User talk:Idleguy/Archive02

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Idleguy/Archive03. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Idleguy 09:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Dyan Chand
From Dhyan Chand: statues in his honor. Q: Has no other Indian sportsman have a statue erected? PS Please would you use British English spellings instead of AE, its the convention for Indian related articles. Thanks. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  12:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't quote a source on that unique fact, but I remember this trivia from a quiz more than a decade back. He has infact 2 statues, but my information is old so an updated info would be better. And yes, i'll see that future editing in India related articles are british english. but doesn't it create lack of uniformity in the encyclopedia? Idleguy 14:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * It does, but I guess in the early days there must have been a protest on the imposition of AE in the encyclopedia. It was decided that articles relating to the country in question would be written using spellings used in that country. I think its written in the Manual of style =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Khemkaran
Hi Idleguy, thanks for the note. You're right, somehow I managed to miss the C&P of those last two paragraphs. I've deleted back to the revision of 07:47, 30 December 2004, which doesn't contain the copyvio paragraphs. Sorry for missing that, and thanks for the heads-up. --Ngb?!? 10:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Careful on POV
Hi, I just finished editing panchayat, and noticed that you at one point inserted a mention of it as a wonderful system. Whether or not it's a wonderful system, you'll want to be careful on Wikipedia to avoid making value statements like that. --Improv 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Star



 * Wow. Cool. I'll continue to idle and contribute to Wikipedia (and other wikimedia projects too if possible). Tx Idleguy 11:32, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ali dvd.jpg
This was in boxing but I can't see any fair use ratonal for it being there.Geni 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * yes but the tag specificaly say "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of DVD covers to illustrate the DVD in question". It might in theory be posible to come up with a couple of other fair use uses but the one in boxing isn't one of them. With fair use context is everything. The context in which the picture is presented in boxing means that it cannot be fair use.Geni 19:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK
Nice work on the India DYKs. Would you be willing to update the Portal:India DYK's fortnightly? (Next update this sunday.). Thanks =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Khardung La
Nearly all the articles mentioning Khardung La are wrong! Khardung La is not in Kashmir - it's in Ladakh (which is in the state Jammu and Kashmir). The elevation of the road pass is not 5682m but only 5602m!!! Check the image - it is written there 16380 ft (=5602m)! Some web pages like guiness book of records (linked from wikipedia) are obviously wrong!


 * I've corrected that reference to Kashmir. I was supposed to add J&K and it remained Kashmir by oversight. As far as the elevation controversy, I think it's been discussed that no august publication has disputed the khardungla's claim to being the highest in the world. some original research has shown that it might not be the highest in the world, but they have little place in an encylcopedia, though i've added a word on the height issue in the article. tx Idleguy 13:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Some more information - Khardung La is not in Karakoram. It's in Ladakh range. South Pullu is a group of three police/military buildings where they only check your passport (one building is a wet canteen -you can get a tea there :-) nonetheless Khardung La is 14km far from those 3 buildings. So it's NOT in South Pullu. It's not on the Karakoram Highway - see []. I think you should write the elevation 5602m (according to indians) because there are doubts that Khardung La might be lower (I didn't have gps when i was there a month ago :( It's definetly not gigher than 5602m. The guiness book web is wrong for sure. Look at the image on their page - it's not a picture of Khardung La (nor it is a picture of any similar pass).


 * Pl. make the necessary edits regarding the exact location since it lies in the karakoram and ladakh border. The issue of the elevation has been discussed in the talk page and not a single noted publication has given any contrary evidence to the one published either by India or Guinness. So it would be fruitless to talk about the exact height of the pass. tx Idleguy 17:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Stuff Guinness World Records. It's owned by an entertainment company and that's just about all it is. "Noted" publications are full of misinformation. And stuff the official Indian elevation too. To my mind the possibility that the very many sources now mentioned in the main article that give less than 5400 metres for Khardung La are all wrong can be completely discounted. And the evidence that there are higher passes in Tibet is so overwhelming that "official" recognition of this will come soon. Jonathan de Ferranti, Scotland

Dhyan Chand
Re. the statues, C.K. Nayudu has one at Indore, from what I remember reading Tintin 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll do that, but after finding a reference. Tintin 14:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Category
Admins only category.. ha ha. The admin cabal has decided to bestow the category creation to ordinary users henceforth. Jokes apart, IMO, I feel category:leaders & the other one is subjective. To categorise an article, you would need to define a cut off limit. For instance category:coastal cities is defined for cities which have an international port & population > 50,000. Are you following the proper procedure for category creation? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism in Pakistan
I have started a new article on Terrorism in Pakistan. Any info/input you could add would be much appreciated. I have also notified Incman. freestylefrappe 14:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Economy of India
Thanks for your edits to the Economy of India and updating the market capitalisation figures. Can you please add a reference for the market capitalisation data. You can even add a simple url besides the text & I will format it. Thanks. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 18:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the url. Data is too volatile and until we find a more stable data (latest issue of forbes has supposedly some data for indian companies), we should update it once a month. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 04:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Issues with your editing
No one is stalking you, that is a ridiculous accusation. I just meet you on articles I have worked on before. It seems more like you are stalking me because I am usually at the articles first and you seem to enjoy my "pattern of edits". Like I said before, Islam has nothing to do with my edits on Pak-Indian issues. Why do you constantly refer to Islam? Does it make you think you can undermine my edits? Now that I look at your edits, they show a greater bias than mine since I mostly remove vandalism from articles, make minor fixes or apply wikipedia POV/image/source policy. Frankly, I think your edits are mostly nothing but POV pushing without the slightest regard that maybe the Pakistani view should be represented on a Pakistan-related article. I can not represent their view, but I can make the article less POV. You did NOT source correctly on the Kargil article and I apologize if you thought it was a personal attack against you, even though it was obviously not. About the talk page of terrorism in Kashmir I said that you should ALL stop making personal attacks. The reason I warned you to stop using religion is because the anon user never referred to the MUSLIMS, he referred to Kashmiris. Starting to embark on a flame war is not in wikipedia's best interests. Also I was about to make a response to the anon user and Gupta, before you finished editing. But seeing that you already started to make a rebuttal towards him, I stopped short and told all sides to refrain from it. If you took it offensively then you misinterpreted it.

Rediff.com is not a reliable source and you know it. Your source was 3 lines written by a nobody on rediff.com! Maybe I should cite the same type of thing on Terrorism in India? Just because I am Muslim does not mean I dislike other faiths, but the sad reality is that on Indian and Pakistani articles only Indian sides of the story are being shown and it is becoming evident that this is partially due to your edits. Therefore I can only suggest when you get sources, make sure they aren't just Indian nationalist sites and cite them properly. Hope that helps to ease any editing issues and allows you to edit wikipedia productively. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I dont necessarily agree w/ AE's version of the Terrorism in Pakistan page, I saw you linked State terrorism in one of the subheadings on your version. If you revert to your version please remove the link. By the way, there's a threeway conversation in regard to Daniel Pearl-the Terrorism in Pakistan page on AE's talkpage you might be interested in. freestylefrappe 10:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You are vindicated on the vegan article page
You are vindicated on the vegan article page: I repaired the damage my friends, SlimVirgin and Viriditas did --but you ALL were wrong to not cite your sources: I fixed that as well --yes, as a struggling vegan myself, I too find it hard to deal with gelatin caps, but I listed the alternatives -and cited my sources.--GordonWatts 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks..
Thank you Comrade for considering me worthy enough for the medal --User:Deepak gupta 20:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the flower- DYK is a fun thing to put together. Thanks for all your great contributions too. --nixie 00:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

State terrorism
I was going through the article and was suprised to see no mention of Pakistan! Also have a look at the term 'extra judicial execution' under the India section. --User:Deepak gupta 03:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Got your message
I got your "Thank You" message. Even though, I'm on wikivacation, I do check my watchlist once in a while. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Heard your cry for help
Based on an initial, superficial assessment, I'd say you were doing all the right things and your friend Anonym is being difficult. I will take a look, but I think a formal Request for Comment may be the next step.

Bear in mind this should not be an "RFC against" someone - that invites prejudice and stirs up hostilyt. It should be a request for "comment about" how this encyclopedia should describe the various points of view regarding: Note that this will probably involve cultural and religious aspects of: I hope you appreciate the magnitude of this issue: you're asking me to do a lot of work. Please help me to help you. Uncle Ed 13:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * India
 * Pakistan
 * relations between the two countries
 * relations between Hinduism and Islam
 * The removal I was fine with, it was the tone change I didnt like. I stick to the facts, no embellishments, as short as possible. As for Anon...I'm somewhat divided...the endless reverts are tiresome...I would def suggest going with the RFC so this can end. freestylefrappe 20:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, will evaluate it now. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  05:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Copy vio?
Hi Idleguy, you recently marked an image, Image:Bt lsm 000.jpg as a copyvio from http://www.beautifulpakistan.com But although my search of that site found many images of Saiful-Muluk, I didn't find this exact image. Idleguy, if this image is indeed there, can you provide a link to to it? Criticforaday 22:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

DYKs
Yeah sure, go ahead. I thought you didn't like an extra bit of responsibility. ;) PS I commented on one of the talk pages, Terrorism in Kashmir, is there anything else you're expecting? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well the removal of references is bad. let me know if the references are being removed. If they contest the claim, ask them to buy the book. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation
I may be able to help with mediation. Please write me when you can and list (with history version links) the pages and points you guys are debating. Please inform the other party of this message and have him contact me as well. -St|eve 20:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Brain Teasers:
Hi, just sending out a friendly notice stating that I have now got brain teasers on my user page. Will post new questions one day after the older ones have been answered. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a ton !!
Hi Idleguy, it was a pleasant surprise to receive the National Merit Barnstar from you. I feel all the more honoured as I was inspired to contribute well by the no. of DYKs on your talkpage. Thanks once again, --Gurubrahma 17:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

EoI
Thanks for the update & clarifications. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 08:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically, the confusion arose from the forbes site, where they display the current year, while retreiving the data, irrespective of the queried year. -- Pamri &bull; Talk 08:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

images
Idleguy, being a bureaucrat isn't much. I only get to close RFA nominations and promote users as admins/b'crats. Another function earlier given to b'crats was the special:renameuser function, which has now been revoked. Now according to his logs, most of his uploaded images were in 2004. I think he already knows about this. A message on his talk page might be helpful. As for me, I'm sorry, but I am mostly inactive these days, just about managing to check my watchlist on a daily basis. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  19:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm yet to find someone, so I can't really recommend anyone at this moment. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Images
Hi Idleguy, the images are indeed rare. They're taken from footage filmed undercover, as that's often the only way to get images of what appears to be animal abuse. I'm wondering why you don't think they would be covered by the fair-use provision, because they seem to me to fit very precisely within it. The images are worth no money, because those who own them don't want to make a profit from them, and are happy for them to be shown elsewhere. We're using small, low-quality versions of them. There is no other way to obtain the images or equivalents. And we're using them for educational purposes. That pretty well sums up the fair-use provision, which you can read here. Also, you mention Jane Goodall: I'm not sure what she has to do with the fair-use issue, but I can send you a link to a recent film where she explicitly supports efforts to get primates out of labs.

The relevant section of the fair-use provision is below. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Copyright Law, Title 17, Chapter 1, § 107

Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—


 * 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * 2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


 * You're being unnecessarily aggressive, and adding those tags is close to vandalism, so please stop it. We can discuss this without you trying to undo my work.


 * I still haven't understood your objection. I have explained the rationale for the use of the images; see above. They are images of alleged animal abuse. On the monkey page, I have used a picture of a macaque to show the way many of them are kept: macaques are the primates most often used in animal experiments. There is no other way to obtain such an image, unless I myself break into a lab and take one. The labs themselves, for obvious reasons, don't make the images available. The animal protection groups that take the photographs (i.e. the copyright holders) are happy for them to be used. There is very clearly no copyright violation here. Your tag is simply false.


 * Could you say what you mean by a "self-assumed rare image"? I didn't understand this sentence at all: "if the mere use of self assumed rare images of reduced quality is used in the articles, then I've also got other obscure photos to use in articles under "fair use"."


 * Yes, image rarity and reducing image clarity are two of the issues that make a big difference in fair use.


 * The pivotal concern with fair use is not to lose the copyright owner money. If someone could sell his images, and I plaster them all over Wikipedia, then I threaten his income. Reducing image quality helps prevent that.


 * But in this case, the images have no commercial value and are being used for educational purposes, so fair use is very easy to apply. Jimbo has posted about this on his talk page in response to a query from Adam Carr, so perhaps you could look at what he says about it. He appears to have no issues with images used in this way. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim the animal protection groups had released them. I said we are claiming fair use. But I know they are aware of Wikipedia's use of them and have no objection. I can think of one that has been used in a media report. But at least two, possibly three, of the ones you have tagged were taken by animal protection groups and they hold the copyright. The images are of reduced quality compared to the originals, though perhaps not compared to the websites, but if you were to apply to purchase a copy of these images, the quality would be better, that's all I meant. But image quality is irrelevant in this case, because the images have no commercial value.


 * Can you say which images specifically you believe are violations of copyright, who you believe may own copyright, and why you think they are violations? SlimVirgin (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Idleguy, you just keep repeating that they are copyright violations, but without saying why. If the copyright owner is aware of the use, how can it be a copyright violation? Can you give me an example of an image that you do regard as being "fair use," because I think one of us has misunderstood the concept of "fair use," so instead of concentrating on our differences, perhaps we could see what our common understanding is (i.e. what we agree on), and take it from there. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am requesting again that you stop the aggression, and stop falsely tagging images. Rather than going around tagging, and including multiple images in this discussion, could we please concentrate on one to begin with, and discuss this issue on the image talk page, which is what it's there for, and so that others can join if they want to. I have left a message for you on Image talk:Monkey3.jpg. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want me to be blocked for vandalism, you'll need to find an admin to do that, because I see you're not one yourself. You're therefore not in a position to make these threats. I'm asking you again to please stop the aggression, and tell me exactly why you think these images are not fair use. I genuinely don't understand your point. I'm not being confrontational for the sake of it. SlimVirgin (talk)  10:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * E-mail for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have resent it. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks
On User talk:SlimVirgin, you wrote: ''I feel that you've just decided to cut and paste just because it furthers your personal interest and not the interest of wikipedia...Maybe you also think that a dolphin smiles forever just because it has a smiley face? ...It shows that you also have started to lie in order to back up your claims for fair use ...I've already explained all these things in detail, but I can't spend my time in dumbing down the nitty gritty details for you.'' Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In serious cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be banned from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Dispute resolution. Thank you. --Viriditas | Talk 05:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In answer to your reply on my talk page, yes, your comments were offensive, negative, personal, and rude, as you commented on the contributor (called them a liar and inferred that they were stupid) rather than addressing the content alone. You also violated Assume good faith. See also No_personal_attacks. --Viriditas  | Talk 05:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to your new comments on my talk page until you've calmed down. Your present attitude is not conducive to effective communication. --Viriditas  | Talk 06:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the very cool complement!! -- Pamri &bull; Talk 09:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and images
Greetings. (This is in response to your question on my talk page.) You added a Copyvio tag to Image:600-restraint-tube4.jpg and removed the fair use tag. Since you didn't actually add the image to Copyright problems, it was correct for her to revert - the tag is invalid if the image isn't listed. (It would be avoidant vandalism if she removed your entry in WP:CP, and removed the tag.) If you were to list the image on WP:CP, I think you'd find that the majority agreed with SlimVirgin that this is a fair use of the image.

Of course I agree that not all images can be used on Wikipedia under the fair use doctrine. If there is an image that you think doesn't apply, the best approach is to list it on Possibly unfree images. Best regards, – Quadell (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I had been looking at the 18th (the day you marked Image:600-restraint-tube4.jpg as a copyvio), not the 17th. Thanks for explaining it to me. I see the deletions now. SlimVirgin left an explanation on the talk page but, in my opinion, she should have left the images on the page and added her comments there.
 * I hear your points about fair use, and I think the two of you have a legitimate disagreement. If I were you, I would list the images back on WP:CP or, better yet, WP:PUI, with a detailed explanation of why you think they don't qualify as fair use. Try to keep it factual and accusation-free. Also, don't remove the claim of fair use when you tag the images as copyvios or PUIs. I'll make sure your listings are not removed. Then maybe we'll see if consensus can be reached there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Portal:War
Thanks for the addition! If you do remove old DYK items from the page, though, please add them to the DYK archive at the same time. Kirill Lokshin 19:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Issue on images still unresolved == ==

I appreciate your inputs in Image talk:Monkey3.jpg and I agree once in a while I might sound rude (purely unintentional, since I put facts blantly). But SlimVirgin is abusing his admin power to overrule anyone.

''Slim is not a "he". Given that she named herself after a Javanese princess, perhaps you could take the hint and note that she's a woman. Also, I don't think you were simply blunt. I think you were rude to Slim. I recognise it's a fine line but given that I've mentioned it to you, perhaps you'll take more care to stay on the right side of it?''

She has suggested in an email to me, that she is in talks with another editor. Now, I don't know who this other editor and i certainly don't like this secrecy. Instead of having a discussion on this, she wants to finish the matter begind closed doors. She could've atleast told me who this reputed editor was to let me have a word with him/her.

''Perhaps she is seeking guidance on how she should approach you and wants that to be untainted by your input. I think that would be reasonable. I have a high regard for Slim and I don't think she would have a nefarious purpose in speaking to a third party.''

Inso far as the images are concerned, I had stated to her a couple of images on one issue (animal rights) is ok, but she insists she needs to showcase the entire album provided by PETA and its assocites.

''So you have a dispute. You need to recognise that you are not necessarily right! You disagree about how many images are necessary. I feel that you have to allow that your disagreement might be fuelled by your political differences as much as how you interpret the image policy.''

This should could easily achieve by providing an external link to the images provided by a controversial organization.

''The BUAV is not a "controversial organisation". It is a highly respected body, whose voice is listened to in all circles of British society. A viewpoint doesn't become "controversial" just because you don't share it.''

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and not have extreme viewpoints -

But you expect it to reflect your viewpoint.

thus I requested her to limit her fair use policy in this regard to 2-3 images which can be used across similar articles. this she refuses.

''I don't see how it is any fairer to use one, two or ten images in this instance. While I agree that Slim could have taken more care to provide a rationale for using the images, I simply don't feel that your argument about how many she should have used has much weight. One factor in deciding fair use is how much of a thing you use, that's true, but it's only one factor, and obviously, each picture is a separate case to be considered as well as part of a whole.''

As far as the other images, some are on personalities she claims have "agreed" to use their photos here. Unless she gets a written consent and a permission how can I believe.

''First of all, you can believe Slim because you assume good faith. Perhaps you're not aware of that policy. Yes, you can ask Slim to provide evidence of that, but your assumption should be that she has in fact acquired that agreement. Harassing another editor to provide evidence to your satisfaction and insisting you won't believe them until they have do not show an assumption of good faith.''

Once I pointed out that {permission} photos would be deleted anyway, she backed off and argued that it be kept on the grounds of fair use asking me to trust her.

''Yes, okay. Trust her AND ask for proof.''

Both of us are editing in good faith, but one of us has power and a circle of friends to back her while the other (me) relies on the hope that ppl. like you will help me out in this.

''I'd urge you to rely on the issues rather than the personalities. Yes, Slim does have powerful friends, who will back her regardless, but you should still do your best to make it about the issue in question and not about her.''

If she gets away with this and sets a precedence then I'm afraid there are hordes of copyviolaters straining at the leashes to bomb Wikipedia with copyrighted information.

''I think that's a bit dramatic but I agree that she has to obey the rules, which exist for good reason, and shouldn't be given a pass just because she is friends with the arbcom. However, she is not a "copyviolater" trying to destroy Wikipedia. Partly, I think she simply didn't understand your problem, and that was in part a failure of your communication, and partly she has become too used to having her views echoed by her friends and doesn't handle disagreement well. So perhaps you could recognise that and be more helpful than combative? I know it's hard. I find the establishment hard to deal with sometimes. They tend to say "Wikipedia thinks this..." when they mean "My friends think this..." They forget the diversity and multiplicity of opinion that exists here and live in an echo chamber because they know they are empowered and do not need to pay any attention to that diversity to get what they want.''

fyi, 70% of her images are tagged as fair use without providing a single rationale (few of them fall under the subcategories like stamp, logo etc. where it's easy to understand).

''Yes. But as I noted, plain common sense would direct you to understand that fair use is being made of the photos. They are the product of a not-for-profit organisation whose goal is to educate people about animal torture. Having their material illustrate an encyclopaedia article about animal torture would clearly suit their purpose, as Slim pointed out to you, I believe. Ignoring that makes your approach seem malicious. I think Slim is in part bewildered by your making such a huge, urgent issue out of it, when the chances of legal dispute are so very small. So perhaps we could agree that Slim should provide rationales in due course, and preferably have the photos released under a suitable licence, but in the meantime there's no particular urgency to re-tag them or to insist on rapid action? Surely a commitment to act would be sufficient.''

She also keeps reverting to her tags, violating all admin rules.

''That's another issue. I think Slim is one of many admins who would be better off not having the powers, because they lead her into disputes of this nature, where the issue all too rapidly becomes her and not her edits, which is unfortunate.''

As it stands I'm erring on the side of caution, while Slim wants to stretch the boundry of "fair use". Tx 4 ur interest in this. Idleguy 08:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

''I agree that you're being very cautious, and I think caution is right, as I noted. However, I think in the case of the BUAV images in particular that they are clearly "fairly used". You have to ignore their provenance to think otherwise. I can see from your discussion with her that Slim was not very successful in communicating her point of view, because she interpreted legitimate concern over copyright for a personal attack, largely because, I think, you didn't take into account the source of the photos and their likely reaction to their being in WP. Still, I do agree that she should ask for confirmation from BUAV that they are cool with our using the photos; but I think you should lay off them (and her) so long as she has made the commitment to acquire that confirmation. (this message copied to Slim's talkpage for her notice. Grace Note 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Greetings from the Counter Vandalism Unit
The idea of a Counter Copyvio Unit is nice but you could use the CVU framework as we already have a system that detects copyvios just fine. The system is simple any "New Page" larger than 4000 bytes majority of the time is a copy paste from somewhere as people write articles page by page. Any large addition to any page is almost always is either a copy vio or is an archiving in progress. The IRC bot detects these all. I can create a trimed page tht posts strictly suspected copy vios or you can tag along in the vandalism feed. I am also open to ideas ;) --Cool Cat Talk 09:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor - RFA
Although you and I will probably disagree in voting, I think it's important that you mention your dispute with Anon over Terrorism in Pakistan. freestylefrappe 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: I see where you were misinformed
Hi, it occured to me that you may not have my talk page on your watchlist, so this is a notice that I have responded to it at some length here here. I'm hopeful that I can dispell your notion as per my gullibility. :) But what I also wish to note (in case there is any possible confusion) is that I have nothing against you. On the contrary, I likely would be willing to nominate you for admin myself in the near future (if you're interested), if I see increased activity in discussion (not to edit countitis it, but specifically, article and user talk pages). I also find it within the realm of possibility (though, I could be way off) that AE would be voting to support you in such an event. Key theme people too often overlook (–increasingly–) is that it . So speaking, for ex., on one of my main areas, the Arab-Israeli conflict set of articles,  I don't think much has changed after Jayjg and Mustafaa became admins, except in that they had better tools to be much more productive (incidentally, supporting Mustafaa's candidacy was the first RfA vote I ever cast; I wasn't around during Jay's RfA, but would have voted support had I known about it). Finally, I neglected to mention that I thought you were privy to the conversation between AE and myself and that you just didn't choose to comment. So please reread that exchange with those considerations in mind, and above all other things, noting that I did not have time to look closely into anything, anywhere (look esp. at my Oct. 7-to-9 contributions, after which I presumed it was being mediated & resolved elsewhere). Regards, El_C 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Actually, I just read through your talk page, and I may regretfuly have to retract that nomination offer until I learn more about some of the charges of incivility and personal attacks that are cited above by editors whom I respect; i.e. what took place, had they been resolved, and so on (note that you are, of course, not at all obliged to enter into such a discourse with me). But, as I mentioned elsewhere, regardless, I do place a lot of faith on the ability of people to improve with constructive criticism and honest introspection, on all possible fronts. The above just goes to show, then, I hope, that I come to you with best intentions. Regards, El_C 00:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Precise figure
Fine. Then there should be no problem in saying estimated 1 to 5 million Muslims, Hindus etc. Btw, I do have knowledge on subcontinent history, after all I have taught classes about it; being from the subcontinent makes no difference. Also I only did one revert, the other was a grammar edit. And obviously not an equal number of each ethnic background were killed, it varies. That is why I proposed keeping "large" number. Thx. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)