed.
 * The Seal of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Image:Milseal.gif is also properly tagged with logo, and there are currently no fair use violations of that image.
 * The Seal of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Image:Mplsseal.gif is also properly tagged with logo. There was one fair use image violation, which I removed.
 * The Seal of Seattle (Image:Seattle seal.png) is also properly tagged with logo, and there are currently no fair use violations of that image.


 * Any other images you have concerns about? --Durin 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to Durin's complaint about the volume of violations precluding handling other city/state WikiProjects, which are not really that great a number. I want to ensure that WikiProject Louisville doesn't appear singled out.  If Durin isn't sensitive to that, then I could easily charge he is engaged in selective enforcement, or at least that the action isn't in the interest of the community.  Fairness is just as important as removing copyvios.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * de-indent The notion that I am singling out your particular project is groundless. I have conducted more than 1600 of these removals across a very broad variety of topics. For a small sampling of what I have done, you may wish to review User:Durin/Popular fair use images and User:Durin/Fair_use_miscellany. I am sorry if you feel singled out, but such an assertion is simply and very provably false. --Durin 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Groundless perhaps, but you still made our project look bad in comparison to others. You remain insensitive to that subject.  I am requesting that you hit all the other city/state WikiProjects within the next few days.  Certainly this can be done.  Please be fair.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 06:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I noted, fairness in removing fair use images is not a central issue in protecting ourselves against copyright nor is it an affirmative defense. I remove violations as I find them. I happened to come across your project, and removed them. I am sorry if you feel offended by that, as it is not my intention to offend you. If you feel strongly about this, you may wish to conduct such removals yourself. In doing so, you might want to reference Removal of fair use images in your edit summary. Since you seem to be more aware of city projects than I, you would possibly be better suited to conducting these removals. All the best, --Durin 06:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your unfair, haphazard approach, but obviously I cannot make you do the right thing. Further, I refuse to be the bringer of bad tidings to other WikiProjects.  I guess we'll have to leave it at that.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 06:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We disagree on what the "right thing" is. The right thing, from my chair, is to remove all fair use image violations. Your project had some of these violations and they were properly and appropriately removed. In time, all other violations will be removed as well. Whether we get to all city projects first, in a month, or two months from now is really irrelevant as the sequence does not matter; what matters is they are removed. I doubt members of other city projects are laughing at Louisville because that project had it's fair use images removed. Further, I fail to see how your efforts in your project are in any way hindered by having the fair use image violations removed. You can still conduct your work as you did before. As to such work being bad tidings; it should be seen as happy tidings. We are protecting Wikipedia against lawsuits that could, quite literally, shut down this project. By conducting these removals, we are doing a good thing...not a bad thing. --Durin 06:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Many flags in the U.S. are, by law, in the public domain. Seals extracted from their designs are derivative works of public domain images. As a result, those seals are PD as well."Chris24 06:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You stated "Many flags in the U.S. are, by law, in the public domain. Seals extracted from their designs are derivative works of public domain images. As a result, those seals are PD as well." Can you explain why the Flag and Seal of Louisville are different from other flags and seals? --Chris24 06:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The flag of Louisville has no license (Image:OfficialMetroLouisvilleFlag.jpg associated with it. I added a no license notice to it this evening, but the license has been missing for some months now. It was earlier tagged with a generic fair use tag (which was really insufficient), and later with a U.S. state or federal insular tag, which was improper. Since there is no license, we can not presume it is in the public domain or under any other free use license. Thus, we must not presume that any derivatives of it, including the seal of Louisville, are public domain. --Durin 06:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas
Concerning Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, it seems the subject of the article has intervened at length in the AfD discussion. I am not sure just how permissible this is, or if the huge speeches he's inserterd are regarded disruptive, but I guess somebody with the powers ought to look into it. --Svartalf 08:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)]]

Thanks
...for redirecting my navigation templates. I didn't know I was wrong. Best regards from Argentina, Luis María Benítez 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image from user page
Hi, Durin. As one of the editors who (I blush to admit it!) had an unfree image in a user box on her user page removed by you (can't give a diff, because I deleted the whole page some time later, to get rid of some personal information, and started again from scratch), I want to say I fully support what you're doing, and I'm glad that you noticed my copyright violation, even if I didn't. Cheers. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Your kind words are appreciated! It's a largely thankless job, and I receive a heck of a lot more flack about it than I do any supportive words. I appreciate you taking the time to leave me such a message! --Durin 22:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

your removal of a fair use image from a fair use appropriate situation
Image:Propaganda_Dc.jpg

On 7-31 you removed this fair use image from the Christian Democracy template (see diff). The criteria for fair use is "for identification and critical commentary on (1) the poster itself or (2) the political movement it represents". This template fits the second category; the image being old political posters that identify, represent, and provide basis for commentary on said political movement. Therefore, it should be perfectly legal to use the image for said fair use. If you don't respond in a few days, I'll assume you agree. <font style="background: lightblue" color="#000000">  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 00:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While it may be legal, it is still not permited by Wikipedia policy. The reason for this is that having a large number of exceptions depending on a dizzying array of potential circumstances creates a situation that is untenable from a management of copyright concerns perspective. Thus, the policy is written such that the use of fair use images in templates is proscribed. Please see Fair use criteria item #9 where it says "All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided". Fair use images are to be used only in main namespace articles. Thus, it was properly removed from Christian Democracy sidebar. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 04:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Imp symb.svg
Hi, I noticed you changed the copyright tag on the image IMP_symb.svg from PD-self to logo. While it is indeed a logo, it is not fair use but public domain as it is an Israel Defense Forces corps symbol. However, using the website version of the Hamatzon may still require fair use restrictions because the depiction of the symbol (which is really a pin) was created by whoever built the military website. I have seen a multitude of images which were obvious derivatives of 'fair use' images tagged as PD-self. Maybe this is an incorrect image tag. However, I cannot find any template, other than Military-Insignia (which refers only to rank insignia), or PD-USGov-Military-Army (which refers only to the US army), which describes the copyright status of the image in question (AFAIK, PD-self would be appropriate under Wikipedia policy for this). If you disagree, please change the tag to reflect the image's true copyright status, because it is definitely PD and not fair use. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it may still require fair use restrictions then we're safest indicating it is used here under fair use until we can verify its status. Do you know what the particular law is in Israel that grants all Israel Defense Forces Corps symbols as public domain? There is such a law in the U.S. (all federal government works, almost without exclusion). I don't think Wikipedia is aware of the Israeli law on this. If there is such a law, then indeed we need a tag akin to the US government one, perhaps PD-IsraelGov-Military or something. --Durin 12:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:tourettes guy
Can't take a bit of comedy?-- HamedogTalk|@ 14:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PAs
As you said, I should obviously avoid user:pacdude. However, he just won't leave me alone. He constantly stalks the stuff I'm trying to do, claims I'm promoting myself, and continues to make attacks. Lokk at all this on this page for example. The guy hasn't even been anywhere near the town, and knows nothing of it! (can you fix all the swearing, etc, and just put it back to its main page?) He doesn't try to help...only edits and get ballistic. He's angry over leaving WEXP is the truth of the matter. Anyway, can you do something, or give me some advice? Thanks Lasallefan 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll leave him a message. --Durin 17:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Pacdude. --Durin 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note on politeness
I probably should have said something earlier, but edit summaries like Closing out properly are a very grating way to correct someone. If you feel I haven't done something right, just point it out to me. I just happen to think things like that aren't that important to building an encyclopedia so I skip it if I see them instead of taking time to correct it. That edit summary basically says I've done it improperly and I don't know what I'm doing. Now maybe that's your intent, but I'm going to assume you're not meaning to be rude. I'm bringing it up because I see a lot of similar edit summaries from you and I imagine other people find it similarly impolite. - Taxman Talk 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was never my intention to cause offense. I've been |complimented for it before. Yes, I do feel some of the RfAs are closed improperly. About 10% of the RfAs that are closed (by all people) have errors in their close. I'm not meaning to say you don't know what you're doing. Hardly! I don't see that there's a way to have an edit summary that notes the correction without saying something very similar. I just view it as similar to something like "grammar correction" on a main namespace article. It's not an evaluation of you; it's just continuing work that needs to be done. I'm sorry you're offended. Can you think of another way to say the same thing without causing offense? --Durin 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I figured it was better to say something than let it grate on me, so I appreciate you didn't mean to offend. One way is instead of saying properly, which implies it was done improperly, is just say "a couple fixes" or "a small fix". The difference is that this isn't a mainspace article, so I'd prefer if you just remind me directly I'm not closing them fully, or just let it go. I actually use Voice of All's script, and the version that I grabbed must not have pulled out the vote here link, though I think it worked before. However, I consider formatting on non articles not as important as improving articles so as long as they are closed it's fine. - Taxman Talk 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am detail oriented; in this case having the vote here link could encourage people to continue to comment, when it is in fact closed. I'll think about an alternate edit summary. Thanks, --Durin 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are, and that can be an incredible asset, I'd just posit that there are much more valuable uses of your skills. But thanks for listening. - Taxman Talk 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We each have our various skill sets, and we each have our desired areas of contributions. I've contributed across a broad range of areas in my time here. Part of that has been RfA, but there's considerably more. User:Durin/Contributions if you're deathly curious :-) That page shows more than 200 images I've uploaded to Wikipedia, for example. RfA isn't the only place I have an interest. Oh, by the way. I've thought of another edit summary. "<x> is an idiot poser who couldn't properly close this RfA. Cleaning up." What do you think? ;-) --Durin 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I wasn't saying you didn't, I was just saying some of the effort in question would be better redirected to those other areas you work in. - Taxman Talk 22:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images
You need to read here i am the creator of the file as in Author i specify this, i specify the show also. I will always try not to walk a fine line and cram as much information my hands can type into the summary box as i like to be safe and specify everything i can. Plus it also allows users to contact me should they have any queries with regards to the images :) Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, edited your userpage not your talk. Apoligies. Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 20:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stating you as the source is copyright improper. You are not the source; the show is. You are not the author of the image. The creators of the show is. It's a matter of definition. You can say you created the screencap if you like, but you are not the source of the image or the author. --Durin 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, Your advice was took into consideration and i will now follow a new style for my fair use uploads for an example see here i do state that i capped the image but i dont state i am the author or source. Is this new style ok? Matthew <b style="color:#3366ff;"> Fenton  (</b> contribs <b style="color:#3366ff;">)</b> 11:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks! --Durin 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: orphaned image
Hi Durin, Dionlogo.jpg was in fact being used on my user page; in case this does not count, it now appears in the Stéphane Dion article. Thanks. Escheffel 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry it doesn't count to be used on a userpage. Fair use tagged images may only be used in the main namespace (articles). See Fair use criteria item #9. If they're not there, they are to be deleted. --Durin 22:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Miami Florida city flag.svg
I've added a speedy tag. If you are an admin, feel free to delete it. --iMeowbot~Meow 10:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sailing RfA
Well, let me be paranoid over this and do not accept congratulations... There are 1000 and 1 way that a RfA can go bust during the last hours of nomination. There dozens of idioms in my native language that says don't celebrate too early and I agree. But thank you for your support (and for not nominating me earlier, it really helped me grow). Renata 15:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not just "fairuse"
I hope you know that Coat of Arms is not just an image, it is a symbol of special significance. Given that there are other alternatives, I am puzzled why you chose to remove it. In the spirit of WP:AGF, I hope the PD image that I restored is satisfactory for all. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it because the image (Image:Israel coat of arms.svg) was tagged with a fair use tag. Per terms of Fair use criteria item #9, the use of fair use tagged images is not permitted on templates. The alternative you found (Image:Coat of arms of Israel.png) is, for now, acceptable. I've raised a larger issue with vector-images.com at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Capitulating_clarification_of_copyright_status. All the best, --Durin 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fair use image
Sorry for using the image MeganeRS.jpg on my userbox, in fact I uploaded it but I didn't remember that I marked it with a fair use in tag. Now, I wanna ask you if those tags can be changed :) Fluence 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You would have to inquire with Caradisiac. Failing that, no. Suggestion; go take a picture of a Renault yourself, and upload it under a free-license. We'd FAR prefer having free-use licenses images over fair use images anyway; if it is a decent picture, you can put it on the appropriate Renault articles. --Durin 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Image
Thanks for removing those images from my user page. I didn't realize that was a problem. Ubuntu Dude
 * You're welcome! :) --Durin 12:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

University of Windsor
Okay, I misunderstood the policy, since I assumed if you have called the image FAIR USE and are using it on the article, it could be used in other places. However, I will contact the university and find out wherther the first image that I called GDFL, is copyrighted in law. I suspect it is a FAIR USE image and can be used elsewhere. Before you arbitrarily changed it from gdfl to FAIR USE, who did you consult, what was your source to say that shape, is copyrighted? --Mikerussell 03:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this SOURCE please!
You stated the object used in the userbox was- "Since the University of Windsor retains rights to the image, the use of it here on Wikipedia is under terms of fair use." Are you talking about the shape iteself? There needs to be some source for changing an image from GDFL to FAIR USE. There is nothing on the University's website itself, and that image is commonly displayed in Windsor itself, unrelated to the University, although it is incorporated into the logo.--Mikerussell 03:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I emailed the Public Affairs and Communications (PAC) at the University tonight and will be curious to see how they answer. --Mikerussell 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinion sought
Durin, if you have a little time, I'd appreciate you looking at this page and giving me your opinion. No rush, though if you can reply by the 17th that would be nicely symbolic. If you can't, no worries as well. -- nae'blis 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy/Guideline opinion on RfAs
What do you think of joint nominations? JoshuaZ 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter from a procedural standpoint. From a personal standpoint, I dislike them. --Durin 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, in that case, I'll leave it to you to nominate User:Thatcher131 if you choose to do so at some point. If you decide not to, please let me know along with why you decided not to since I am also considering nominating him. JoshuaZ 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courtesy! I'll definitely let you know if I choose not to nominate him. I'm about 1/4th of the way through my review, and it looks very good so far. --Durin 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:B&W-MuhammadToHeraclius.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B&W-MuhammadToHeraclius.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a special case of image. Orphan bot is off on this case, and the fate of this image is tied to its source whose license is under dispute. --Durin 18:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My Copyright issues- Allan Bloom, U of Windsor
Hi, I read what you wrote about all these mirrors hosting wikpedia, and saw how the copyright image problem could get dicey, so I would ask you to delete the University of Windsor image from the userbox and also delete the Allan Bloom article image, for both of these images I emailed the copyright holder and got no response, negative or positive, but I think i didn't really relaize how many other sites take wikipedia. I don't feel right about assuming no permission to not use the image from the copyright holder is tacit approval. Since you are an admin, I hope you delete the photo from the database quickly. --Mikerussell 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First, my compliments to you for helping this be an amicable process! I've deleted the images you requested for deletion. If you do hear from either of these parties in the future, then by all means re-upload, especially the Allan Bloom image. Don't despair at not hearing. I e-mailed the Vatican twice regarding the use of papal symbols and never heard back from them. Somewhat depressing, but there are also times when you do hear back. I know of a user who contacted the State of Nebraska regarding the use of their seal. He heard back quite rapidly. Still, as you say, not receiving word back from somebody can not be interpreted as them releasing their rights as we need to have positive affirmation of such release. Otherwise, less ethical people than you could just say "Well, I never heard back from them" and in reality they never bothered to contact them. That would open us to significant legal problems. --Durin 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Lasallefan did it again!
 What's a guy to do when he keeps ignoring moderators? Pacdude 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case he removed both his acerbic comments and yours. --Durin 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But, does he really have a right to remove my comments, acerbic or otherwise? Pacdude 03:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From a technical standpoint, yes. All comments written here by you, or indeed anyone else, are written under terms of GFDL. From a policy standpoint, disputed. Remove personal attacks is a disputed guideline. Regardless, the move can be seen as one that tries to ratchet down the rhetoric and aggressive nature of a conversation. That's not necessarily a bad thing. --Durin 14:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar from Wikiwoohoo - better late than never!
Hi Durin. I recently archived my talk page and came across the help you gave me during my first RfA (I've had two and both failed), in which you searched the list of registered users for any that possibily matched the ideas I had of what my previous account name could be. While this was unsuccessful, I decided that it was only right that I awarded you this: Thank you once again for your help then. Shame I couldn't remember the account. All the best, Wikiwoohoo 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! --Durin 02:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

jackson pictures
it's a bit late isn't it!!! that 'saga' about the pictures took place many seasons ago. please avert your attempts to prolong the situae.--Paaerduag 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The situation still existed in that the images were not tagged properly. --Durin 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:South Gippsland Railway.JPG)
after reading User:Durin/Removal of fair use images im under the impression that using this image on the indivual pages and not in the template is acceptable? --Dan027 10:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So long as the image is used on a main namespace article and not used outside of the main article namespace. --Durin 12:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Clean-Up
Can you just clear up swearing, personal refeneces here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.62.60 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Only those with oversight ability may do so, and the use of oversight for the purpose you are asking is not authorized. Sorry. --Durin 12:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the link you sent me..."Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. "... the use of the word "Fuck" is appropriate too apparently? 192.160.62.60 12:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The use of oversight to remove personal attacks is not authorized unless a cause is raised regarding slander. Sorry. --Durin 12:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice (re: BRoy logo removal)
Hi Mr Durin, I wonder if you could advise me on a course of action to take in the wake of your recent actions - what kind of image can I use on these templates? I first used the royal arms, and was denied, so I designed and created this logo myself, specifically for this use - if I cannot use this image, could you perhaps suggest an image, or 'class' of these, which I could? Yours, etc -- D  B  D  12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any image tagged with a fair use tag, such as logo, tv-screenshot, bookcover, etc., may not be used outside of the main article namespace. That means it may only be used on actual encyclopedia articles as opposed to templates, userpages, project pages, portal pages, etc. Image:BRoy.png has been released by you into the public domain and may be freely used as you have used it. So, you're good to go. Also, nice work! That's a very good image! --Durin 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah - I just realised that you only removed the images from my backups in my userspace, as opposed to the templates themselves - does your above reply suggest that I might add them back into my backups? -- D  B  D  22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are tagged with a free license, not fair use, then you can add them to a template. If I removed an image, it's because it was a fair use image. I would not put them back in. --Durin 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your puzzle on when you will return
Durin wrote:


 * You will return at 00:50:00 UTC Sunday, 23 July 2006. --Durin 20:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think you got your function wrong. The maximum value it can achieve is, I think, 70.61. Thus, it can't reach 100.00%. I presume that the solution is solving for 1.00%, and my answer above is based on that. --Durin 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, so I did. (Doh!) Somehow I was out by a factor of 10, so it's only at 10%, rather than 100%, now that I'm back. Must have missed a zero off somewhere. The intended date was in fact today, 14 August 2006... of course it didn't quite work :). I was trying to think of something something interesting to leave on my userpage and I realised I could do this... should have double-checked the numbers, but never mind. At least the progress bar seems to be drawing properly, I might have use for one of those elsewhere.

Anyway, I'd better go find out what I've missed – Gurch 18:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome back :) --Durin 19:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD on International Institute of Management
There is a current Afd (here) on this article, which appears to be a recreation of an article you speedied in January (here)? Do you have access to the content of that first article, and would you be willing to take a quick look and provide some input to the current discussion? It seems a fairly obvious case of puffery by a non-notable entity in violation WP:CORP/vanity, etc., but the antics of one of the involved parties (User:Miro.gal) and the overzealous nominator have made this a bit of a muddle. As best as I can tell, the article's creator (User:Ceowebmaster) and/or the anon contributor 68.224.128.98 are the user Maj_IIM you dealt with at that time (while Miro.gal is almost certainly closely associated as well). Thanks - David Oberst 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration of the AfD and the evidence presented, I've closed the AfD as delete. This took more than two hours to work through. Uhg! :) I provided an extensive rationale at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/International Institute of Management. --Durin 14:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to also look at The_Cyprus_International_Institute_of_Management. Coincidentally similar name?  Perhaps a CheckUser to look for any geographic or IP relation to Miro.gal (whom I thought was female, but no matter) is in order? - CobaltBlueTony 15:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Blatant copyright violation of a number of websites. I've reported it appropriately. --Durin 17:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in the article before it was deleted, IIM spun off from a MTA group, which operates in the Middle East, so I am not surprised that there is a Cyprus outfit, as well as one working in Lebanon.

I read Nickeee's comment about me on the AfD. What is wrong with asking an inclusionist to look at an article? How does that make me a meat puppet? If you will check my edits, you will see that I have made many and I hope you will find them constructive; I don't know Miro.gal and no association 9or real interest) in the Institute and hardly qualify as an account created to vote on an AfD. By the way, there were three links, not one from the EU site.

Personally, I feel like the tone of some of the delete votes was of a bullying nature; rather than improve an article and shorten it to the length its topic deserves, there are long debates, sometimes hostile, rather than constructive. This is why I sometimes find wiki frustrating: a number of people with a lot of time to devote to a lot more heat than light. My questions in looking in the article were what was verifiable that would be a resource to someone who sees the institute and comes to Wikipedia for a neutral opinion, rather than having to search around on the web individually for several hours. What was the harm in keeping an article, if it was made objective? I'm curious as to the deletion; other cases I have seen an article kept as "no consensus?"--Beth Wellington 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue with meatpuppets isn't that they won't bring reasoned, intelligent comments to a debate on an AfD. The issue is that they unfairly tilt the balance of such a discussion. To right that tip, we'd also need to recruit deletionists as well. But, that would not achieve good results either. More heat than light. As for keeping the article; in order to get to a neutral point of view, we need verifiable sources external to IIM and EUMEDIS to develop an article about IIM. We lack such resources at this time. Thus, an article on IIM would be inherently non-NPOV for the time being. At a future time, there may be more resources available. --Durin 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

IIM closure
Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful discourse on the closure of this AfD. Just to keep you in the loop, the editor Miro.gal opened a case at Mediation Cabal regarding the deletion. I closed the case and informed them that deletion review would be more appropriate for the result they are pursuing. So, you may expect this to appear at WP:DRV. Thanks, -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I left a message noting deletion review on Miro.gal's talk page as well. I don't expect deletion review would go in favor of undeleting, but Miro.gal is welcome to try. --Durin 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say how impressed I was was by your detailed closing statement on the IIM AfD. This is the sort of work that really makes me enthusiastic about Wikipedia. Thanks for putting in the time and effort; it is very much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * High praise indeed! Thank you! --Durin 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ford Vedette
As the image currently illustrates an article on the front page, please do not delete it until the DYKes are revolved, OK? Secondly, I have only one question regarding the information left on my talk page - and why is that?

Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. The user who has been directly involved in securing the permission has (AFAIK) sent the email to permissions(at)wikipedia.org - if this was against WP policies, why wouldn't he receive a negative answer?


 * Moreover, I find absolutely impudent to delete those images just like that. Perhaps we might have secured additional permissions if we were given time and appropriate explanations. I can't even express how upset I am by what I perceive as extremely user-unfriendly conduct. Bravada, talk - 13:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel this is user-unfriendly. The directive comes from Jimbo Wales himself. I'm following that principle, as it is the underpinning for WP:CSD I3 and is a criteria for immediate, speedy deletion. If Jimbo felt there was negotiation room on this, he would have indicated an acceptable wait period, such as the 7 day wait period for unused images hosted here under a claim of fair use.
 * I've removed the Ford image from "Did you know?" because of the policy violation, and did so prior to it's deletion.
 * As I noted, I appreciate the effort to gain permission and sending such permission to Wikipedia is a good step. However, the lack of a response from Wikimedia is not an affirmative proclamation that the use of the images is acceptable.
 * Please understand; I'm not trying to be in any way hostile towards you. I didn't see the images and think "Hey, I'll be a jerk to this guy". I'm simply following the explicit policy decreed by Jimbo Wales, the founder of this project. --Durin 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess Jimbo Wales not only said so, but also provided some explanation. I mean, if I corrupt the integrity of an article, I am not immediately blocked from editing WP, I get a warning because maybe I was just experimenting or not aware of the results of my actions. But when I have uploaded an image that does no possible harm to anybody (will the owner of Garage de l'Est sue WP for using images he just allowed WP to use???) it gets deleted without a prior warning. If a purported vandal receives warning messages and explanations concerning the way WP articles should be dealt with, why don't I receive a prior notice explaining why an additional license needs to be obtained, so that I had time to obtain it? I have every reason to believe we could have obtained such license from the copyright owner, but I am not sure whether I want to help Wikipedia now after how I am treated.
 * And please do not say "Jimbo says so". To me, you represent WP at the moment, and if you exercise power on behalf of it, it would only be curteous of you to say why it is so. Who set the rules is not that interesting to me, it is interesting to me why do they work like that (what is the rationale). Thank you in advance for an explanation. Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Good Lord, it was even too much for you to delete links to those images from the articles! Apart from the Vedette, they were used in ONE ARTICLE EACH, so this is an unbelievable toil, is it?
 * Respectfully, I did inform you of why it was so and took pains to be as polite about it as possible. I am sorry you feel this was offensive; it most certainly was not my intent.
 * You do have an opportunity to gain permission from the copyright holder to freely license the image and re-upload the images, presuming you still have copies of the images, which I think is a reasonable conclusion. Deleting the images does not in any way prevent you from re-uploading the images again, under a free license. In fact, I heartily encourage you to do so! They are great images, and I'd love to see them here. We just need to have them under a free license.
 * I'd just like to juxtapose the images you uploaded under a limited license with Image:Simca Ariane - cropped.jpg. This image was released under GFDL.
 * As to why it needs to move quickly and what harm can be caused: I'd like to have you take a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. There are literally hundreds of sites that are using our content. The images that you uploaded are for use of Wikipedia alone. However, the images would rapidly propagate to a number of sites having no affiliation with Wikipedia. The use of the images on those sites is in direct contravention of the permissions granted by the copyright holder of the images you uploaded. We are trying to be respectful of copyright holders who grant "used with permission" licenses who are frequently unaware of how widely their work is distributed. A copyright holder would be rightfully angered if a used with permission image showed up on hundreds of non-Wikipedia sites, with us saying "Hey, it's not our fault. We're not responsible for their actions!" While it is true we are not responsible for those sites, we do have some responsibility to be respectful of copyright holder's wishes, else gaining access to copyrighted work through a free license could be considerably more problematic.
 * Again, I'm sorry you feel offended. I had no intention of trying to upset you in any respect. Deleting the images was not a knee-jerk response to a used with permission problem, but a process built on sound reasoning as you can see from above. I heartily encourage your contributions, but we must have material available to us under a free license or under terms of fair use (which is narrowly defined on Wikipedia, for reasons of self protection among others). --Durin 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Durin, I appreciate that you are as polite as could be concerning the tone of your messages, but these are actions that matter to me and upset me. In other words, you could have sent me the message as an elaborate song telegram delivered by high elves, but this does not change the shock and horror I am subject to concerning the ways the Wikipedia Foundation works. I understand it's not your fault you act as you've been told to, but then you have agreed to act on behalf of the Foundation so I believe this mission encompasses explaining the actions to the user.
 * OK, this still sounds moderately illogical to me. You say that it is "to protect copyright holders' interests" - if so, why does WP simply not disable the forking of copyrighted content? I really don't think it is THAT technically difficult. A copyright holder might be absolutely OK with helping build a better free encyclopedia by letting WP use his or her photos, but not really to license some unidentified forks and other organizations to make commercial use of his or her work. I would never ever propose anybody to agree to such a thing! I would, however, gladly inform them that there is a possibility that the images will be forked because there are sites that fork out the content of WP as it comes, and that he has to declare that he will not hold the WP Foundation accountable for that.
 * If I were you, I'd bring this issue before whatever the Supreme Body is above you within the WP structure - the whole thing makes me feel like packing my bags and leaving, while also asking for all the content I have contributed (bar my own images, which I always upload releasing them into public domain) to be removed, as I was mislead as to how the Wikipedia works. The content I contributed is not of too much value, I guess, so no big harm would be done, but I guess WP does not want to be dishearten users - rather on the contrary, yup? Bravada, talk - 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Thanks for removing the links. I was so surprised you did not do that because when you upload an image marking it "education/non-commercial use only", the template that pops out and says it's foo-foo also instructs the admins to check for such links, so I thought this is standard policy.
 * PS2. I am puring it all on you, because I obviously will not email Jimbo Wales about that. I am sorry that you serve as a bumper here, but what I hope to achieve, apart from a logical explanation, is you also complaining to the higher instance that you are being subject to impolite treatment because the policy and instructions for admins are formulated like that, which will perhaps make some people rethink them. Moreover, everything related to the issue "why no images with permission" links to Jimbo's email in which he does NOT explain why they can't be used, and also mentions examples that are clearly irrelevant in the cases like that - while it is fairly easy to take a photo of a bulding standing in the middle of a big city in the US, or blinds on a window, it is absolutely not that easy to take a picture of a Ford Vedette (which makes me wonder why I haven't uploaded it into fair use not asking anybody for permission - so much outright "FU" stretches survive for so long here...).


 * de-indent Respectfully, I did explain why the images needed to be deleted. Please note that most of the images were tagged for speedy deletion before I ever got to them. Most items that fall into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion are rapidly deleted without any commentary left to the creator/uploader at all. In most cases, this is entirely proper; considerable content that is deleted through that category is of a nature that does not deserve deletion explanation (for example, an article on John Smith being created saying "He's a terrible teacher! The worst at North Sebastian Junior High!"). I took time to explain why the images were deleted because it was apparent you had put forth considerable effort with regards to the images, and it deserved an explanation. I recognize there are limitations to textual communication and that the explanation was not sufficient for you. From my chair, I thought it would be as I explained the policy under which it was deleted. Since then, it's become apparent that explanation was insufficient. But, I chalk that up to communications limitations rather than willful intent on my part. If we'd been talking in person about this, this would have gone considerably more smoothly, I am sure. It's not you and I that are really at odds here; I think we can get along fine. It's the limitations of our communication medium here in this case causing disruption to the explanation.
 * We don't disable forking/mirroring of content because the only copyrighted content that we allow here is used under terms of fair use. Thus, any other use of the copyrighted content is also (hopefully) legitimately under terms of fair use. With that in mind, we are not violating the rights or permissions of any copyright holders. The principle behind this is that we are striving to build an encyclopedia that is free to anyone, for any purpose, anywhere in the world. For example, one of the projects that is using Wikipedia content (in this case under the auspices of the Wikimedia foundation) is a printed encyclopedia intended to be distributed to third world countries for the education of children. It is entirely possible that some for-profit actions will need to be involved in that in order to pay for the significant costs of that project, though of course to the children it would be free. If we had content here that we could only use on Wikipedia, we'd be significantly restricted in our ability to conduct such projects. This devolves into a messy situation; if we permit images to be here under a "used with permission" license, we should also permit textual content under such a license. The two types of material are not subtantially different. It would create a very messy situation that would be immensely difficult to untangle to create derivative works from Wikipedia. We're trying to keep it simple; It's either free use or fair use.
 * As to requesting your content be removed; it is my understanding you can't. All textual content that you have contributed has been licensed under terms of GFDL.
 * We can't use an image of the Ford Vedette here under a fair use license because there are multiple such vehicles in existence (maybe hundreds, or even thousands). The car was produced for 7 model years. This particular image is not of unique historical value (one of the ways in which fair use can be claimed) nor is access to such a vehicle to take a photo of it impossible, such as no surviving vehicles being in existence (another way in which fair use can be claimed). Fair use taggings are regularly disputed. See Category:Disputed fair use images, which contains several hundred images. So while the images in question might have slipped in under the radar on fair use, it is likely they would have eventually been picked up. The only reason I found these images is because I was doing recent changes patrolling against templates and pulled up Did you know looking for fair use violations, which is something I frequently do. See User:Durin. Other people may have found them in other ways, such as reviewing recent changes for images.
 * I apologize that I did not remove the images from the articles in question. As you noted, I have now done this. It is indeed standard policy to remove them. I'm human too. :)
 * I don't mind you pouring it on me. I don't mind being a bumper. I probably type more in explanation of various things than the vast majority of Wikipedians (for example, see this; most admins just close/delete without explanation). I'm not bragging on this; just noting that I'm happy to be the person you butted up against in this, as I'd much rather have me explain than have someone else barely explain or not explain at all and have you leave the project over a misunderstanding.
 * I don't intend to complain to Jimbo about this policy because it's well founded in my opinion. Please understand; Wikipedia is under a *constant* onslaught of image uploads that are wildly inaccurate in their licensing and in their use on Wikipedia. A recent estimation of mine showed that we have more then 34,000 fair use violations, and that's just one area of copyright problems that we have with images. Used with permission images created a very significant problem for us, and it is an area that became intolerable because it was being badly abused. The CSD I3 criterion was in response to that, to give up some weapons to fight the very serious problems we have with copyright abuse. This goes to the core of the very survival of Wikipedia; if we come under an onslaught of copyright lawsuits, it would drain our (very limited) coffers. We just don't have the resources to fight such problems in court. I am not saying your images in particular are so egregious; just that the category they found themselves in is one of the battlegrounds of copyright problems on Wikipedia.
 * As for being subjected to impolite treatment; Hey, that's your fault not mine :) Seriously, I don't take offense at people getting upset when policies are applied properly. We try very hard to educate users, and offer plenty of opportunity for them to be exposed to and understand our policies and guidelines. Still, it's a heavy task and one that only a small subset of users undertake prior to conducting a given contribution. I don't think there's much more we could do to educate our users prior to making contributions in contravention of our policies without locking down the encyclopedia for editing by all but trusted users. Of course the problem then is how do we get new trusted users, and the answer is we don't. So, some negative outcome of the application of policy is to be expected. It hurts, and we have users who get upset, but I'm not sure we can do much more short of a mandatory bootcamp or some such for new contributors. But, that again undermines the very basis of what we are as a project.
 * I am at a loss as to understand the disconnect we are experiencing regarding the intent of this project and your viewpoint on what the intent of this project is. I wish we could amicably resolve this. I was rather startled to read this when my explanation was no less illuminating or less polite. --Durin 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Durin, please accept my full and remorseful apology for what has become of this issue. You have now pointed out towards a significant difference in perception of it due to one small fact I was not aware of - that the images were tagged for speedy deletion. I am convinced they were on my watchlist, so I believe either they were tagged for deletion in a very short time before they got deleted (I was online at that time and I was checking my watchlist every now and then, where "now and then" stands for "like every 15 minutes") OR somebody embedded the speedy deletion category tag into the template, which I was not aware of. Either way, for me it seemed that I am bein a terrible goodie-goodie, asking for permission (actually asking another Dutch-speaking user to ask for permission, he wasn't informed of the whole kerfuffle yet, I have to explain it to him), doing everything as said in the "asking for permission" page, describing everything in the image summary, and this all was done because I have been told by the people updating the DYK page that it would be good to have images with nominations.

So, I was thinking I am going the extra mile to ensure everything is OK while everybody around do outright copyright breaches, and you were thinking you are going the extra mile to explain to the offender who sees the deletion notice and does nothing about that.

Again, I would like to offer my full and sincere apology for what happened and my reaction, which was caused by this misunderstanding.

As concerns WP policies etc., I've had a talk with Interiot on that too, and I believe this needs to be discussed in more detail, as this does not actually work for the benefit of Wikipedia. Interiot pointed out towards talk pages where the issue could be raised to gain further attention. I need some time to formulate my conclusions, but I will make sure you are notified of that.

One thing that makes Admins' work hard and unrewarding is that you are, for the most part, very intelligent people. You seem to assume that there are equally intelligent people on the other end of the line, which is not always the case (like now). I studied business - this can probably give you enough insight into my limited intellectual capacities. Interiot has a way with people with limited intellectual capacities like myself and is able to explain the issues to us so that we understand. You have probably done everything to explain that to a fairly intelligent person and it must have been annoying for you to find out I am not satisified with or even thankful for that. For me, it was fending me off with some legal stuff I don't understand :D (I'm talking Wikipedia "legal system" here, not the copyright law thing, this is more or less understandable for me!)

So, again, please do accept the apology of the intelectually-challenged :D

Bravada, talk - 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I would also like to warn you of my rudimentary English knowledge - English is not my native language and I do not always understand what other people say to me the way they intended it, and I also sometimes say something that sounds different to a native speaker's ear than I thought it will.


 * Apology, though not needed, accepted. I have no grudge with you nor am I upset with you. I just wanted to try to amicably resolve this so that a person such as yourself who is making such fantastic contributions isn't pushed off the project. There are some people here who are quite happy to rip apart other users. I'm not one of them; everybody is important, from Jimbo down to the person making the first edit.
 * Studying business does not mean you're an intellectual weakling :)
 * Your English is fine! Prior to my looking at your user page a few minutes ago, I had no idea you were from Warsaw or indeed a non-native speaker of English.
 * I don't have a big interest in cars, so I don't know how often our paths will cross in our work here. But, I hope we will cross paths again. Apart from some misunderstandings, it has been a pleasure to work with you. I think we've ironed out the misunderstandings. All the best, --Durin 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Hi Durin, thanks for advising me on the policy on images. (I feel honoured just to have you on my talk page, and now feel entitled to use the phrase Durin's beard even in casual parlance). Take care -- Samir  धर्म 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PSI Award!
As with Interiot, I have a problem with finding a "Barnstar for a Great Admin", so let me present you with this remotely-related PSI Award - do exchange it for the Barnstar that would be appropriate, I have little experience with them, but I intend to give you one that is awarded for Great Admin Service!

I must say it was really impressive for me to read your unfalteringly courteous replies even when I was expecting some angry words. Bravada, talk - 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated! I'm exceedingly glad we amicably resolved this. I would have hated to see you leave the project! --Durin 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Limited license on en.wiki
Which wiki is that? I'm on at least 4 en.wikis; but I assume you were referring to en.wp.

I created this template to address a specific circumstance which developed in April. The images and license were discussed on Foundation-l. Where en.wp wants to go with this is up to the community. But thanks for the head's up about it! I really appreciate it. - Amgine 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) BTW, I have asked you a question on the Ford Vedette talk page. Could you check that out in your spare time? Thanks! Bravada, talk - 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify about the specific circumstances? I'm concerned that we're left with a tag that is against policy without any justification for it's existence. If there's a reason, it should be detailed; else the tag will be used inappropriately (it already has). --Durin 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you know it was inappropriately? Perhaps there are just conflicting policies we have unearthed! Bravada, talk - 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My presumption is that a special case was created for Image:GOJ 03.jpg, Image:GOJ 07.jpg, Image:GOJ 08.jpg, and Image:GOJ BOOKTWO.jpg. Note the special note on each of these images in bold. They were all uploaded by User:Amgine. I presume that this special case does not apply anywhere else. Given the peculiar nature and status of these images, the case of the use of this template is also peculiar and unique to these images. Thus, it's use elsewhere is quite likely improper, especially since it radically disagrees with CSD I3. But, Amgine and Brad Patrick are considerably experienced members of the Wikipedia community; this wasn't an accident, but a reasoned process. I'd like to know what that reasoned process was, and whether we should move to delete that template. --Durin 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK now, this actually sets a precedent - there is some content within the WP database that CANNOT be dumped just like that to another sites. I believe if this image is OK with Wikipedia, there is no reason not to uphold the rules on which it is used to all images for which an appropriate permission was obtained through an acceptable policy. I would have a hard time trying to explain Mr. Stedehouder why he has to let all his competitors use his images, but I guess I could convince him it would be very nice of him to send a special declaration of consent, or license, to the Wikimedia Foundation. Bravada, talk - 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * de-indent This is precisely why I am asking for clarification from the respective parties. If this tag is used beyond the four images mentioned, we are most definitely going against what Jimbo stated, and we lead ourselves into another massive battle over copyright problems at Wikipedia. I strongly recommend not using this tag until such time as it is very clearly delineated as to how and when it can be used, IF it remains here at all. --Durin 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I now know how this came about. Still, WP policies clearly need a refresh on that - I perhaps understand why they were created, but seems like nobody thought of the conflict of interests they generate and that they per saldo hurt WP.

Specific circumstances
Yes, the specific circumstance was the arrangement with National Geographic to display the Gospel of Jude low-res images for 90 days from 06 April 2006&mdash;an arrangement which is now legally expired&mdash;to conclude on the end of their lease of the copyright from the original photographer. During this time it was hoped we could make arrangement with the original photographer to permanently display the images following the exclusive lease by National Geographic. I can only assume that this has not in fact yet been arranged, and so the images should be deleted. - Amgine 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Zelda
You've been doing a lot of reverting to this template. Perhaps you could ask someone else to keep an eye on it too; you're the only one and you're beginning to make decisions that aren't perfectly simple and clear to everyone involved. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you regarding the copyright status; I'm asking you to voluntarily call in a second opinion or second copyright-educated user. I'm sure you'll let me know if you have any comments :)  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad suggestion. I think I'll implement a modified form of that. Thanks! --Durin 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)-

I have a question, then, about copyrighting generally. What if I got a tattoo of the Triforce on my body? Am I breaking copyright law? I know of many people who've done this. They are representing themselves via the logo on their bodies. Why can't we represent ourselves via the logo in Userspace? I understand that fair use images are generally not permitted in Userspace by Wikipedia rule. But using it in Userspace to represent myself, or any other person, would not in any way claim that the icon is theirs! One doesn't imply that they have creative rights or ownership simply by using it... it doesn't make sense. Isn't there some way to credit Nintendo on the Image page and let it lie? And I also have a point to make. My three-triangle arrangement that you reverted is NOT a Triforce. The Triforce has each golden triangle touching at the vertices at which they meet. My grouping of images leaves blackspace between the three triangles. The Triforce is never depicted this way when considered whole, and furthermore when used as an official icon. Thus, my arrangement should not break copyright. It does not use fair use images, and I would openly expect rebuttal if I had merely altered a pixel or something minute along these lines, but my version is distinctly different, especially given the natural simplicity of the icon itself&mdash;the spacing stands out all the more for that reason. It's like the pseudo-word "fcuk." It's not a real curse word, in fact it's distinctly different, but people understand what it's referencing. If you think the spacing isn't that noticable &mdash; it was at least on a few computers I checked &mdash; it could be increased to further distinguish the differences. Check again if you wish. --Tryforceful 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy at Wikipedia was written to provide a manageable environment with regards to fair use. There are certainly plenty of cases where a fair use claim could be made regarding a particular image used outside of the main article namespace. But, the policy does not permit this because having an environment with a dizzying array of exceptions, exclusions, and explanations is essentially impossible to manage. The policy is written to be clear and simple to understand; no fair use outside of main article namespace. This is considerably easier to manage. --Durin 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Derivative works of copyrighted images do not need to look precisely like their creative ancestors in order to violate copyrights. If this were the case, I could make minor modifications to the Coca-Cola logo and sell a zillion t-shirts without fear of legal retribution. Rest assured, if I did that the Coke lawyers would be on more door very, very fast. --Durin 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tryforceful, two things. Asking leading questions like those assumes an unfriendly tone and certainly won't help you reach a resolution on this matter. May I suggest if you are upset about this, that you take a break from editing this template? In the long run, it won't matter much who wins. Second thing, to address your arguement of expression, it may qualify as legal fair use but Wikipedia has chosen a stricter policy than that demanded by copyrgiht law. WP:FU states that fair use images must be only used in article space, even if legal elsewhere.


 * With respect to the three triangles being sufficiently different, consider if you will: three triangles, made up of three free GPL images on a black HTML background, in nearly the exact formation of the triforce—the difference is one pixel of black space between each triangle. No copyrighted image is used. From your comments above, you imply that you would agree that this is a copyright violation. Where then, do we draw the line? How much black space is enough? You're debating something in a grey (gray?) area; that along with the fact that the images are being used as a substitute for the triforce is why you will need to be very convincing and receptive to discussion if this is to be resolved satisfactorily for you.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Two things; one, fair use law in the United States is deliberately vague. It is difficult to legally define where the line is. Wikipedia takes a conservative approach; better to have no image than to end up in court. Two, the matter has been resolved to my satisfaction at . Based on that discussion, I'm going to be changing the tag on the base image and putting it back from where it was removed. BigNate37, thanks for your hand in this. --Durin 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting
I made an entry here and realized it did not belong, and I wanted to know if there was a way to clean up my own past actions in the smoothest way, not creating unnecessary pages, or who to refer to for assistance if I make an error and don’t know how to remove it.Kisida 15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ??? --Durin 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question
I would like to bother you with copyright issues once again - User:BabyNuke has emailed Mr. Stedehouder again asking him if he would license the photos under Creative Commons 2.5 (BY), providing the link to the license text in Dutch. He answered something like "OK" (see BabyNuke's talk page for details), but I am not sure whether this is enough for us to upload the photos using the CC tag. Would you be so kind and tell us whether it would suffice or do we need something more from Mr. Stedehouder? Thanks, Bravada, talk - 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I would make it clear to Mr. Stedehouder what the ramifications are of releasing the images under that license and noting the numbers of mirrors and forks. He will have no control over the images once released under that license. If he's comfortable with that, then great. --Durin 23:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will forward it to BabyNuke! Bravada, talk - 23:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. Uno momento - does that mean that it is enough that he sends an email saying "OK I agree with that" to BabyNuke and we can use all photos from his website, or should there rather be some more formal declaration?
 * I would seek a blanket statement from him regarding all images on his website releasing them under terms of CC 2.5. Make sure he understands the ramifications of that release; anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If he doesn't want to release all pictures, I would get a list of pictures he is willing to release under those terms. Then, attach his communication to each image on the image's page, under licensing. That will clarify the copyright situation. --Durin 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're up late this evening :) --Durin 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I always am - I have a sleeping disorder and this is how I cope with the resulting "spare time" :D Bravada, talk - 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Makes sense :) --Durin 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

TS guy is back
I put a speedy tag here: TourettesGuy.com. Sandy 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleted before I got to it. I just added deletedpage to it and protected it. --Durin 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:RoyGrec.png
The coats of arms in questions are all creations of a user. He in good faith tagged them with what seemed like the right tag but is simply the wrong one. As they are creations of his he could retag them to PD-user and fix the problem in one go. Removing them is patently nuts as given that he is the copyright owner of those images he is hardly likely to sue if they remain in situ as fair use until he fixes his own tagging. Next time before ripping up templates try reading the file and contacting the owner of the image first. That way problems can be solved quickly without time having to be wasted undoing damage done to templates and the pages they sit on, where often images on the pages are linked to the size of a template and can be thrown all over the place if a big chunk of a template is unnecessarily deleted. All your actions result in as a messed up template, messed up pages, pages needing fixing, then the user fixing the tag and reinserting the image, then checking all the pages to see if things need adjusting. If you had checked with him first all that would have been needed was one quick fix on the image page. Next time please check first. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I did read the file. There is nothing on the file in any respect that indicates what you are stating. There's nothing about the user creating the image himself, nothing about the source...all absent. The only thing on it, and in indeed in the edit summary is coatofarms. But, perhaps I am mistaken and I am, as you say, "nuts".
 * I have reviewed User:Craigy144's talk page and archives, and it appears he has frequently uploaded images of questionable source and tagging. See, , . Those are all recent. There's many, many more scattered through his archives. Most telling is . He did not create this image himself. Once this warning was put on his talk page, he added the source to this image as . Scroll down and you can see it. So, at least in this case he did not create the image himself. I think it's safe to presume this applies to Image:RoyGrec.png until he positively affirms it is his own creation, and he licenses it under a free-license.
 * I fully intend to continue removing images tagged with fair use tags; if the affected users feel strongly about this, as you do, it perhaps provides some motivation to clarify the status of an image. The murky status of an image is not sufficient reason to not remove it from places where it violates Wikipedia policy. Nothing operative about the template or the pages the template resides on was in anyway affected by the removal of the image. Your assertions that this created a massive amount of damage I think are improper. Respectfully, --Durin 16:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin, I didn't realize what a hornets' nest I was kicking when I placed the RoyGrec.png in the template for the Glucksburgs. I then read your postings and the discussion and I corresponded with M. Bunel, the author of the image and he has consented to the use of his Greek Royal Coats of Arms on www.wikipedia.org, so long as he is noted as the author and a link to his website is included. I have made the proper (I hope) representations and this image should now be able to be displayed.Argos&#39;Dad 05:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Argo'sDad, thanks for clarifying the matter on this image. I really appreciate your efforts! --Durin 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: You did it again :)
Scrumshus, you violated the fair use policy again by inserting Image:Apple Safari.png into User:Scrumshus/Random project. I removed it from the page. I know you know these issues now, let's just be a tad bit more careful, ok? :) All the best, --Durin 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Sorry, on other userpages it had the Firefox logo, so I assumed that the Safari logo had an open copyright. Should've checked the 'page first. Sorry for the minor error.

SUNY Potsdam Images Under CC-by-NC-SA
Durin, the Matthew Keller images Image:Satterlee.jpg, Image:Merritt.jpg, Image:Hosmer_Hall.jpg, and Image:Crane_Banner.jpg have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike v. 2.5. Let me know if I have done everything correctly. I also created the template for the NonCommercial page. Have I done everything okay? --Jondude11 00:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jondude, I picked this up too late. It appears to the images were deleted due to being tagged with a non-commercial use license. I'm sorry for the confusion. We can't accept material that is released under a non-commercial use only license. Please upload the images again, but this time get permission from the author for licensing under a free-license that allows commercial reproduction. Thanks, --Durin 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Naughty coats of arms
I've replied to your very polite digression on coats of arms! Apologies, and thanks for the guidance. Budgiekiller 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms on Infobox Australia
I don't think coats of arms in country templates for use in country article is a problem as they are clearly national symbols and are not being used in a problematic way. If you want to see a place where the use of CoAs is problematic, take a look at politcs info boxes, which appear in all politics of.... articles and their daughers. All of these should be replaces with flags or removed all together.--Peta 14:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use criteria item #9 rarely makes exceptions. If you want to get an exception, have a look at Fair use exemptions. Also, see User talk:Cyberjunkie where I discussed alternatives to this template. I recognize that removing the image 'breaks' the template, but in reality it is broken by use of the coat of arms in violation of our policies. --Durin 14:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you area up to, but this is not a problematic fair use. If you took the time to read the background of that particular template tou would know why it was being used instead of the template syntax in the article namespace.--Peta 14:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I made a similar set of edits to some English county stubs, but apparently that wasn't fair use either, even though some of the images were used in dozens and dozens of pages. Budgiekiller 14:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Durin is 100% wrong. The Australia box is simply a technical derivative of the normal country infobox used for technical means and so exists in exactly the same legal state as the original. If it is legal to use coats of arms in the original, it is fully legal to use coats of arms in the derivative. That is the law. Unfortunately most of the self-proclaimed experts of fair-use on WP don't know what they are talking about, and the rules they rely on are constantly edited by people who don't know either. So you have people who jump to conclusions without knowing the law, basing their judgments on rules written by people who don't the law and who simply add in their presumptions. (You only have to look at the number of times image usage templates are voted on for deletion. Jesus. They should be written by lawyers and then be uneditable, not created unilaterally, edited at will and then voted on!!! Zeech.)


 * It is high time this whole area was removed entirely from any amateur involvement and given exclusively to professionally trained, legally experienced staff of the foundation. Amateurs with amateur theories of amateurishly written open edit documents are causing as much damage to WP as any illegal usage of images. In fact the use of amateurs leaves WP legally exposed because courts would look unfavourably at the sight of non-experts "making a stab" at what they think is the law. The law expects 100% professionalism. Goof ups like this one here would be used by lawyers to discredit WP in a court case. They'd simply say "well what do you expect? This organisation doesn't take the law seriously enough to have its own trained staff enforce it." Durin is doing his best and is genuine. Like most of the people here he isn't qualified for it. FearÉIREANN [[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 14:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jtdirl, you are incorrect. I'm sorry, but Infobox country does NOT have images on it. When the template is invoked on a main article, it is supplied with an image to display. Thus, the rendering of it contains the image only when used in the main article namespace and then only when the person who puts it on the article actually supplies an image for it to use. In the case of Infobox Australia, this is precisely what should be done, to properly invoke the coat of arms when rendered on a main article rather than forcing its inclusion in the template. This same change has been done to major league baseball templates. This is hardly unusual or improper to ask of the people who are interested in maintaining the visual integrity of this template.
 * The law here is not the question; the policy is the question. The image we are discussing here is tagged with a fair use tag. The policy proscribing the use of images tagged thus has remain essentially unchanged for months. This particular element was under dispute in December of 2005, but resolved in favor of the wording and has been policy ever since, in essentially unchanged form. Thus, your assertion that this policy is changing all the time is provably false.
 * Following the policy does not take a law degree. --Durin 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong in law. If you had a law degree you would know why. As to your ludicrous assertion that policy has not been changing all the time, you have been here a total of one year. People who have been here for longer have seen policy do u-turns over and over. I counted 9 u-turns in one 15 month period. We have allowed, then disallowed crown copyright, changed our interpretation of fair use over and over, adapted the procedure for downloading images over and over (and then had bots scurrying around accusing users of not fulfilling download requirements that have changed since something was downloaded. Users have quit in disgust at being accused in the wrong both bots and users of having broken a rule that didn't exist when they downloaded something. One user came back from two weeks holidays to find 11 bot messages accusing him of improper downloads, and with a series of attacks on him from one unxious little moran accusing him of breaking the law. The guy he was attacking is a retired very senior American judge who knows more about copyright law (because that was his speciality) than the little prick screaming abuse at him could ever know. Like so many other users that user too just quit WP in disgust.). So stop being so pompous and arrogant, Durin. Like most of the photo-brigade you don't know your law. You don't know that the rules here keep changing all the time. Amateurs with no knowledge of the law only make the situation worse, and seriously piss of credible users like Peta and others who were contributing to this encyclopaedia long before you ever heard of it.
 * Dare I say, let's try to remain civil here? Budgiekiller 15:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again Jtdirl, the law isn't the question. I know very well that policy changes all the time. In fact, I even did a study on this one time . This particular policy with respect to templates has remained unchanged for 9 months. You're concerned about a "little moran" heaping assault upon somebody, yet accuse me of being a self-proclaimed expert (which I never did), arrogant, and pompous. I have been nothing but civil and patient with you. Frankly, I'm tired of the verbal assault you are launching at me. I have been a contributor to this project for 18 months now, and have made considerable contributions. I do not appreciate your belittling of my efforts with your attack upon me. I have noticed rather uncivil behavior of yours in regards to other users as well ("not your babysitter" for example). I strongly request you stop this behavior and start treating people in a more civil manner. If this is not enough, then I formally request you cease and desist. Budgiekiller is spot on. Your behavior is improper. You are creating considerably more heat than light. --Durin 15:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I have been unfair. My apologies. I am sitting here on an awful internet link, with a very bad cold and the result is that I am in a very grouchy mood. I'm afraid some of your colleagues in dealing with images have seriously pissed me and others off, whether with blanket deletions without warnings, and abusive messages accusing me and others of trying to get WP into legal trouble, etc. A number of my colleagues have been driven off WP by their experience, one of them, as I mentioned a very respected judge (I was one of only a handful of people to know who he actually was. Lets just say most people would instantly recognise his name.) who was left very hurt by vicious criticism. I do apologise unreservedly for any offence caused. (I would have sent this earlier but my modem had to be switched off while the company that supplied it were trying to boost the signal strength.) Do please remember however that a lot of people have been seriously offended by their treatment at the hands of some of those dealing with images. A lot of those working with images are amateurish and have no grasp of the law, and also a pretty poor grasp of WP rules. Again, my apologies. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology whole-heartedly accepted. I've been doing a considerable number of these fair use violation removals. To date, somewhere around 2,000 of them. I'm aware of a number of other people doing similar work, and I am equally aware that a not-insignificant-sub-set of them have been the target of some very derisive comments and their response has ended up with things in very hot water. With that in mind, I've tried very hard to be even handed, patient, and cool under the pressure this sort of work usually engenders. I thank you for your apology, and I hope you feel better.
 * In this particular case the coat of arms of Australia may, by international law, in fact be in the public domain. As yet, there's been no absolute answer to that. It's my understanding that Wikipedia operates conservatively when faced with situations like this. User:J Di made a change to the template that solved the problem; the image is called when the template is invoked. This satisfies our fair use policy and plays the issue on the conservative side. I think it's a good solution, at least until we figure out what the status is of national coats of arms with respect to international law. --Durin 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I would however suggest extreme care in how the issue is handled in other templates, if its usage in them is thought problematic. I have worked on a lot of the country pages and users on them can be stubborn as hell about what is in the template. Any unilateral deletions would be meant with instant reversions on those pages, I strongly suspect. I remember the nightmare of trying to diffuse edit wars that covered only 30 pages on royalty over whether to use styles (His Majesty, Her Excellency, etc). There are probably in excess of 200 templates using coats of arms and unless handled very very delicately the result could be edit wars on 200+ pages, with those deleting the coats of arms in a tiny minority. I think in that instance, the best approach is to establish the facts first and only when certain, if necessary remove coats of arms. I don't think the removers would stand a hope in hell, for example, of removing the coat of arms from the British page. At least 100 users would get themselves into edit conflicts putting it straight back again. Irish users, French users et al would queue to do the same. FearÉIREANN \<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)|undefined 17:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Winnipeg flag
Another user originally uploaded the file with a bad naming format; my only contribution was to manually rename the file and reupload it once it was already on WP. I can't provide any further source information beyond what's already on the image's infopage. Bearcat 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Signing for others
I can understand that (although I "have been unsigned" some times and never got offended). However, I prefer being conservative: the user may have posted another reply that got cut because of any kind of problem, and finding himself on the following day with a unsigned comment by himself will make him realize something went wrong. -- ReyBrujo 01:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Coats of arms
Hi. You have summoned me back from my slumber of... ooh, well over a year.

First off, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I can't tell you definitively what the status of these images is. I asked the gentleman who runs the site which is linked from the image description page of all of the arms for permission to use with attribution, and he gave it. Obviously this isn't enough to be Free in the full sense of the word. I think you or I need to contact him again and ask for further permission; I suspect you have a better idea about what to ask than I do, and it's long enough now that he probably won't even remember me.

As I said, I'm no lawyer, but the copyright status of coats of arms is a difficult matter. Under Floridian law, no doubt it is similar to the status of any other image or logo, and perhaps that's all that matters here. Under English law and especially under Scottish law, however, they have special protection. The English law is pretty much a dead letter-- the Scottish law is a much more active beast, and Lord Lyon can order you to dash forth your images or even fine you-- and that's why I was only willing to upload images of the arms of English towns and counties.

I'm not even sure that redrawing the arms ourselves would solve the problem. Wikipedia has had trouble over the last few months with Image:Episcopal Church USA Shield.png, the arms of the Episcopal Church in the USA. This is presumably not armory recognised by either the English or the Scottish heraldic authorities, yet because the shield is only marked "fairuse", people haven't been able to use it in, say, userboxes that say "This user is an Episcopalian". I think this is supposed to extend to any rendition of the same heraldic shield, or I'd redraw it myself. I think, then, that similar considerations would apply to the towns and counties in question here.

In summary: I don't know much about the legalities of all this, except that it's full of unexpected complexities; and I think you or I should contact Mr Robert Young, webmaster of civicheraldry.co.uk, and ask for more extensive licensing. Marnanel 02:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British Royalty
D B  D  16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you so much for your support, and for all the good and thorough work you have obviously put in to honestly evaluate the progress I have made in the last months. Thank you most of all for being big enough to forgive and move on from the annoyance I know I caused you back then. I am honestly very moved by your generosity. I hope I will be given the opportunity to repay your trust. --Guinnog 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland infobox
With regards to this and this edit. Perhaps a better solution would be to move Scotland infobox to Scotland/Infobox (a subpage). Subst'ing it into the page makes for a horrid article to edit, and a much longer one too. What do you think? Thanks/wangi 18:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Precedence? You can add comment lines before/after the infobox to clean up article editing, ala and . That would clean it up for me. --Durin 18:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Precedence, oh I don't know - just thought it a better solution. Afterall it ended up as a template for a reason. Anyway, I've made a start at using the standard template, but need to leave it for now - hopefully someone else will complete anything I've missed. Btw, you left in the noinclude tags when you pasted in the template. Thanks/wangi 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The template isn't used anywhere else, so it's not an issue. --Durin 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was meaning the article - the left in noinclude/includeonly stuff left Scotland in Category:Scottish navigational boxes. Thanks/wangi 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, whoops! Sorry :) --Durin 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal - fair use images
Why have you removed from the Scotland Portal, when the coat of arms is prominently displayed on all of these Featured portals: I note that the NZ image is "Fair use" too. Thanks. --Mais oui! 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Australia Portal
 * India Portal
 * Portugal Portal
 * New Zealand Portal
 * United States Portal
 * Because it violates Fair use criteria item #9. The image is tagged as a fair use image, and may not be used in the way it was used. To specifically address each of the portals you raised:
 * Portal:United States; the seal is in the public domain by way of national law.
 * Portal:New Zealand; the image comes from Commons and was obtained from vector-images.com, releasing it under a free license.
 * Portal:Portugal; the image comes from Commons and was obtained from vector-images.com, releasing it under a free license.
 * Portal:India; the image comes from Commons and is apparently the creation of the uploader, who released it under a free license. I think this case is contestable and the image may be improperly tagged.
 * Portal:Australia; the image is in the public domain. There was debate about the image recently, and its status was clarified.
 * In the case of Scotland, the image as tagged is a fair use only image. We can't use it outside of the main article namespace. If its status is clarified otherwise than a fair use image, then it can be included. --Durin 19:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With reference to the NZ coat of arms... I'd be really suspect of deferring our copyright checks to a 3rd party. The Scottish arms are also on that site (http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=231), but I don't see that as a valid reason to tag the image... An ugly issue! Thanks/wangi 19:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have retagged Image:Royal Arms of Scotland.png as Coatofarms and pd-old. These are the Royal Arms of Scotland, used prior to 1603 by the Kings of Scotland... Thanks/wangi 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I too am very suspect of deferring our copyright checks to a third party. I've raised this very point on commons. It's especially disturbing because I have found errors on vector-images.com vis-a-vis copyright. Nevertheless, it stands as an accepted PD source on commons. This is...disappointing.
 * The retag of the royal arms is improper. As it stands right now, the image needs to be tagged as no source. I think you'd prefer it not be subject to deletion, so I am reverting to symbol. See Image talk:Royal Arms of Scotland.png for further information on this. --Durin 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sri Aurobindo and Fair Use Images on template boxes
It is not clear why you have deleted the reference to page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SriAurobindoSymbols.gif from template:Sri Aurobindo, and even though the history points me to your fair use of image policy, i could not find anything to support the deletion.

The image in question is fair usage as the author has already released the image into public domain. Further The wikipedia policy states It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such symbols

* to illustrate the symbol in question * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use.

and the image in question agrees with bulleted item#2.

Please clarify. Varun 06:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is not in the public domain, but is copyrighted and tagged with a fair use tag as you note above. Per terms of Fair use criteria item #9, the use of fair use images on templates is proscribed. This covers all such uses, (quoting the policy) "even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law". You are welcome to put the image into articles specifically having to do with the organization represented by the image, but you are not permitted to put it into a template. I hope this clarifies the matter? If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But what about contacting the Sri Aurobindo ashram and asking permission to use the image? M Alan Kazlev 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, if we receive communication positively confirming the identity of the sender as Sri Aurobindo, and Sri Aurobindo releases the image under a free license, then yes. Else, no. Note that permission for use on Wikipedia is not good enough. --Durin 00:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sri Aurobindo passed away in 1950. The Mother, who is credited with creation of symbols passed away in 1973. The copyright of the image (not of the symbols but of the image )lies with Sri Aurobindo Ashram. I have positive confirmation from the ashram, permitting the use of the image on Wikipedia (with proper references given to the ashram). Why is this still not good enough?Varun 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because images permitted to be used on Wikipedia are not under a free license. Images fall into two broad categories at Wikipedia; fair use, and free license. Permission to be used on Wikipedia does not fall under either of those categories. Images uploaded here under such terms are subject to deletion. The image must be released under a free license or we must use it under fair use. Since the author has not been dead for more than 50 years, the image remains under copyright and rights to it must be released under a free license for us to use it here, or it must be used under terms of fair use. Does that help? --Durin 13:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think that only a broad categorization can be a good basis for decision in such cases. It is like saying that the symbol of the cross could not have been used on wikipedia atleast for 70 years after the death of jesus christ (especially after the catholic church gave you permission to use the cross on church website, on wikipedia). By doing this, we are only stopping a point from being illustrated in its right perspective. The symbols are important, because they represent a philosophy - like the yin-yang symbols and other symbols. To remove them would prevent free encyclopedia from making a valid point.Varun 03:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not prevented from using them; we can use them under terms of fair use. We do not accept images that are permission to Wikipedia only because it inhibits the free nature and purpose of our encyclopedia. We accept images on those two broad categories precisely because it allows anyone to legally use our content. --Durin 12:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What about content that is free for use but not for change. What category would that be classified as ? If it is an alternative, I can create a few imagesmyself and release them into the public domain. Varun 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for any update on what policy is applicable in such cases...Varun 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend you take it up at Village pump. I don't have a solid answer for you. --Durin 12:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Image
You placed a message on my talk page about this image. Seeing that the content on Adobe Flash has been updated, you should probably remove it. Thanks for notifying me. -- LostAccount 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, deleted. --Durin 12:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Women's Little 500 pics
Deletion of that picture would be fine. I LOVE the new pictures that you've added. Thanks so my for your help! Bleach Babe 17:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
I have a question regarding your deletion of some images in my user boxes. If some cities and states can have user boxes with flags, shields, coats-of-arms, etc. then why can't I use my city's seal. It should be the same fair use policy as a flag. The same should apply to a political party's logo and the shield of a religious denomination. KnoxSGT 11:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The copyright status of each image is independent of the copyright status of any other image. Some cities choose to protect their seals. Others do not. Same goes for flags at the U.S. local government level. There is no blanket case that covers all images within each class, as the images are independtly copyrighted by the various organizations that own them. --Durin 12:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For Template:Politics of Northern Ireland is a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 image OK? If not I made the image, so can change the licence, if you want.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Keithology  <font ="center" color="#FFFFFF"> Talk!  17:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The change you made is fine. --Durin 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:KristiYamaoka.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:KristiYamaoka.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Image problems
I responded to your comment. Please direct further comments to User talk:Husnock/Travel. Also, saw you emntioend you would delete images after investigating if the claims did not meet your expectations. I politely ask you lsit them as Possible Unfree Images since you are (technically) involoved in a dispute (although not really a dispute since we are civil) and it would be up to a 3rd party to investigate and delete if warranted. Thank you! -Husnock 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for visiting my user page, and for helping me as well. I just have a question though.

You know the tables most of the people use in their Userpages? Is there any easy way to make them? What about signatures with colors?

Detlef 16:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I recommend avoiding signatures with colors. Remember the reason you are here; to build an encyclopedia. This isn't myspace.com; in fact very far from it. A simple plain signature is, in my opinion, well superior. For the tables; edit any page that has tables you want to mimic and you can copy/paste that table and modify it for your purposes. --Durin 17:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Detlef 21:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

CTB minutes templates
I don't understand your argument. These are not intended to be "single-use templates", and some already are not. For instance, Template:CTB minutes/10-1940-01 is already used on five pages. These templates prevent me from having to transcribe the text at the beginning of the minutes each time I reference them. --NE2 13:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Logos in templates
Hi, I'm not sure about this, and you seem to be the pointman on this subject. The following templates use an organisation logo or standard. I am not sure whether or not to remove the image. I feel that it is a violation of non-commercial use, but I'm not sure:


 * Template:Caricom
 * Template:NATO
 * Template:Arab League
 * Template:Mercosur

there are others... --Bob 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All of these images exist on Wikipedia (or commons) as free-license images. It is fine to use free-license images in templates. --Durin 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyright!
Greetings Durin!

I wanted 2 give you an explanation about this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Illyrian_helmet.jpg#file

I took this image from this website http://www.ncl.ac.uk/shefton-museum/images/helmet2.jpg

In there is not specified if it copyrighted or not. Anyway i made some changes 2 it...and i dunno if that's ok...If it doesn't comply with the rules feel free 2 delete it....thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korabi (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry the changes aren't appropriate. Even if a copyright is not explicitly stated, a copyright owner has not release their rights to the image. You must presume they have copyrighted the work until positive affirmation that they have released it under a free license has been received and can be independently confirmed. So, the tagging as GFDL is inappropriate. I've added the source per our conversation, but you need to clarify the copyright status. All the best, --Durin 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

fair use images
just thought you'd want to know there's some more fair use images on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports/Football that may be in use illegally, as since i can't use them in user boxes on my page without editing the actual template then maybe people using these shouldn't either (they're towards the bottom Poland, Turkey, Ukraine domestic teams) --Chappy84 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You can remove them yourself if they are fair use violations :) I'll see if I can get around to it, but feel free to do so yourself if they are in fact violations. --Durin 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Why?
What the hell is your problem? Noodles the Clown 16:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you could tell me what it is that I have done that has angered you, perhaps I could explain. As it is, I've no idea what you are concerned about. Please explain. Thanks, --Durin 16:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, see, this is where you should channel your inner SeaBee, Durin... The answers, clearly, are: because and you, in that order.  Please keep up the important work on here!  Making sure that Wikipedia maintains high ethical standards in its text AND images is critical and will continue to be a source of greater legitimacy for this whole project.  <i style="color:blue;">Duke</i><i style="color:gray;">EGR</i><i style="color:blue;">93</i> 02:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) If I channeled my inner SeaBee there'd be wreckage everywhere ;) --Durin 03:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now found out what he was on about; I removed a large number of seals from templates for New Jersey counties. The seals were fair use images, and not permitted to be used on templates. He replaced the seals with maps showing the location of the counties within the state. I think the maps are better actually; more information. Unfortunately, his edit summaries referred to me as an "asshole vandal". No worries to me, but those edit summaries may cause him problems in the future. Oh well. --Durin 03:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

2 reasons
Hi Durin, long time no speak. I've been meaning to swing by here for some time since I discovered your "Welcome to Durin" signpost image during a vandalism revert of your userpage. It's a great idea and a great wee image, is it entirely homemade? In light of current events though, I think you need another direction board, along the lines of: "Controversy nearby" :-)

That's the real reason for dropping in, to say thanks for your ever wise and measured words of counsel offerred to all on the Carnildo promotion discussion. I, like many others, am pretty unhappy at this whole state of affairs, but have chosen not to pipe up in the meantime for fear of saying something which adds more heat than light. I agree with the comments you made, but there is much more required in way of explanation as to exactly how and why this decision was reached.

Many of the dissenting voices raise perfectly valid questions, one of which was rolled back by Danny of all people. In fact, it's Danny's position within this whole affair that I find the most troubling at present, given the lack of detail on the decision rationale. I'll comment in due course, or when it goes to RfC (however futile that will be) as seems likely to happen given the strength of feeling there is about this promotion. Let's hope things don't degenerate into another Wikipedia riot. Keep up the good work on fair use images, but don't you need a wee break from that thankless job. WP will not blow up if you take a short breather to do something more rewarding. Best wishes. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments on the image. Yeah I think I need a speed limit type sign on it "Warning: This area under construction^wcriticism" ;) The image is a self creation. I didn't take any elements except for the grass, and as I recall that was a free license image.
 * I agree a considerable amount of effort needs to be made by the bureaucrats who made this decision to calm these waters. So far, that hasn't been forthcoming. Rather, two of the bureaucrats who were involved in the decision have been fanning the flames rather than throwing water on them. Disheartening.
 * I think an RfC or RfAr on this will be futile. Reason; ArbCom was apparently involved in the decision. So, it's highly unlikely they will reverse themselves through any normal process. Instead, what it will take is a large, large amount of editors calling "foul!" to create such a mass of voice against this that ArbCom can not safely ignore it. There's precedent to this, with the force RfA of another person. ArbCom was lambasted about that poor decision, and they eventually corrected it. They've made another poor decision here, if only because the action has been very poorly explained. Maybe there's good reasons for the decision, maybe not. I can't tell at this point. I tried to write what I wrote as neutrally as possible to allow them the opportunity of responding to this issue in an appropriate manner, to help calm the waters, but I doubt it's going to come to anything.
 * I've long considered stepping away from my fair use work. My main reason for doing so is that I've lost confidence that the project is willing to treat this issue as seriously as I do; not that they have to, just that they don't care so why should I? I know that sounds petty, but that's not my intention at all. I think it's going to take a major lawsuit before some teeth is put into our copyright policy. Right now, the copyright violations are getting worse day by day, not better. The tools in place are woefully inadequate to the task. People in a position to do something about it seem deaf to the concerns voiced. There are plenty of people up in arms about it, but nobody who is willing to take a stance. This is in large part because any realistic plan to curb this problem will involve curbing the very thing that makes wikis powerful; universal access to functionality. For example, one way in which to handle this is to have images that are uploaded be forced to go through a review process before inclusion as an available image on the project. This reverses the current model of upload first, ask questions later. Such a plan would generate considerable dissent. But, the plan would stop copyright violations in their tracks. All images would have a source. All images would be appropriately tagged. That is a policy that would work to prevent copyright violations with images. Unfortunately, there will be those that argue (and rightfully so) that we could apply that to textual content too, which is just as subject to copyright protections as images. Sadly, it is possible that a true wiki may be entirely incompatible with any reasonable self protective copyright policy.
 * I've already reduced my efforts in the fair use realm quite signficantly. I still have a list of images I keep tabs on, but I am not actively searching for more violations now except that I do recent changes patrol on templates. For example, I used to scan userboxes for violations. In fact, I went through every userbox in existence in the template space looking for violations. After I did that once, and came back to it a couple of months later, the problem had gone from non-existent to half as bad as it was when I first started doing it. I.e., in another few months it would be just as bad as before I ever touched it. Futile work if ever there was any. The very negative comments I received from a few individuals has never motivated me to stop doing the work. That's never been a consideration in stopping. --Durin 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Durin, I hope you didn't interpret my "homemade" comment re the image as suggesting that you had misappropriated others material, it was merely a question that would elicit my further admiration of your talents if you responded in the affirmative :-) It really is a great image, it has a kind of rustic "homemade" quality that I like, not all Photoshopped, glitzy and over-puffed ... I think it's the bee's knees.


 * I agree that an RfC would be the usual futile mess of hot air, posturing and inconsequential fizzle out; there are no teeth in the process. Also, the chances of an RfAr being accepted are on a par with somebody creating a viable chocolate teapot. Hence, the perennial question: where does that leave us? I agree entirely that there needs to be much more explanation of the procedure and reasoning that underpin this decision, but there are absolutely no signs that this will be forthcoming. Short, defensive statements are all that we get at the moment. Disillusionment, dark thoughts of cabals, Lord Acton and worse are difficult to dispel. In the absence of more detailed explanation, this seems to me to be a wilful disregard for community opinion, and is more divisive than any stupid colourful box could ever be. The polarisation of the community moves on apace, it appears that the gravitation of true power into the hands of a select few individuals continues, and I am left pondering whether I will continue here. Perhaps the noble goal of the truly free, open, wiki-driven encyclopedia is unattainable once such an endeavour reaches a certain critical mass. Groups form, power struggles ensue, conflict arises, innocent people are crushed and true progress is hindered. I'm continuing for now, but I have been particularly unproductive of late and can only think this will get worse in the current climate.


 * The copyright issue is a problem. If the Foundation is seriously concerned about potential copyright litigation, they really need to sort this out, by not leaving it to the army of (substantially) legally untrained volunteers that make up Wikipedia. For the large part, WP policy in relation to copyright (and the myriad image copyright tags) is drafted, tweaked, honed, reverted, reverted back and ends up as a legally meaningless halfway house formed by people not competent to do so. There are far too many part time "copyright experts" here making pronouncements that they have no authority to make. I'm not suggesting you are doing so, quite the contrary. You are merely enforcing a more restrictive WP fair use policy prohibiting use outside of article space, quite outwith the realm of determining whether an image has a valid fair use rationale within an article. That is a determination that, ultimately, only a court can reach.


 * If the Foundation are serious about this, particularly with regard to images, they need to dedicate some significant resources to clearing up all the confusion, misinformation, opinion, hyperbole and bluster that surrounds this image copyright issue. I am not a lawyer, even if I was I would not be a US lawyer, and probably not a US intellectual property rights lawyer. As such, I would not be competent to make some definitive statements on image copyright as it pertains to US copyright law and hosting on the Florida based servers. Yet, this is happening daily, hourly, by the minute - by unqualified people. The Foundation needs to think carefully about this, and should devote some full time legal input to sorting out the image copyright morass.


 * That's enough ranting, there's my 50p worth. ... :-) Cheers. -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  08:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a subset of users who believe they are at the core of the project, and understand the basic principles and underlying ethos of the project. This subset has legitimacy in that many of the people who hold power within Wikimedia are part of this subset. Those who fail to have an understanding similar to this subset's way of thinking are often poorly regarded by those within the subset. Not all within the subset have condescending attitudes. However, enough of them do that it affects how this group is perceived.
 * I've been a contributor to this project now for two years, actively for 1.5 years. I have something like 13,000 edits. I've been involved in countless areas of Wikipedia. Yet, in all that time and effort I have never reached the same understanding that the subset professes to have. This isn't for lack of intelligence or desire to know. Every test I've ever taken that evaluates one against a national pool has shown me to be in the top 5%. The last time I took an IQ test, it held me just a handful of ticks below genius. I have desperately wanted to gain this understanding that the subset professes as the true ethos of Wikipedia. I grant that I have learned a lot over the last couple of years. Yet, the remains ellusive. In trying thus to solve a problem, we are compelled to look for all possible answers. One possible answer is that despite any one person's knowledge of guidelines and policy here, of the five pillars, of the history of the project, one can not attain an understanding of the ethos held by the subset if one is not part of the inner circle through political/social means.
 * This does not motivate me to leave the project however. I believe the project has become so large, so overbearingly huge, that no small subset of users can truly control its destiny without dramatically undermining the basic nature of a wiki. We do see attempts on small levels to control it, as we've recently seen, but any large scale attempt would crumble the foundation of the project or alternatively cause the subset to be viewed with such anger that their legitimacy would be seriously undermined. I think, on some level, they realize this. Their ideas of change are having less of a chance of being implemented than, say, in 2004. This angers them, and further widens the divide.
 * I think ultimately this is little more than petty squabling. If given the right environment, this sort of problem could rapidly evaporate. However, with the current leaders of the project this is unlikely. As a careful review of Jimbo, and not in any respect an insult, I do not feel he is capable of doing this. Some people do well with small projects. Others do well with big ones. The tool set needed for one is not necessarily compatible with that needed for the other. I fear Jimbo has the toolset for the former and not the latter.
 * I keep plugging away here because I am still of the firm belief that this project is very meaningful to humanity as a whole. Knowledge is everything. On a base level, the only thing that separates us from being savages are books. Without books, information is not conveyed from one generation to the next. The young remain untaught. The old remain incapable of communicating to others their developed knowledge. Knowledges becomes lost without books. Look at the Romans; sure they had books, but not in the numbers we do. They made a form of concrete that could set under water, and another that was light and strong. Neither of these forms of concrete was replicated for more than 1,000 years. Why? Information was not passed forward through the existence of books. Electronic media is a new form of book. Wikipedia is already the largest single compendium of human knowledge that has ever existed. There are collections certainly that are larger (pick any library), but none that are singular, none that are available to the world anywhere, anytime, without cost.
 * With the right direction, the right leadership, in ten to twenty years, Wikipedia will be capable of being regarded on the same level as the Great Library. It can cause a fundamental change in the education of the world. That is worth doing. That is a goal worthy of our effort.
 * The subset can have their view. They can have their attitudes, their condescension, their vitriol. Ultimately, it matters not. They are but poor players that strut and fret upon their stage believing they are important. They aren't. --Durin 13:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Classic Lake Teams
Just clarifying why you removed the images from the template; was it because of reason 9, "images falling outside of the article namespace?" Thanks.--Gephart 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Durin 19:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Email
Hopefully have a new one :) Petros471 20:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA?
Are you still interested in nominating me for RFA? Thatcher131 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I need a few more days. --Durin 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kristi Yamaoka AfD
What exactly would withdrawing the AfD accomplish? MSJapan 18:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the opposite question should be asked. What does retaining it accomplish? Part of the basis of your nomination is that there were no permanent effects from her fall. That's provably false now. The consensus that has developed is in favor of keeping, and it's highly unlikely there will be a massive shift to cause this article to be deleted. So what does retaining the nomination in an open state accomplish? --Durin 18:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, I supppose I'll withdraw it, but per my comment, if she's so notable, and so worthy of a WP article, why did no one else bother to find this information before? That shows a lack of interest, which is a good indicator of a lack of notability. MSJapan 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, we discussed tis on the talk page. Why didn't you go and find this new info then before you told me to go ahead and renominate it? MSJapan 18:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't think you would really do it. After you accused me and others in opposition to you of being "irrational" I thought it highly unlikely you'd proceed with an AfD. Second, I simply didn't. I don't have time for everything at every moment and I strongly believe in Eventualism. Third, the AfD was doomed to fail before I found the information; it was 9-3 against deleting before I added it. I wasn't making some secret attempt at witholding information to undermine the AfD until you ran it. --Durin 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

CarTrawler
If other proprietary search engines and car rental companies are still allowed to exist to promote their own business, it would seem both reactionary and unfair to delete and/or protect certain pages at whim.

Several edits have taken place, to remove the "advertising angle" of the article; it was neither spam nor advertising, and yet each time a sysop deleted the article. I would respectfully suggest that you look at other car rental websites, created by their own employees for the purposes of self-promotion and advertising, before systematically deleting those with which you are unfamiliar.

--Dolce12 14:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for my newness - I had seen this particular company at a recent event and was trying to find out more information - I noticed that they did not have a wiki page.

One example would be Auto Europe, whose users clearly come from the company themselves. Should that article be included or deleted, per Wikipedia's policy? Just curious, as it seems one set of rules apply for some, but not others? Seeing as I am not, nor ever have been in the employ of the company, I find it slightly odd that inconsistencies abound with the way some articles are allowed through while others are not. Just my two cents... --Dolce12 14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page
Is there a reason why you removed my comments from my talk page? --Basique 18:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. You are editing as User:68.80.95.27, rather than Basique. Without other verification, this is impersonation. If you are Basique, then log in as Basique and change it. --Durin 18:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Durin 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Nochiya Coat of Arms.PNG)
I am the maker of the image. So your basically saying that if I have the image added to an article all is well?--A2raya07 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Belvedere
Re Belvedere vodka image, I deleted the box. Now if I could just get the Idaho box to come down to be in line with the two other state boxes .... Sca 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Bolding
ta! --Mais oui! 00:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NASA
I am the maker of Template: NASA and I am wondering why the Logo of NASA has been stated that it is not copyrighted but you still deleted it:

(From http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Photo_Guidelines.html)

NASA images generally are not copyrighted. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages. This general permission does not include the NASA insignia logo (the blue "meatball" insignia), the NASA logotype (the red "worm" logo) and the NASA seal...

NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters. Please be advised that approval must be granted by the Public Services Division (see above information for address, numbers, etc.) before any reproduction materials can be obtained.

Any questions regarding application of any NASA image or emblem should be directed to:

Bert Ulrich Public Services Division NASA Headquarters Code POS Washington, DC 20546

Tel: (202)358-1713 Fax: (202)358-4331 Internet: bert.ulrich@hq.nasa.gov

I am hoping for your explanation, Thanks. Narold 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The NASA logo is tagged with a fair use logo. The reason for this is that images which are released for educational purposes only are not usable by Wikipedia under those terms. We accept images under two broad categories; fair use and free license. Used with permission does not fall into either of those categories. Since the NASA logo has not been released under a free license, its use here on Wikipedia means it must be under terms of fair use. Note that in the above instructions that you quoted, it specifically states that the general permission does NOT apply to the NASA logo. Since the image is a fair use image, its use outside of the main article namespace is proscribed by the terms of Fair use criteria item #9. If you have any other questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 12:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me with the image. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgallagher (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact Seal
I am afraid that the fact that the Warsaw Pact does not exist does mean that there is no copyright for the image of its seal. It was an international organization, not a governmental organization, therefore there is no successor body.

Furthermore, as a Soviet-bloc creation from the 1950s it is quite unlikely that the image was under copyright to begin with. For the sake of argument if we ignore the fact that this is a defunct international organization, even were it extant its seal would fall under the same category as those of the UN or NATO etc.

The image in question is taken from the Parallel History Project website, which permites the reproduction of the content of its website "If cited, quoted, translated, or reproduced, acknowledgement of any document's origin must be made as follows: "Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact (PHP), www.isn.ethz.ch/php, by permission of the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich and the National Security Archive at the George Washington University on behalf of the PHP network." This information is included in the image file info. Cripipper 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What's more, the image is not tagged, it is tagged. Cripipper 17:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, pressed submit too soon. Logos are copyrighted. Seals may be copyrighted. I uploaded the image: it is not being used under the terms of fair use. You have asked me "The image must be used under terms of fair use here unless the body that holds copyright has been identified and has knowingly released any rights to the image." Since no body holds a copyright from which one can get release rights you are asking me to effectively prove a negative. There are two seperate issues here: is the seal under copyright, and is a reproduction of its image being used under fair use. The answer to the first is no, and the answer to the second is that reproduction is permitted provided it is credited. Cripipper 17:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What's more, the seal was not even an official emblem, therefore making copyrighting an impossibility. On that basis I am restoring it to the Cold War template. Cripipper 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * seal or logo regardless, if the image is freely available either of those tags is inappropriate. Please find an appropriate tag and retag the image with it. seal means it's fair use. Simply because it was not an official seal does not mean it is not copyrightable. SOMEbody created it. SOMEbody originally held copyright to it. Until it is verified who holds or held that copyright and whether or not those copyrights have been released, we can not use the image under other than fair use claims. --Durin 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you are completely wrong on this.  does not mean it is fair use.  It means it may be fair use, if it is copyrighted.  "This logo is an official seal of a government or one of its government agencies, and may be subject to copyright, trademark, and/or other restrictions on its reproduction, especially in commercial contexts. The copyright is likely held by the government or agency in question."


 * You seem unclear on what is under question. Is it that the 'unofficial seal of the Warsaw Pact' was copyrighted?  I can tell you it was not.  Or is it that the JPEG image of the seal of the Warsaw Pact is under copyright?  Yes it is, but the creator of the image has permitted its reproduction, as indicated above.  So what is the issue? Cripipper 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear. That it is tagged as seal does not mean it is free from copyright, and we can not presume it is until some effort has been made to verify its status. If it is free from copyright than another tag applies and the seal tag is inappropriate. While the seal tag is in place, the use of the image here at Wikipedia must be under terms of fair use since we do not presume something is free from copyright simply because it may be free from copyright. The issue here is that the image's copyright status has not been verified. I'm not particular interested that the agency from which this image was taken claims it is free use. The image could be an exact replica of a copyrighted image and they would not have rights to it. The original creator of the image has to release their rights in order for the image to be free use. --Durin 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think we are getting somewhere, but I think you are incorrect in your interpretation of the application of the undefined tag. The undefined tag specifically states "A seal or emblem, on the other hand, can only have one design. These are in the public domain if their copyright has expired; otherwise they are subject to copyright restrictions. In the latter case, it is believed that the image may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. If you are sure that this image depicts a seal or emblem, please re-tag it as undefined."  Note that the image is to be tagged undefined whether it is in the public domain if their copyright has expired; otherwise... the image may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision.  If you are sure this depicts a seal or emblem, please re-tag it. Thus seals are to be tagged undefined irrespective of whether their use is public domain or free use.  The image is tagged as appropriate.
 * If the copyright free status of it can not be verified, then yes it is tagged appropriately but no it can not be used on the template as you wish it to be used. --Durin 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Warsaw Pact dissolved itself and there is no successor body. Even were the emblem copyrighted, (which seems very doubtful to me as any copyright would have come from the USSR in the 1950s) the body that may have hypothetically owned the copyright no longer exists.  It dissolved itself out of existence and there is no successor to it.  Therefore it is impossible that any hypothetical copyright is still in the possession of anyone.  What you are effectively doing is asking me to get proof of the release of a non-existent copyright from a non-existent body. Cripipper 19:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're telling me this is not the official seal. If it isn't the official seal, then the now-dead body may not have created it. We don't know. We don't know from where the image comes from. Further, if it's not the official seal, then why is it being used to represent the Warsaw Pact? Even if the now-dead body created it, its status is still unclear. For example, if say Coca-Cola were to go out of business today, I don't think the status of its logos would automatically switch to being in the public domain. I could certainly be wrong about this, but I'd be quite surprised if that were the case.
 * We're doing a lot of hand wringing over adding this image to the template when adding the image adds essentially nothing to the value of the template. The safer route, and the route Wikipedia prefers to take, is to not have the image on the template when there is doubt as to its copyright status.
 * Let me be as clear as I can; as the image is tagged right now, it can not remain on the template. I've been performing fair use image violations for ~6 months, and have done more than 2,000 of them. I am quite certain that images tagged as seal may not be used on templates. --Durin 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case I'm afraid you have been acting erroneously for the past six months, and if you have not then coat of arms needs to be changed. It clearly states that seals, whether they are in the public domain or under fair use should be tagged seal.  What you are now saying is that any seal, whether in the public domain or under fair use, may not be used in templates.  That is not Wikipedia policy and is clearly wrong.  Let me repeat what the coat of arms tag says: A seal or emblem, on the other hand, can only have one design. These are in the public domain if their copyright has expired; otherwise they are subject to copyright restrictions. In the latter case, it is believed that the image may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law. If you are sure that this image depicts a seal or emblem, please re-tag it as seal.  Just because something is a seal, that does not automatically mean it is fair use.  Seals in the public domain may be used in templates.
 * We do know where the image comes from: the Parallel History Project, the foremost institution for research on NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The authenticity of the badge can be verified by www.worldstatesmen.org.  The Warsaw Pact did not have a flag, but did have a seal that graced letter-heads etc.
 * The Coca-Cola example is spurious. Coca-Cola is a body corporate, in ownership of trademarks and copyrights.  The Warsaw Pact was not - it was a voluntary inter-governmental conference; and as you well know, logos and shields are not the same thing.
 * The main point, however, is that this shield is not being used under the terms of fair use. Would it make a difference if it was retagged coat of arms?  No, because seals must be tagged seal.  It says so in coat of arms, where it also states that they may be in the public domain.  Seals may be in the public domain and therefore their use in templates is permissible if this is the case.
 * The shield of the Central Command of the Warsaw Treaty Organization is not a copyrighted image; nor is it possible to obtain a waiver of a non-existent copyright from a non-existent organization. The use of the badge is legal.  Cripipper 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've explained the situation as best as I can. Apparently, my skills are insufficient to the task to make it clear to you why this image must be used under fair use. The policy itself descends from the Wikimedia Foundation and is not flexible. The image is tagged as a seal. Under that policy, the image may not be used on a template. I'm sorry you disagree, and I'm sorry I was not capable of adequately explaining the issue to you. If you wish to appeal the matter, I recommend you take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation. --Durin 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the issue, but you are mistaken. I am sorry that I have been unable to make clear to you why you are wrong, but it seems fairly simple to me: seals may be in the public domain; if they are they are not under fair use.  That is Wikipedia policy.
 * There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states seals are always fair use. Quite the contrary. Let me again repeat to you the wording of the policy: "Seals are in the public domain if their copyright has expired; otherwise they are subject to copyright restrictions." A seal is only subject to fair use if it is still under copyright.  Therefore seals not under copyright may be used in templates.  That is Wikipedia policy. The wording of the tag specifically says may be copyrighted; compare this to logo, which says that logos are copyrighted.  Seals have to be assessed on a case by case basis - there is no blanket rule.  If you believe that there is, you are incorrectly interpreting Wikipedia policy and I suggest that perhaps you brush up on it a bit better before you continue you admirable work as an admin. Cripipper 10:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * de-indent As you note in the very paragraph above, seals must be assessed on a case by case basis. Until such assessment is done, we do NOT presume it is free of copyright as you are doing. If it is in fact free of copyright then the seal tag needs to be replaced or augmented with another tag. If there is only a seal tag on the image, then fair use must be presumed because nobody has done the work necessary to ascertain that it is free from copyright. If you want this image to be free of coypright, then by all means do the work to positively verify that it is. Else, it must remain under terms of fair use. I am repeating myself here. There isn't much point to my repeating myself. As I noted, I am apparently incapable of showing you why this is the case. In any case, if the image is not the seal of the Warsaw Pact, it's use to depict the Warsaw Pact is worthless.  I might as well put an image of Daffy Duck in its place for all the related symbolism it contains :) --Durin 11:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies - you caught me at a bad time and I think I have turned this into an unneceassary battle because I needed to vent. Sorry.  It is the badge of the Supreme Commander of the WTO, so I have retagged it as a military insignia, which is PD.  However, there is ambiguity with the use of seals and coats of arms, which the tags do not adequately address.  For example, there are tags for flags that may be out of copyright, but the only tags for coats of arms or seals are fair use tags.  This creates the situation where anything that is a seal or a coat of arms is automatically submitted to fair use even if it is not subject to copyright.  There is currently no tag for public domain seals or coats of arms.  I guess this is what I was driving at in an unnecessarily obtuse manner. Cripipper 12:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology gladly accepted, and thanks for helping to ratchet back the tension in this :) Yes, there is significant ambiguity. In fact, there's long standing ambiguity on these tags that we as a project are still wrestling with. For now, the status quo is as you noted in the paragraph above. The retagging you've done looks to be great. Thanks for your work in investigating this. --Durin 13:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism done to my page. I owe you one. Yours, Philip   Gronowski  <sup style="color:OliveDrab;">Contribs  20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of fair use images
Hi Durin, yeah sorry about that I wasn't aware, and I didn't check the history on the user box I'd made because I didn't even think to check that! trolleymusic 05:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

just wanted to check
Were you all the way done with your review? I know you're thorough; I responded on the subpage to your commentary so far, and took your advice about the userpage. -- nae'blis 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not all the way done. I completed as much as I had time for at that moment. I'll try to get some more done soon. --Durin 13:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm back from vacation and just wanted to drop you a line to see if this was still on your radar. If you've done all you care to/have time for, that's fine too. I appreciate all your input, especially if you could take a look at the answers I gave in response to your initial comments. Of course if you'd rather wait for the forthcoming RfA, that works in my world too... Cheers. -- nae'blis 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me a bit. Still a bit swamped. --Durin 15:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, didn't mean to come off as snippy; I'll go get something else done for a while... -- nae'blis 15:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh you didn't! Honest! Oppose: Too snippy!  ha! :) --Durin 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Get back to work, you! *cracks whip* -- nae'blis 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, master! Oppose: What a slave driver! --Durin 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher's RFA
Having looked it over, I'll make changes. Thanks for the heads-up. – Chacor 04:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing my mistake. I can't understand how I got the count wrong! --Guinnog 14:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:UniversityofWaterlooCoatofArms.png
An image that you uploaded, Image:UniversityofWaterlooCoatofArms.png, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sumair1 05:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, fair use images are allowed here, and in this case since there is no free license alternative available, fair use is acceptable. The copyright violation is improper. Note that the voiced desire by University of Waterloo to have the image appear with typography is a usage restriction, not a copyright restriction. --Durin 12:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. Though I still feel that there should be a standard across the university articles. Right now I see every thing from shields to coat of arms to logos being used and even though no standard licenced material is available from these institutions, I think guidlines of the institution should be adhered to. Thanks for pointing in to the right direction.--Sumair1 21:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Islands Forum Logo
Concerning the Pacific Islands Forum Logo: Do I understand you correctly that your removal of that image bases solely on the fact that it was used in a template, and that it is not a problem to include it in the Pacific Islands Forum article? Thanks! Henning Blatt 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is correct. Fair use images are permitted to be used in the main article namespace, but nowhere else. --Durin 14:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

re:Good to see you back!
Thanks for the welcome back, it's good to see you too :) — Moe Epsilon  14:51 September 18 '06

Recent E-mail
Thanks for your recent response via e-mail. I've sent you a response (heh, you told me to hit your talk page). Cheers. CQJ 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks,
thanks for helping me with my user templates,  Gronkmeister  | Talk /Contrib 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Thailand template
You edited this template to avoid inproper use of fair use image. Could you change the template to let is show the flag when no image has been chosen. If no image is chosen now, an ugly text is showed. (BTW: I don't know how to do it). Electionworld Talk?  07:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I may get around to it. I'm not an expert at wiki script. --Durin 12:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI
This is having some last minute impact (it's a heavily watched page), we shall see how much. NoSeptember 20:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Commons User ID
Didn't know if you were interested in having your Commons ID match this one.

User:Durin at Commons has no contributions and can be renamed to something else, and we will be able to move Durin-en to Durin. Bastiq ▼ e demandez 20:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me. Have at it if you'd like, I'd much rather be User:Durin everywhere that I haunt. --Durin 20:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Help!
This user, User:Abu badali, keeps on trying to delete fair use images that I've uploaded, especially Image:Allison Mack1.jpg and Image:Kristinkreuk1.jpg. I have gotten permission from the websites owners to use these images, and I have written a detailed fair use rationale for both of them, and they both have the fair use tag on them. Even after a lengthy discussion, he still will not accept that they are fair use and he keeps trying to delete them! Loooking at his talk page and his contributions, he seems to think that he is the highest authority on all things "fair use", but he obviously is not. Can you please help me, or get some other administrators to help me, convince him that they are in fact fair use images and should not be deleted? It would be greatly appreciated, and he must be stopped before he lists every single fair use image for deletion. Than you. - Ivan Kricancic 03:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks anyway, Durin. If I upload new images from the CW website will they be ok, because the CW owns the copyright to images on its site, so a copyright owner can be stated in the rationale? Also I think images from the CW network's website will be ok becuase it's a website that promotes the network, so it can maybe use the promotional tag? - Ivan Kricancic 11:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * CW? --Durin 11:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The CW is a new network which will air Smallville. It has images of the actresses in question on its website. Also, could you help me out with Image:Rale Rasic.png, Image:Mohammad Reza Golzar.jpg and Image:Zltako.jpg. They have been on here for months and only got listed for deletion today by Abu dabali. I think he may have done it just to frustrate me, but I could very well be wrong. Could you pelase check if they meet the criteria, or tell me what I need to do to have those images kept? Ivan Kricancic 11:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The promotional tag has a more restrictive meaning than the one you are applying. A website that a company sponsors in support of its product will of course have images on it. These images have not been released for promotional purposes unless the company explicitly states so. A company must explicitly release an image as promotional material for it to qualify as promotional. Presumed releases do not count.
 * Re: the three images you note; User:Abu badali is entirely correct. I've undone one of them, on Image:Rale Rasic.png. --Durin 13:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

 * The mop and bucket picture is very cute :) That might become the new standard for this sort of image :) --Durin 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked through my entire iPhoto library looking for a new "happiness" picture. I'd forgotton about the Disney parade until it jumped out at me. (Although technically I think they're brooms.)  The beauty part is that a vidcap from the movie wouldn't be useable in this context. Thanks. Thatcher131 11:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

...and no slight to Thatcher131, but I think also went right to work once he got the bit. These admins these days, all touching buttons and stuff instead of taking a vacation to Tahiti to destress. Syrthiss 15:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of logos in Betelgeuse incident
Hello, Durin. I am currently involved in a dispute with two editors about the use of the Gulf Oil logo in the Betelgeuse incident article. It seems to me that this logo does not significantly contribute to the article, and thus fails the eighth point of the Wikipedia fair-use policy. The Total logo has just recently been added to the article, and though I haven't yet said anything about it, I think this image also adds nothing significant. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter; the discussion is ongoing at Image talk:Gulf.png. Thank you for your time. —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * On cursory scan, the addition of the logos do not add anything of significance to the article. But, that is a cursory scan. --Durin 23:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree?
Sure, we can disagree (although it would be ironic if I were to disagree with that... anyway) but could you please elaborate e.g. on my talk page?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * When I have time perhaps. Today isn't the day :) --Durin 15:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NY Seal
Greetings. I don't have a problem with the removal of the seal from the portal, template(s), etc., but if you're going to do so, please be consistent and remove similar fair-use seals from other state portals, templates, etc. that use them as well. -- T M F T - C 20:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I remove them as I find them. If you're aware of other violations, you are welcome to remove them as well. --Durin 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on templates
Greetings. In almost all the articles about elections in Greece there were logos of some parties. I just added some of the remaining. I didn't know Wikipedia's policy and I am very happy you informed me. But... I think for better appereance and comprehencion of the results is better to have the logo of each party (especially if they are many ecological parties with similar names). I wait your opinion. -- Magioladitis 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy is clear. The use of fair use images on templates is not permitted. See Fair use criteria item #9. I'm sorry, but we can't use them on the templates. --Durin 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. I am new around and everyday I learn new Wikithings! I checked and I saw that in other eledction pages theu use colours instead o logos. -- Magioladitis 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad idea to look at similar pages for ideas on how to do things. But, keep in mind that Wikipedia is always in a state of imperfection. Some pages have it wrong. No worries, just live and learn and apply the lessons. Thanks for your patience! --Durin 12:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From 91.84.46.78
Prick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.46.78 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 September 2006
 * I've now blocked you for your vandalism. I hope you will come back and be a productive editor. --Durin 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am requesting permission to edit my user talk page, seeing as my previous opinions were masked by yourself, I thought I'd come here first. 91.84.46.78 02:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Willfully tampering with other people's comments as you did here and here is not acceptable behavior. If you continue to act in such a negative manner, you will be blocked again. If, on the other hand, you decide to contribute positively to the project then your contributions are welcome and accepted. It's your choice. --Durin 04:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Deletion of Userboxes and Images
Umm... you have now edited, changed and deleted multiple userboxes I have created without due cause. I stopped using copyrighted images to comply with your suggested changes and now you are just deleting userboxes with LETTER ABBREVIATIONS recklessly. I am sick of your egomaniacal and unnecessary need to have everything fit your VERY NARROW reading of the rules of Wikipedia conduct. Fair Use means Fair Use, not 'Durin Doesn't Like It' Use. Stop being a wiki-Nazi.

Dipietro 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I explained to you on your talk page, the use of fair use images in templates and userspace is not permitted by Fair use criteria item #9. My reading of the rules is not narrow. In fact, quite the contrary. I am backed up by two members of ArbCom on this, and a related RfC has upheld my actions as proper. The use of fair use images, even if legal under copyright law, simply isn't permitted outside of the main article namespace. I'm sorry your offended by this policy. I had nothing to do with deleting Template:User ex-Orange County, CA or Template:User Interpol. --Durin 04:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image
You recently removed an image from Template:Infobox_Kloof. Please can you also remove images from the templates in Cape Town, [Durban and Johannesburg. - Raker 14:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics
Hi there! I noticed you made a lot of useful statistics for RFA. Could you please make some statistics for PROD as well? In particular I'd like to know roughly how many PRODs are made per day, how much of them get deleted and how much of them get improvement (e.g. an edit that is more than just removing the tag). Would this be possible? Thanks!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I don't know that there's an easy way to do this. I don't have direct database access (it was offered to me, but I'd be a kid in a candy store and I'd never do any editing :)). I'll think about it a bit, see if I can come up with something. --Durin 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Alaskan pipeline
Good catch on checking history on that one. Sorry that I missed it myself. I was actually scanning for uncategorized articles, not vandalism. And even then, normally I do check history before doing a speedy, but for some reason I missed that one (probably because it was so vile, it put me into shock, heh). --Elonka 06:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Russell E. Dunham
Man, I hate infoboxes sometimes. When I make a mistake like that one, it's always because the information is hiding in the box. Nice catch, and thanks for setting it right. Erechtheus 20:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries :) --Durin 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Adult template
I noticed you deleted the template I created name "Adult." Templates of the same name have been deleted by consensus twice before. However, the content of my template was different, and the previous deletions do not apply to the content I created. Previous templates alerted readers that the Wikipedia page, image, etc... should not be viewed by children or labeled it with some likewise POV statement that violated WP:NOT. However, my template only alerted readers that the external link preceding the template contained adult material. Such notices are widespread and uncontested on Wikipedia with a variety of diferent verbiages (examples:    ), and my template only served to provide a quick method for posting them. These are especially courteous and useful on pages that are not pornographic, but that link to pornographic sites. Even if you disagree with such notices, you deleted the template out of process and should restore it. Feel free to contest the situation according to Wikipedia process. BTW, happy anniversary on being an admin (and I mean that sincerely)--Esprit15d 22:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If a link is inappropriate content, it should be removed under External links or Reliable sources. Whether or not something is "adult" in content is entirely subjective. Every culture in the world has varying standards on what is and is not "adult" type content. To some religions the baring of an elbow is offensive. To others, the nakedness of the body is revered. We service a world, not one culture. The template is therefore a highly subjective evaluation and not appropriate given What_Wikipedia_is_not. I have reviewed the prior incarnations of the template. While the prior incarnations refer to in-encyclopedia content as opposed to this one, intended for use on external links, the overall intent is the same; attempting to protect people against content they may find objectionable. Therefore, the original TfD still applies (see Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/April_2005). As noted in that discussion, we already have a content disclaimer. Thanks for the early wishes! --Durin 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When you deleted it, it was evident to me that this was your stance. However, you (nor the previous TfDs) addressed the issues of external links nor the fact that the practice is incredibly widespread and not forbidden (or even addressed) on Wikipedia.  Additionally, there are a variety of policies that apply to Wikipedia articles that do not apply to external links (Grouping links by pro- verus con-, POV links, unreferenced links, links in other languages).  And to me, despite the fact that to you it is intuitive (which is the only grounds for a admin to delete something out of process) it is evident by the pervasiveness of the practice that it is not.  Your arguments here are just that — arguments, and need to brought to discussion.  I would have no problem if you reinstated the template and then immediately nominated it for deletion, but to delete it outright was a unilateral decision.--Esprit15d 12:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to your opinion. I stand by my decision; the template was not deleted out of process. That something exists on Wikipedia does not justify other things of the same variety existing. We do not work on such a notion of precedence. We work on policies and guidelines. --Durin 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FEnerbahçe Sport Logo
Turkish http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Fenerbahce_belirtke.gif http://www.fenerbahce.org/eng/ http://www.fenerbahce.org/eng/detay.asp?ContentID=16

and http://hqfl.dk/layout/download.php?rowid=1395 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profesor (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear as to what you are attempting to assert. The first link goes to another language pedia that shows the image tagged as logo as well. Wikipedia policy on the use of fair use images is clear; we may not use them outside of the main article namespace. The use on templates is proscribed. Please see Fair use criteria item #9. There have been constant, repetitive efforts to put this logo onto the userbox either through re-insertions here on en.wikipedia or by way of putting the image on Commons, where it has been deleted multiple times as a copyrighted image (which is not permitted on Commons). I recognize that the Turkish wikipedia has it wrong; for example, the logo appearing on this template, among multiple other violations. That does not justify violating policy here. --Durin 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Intellectual Property Law program
Hi I was wondering why you deleted my DePaul University intellectual property page. I work for the center and wanted to describe the center on the wikipedia page. please get back to me via email at vshifrin@depaul.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usualsus (talk • contribs) 19:33, 5 October 2006
 * It was deleted because it was a blatant copyright violation of . You may not copy/paste text from a website without explicit, provable permission from the copyright holder releasing their rights. I suggest you do not write about your organization. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. It is very difficult to be neutral writing about your own organization. --Durin 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Another statistical question
I figured you'd be the one to ask... you posted a lot of statistics on how many RFA candidates succeed and fail and such. Would you happen to have stats on the reasons for which they fail?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't catalog failure reasons. It's pretty subjective as well. Last year there was someone who undertook an effort to catalog reasons people oppose, but I don't think it got very far. It's a difficult task, with a big time commitment. --Durin 22:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Help w/ proposing article Deletion
Hello, you may recall you fixed an image error of mine recently. Well I had a question about deleting articles. You see I found this article, Christopher Wajda about this artist. To me it doesn't seem like it belongs in wikipedia. I mean who is this guy? we can't make a page for every single artist around. The major contributor is Washingtonsghost, whose only edits relate to the Wajda article. ISP 71.242.160.130's only edit involves adding Wajda to the July 21 page in the birth section. Would you agree that this article should be deleted? and how exactly should I go about doing it? For example, how do i tag it? I've never tried to delete an article before. Sorry if I blundered posting here. Na uf an a : <sup style="color:LightSlateGray;">talk  00:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't blundered at all. I'm happy to help. Take a look at WP:AFD. The instructions on how to put an article up for deletion are there on that page. If you need further assistance, feel free to ask. --Durin 00:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Replies
RFA is already about triple the size it needs to be (and I'm on dialup right now so god forbid I don't want to re-load it more than necessary.


 * The schema is not developed sufficiently: I do not believe this idea for the bot has been fully fleshed out. While in abstract I believe due consideration has been given to the general concept of what this bot will do, considerable work still needs to be done on the specific requirements of what exactly is to be done. I asked a number of questions above, and the answer I received was basically "approve of the concept and the admin flag and we'll work out the details later" (see second comment). This is a backwards way of approaching this notion. I am not comfortable with this approach.
 * Considerable discussion generated: following on the above It is apparent from the 12 pages (yes, I checked) of discussion generated above in the General Comments and Discussion sections above that the idea has not been fully discussed and debated on its merits. Bringing this RfA before this discussion was attempted, say at WT:RFA, was premature.
 * RfA was chosen because it gets a lot more traffic than bot approvals. Last time anything was proposed on bot approvals it was seen as trying to go thru a backdoor - I was trying to avoid that..
 * Unclear need: The proponents of this bot have indicated this is a stop gap measure to fill a need until a MediaWiki extension is put in place that is apparently in development already. Yet, the numbers of blocks we are talking about, if given to the admin corps in toto, is rather modest. A few hundreds blocks is nothing. I could wipe that out in <30 minutes by myself. If a list of IPs needing to be blocked was generated periodically and notice of it posted to WP:AN, I think the admins could knock it out very rapidly and this situation can be handled thus until the extension is in place.
 * WP:OP has been on backlog most of the time lately. The truth of the matter is many humans will think about doing it manually and then get busy or find other things to work on.  We have a shortage of admins who do stuff like that.  I'm sure we'll have a one time excess of users willing to do it in response to the "oh god a bot as a sysop... it's going to kill us all" fears to deny a bot but otherwise it's going to get a backlog again.
 * Further unclear need: The assumption is we're getting lots of vandals through Tor. Yet, nothing I've read above seems to provide any evidence that this is the case. It is inherently anti-wiki to block access to the project simply because someone might vandalize. I recognize our policy with regards to open proxies, but would like to see evidence that there is massive vandalism coming from this source before applying a 100kg sledgehammer where a chisel might do.
 * See WP:OP - it's half procedural and half due to the fact that we have had issues and just not known it's tor.
 * No adequate response to Essjay's comment: Maybe I missed something above, but I've yet to see any real defense against Essjay's comment regarding prior attempts in this vein
 * With respect to Essjay's comment, I do think he was thinking it was the wrong avenue. The WoW move block bot (a replacement for Curps essentially) was something that was asked for my several members of the community.  There was no plan when the bot was created to sysop it, of course, there's no way I can prove that either. As for the A to the username portion, that was simply a technical reason, we needed two accounts, one w/ sysop for the blocking and one without to do the editing (so the bot couldn't edit fully protected pages).  I think everyone forgot that needs change  it wasn't like I was attempting to hide anything (and if anything this request is a LOT more public)  -  if enough members of the community ask for something it gets proposed.  Other than that, there's not much else I can say to Essjay other than take a look at WP:AGF
 * Respectfully submitted with no intent to comment on either Tawker or Werdna, --Durin 23:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to increase the size of RFA, this one is already longer than my original rfa which is nuts -- Tawker 05:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
The image is not unlicensed =D

Destiny Fulfilled

image:DestinyFulfilled.jpg

Image:DFTEMPLATE.jpg

The image I've added is the same, but it is just an thumbnail

It is used in the Destiny's Child User template I've created

Template:User_Destiny's_Child

Regards -- Eduemoni 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Both images are tagged with a fair use tag. The use of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted per Fair use criteria item #9. I have reverted your removal of the orphaned tag from the image. Please do not remove the tag again without this image being used in the main article namespace. Also, you do not need to upload smaller versions of images in order to have such smaller images. You can take the existing larger image and have the mediawiki software resize per your use. For example, using the code [[Image:DestinyFulfilled.jpg|64px]] uses the original, large image and downscales it to 64px in size, which is what your version does. Since your version is a wholly redundant, smaller copy of image:DestinyFulfilled.jpg, I have deleted your version per WP:CSD image, #1. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 03:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So How Can I...
add images to my templates??? Should I create em? What should I do? I really don't understand all this "Fair Use" thingy =(

--Eduemoni 23:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use is a term used in copyright law. If an image has a copyright, it is possible to use the image in some narrowly defined cases. You don't need to worry about those cases in terms of consideration for your template. Wikipedia policy, irrespective of copyright law, states that we must not use copyrighted images outside of actual Wikipedia encyclopedia articles. This means we can't use copyrighted images in templates. Thus, album covers can not be used as they are copyrighted in almost all cases.
 * If I might suggest, rather than focus on trying to create a userbox to express your admiration for your favorite performer(s), why not enhance the encyclopedia instead? We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to create a home page for yourself, try myspace.com or facebook.com or any other similar venue. Wikipedia is very, very poorly suited to that purpose. --Durin 00:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I collaborate with many articles in many interests ranges (that includes Destiny's Child and any of its members articles that I help a lot)

I'd like to express my likes and deslikes, just that, I'm not creating a homepage bacause I already have one!

Isn't your commentary a little unnecessary or a such personal attack?

Before telling or controlling someone about his/her wikiUserPage, shouldn't you look at yours and see how enhanced it is?

My userboxes just show someone where and why I like to create or edit articles on wikipedia --Eduemoni 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense was intended. I've simply tried to be helpful to you. I'm sorry you took offense. --Durin 18:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin/Removal of fair use images
I love the above page; you capture the issue clearly and to the point.

I have been taking on the images these last few days (wanted to focus on something new and fair use seemed like a great place). I am wondering if there is anything I can do to assist you in your on-going slog. I will take up the battle with you.

I was thinking of either copying over your fair use rational or see if I can use the same featrure used on AfDs to transfer the text with my own header. Figure I should have my own copy so that people will leave any message to me and not you.

On a another note, since coming to your user page, I have read a number of your personal essays and have to say, your writing style is top notch, clear, and simple but not pandering. I am going to make a guess that you are a lawyer.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments (though calling me a lawyer might be construed as an insult ;)). Your thoughts to create a similar page for yourself have been preceeded by Removal of fair use images. You might want to use that instead, adapting it as needed for all potential users of the page. I'll caution you in performing this work; it's rather unrewarding on the surface. Few (though there are some) peope will compliment you for it. Of the people that say something to you about, most will castigate you in some form. If you want to do this work, your rewards have to be found elsewhere. For me, it's the knowledge that I am working to prevent the project from suffering from a highly damaging copyright lawsuit.
 * As for how you can help best; learn exactly what the fair use tags are for starters. Most of them can be found in Category:Non-free image copyright tags. Also note that there are two templates in particular which seem to generate the most controversy; Template:Coat of arms and Template:Seal, especially the former. Remember that Wikipedia can and must work from the position that when in doubt, we must assume an image is copyrighted until positively and affirmatively proven otherwise.
 * With those considerations in mind...there's a number of ways in which you can help. Have a look at User:Durin/Popular fair use images. You might consider developing a similar page for yourself. Trying to go back through your contributions and remembering everything you did in this vein to "check up" on potential re-violations is nigh on impossible. I used to scan particular categories for violations. For example, Category:United States athletic conference navigational boxes. I've scanned that category already, but there are similar ones out there. I also frequently do RC patrol focusing on templates.
 * That should be enough to get you started. If you have any questions, feel free to toss them my way. All the best, --Durin 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Review
Thanks for getting back to me. Much of the information that you may be interested in, I have collated at User:Elonka/RfA ponderings, and there are some additional questions from another editor, along with my replies, on the related talk page. If there's anything else that would be helpful to you, please let me know! --Elonka 23:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I've had another editor, volunteer to submit an RfA, but I told him to hold off a bit since you were in mid-review.  If you think that you're swamped though, and it would be easier on you if someone else handled the paperwork, let me know and I'll give him the goahead. Speaking personally, I have no strong preference on the matter, since you both have pro's and con's as nominators.  For example, he's never submitted an RfA before, whereas you have done several.  Then again, he seems to have more free time at the moment!  Since I contacted you first though, I see it as your decision at this point -- please let me know how you'd like to proceed.  :) --Elonka 22:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about time, then I'm definitely not the person. I'm swamped at least through November 1st for any serious review. My reviews have, of late, taken 4-5 hours of concerted effort. Finding a block of time like that is...difficult right now. --Durin 01:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll go ahead and give the other nominator the goahead for now.  It's not that I'm in a rush, but it makes sense to accept their offer.  Please accept my best wishes for working through your current crunch.  :) --Elonka 07:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare
Why did you delete my edit about William not shaging kids? Are you telling me he did? can you please prove that he did? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.160.253 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because your edit was unencyclopedic. Such a line could be added to any article. Is there a debate that he had sex with children? If so, then some words to that effect in the article, with citable references to support there is/was a debate, is warranted. To simply state that he didn't have sex with children adds nothing to the article. All the best, --Durin 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Use of fair use images
I actually thought it was vandalism as I couldn't find the removal of the images in the page's history, but ok. I never look at images' tags, so sorry about that. --Adriaan90 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I would figure. I have to go to bed now anyway, so yeah. lol. --Adriaan90 21:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Sumbox
Template:Sumbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cedars 01:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

City flag images
Well, I am not sure what the copyright status of these images are, but I think we need to look more closely at them. I am finding a lot of flags at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_flags_of_United_States_cities that should be looked at, but I believe one of the flags you deleted, the St. Louis city flag, could have been PD (it is now up as yet another unfree image). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Each has to be judged on a case by case basis. If an image isn't confirmed as PD, can not be readily so, and it is not used in an article, then it needs to be deleted. Note; I didn't delete the St. Louis City flag. --Durin 12:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image use
Okay, there is something I don't understand and I would like your polite help in explaining it to me. (I say polite because some admin have been far from this.) Why are some images I put in a userbox not allowed, when very much the same has been included in others? For example, a picture of Queen Elizabeth II was deleted, but other boxes have Martin Luther King. Why is a logo produced by the Canadian government accepted in one (armed forces logo or flag) and not in another (maple leaf and poppy)? The policy page doesn't explain this problem that people keep telling me about. I really don't understand and no one will give me a straight answer. Please help me! Scotwood72 07:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't judge it by the type of image per se. An image of a person could be copyrighted, and another image very similar to it might not be. In general, look to see how the image is tagged. If the image is tagged with any of the templates that are found at Category:Non-free image copyright tags, then it must be considered a fair use image and is not permitted to be used outside of the main article namespace (see Fair use criteria item #9 for supporting policy). For example, logo is such a tag. So are albumcover, promophoto and screenshot. Does that explain it? If not, feel free to ask more. --Durin 12:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

lighten up —Preceding unsigned comment added by APACOlypse27 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * About??? --Durin 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

more free use
hey durin, I know your into keeping WP free of copyright infringement, I just came across this. Useing the movie poster in this way is a no-no correct? If so should I just delete it? Or do I have to tag it with something? Na uf an a : <sup style="color:LightSlateGray;">talk  03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it :) Fair use criteria item #8 covers this. --Durin 12:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping with that roving IP vandal... --Nlu (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. He appears to be IP dancing. --Durin 18:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

deletion of deletion debate
We got a complaint on OTRS: apparently, this debate in which demeaning comments were made on the topic of the article shows up quite fast in Google. (When I do seemingly "random" deletions it is generally from an OTRS complaint.)

In many of our deletion debates, participants say things that they perhaps should not say in this way in public. I remember in particular a debate about a bio on somebody who didn't write it (a well-meaning colleague did it), but was publicly accused of being an unimportant little boss seeking notability through Wikipedia. Needless to say, the guy was not amused. David.Monniaux 23:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

derkunst
Hello Durin.

You've removed my entry on "derkunst" twice now, and I just want know if there's anything I can do to make this article "uploadable." Save for providing detailed sources.

As is true for most any cryptid, verifiable sources are hard to come by. I'm just not going to be able to use a Philadelphia Inquirer article. Or a book you consider to be reliable.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it seems as though you're being particularly tough on this cryptid entry. Look at other cryptids, like "Cherufe," and I think you'll agree.

If I significantly shorten the Derkunst entry, will it be passable?

I included every detail that's ever been told to me, and can understand if including all of these details (without sources) make the piece seem like a hoax.

Thank you in advance for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garpie (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 October 2006
 * With due respect, I have a hard time believing "Derkunst" exists as a famed cryptid. Doing a search on Google for it yields nothing. Even if there really is such a story, it appears that it is so far below the level of common knowledge in Philadelphia that nobody writes of it...ever...on the Internet. This makes any entry on this essentially impossible to verify. As such, unless you find some hard, verifiable sources this article will not fly. I'm sorry. --Durin 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question Regarding Changes In Microsoft Entry
How many hits did the microsoft entry receive after i edited it and it displayed "EVIL!!!". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.0.22 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if I knew, I would not report this information to you. Your edit was vandalism, and such behavior is not tolerated here. If you want to contribute positively, then by all means do so. However, continued vandalism will result in a temporary block of your editing privileges. --Durin 21:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

user:207.73.183.6
Thank you for blocking user:207.73.183.6, I was hopiing that the vadlism would stop, guess that I was underestamating them.I would watch out though, after slowking man blocked them they had their revenge on his page, so I think that it would be a safe statement to say that you are their next target, just seems that you cant do the right thing without ticking off some peopleor making a new enemy. Hope that your page remains unaffected and sorry if it dosent, I will try to find out who did it but I dont think it will be posible, just wanted to say that I respect you guys and wanted to thank you for keeping the net safe. Talon35 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. My user page has been vandalized a number of times before, and it doesn't matter to me. It's almost always fixed by some RC patroller within a minute or so anyways. It is virtually always the case that undoing vandalism is far easier and less time consuming than the vandalism itself. Thus, vandals are pretty much self defeating. They're just wasting their own time. --Durin 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They think that it is funny I dont see how vandalsm is funny, they must have a sick and twisted sence of humor, funny how the gene pool has become the gene mud puddle. Thank you for makung it only a soft block, I enjoy looking through articles and findng falts or updating others that need it, I mainly do it at school, my home computer is always busy or broken, so thank you again for it only being a soft block.Talon35 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Blu McDonalds
I am trying to add the Blu McDonalds page to recruit a player and/or to have some information on the internet for our band. Please consider this page before deletion, Mike Foreman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigheadedkitty4 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a musician recruitment board or a means to advertise your band. If you want a space for your band on the Internet, you might consider myspace.com. With no releases, no appearances, no record contracts, your band does not meet Notability (music). --Durin 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA reform
Hi Durin - I'm sorry for repeatedly trying to re-invent the wheel on this (I really did it this time!), but I was proceeding with the attitude that brainstorming is generally harmless. You are absolutely correct in your reading. What steps should we take to identify the real problems? Rama's arrow 13:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, I'm *really* glad you took my comments in the spirit intended. I meant no ill will, and just couldn't think of a better way of putting it.
 * Second, I think the section that User:Nae'blis started at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship is a step in the right direction. However, there's a whole ton of work that has to be done in that line. A fair bit of work was done in this direction at User:Linuxbeak/RFA Reform. Though, I rebutted much of what that said at Wikipedia_talk:Discussions_for_adminship/Archive_1. Not that my rebuttal is gold plated or anything, just that we need that sort of ying/yang to analyze what is wrong to be able really understand if what is perceived as wrong is in fact wrong. I've started my own reform page, but it's so far not very far along. --Durin 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There was never a danger that I would take your comments in any other way. I admired the way you kept instilling sobriety in us naive kids! I certainly want to help solve this and other problems for Wikipedia's sake, so I'll get back to you the moment I do find something that doesn't resemble a wheel! Thanks, and lemme know if I can be of help in anything. Rama's arrow  14:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing username
Hi - thanks for your notes on this page. I wonder if you've seen User:DumbBOT/UsernameChange? This automatically generates much of the information which you are compiling, and I usually check it before changing any usernames. If you've got any suggestions for improvements to it, based on the information you've been gathering, I'm sure that would also be appreciated. Warofdreams talk 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't aware of it. Thanks :) I think some mention of how long the person has had the account might be in order. I can think of some scenarios where it might have some bearing; some people want to preserve the fact they've been a Wikipedian since x/y/z. --Durin 02:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms image on Portal:Iceland
Hi. Thank you for patrolling the application of free use images. You have just removed from Portal:Iceland due to fair use concerns. Although I do understand such removal, I would appreciate if you could inform why does the image qualify for display on Iceland, but not on Portal:Iceland. Best regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  17:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use criteria item #9 proscribes the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. Thus, use in portals is proscribed. --Durin 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If it's not too bothersome, could you please inform if this one would be suitable to insert on the portal? Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  23:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That one looks fine to use. --Durin 11:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Taipei City emblem.png
What are you doing? You deleted the image from the places where it was used, then messaged me to tell me that it's orphaned and therefore will be deleted? -- ran (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC) =) Thanks for all of your hard work warning others, I know it's not the most pleasant thing to do and I'm sorry for lashing out at you without looking more carefully. I can see that you've been doing this for -- months!! o___O. I'm quite speechless.
 * The image is copyrighted and used under a claim of fair use on Wikipedia. As such, it can not be used on your userpage or on a template. Please see Fair use criteria item #9. I have reverted your re-insertion of this logo onto the template and also on your userpage. Please do not re-insert these fair use images, or any other fair use images, onto the template or your userpage. If you have any additional questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Through the efforts of many people doing similar work, I think we're finally getting on top of the fair use violation problems. It's just a feeling; I have no evidence to back it up. But, I just seem to be finding fewer hotbeds of fair use violations. I hope the situation is getting better. --Durin 19:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use
why can't you have fair use images on user pages, i dont see how that could infringe copyrights, plz tell me, but kinda dumb it down APACOlypse27 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way. Would Coca-Cola allow you to make a t-shirt with its logo on it? No, they wouldn't. In the same way, you can't add copyrighted images to your userpage. It violates the copyrights of the people who hold rights to the images. If I'm not making this clear, read Fair use criteria #9. It won't answer why, but it says in clear language that the use of such images on your userpage is not permitted. If I haven't helped the understanding, please ask. --Durin 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

More on Fair Use
I have seen numerous user boxes using Images on Wikipedia. All State USer Boxes had State Flags. So why cant I use Orange County Seal or Coca Cola Logo on a userbox tempelate?

I mean, you have put http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WelcometoDurin.gif on main space as compared to User Space? --Asfandyar
 * Some, not all images, are protected by copyright. Image:WelcometoDurin.gif for example was made by me and I released it into the public domain. Thus, it is acceptable by policy to use it outside of the main article namespace. All U.S. state flags are similarly not protected by copyright. The Orange County Seal and the Coca-Cola logo are protected by copyright and their use here is under terms of fair use. Wikipedia policy on their use, as established by the Wikimedia Foundation is not to allow fair use images to be used outside of the main article namespace. --Durin 11:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

userbox
Hi Durin

I embedded an image in userbox User Eurobeat but that image has been removed. May I know why??? Sushant gupta 12:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries tell the story. The image you have been inserting is a copyrighted image, and its use here is under terms of fair use under copyright law. Per terms of Fair use criteria item #9, the use of such images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted. This means they may not be used on templates. If you have any other questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 04:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image removal
You removed images from the 2006 WA state Senate site. These are all public political party official logos and fair use. These sorts of logos are used on several other election entries, including those on the Mexican election 9:34, 23 October 2006 Mikesmash 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did remove them. These images exist on Wikipedia under terms of fair use. Our fair use policy at Fair use criteria item #8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." The manner in which the logos were being used was purely decorative. With the images removed, the same information was conveyed...which party the various candidates belong to. Thus, the images do not contribute significantly to the article and thus fail the above quoted policy for that use. That fair use logos are used on other political entries in violation of Wikipedia policy does not mean we can violate policy in all articles. In time, the violations will be removed either by myself or other editors. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 18:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Google User box template discussion
Durin - this matter has died down in February but doesn't seem to be resolved. Could you weight in please. Doesn't the typing in the

Template: user Google

being discussed at

Template talk:User Google

resemble and infringe upon

Image:Google logo transparent.png??Michael Dorosh 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Durin
I will revert what ever I see fit. --Cloveious 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeking adminship
I'm preparing for adminship. You appear to be the resident expert on admin qualifications, and since you don't like picking "low hanging fruit", I believe that makes you the right one to see. I would be very grateful if you would consider me as a candidate for adminship. I was the subject of an RfC last spring (for overzealousness), I've had my fair share of run-ins with other editors (but nothing major since the RfC), and it has been pointed out that my use of multiple accounts might be a point of contention when I attempt an RfA. My major contributions are presented on my userpage, and highlights include stirring the Main Page redesign to action last winter, ditto the Help page overhaul early this year, the Community Portal overhaul early last spring, and I resurrected the Tip of the day project. Amongst the pages I have created are the Community bulletin board and the Department directory, though I can't take full credit for those either (virtually nothing on Wikipedia was created in a vacuum: the CBB for instance was inspired by an idea of Renata, through whose talk page I learned of you). If you need to speak to someone concerning my performance on Wikipedia, User:Quiddity may be a good one to talk to, being the person who filed the RfC, and whom I'm now working closely with on the contents pages of Wikipedia (or maybe it's the other way around, it's hard to tell). Renata is also famiiar with me, from a brighter angle, I hope. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely,  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   05:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My standards state that I do not nominate people who have had a legitimate RfC filed against them. I realize it happened last Spring, but I am not comfortable with the fact that you did not participate in the RfC. I would recommend that you constrain yourself to one account, rather than using sandbox accounts. You can do everything with one account. There's no policy stating that you must have only one account, but evaluating you when you have 13 other accounts is a very difficult task. This is not to say that I have evaluated you as a bad editor or anything like; just that these standards are important to me to maintain for a number of reasons. You may wish to request assistance at Esperanza/Admin coaching. --Durin 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your analysis, and agree that mine is a tougher case than usual. That is why I've come to you: because if anyone can sort out the essence of a situation (or an editor) on Wikipedia, it is you.  As for the RfC, perhaps I should offer an explanation...  Well, like you, I wasn't comfortable with the RfC either, specifically with the prospect of arguing with 5 people at the same time.  It would have been a further escalation of a confrontation (everyone seemed hot under the collar, especially me).  Continuing a fight is not a good way to cool off.  Walking away saved them and me a lot of time and effort that was better spent on the encyclopedia.  It turned out better that way, because had I participated, I would have been compelled to defend my position (and an untenable one at that).  Stepping back allowed me to reflect on the scenario, the situation, and the nature of the wiki without putting myself and everyone else through an even bigger ordeal.  I came away with an appreciation for how consensus works here, and how direct competition (such as between drafts and between editors) does not.  It also taught me the fine line between clashing and getting along in this very strange but interesting development environment and community.  And once I "got it", I liked it even more!  Note that I continue to edit as boldly as ever, but this time around with the grain, rather than against it.  Clashing wastes human resources.  Synergy is a much better solution.  I hope you will reconsider my request.  My contributions can be found at User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive menu, and they clearly show my love and concern for Wikipedia: the encyclopedia and community both.  I enjoy helping to build this knowledge resource for the world, and I offer to help even more.  Sincerely,   Th e Tr ans hu man ist   23:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully decline to conduct a further review of you for adminship. As noted above, please do not take this as any negative assertion regarding you. I recommend you:
 * Restrict yourself to one account and one account only, having an admin shut the others down by indefinite block. I'd be happy to do this for you on positive confirmation on each talk page that you are the owner. No, this is not policy; you can have multiple accounts but many people frown upon it and it will ultimately hurt your chances in a future RfA.
 * Request a review of yourself for adminship at Esperanza/Admin coaching. It will take a while to get someone tasked with reviewing you, but it will help.
 * Be patient. I'd go at least a few months using just the one account, and waiting until after the first of the year will allow you to say "the RfC was early last year".
 * Consider that not responding on an RfC is considerably worse than admitting you were in error and accepting the opposite position as be in the right. Getting closure to a matter can be better achieved in such a manner than simply not responding. It might be in your interest to now respond to the people who contributed significantly to that RfC and indicate some of what you said above.
 * Just some advice. I hope it helps. All the best, --Durin 13:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Get off your high horse
It's people like you who will destory wikipedia, you can try and bully me and ban me if you want but you need to get your head out of your ass. Your campaign of threatning other users and acting big is a waste of time, there is nothing wrong with political party logos' in articles about political parties and elections. Trust me when I say politcal parties in Canada know full well what goes on wikipedia. But that kinda common sense stuff just fly right over your head. Which is really what I would exepect from someone who, doesn't seem smart enough to contribute any usefull content, but just makes other contributors who actually do contribute miserable. --Cloveious 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Having a thread of my own here, I couldn't help notice yours. Maybe these guideline pages will help:  see Logos and Fair use.  Good luck.    Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (To User:Cloveious) I am disappointed you have chosen the path you have. You've raised a few points (outside of the personal attacks, for which you've been warned by Elonka below) that I'd like to address.
 * I have not threatened you. I am sorry that you feel that way, but nothing in what I have done has in any way been intended to threaten you. That you feel you're going to become a martyr because you're being blocked is to say the least very disheartening. Nevertheless, I am applying the block that you were warned would happen if you willfully violated the policy again, which you have. The fault here is not with myself or the other admin that warned you, but with you for failure to understand that our policies must be adhered to despite you being warned to that effect by the other admin.
 * Whether or not the political parties are well aware of what happens on Wikipedia is irrelevant. If they have specifically released their logo images under a free license, then there would be no issue with the use of the logos as you would like. However, to date you've not provided any evidence that they have. Whether or not they are content with abuses of their copyrights has no bearing on the usage of their logos here. We do not make exceptions except in extremely rare cases (the only ones I know of have had to do with the main page, and temporary at that). This is because creating an environment where fair use images can exist because of various exceptions, clauses, pseudo-oks from organizations, and what not creates a nightmare management situation for Wikipedia. Instead, the policy is written to be clear; decorative use of fair use images is not allowed. It's easy to understand, easy to follow, easy to enforce and (usually) easy to convey to people who (usually temporarily) disagree with the policy. If instead we structured this as you would have it be so, there would be no reasonable way in which we could possibly manage the use of fair use images on Wikipedia.
 * Please understand; Wikipedia receives e-mail and phone calls every single day regarding copyright violations and fair use abuse. We can not assume that "x" organization is ok with a given fair use abuse just because we think it very unlikely they would ever sue. We will eventually be wrong, and trust me; Wikipedia has already received many threats of legal action. We have to draw a line somewhere. For the use of fair use images in decorative ways, we draw the line at saying it's not allowed. Period.
 * Failure to adhere to copyright law and fair use law directly threatens the very existence of Wikipedia. We must take a stance against such abuses in order to protect ourselves against this threat. I am sorry you disagree, but your disagreement does not change the facts; we must adhere to copyright law and we must have a policy that is easy to manage.
 * Fair use policing is one small subset of all that I do. I contribute in many other arenas in a variety of different ways. A sampling of this can be seen at User:Durin/Contributions. Therefore, your accusation that I am not "smart enough to contribute any usefull content" is not just a personal attack, but also false. I encourage you to carefully reconsider making any personal attacks in the future, whether they have basis in fact or (as in this case) no such basis. Such behavior will lead to increasingly long blocks of your editing privileges.
 * The choice here is very clearly yours; you can continue to violate Wikipedia policy by inserting fair use images against policy and/or conducting personal attacks and suffer increasingly long blocks. Or, as I hope you will do, you can choose to not make such errors and continue contributing has you have done in so many ways here...minus the personal attacks and fair use abuse.
 * I'd be quite happy to discuss this matter in greater depth if you like, to help clarify any remaining points that remain unclear. Being a martyr doesn't help you, me, or the project. Agreeing to abide by our policies isn't admitting defeat, or any other similar notion. Let's work together...not apart.
 * As noted above, with your willful violations of policy I am temporarily blocking your editing privileges. While the block lasts, you may continue to edit here on your talk page but no other pages. The block I am applying is for 24 hours. starting now. --Durin 05:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA
I think you misunderstood my change. Currently, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that only fully-completed nominations can be listed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a nominator would list a nomination for the nominee. My change was only meant to reflect that nominees should be the ones listing their own RFAs after they've answered the standard questions and accepted the nom, as is current practice, and not the nominators. – Chacor 14:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominators can and do list other people's nominations. It's not all that unusual. Reason; some nominees are not denizens of RfA and do not know how to list the RfA properly. They'd rather have someone who knows what they are doing at RfA do it for them. --Durin 14:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, Durin, I'm sure you know just as well as I do that rollback is not for good faith edits. – Chacor 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that I left a note on your talk page, and also started a discussion on the point at WT:RFA, I think this is a non-issue in this case. Observe the second sentence in the second bullet point of Rollback where it says "In other words, try to consider the editor 'on the other end.'" I did. :) --Durin 14:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Itsmymarket.com
Hi, I'm fairly new here, so I'm probably missing something, but did you delete Itsmymarket.com? The article is there, and the history of the page doesn't have you on it, but it seems like the article has been deleted. By you. Itsmymarket.com seems to fail the speedy deletion "web" criterion. Thanks. Darkspots 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) username changed 2-2008
 * I deleted it under WP:CSD #11. It may have been premature under G11, but not under A7. The creator re-created it, fleshing it out some more. I left a note the creator regarding the issue and asked him to defend the notability of the website (see ). Don't worry about being new and raising an issue; all of us are equals. --Durin 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading this I can't really justify it - there is a lot of media conversation in Cornwall (an Alexa ranking for a site which is still in one small area of South West England seems good to me?) but it is almost entirely non-web based. That is part of the nature of Cornwall.

I'm not a wikipedia person on the whole, but this site is something which a lot of people have been talking about down here and people are interested in it. I didn't realise that there were specific levels of interest before a subject was considered important enough for inclusion.

Got any advice? (You were pretty quick off the mark, mind - I hadn't even finished the info box when you deleted it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28web%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manley (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it seemed to quick for you. We receive a great many articles per day which are routinely deleted. Have a look at the deletion log. We've deleted more than 2500 pages today already. One of the problems we have is spam, with a number of companies trying very hard to get their name onto Wikipedia as Wikipedia is a very high profile site and having your name there is free advertising. We have to fight against that. That's party of the reason for the notability standards. Advice? Wait. If itsmymarket.com becomes notable enough to warrant an article, someone will eventually write one. We already have near 1.5 million articles. Believe in eventualism. Another admin has gone ahead and deleted the article. --Durin 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Quebec Autoroutes
Who owns the copyright to the Quebec Autoroute Shields? i thought a wikipedia member made them. <span style="border: 2px solid #330000; text-align:center; background: #C0C0C0; text-color: #DDDDDD; link: #A0522D; vlink: #000000"> RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I make an image that is precisely or very, very nearly akin to the Coca-Cola logo I do not gain full rights to the image. What has happened is the user has created them, but they are very nearly akin to the actual Quebec Autoroute shields. As a result, that user does not have full rights to release them into the public domain. I have contacted Transports Québec regarding the issue, and they have initially responded but have not yet responded in full. You can see the content of those communications at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Durin-en/Text_to_Government_Qu%C3%A9bec. --Durin 20:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! i understand now. :) <span style="border: 2px solid #330000; text-align:center; background: #C0C0C0; text-color: #DDDDDD; link: #A0522D; vlink: #000000"> RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome! --Durin 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy Norton talk
I can't seem to post on the Percy Nobby Norton talk page, must be a glitch. Anyhow, I scanned this article about Percy Nobby Norton from the State paper just yesterday. Sorry about the low quality. See it at. --Bpazolli 17:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's so poor resolution that all that can be made out is the headline. Nothing can be derived from this except that somebody named Percy got $500k. --Durin 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

about the picture in the Destiny's Child article
this image has no copyright it is not from any performances, video clips, music photoart or promotional pic (like single or album cover), candids, magazine photoshoot it is from an public domain, shot by an fan during Beyonce's birthday party the site is an fan-based site, it is not trustful at all, it is just source, the way that is showed there resembles like they are the owner of this picture, what does not happen in fact

→Eduemoni 23:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)←

++add

here you can find the copyrighted pics of this party, shot by the media press http://www.beyoncephotos.net/thumbnails.php?album=421 →Eduemoni 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)←
 * Then please identify the exact source of this image rather than just specifying a large website. There's no ready way to positively verify the copyright status of the image without this. --Durin 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

iTunes
I'm rather confused as to why Image:iTunes.png was deleted. A similar image, Image:ITunes-700-icon.png is the exact replica of the image with different colours. Image:iTunes.png was the former Apple iTunes logo. You say it falls under the fair use policy but from what I've read it's legal.

"There are a few categories of copyrighted images where use on Wikipedia has been generally approved as likely being fair use when done in good faith in Wikipedia articles involving critical commentary and analysis. Such general approval must be seen in the light of whether a free image could replace the copyright image instead.
 * Team and corporate logos. For identification. See Wikipedia:Logos."

If Image:ITunes-700-icon.png is legal for those reasons, wouldn't Image:iTunes.png have been legal also? Furthermore its use in userboxes stated under Wikipedia's logo policy would satisfy:
 * Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons). - it is
 * Logos should not generally be used in contexts which are, taken as a whole, strongly negative. In an article about what the logo rerepresents (the company or whatever) or an article discussing the visual style of the creator of the logo or its history and evolution are fine. Within the article, the real logo should generally be used near the introductory paragraph, adjacent to text which is simply descriptive and which presents a clearly neutral point of view. People tend to recognize logos quickly, so a placement at the start helps the logo to do its job and confirm that people have arrived at the right article. This does not mean that we should censor the article - only that we place the logo near neutral text, not in the middle of long negative pasages. - it's not
 * Defaced logos or logo parodies should be used with care and not given undue prominence. For example, parodies of logos may be carefully used under fair use in an article about a parody site or campaign. - it's not
 * When uploading a logo, whether current or historical, include the logo template message in the image description - pretty sure it was, and could have been chagned
 * Reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance. Common sense says that a logo displayed prominently on the logo owner's own website should be OK to use, because it represents their wishes about how the logo is presented on computer screens at typical screen resolutions. Avoid resizing a logo—try to find one that is a suitable size. Do not use a resized logo if it doesn't look good. Overly high-resolution versions of logos should be avoided, however, as they are less likely to be fair use. - it was
 * Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance. - it was
 * Usually, the current logo should be the logo presented. When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this. - Image:iTunes.png was the historical logo to Image:ITunes-700-icon.png.

The list goes on and the logo satisfies all of them. For all the reasons Image:ITunes-700-icon.png was kept I don't see why Image:iTunes.png was deleted. Thanks for your time. Mkdw talk 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not aware the deleted image was an out of date logo for the operation. I deleted it on the grounds that it was a lower quality replica of the undeleted image, under WP:CSD criteria #1. If you intend on using the historical logo in the article on ITunes, then feel free to re-upload it and use it on that article. As for removing them from userboxes, the use of fair use images in userboxes is strictly prohibited. Please see Fair use criteria item #9. Fair use images are not to be used outside of the main article namespace. This includes userboxes, other templates, or userpages. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask. Also, note that you do not have to do " [[Image:Itunes.png]]  . If instead you use " Image:Itunes.png " it provides a link to the image without transcluding the image. Thanks, --Durin 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the image link tip. I'll be sure to remember it in the future. I see about #9 in fair use criteria. I am looking for a way to create a an iTunes userbox. Other program userboxes such as Google, Gmail, Mozilla Firefox, and Adobe have used screen shots, cleverly used multicoloured text etc. I am not very familiar with the free use policy. Would I be able to use in my userbox:
 * a self taken screen shot of the program?
 * screen shot of the iTunes program header?
 * create multicoloured text using the iTunes colour palette?
 * take a screen shot of my playlist?
 * create an image that has "iTunes" in it?
 * Thanks for your time.<BR>
 * Mkdw talk 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Responding as re-numbered: 1) No. 2) No. 3) Maybe. 4) No. 5) Maybe. With 3 and 5, it is possible to recreate logos of some companies, such as Google, with colored text. This is no less infringing on a company's rights than an image that does the exact same thing. Thus, if your creation is close to the actual iTunes log, you're infringing on their rights. --Durin 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Norton
No, look. I'm the one who deleted the "Nobby Norton" mess in the first place. Trust me. This is... this is an entirely new article. I was as stunned as anyone to see that there was a legitimate article buried in all that crap.

It has actual verifiable reliable sources.

I have no idea why Enknowed was creating garbage as recently as two days ago when he could have created a genuine version.

I don't want to do a Wheel War or anything, so I'm not going to be the one to recreate it. But go look at the content. DS 14:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the content before when I removed a fair use image off the article prior to its move to mainspace. I am still unconvinced. There definitely was a hoax article initially, and it was properly deleted. Subsequent attempts have been speaking almost interchangeable of a garageband of the name and of this early 20th century person. I am very certain the garage band does not meet our notability criteria. As for the person, I am skeptical. My position can certainly change on this, but what I see is a person who shared authorship with Tranter on a couple of <10 page articles in a magazine of uncertain distribution and popularity. Further, Norton didn't actually write the song. He picked it up from others; he was just passing it on (, search 'Norton'). The last two cites in the article I deleted do not even mention Norton. Did this person exist? Sure. No question. Is he notable enough for inclusion? I'm hard pressed to believe that.
 * If we are going to include this biography, then there should be a unification effort of the different salted pages. Before that, I think there should be another attempt at deletion review with a much better written and sourced article than we currently have available to us in deleted histories. As is, with so much vandalism and incivility by the proponents of this person, it's unlikely to pass another attempt at deletion review. What do you think? --Durin 14:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm voting you for ArbCom! ;)

Arbcom
You do realize that if I'm elected to ArbCom, my first act will be to indefinitely block everyone who voted for me, right? DS 14:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * :) Yes, I was there on the channel :) That's why I said the above :) --Durin 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Trump Empire
My apologies for reversing your edit. I had thought I had saved a wrong version or something until I noticed the picture disappear a second time. I suppose that putting Image:Nbc apprentice2 key art.jpeg in Template:The Apprentice would be equally as wrong. TonyTheTiger 20:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. Yes, that image is a fair use image too so it can not be used on that template. --Durin 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock requested
By User talk:195.112.56.122. Just thought you ought to know - not that I would unblock these vandals. Ian Cairns 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I responded on the IP's talk page. --Durin 13:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting (by deleting) my 'unfair' (-)) use of fair use images. I was going on the incorrect assumption that if I found it on Wikipedia .... I shall try to be guided by the info on the image page in the future.  That information appears to have been clear enough in the case of the images you deleted from my userpage today.  Whatever I think of the copyright law, I do respect and support Wikipedia's stated reasons for staying well within it.  And I do consider your attention a valuable service.  I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia added to my picture list of martyrs.  Please do revisit my page to make sure my other and future edits are within policy.  (Especially since I have no intention of studying copyright law or reading all the rules and regulations before I edit. Were I to be willing to do that, I'm sure I could find more remunerative activities than editing here. :-) ) O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Indeed :) You're welcome, and thanks for the nice response! Too often I get vitriolic responses instead. --Durin 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for the clear edit summary pointing to clear explanations of the problem and policy. In the past I have had some of my new categories iced by bots without any explanation.  That was bummer and quite irritating.  Your edit summary was most welcome. Thanks. O'RyanW (☺  ₪) 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality Increase
I have increased the quality of the article of Percy Nobby Norton see the page I posted below. Sorry. --Smallcucumber 13:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Smallcucumber has made two contributions and you posted no link or made edits to any Norton article in those two edits. Perhaps you meant a sockpuppet of yours? --Durin 16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is probably a sockpuppet of Bpazolli and the link is . Kavadi carrier 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I surmised as much. The article reads as a spoof. Hardly evidence of notability. --Durin 16:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WTC7
Why cannot people see the collapse videos of WTC 7? Whats soo wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.200.90 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As noted on your talk page, there was a lengthy discussion about the subject on the article's talk page. The decision was not to allow the videos, or any other material, from wtc7.net to be linked. --Durin 02:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you will not have a problem with the videos of links directly linked from somewhere else according to your previous statement would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.210.78 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 2006(UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you read the talk page of the article and its archives to gain an understanding of the underlying issues surrounding what you propose. The same videos simply hosted on another site are going to result in the same removal. --Durin 05:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So you would remove any WTC7 collapse video from any source including a news source correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.200.90 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First, please sign your comments. You can do so by typing ~ on the end of your comments or alternatively clicking the signature button near the middle of the buttons above the editing window.
 * Second, I did not indicate that any video is not acceptable. I said the same videos hosted on another site have the same problematic nature. I again strongly encourage you to read the talk page and archives of it of the article. --Durin 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Starblind
Just your best friend Starblind here. I think maybe we should unblock Percy Nobby Norton. I would do it now but I have to go. Why don't you help me out and unblock it for me. Thanks. User:..S.t.a.r.b.l.i.n.d.. -  St ar bli nd  00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons you are already aware of. --Durin 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Cleaned up Image:Marine 69-71.jpg
Thank you Durin for cleaning up my image. It's a good a good thing that I'm not a politician, those guys images are impossible to clean up (smile). I see you've been very busy lately with the images. Good job. Tony the Marine 15:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) --Durin 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

slave driver

 * Anything else to comment on User:Nae'blis/Review? -- nae'blis 20:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at this time. That's a hard whip you're using :) --Durin 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Long, too. ;) Thanks. -- nae'blis 23:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit graph.
Hi, I was wondering if you could update :) I'd also like a graph in commons meta and etc :D -- Cat out 20:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be several days. --Durin 13:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice sought
Hello Durin.

This spring, I uploaded the coat of arms of Dalhousie University  and unwittingly gave it the wrong licensing tag. You noted that my use of the arms in a userbox was inappropriate. I thought that an easy way to overcome the intellectual property rights problem would be for me to simplify and abstract the image. You then, however, determined that this was a derivative work (which of course it was) and flagged it for deletion. I must say I was a little miffed at the time because the case law on derivative work is far more lenient here in Canada than it is in the U.S. Still, it was only for a userbox, and user pages are certainly not what the Wikipedia is for.

Nevertheless, I did incorrectly tag the image's license. The design of the coat of arms in question was granted in 1818 and it's been in the public domain for donkey's years. Moreover, even the artwork that constitutes the arms as they're now used by Dalhousie dates from 1950; therefore it, too, is now in the public domain.

[It may be of no consequence, but I'm an acquaintance of Dalhousie's legal counsel (recently retired) and he assures me that the university filing a copyright infringement action against the Wikipedia Foundation, even if it wasn't in the public domain, is as likely as an alien invasion.]

Trouble is, I don't know how to correct the licensing tag for this image. Is there some way this could be done? I would appreciate your advice.

Sincerely, --OldCommentator 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not going to like my answer :) You make a comment regarding a difference between the design of the coat of arms and its visual depiction (or blazon). A coat of arms may be a thousand years old, but the blazon from that coat of arms may have been made yesterday. We're concerned with the copyright status of the blazon, and not the coat of arms in most cases.
 * You note that the coat of arms dates from 1818, and the blazon dates from 1950. That gives us a date to work with. Unfortunately, 1950 is probably not old enough. Our public domain tags (see Image_copyright_tags) have tags for old images. However, the one based on the age of the work, not the author, is for works pubblished prior to 1923. Thus, we become concerned with when the author of the work died. But, in order for it to be straight into PD, the author would have had to have died before s/he made it. Thus, barring a release of rights of the image, we have to assume it's not public domain.
 * In the vast majority of cases where a copyrighted image is used improperly on Wikipedia, it is highly unlikely that the copyright holder would sue Wikipedia. Nevertheless, we can not work from this perspective because eventually we will be wrong. The price of being wrong is potentially very high; it could sink Wikipedia. Wikipedia does and must work from the perspective that all copyright holders are interested in protecting their rights unless we have positive, provable confirmation they have released their rights. Looking at Dalhousie's copyright statement (http://copyrightoffice.dal.ca/cancopym.html), I'm not readily seeing anything that releases rights to the image in question.
 * I recommend that you contact Jo-Ann Riggs, Dalhousie's Copyright Officer at the Dalhousie University Copyright Office. Contact info: Killam Library, Main Floor - Administration Office - Telephone: 494-6685 Fax: 494-2062 E-mail: jriggs@dal.ca. In contacting them, it is important to make it clear what you are asking for; Wikipedia does not accept permission only images. We have two broad categories here, either fair use images or images under a free license (such as PD-self or GFDL). If Dalhousie grants us permission to use the image on Wikipedia, it would still be used here under a claim of fair use. To aid in writing such a letter to them, please have a look at Email templates. You may be surprised at the response you get; I recently contacted Transports Quebec, a branch of Government Quebec to gain release of highway signage created by them. It took more than a week, but they responded and released the images.
 * I hope this helps! I really appreciate you contacting me and your willingness to work towards an amicable solution. If you have any more questions, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 13:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your prompt & detailed reply. When time permits I'll contact Jo-Ann Riggs and see if I can get the ball rolling. Cheers, --OldCommentator 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Hoyl
Hi, I saw the edit you just did for me. Question -- How can I edit the actual page name. I created page "Jim hoyl", but wanted to create page "Jim Hoyl"... ?

ACTUALLY... I found a way to fix it using "move", but it now is automatically re-directed from the misspelled entry. Can't the original (mistake) just be removed/replaced with the correction?
 * I fixed it. --Durin 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lake Lemon edit
I made a change to the Lake Lemon page yesterday, changing the IU Men's Rowing Club to just the IU Rowing Club. I'm the coach of this club, and women who are ineligible to join the varsity team are allowed to (and have) joined the club team. So, if you would kindly unrevert the page from your previous version, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Climis (talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to. Please understand; edits from a brand new user account which have no edit summary and simply delete content, even if minor, are usually regarded as vandalism. Vandalism is a constant theme on Wikipedia. No edit summary edits that delete content are virtually always vandalism. Further, I have some familiarity with the club team, and was under that (as I understand now) false impression it was limited to men. I worked with one of the members of the club team ~4 years ago. In the future, please leave an edit summary to your edits. Also, when you leave a message on someone's talk page, please add " ~ " to the end of it, as this will sign the message for you. --Durin 03:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm new at this. But i've read the stuff you linked me too and learned...i hope. Also, the club 4 years ago dissolved and reformed this year. We're looking to find past members, so perhaps you could put your friend in touch with me?  Especially if he's still in the Bloomington area. ---Climis 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, he's moved to the pac-northwest. His name was Josh. Tall guy. --Durin 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Request
I really liked the clean-up that you did on my image. I was wondering if whenever you have the time if you could take a look at this image Image:Tony and Milly.jpg and maybe fix it up. That's the Marine (Me) and his wife thirty four years ago (smile). Cheers! Tony the Marine 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I applied some standard techniques to it, but did not get anything that was significantly better quality. With the other image I did, it was mainly about color balance; the color information was there in the picture, but it was badly muted. This image is black & white, and the contrast/brightness is not bad. There's lots of imperfections in the photo that I can't do much with unless I spent a few hours deep in Photoshop. Sorry :( --Durin 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. The wife is perfect. The imperfections in the photo are all on your side of the image ;)

Thanks, I told my wife what you said and she agreed (smile). Tony the Marine 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright status
Could you please check the copyright status on this image Image:37a Richie Ray.jpg? Thanks. Tony the Marine 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not much to check. The site has a copyright notice, the image is on their site. --Durin 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Image
Thanks for the removal. Prior to this, I did not know about the policy. Sd 3 1 4 1 5.
 * You're welcome! --Durin 11:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Elkman
We had 25 reports at AIV. I didn't really appreciate joke reports while I trying to clear such a huge backlog. I blocked so I could go look at what was going on when the backlog was cleared. -- Steel 15:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've placed a message on his talk page. I know it seems like a joke report; just trying to clarify what was happening. Perhaps a better course of action would have been to remove the AIV report and ask him on his talk page what he was doing. --Durin 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say, from my scan of his recent contribs, the user feels down right now, and probably does indeed need some time to cool off. A nice talk to the user might be warranted here, make him feel better. – Chacor 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would probably have done that. But as I said, I was wading through a huge backlog at AIV. I'm gonna go look at his contribs in more detail now. -- Steel 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry-Please Issue a Block!
Durin- I was looking on an image to see if I was the only user page who the image was linked to. I was not the only user; and therefore I clicked on the other user, who was Deadbath. It is not only a bad and innapropriate username, but it is a clear sockpuppet and threat to my page. It even says my on it, not his or her's, but mine. Wikipediaman123. The header, signature, (most from first glance) were at the location that exactly of my userpage, just not created. It says User:Deadbath/(MYSUBPAGE) rather than User:Wikipediaman123/(SUBPAGE). It is unusual and serious, I will convict him of a sockpuppet. Thus it is not the exact duplicate, it is the same with some missing features. Please write to me on my talk page in order for me to remember to handle and see the progression of the page, if okay, but if you ask for it to be on this one, that is fine. You will get a peek at my signature subpage below: - Wikipediaman123 23:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)  :(Right here)
 * Okay, Saxifrage has resolved this issue. - Wikipediaman123 11:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)  User:Wikipediaman123
 * Yep, I saw. That's why I didn't take action. I did have a look and he indeed had copied your page. I'll keep an eye on him. The username is not blatantly offensive; could be quite innocuous in fact. I am reminded of the case of User:Trollderella having his username forcibly changed, and the harsh outcomes from that. Your signature is screwing up font settings. --Durin 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images
I see, thanks for being informative. Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You might also want to check WikiProject_Elections_and_Referenda/Overview_of_results for a few similar cases. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A general thank you...
...for being you and for upholding the way of the Wiki. It's appreciated. ➨  ЯEDVERS  21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Very, very much appreciated at this time. --Durin 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

On WP:FPC
Hi! I see you withdrew your first featured picture nomination yesterday, and while negative (and possibly nitpicky) remarks from other users may sometimes be discouraging, I hope the reviewers' critical comments do not alienate you from the featured picture selection process. --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect the WP:FPC process has become overburdened with picayune criteria. But, it's only a suspicion. I don't have time or interest to really investigate further. Since WP:FPC appears to be a minefield for getting a high quality, incredibly illustrative picture through, I'm not terribly encouraged to try again. Having a picture become featured isn't central to the purpose of the project anyways; we're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. While having great pictures helps, what is important here is well referenced content. *shrug* --Durin 16:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a nice pic, I agree. The tension between nice picture quality and informative pictures will always be there. The classic case is the historical pics that are bad quality (either the cameras then were poor, or the negative/whatever has deteriorated over the years), but show some "first" event or is the only remaining picture of something. Technically, what you have here with the helo-cast is something that might be improved, but maybe not. Professional photographers that get paid to go on assignment with the millitary, or into remote obscure locations, tend to get high-paying exclusives, not free pics to dump on military websites. Carcharoth 15:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
I removed your post because I don't believe it will help the situation. Please step away from it for 24 hours and don't post about it for at least that long unless to provide specific content details. I believe it has a good chance of getting handled from a content standpoint and that your post will only serve to inflame the situation and keep the issue focused on the wrong thing. People have already stated that they agreed with your initial handling of the situation, you don't need to rub it in. People have also stepped in willing to work out a solution, and again, that's all that's really needed. - Taxman Talk 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will gladly consent to this. However, the problem here is that User:Husnock continues to ratchet up the assault. I was thoroughly alarmed that today he has ratcheted it up to include accusations that I slandered him. This isn't just flirting with WP:NLT. If he continues the ratcheting, the next step from a legal threat is legal action. I now stand on the verge of being personally, off-wiki, threatened if he continues his onslaught. This is intolerable. Somebody needs to reign him in and get him to back off on the rhetoric and the constant, continual ratcheting up of the situation. I tried to remain calm and cool under fire while an agreement was hammered out. It was. But, subsequent to that he has continued his relentless attacks. How much am I supposed to put up with? Will I have to be in a court of law as defense from him before someone here says enough is enough? Where's the line? Hmm? Where? I've had it. My patience is shot and I refuse to consider the possibility of having to legally defend myself against him. He's now accusing me of revealing personal information about him in the real world (see User:Husnock/Durinharass item #9). Where does it stop? There's no sign of it ending. If I can't be permitted to defend myself here, then somebody else had better see to it. If nobody does, what choice do I have? I am quite happy to let this drop at the agreement of having Zscout370 mediate. He obviously isn't. This needs to stop. now. Now. NOW. --Durin 17:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't "consent" to it, just do it because it's a good idea. Be the bigger person and be the one that stops first; sometimes that's what it takes. Instead of turning this into Wikiwar III, just let it cool off and deal with the actual content issues a little later. Nothing will implode if a license isn't fixed in the next couple days. As for the rest yeah that sounds like he's a bit out of line, but clearly you're so involved in the situation that you being the one to try to deal with it isn't going to help. - Taxman Talk 18:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Digestings
For all to see and digest about this concern (which is actually semi-legit)

"If he continues the ratcheting, the next step from a legal threat is legal action"

At no time did I ever threaten you with any legal action. That would be absurd for me to do, I am deployed to the Middle East in a forward unit. Dont know how I would make the court date. Rather the opposite, I am concerned about what you may be doing. You should know I received a VERY disturbing message from an unnamed source which indicated someone had sent them an e-mail asking if they knew a "XXXXX" (using my last name) who "worked for Wikipedia" and "how can I find him". Not saying that was you...cant prove a thing, but its very scary as I am in the Middle East and my family is not. Are they safe? Who knows in this world.

Regarding you concerns that I must have time to make all these changes you want because I am defending these pages with such vigor:

I am deployed with the military to a foreign country. I do not have half of the material needed to double check images. We are also in the holidays. As early as next week, this could all change and I might be off the site for 3-6-9 months. My average Wiki time each day right now is from as little as 20 minutes to 2-3 hours on an off-day. Today, I had perhaps 35 minutes. Not very much time to triple check hundres of images.

Regarding my sub-page: My new sub-page is a record of what I hav felt you have done to me. Since we both have sub-pages on each, I frmally say I would not care if you removed the delete notice and kept your own page. I need my sub-page to document these thngs. I feel you have treated me pretty badly, hounded me, and disguised yur efforts with a viel of upholding Wikipedia sandards perhaps even subconsciously. You should also know that what threw me over the edge was when you wanted to talk to the girlfriend of my dead grandfather (the lady from Corpus who did me the favor) and my ex-finance (tickling picture). That was simply very hard to handle.

Regarding Navy images from Japan and Korea:

You should also know that I am simply flat on the floor about your blanket statement that JAG and PAO Navy officers dont know what they're talking about. You can be assured that I talked with some very senior people, in both Japan and Korea, and was told in both places that the images from CNFK and CNFJ are property of the United States goverernment. I told YOU this but you appear not to believe me. I eve said I would give you the phone number for the O-6/O-7's office where I talked to the people (although at present I would have to spend time looking for it). If you really want the phone numbers of the Korea/Japan counterparts I guess I could get them too...would you REALLY make an international phone call to someone who probably doesnt speak english to ask them something like thus? That I would I like to see. You probably would have better luck calling the Admiral's office.

Hope that all digests well since you are concerned. The rest of the dispute can be handled by mediators. -Husnock 06:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My every attempt to discuss this matter with you has been badly misinterpreted or outright ignored by you. For example, on countless occasions I have proven to you that I have not stalked you or harrassed you. Multiple other people have told you this was not harrassment, including a member of arbcom, several admins, and a bureaucrat. Despite this, you continue to maintain above that I "hounded" you and still maintain on your talk page "I will always believe he targeted me". You have drummed up no less than 10 different accusations against me, all of which are provably false.
 * The list on my sub-page is what you did. You did blank my flag page, you did demand source information to an extreme level, and you did then say what I was providing was not correct.  You should also know that in response to other user concerns, I toned down the wording of that page so it now resembles a record of past actions instead of a list of charges (as I feel your page resembles). -Husnock 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What has driven me over the edge on this is that you have twice now stated that I committed slander against you and have also accused me (absolutely, completely, and utterly groundlessly I might add...and you still haven't retracted, only qualified) that I violated your privacy off-wiki. Even now, in the above message, you are insinuating that I am a real-world threat to your family. These are, from my chair, very serious allegations.
 * I never said that was you who did that. I simply am saying that it happened.  It is very scary that someone is e-mailing out there trying to find out more about me and where I am located.  It actually probably isnt you, most likely someone who saw the dispute and drew info from it now is trying to find more about me.  Just wanted to clear that up. -Husnock 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Taxman is absolutely correct. You are clearly in "innapropriate territory". ENOUGH with the accusations, and continuing to maintain that I harrassed you, personally attacked you, slandered you, etc..etc...etc... Focus on the issues of the image problems and what Zscout370 or others tell you must be done. All I have done, as lord knows how many people have told you now and you still reject, is tried to get you to adhere to Wikipedia policy with respect to images. I am not your enemy. You've made me out to be such, and I refuse to be part of it. Enough. --Durin 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As of this weekend, my activity on Wikipedia will drop sharply due to other activities. I will proably will not be able to log-in again for several weeks.  I hope I dont find destruction to my articles, but I'll guess I see. -Husnock 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That page is not an accurate account. See my next paragaph response below, for and example of how erroneous it is (that I released your private information to outside parties).
 * By your own admission you sent out dozens of e-mails to all sorts of cities asking for permissions. By the response you copied from the City of Corpus Christi, you've been using your real name in the interactions with these agencies. Don't you think it just *slightly* *slightly* more likely that the source of these questions about editor XXXXXX at Wikipedia is from these ACTUAL releases of your name BY YOU..BY YOU!!!!! to outside agencies? Once again you blame ME for releasing your name, for posting private information when it is YOU who had done so, and NOT me. If you want to "clear things up" then drop the ridiculous accusations you keep making about me.
 * Your articles have never been in question. Despite your every insistence, and blatant evidence to the contrary, I haven't looked at your article contributions. I've been looking at your image contributions only.
 * You've apparently decided to push this right off the cliff. "Durin really scares me. I feel he stalked me, hounded me" . Plus, this diff further maintains the ludicrous fiction that I am releasing your personal contact information to outside parties. So, you still claim I am scary, I am threatening your family, and I am releasing personal information about you. This is intolerable. This is flat out, completely intolerable. --Durin 13:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations
My travel page, with all those flag images that you were so concerned about, is now GONE. I moved the entire thing off site. I hope you're happy. Have a beer with your turkey tonight. -22:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi
my name is Santo Calarco. You have been actively involved in deleting material that has been sent into wikipedia about me - as recent as August and October this year. How can I find out what the contents of the article were and who it is that is writing about me? I am a minister of religion and would like to talk with this person who obviously has something against me - maybe we can sort this thing out. Anyway, thanks for protecting me from this slanderous information. If you can send me a copy of what was written and any attempted updates that would be great.

Rev Santo Calarco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.10.219 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you contacted the Wikimedia Foundation, specifically Danny Wool and/or Brad Patrick. Contact information for your concerns is located at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Contact_us. All the best, --Durin 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I'm currently undergoing an Editor review, and am trying to get a large amount of replies. I am sending messages to those who left me a message on my talk page as a way of getting the word out. I encourage you to add your two cents to the review! Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! FireSpik e Editor Review! 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ST47 RFA
You accidentally removed Guy's vote - crz crztalk 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was made after ST47 withdrew. In effect, the RfA was closed already. Votes after close are generally removed. --Durin 17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about fair use
Durin, you seem to know a lot about fair use policy. Concerning this case, can you tell me who's right (if you're online)? I don't mean who's right about it being 3RR. I mean about images for album covers only being allowed in articles about the album, not articles about the band. I'm sure I could find out if I spent a while researching it, but since you do a lot of work on fair use policy, you might be able to tell me directly. Thanks. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is debatable and open to interpretation. By Fair use criteria item #8, it's arguable that the image should not appear on the band's page, but only on the album's page. An example case; it's often been the case that an image of an actor from a particular show is removed from an article on that actor if the image is not being used to directly comment on that actor and the show. This goes contested sometimes, but frequently does not. This is a similar case, but being extended to albums/bands. My own personal take is that this is situation where we'd be ok in a copyright suit. Not definitely, as I am not a lawyer, but I think we would be ok. There's another slant to this; the band is still active. Assuming they are touring, and they probably will with an upcoming 2007 release, getting a free license image is possible; a Wikipedia editor could attend a concert and get one. So, it's fair use...but replaceable. That puts it in a situation where it's presence on the band's page becomes less than rock solid for certain. Personally, I don't see the value in continuing to use the album cover on the band's page. Why not just replace the album cover with the band's logo? That's clearly...clearly allowable under fair use. Heck, I'll do it one better. Since there's no logo available, I'll get one and replace the album cover with it. Hold on. --Durin 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There. Done. Image:TeslaBandLogo.gif at Tesla (band). --Durin 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Durin. That's very helpful. Hopefully, the dispute has will die down now. As you see, I've unblocked the user. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 23:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep I saw. Probably a good move. The revert war was over, and with the insertion of the logo had near zero chance of re-erupting. I just hope both editors play nice elsewhere :) --Durin 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/History
Yo, I want an update ;) I also would like a graph for my commons, tr.wiki, meta pages :)

Furthermore some sort of graph for User:Cool Cat/RfAs would be nice.

-- Cat out 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't do graphs for commons or any other wiki other then en.wikipedia. As for that, if I find some time...it's been a while since I've done one so it would take some time to learn how to process another one. --Durin 03:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

FU in article space
Fair use is allowed in article name space. Since the main page is part of the article namespace (it's not a template image etc), why have you declared war on the main page nominations? FU images still appear on the main page selected article. Sumoeagle179 04:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the use of fair use images on the main page, which is not in the main article namespace, is generally considered to be a mistake and is usually quickly undone. Further, the page on which I was removing the images is a Wikipedia space page, not a main article namespace page. If you have further questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 04:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The main page is in the article namespace because its path is the same as an article .../wiki/Main Page vis a vis .../wiki/Name of article. Furthermore, your argument that FU images rarely appear with the selected article can't quickly be disproven by looking at the articles actually used for any month. The nom page is where the they nom's get listed, so the images need to appear there. Sumoeagle179 04:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel this way. Please observe the following pieces of evidence: There's other pieces of evidence as well. I can assure you that fair use on the main page is kept to an absolute minimum, and it most definitely is not part of the main article namespace as it itself is not an article on a particular subject. --Durin 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_3. Two admins, Carnildo and Gmaxwell both indicate that fair use images are to be avoided on the main page.
 * Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use/Archive_3 admin User:Ed g2s notes that fair use images are sometimes allowed on the main page for breaking news, but are to be quickly replaced. admin Gmaxwell again notes "Fair use on the main page is a mistake and often removed on sight".


 * That just tells me you don't know what a namespace is, technically speaking, though you may yourself consider it a separate space for wiki purposes. Where does it say in an official wiki policy, not someone's mere opinion, that FU images should not be on the main page and that it's a separate namespace for wiki purposes? If you can't do that, this is merely another case of wikiadmins and cabalists forcing opinion on others.Sumoeagle179 04:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out pieces of evidence to you. I'm sorry you disagree with them and wish to characterize them as cabalish behavior. From a strictly technical stand point, yes if you edit the main page it shows up in your edit contributions as a main namespace edit. But, Fair use criteria item #9 refers to article namespace. The main page is not an article. It does not cover a particular subject, person, event, etc. In reality, it is simply a portal to the rest of the encyclopedia. While fair use images do occasionally appear on the main page, they are to be kept to a minimum. Further, I did not remove fair use images from the main page. I removed fair use images from a Wikipedia space page. If such images are to be included there, they must at an absolutely minimum be linked to, rather than actually displayed. No argument can be made that Today's featured article/requests is in the main article namespace. Thus, per requirements of Fair use criteria item #9, which is policy, the use of such fair use images on that page is not permitted. My removal of the images was, therefore, entirely proper. If you find fault with this, you might wish to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Fair use and discuss options for having the policy changed. Thanks, --Durin 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh come on! Users like you are one reason so many people quit wiki.Sumoeagle179 12:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re your thread with Raul654--in others words, stop being such a zealot all the time, use some common sense, and stop driving editors away from wiki. Sumoeagle179 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So far you have said "declared war", that I am a "cabalist forcing opinion" on others, people like me are "one reason so many people quit wiki", and that I am a "zealot". Your opinions are noted, and I remind you of No personal attacks. If you have an issue with fair use policy you may take it up, as I noted above, at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. What I am doing is perfectly in line with policy and has been repeatedly supported by multiple other admins and members of arbcom. Your issue is not with me. Your issue is with Wikipedia policy. Please use appropriate forums, such as the one I suggested twice now, to voice your displeasure with the policy. Voicing such displeasure with me will have no effect on policy nor will it affect my conducting this work. Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images. Thank you for your message. --Durin 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Band Templates?
Re: Fair use images as for use in templates. I think the removal of this image from the template is really petty ,Why can other band templates use images and I can't? I mean its not in my agenda to rock the boat here, but does anyone else really care about a very small picture on a template? that quite frankly is not seen by all that many people? -- The Equaliser 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair use criteria item #9 prohibits the use of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace. This includes templates. That other band templates have such violations is not a reason to permit more of them. If you'd like, as you find such violations you can remove them yourself. I'd be happy to guide you on what needs to be done and how to go about doing it. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 18:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No Thanks, If I ever thought I would turn in to an image informant like yourself I would quickly find myself a life, before I started wearing a brown shirt. --

The Equaliser 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Enough with the personal attacks please. It serves no purpose and will not stop me from performing this work. --Durin 23:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What you consider a personal attack could be interpreted as freedom of speech but then you would only quote some wiki fair use horse shit to back up your stance. you are without a doubt The most antagonising user on wikipedia. and you have replied to several users by saying so called personal attacks serve no purpose well I disagree, it helps to relieve stress, maybe you should relieve yourself too, you never know you might view life in a whole new perspective! Peace Out man!-- The Equaliser 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You compare me to a Nazi thug and say I shouldn't take it as a personal attack? Right. What was it that was so antogonizing to you that you felt it necessary to begin making comparisons to Nazi thugs? I remove fair use images you had put in place. Those images were in violation of Fair use criteria item #9. You vent all sorts of fury at me, but I'm not the one you should be angry with. If you don't like the policy, take it up at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. If you seriously think I'm the most antognizing user on Wikipedia, then by all means please start an Requests for comment. If I am as you say it would be seriously detrimental to the project for me to be an administrator or even a part of the project at all. I'm always welcome to reasoned inputs on my edits, minus the personal insults. If you won't start an RfC on me, the person you describe as the worst person at Wikipedia, then what would motivate you to start one? Please, by all means start one. Please. --Durin 06:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ooh Touch a nerve did we? Nazi Thug? whats that, a freudian slip? if you recall I compared you to an antagonising image informant you should not add words that were not said! I mean, i'm sure there must be a Wiki fair use of words on that --The Equaliser 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, didn't touch a nerve. A person launching personal attacks against someone whom they have never met, have had almost no interaction with, has no basis to have any way of saying something that would actually hurt that person. You could voice a thousand insults against me and it would have no effect on my conducting the fair use work that needs to be done here. I'm pointing out how your words are personal attacks. As to your words, you are the person who said "brown shirt". The most famous brown shirts in history were Nazi thugs. You should note however that launching a thousand insults against anyone here, much less several, will likely result in your being temporarily blocked from editing. All the best, --Durin 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

relish

 * Doesn't scare me. I'd be glad to get away from users such as you who make wiki a pain to use instead of fun. You must relish in all this hate and discontent you cause. You're the only user I know that has to write pages and pages trying to defend himself. Rlevse 02:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't care. Just go away and leave people who try to improve articles instead of pissing everyone off alone. Rlevse 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images where it says "If you want me to stop doing these removals of fair use violations, the best way is...". This will provide you with direction on how to go about rectifying the matter. Tossing insults at me is ineffective, I can assure you. It has no effect on me and certainly does nothing to change policy. --Durin 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The best way for you to stop driving people away is to use some common sense in how you approach this. And that was not an insult it's a fact. You're the only user I know that has caused other users to quit. I will not discuss this with you further. Rlevse 02:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * People come and go to the project. It disappoints me if people do not wish to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, we hold to our policies. If people wish to leave because they find the policies unacceptable, that is their prerogative. I can not stop them. If it bothers you that this policy exists, your venom is better expelled at the people who are actually in a position to change the policy. You've been directed where to go to do that. I hope you find satisfaction there. In fact, if fair use images were allowed everywhere on Wikipedia it would be, in some ways, better than the current status quo which is a difficult to manage scenario; violations are rampant and there's little support for keeping things in check with this policy. In my mind, preferable would be a considerably harder line against such violations or a far more liberal line. From all that I've read, Jimbo Wales would be more in support of a harder line. You're welcome to take your crack at changing the policy. If you need help to back up some of your points, look me up. I might be able to offer you some supporting statistics. All the best, --Durin 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, all of the "Politics of Nation" templates have national emblems displayed at the top, however why do you keep on reverting North Korea's, when it has the same license as South Korea's and many others, yet they were never changed/reverted to a geographical map denoting their territory? Also, I've read your subpage about the fairuse rationale, however those aren't fairuse tags but coatofarms tags, and was their a vote by the community that national emblems with the coatofarms tags cannot be used in templates or any other namespaces excepting the main namespace? Or it was your own interpretation? You can reply here or on my IP page. Thanks much! --70.21.6.126 07:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * coatofarms is a fair use tag. Any image tagged with that tag alone should not be used outside of the main article namespace per Fair use criteria item #9. This includes Image:Coat of Arms of North Korea.png and Image:South korea coa.png. I've removed the latter from Politics of South Korea. My interpretation of this tag has been backed up by multiple admins and members of ArbCom. I'm fully welcome to reinterpretations of this. If you'd like to raise this matter, you should direct your comments to Wikipedia talk:Fair use where it will receive due attention. Thanks for your question. All the best, --Durin 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All kidding aside
Thank you very much for your review beforehand, and especially your confidence and support during my RFA. I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. Please let me know if I can do anything for you in the future, although I doubt it for some time... I may be coming to you to learn at the foot of the master with respect to coat-of-arms copyright, something that baffles me at present. Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Where's my decoder ring? -- nae'blis 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Durin
I'm directed to you regarding the use of certain images, namely those in the following two cites: Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Andy Warhol
Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Marshall McLuhan
Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) If the images are ok there, why are they not ok on my UserPage?

Best Regards, Ludvikus 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please limit the images on your user page to free or GFDL images.
Please limit the images on your user page to free or GFDL images. Using copyrighted or fair use images can get Wikipedia in a lot of legal trouble. -Will Pittenger 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC) -
 * I WOULD aapreciate it if you inform me first before you assume anything and proceed to alter my user page!
 * Ludvikus 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

- Actually, the copyright tags are the clue. Please check them first. If you have questions about an image, ask User:Durin. And, yes, he did remove fair use images from my page. So don't complain. -Will Pittenger 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC) - -
 * Ludvikus 22:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference between uses there is that use of fair use images on main namespace articles is accepted. Andy Warhol and Marshall McLuhan are two such pages. Any actual article is allowed to have fair use tagged images on it. Userpages, templates, portals, wikipedia space pages...are not. Will Pittenger is correct. You should allow him to remove those images or remove them yourself if you prefer. Either way, they need to be removed from your userpage. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * GotchYa! Your explanation is very clear - which is not the case with the Wiukipedia legal mumbo-jumbo.
 * I assumed - using my method of TRIAL AND ERROR method of learning WP - that if an image was in Wikipedia ANYWHERE - I could use it! What a DISAPPONITMENT!!!
 * Now tell me this - if I get an artish to draw for me an image of Andy sleeping in that same reclining position - can I then put it up on my WP User page?
 * Thanks for your DILIGENCE on behalf of WIKIPEDIA!
 * Yours truly, Ludvikus 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the art is original work and not a derivative work. I.e., you can not take the image from that magazine cover and simply modify it and claim rights. Also, the artist needs to release their rights to the artwork under a free license. Hope that helps, --Durin 20:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing this up. Now if you could teach him to go easy on the … Will (Talk - contribs) 03:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

THE PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO. & "The Protocols of Zion"
Image:1934 Protocols Patriotic Pub.jpg "The Protocols" — the original 1934 300-page THE PATRIOTIC PUBLISHING CO. edition

Dear WP Adminstrator Durin: The image herein I have re-created: me, myself, & I.
 * It is the the front book cover of that infamout 1934 300-page imprint of the Protocols of Zion by an uncorporated entity named above which operated out of a Post Office Box in Chicago, Michigan, and, to the best of my knowledge, there was no copyright asserted on it.
 * So why did you delete THAT image as well??
 * Yours truly, Ludvikus 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Can I appeal your decision on this 1934 image deletion?
 * Sincere best withes to you, Ludvikus 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You can appeal the decision by posting to WP:AN. There's not much to appeal though. The image is of a bookcover, and due to it not being old enough, it is still under copyright...even if copyright wasn't claimed. We do not operate on the basis of whether someone claimed copyright, but on the basis of whether someone explicitly released their rights to the work. Thus, even if something doesn't appear to have a copyright, we assume it does unless we have proof otherwise. The image is appropriately tagged with bookcover which is a fair use tag thus preventing its use outside of the main article namespace. Hope that helps, --Durin 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anthonyn66
Sorry about my logos and pages. I never knew that about those rules. Maybe I should read the rule page. user:anthonyn66
 * No worries. We all start at square one. --Durin 06:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

new user box you may like
FYI: You might be interested in this user box: User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/User Removes Fair Use Images From User Pages. -Will Pittenger 06:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, but I do not use userboxes. Thanks, --Durin 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a page that I can have the box link to that would explain this policy in layman's terms? Something in your userspace would qualify for my purposes. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Durin/Removal of fair use images is the closest I have, but it's quite wordy. Removal of fair use images is sort of the same thing, just an earlier version. --Durin 06:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Veracious Rey
Sorry about the revert. I didn't notice you took the images out of my userboxes (I didn't look, because I was unaware of a problem). The image of governer Fletcher is in an article, so I'm confused why you removed the image a second time.

I accept your offer of help. First, where can I find free images of sports logos, and foxnews logos? In general, where do you find these if you cannot take them from articles. I've searched the Wikicommons, but haven't found anything. Veracious Rey 16:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * When I tagged the image as orphaned fair use, it was truly orphaned; it wasn't in an article. When I checked back, it was. I removed the notice. No worries about the userboxes; we all learn sometime.
 * In short, finding sports logos and foxnews logos isn't going to happen. Logos of such organizations are protected; it's a marketable resource for them. Any free license version probably isn't going to represent the team the way you would want. What people tend to do with such userboxes is to put, for example, "FN" in place of the missing logo, and use colors frequently associated with the organization. --Durin 16:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PSdubow imiages
The imiages that were used are fair use beacuse they were being used on Engilish Wikipedia for the use of describing orginazations or people. Cocoaguy (Talk) 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Fair use criteria item #9, fair use tagged images such as Image:Yankees cap logo.PNG, Image:JohnLennonWhiteAlbum.jpg, and Image:Democratslogo.svg may not be used on userpages, or any non-main article namespace pages. I've removed the images from User:Psdubow. Please do not re-insert the images. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop bothering my friend and I!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Durin

My friend Cocoaguy was doing me a favor by helping me create my user page, because I am not as computer savy as other users may be. He told me how you were bothering him and also hindering him about some pictures he was using or something like that, while he was trying to help me. Both him and I are in agreement that the pictures we are using do not violate any copyright rules or some sort of a wikipedia code of ethics. Now you listen to me, he and I will continue to put pictures on my user page until you or another wikipedia representative proves to us by showing us files, a private policy, a copyright rule, or something like that, stating that what we are doing to against the rules.

Sincerely,

Psdubow


 * Please see the prior section above this one. The use of fair use tagged images on userpages is not permitted per Fair use criteria item #9. The images your friend placed on the page that I removed are tagged with fair use tags. Thus, they may not exist on your userpage. Sorry if this bothers you or your friend; no intention to do so. Just working to have pages adhere to our policies. Thanks, --Durin 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Durin,

My friend and I read Fair use criteria and we are trying to understand it to the best of our ability. If you can, I, myself am having trouble understanding the Fair Use Criteria, because I don't understand all this computer mumbo-jumbo. Also, you said "Just working to have pages adhere to our policies". Well you know what, just because it is an official document does not make it right. What if your policies are wrong. Ever think of that??? Maybe you can ask other Wikipedia moderators and workers to amend the current policy and maybe even to draft a new one.

Sincerely,

P.S. Please respond to this to this message on my talk-page as soon as possible.
 * In general, if you find the term "fair use" on the image's description page, chances are very high that the image must be used here under terms of fair use. Visually, if you see a great big C on the image's description page, like that found at logo, it is an image that must be used under terms of fair use. If you have questions about a particular image, I'd be happy to answer.
 * As to your second point; the policy has been appealed by a broad number of people and dozens of exceptions have been requested. All have been denied. The reason is this isn't just policy. It's a matter of law. Wikipedia takes this law seriously because we do not want to be the victims of a copyright infringement lawsuit.
 * Please understand; adding a copyrighted image to your userpage contributes nothing to the goals of the project. We are here to create an encyclopedia. Potentially violating fair use and copyright law on a userpage provides no benefit to the project while exposing us to risk. You are welcome to place free licenses images on your userpage all you want. The more the merrier if it makes you happy. But, non-free licenses images are off limits.
 * I hope this helps to better explain the situation. If not, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you may have. --Durin 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine!

Psdubow

Agree with PSDubow
Psdubow I agree i do not think that the policy is fair and i do not feel that it is right may i ask to bring this issue up to the WP:AMA and WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can bring it up if you like. You do not need my permission to do so. --Durin 03:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Might I request a boon of thee?
Hail and well met, friend Durin. I hope this missive find you well. May I request a favor? I am, as you may be aware, a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I fear that, due to my history, my questions page and (in the future) voting page may tend to be magnets for incivility and other misconduct. I have, in the past year, come to respect you for your ability to maintain coolness in situations where others might fail to do so (as you may have noted when I commented on your self-RfC some months back). Would you be willing to let bygones be bygones and do me the signal favor of patrolling those pages for uncivil conduct, dealing with any such instances which you might find appropriately? I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kelly Martin (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it from time to time. --Durin 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Do take care. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reviewed 7 December 2006; I commented out one comment by Bishonen that I felt was subjective and polarized the statement.
 * I appreciate your efforts, even if they were for naught. Keep up your good work in other areas; I must admit that your performance in the past year has more than made up for whatever faults I may have found with you in the past.  Kelly Martin (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Equipment of the Turkish Navy
I do not understand why you removed the official seal of the navy from the template. I read the fair use policy related with the templates but i need your advice. I want to put the seal there but how? Regards E104421 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't, at least not on the template. The seal is marked as a fair use image here on Wikipedia. As such, by Fair use criteria item #9, it may not exist on the template. It is possible to create code such that it would only display if use on a main namespace article, but to have a fair use image on the seal constitutes a decorative use of a fair use image in most cases (and does in this usage as well) and thus violates Fair use criteria item #8. I'm sorry. If you have any other questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, but what about this template ? It also uses the seal image. E104421 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The only two images that template uses are Image:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg and Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg. Both of those images are available under a free license from Commons. Thus, fair use does not apply and they may exist on that template. --Durin 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. E104421 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nellie Connally
Okay, thats fair enough about the Opalinida article but I need help with something totally different with the Nellie Connally article. It says that when her husband got shot she quickly tried to protect her husband which was with stark contrast to Jackie who seemed to try and jump out of the car. That info is false. Nellie did try and protect her husband but Jackie never tried to jump out of the car, she just went to grab JFK's brain that got blasted to the front of the car. So considering that info was false I deleted it and then stated in the disscussion box why I deleted it. But every time I delete it, in about an hour it comes back up. I even have this guy saying it was vandalism. What can I do?

Re: Fair Use Image Use
Sure, please tell me more. I don't agree with your logic from the link on your edit summary, but I try to avoid most of the rules of this place outside of afd/rfa(i'm thinking of trying for adminship in a month), so i'll leave that to you. I'll just edit somewhere else. Just H 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has established a narrow definition of allowable fair use. This descends from our mission here; to create a free encyclopedia. The use of fair use should be kept to an absolute minimum. If we are to use fair use, it must contribute directly to the value of the encyclopedia. Adding copyrighted images to templates for decorative purposes does not adhere to that. Thus, Fair use criteria prevents this. --Durin 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't agree -- particularly in how it seems to have been established from my understanding of most of the processes here, but like I said above, i'll leave that to you. Just H 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was haphazard, you did not see the references, you are abusing your admin powers.
Durin - You gonna lose your admin right if you willingly abuse them. You clearly did NOT look into the sources provided before removing my edit. Do you really want to make me have to log in and report you? Now please remove your edit, as I have shown that credible evidence towards alternative theories DOES exist, and I quote the BBC article "Two hijacked passenger airliners plunge into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the subsequent explosions and fires causing the buildings to collapse." Durin wrote, mistakenly "The BBC article you are referring to refers to the explosions of the planes on impact on the WTC, not subsequent explosions that brought the building down."

Admins like you give wikipedia and free speech a bad name, not to mention Neutrality. One more slip, and...Superscript text —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.27.5.114 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes, I'd prefer if you reported me. Since you seem to think I've made a large number of errors, it would be best to air them out and rectify them. And yes, I did look at the cites. That's how I knew the article was posted by BBC on the same day. How else could I know that information? Also, please see Free speech. You do not have the right to free speech here. Sorry. --Durin 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the bit he removed: "While many disregard the controlled demolition hypothesis as complete nonsense, many mainstream news agencies such as BBC news wrote reports about "explosions" in the towers before their collapse, (ref)BBC News, US Rocked By Terror Attacks: "The explosions caused the twin towers to collapse", Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1537469.stm(/ref), and journalists reported "other explosions", cause of which still seems to be unresolved, despite inquiries.(ref)BBC's Stephen Evans Interviewed, Tue 11 September 2001, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFf56Df-F2M(/ref)." Please report this admin (Durin) for abuse, if you see the removal as unfair abuse.

Durin said: "The reality is, as I believe has already been discussed on this talk page, that any theory involving the U.S. as a major participant in causing the attacks on 9/11 is by its very definition a conspiracy." I was not saying anything about any involvement, only that there were some unexplained explosions happening there. Durin said: "As to free speech, it's not a matter of free speech." I agree - free speech must be earned, like I will demonstrate to you trough use of logic and perseverance. Durin said: "I firmly believe in scientific theory, and support additions to articles that are based on verifiability and reliable sources." And you dont regard BBC journalists writings and on-site interviews as verifiable or reliable sources? Who do you think you are kidding here. You crossed the line right there, IMHO, and now you post that comment? Interesting interpretation of scientific principles, Durin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.5.114 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Very well. But can your logic withstand the fact that people have heard explosions in the buildings not directly caused by the airplanes crashing into the buildings OR the collapse of the buildings. What does your logic need, a written statement from the president? We have two pieces of "primary" evidence here that you deem unreliable. Your logic is what I would call "the devils logic". I am considering reporting you.--EndurinFreedom 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC) I was hoping we could discuss this in a civilized manner. What do you have to say about these two points:
 * I fail to see how requesting an article be verifiable and based on reliable sources counts as "crossing the line". Would you please elaborate? A BBC article the same day as the attacks is not a reliable source for making a claim of explosions taking down the WTC. No investigation has been made. At Wikipedia, we target secondary sources for information, not primary. Since there was as yet no investigation, the BBC is in effect a primary source in this case; and since they have no qualifications in building demolitions, they are a very weak primary source for this point of information as well. I stand by my statements. --Durin 17:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've indicated several times now, I'd prefer if you reported me. Please do so. Thank you. --Durin 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The point was not that your requesting verifiability or reliability of sources was somehow faulty, but the fact that once the evidence is presented, you disregard it, in record time.

You edited the article so fast it was not possible for you to review the references.--EndurinFreedom 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now that I review the situation, you are advocating a BIASed view of the situation, where reference from Albuquerque Journal outweigh those of BBC Uk. You are d'mn right free speech doesnt apply here!! --EndurinFreedom 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Civilized discussion possibilities were undermined from the beginning of your posts to the talk page of the article in question where you stated "Admins like you give wikipedia and free speech a bad name, not to mention Neutrality. One more slip, and...". It was further undermined with your first posting to my talk page where you started right off with saying "Durin - You gonna lose your admin right if you willingly abuse them". I have nothing further to discuss with you. I'd prefer if you reported me. Again, if you'd like help making such a report I'd be happy to lend a hand. Thank you, --Durin 18:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) Evidence towards unexplained explosions exist, in form that is verifiable and through sources that are generally though to be reliable (BBC News website and interview footage). (2) Can you (or anyone else) invalidate this evidence, or provide clear explanation as to what these explosions were? (3) If not, can you show that it is NOT even remotely possible that these explosions were related to explosives of some kind? (4) If not, can you, therefore, by use of ARGUMENTATION, EVIDENCE OR LOGIC dismiss the proposition, that it is possible controlled demolitions of some kind by some known or unknown agent MAY have taken place (hypothesis)? --EndurinFreedom 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you not even remotely willing to review my key points? Just for your amusement to show everyone what a loser I am for posting this on your discussion page? I promise I wont report you if you do.
 * As noted, I have nothing further to discuss with you. If you feel I have abused my privileges as an editor and/or admin, then please report me. Good day. --Durin 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well. You removed my edit without reviewing both pieced of evidence (not enough time to view the interview), claimed that I was proposing that controlled demolitions did take place when I was trying to point out that according to verifiable and reliable sources some unexplained explosions did take place, and finally disregarded my pleas for civilized discussion. I hope you have a better one tomorrow. --EndurinFreedom 18:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your summary of events. Nevertheless, I have no desire to discuss it when you have been from the get go assaulting me at most opportunities. Stating for perhaps the 6th or 7th time, if you have serious grievances with me, then by all means please report me. Failing that, I have no desire to discuss my actions with you and I have nothing further to discuss with you on that point. Good day. --Durin 18:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies for any personal hurt my comments may have caused you... (Or your family), not my aim at all. But we aint through this subject matter of evidence, explosions & demolitions yet. Gnite --EndurinFreedom 19:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No personal hurt caused to me. I'm just not interested in discussing matters with a person who is openly hostile. --Durin 21:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Carpenters Picture On My Userpage
Hi Durin,

I'd like it if you didn't keep deleting the photo I uploaded on my userpage. Could you tell me why you did this? It's getting frustrating.

Cuyler91093 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I explained on your talk page the use of fair use images on userpages is not permitted per Fair use criteria item #9. The images that I have been removing from your page are non-free license images and may not be used on userpages. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 21:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Why are they non-free license images? Cuyler91093 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Durin, I don't want to be mean. I'm just trying to understand these copyright issues... :( --Cuyler91093 00:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I think I get it... so, the pictures belong to the Carpenters because it's from a DVD, and actually originally from a television series, so I can't use it on my userpage because it's not mine. Am I paraphrasing correctly? By the way, thanks for taking the time to explain these things... I'm kinda new to editing pages on Wikipedia. ;) --Cuyler91093 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC) I don't see why people are so hostile to you. You're kind and helped me understand. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. Not understanding is fine. I'm happy to help. The images that you've been attempting to use on your userpage are marked with a non-free license. There's a lot of these. Have a look at Category:Non-free image copyright tags. These tags are used for images which are copyrighted and not free. For example, the logo of the Coca-Cola corporation is copyrighted. Nobody can use it in whatever way they choose, except under terms of fair use. The same principle applies to screen shots of movies and to album covers. At Wikipedia, we assume things are copyrighted unless we have positive, verifiable proof that a given thing is available under a free license. Some of the images that you have uploaded have been marked with a free license without any positive, verifiable proof that this is the case. For example, the screenshots you uploaded of the Carpenters were marked improperly. These are in fact copyrighted, and as such may not exist on your userpage by Fair use criteria item #9. I hope I've helped make this clearer. If I haven't feel free to ask more questions! --Durin 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Spot on. You hit the nail on the head. I'm happy to explain! --Durin 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words :) Wikipedia attracts a very broad cross spectrum of personality types. There always is a subset of significantly large populations that demonstrates an unwillingness to be corrected and refusal to adhere to previously established policies. It's not a big deal. It's to be expected, and we just press on. I've been insulted lord knows how many times for my work on fair use management. It doesn't bother me. --Durin 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Anarchy Orphin Image
I made the picture, and it is also a logo. Since I made it I could change the liscence and then it would be allowed to stay on, right? And I will put it on a page, so it doesn't stay orphined. User:Coocooforcocopuffs 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want it to be under a free license, then I suggest you change it to gfdl-self. --Durin 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Edit
How do I create a userbox? I'm kinda new to this stuff, so help me if you can! Thanks! --Cuyler91093 00:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Oh shucks... I'm not familiar with all that technical stuff. Do you know a human source for help with Userboxes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuyler91093 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Yea, im new at this stuff too, I know u cant make a userbox if it has an album cover, but can you still have it on ur page, just want to know if I can keep an album cover userbox I made--NJ Rock 00:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)NJ Rock
 * I do not make userboxes. For help there, you might start with Userboxes. --Durin 14:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, I don't. I don't use or make userboxes, and so have had virtually no contact with any information or people on how to make them. If I might suggest, your time spent on the userboxes could be spent working on articles instead. Few people really look at userboxes. --Durin 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Polarizing comments
Dear Durin, if you think every "polarizing" or "subjective" comment should be removed, there will be very little left on talk pages. In fact, such actions tend to be much more polarizing than the comments themselves. I believe that most wikipedians have already read the page in question, so there is little use in starting to edit it now, when most people seem to have voted and days after the comment was made. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. I don't think whether an uncivil comment has been read and has had its effect has little bearing on whether it is acceptable or not. I've not found anything in Civility that suggests that an uncivil comment should be left if it's been in existence for a few days. Perhaps you can point out that particular section of the policy or some other policy/guideline that suggests that? --Durin 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about Portal:Houston/Selected biography/December 2006. I know better. I must have had an insanity attack. Postoak 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries :) We all make mistakes. --Durin 00:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?
Your edit summary says you're responding to me, but the sentence that turned you off is DerwinUMD's. Not that I don't also find that sort of thing irritating. I've fixed the formatting to set my commments off a bit more clearly. Best,--Thomas Basboll 15:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question about the extent of the fair use policy on user pages
I don't really care that the little duke programming logo is removed from my user page as I did that a while ago more as an experiment with markup than anything else. However, I was wondering if it really is an inappropriate fair use of a graphic to use a 10-pixel high version of the graphic. It hardly resembles the original graphic in that form. I suppose another way to ask this is if I created my own rendition of the Duke logo as a 10-pixel high graphic, would that be a violation of fair use, even on my user page? (Don't worry, this is a purely hypothetical question as I really don't care that it's gone.) It just seems that at some point of reduction that the image is of such a low resolution that it can't be considered to infringe on the copyright. —Doug Bell talk 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of Wikipedia policy, no. Fair use criteria forbids such use "even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law". --Durin 21:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the quick response. It's probably simpler to have the policy written that way and since there's no benefit to allowing the images on user pages it makes sense. —Doug Bell talk 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Feet Protect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Feet

Has been vandalized by IPs for a good solid month or so now, and had subjective material added, and then removed, I was told to contact an Admin, I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know what to do about this. However I think Protection would be good until the popularity of the movie dies down, yes? I didn't know how else to ask, sorry if it doesn't belong here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revrant (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
 * The place to go for that is Requests for page protection. I'm not familiar with the movie, and first pass at it showed me I wasn't readily able to differentiate if there was recent vandalism (cast changes). --Durin 13:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth
For what its worth, internet where I am is apparently not going away at the end of the year. If you actually did want to pursue any RfCs, I would be able to comment. Not that you would do that by any means, I am just retracting my further statement that I would be unavailable for such things since that is no longer the case and it is only fair to state that. Cool? Cool. (But not Coolcat...) -Husnock 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My main concern in pursuing an RfC was to stop the constant onslaught of attacks by you against me in a large number of fora. Since that appears to have stopped, there is nothing to be gained by initiating an RfC except to cause more ill will. RfCs are too often viewed by people as punitive. That's not their intent. They should for the most part be corrective. Since there's now nothing to correct, there's no point to having one. I always considered the image status issue as separate, and not one worthy of an RfC. --Durin 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

My Deletions of FAir Use
How could that be prohibited if it's still on Wikipedia?--Hornetman16 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. --Durin 19:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can be an ass you know that. Forget it...I'LL STOP!!!--Hornetman16 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In no way was I attempting to be an ass. I was and am quite happy to help you understand this policy. But, willful violation of the policy and refusing to stop re-inserting the images simply isn't acceptable behavior. --Durin 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The policy link you sent me I couldn't get to till a few seconds ago but now that I know the policy I'll follow it!!--Hornetman16 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indymedia Logo is public domain, not fair use
Hi Durin,

Re: your deletion of the IMC logo from my userbox: I appreciate what you are doing, as you must feel it is a way to improve and protect the Wikipedia from lawsuits. But trust me, the Indymedia logo is public domain. The IMCs are decentralized, anarchist. There is no central authority to assert copyright. It is not a trademark, because it's about free information, and not about mercantilist trade. --Bill Huston <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The image is tagged with logo. As such, it may not be used on User:Bhuston/Userbox/indymedia. Whether it is in fact in the public domain is, at this point, irrelevant. We do not permit non-free license tagged images outside of the main article namespace. If you want to use this image, then determine what the source of the image is and contact that source to determine if they have released their rights. We can not do this based on assertions of our users; we must have a verifiable means of determining the release of rights from the image. Somebody created the image. Who? How to contact them so we can verify? Did they release their rights and if so where is the proof? I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again without doing as suggested above or similar. Using this image on that page, when you know what the policy is, is vandalism. I'm happy to help you work through this, but re-inserting the image in violation of our policies is not an acceptable route to go. Thanks, --Durin 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Durin, you said, "I am reverting your reinsertion of the image. Please do not re-insert the image again". Just to point out, I don't think I reverted your removal, and the edit history does not show this. I've been around here long enough to understand the gravity of copyvios. So unless you used your super-admin-powers to modify the edit history, I would ask you to retract your assertion that I reverted. Accusations of vandalism are quite serious, and I would like you to set the record correct. --Bill Huston <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  10:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You are absolutely correct. Lost in the shuffle, I removed an instance of the image, received your message and then removed another instance of the same image from your userspace . When I first received your message, I did not know to exactly which page you were referring. When I found the second page, I made the (false) presumption that you had reverted the removal of the fair use image. Consider the record set straight, and I apologize for the error. --Durin 13:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Eraserhead image
Hey hombre, the image is actually a screenshot from the film and qualifies as fair use, and it WAS being used - in userboxes. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_Eraserhead. So, what's the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NIRVANA2764 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Fair use images are not permitted to be used in userboxes, nor any other non-main article namespace page. Please see Fair use criteria item #9. If you have any other questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. --Durin 20:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So all images in all userboxes are not fair use? This would make them...unfair use? I'm missing the point here.NIRVANA2764 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, there are two broad categories of images; those here under a free license such as gfdl and those under copyright and used here under terms of fair use, such as those images tagged with logo. Free license images can be used anywhere within the project. There's no restriction on their user. Copyrighted images may only be used on the main article namespace; the actual article that comprise the encyclopedia. Thus, userpages and templates may not have copyrighted images on them. The image Image:Eraserheadscreensh.jpg has a fair use tag on it film-screenshot. Further, all copyrighted images must be in use on main article namespace pages to remain at Wikipedia. This particular image is not used on any articles. Thus, it is considered "orphaned" and will be deleted in seven days unless it is used on an article. Does that help clarify things? --Durin 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed, the image is in use on one article - see: Surrealism. NIRVANA2764 03:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * . --Durin 04:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Fair Use images from User Boxes
Hi I understand removal of fair use. But could you please REVERT edits which insert fair use rather than simply removing the fair use image? It's actually easier to revert a page and put in exactly the same editing comment then it is to manually remove the fair use image. TIA, Garrie 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the surface, it is. But, to find the "right" version to revert to isn't. I have no clue on these pages what the users of them prefer to see in the userboxes. That's for them to decide. I simply remove the image. There are a limited subset of cases that I do know what is the generally preferred version, and I revert to those preferred versions if I know them. But, it's a limited subset. --Durin 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A beacon of hope
You stepped in and mediated the fiasco involving Cecropia and me back in March, and I respect your opinion as much as anybody's here and value your ability to mediate situations with calm, reasoned persuasion. I do hope you are able to help bring the whole MONGO case to a reasonable conclusion. Whatever the outcome, I appreciate the effort—it's people like you that give me hope for this place. —Doug Bell talk 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words! I'll do my best to analyze the situation. On initial pass, it appears to me an injustice is being done and a sharp contrast to prior actions is being made. I'm quite chilled by what this RfAr is setting as a principal. We of course are told that RfAr results do not have weight as precedents. But, the reality is they do have an effect. For my part, I'm afraid to use admin privileges on anything that I edit now. Just yesterday I ran into two situations (1) where using my admin buttons would have been absolutely appropriate and correct under policy. But, had I done so, the principals established in the MONGO RfAr tell me that I could have lost my admin privs in so doing. An RfAr should not be used by any party to create new defacto policy, but that is what is happening here. An RfAr could be used to clarify policy, but from what I've been able to discern so far there is no policy basis for four of the five points against MONGO in relation to his supposed abuse of admin privileges. This is quite troubling. --Durin 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) - The two situations were; one) where a user was willfully violating WP:FUC #9, and I was the admin who was attempting to get him to stop. I placed a request at WP:AN/I and the user's page was protected and he was threatened with a block if he continued. Two) Collapse of the World Trade Center had been the subject of a revert war lasting 5 days of which I had been party to. It had undergone 38 reverts on a *section title* (of all things). It was blatantly obvious protection was needed to force all parties to the talk page. I posted a request at WP:RFP and it was quickly agreed to and the page was protected. Had I done either/both of these, I would have been potentially subject to the same censuring that MONGO is suffering.


 * I appreciate the effort you are putting into reviewing this situation and hope you will post your analysis to the /Proposed Decision talk page as soon as possible in the hopes that the arbitrators will review it before finalizing their decision and closing the case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Fair Use images from User Boxes
Understood. I'll be more mindful in the future. --Whatocean 08:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Durin 13:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Power Rangers userbox images
Ok a few things.........

Phoenix741 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You missed one
 * 2) You could of put something on my user page warning me so I could fix them up from looking like crap, IE the ' symbole. Also since i am the one who created them I would think it would be common manners to put something on my talk page.
 * 3) On that note, it is perfectly easy just to remove the ID box altogether so it looks better.
 * 4) What took you so long.........


 * Which one? If you didn't fix it, I'd be glad to do so.
 * Please see Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals which discusses precisely this issue, and which concluded that what I was doing with not leaving a talk page message or requesting the user do the work themselves was the best route to go.
 * Maybe. Maybe not. I don't make determinations about what looks good or not when I remove fair use images. It's not a consideration I should be making. It's up to the people who use the box to decide what looks good or not.
 * There's thousands and thousands and thousands of violations. One estimate some months ago showed more than 40,000 violations. Though I'm not the only person doing this work, it's a huge body of work. it takes time. --Durin 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

TiVo Userbox
I noticed your change of my TiVo userbox at User:Krellion/Userboxes/TiVo. I figured that using an image of the TiVo logo would not be possible due to copyright/trademark issues, so I thought that using a standard font (nothing like the TiVo one) and matching the colors would be all right, considering that TiVo even has a style guide that includes the proper RGB color values. The TiVo page you mentioned as a reference in your comment (http://a423.g.akamai.net/7/423/1788/00d433ecd251f9/www.tivo.com/i/0.0/0.0.hp_hd_tile) looks to point to a non-existing page, so if you could find a proper link, I'd like to see it. I'll leave the userbox as-is for now, since I don't want to cause any problems for Wikipedia, but I have to admit that it looks very bland now. :) Thanks. -Krellion 15:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response! Much better to discuss than revert. The link was cut off; it should have been this. Note the "TiVo" logo on the left of the image, and compare that to the logo you created using colored text. While the fonts are slightly different, they are nearly identical. Further, three of the colors used in the userbox are less than 10% different in color from the TiVo logo. The fourth is 30% different. The two versions of the logo are far too close to be considered as separate, independent (for licensing purposes) logos. Yours is a derivative work, and TiVo retains rights. Consider; what do you think TiVo's reaction would be if you created a million t-shirts with your version of the logo and sold them? They would most likely file a lawsuit in rapid fashion. That's what we're trying to protect Wikipedia against. There's a risk with the text version of the logo. For that risk, we are gaining nothing that contributes to our sole goal of creating a free encyclopedia. Hope this helps to clarify things. If not, feel free to ask more questions. --Durin 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

something

 * I think that says something.

Certainly, but what? You seem to imply that editors have less credibility than admins. Mongo is an abusive administrator. It makes sense that the ones who object to this are editors, not admins. Besides, little data can be gathered from the straw poll because it will only be seen by those who were watching that particular page. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As I felt I made clear, I am not diminishing the value of non-admins or the worth of their votes. I think it does say something when no admin has voted in agreement with ArbCom's decision, but that in no way reflects on the non-admins adding their equal value two pence.
 * Whether or not MONGO is an abusive admin has no bearing. He's not being de-adminned for that.
 * I would like to see more broad input on the straw poll, but am loathe to advertise it as it were as advertising can badly skew consensus. I have notified the arbitrators who have yet to move to close the RfAr that they should look at that talk page before making any decisions, but have not specifically referred them to the poll. --Durin 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello (NIRVANA2764)
Are you mad at me? :( NIRVANA2764 13:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm...no. Should I be? :) --Durin 13:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It Happens to the Best of Us
This is ironic that after the dispute with you and I where you were (wrongly) included in my real world situation where my job was e-mailed and my wife called, I have now been sucked into an accusation of threatening someone where a Wikipedia user stated they were in fear of thier life because of something I said. So, it happens to the best of us, I suppose. -Husnock 13:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:XP
What can be done about this user? The accusations this user is leveling against anyone supporting a review of the proposed decisions are absolutely uncalled for, completely bad faith, and totally counter-productive. I, for one, have never conversed with MONGO nor edited any of the same articles. I am not a far-right wing conservative at all, and I also did not post my opinions out of a feeling of "administrator entitlement", but rather because I think it is completely wrong to bring down as severe a punishment as desysopping for evidence as weak as has been so far presented. (In fact, 3 of the points are not only weak, they are wrong: those actions are good actions and no administrator should be made to be afraid to execute similar decisions because the ArbCom decided to act as lawmaker, judge, jury, and executioner with respect to protection of pages one has edited. This case is out of control: Badlydrawnjeff explicitly said one thing that MONGO did wrong was block that user six (six!) months ago, and the other was that he protected a page he had edited.  If that was a wrong action, we might as well eliminate the sysop permission level, because all sysop permissions would be good for is a bunch of editors running around operating on random pages they've never seen before.) In any case, XP's dogmatic worship of Jimbo and the ArbCom is out of control, to the point that he is broadly insulting good members of the community. Does he realize when he claims that the "EXTREME" minority of the community is supporting MONGO, an even more "EXTREME" minority (1/8 of those supporting MONGO) is supporting his desysopping? I am fed up with the insults, the word-twisting, and the brown-nosing to Jimbo and the ArbCom. What can be done? -- Renesis (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * His actions are out of line. For my part, I'm done conversing with him. If an RfC is started with respect to him, I'll perhaps comment on it. However, his attitudes and defenses are both wrong and weak. Given that, I think it's pretty obvious his views are self-marginalized. The attacks on the contributors there was uncalled for and hurts his position far more than it hurts the position of the people opposed to the decision. I'm not worried about his effect. I'm falling back on this post I made to MONGO's talk page. There's not much more light to be gained from that page. It's blatantly obvious that the decision is wrong. If ArbCom moves ahead with it anyway, then I'll take more action. For now, there's not much point to the constant back-and-forth. So, I'm stepping out. Bit of advice; remain focused on the outcome of the RfAr, not the particulars of XP. --Durin 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will take that advice. I agree with you in not wanting to converse with him anymore, as it's obviously useless.  I hope that this doesn't turn out to be a case of "loudest wins" because he is obviously striving for that.  I also hope that this doesn't turn out to be a case of the ArbCom staying with their current direction out of not wanting to get a black-eye from backing up and reconsidering.  Unfortunately, that seems to be the way it is going.  Thanks for your defending what's right, and I think it only helps show the sincerity of your position that you can see when enough bickering is enough.  I hope the ArbCom makes the right decision from here.  With respect to an RFC, I too would comment, though I have not participated in enough (any) to know whether opening one is warranted or not. -- Renesis (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An RfC would be warranted if the pattern of abuse continues, he has been requested to stop by at least a few people, and remains unwilling to correct the disputed behavior. An RfC isn't punitive; it's just to gain input from uninvolved parties. The best outcome is that whatever the prevailing opinion, the person of whom the RfC is the subject takes the advice to heart and modifies their behavior appropriately. The worst outcome is it is a lip-service stepping stone to an RfAR and/or that it is treated strictly as punitive. XP is a somewhat new editor. He's never participated in another RfAr but this one. I think the inexperience is showing, which is excusable. The personal assaults are not, but perhaps they will diminish over time as he sees they are counter productive. I hope. --Durin 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else see a link between this user and the indefinitely-banned Rootology? Unfortunately, I haven't time to do an analysis of his contributions. My mother isn't very well at the moment. But I find his early edits very interesting. AnnH <b style="font-size:medium;">♫</b> 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Call my cynical
But this comment made me drop my gum. Have you never participated in an arbitration before? Never even watched its slow-motion train wreck grandeur? The times the arbitration committee members actively participate other than drive-by voting are as rare as rooster's eggs. 152.91.9.144 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're cynical :) No, I don't participate in RfArs as a rule. Still, I don't think it's unreasonable (even if they never do) for ArbCom to follow what the instructions are. If the case is as you say (and I don't doubt it) it's like we're appointing them with a mind towards snow shoveling and their actual job is trash hauling. Major disconnect between what they're supposed to do and what they're doing. On the bright side, At least one ArbCom member in this case (Fred Bauder) has been significantly active on the workshop page. --Durin 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been following ArbCom cases closely for five months and commented in several of them. I'm advised that Fred Bauder created the concept of the Workshop page and it appears he is the only arbitrator who regularly participates in the Workshops; occasionally Dmcdevit offers an observation or two. For the past few months, Fred Bauder also has written maybe 80% of the first drafts of the Proposed Decisions; Dmcdevit drafts the Proposed Decision in the rest of the cases, as he did in the Seabchan/MONGO case currently pending.
 * I would like to think that the other arbitrators at least read the Workshop discussions and take them into account in making up their minds. I do know that they read the Proposed Decision talk pages, because they have modified proposals from time to time based on discussions on that page. Some details of the ArbCom procedures will probably be reviewed after the impending influx of at least six new arbitrators. For better or for worse, of course, that will not affect the case that is currently receiving attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Userbox
Well, I didn't know about any of that, thanks for pointing it out. aido2002 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Happy to help! --Durin 22:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry I was drunk and forgot about this rule. I will avoid doing this in future and go to bed now to sleep, very sorry old bean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robdav69 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. --Durin 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the kind words on my talk page and your support at my RfC. It is greatly appreciated. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My userbox saga
Durin: I think I've finally found the brain cell necessary to comprehend image licenses and userboxes images. I think. Can I use Image:YorkUserbox.png? It's just text in PS and a free-use clipart banner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drcwright (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Ding ding ding! You did it! You found that brain cell! Congratulations! :) Seriously. Well done, nice job! :) --Durin 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha. Thanks. I really don't know what my problem was. Cheers Drcwright 20:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it. I'm just quite glad you were willing to work with me on the issue. Too often I run into users who are recalcitrant regarding the policy. So, thank you. --Durin 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
A number of images I uploaded were listed as fair use violations despite being tagged correctly because they appear to not be used in the main article mainspace. In actually, I did find those images in main articles on Wikipedia; it just doesn't appear that way because I use the images in userboxes, and most of them are too large to fit into userboxes. So what I did was scaled them down on an external program and then uploaded them under slightly different filenames. If you (or someone else) would please show me how to scale down images on Wikipedia, I will do that instead. Anthony Rupert 15:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While there is technical means to scale down such images, using fair use images on userboxes is simply not permitted. For how to resize images, see User_talk:Drcwright where I discussed this with another user. But, again, you may not use fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace. Please see Fair use criteria item #9. If you have other questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request filed against Husnock
Please see the main WP:RFAR page if you want to add anything. Thatcher131 16:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale guideline
Hi. I'm posting this on your talk page because I have noticed that you are often active in one or more aspects of our image use and/or image deletion processes.

I would like to propose Fair use rationale guideline as a guideline to detail the necessary components of a "non-free image use", or "fair use", rationale. At present, it's kindof a moving target. Some image description pages have a detailed, bulleted rationale, while others have a one sentence "this picture identifies the subject". Patroling Category:All images with no fair use rationale, I've seen image pages that explicitly have something of a rationale that have been nominated for a speedy.

This is not an attempt to change or influence the image use policy in any way - and I would like to steer it away from becoming a rehash of the arguments over recent changes to the fair use policy. The only purpose of this guideline is to assist users who upload fair use images in correctly and adequately documenting what they feel to be the rationale for using the images.

So I would like for us to formalize what is required. I have also created Template:Fair use rationale and I would like to propose that we use it or something similar as a template to assist users in creating an acceptable rationale. I have no particular attachment to the proposal as it stands now - I have created it only as a starting point. Please see Fair use rationale guideline and the associated talk page to give your thoughts and ideas. Thank you. BigDT 19:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I have seen some freshly uploaded images that had no source or license information. Those I do tag with nsd or nld. However, I have seen none with rational that omitted a fair use tag. If I have tagged such images with nsd or nld, please let me know. I do patrol recent changes including uploaded images. Will (Talk - contribs) 21:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A bit busy right now, but on first pass it looks good. I need to review more in depth though. --Durin 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:CamelCommodore
Please use whatever powers you have to find out who this may be and where they are posting from. The guy just posted a message on my talk page as if to confirm the sockpuppet suspicion just moments after I made my arb com statement. Someone is either trying to discredit me or this person has a warped sense of helping. I see you have already spoken to him, I need some assistance with this. Please. -Husnock 20:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I am party to the RfAr, I decline to become involved. Reviewing Requests for checkuser, this decision lies with ArbCom anyway. See where it says "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case" the solution being "Request checkuser on the arbitration case pages". The matter is for ArbCom to decide. --Durin 20:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Why?/What?
What is a fair use tag? How do I not use it? Please tell me? You added the following comment to my my talk page:

"Please stop adding images tagged with fair use tags to your userpage as you did here. The use of fair use images on userpages is not permitted per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 17:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"

Please help me. Zazzer 21:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A fair use tag is a type of image copyright tag that specifies that an image is copyrighted and used here on Wikipedia under terms of fair use. An exhaustive list of all fair use licensing tags may be found at Category:Non-free image copyright tags. In general, the easiest way to tell if an image has a fair use licensing tag is if it has the phrase "fair use" somewhere on the image's description page. Just search for that text. If you're uncertain, feel free to ask me. Wikipedia policy does not permit the use of fair use tagged images outside of the main article namespace, i.e. the actual articles of the encyclopedia. Thus, they may not be used on templates or on user pages. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to help. Thanks, --Durin 14:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Husnock
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Husnock. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Husnock/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church
I've added the "prod" template to the article Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Holton Evangelical Lutheran Church. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ioannes Pragensis 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I only visited it to remove hopelessly POV comments. --Durin 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite
What is the code to cite a statement in an article, not the whole page, but rather just a little statement said in an article? Thanks, Coocooforcocopuffs 19:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a look at any featured articles available at Today's featured article/December 2006 or Featured articles. Any of these articles should give you excellent examples. --Durin 03:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Purdue.JPG
Hello, I see that you tagged this image. I was wondering why was this done? The reason why this image looks similar to PurdueSpiritMark.jpg is because the logo of the organization does not change. This is not the official logo of the organization as the official logo is Black and gold. There is another image that is the same as the Michigan State Spartans logo but this has been released into the free domain because the user has released it to the public domain. So for the same reason, since I have created this image it should be allowed to stay as I have released it to the Public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshsharma (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is an obvious derivative work of the copyrighted work. If you want to do a simple black background with a gold P on it, that is not the logo. What you created is too close to not be considered a derivative work. As such, Purdue University retains rights. --Durin 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiltshire and Aularian Userboxes
Hi there, I noticed that in line with your fair use image policy you had deleted the images from the two userbox templates I had made. I've since restored them because I don't believe them to be fair use but rather public domain. I don't believe the Wiltshire county arms are fair use for similar reasons to those you cite in your related article about the U.S.S. Spruance image, it is the work of the British Government. The St. Edmund Hall arms are not officially recognised by the College of Arms and so are not officially owned by the college under UK heraldic law. Also to the best of my knowledge there has been no copyright issued to the college granting them ownership of the arms as a logo. Also the image in question was created by me but I'm guessing that has little bearing on fair use vs public domain. Would be grateful for any comments you may have. --AulaTPN 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * With respect to Image:SEH.gif: This image is tagged as logo. This makes the image a fair use image and it may not be used on userboxes. Whether or not a copyright has been issued is irrelevant. International copyright law has, for some time now, recognized that creators of works retain rights even if not specifically granted by a governing authority. Thus, in order for this image to not be used here under fair use, we need a positive affirmation from St. Edmund Hall that they release all rights to this arms image which is clearly a derivative work of the arms that can be seen, in part, on the header of http://www.seh.ox.ac.uk/index.cfm?do=aularians. Until this release is obtained, the image is properly and appropriately tagged and may not be used on userboxes.
 * With respect to Image:Arms-wiltshire.jpg: In the United States, most works of the federal government are in the public domain by law. This does not apply to any other country. Simply because something is a government work does not mean it is in the public domain. Each country has their own laws in this respect. Most, including the UK government, do not automatically place their works into the public domain. Thus, this image is not automatically in the public domain.
 * I am reverting your reinsertion of these images into the userboxes. Please do not re-add them to the userboxes without first gaining copyright license release under, for example, terms of the GNU Free Documentation License and providing evidence that this has been done. If you would like assistance in doing so, I'd be happy to help. --Durin 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! I'm still new to Wikipedia and really appreciate everyone's help on my path to good wiki-citizenship.


 * As far as St Edmund Hall goes, I created the image and tagged it with logo as that seemed the most appropriate classification at the time, this may have been a mistake. The issue of copyright is likely never to be resolved as it is frequently argued by the relevant issuing authorities that the Hall has no rights or claims to the coat of arms as depicted as they were never officially issued by the College of Arms. That being said, the image on their website is merely a photograph of a painting by a long deceased artist whose copyright claims would have expired centuries ago. Surely this makes their image derivative of an uncopyrighted/-able work? And if I really wanted to argue the case I could point out that the painting is derivative of the initial design on letters patent which would have been created nearly 800 years ago by a Herald. I'd be interested to hear what you thought the best approach would be for settling this one, as an alumnus I could write to the Hall and ask their official position on such use but if they're not actually copyright holders I'm not sure where that leaves me.


 * As pertains to Wiltshire, there is a scaled version of the logo available on the Wiltshire County Council website. The copyright statement on the same website grants free use of all website pages/material for non-commercial use without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holders. Would this be satisfactory for reinstating use of the full-size or scaled versions of the image? www.wiltshire.gov.uk

Thanks again for all your help --AulaTPN 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: St. Edmund Hall. Ask them! Can't hurt. They might be able to provide a clear answer without equivocation on the status.
 * Re: Wiltshire. Wikipedia does not permit commercial use only images. We have two image classes here; free license and fair use. If the image does not fit into either of those, then we don't use it or we make it fit into one of those. In the case of the Wiltshire arms, we have to use it under fair use since the non-commercial only license is in effect. --Durin 00:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

John R. Ryan
I noticed that this page was under the pages for speedy deletion, I do not believe that it should be up for speedy delete. I did notice that the creator of the page copy and pasted most of the original page so i went through and fixed much of the page, if anything it just needs to be cleaned up. John R. Ryan was a Vice Admiral in the Navy and served at the Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, he is now the Chancellor of the largest system of education in the nation (State University of New York), please take time to review this case. Thanks --Joebengo 20:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy tags. He's quite notable enough. --Durin 20:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will spend some time cleaning it up now. --Joebengo 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Eraserhead.jpg
What right do you have to remove it from the userbox? I took the photo. In the description is a link to my original photo, not cropped, where you can see it is an amateurish snapshot of the DVD cover. You said "the original author retains rights". I am the original author. Please explain to me the loophole in which I do not have control over an image that I created. NIRVANA2764 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You do have rights to whatever creative effort went into the creation of the photograph of the DVD cover. Additionally, the creators of the movie Eraserhead maintain rights to the DVD cover. You have the power only to release your rights, and can not release theirs. As such, the image must be used here under terms of fair use. --Durin 00:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Man, I give up. I'm just trying to get a nice image in the only userbox I've made and it's my favorite movie of all time. I don't get how it's unlawful to use if I took a picture of something copyrighted. I can't think of any other way to make the userbox look okay. This sucks. You should really see the movie sometime. Got any suggestions on how I can get an image in there? NIRVANA2764 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen the movie. Saw it shortly after it came to video actually. Rather amazing movie. Depressing as all hell, but amazing nonetheless.
 * As to the copyright problems; just taking a picture of something doesn't mean you gain all rights to it. Let's say you took a photograph of the Coca-Cola logo. Does that mean you can then go make a million shirts with the logo and sell them? Coca-cola would be on your doorstep faster than you could put one of the t-shirts on. You do have rights to the creative effort needed to create the photograph, but Coca-cola would absolutely retains rights to their logo. Similarly, David Lynch and/or Libra Films retain rights to imagery from the movie, including the cover of the DVD package. Now, since you took the photo you have rights, but they have rights too. For instance, they could not use your photo unless you gave them permission to do so. Similarly, you can not use the photo unless they give permission to do so. You both have rights, and both sets of rights have to be released under a free license in order for the image to be usable outside of the main article namespace here on Wikipedia.
 * I know you're a good guy in this, and are trying to do the right thing. I really appreciate that! --Durin 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images in List of Mac OS X software
Durin, it seems to me that the images in List of Mac OS X software are allowed under the same fair use principles that Wikipedia uses to include discographies with images. --Ellmist 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you for your prompt reply. Are galleries such as this allowed for discographies? --Ellmist 17:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at great length. The determination is that using fair use images in a gallery as was done in this case is against policy. Fair use images must contribute significantly to the article. The simple display of the image along with a title is not significant. --Durin 15:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. There's a substantial number of similar policy violations across Wikipedia, but they are violations nonetheless. --Durin 04:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)