Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 28 August 2007

• See User talk:Durin/archive for all prior discussion from this page.

Some Candidates for you

Hi Durin, I heard you were looking for Guinea Pigs, so, herewith: Nibbles and Strips, both fine specimens I'm sure you'll agree.

I've been keeping half an eye on things during my extended break. I'm not sure what the RfA solution may be, or even that the intrinsic "process" is really that fundamentally flawed, alhough the current working of the process probably is. My initial gut feeling is that any probable solution revolves around the Bureaucrat issue - more of them, wider discussion of disputed promotions etc. After all, they are there to judge consensus and implement the will of the community. More explanation, transparency and openness about these matters never hurts, usually always helps and is the way things should be done.

I also think LateNightDoubleFeatureCreature deserves recognition for Username of the Year. If I find a suitable barnstar I'll lob it on your page to add to Rhetorical rhino, Flippant,One-man wrecking ball, Wiki Bully!, The Boss, and Proud Blithering Idiot.

:) --Cactus.man ✍ 22:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Heh :) Yeah that name popped out of my deranged head. Further evidence I need help :) Other than "blithering idiot" the other badges of honor were said of me, so that's how they got there. I've frequently been referred to as an idiot though, thus "blithering idiot". Glad you read the essay. Feedback? Thanks for heads up on the rodents. Holiday weekend and all, it'll have to wait until next week at least. --Durin 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Instructions for people who want to help with image problems

Hi, Durin. As you know, I'm an administrator now (and thanks again for your support). I would like to start helping with image copyright cleanup, but am completely baffled as to where to start. On the few occasions where I have helped before, Jkelly spent more time explaining to me what to do than he would have needed to spend if he had done the little bit that I did. His messages now are buried in my talk archives, so there's nothing for me to refer to quickly if I need some more help.

I have found a lot of helpful pages such as Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags, and have added links to my user page in order to be able to find them quickly. Also, I find Misplaced Pages:Non-free content very useful. But while there are pages that explain the copyright policy and pages that tell you what tag to use when you're uploading an image, I have so far not been able to find a page that gives you the information you need if you want to remove non-free images, tag images that don't have a proper fair use rationale, or that don't have a proper licence, or where the fair use is disputed, etc.

Something just showed up in my watchlist where an editor referred to {{dfu}}. It's useful to know of the existence of that tag, but I wouldn't have known where to find it, except that I happened to see it.

Is there a page that tells people about templates such as {{subst:db-copyvio|url=source URL}}, {{subst:nsd}}, {{subst:nld}}, {{PUIdisputed}}, and other similar ones, and that tells them what they should do when there's a problem with the image, and how they should inform the uploader and list some images at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images. It would be great to have all that information available in one place. People like you and Jkelly seem to know exactly what you're doing, and obviously know the names of all the appropriate templates from memory. I feel I need some kind of "how-to" guide for people who don't know all these things but who would like to help. I'm tempted to create something in my own userspace, with the possibility of moving it to project space later, but don't want to waste time on that if an appropriate page already exists.

Any advice? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Such a page does not exist that I know of. I've been thinking about such a page, based on a flowchart. Start with Image:X, go to question free license or not? If not, then...etc. Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of? --Durin 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I certainly wasn't thinking of a flowchart — in fact, I had to look at the article to see what it was. But it does seem a very good idea. (Of course, if it's that complicated and technical, I certainly wouldn't be starting the page!) I was thinking of some of the information Jkelly gave me here. If there had been the kind of page I was thinking of, it would have been quicker for him just to have wiki-linked to the appropriate section. My idea was a simple page with lots of headers for different sections dealing with what you should do if you find an image where you disagree that it's PD, or that it's an appropriate use of fair use, etc. There are certain templates that you should use on the image, there are pages to go to in order to report that the PU status is disputed, and you need to know how to notify the uploader. So, I was thinking of a page with detailed instructions not for what you should do if you're uploading something, but for the steps that you should take in every possible case where you think that there's something about a particular image which is not in keeping with policy, and the page should give a list of all the templates for no licence, orphaned fair use, licence disputed, etc. ElinorD (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Fair Use & Image Deletion

I noticed that you have deleted quite a few of the DVD cover's that I have uploaded. I have also read your comments and the page you provided a link of and I am still not exactly clear on what is going on here. From my understanding it appears that 'no images whatsover' are allowed on Wikipadia unless I created them and agree to allow them to be displayed on this site- correct?!

Let me say that this will become one VERY DULL website without any images. Pictures are a part of life, there are many (including myself) who learn by seeing- Visual learners we are called. This is one way that people learn things, by seeing something, just like others learn by doing or hearing. Images and photographs can be a very useful tool and not just for decorative purposes. Seeing as how this is an encyclopedia, there are certain topics that should have images included in the article to allow people to fully comprehend what is being discussed. You can't just have reams of text with no images whatsoever, that is crazy. Its like the difference between sitting in on a lecture for 3 hrs listening to someone go on and on and attending a workshop where you get involved in the discussion as well as listening to others.

Bottom line: Under Misplaced Pages policy is there any way these images can be retained or will they all be deleted? (You have your work cut out for you because I have personally uploaded hundreds!) If they can be retained, please give me a clear explanation of what can be done to keep them. What about corporate logos, are they history too? I don't really understand your logic about these being copyrighted images, I can go anywhere on the net and copy them to my harddrive. If they were copyrighted, they would be protected meaning you would not be able to save them only view them- sort of like Read-only Memory. I noticed further up on this talk page you mentioned to someone that their is supposed to be a fair use rationale for each use of the image. How do you go about doing that, where do you insert the rationale? I feel that these images are relevant and not just useless crap, noticed how the section of an article looks with images and how it looks without- quite a profound difference IMO!

I await your reply so I can decide what to do with these images, whether to re-insert them or not. I guess that is pointless because they will just be deleted again. HeMan5 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• The visual appearance of an article is not of any weight when it comes to copyright concerns. Thus, whether a copyrighted image enhances an article or not is of no value to us. The issue is whether it is copyrighted or not. We area free content encyclopedia. Thus, copyrighted imagery should be used as little as possible. DVD covers, screenshots, etc. are all copyrighted. Just because you can download them to your hard drive does not mean they are not copyrighted. Corporate logos are acceptable on articles about the corporation in question. As for deleting images, I am not an administrator so I will not be deleting them. However, we have over a thousand administrators and if the images do not meet our fair use inclusion requirements I am confident an administrator will eventually delete them. The size of the task is also not a stopping factor for handling this situation. As for fair use rationales, see WP:FURG. I strongly advise against re-inserting the images. The galleries are not permitted and will be removed. Other questions? Ask away! Happy to answer! --Durin 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you failed to answer a few of my questions, I assume its because you are not an admin, then what is your involvement in this issue- an assistant?? Do you know any admins who could clarify this issue about copyright images for me? By galleries do you mean the images or the information, I hope that is not deleted as well because then we have a problem. The images are one thing but deleting the info is not acceptable and a very valid reason should be given as to why it is being deleted. You did not answer my question about whether ALL images will be deleted from Misplaced Pages or just these DVD covers, because other types of images can also be classified as 'copyrighted' not just DVD covers?! I still fail to understand this notion of copyright, frankly I think everyone is going a little nuts with this copyright stuff nowdays, like the stupid RIAA and royalties for songs. If the damn thing was copyrighted it would be protected and I would have to pay to obtain a copy and/or use it in some way like uploading it to this site, so why was I allowed to upload hundreds of images without any trouble?? Where are the owners of all these images, I don't see anyone beating down my door asking me to pay for using them. In the end Wikiedia is not my site, so if these are the rules you want to have in place then so be it. Just know that the number of hits that Misplaced Pages receives will fall dramatically as a result of these actions to delete all copyrighted images. The site will be gutted and only text will remain- enjoy!:) HeMan5 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I do not know what questions you feel I did not answer. My role here is as an editor. All of us are equals. We do not need to be administrators or any other title on this project in order to serve the project in conjunction with our policies and our mission. This applies to you as well. I'd be quite happy to clarify this issue for you; simply ask, and I'll answer.
• There are hundreds of thousands of images on Misplaced Pages. The images in question are fair use, copyrighted images that we do not have permission to use, but must use under fair use law of the United States, as well as with respect to our fair use policies, which are a superset of the law. It's not even a matter of removing all copyrighted works. It is a matter of only removing those items which do not contribute significantly to the project. Galleries of fair use images (which discographies, videographies, and DVD release lists) have long been regarded as not contributing significantly to the project and are thus deprecated.
• I'm sorry you do not understand copyright, and disagree with its application. Regardless, it is important to understand that our primary purpose here is to create a free content encyclopedia. Copyrighted works go against that philosophy. You were allowed to upload hundreds of images without trouble because you ignored our fair use policies. I'm not saying this to be harsh or critical, but evaluative. You will observe that on the image upload page it says quite clearly "Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted." I recommend a thorough, careful re-reading of that page.
• Whether someone asks you to pay for using them is irrelevant. The point here is use under fair use which does not come with a charge. But, to use an image under fair use it must be thoroughly justified. Vast quantities of images fail to meet these requirements (one estimate put it at over 170 thousand images). In time, they will be deleted.
• Misplaced Pages will not be gutted of images. In fact, there are more than a million free license images available on Commons, many of which are in use here on Misplaced Pages. I've uploaded several hundred myself. Some fair use images will remain, and believe me, the articles will be plenty interesting without the fair use imagery. Understand; no other significant Misplaced Pages language project allows fair use imagery. None. Yet, they not only succeed, they thrive. The idea that participation would drop off significantly is not borne out by the evidence at hand.
• If you have other questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand you talk about copyrighted images, now you are talking about fair use, which is it? As I mentioned before, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of copyrighted images on Misplaced Pages, if all those are deleted (as you alluded to) then what will be left- not much?! How come an image I uploaded which was a cast photo of a particular TV show was deleted, that was not a DVD cover and I feel it contributed significantly to the article?! The article is about a TV show, so would a photo of the cast of the show not be a suitable image to insert into the article?? This whole issue is very arbitrary, what I think is relevant you may not and vice versa. Who is the final judge and jury on the case as to what contributes significantly to an article? 60 billion people in the world, they may all have differing views on the issue, who decides and why them?!HeMan5 03:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Copyrighted works are almost all used under terms of fair use. For the purposes of this discussion, fair use may as well be the same as copyrighted. There are two orders of magnitude more copyrighted images on Misplaced Pages than thousands. There's hundreds of thousands. As I've noted several times now, there's more than a million non-copyrighted images available. I'm hard pressed to understand how that can be construed as "not much" As to the cast photo, I don't know the image you are referring to and thus can not speak to the particulars. There are less than 7 billion people in the world. As to who decides, we function largely under consensus as a group unless that consensus is in opposition to the policies. Policies can and do change. But, the policy you are arguing against is fundamental to what we are; a free content encyclopedia, and unlikely to change. More questions? Ask away! --Durin 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD Artwork

I don't understand why you are so dead set against DVD artwork, album covers, singles as long as they are approved? This is going to be a very dull site and it was a site I used to visit daily, but if this is the case, I am just going to start going elsewhere! I believe that the DVD covers, Album covers, etc... enhances each article as a whole and provides the viewer with information incase they are wanting to know for instance when a particular DVD was released and what it looked like! If they can get away with this, next it will be removal of pictures completely... I just disagree with this, so good luck I won't revert anymore!! Enjoy your site.Jdcrackers 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Jdcrackers, this is just plain stupid, there are copyrighted images EVERYWHERE on the net, looks like just another crackdown to tighten the grip on the Internet- the last bastion of freedom left in the world. This site will be like one big textbook, dull and boring, without any images. One big hellhole if you ask me. So much for Wikpedia being 'for the people', time to jump ship folks, this ones sinking fast. HeMan5 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The key is #8 in the explanation:

8. Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable.

To be honest, if you think about it, cover art in lists is mostly for decoration. The general description gives information that it exists. An alternative might be giving an ISBN (do DVD's have ISBNs?) or catalog number. Amazon has an ASIN, but that is probably too commercial. You could give a general description of the package. External links may be OK, if they are not stores or other commercial interests.

In general, I do think some discussion needs to be done to find acceptable alternatives. Andyross 23:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you... I just feel like this Durin came out of the blue and just started deleting everything left and right... is there anyway we can contact Misplaced Pages and find out all the rules? I do believe DVD's are like textbooks and have ISBN numbers...I just pulled out my IDOJ season 2 and the ISBN for it is 1-4248-1414-6 and Bewitched Season 4 is 1-4248-2907-0 ... another thing we could consider would be asking Sony if we could get these pics on here and have a link for people to purchase them, but I don't know how that would fly over with Misplaced Pages... Like I said earlier, I loved editing for this site, but Heman says it best, it is going to be one dull place with no pictures to look at or anything... and all three of us have spent a great deal of time trying to improve these articles to make bring more to the article for the viewer!! Just seems odd that they don't give us ample warning...kinda ticks me off in a way.Jdcrackers 00:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't come out of the blue and begin arbitrarily applying policy as I saw fit. I encourage you, again and again and again, to read User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation as this explains this issue in far greater detail. If you want to contact Misplaced Pages, you're doing it. This is Misplaced Pages, just as much as any other aspect of it is. If you question the policy, you can bring it up at places such as or Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content. But again, I encourage you to read the explanation page I have pointed you to several times now. This debate has been hashed out before on a number of occasions, and every time the debate has resulted in the images being removed.
• You are welcome to contact Sony to request their release of the images under a free license. To do so, please observe and follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. It is not enough to gain permission to use the images here on Misplaced Pages, as such images are either deleted or treated as fair use images. You must get free license release of the images. It is highly unlikely the companies who hold these rights will release rights to the images, as they have strong vested commercial interest in them but you are certainly welcome to try.
• Also, adding links to purchase a product would not be welcome on Misplaced Pages, as such links would be advertising.
• As I responded to HeMan above, there will still be a huge, huge number of images here. The images we are talking about are a small subset of the total, and we're not even talking about all fair use images.
• As per warning, the policies are the warning. It should have been clear from the upload page. I'm sorry if you found it was not clear, or you did not read it. If you have suggestions on how to improve that page, feel free to suggest. --Durin 02:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Some warning time?

I think much of the anger of people is due to the changes being made with absolutely no warning. Not everybody knows all the little details of Wiki policy. Since this seems to be more about policy than legality, I don't see the reason for editing without warning.

I propose that some warning time be given. A template should be created (if a usable one doesn't already exist) and added to the page with a warning about the overuse, including related links explaining the reason. Then a reasonable amount of time (I say at least 7 days) should be given for regular users/editors to correct it themselves, or make their case to keep it. This would give time for people to calm down, read through similar stories, and make a decision. This would cut down on all the reverts, and lower many people's blood pressure. Andyross 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Frankly and bluntly, no. I'm sorry, but the policies are warning aplenty. If people do not wish to abide by the policies, so be it. I'm quite happy to educate people and take the time to discuss the issue with them, but I'm not interested in suspending policies, providing warning times, etc. This undermines our mission and makes it increasingly impossible to enforce the policy. --Durin 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then maybe Misplaced Pages should forbid anyone from editing unless they register, read a manual, and pass a test proving they know and understand every little policy. Everything tends to be scattered around. 90% of what I've learned about using Misplaced Pages has been through trial and error. Andyross 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Same for me. In time, we learn the ropes of the areas we find ourselves gravitating to. It's an imperfect system. But, really, no system is perfect. The result though has been a resource that is rather amazing, and critical commentary not withstanding, has produced something that has stood up well in comparative tests. --Durin 21:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Policies

I notice you keep referring to policies, policies and more policies. May I ask why these policies were not enforced from the beginning?!? Rules are put in place in a society to keep order or else chaos would ensue. Certain rules have been put in place by Misplaced Pages owners to ensure things are done as they want them to be done, so why are these not being enforced?? You can't just arbitrarily pick a time and say from now on rule X will now be enforced, everyone has to abide by it. You enforce it from the beginning (in this case from when Misplaced Pages first went online) and thus ensure consistency. If this fair use rule had been enforced from the BEGINNING then I and many others would not have uploaded hundreds of images because we would not have been allowed to upload them in the first place! It seems, like in the real world, people in power due as they wish and to hell with consistency. ENFORCE THE RULES ON A CONSISTENT BASIS (FROM THE BEGINING) OR DON'T BOTHER HAVING ANY WIKIPEDIA!!!HeMan5 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• The image upload page quite clearly indicates under what requirements images are to be uploaded. You are bothered that the policy wasn't being enforced, yet complain when it is enforced. This is contradictory. You are allowed to edit anything on Misplaced Pages, even Jimmy's page. It follows that you can upload anything. Vandalism happens. Inappropriate edits happen. Incorrect uploads happen. This sort of thing goes on all the time, day in, day out. Stuff is being deleted from Misplaced Pages constantly in a never ending process. That someone didn't get to what you uploaded until now doesn't mean it was ok to upload it. We are all expected to adhere to the policies. --Durin 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

I was wondering if you think this image passes muster? There is no evidence that the copyright holder has in fact released it. I am not sure what evidence is required and would appereciate your advice. Argos'Dad 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• On first pass, the cited source doesn't show the image. So, the source might be bad. I can not verify if there is a release statement from the site as I can not read the language. Can you? My suspicion is the image was just grabbed from that website, without regards to copyright. --Durin 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can read the language and there is no release on the page. I also can't find the image on the page. How do you normally proceed in a case such as this? Argos'Dad 15:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Mark it under a copyright license, like {{magazinecover}}. Further, mark it as missing a fair use rationale using {{nrd}}. Inform the uploader why the image has been retagged (no evidence of rights release from the sight, and not even proof the image is from that site). --Durin 15:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks! You have made me a convert... Argos'Dad 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Here's your gilded copy of the Holy Book of Copyright. :) --Durin 15:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cinemax Images

Now you are starting to tick me off bud, but unfortunately for you you picked the wrong person to play ball with. Why have you deleted the Cinemax Channel logos, what the heck is wrong with these now?! I understand your logic (albeit barely) regarding DVD covers but why the hell are these being deleted?? These are LOGOS, THEY IDENTITY THE BROADCASTING STATION THAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT! You can't purport to tell me that you think these are 'decorative', because that is just ludicrous and crossing the line.

Straight from the horses mouth, the damn article you gave me a link for it says the following and I quote: "Fair use law is deliberately vague". This to me and anyone with half a brain means that its open to interpretation, which means I can interpret my way and you can interpret it your way. To me these images ARE VALID and should stay, to you they are useless garbage. Any idea if wiki-freakin-pedia has any sort of arbitration system, because its time we step things up a notch regarding this damn fair use shit. I would like to officially challege this issue and specifically the deletion of these images. HeMan5 15:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. However, WP:NFCC item #8 specifically prohibits the use of fair use images in galleries, such as you have done (again) on Cinemax. The policy states, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." It is a routine matter to have galleries such as this deprecated. It is perfectly acceptable to have these logos being displayed on articles pertaining to these specific channels, if such articles existed. It is not acceptable to use them in gallery form such as you have done. I have reverted your change.
• If, despite being shown policy on this, you still believe this is a matter worthy of dispute resolution the appropriate steps are to first take this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If after some administrators become involved this does not resolve in a satisfactory way for you, then next step after that is for you to follow Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. Please note that taking this matter to the Arbitration Committee is a last resort, not a first resort. However, if you still feel motivated to use them as a first resort, please do not be surprised when it is rejected for review by them. Thank you, --Durin 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Girls Aloud band image

Ok, i read your guide and i understand why the image i uploaded of Girls Aloud had to be removed. However, the only free image currently available of the band is at least 3 years old and only shows 4 members of the band. As i understand it, the only way you can usually get a free image of a band/musician is to take a photo of them at a live gig, which isn't immediately possible.

The Misplaced Pages entry for Girls Aloud is vandalised practically every day and i'm looking to improve the quality of the article which among other things obviously involves having either a live or official promotional image of the band as is the standard for Misplaced Pages entries for musicians.

Unfortunately i can't find a suitable image anywhere and doesn't the fair-use terms include the line say a fair-use image can be used 'where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it '.

Obviously, you know way more about this subject than me which is why i'm asking if you could give any kind of further guidelines as what i should do to get an image which can be used to depict the band. Any help you could offer would be much appreciated.

Winterspell 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• The band is still active. With that in mind, it's entirely possible for a Wikipedian to go and get a photo of them. This is similar to not allowing copyrighted images of living people; someone can conceivably go and get a photo of them. Thus, any copyrighted imagery to display the band is currently replaceable. As a result, it's not permitted under our fair use policies (see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria item #1). If you know the band's schedule, and are proximate to a performance site of theirs, you could go and get a shot yourself. Alternatively. you could create montage of the individual images located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/Girls_Aloud. All the images there are available under a free license. --Durin 18:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• See also User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images. Good luck! --Iamunknown 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons

Just in case you don't normally follow featured article candidates after you've commented on them, I've requested some clarification of your comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Dungeons & Dragons. Would you be so kind as to take a few moments to field my questions there? — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe your concerns have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you here but....

There is a draft proposal for the updated NFCC language. I will sign off on it if you do; if we get the language through in its present proposed form I promise I will forever hold my peace on the question of lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements, or that this language includes discographies. If you and I endorse it I think it's pretty clear we have consensus, at least among the Monday evening Wikipedians. Wikidemo 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Thanks for your comments. I am Misplaced Pages's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to keep your concerns in mind as I perform my duties. Andre (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Given your recent inexperience, I hope you will hold back on closing contentious RfAs until you get more experience under your belt. --Durin 12:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging

Durin, have you seen the Abu badali RFAR lately? If not, go and have a look. --Iamunknown 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of that RfAr at all. Interesting. --Durin 16:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The talk page of the proposed decision is particularly interesting, as various people involved in image cleanup are trying to point out that anyone who is heavily involved in this thankless work is likely to annoy some other users severely, and that having several users annoyed with you over this issue does not necessarily mean that you're doing anything wrong. I've actually mentioned you by name on that proposed decision talk page, as one who is patient and courteous but still manages to provoke accusations of stalking. I've noticed before that when you remove a non-free image from a userpage, and the user reverts you, that user will invariably feel that you're "targetting" them. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I very much appreciate the work you're doing here. ElinorD (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You have no right to show this much self-pity. Have you ever thought that you get lots and lots of accusations because you harass lots and lots of people and ruin lots and lots of valuable contributions? You know, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and all that. Those who think they enforce policy might try following it. Mosquera 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. Please go read Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, then come back and assume some. Cheers, Iamunknown 23:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said a word about this issue until deletionists starting vandalizing my contributions. When you go around tagging perfectly good images as "disputable," then post your pet policy interpretations on peoples' talk pages, that ain't good faith. You deserve complaints when you commit bad acts. Mosquera 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mosquera, many of the images you uploaded are not perfectly good images. They are images that "illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information" and are thus eligible to be tagged with Template:Replaceable fair use. Several people, including those uninvolved in the act of tagging and notifying, have you told so. Yet you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that fact. Oh, and if I need to clarify, that is good-faith. --Iamunknown 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Durin, in the sentence beginning "Abu badali ostensibly left this message to me" on the proposed decision talk page, did you mean "Mosquera ostensibly left this message to me"?

Mosquera, I'm not sure what you mean by "self-pity". If you're referring to me, I've done very little work with image policy (though I intend to start doing more), and consequently have not been a target for the kind of abuse that Durin and Abu badali get on a daily basis. Believe me, I am not at all suffering from self-pity — more from solidarity. ElinorD (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks Elinor. I've corrected it. --Durin 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Please do not dig through my history to delete images which disagree with your political ideology. Do not post harassing messages on my talk page. You do not have consensus on your own and you do not speak for Misplaced Pages. Your interpretation of policy is not policy. Period.

1. The contributing editor uploaded this content in a good-faith effort to comply with policy and further the goals of the English-language Misplaced Pages, recognizing that a non-free image can only be used in an article under strict circumstances. Once these basic requirements are met, the burden of proof is on those who dispute the validity of the content. If the use is a valid fair use and the rationale is a valid rationale, disputing the image is destructive and uncivil.
2. The contributing editor understands that image-tagging rules are necessarily complex, are sometimes subject to varying interpretation (which reasonable people can disagree about), and play an important role in safeguarding the project and avoiding ethical issues and potential legal exposure.
3. The contributing editor uploaded this content as an important, irreplaceable visual representation of a subject that contributes significantly to at least one article. There is no legitimate question that the image is perfectly appropriate.

Please cease stalking me now. Do not send me boilerplate excuses about how you are just enforcing policy, because they aren't true. Repeating the same distortions over and over changes nothing. Learn civility. Leave me in peace, as I intend positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. Mosquera 22:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry that you feel encouraging our images to be in compliance with policy is vandalism. You dispute that copyrighted images of living people can not be used for depiction purposes of those people. I'm sorry, but you clearly in the wrong here. The governing body of Misplaced Pages, the Wikimedia Foundation has stipulated in a resolution from March of this year that such images are not permitted as they are replaceable in almost all cases. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy item #3. This is not a cavalier interpretation of policy, it is not speaking for Misplaced Pages, it is not an interpretation of policy. This is essentially inviolable law so far as Misplaced Pages is concerned. If this does not make this issue clear, I do not know what can. The Foundation rules against them, we must comply. I'm sorry. The images you have uploaded of living people, regardless of how well thought out the rationales are, are not acceptable if they are used solely for depiction purposes. They are not acceptable regardless of how good faith your efforts were.
• As to stalking, I strongly encourage you to read Misplaced Pages:Harassment where it says that stalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. Using the edit history of users to correct related problems on multiple articles is part of the recommended practices" Your claims that various people are stalking you are improper. Problems have been observed in your image editing/uploading habits. Others, myself included, are checking up on other such work by you to ensure this work is in compliance with our policy. This is not stalking.
• If you have questions about any of this, I'd be happy to answer. Accusing me of stalking, attempting to enforce my own interpretations of policy, etc. is not helpful. All the best, --Durin 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to avoid your responsibility for wikistalking and other bad acts is just plain mean, especially when the evidence stares you in the face. Apologize, make amends, and be done with it. At the very least, you will sleep better. All the best, Mosquera 02:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

After 15,000 edits and an adminship, you know better than to tamper with a man's user page. Mosquera 17:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:OWN and Misplaced Pages:User page. You do not own your userpage. I attempted to pleasantly instruct you regarding content on your userpage. I'm sorry you took offense, but in no way was it my intention. Thank you and have a pleasant day. --Durin 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not "instruct." You ripped down content. As I said, apologize, make amends, and be done with it. Mosquera 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for correcting the barnstar to indicate the source. I appreciate this act. There is nothing on my part to apologize for, or I would readily do so. Thank you, --Durin 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are three barnstars, but only one is posted, as I don't care that much. I am dishonored that you consistently behave as though I am sullying your pristine social experiment. Two days ago, I didn't know you. Now you're in my face, all over a 75px jpeg file. Good grief.

Once again, I must insist that you apologize for putting technocratic ideals over simple human decency. I attempted to pleasantly instruct you that human beings matter more than political abstractions. I'm sorry you took offense, but in no way was it my intention. Thank you and have a pleasant day. Mosquera 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, and have a nice day. --Durin 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When may I expect an apology? I am a human being, not an ideological cipher. Please treat me with the basic civility that is the basic benchmark of Misplaced Pages. Mosquera 18:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am treating you with considerable civility. If I felt an apology was warranted, I would give one. I've shown you the basis on which I acted, which is entirely proper. You're offended by my actions even though you've been shown this. You've also been offended by people removing replaceable fair use images of living people when such are clearly against policy, and expect people to apologize for that as well. I see no reason to apologize for those actions either. I'm sorry you feel an apology is warranted, but it isn't. I truly am sorry that you feel the way you do, but that's the extent of the apology you can expect to receive from me. I do hope you have a pleasant day. All the best, --Durin 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You even feel the need to "correct" my signature! Words escape me. Goodbye. Mosquera 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, did I miss something? Did you correctly add it and I missed it? It appeared to be incorrect so I corrected it. User:ElinorD corrected an earlier signature of yours as well. It's common practice to correct signatures so that others may track who is making what comments. I'm sorry if you're offended by this, but it certainly seems proper and logical to correct such errors so that others are not confused by malformed signatures, don't you agree? --Durin 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tangeline.jpg

Like I said it is due to vandalism and fair use was provied already--Migospia†♥ 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• That rationale is still insufficient. Please see WP:FURG. --Durin 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:WCBU2.jpg

I got your response on the image. My problem is that I don't understand the technical wording that people are using. If you could help put all the wording in terms that regular people could understand, I'll try to fix my mistake. Thanks. - Thunderstix33 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Short on time right now, but the best source of information off hand is WP:FURG. If that doesn't help, let me know. --Durin 13:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus not numbers

I replied to your posting at Misplaced Pages talk:Consensus not numbers. Walton 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm aware. You and I will disagree, but I think you have a clearer picture of why consensus=numbers is wrong. Thanks. --Durin 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I correctly understand the points you were making in "Thoughts on consensus"? As I understood it, you were making these three points:

• Because of the 70-80% threshold, small numbers of oppose votes carry undue weight and can sink an RfA, even if the opposes are pointless. This is true; however, in the current climate at RfA, a really stupid oppose vote ("Aargh! Not enough portal talk edits!") tends to receive a deluge of criticism from other editors, and such people are often pressurised into changing their vote. Ditto with an oppose vote given without a rationale. As such, the culture of RfA has adapted to compensate for the mathematical flaws in the system.
• Last-minute opposes can sink an RfA, without giving anyone time to respond to them. This is also true, but it's something of an inevitable flaw. Even without voting, bureaucrats would still take opposition into account, and a last-minute bombshell could still be a threat. So I don't think your preferred solution would solve this problem.
• Users don't agree on the criteria for RfA, and the overall votes don't necessarily reflect consensus on an individual point. This is harder to answer, but I would say that users have a "right" (well, a conditional privilege, but you know what I mean) to judge the candidate by whatever criteria they think fit. In the example you gave, it's true that some people liked the candidate's answer to Q1, some disliked it, and some thought it irrelevant. But the fact remains that each individual user weighed up the candidate's suitability against their personal criteria, and made a decision. I think we can trust users to do that, rather than trying to hammer out consensus on each point and come to an overall decision.

Sorry to repeat myself, but I was hoping for feedback as to whether I'd misunderstood what you were arguing. Walton 19:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't respond because I think we've gone as far as you and I can go on this issue. --Durin 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and I'm sorry if my persistence has irritated you - it wasn't my intention. I do, now, have a clearer understanding of your views and why you hold them; I hope, in turn, that I've clarified my reasons for advocating voting, and that you understand why I feel this way about it. Once again, sorry if I've annoyed you about this. Walton 19:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about images

Hey Durin, quick question: are we allowed up upload an image that has the CC Attribute 2.5 licensing but also carries with it a non-commercial only license? Thanks, Rockstar (/_C) 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• That license is not compatible with our free license policy, since there's a non-commercial rider. We'd have to treat it as fair use. --Durin 12:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response! Rockstar (/_C) 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8

Was there really consensus for this? I'm looking through the talk page and don't see any sign of that, but maybe I'm being stupid. Videmus Omnia 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, there was. The idea was to remove examples and push them to the guideline at WP:NFC. The examples were causing some problems. --Durin 13:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I see. Thanks! For a second I was worried we were back to allowing the big non-free galleries. Videmus Omnia 13:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh hell no :) --Durin 13:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jasmine Guy

It's not a discography, it's a discussion of the one album she ever made. I've been carefully skipping over covers only used in discographies, and not giving them FURs. But this case I thought was a genuine article section. Jheald 14:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've reverted you because this is precisely the case of discographies, whether one album or many. Create an article on the album and display the image there. The use on this article is entirely inappropriate. --Durin 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have asked wikidemo for a second opinion. Jheald 14:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (as if I'm an administrator). I agree with Durin, although personally I would use different terminology and just call it a non-significant use as per section 8 and the guideline examples. Wikidemo 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with durins decision. it is clearly not fair use to use any cd album cover in any article other than an article on the album itself. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaning fair use images

BTW, if you orphan a fair use image, it's generally considered good practice to add a note on the image page to say where you deleted it from, to give a subsequent admin the chance to assess whether s/he agrees.

Please do this in future. Jheald 14:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would you please cite the instructions for this? The template has no instruction for that. I've been following the template's instructions. Thanks, --Durin 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Structural history of the Roman military

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Structural history of the Roman military discusses one of the weirdest Fair Use issues I've seen yet; this article has book images listed with every source in the references. I hope you have time to take a look. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, the Fair Use images were removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Cabal work

I'm going to have to run, but someone brought this user's image uploads to my attention. Can you see what you can do? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:World_Trade_Center#Galleries

New user, User:Pag293 keeps uploading fair use screenshots from television and film, wanting to add them to the World Trade Center and World Trade Center in popular culture articles. The latest edits were last night, with a comment left at Talk:World_Trade_Center#Galleries. I have tried explaining to the user about fair use, what's allowed and what's not. There are two other fair use images, which we also don't really need on the page, Image:New wtc.jpg and Image:Windows on the world window seats.jpg. Would you be willing to look at the page and advise? --Aude (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all the fair use images from the article, and replied to Pag293 on the talk page. Though, at this point, the user is clearly annoyed with me and may not listen. It's frustrating for me to handle this, but I'll try.--Aude (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I left you hanging. My plate's a bit full right now too :( --Durin 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'll request help on WP:AN if I need it. To the user's credit, they did ask for additional opinions on the matter on Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content , but apparently didn't like the answer. The user has made other good edits, but needs to understand about appropriate use of images. --Aude (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use knowledge

Durin, where have you been finding relevant information such as that regarding Folsom v. Marsh? I am interested to learn more copyright law (and case law regarding copyrights), but I am not sure where to start. Any suggestions?  :) --Iamunknown 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• First, go down to your local hardware store. Request the most powerful nail gun they have. Arm it with the best nails they have. Don't bother purchasing it. Just tell them "I'd like to try this out" Stick it to your head, pull the trigger. Trust me, it's a lot less painful than dealing with this crap :)
• Joking aside, I've spent 1.5 years working on this stuff and still find gaps in my knowledge. It isn't easy, and there's no central location where it is all stored, nor is there any page that walks you through the complexities of it and makes it easy to understand. This creates two major problems. First, it is exceptionally difficult to educate the newcomer to Misplaced Pages regarding the use of fair use images. Second, those policing these problems have great difficulty in learning what they need to know, and even greater difficulty in imparting this knowledge onto both groups. Uhg.
• More specifically, the Folsom v. Marsh case is available on the web under that title. One ref . Another one is at .
• I really should sit down and put all of this stuff together in one coherent place, and make some sort of intro to fair use images for the newbie, targeting perhaps an 8th grade reading level to make it readily accessible to all. --Durin 12:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: "Fair use overuse explanation" for Crowded House discography

Quote: Q: The prior debate on episode screen shots and discographies is not the same as this! This is a new debate, and needs to be decided on consensus!
A: While some might disagree, the issues are the same on a fundamental basis. The overuse of fair use images does not contribute to our mission. We must limit copyrighted material use as much as possible in order to further our progress towards our goals.

Hi Durin,

I just want to discuss the removal of images from the discography for Crowded House. While I generally agree with not including images in a discography, there was a specific reason given for why these images belonged together. This is because of the common artist, who is a member of the band in this case (Nick Seymour). The reason this is notable because of the distinct design style used and by not being able to display these images in one central place takes away from the viewer's capacity to see the common style held amongst these images/covers. I intend to place the images back as their fair use is consistent, and in this case as there is a rationale for their use in the discography as well as in the article space is defined. Although I understand the need for a superset of rules that exceeds that of the law, this is with the superset's rules, and failing that, WP:IAR indicates that if any policy is inhibiting the practice of putting together a cohesive encyclopedia to ignore said rules, which I believe isn't necessary in this case as it fits within the rules, but I will draw attention to that if you don't believe that these imaes inclusions pass for the fair use guidelines.

Should you still not agree, my final alternative would be to create a common image providing a comparison of the images (such as is done where the Beatles Anthology album covers were merged, or where the fourfold covers of Famous Last Words were merged and shown together, so there's a precedence of this being done on high traffic pages).

My hope is that you agree with the first proposal as it's a simple re-inclusion, but failing that, the second option is "acceptable", though not optimal.

Regards, --linca 02:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Could I ask you to not transclude talk pages from one place to another? I've undone your transclusion in this case.
• As to your concerns, the manner in which you wished to use the album covers is purely decorative and not acceptable under our policies. If you want to have a section of the article Crowded House specifically discuss artwork on the album covers (in some detail, and why it is significant), then the use of album covers to support inline text might...might...be acceptable. However, the use as in here is not acceptable. --Durin 12:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the transclusion. I posted on the other place initially then realised that it's probably more appropriate to post here. As to it being acceptable, I'll source out some info and write a section about the album covers sharing their creator. I believe the consensus based on directly discussin the subject matter should satisfy their inclusion together (though, as I said, I did consider it to be more appropriate in the discography article, but either way, that's fine). --linca 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The reality is that the album covers in the discography is not going to fly. --Durin 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to look at...

I was just wondering what you'd think of this hypothetical RfA format. It certainly isn't one I'd be inclined to introduce, but it might better reflect the way most Misplaced Pages processes are going. Walton 13:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• This was already tried. In effect, it's an RfC style format. Please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt. This format was rejected by the community. --Durin 13:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, no...the difference is that on my hypothetical format, rather than users putting up an unlimited number of views, there are 4 fixed criteria against which the candidate is measured. I think most people would agree on these basic 4 criteria for adminship: experience, understanding of the tools, trustworthiness, and civility. At the same time, they're broad enough to give users room for various differing views, e.g. those who think article-writing is the most important thing vs. those who prioritise projectspace. The problem with your Matt Britt solution was not the system itself, but the chaos caused by allowing everyone to insert new viewpoints, which led to a completely unreadable and unworkable format. Basically, I appreciate that in your "thoughts on consensus", you flagged up the problems associated with a straightforward vote. My idea is, in effect, a vote on each of the 4 criteria; this would allow us to preserve semi-democracy, while getting rid of the undue weight given to frivolous opposes. The bureaucrats would count the vote in each section, and make an overall decision; it would also allow us to distinguish between truly bad candidates, and those who just don't have enough experience (hence the "Fail Encourage"). Walton 13:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think this alternative (as outlined above) would be a workable system? And would it be in line with your views on consensus? Walton 14:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Find a guinea pig, try it. --Durin 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't feel totally happy asking someone to use this format on their RfA - I recall how daunting an RfA is, and trying an untested format could only make it worse. The only possibility I can think of would be to resign my own adminship and stand for reconfirmation using the proposed process, which might be rather rash. Walton 14:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, keep in mind that adminship is no big deal. I gave up being an admin, and have been quite happy with the decision. It's not a status symbol; it just gives you extra buttons. My status is no different since giving it up. There are potentially willing guinea pigs out there. See first section on this talk page currently. --Durin 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I'll see if I can find anyone. I'm sorry to keep bugging you about stuff like this - judging from a cursory glance over earlier threads, you seem to have been subjected to a lot of aggressive complaints lately relating to your work with fair-use images. In hope of cheering you up, I've decided to give you this... Walton 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Dessert of Merit
		Awarded to Durin for tireless work with fair-use images. Walton 14:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm ok. Yeah, lots of complaints headed my way. That's ok. I'm generating lots of enemies, but holding to our core purposes. I'm ok with the enemies. I gave up on the social currency system here months ago, so it matters not to me. Thanks for the award all the same :) Though, looking at that jello thing...sometimes I see food like this and think, "Is that really food??? Would someone from a hundred years ago look at that and go 'yum!'"? :) --Durin 14:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Userbox move

FYI, I just deleted User:JM and User:Donor. I was only leaving them in place so that I could track down and fix the links with what links here. As soon as I had done so, I deleted the "userbox" pages.

Were you aware that placing a speedy delete tag on a page being transcluded also places all pages on which it is transcluded into the speedy deletion category? If you want to avoid this in future, place the db tag inside a noinclude /noinclude tag pair (angle braces omitted here). Thanks for calling attention to this situation. DES 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm aware, but not particularly concerned with an instance such as this. --Durin 16:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Galactus Image

One point: I didn't change it back to a link; user:Asgardian did. I did change it to experiment with something, but when I realised it didn't work, I reverted it back to display. Everything else that has happened to this point is due to Asgardian. I don't really care anymore. HalfShadow 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jmkookicon.jpg orphaned

Ok, I have done as you've requested, sorry for the screw up. If I'm still in violation of some kind of rule, please contact me again. Thanks. Ryan(/_contribs) 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I did as you requested! Why are you still deleting the images? Ryan(/_contribs) 20:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I did as you requested and posted the image within the article Joseph McManners. Now why am I still in the wrong? Ryan(/_contribs) 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Because you may not use such fair use images on userboxes, as I've previously explained. Just because it is used on an actual article does not mean you get to use it outside of the main article namespace. You can't. --Durin 20:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So how do I have such an image in a userbox? It has to be my own image, is that correct? Ryan(/_contribs) 20:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• No, just available under a free license. --Durin 21:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Now I understand. Ryan(/_contribs) 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How Many CD Covers Can Go On a Page???

Durin,

You removed all of the cd cover images from the Johnny Gill page. I didn't put them there, but album art seems like it would be an ok thing to include in an article about a singer. Can you help me understand what limits or rules called for the deletion? Also, if I want to put them back on, is there something I need to do to make them stay this time (fewer, better tags, etc.)? Thank you very much for your feedback.MissKriss

• The corresponding policy is available at WP:NFCC items #3(a) and #8. Having an album cover on an article about that album is usually deemed acceptable. Having album covers on an article about the artist most of the time is not. In this case , the usage was a discography. We do not accept that sort of use. You can't "make them stay" in this discography. If you want an album cover on the article, it needs to significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that text can not. This is not an easy thing to accomplish; most album cover uses are simply decorative and/or for identification, which is not acceptable on artist pages. Hope this helps, --Durin 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way...

...to establish/flag that User:38.119.112.187 and User:38.119.112.189 are the same user (and likely editing from at least another similar IP, and possibly previously editing under a registered user name)? --EEMeltonIV 10:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well the IPs are pretty obviously the same source if not the same user. As to a registered username? You need to ask at . --Durin 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting Panic!

As long as the image was being used to refer to the album itself (in the section about their albums, for example), that qualifies as illustrating the album. That's the rationale for using the images of albums on all the other artists' pages, as well. The word "solely" doesn't mean that the image can only be used once, it only means that it can only be used when it is completely dealing with the album, and since the section is about their albums, I think it kinda deals with them. Now, if someone was putting it in some other place that didn't deal directly with the album itself, that would be bad (that would be the "other uses"). And since there is obviously no way to obtain a non-free image of it, I think that their use on this page falls under WP:FU, which states "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The critical commentary is the context of the article in which the albums are discussed at length. And while researching this, I came across this page, which I will now defer to: Template talk:Non-free album cover. So now do not revert or remove the images in the discography section. Knight Whitefire 17:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage made me sad...

It seems like you have lost hope in many facets of the wikipedia process :-( . Is there anything that can be done?--Cronholm 12:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Each of us makes our own decisions about our presence here. I do hope nobody is viewing my userpage as a reason for feeling less committed to the project. I am still quite committed to the project. I am, however, not committed to significant subsections of it that in my opinion have created a huge number of problems for the project. There's issues of scale at work (among many things) where impacts of larger groups working in concert dramatically affect prior work behaviors when the group, or sub-groups, were substantially smaller. In some areas, we're being completely overrun with absurdly ridiculous aspects of group-think that overwhelm well thought out (for small groups) processes. This is a core problem facing Misplaced Pages, and one not very easily addressed. --Durin 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I take the eventualist path(wherever that may lead) as you do. I guess I am just sheltered from many of the aspects of the 'pedia that you mentioned on your page. However your words just struck me as nigh fatalistic. I hope that WP brings you at least as much cheer as frustration. I, for one, wish you all the best. Cheers--Cronholm 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• For an example of what I speak, take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Compliance_rate. This is a shockingly cold reality; 98% of our image uploads are done improperly. 98%. Even if that figure is wildly wrong, and it's 70% that is still a massive problem. In the first half of today alone, we have had 1172 images uploaded. If 70% are improperly uploaded, that's 820 problem images. 1640 per day. If today is average, that's roughly 5000 problem images a month. THAT is depressing. --Durin 12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we forbid uploading until appropriate rational(etc...) is given? (I know that this has probably has been discussed at length but it seems that is the obvious solution.)--Cronholm 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that was Quadell's suggestion as well.--Cronholm 13:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The underlying problem there is that we are an open project. By limiting who can upload, we restrict a core philosophy. Unstoppable force meets immovable object. --Durin 13:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How about: user Z can upload image X iff User fills out description form Y. Or User Z can upload all kinds of miscellany,no restrictions, however if he doesn't fill out form Y beforehand it gets deleted automatically and immediately. Freedom to upload, freedom to delete.--Cronholm 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that your efforts have not be for naught. I read some of your E-mail correspondences and they seem to have had a real effect in my particular arena. WP:WPM is now going through all of the non-free content on mathematics articles. Cheers--Cronholm 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• You mean there's sunshine in Vladivostok and it's cloudy everywhere else? Not sure I feel reassured :) --Durin 19:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah, well it's a start at least. And you know what they say about clouds.(hint:silver) :)--Cronholm 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then that stuff falls off the cloud. It's a softish metal, but it hurts like hell when it impacts your cranium at terminal velocity :) --Durin 20:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Aga Khan University picture

I took that picture of the university, it is entierly my work. I removed the tag you placed on it.Zaindy87 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then you tagged the image incorrectly. The tag you used did not indicate that the source of the image was from you, just that it was under a free license. In such cases, a source must be identified so that confirmation can be made of the license. If the image source is you, then the appropriate thing to do is indicate that the image source is you. I've updated the image to indicate this, and referenced this message from you. --Durin 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert and Fair Use

Last week you opposed the nomination of Stephen Colbert to FA on fair use grounds. I fixed them after a few hours, but you never came back to tell me if I made them acceptable or change your vote. Now it has failed nomination, possibly because you were half the vote. Anyway, I'm curious as to if I fixed the images in question so the next nomination made is for sure. - Boss1000 01:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I did review shortly after your response, but to be honest I felt the fair use situation to still be very weak. If you want me to review again before re-nomination let me know. --Durin 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine; I just didn't know. I think I better understand what you're going for now, anyway. - Boss1000 15:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image advice

Hi, Durin. Having been adminned, I'm trying to get more into image cleanup. I've already started deleting images, going through the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Today, I looked at upload logs, and tagged some images. Someone told me about User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js, and I installed it, and am getting used to it.

I wasn't quite sure what to do when I came to Image:Erin burnett street signs.jpg. It's tagged as public domain, but I thought screen captures were fair use. I've left it alone, but I'd appreciate your taking a look.

And while I'm here, I've started the page I mentioned to you some time ago, to help people who want to get more involved with image cleanup. It's at User:ElinorD/Image cleanup now, though I'm thinking of moving it to project space when it becomes more presentable. If you think there's anything that should be added, please feel free. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't use Howcheng's script, not being an admin. I hope it's helpful. I wouldn't know :)
• Image:Erin burnett street signs.jpg is a blatant screenshot fair use image. I've tagged it as such, using {{Non-free television screenshot}}. Further, as a fair use image it is missing a fair use rationale, which is required by WP:NFCC item #10(c). So, I tagged it with {{nrd}}, which adds a missing rationale warning template. Third, it's a replaceable fair use image. The subject is still alive. Per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, fair use images of living people are considered replaceable and not acceptable fair use on this project. Thus, I removed the image from the article in question , and tagged the image with {{rfu}}, a replaceable fair use warning template. I've notified the uploader of the issues in question . There. That's how you handle that sort of thing :) --Durin 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, and I also tagged it as orphaned. --Durin 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll get the hang of it all eventually. By the way, on User talk:Hornetman16, you wrote, "Fair use content is always preferred, even if that fair use content is lesser quality" (emphasis mine). I presume you meant "free content"? ElinorD (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• I know what my brain meant. I haven't the foggiest idea what my fingers meant. Your guess is good as mine :) Fixed. --Durin 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image complaint

You made a claim that I stole an image from the Newyorkpost.com website and then somehow cropped the image. The image was taken from a online fan club and then used it with the fair use argument. I really think this title of ADMIN has gone to your head. You think you can make assumptions of everything including what is and what is not fair use. Although my previous uploads did not have the proper fair use argument/tag they were fair use. A screenshot of a program is fair use under the law. 1. There is no other replacement image. 2. It is being used as a reference point in an article. 3. It is a low resolution image of an existing work and not the work itself. - ICarriere

• Interesting that you should make a claim that being an admin has gone to my head. All the more interesting since I am not an administrator.
• Now, as to your non-personal topics; Taking an image from an online fan club does not mean it is free from copyright. The image source is blatantly, blatantly the New York Post article. There's no real denying that. If the fan site got it from there, it's still not clear of copyright concerns. If you look at the image from the New York Post article, and compared it to what you uploaded, it's clear it's a crop of the original. Whether done by you or someone else, it's a crop. I'm not disputing that it's fair use. I know it's fair use. The issue is that per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, fair use images of living people are considered replaceable, whether currently or in the future. Thus, even if we do not currently have a free license image to replace it, we do not use since a free use image could be made. Therefore, that and two other images which you wanted to use on the article are not permitted. If you have other questions you'd like to have answered, I'd be happy to answer. All the best, --Durin 03:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

CNBC

I know you've been to that article lately, but it sure has a ton of non-free images, and the logos are now re-uploaded and back in. I'm out for the next several hours, but when I'm back I'll see if I can help out. --Iamunknown 16:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• The proponents of the article are trying, I'll give them that. The way they had the images was clearly wrnog. Now, it might be wrong. I'm willing to give them sometime (say, a week) to fix it up. I think they want ot have a section for each screenshot being displayed, showing how the presentation changed. Also, a section for each logo showing how the logo changed. We'll see. --Durin 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't Do it Durin!

This is Angel David typing to you asking why did take away that image? How is it fair image use if what your doing is unfair? Images are used to illustrate Misplaced Pages not to be deleted by a bossy Wikipedian. You know, I think you might by a republican since you took the democrat image away.-Angel David16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing unfair about removing image from your userpage that were being displayed in violation of our policies on the matter (see WP:NFCC item #9). Thank you, --Durin 14:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

More help requested

Hi, Durin. If you get a moment, could you please have a look at these uploads. They're tagged as if the uploader is releasing them into the public domain, but they come from a website, and I can't find anything on it which suggests that the images are PD. Thanks. I'm going to orphan them while I'm waiting for your response, but I don't like to speedy them without being a bit more sure of myself. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think they're all copyright violations until confirmed by a contact from the website. User:Mattisse marked Image:Cavefish.jpg as a copyvio. The remaining ones (Image:Borra cave.jpg, Image:Cavefish India.jpg, Image:Mawmluh.jpg, Image:Kotumsar.jpg) should be tagged as copyvios as well. Of note; Image:Cavefish India.jpg is a duplicate of Image:Cavefish.jpg and can probably be deleted outright. Also, the gallery page on that website is gone. --Durin 13:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I should have told you also that the uploader says he's the admin from the website (he hadn't told me that at the time that I first asked you). He didn't say, however, that he had taken the photos himself. I replied to him here, and have commented on the issue here. ElinorD (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ideas?

Your input is welcome. --Ghirla 08:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to mentor someone?

I am having a never-ending discussion with user:Coconutfred73 about fair use rationales. I have repeatedly explained, at least I thought I had explained, what was wrong with the fair use rationales he has been adding to images he has uploaded, but I'm not getting through to him. Would you be willing to have a go at it? I appreciate any assistance you can give him, or me, for that matter. Maybe tell me how I could better explaing it to him? Thanks. Corvus cornix 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hurray!

You are back! Had a nice week-long wikibreak, I hope? --Iamunknown 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Go away. ;) Being away had nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. Though, being away helped to reinforce my feeling that it's time for me to put my wiki-pen down. Break the habits, and it becomes easier to walk away. After the habits are broken, I'm left with little passion for the project anymore :( --Durin 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been feeling the same way. I haven't been editing as much lately (sometimes three or less edits per day :o), and I have a surprising amount of time I did not think I had previously. Misplaced Pages is too dramatic, cliquey, and confrontational. I used to enjoy editing at Misplaced Pages; it was an escape. Now I feel incredibly stressed each time I edit, and I simply don't want to regularly put myself in that kind of environment. --Iamunknown 16:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm dismayed by what I'm reading here. I'm very interested in image copyright cleanup, and feel it's really important to have people involved in that who are not bullies. I had already identified both of you as the kind of people we need to retain. :-( ElinorD (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
      • It just gets tiring to battle the fair use issues endlessly. I suppose I could put up with that, but when the Foundation doesn't really care, why should I? If there was a flag to rally around, I might not care. But, there isn't. See below. --Durin 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • My feelings tend to track with what you've said above. I'm tired of fighting. The FU stuff is insanely combative. I feel as though I've made my last ditch attempts at improving the situation. Ongoing efforts to come into compliance with the Foundation's resolution are constantly under attack from multiple parties. The same arguments are being put forth over and over again, and endlessly debated. Over and over again we keep having to battle this. I've come under personal attack from innumerable sources. Is progress being made? Yes, but far too slowly. At the current pace, my wild guesstimate is that it will take five years to come into compliance.
    • In frustration over the general situation, I turned to the featured article people, as a benchmark of how fair use should be handled in articles. What I found was depressing. So, I appealed to that group of people for aid in culture change, to get them to swing around to the appropriate fair use stance. I was roundly attacked for my efforts. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm the jerk and everyone else is sweet as pie..who knows. I don't care anymore.
    • So, I then went to the mailing list to try to garner support for this effort. In particular, I was hoping for the Foundation to take a stance that more clearly delineated what needed to be done to come into compliance. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/077358.html. The resulting discussion generated in excess of 200 mail messages...and no progress, with the same arguments being rehashed again, ad nauseum.
    • The Foundation obviously does not care enough about this issue to become directly involved. I recognize there is merit in taking an abstract stance and allowing per-project implementation, but en.wikipedia is failing so miserably at attaining the goals set out for us that we must have outside help now if we are to achieve the goals they have established for us by April 2008. Since it is blatantly obvious that we can not achieve the goal, that they have been shown how blatantly obvious it is, and that they refuse to take action despite this situation, it is obvious that this issue is not of particular enough importance to them that I should be sacrificing myself, my time, my effort to help the project in this regard. In short, if they don't care all that much, why should I care? It's more complex than that, but that covers it pretty succinctly.
    • Recently, YouTube has come under lawsuits regarding the use of copyrighted material on their website. Their situation is different than ours, but to think we are somehow immune from lawsuits because it hasn't happened yet is asinine. Yet, this is the pervasive attitude among editors. The Foundation? I don't know what their outlook on lawsuits is. However, whether or not it is going to happen isn't really debatable. It will happen. It's only a matter of time. The Foundation's current hands off per-project approach is not legally defensible (so far as I know, with the caveat that I am not a lawyer). If we were to come under a lawsuit, the Foundation would most certainly suddenly "get religion" and do something about the atrocious situation we have, rather than merely setting out abstract concepts of free content and wouldn't it be nice if we could readily allow downstream use. YouTube got religion, and now they are much better about going after copyright violations. Us? We still have something on the order of a quarter of a million unfree images. It's just a matter of time.
    • Outside of fair use work, I've hardly been doing anything in the last six months. Tiny stuff, here and there, but nothing of significance. Take away the fair use work, and I'm not really involved in anything much anymore. I gave up on WP:RFA where I was heavily involved, and embarked on a useless campaign to foment change. Result? Nothing changes, and it's more like a vote now than ever. C'est la vie. I've hardly done any actual article contributions in forever. I don't do recent change patrolling anymore, except for the occasional romp through templates for fair use violations. I don't look at special:newpages anymore for obvious speedy deletion candidates. Since stepping down as an admin, I don't administrator work anymore. Just about all areas that I was previously involved in I'm just not doing much anymore. I got fully engrossed in FU issues, and now that's hopeless until Misplaced Pages is sued; we can not possibly win the fair use war without the Foundation getting religion. So, there's really nothing left I'm involved in much anymore.
    • The habits are broken, the daily trackings of various things aren't happening anymore, and I found the recent break to lead me not to care what was happening on Misplaced Pages. The energy's gone, the commitment is gone, and the desire is gone. So too, perhaps it's time for me to be gone. There's a lot...a LOT...of people who would be considerably happier if I'm gone anyways. *shrug* --Durin 17:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If, for one, have to echo Elinor and say I'd be very sad to see you go. For what it's worth, you're one of the people whose actions and attitudes got me more into the project. It's your decision, but know at the least you will be missed. We need volunteers like you around. Vassyana 17:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the sentiments :) We all have to make our own choices here. --Durin 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To speak a bit more on the fair use subject and the Foundation's approach, for those that are reading...

At Wikimania 2006, a proposal was put out to achieve 100,000 featured articles by the end of 2007. This was put forth by Jimbo himself. See Misplaced Pages:100,000 feature-quality articles. When I first heard of this, my immediate reaction was laughter. Later, I became fairly depressed about it. Why? Because such a goal was so obviously unachievable. At the time it was put forth, there were approximately 1400 featured articles on en.wikipedia. Over the preceding months, we'd averaged roughly 1 new featured article per day. To achieve the goal in 16 months, the rate of FA promotion would have to be increased by 200 times the then current average rate.

I am reminded of a meeting I attended when I was 19. At the time, I was working for my university's campus IT department. Some discussion occurred at the meeting regarding the possibility of using an expert system to aid in problem resolution for computer users. It was determined that it was cost prohibitive in man-hours and real dollars; we had less than a tenth of the needed resources. I, a wet behind the ears CS student said "Why can't we just build it? I'm sure myself and other student consultants can put some time into it" My suggestion was wildly naive. I had no idea what an expert system even was. Everyone in the room just stared at me. I dreamed the impossible, and was quietly mocked for it.

In essence, Jimbo did the same thing. His suggestion for 100k featured articles was orders of magnitude away from being obtainable. We'll be lucky if we attain 3000 featured articles by January 1, 2008. In fact, it's highly unlikely we will.

What this act pointed to was a severe disconnect between the Foundation and what is actually happening on Misplaced Pages. Sure, there's some knowledge and understanding, but realistically, no real understanding of en.wikipedia. I believe en.wikipedia has become so large that it has long since become incapable of being managed, even abstractly, by the Foundation using current structures. In short, it's somewhat like a board of directors of Toyota Motor Corporation making decisions regarding quality control at a second tier parts manufacturing facility.

If the Foundation had made the licensing policy without any sort of deadline, it would be largely ignored; it is quite obviously at severe odds with current practices on en.wikipedia. Further, since the Foundation does not get involved in enforcement, nobody would pay it any heed. In the adding of a deadline, they created a situation that is not only impossible to achieve, but those of us naive enough to believe and follow them are doing this to ourselves in our attempts to uphold their directives.

The Foundation, just as with the 100k goal, are very much disconnected from reality on en.wikipedia. Their goal is unattainable in any realistic time frame. Further, they are unwilling to offer support in achieving the goal. There's plenty of comparisons throughout history regarding governments that have engaged in similar actions. I'm aware of no successes, and many rather dramatic failures.

This isn't to say the Foundation should be ignored; just that the goals they are laying out are unachievable, and show a rather naive understanding of en.wikipedia and the monster it has become. Worse, even though people **are** willing to sacrifice themselves to further their goals, they are unwilling to support such efforts.

I've long felt that one of the greatest issues Misplaced Pages is facing is that of scaling. A small project worked very well under the then existing culture. But, a project as large as this has become fails under this structure. You do not run a major international corporation (an apt analogy to Misplaced Pages) using techniques suitable to the local corner store. You'd be out of business. Yet, this is precisely what the Foundation is not only asking us to do, but expects us to do. I'd thought the scaling issues had more to do with individual processes on Misplaced Pages. I'm now convinced it's much deeper than that, and runs all the way through the Foundation. It's going to take 5-10 years for this to shake out. There's a non-zero probability that Misplaced Pages won't make it through those years. --Durin 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm stupid

so I don't quite understand if you will do an edit graph for someone with more than 2,000 edits. But if you do, I'd love to have one. VanTucky 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't do those anymore. Sorry :( --Durin 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unclear about photo copyright tags

Just thought you could help me out with this. I'm trying to get an FAC for for the page Steaua and I'm having some trouble with some images. I've replaced all of the earlier pictures that were incorrectly tagged but there is still one I don't know where to place.

I'm talking about a picture from the website www.uefa.com with the following URL: http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=1985/intro.html . I am currently unclear about the use of this sort of pictures on wiki, whether they are permitted or not, and if they are, what tag should I place there. Vladi 19:07, 3 August 2007 (EET)

• The image is clearly not yours to release rights for. Therefore, it's tagging as {{PD-self}} is obviously not appropriate. I also have serious concerns about Image:Steaua23.jpg. Where did you get this image? In the case of the first image, it is copyrighted. Therefore, it must be used under terms of fair use on Misplaced Pages. The question then is not how do I make the image compliant. That's taking it from the stance of how do you get it in. Since we are a free content encyclopedia, the approach must be why do we really need to have this image and why can't it be replaced by a free alternative.
• From my chair, this image is useless to the article. The article does discuss the team winning in 1986, but there's nothing significant about the image that contributes to the article in ways that words alone can not. I don't think the use of this image qualifies as legitimate under our policies.
• Thanks for asking! If I can help in any other way, please let me know. Also, please let me know what the source of the second image is. Thanks, --Durin 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

Thanks for the nice message; I am back. I think I need to learn better coping skills on here. --David Shankbone 13:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• All of us have bad moments. Trying to not have a bad moment when going through nicotine withdrawal? I don't want to think about that :) --Durin 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Thank you for removing those copyrighted images from my userpage- I restored them as I thought I'd accidentally deleted them. I thought I was allowed to use any images from Misplaced Pages which were already uploaded. So how come some pictures are allowed to be on my user page and some aren't? Can you give me some info about the policy? Thank you. Jordan5001 16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• The policy is located at WP:NFCC. Any image which is copyrighted and used under terms of fair use on Misplaced Pages may not be used on your userpage. Usually, if an image has a big red "C" on the image's description page, you can't use it on your userpage. If you're uncertain about the status of a particular image, let me know and I'd be happy to help you. --Durin 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't stand Durin

Okay you have some issues to work out. Why do you have to be so cruel!? I have put minor article parts that have been deleted by good-faith wikipedians who at least honor thier site, but you have deleted the work of other wikipedians who have dedicated thier images to Misplaced Pages. You say other Wikipedians do wrong doing! You say that you are doing this on the behalf of Misplaced Pages,but you are just a proud blithering idiot! I am not saying most of this in favor of myself but also on the behalf of other Wikipedians. Even if you are an admin (or are you?) I will still complain like this like those I have read about, calling you names on your user page. You're lucky I don't bring up the whole upset Misplaced Pages community against you or maybe I should just tell them about your crime. Bottom Line: bring your image vandalism act or there will be cosiquences that the upset Wikipedians will decide. However, I will not disrespect your instructions on what images not to put. I am going to be a nice guy like that. I will not have users like you accusing me of things either. Just do not take any more images away because such behaviour is not accepted on Wikipdedia! Good day and please respond on my talk page this time! Uhhh...never mind oyu could respond on this page!--Angel David Presents,23:27, 6 August, 2007 (UTC)

• I heartily encourage you to bring as many people as you think you can get to support your position. I would be very happy to help educate them on the policy forbidding the use of fair use images on userpages. If there's anything I can do to assist you in organizing such a group, please by all means let me know. This is a great idea! --Durin 02:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Durin, thank you for being a model Wikipedian. The first I remember becoming aware of you was in the middle of the clerks-debacle. Then came the Essjay controversy, your RfB, and your request for de-sysoping. (Actually, checking your talk page archives, I guess it was earlier in February than the clerks-debacle that I directly talked with you.)

Anyways, thank you for engaging in discussion. Looking through your 2007 talk page archive, I see that I certainly asked a lot of questions back then! But I particularly liked your advice under the section, User talk:Durin/archive2007#Reason for resigning; in response to the question,

"Besides going on a fair use removal rampage, is there anything you think I could do to help you out? And further, is there anything you think I could do to help out Misplaced Pages at large?"

you replied,

"As to what you can do to help the project; you're a volunteer. Find things that interest you here, and conduct yourself appropriately. It's that easy. I think you already know what to do. So go do it :)"

Thank you. --Iamunknown 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's been a real pleasure seeing you work. I keep coming across you and have been generally impressed with how you have acquitted yourself. Thank you for the thank you, and bravo for the good work! :) --Durin 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of image on Kyle XY

Other pages have DVD images for their respective seasons, and I can give examples if you want, but why remove them from just Kyle XY? Curious. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Other pages that have such uses are being edited to have them removed, I assure you. Please see User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse. We are working on eliminating such uses across thousands of articles. Articles that still have such uses are ones we have simply not gotten to yet. --Durin 16:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Thisted

Hello. I am curious as to how exactly the image Image:JThisted.jpg from the Jeff Thisted article is violating fair use or any matter. I have provided rationale for fair use on the image, and the image was taken from the GSN Press website which allows these images to be used to promote and depict work and people. Thank you. — Chad "1m" Mosher Talk _Cont. 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that it is a fair use image in the first place. Our Foundation's policy on the matter forbids such use. It is deemed replaceable by free license imagery while the subject is alive. Thus, we do not accept the use of fair use images to depict living people. That's why it may not go on the article. --Durin 04:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm just not catching what you're pitching because in my three or four years on Misplaced Pages, I've known it to be acceptable to use images with acceptable fair use rationales in situations where no other images are available. I certainly respect you and what you're trying to accomplish, but unless I've somehow misunderstood that, I'm just wondering how all of a sudden that has changed. — Chad "1m" Mosher Talk _Cont. 04:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair use is acceptable in limited circumstances. Fair use is not acceptable if it can be reasonably expected a free license alternative could be acquired. Such is the case with living people. We do not have to have fair use images of that person to depict them. Even if we do not currently have a free license image, we do not accept fair use for depiction purposes of living people. This was codified in the resolution passed this past Spring by the Wikimedia Foundation which I've referred to previously. --Durin 04:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job, but by the way . . .

Hi, Durin. I want to say first that I keep running into you when I'm following some image copyright debate, and I think you're doing a great job. (I wish you'd ask for your tools back as I'm sure you'd be even more useful to the Project, but of course, that's your decision.)

I asked you a question a week or two ago. You were on wikibreak then, and may have missed it if your page had too many messages when you got back. If you have any expertise to offer, I'll be very happy. If not, I'll take it elsewhere. The question is here. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Might not be today. Hang on :) --Durin 19:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Responded above. --Durin 13:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me edit the image and stop changing the page

I went to a lot of trouble and time to get that permission and I'm trying, despite being busy at work, and having people to manage, calls to make, proposals to finish, emails to send - to edit this image page.

It is being concurrently edited by THREE editors. This is beyond obsessive. I can't even have the image unlocked for 15 minutes without someone jumping on it. BlueSapphires 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's no time limit for work to be done today. With the missing rationale, there's seven days to work on it. There's no immediate rush. Please see the talk page (bottom) for more information on the current problems. I really truly do appreciate you getting permissions for Misplaced Pages. It's great seeing a user take initiative like this. The problem is that "permission for Misplaced Pages" is utterly useless for us. We only accept media as either free or not free. There's no in between "permission to use" case. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. All the best, --Durin 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No sweetie, we're not. I've spent hours on this when I don't have time for it, and I am not a daily editor like you guys. I have serious responsibilities. I want to finish this, and then you can look at it, and if it needs tweaking, great. This manic auto-edit stuff has to stop. Now. Leave it alone for one bloody hour. Videmus Omnia just reverted something 1 minute ago. I'm NOT FINISHED. Tell him to stop it. It is really irritating. I realize it is how he is and it isn't personal against me, but I'd appreciate it if you'd give him something else to focus on for 1 hour so I can deal with the page. BlueSapphires 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU JUST REVERTED THE PAGE. That is not vandalism. LEAVE THE FREAKING PAGE ALONE AND GO SURF FOR AN HOUR PLEASE. GO FIND SOME PICTURES TO UPLOAD. CALL YOUR FRIEND. WHATEVER. LEAVE THE PAGE ALONE. AGAIN, IVE ASKED YOU HOW MANY TIMES. I AM IN A PLACE WITH A BAD NET CONNECTION AND NEED YOU TO BACK OFF SO I CAN FINISH THIS AND GET BACK TO WORK. BASTA. Jeez. BlueSapphires 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• When I see an anonymous ip add "== ==" to a page with an edit summary of "re09i" , that's vandalism. I'm sorry, but that's reality. There's no content there, nothing. It's just blank. There's no point to it. It was properly reverted. I still fail to see what adding "== ==" does to improve the image's description page. But fine, if you think it adds and reverting it somehow interferes with your ability to add a fair use rationale, then I won't revert. But, if after you're done with your change and the format is still poor, I will fix it. Lastly, please calm down. As I've said above, there's nothing that says you MUST edit this image page and fix it RIGHT NOW. If you're at work, on a bad net connection, whatever...just relax. You can do it later today, tomorrow, Friday...whatever. It doesn't have to done THIS INSTANT. Please, relax. --Durin 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Meagan Good

Under wikipedias policy, this photo of ms. good is Legal and Useable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmummert (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. In general, we do not accept copyrighted, fair use imagery to depict living people since a free alternative can reasonable be found or created. --Durin 20:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Amyphoto.jpg - Done with Non-free rationale / Apology

Thank you for your patience, and apologies if I was rude. Really, you have no idea what stress I'm under right now (and you weren't a part of the marathon image DRV - which followed on the four deletion cases concerning Renner/Amy two weeks ago, that I fell into, which sucked up major time I don't have to spend). After last night I was really upset to see an additional hurdle arrive today, which entailed a warning tag - so I wanted to get it out of the way. Please, if there is anything pressing about this photo, vis-a-vis copyright matters, would you please try to put a note on my talk page? I'm not on Misplaced Pages much generally. It is fun, but I'm simply not in the right life-space for it, as is evident. I've far too many obligations. Thank you for helping me to sort this out; I felt this was important enough to give time and focus. Take care. BlueSapphires 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I bother you again?

I really appreciate your patient and thoughtful answers. If you have time, your expertise might be of value here. I'll look into the images about which you answered my questions yesterday. Best regards. ElinorD (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go away! ;) I'll have a look and comment as appropriate. There's clear violations here. --Durin 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

alrite then m8

if u can put a picture up on User:Screech123/lovesfrankspencer without breaking any 'policy' then u do it ŞĉŘεÈčḤ 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images#Why_didn.27t_you_replace_the_image_with_something_usable.3F. Thank you, --Durin 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I followed that link just out of idle curiosity, and found that it linked to a user box that didn't exist. I then looked through logs and deleted edits, and tracked down the history: the user box had been moved, and the image you mention is no longer in it. I've taken the liberty of editing that section, but please feel absolutely free to undo or modify my change. (And thanks for your help earlier.) ElinorD (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I actually edited it to the new userbox location myself, but the latest version of the userbox. That's fine :) --Durin 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Christine Young

Someone is trying to delete Christine Young again. I thought you might like to know. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christine Young (2nd nomination) Jmm6f488 06:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Gabrielle Union and Meagan Good

I only added them because when I sourced where I got them from the "risk processor" said it was ok. So I do have a question, how are any pics not taken by a camera by the editor allowable here on Wiki? They are everywhere.... I dont get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjmummert (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• What is the risk processor? Regardless, the images you were attempting to use are copyrighted, fair use images. Please see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria item #1. We do not accept copyrighted material for the depiction of people who are currently living, as it is reasonable to expect that a free equivalent could be obtained. Images taken by an editor could fall into that category. In general, anything available under a free license is acceptable. Copyrighted images for the depiction of living people are not. Does that help to clarify? If not, please let me know. Thanks, --Durin 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use violations

Can you please review History of British film certificates and British Board of Film Classification to see if the images used, which are claimed under fair use, are in violation of WP:NFCC #3 and #9. — Moe ε 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I took a brief look. It does appear those are violations. --Durin 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarchastic Durin?

Was that sarchasm?--Angel David 23:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not at all. I was in ernest. You seem quite convince you are correct, and are certain there's a number of people who agree with you. It's optimal if these people and yourself are assembled together so I can educate all of you at once. It's a wonderful idea! --Durin 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Educate!? what on Earth does that mean?--Angel David Spy on Celestial Gifts21:14, 17 August, 2007 (User Talk Contributions)

Image Message Durin

Okay, I have removed the thing from my user page. If you do not believe me go here

--Angel David Spy on my Celestial Gifts 13:40, 18 August,2007 (User Talk Contributions)

List of English countries coats of arms

Hi Durin

Regarding this edit. If you believe that these images cannot be used, it would seem more appropriate to nom the article for deletion. A list with no content isn't really of any use. Regards. Valentinian 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's not a matter of placing it for deletion. The article is still useful without the images. The image use in galleries is not permitted. Please see User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation for more information. Thanks, --Durin 15:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering: not all images on that list were fair use: a number were GFDL. Is it acceptable to include GFDL images in a gallery? If those images and those images only were reintroduced it might encourage someone to draw up images for the missing counties??? Lozleader 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Most of them were not GFDL images, approximately 80% of them. In similar removals from other galleries, I've often removed the columns entirely because the presence of the column encourages people to put the fair use violations back in, causing the work to be done over and over again. Instead, the article should be crafted as best as possible to avoid using the images. There's nothing wrong with using GFDL galleries, but in this case so few are as to make the gallery useless. --Durin 17:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see how a blank space could just attract trouble. Human nature abhors a vacuum or something. :-)Lozleader 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, one of the top ten reasons I hate my brain cavity ;) --Durin 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem!?

It is always "do this" or "remove that". How come you never text to me to say "Hi Angel David, how are you doing(?) or how was your weekend Angel David(?)" why can't you text me to say that because or tyrannical policy-obssesed idiot.

--Angel David 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any interest in responding to your question when you insist on using insults to address me. I strongly suggest you read, understand, and abide by Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. --Durin 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you sit on a tac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel David (talk • contribs)

• That's enough thank you. If you insist on making personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA I will recommend you be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Durin 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It's you who should be blocked from editing you flea! You are commiting the act of WP:VAN. Don't make me have to reccomend you blocked from editing. --Angel David Spy on my Celestial Gifts21:20, 20 August 2007 (User Talk Contributions)
    • If you need assistance on where to request I be blocked, please ask. You might try WP:AN/I for starters. --Durin 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, forget the blocking from editing you and I went too overboard. Just, recommend this aty away from my user page! I don't vandalize yours!--Angel David 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would honestly prefer you report me. In this way, you would perhaps gain external input and opinion on the matter. A wider audience might do a world of good. What I've been doing on your user page isn't vandalism. --Durin 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
• Also, if there was something outside of policy on my userpage I would very much welcome you editing it to correct it. Even Jimbo himself encourages people to edit his userpage. I don't see any reason to stop someone from editing my userpage if what they are doing helps the encyclopedia. --Durin 21:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What you know about Jimbo? He set this wonderful sight out for people to learn and see. Of course the people who dedicated thier images to help him were rebuked by you (not literal) So I don't think you are respecting him! That proves my point!Ha!--Angel David 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please see User:Jimbo in the section titled "You may edit this page!". Thank you. --Durin 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,but oh wait! He is the man and do to him bieng so cool he is cool about people editing on there! However,But no one is a great as Jimbo! He is level 10 on the cool charts! At least I know that!--Angel David 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough already. If you have a problem with Durin I recommend you report it at an appropriate noticeboard. Videmus Omnia 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I recommended WP:AN/I above, and have previously offered to help him in getting me blocked. He's not taken me up on the offer or used AN/I. *shrug* --Durin 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Or maybe a request for comment. :) Videmus Omnia 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe. I'd prefer he just complained to WP:AN/I and got me blocked directly though, rather than an RfC which consumes voluminous quantities of electrons. :) By the way Videmus Omnia, THANK YOU for your long service to our country! --Durin 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• My pleasure, brother! I'm probably due to get blocked again myself, been getting hammered on my talk page today. Videmus Omnia 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you stay clear of Ryulong, I think you'll be ok :) --Durin 22:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, no I'm really...confused. You want me to report you. Because, if ou insisst I will go right away!--Angel David 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to still have serious issues with my editing, and still refer to my edits on your userpage as vandalism. So, yes, I'd prefer if you reported this. As I noted above, getting an outside opinion would help to clarify things. And please, stop commenting out the personal attack above. The removal makes the follow-on comments non-sensical. Thank you. --Durin 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I recommended you blocked like you insisted taht I do! However, I feely told them they have the right to chose who is right! if, I am right you have to be blocked for a month because I think an ever-lasting editing punishment is unjust. Even for a wiki-bully like you!--Angel David 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Now that you've received input at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_covered_by_Wikipedia_Policies from three others that what I did was in the right, I hope that this helps bring closure to the matter for you. We really truly do not allow fair use images on user pages, and the use of a template indicating a page is protected when it is not protected is not acceptable. If on the odd chance you still feel wronged and wish to take this further, please see WP:RFC. That's the next step. I would be more than happy to help you craft an RfC against me if it seems a daunting task on your own; it is a lot of bureaucratease type stuff to be sure. --Durin 02:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your actions on 2007/8/20

Yesterday, you removed my NPOV flag without discussion, then proceeded to improperly block my account. Before I lodge a formal complaint, I would like to know how you can justify these actions.Djg2006 18:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see Durin's reasons for removing the tag in his edit summaries here. Also, Durin is not a sysop and thus was not the one to block you. I believe that honor belonged to Wizardman. Finally, do not threaten Durin with formal complaints -- WP:ANI is that way, but I can already tell you whose side any rational admin will take. Rockstar (/_C) 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Djg2006, I think it would be best if you simply filed a formal complaint. If you need assistance on how to do so, please feel free to ask me. I'd be happy to assist you. Thank you and have a nice day. --Durin 02:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Durin, please accept my apology; I stand corrected, as you did not block me. But you did remove the flag - my understanding is that the flag is only to be removed after discussion. This what I will be complaining about in your case. Thank you for your gracious offer of explaining the greivance process - I would like to take you up on this. Djg2006 15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• • The first step in the dispute resolution process, that of negotiation, is essentially over. The next step is Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Please see Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes for the entire dispute resolution process. Please be aware, as you may not be already, that the {{NPOV}} tag has previously been edit warred over in this article. I don't recall the specifics. You may wish to dig into the archives of Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Regardless, your attempt at forcing a particular point of view in, view edit warring, and then when warned off of doing that to continue the dispute by attempting to force an NPOV tag onto the article is most likely not going to be looked upon kindly. Before spending the time and effort necessary to develop an RfC, you may wish to take this up at WP:AN/I. If there's anything further that I can do to aid you in getting me banned from the project, please do not hestitate to ask. Thank you, --Durin 17:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading up on the NPOV flag policy, I realized that I did not post a justification to the discussion page. For this reason, you were justified in removing it, although I would have appreciated a note to this effect. Therefore, I am dropping my plans to complain - thanks again for your help.Djg2006 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use

I don't have experience with fair use images, especially uploading any. For the 7 World Trade Center article, I'm working to clarify the collapse section to make it as understandable and clear as possible. Some news footage from the day has surfaced, taken by ABC News, helping clarify the extent of damage. It is one of few images that exist to show the damage. Their footage has been subject of much commentary and discussion. A screenshot of the video would help readers understand about the damage, and about what footage exists for NIST to use in their analysis. As such, I believe would fall under fair use. I'm strict about fair use, and haven't uploaded anything like this before. But, I think this is a rare case where it falls within our policy. I have uploaded it to here and added it to the article. Please tell me if I have provided sufficient rationale and information, and if this indeed falls under fair use? --Aude (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that this general type of image, that of 7 World Trade Center on that day, would be fair use if no free equivalent exists. To my knowledge, no such free equivalent exists. All the images I have seen are taken from news sources, just as this image is. It'd be nice if the image was a bit better resolution. Your rationale is ok, but a bit weak. It would withstand common scrutiny. The image is used in the article appropriately, and contributes to the discussion. --Durin 11:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to still see this

I saw your comments here and am sorry that you took my deadminning as badly as you did. I too felt it was a witch hunt of sorts and though I do understand that (hopefully) arbcom works off diffs that anyone can present as evidence, allowing anonymous emails sent possibly by banned editors and allowing other editors to come to the arbcom (who later were also demonstrated to be previously banned under a different username) and filibuster to "get me"...was appalling. I lost all faith in the arbitration process at that point as all I was seeking, and it was moderate, was a civility probation on Seabhcan and would have accepted the same had that been deemed necessary. The point is...if you choose to edit articles that are prone to edit wars, hostile discussions and strong POV's, it becomes almost impossible, unless you are superhuman, to avoid striking back at a few editors now and then. Lately, I was told I would be blocked for saying someone was acting like a "jerk"...yet I have been called a troll, an asshole, a giant fucking wikidick, a POV pusher...well, you name it, and in most of these cases, there are no blocks to these editors, and no warnings either. I have one article I am working on at the moment and an arbcom case that should never have gone to arbcom and after that, I doubt I will be around much at all, regardless of the arbcom outcome. However, I am glad to see that you have started editing again and hope it works out for you.--MONGO 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• The state of affairs is indeed disgusting. I've been telling myself to leave for a while now. I might eventually take my own advice :) Sorry to see you are leaving. The bastards are winning on this project. The conspiracy pages are hopelessly lost, just because the sheer weight of nuttery outweighs the good that people can do here. --Durin 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I expect that my work situation is going to make it hard for me to do much that involves a great deal of involved research or sockpuppetry checks as I have recently been wasting a huge amount of time on. It really is a waste, as even if my work results in a banning, if the user departs long enough or edits away from areas he is prone to, he can evade checkuser and the cycle starts all over again. It is so easy to gain a new IP and recreate a new persona and I have no problem with that, so long as the same problematic behavior doesn't reoccur...sadly, that is often not the case since people get revenge in their hearts. The other problem is that arbcom allows too many people to use cases to exact some form of revenge on an editor, and that is inexcusable...the committee does almost no research themselves for the most part...many of them rarely comment at all on cases, except to "vote". There are a couple exceptions, but the majority of them look at the evidence and that is all...I recognize this project is getting very big, so "knowing" who is and who isn't "trustworthy" is becoming almost impossible for arbcom. Same issues are apparent in Rfa's...where a couple mistakes, some really bad and others much less so, are used as fodder to railroad an admin candidate. I know there is no way I'll ever be readminned, so I gave up that ghost a long while back. Oddly enough though, I never wanted to be an admin...but was asked repeatedly and finally did decide to run...my losing my admin bit was only bad in the way it happened. Oh well.--MONGO 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Some of what you speak to is scalability problems. I've written on this extensively in a number of places. One of the most hilarious scalability problems it's Jimbo's pronouncement that we should have 100,000 featured articles by the end of this year. It was so disconnected from reality as to be astonishing. I'm convinced that the Foundation in general has a fair bit of disconnect between goals and reality. --Durin 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hehe..well, I respect Jimbo for speaking about hopes and dreams, but there really is no way that will happen...maybe still something to shoot for. Part of the problem with that, as you know, is that many articles won't ever be featured until the "dust settles", even though they are generally well written and exhaustively referenced. The other problem is revisionist history, that tries to put a slant on past events and takes them out of context from what really happened...sometimes this is good, as a reassessment might bring new evidence to light, but other times is is simply a watering down of the event, as if it wasn't as big or as bad as was originally thought. I fully endorse the open editing experience, but not so sure I endorse the everyone should edit philosophy that seems to be taking over the project. I concur with the belief that everyone deserves a second chance, maybe even in rare cases, a third, but not an inexhaustible number of chances, as we waste too much time dealing with these same problematic editors repeatedly.--MONGO 18:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I surrender!

Okay, I give up! I was wrong! I was wrong to question your job. I am was way too hard on you. I am sorry. I know,I know! Your probably want ask "who are you and what have you done with Angel David?" Well, just in case you ask that, I am Angel David and owe you an apology. I don't know if this covers anything but I just want to stop fighting you! I want us to stop bieng enemies because it hurts my reputation and your emotion! Let's just stop. Please!--Angel David 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Apology accepted. However, please stop removing the personal attack you made above. I've asked you before, and someone else has reverted you on you attempting to remove it as well. Stop. --Durin 02:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Okay! I'll do anything to make it up to you! I will obey any fair image use policy! I will never put a semi-protected template on my userpage again until it is really semi-protected! I never make another personal attack on you again!--Angel David 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: fair use image use

Thanks for your note, but your actions seem willy-nilly: in your initial edit, you removed the coat of arms for the UK, while retaining the image of the UK coat of arms as used in Scotland. I merely sought to make the galleries complete. Of course, someone else will likely come along and fill in the obvious blanks that the removal of these images/entries creates. Anyhow, perhaps you should move instead move to delete the galleries that exhibit these images or, in the very least, edit more carefully. Thanks. Quizimodo 13:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Believe in the power of m:Eventualism. All edits are productive. This was not an non-careful edit in any respect. I also recognize that someone may come along and put the images back in. I will remove them. --Durin 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Paul burke in naked city.jpg

I did state in the rationale that a non-free image was not available. Is this not allowable under NFCC #1?--Mantanmoreland 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• If the person was dead, yes. But, this person is not dead. Our standard policy, per Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy is that if the person is alive and the image is being used to depict the person, then we do not permit the image if the image is not under a free license. The presumption is that since the person is alive, it can reasonably be expected that a free license could be obtained. This applies even if a free license image does not currently exist. Hope this helps, --Durin 13:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for clarifying. Do you have any suggestions as to how a free license could be obtained for this image? --Mantanmoreland 14:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• If he has a public schedule, and you're in the vicinity, grab a camera and take some pictures. :) Honestly, that's how it is frequently done. It's amazing the number of times I've seen fair use images removed, only to have Wikipedians, now that an image is missing, go and make or obtain a free license image. --Durin 15:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to but he is retired. That is why I noted that there was no free license image available for this person.--Mantanmoreland 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Understood. But, until he's dead, we assume a free license image can be obtained. --Durin 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't know if this helps, but check out User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content. I've had good luck getting images of retired (even deceased) celebrities at Flickr or elsewhere. Videmus Omnia 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion. Unfortunately, he is retired and has no agent I can find, and an email to the operator of a former fan site bounced back.--Mantanmoreland 17:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Fair use overuse

Anyone with half a brain knows that Image:Akatsukispread.jpg is virtually useless as it gives almost a complete lack of detail. That being said, those images are on a subpage, as it was once apart of the Akatsuki (Naruto) page but was cut onto a seperate article for length. The Fair Use Rational that was given for each image is just that, they all fit their purpose to illustrate the character in question. Unless you desire them to be filled with needless BS which niether of us want, the basic "To describe the character in question" is the best option. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheUltimate3 (talk • contribs) 19:49, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

• I guess I don't have half a brain then. Thank you for the personal insult. If you have something to communicate to me and can do so without using personal insults, please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, thank you and have a nice day. --Durin 19:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting you read that as a personal attack. I figured you just said the Spread image as it was you know there. Regardless, now seeing how anything I (or others) do will fall deaf ear to you, the question comes in what do we do with the images? Cause simply deleting them seems a waste, not to mention as you've mentioned oh so elegantly in your Page about this "The articles look like crap" cause now I really do see it. Do we give the things that lost their images little character descriptions are do we have to get a hanky and stop our b-ing?--TheUltimate3 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• The insinuation above was that since I thought the image was sufficient, I must have less than half a brain.
• As to the issue, it is important to understand our m:Mission. We are free content encyclopedia. Copyrighted, fair use imagery must be used minimally. A significant number of people have been working to reduce overuse of images since the Foundation's Spring 2007 resolution on the matter, which can be found at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Though, that resolution essentially supported what had been policy locally on the project for a long time. We prefer free content over non-free, non-free as little as possible and only in cases of clear, absolute need. There display of something is frequently not sufficient to that metric. The image must be significant for reasons other than just identification/display. Else, it's just decorative. Note that many other language Wikipedias do not permit fair use images at all. Hope this helps, --Durin 20:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you could please clarify a couple things re. use of fair use images as you've stated them

I pretty much get what you say, but just want to make sure.

• On a "list of x series characters" page not 1 fair use image can be had, not even a collage of multiple characters, or for any "list of" page for that matter which would require fair use images to illustrate the subjects discussed.
• A fair use image of y character can't be on a "list of x series characters" page, but if x character has their own article space, then it's OK there. A way of reading this is if I want to have a pic of x character but they're described on a "list of x series characters" page, I then create an article for y character, and move them out of the x series chara listing, so I can then put a pic on them up.
• You stated that the culling includes removing album covers from discographies. Does this also apply to "list of x series albums" type articles that aren't for a particular artist?

Thanks. BrokenSphere 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think rather than focusing on specific details, it is better to focus on what our purpose here is. We're here to create a free content encyclopedia. Our policies derive from that m:Mission. Fair use images should be used minimally, if at all. That's the driving focus. Many other language wikipedias do not allow fair use images at all. There's got to be a *very* good reason why a given fair use image is absolutely necessary. --Durin 21:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is some sense of a "threshold" that might be easier to understand for some users, which is why I used the examples I did. This way editors who tend to focus on specific articles can prioritize what they want to emphasize. BrokenSphere 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• There's been discussion before about the threshold of acceptability. Is it one image? Three? Ten? Where do we draw the line? Answer; we don't. There are general cases to observe, and if a case falls outside of those we evaluate while keeping in mind our m:Mission. --Durin 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fault-finder

• I have argue on the basis of common law esp. of European one, because I'm LL.B. hons. You made not a good case for substantiated demonstration. I am not able to understand your lecture, if he should be in proper style, both legal and consequential.

--Beartd_άρχης,LL.B.hons 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Misplaced Pages policies on the use of fair use images, which is an American law concept not a European one, are a superset of American law. The law is rather starkly irrelevant. Even if something would be legal under fair use law, our policies dictate more constraints than the law allows. The simple fact of the matter is you are not allowed to have copyrighted, non-free licensed images on your userpage. It's a basic concept, and easy to understand. for more information, carefully ready WP:NFCC item #9 as I have previously directed you. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer. Thank you, --Durin 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • NOW you have no more the possiblity to cancel pics on my site, it was done in a not allowed manner. You are on the wrong tack. Thank you. --Beartd,LL.B.hons 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • If you have particular questions or concerns, I'd be happy to address them. Thank you, --Durin 15:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fair-Use Overuse image removals in List of Konoha ninja and List of Naruto summons

Pardon me for coming directly to your talk page for this, but I didn't know where else to contest these removals.

As you may or may not know, I had partially reverted your initial edit to List of Konoha ninja and fully reverted your initial edit to List of Naruto summons. After both, you went back and removed the images again. Your rationale for the latter was that "(...and is still overuse. "List of ..." type articles are having these uses deprecated everywhere)".

I would like to point out that the after my reverts of your initial edits, one article had three images and the other only had two. Four of those five were images of major recurring characters. Furthermore, using related articles as examples: Sasuke Uchiha contains three images, Gaara contains four images, and Naruto Uzumaki contains a grand total of six images. None of the three fell victim to the removal of images.

It seems as though you removed images from the Konoha ninja and Naruto summons pages simply because they are lists. I personally think that this is unfair rationale for the images' removal. If I missed the mark with this conclusion, please let me know. I'll also keep an open mind in listening to an explanation, so don't worry about recieving flames or anything of the sort if you should respond.

Sorry for the long post. Regards, You Can't See Me! 06:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your questions. The problem is there is no magical threshold number above/below which fair use images are not permitted/are permitted. In some cases, one image is too many. In others, 13 might be fine. It depends on the context and how the images are used. Throughout the project, "List of ..." type articles are having their fair use images removed wholesale. This is because this clearly violates the Foundation's stance on the issue which can be found at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. See item #3 on that. Fair use images must be used minimally. Minimally. --Durin 12:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still not sure that I agree with this movement, but if it is an WMFoundation movement, I guess I can't argue. Thank you for the explanation, and sorry again for disturbing you. You Can't See Me! 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Pardon me for asking, but could you please also direct me to the page on which this resolution was passed? You Can't See Me! 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. --Durin 01:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That page describes the purpose and course of action. What I would like to see is the actual discussion in which arguments for and against the movement were presented. Sorry for being unclear. Regards, You Can't See Me! 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know where the minutes of the board's meetings are kept. --Durin 04:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Ah, okay then. Sorry for disturbing you. You Can't See Me!!! 04:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't know

I made the template {{non-free}} and the associated category Category:Articles with improper non-free content, which were inspired by your fair-use overuse essay. Videmus Omnia 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up! Nice! --Durin 15:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello, I am a member of the Naruto task force. Please don't think of me as a newb, I've been here long enough to get a gist of things and become important on the Naruto and MÄR task forces and more or less on the Bleach on too, and I've made a few articles. Anyway, and I am making this suggestion as friendly as I can, that you re-open the Akatsuki page and cancel the deletion. There is FARRRRRRRRRR too much information there to just remove entirely, and it can't be merge back to its original location, as the page was oversized then. They are important characters to the series under WP:FICT. Even if it is a list page, it was made simply because the original article was too long and only one of them deserved an article, Itachi Uchiha, under notability and information and blah blah. I suggest this whole thing is put behind us, for my sake and yours, as both you and the other admin (don't know the name) have recieved a very big hatred from the other members, and it is very likely that they will complain to other admins. Yes, not all the images were needed, and only four should be put back (Kisame, Pein, Tobi/Madara, and Deidara), but this has gotten far too out of hand and this might be the last chance you and whoever recieves to turn this all around before it gets rash. No, I do not mean this to be a personal attack (to me, personal attacks are something like saying "You are a complete and total dumbass!" to another member), but rather as a friendly warning before either of you two get in trouble.

Also, Durin, if it would make you happy, I shall guarentee that only four, mabye five, images shall be put back onto the page. I made the article, so if it's deleted, I, or one of the admins, could easily re-write it without putting up all the useless images. I still suggest that you take back the deletion suggestion, however.

With respect, Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly request that if I'm going to get in trouble, you might as well just report me now. No sense in beating about the bush. Report me and be done with it. Since you're experienced, you certainly know how to go about getting me banned from the project. But, if you require assistance to help you in such an endeavour, please do not hesitate to ask. I'd be more than happy to help you make such a report. The images will not go back. They are against policy and will not be accepted. Several admininistrators have already chimed in on the matter agreeing with the stance I have taken. As to the deletion suggestion, I have no control over it. I did not put the article up for AfD and I did not protect the article. Thank you, and do please let me know if I can assist you in reporting me. --Durin 02:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I thought you were one of the two admins who locked and put the article up for deletion. And I do agree, not all of the images should be brought back, only the ones who have proven their signifiance and notability, even on Akatsuki level, (Kisame and Deidara) and the two leaders (Pein and Tobi/Madara) because they simply are the leaders. In the end neither Kakuzu or Hidan is notable, and Sasori was a one-arc member. Orochimaru and Itachi have articles. Zetsu and what's-her-name have yet to do something. Kisame is already important and still playing a role, and the reader(s) might get confused with the term "shark-like appearance" should they have not seen him before. Pein's appearance is like a very big jigsaw puzzle in word form, which will lead to confusion without a pic. Deidara was notable, and Tobi/Madara is the leader. And the article looks like crap without them. MAJOR crap. And that by far isn't a good thing. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • An article looking like crap is not a reason to violate our fair use policies. When do you plan on reporting me and getting me banned from the project? --Durin 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I agree but what if the actor has long retired and any free image of him now would look barely familiar compared to his earlier days when he appeared in film. The article addresses his film career. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• The policy does not make exceptions for such cases. If the person is alive, we do not accept fair use imagery for the person for the purposes of depicting them. --Durin 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob Bingham

Hi. I don't understand why the image has been deleted as there are many similar images on Wiki such as this . I think I provided a detailed reason for the use of the image. Jack1956 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Bob Bingham is alive. Per terms of our use on copyrighted, fair use imagery found at WP:NFCC, specifically item #1, we do not permit the use of copyrighted, fair use imagery for depiction purposes of living people. This is because it can reasonably be expected that a free license replacement may be obtained, given that the person is alive. The Wikimedia Foundation has dictated this as policy, and it must be held to. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. Thank you for pointing out Image:JWBROWN.jpg. I've removed that image from William Boyde on the same grounds. If you have additional questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks, --Durin 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Durin, thanks for responding on my talk page. I've been meaning to tell you that I have great respect for what you're doing with images on Misplaced Pages. I've seen the amount of trolling it attracts and it must seem like it's you versus the world more often than not, so I'm hoping to give you an extra hand making sure articles comply with our image policies. Do you have any pointers on the best way to begin? :) Rockstar (/_C) 15:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. The best piece of advice I can give you; go and find the largest bottle of pain killers the world has ever seen. Take two of them, every four hours, during waking hours. When you're tired of taking them, keep taking them. When you're tired of being tired of taking them, keep taking them. To lighten your mood, consider stabbing a knife into your arm, and pouring scalding water onto your leg. In all seriousness; the work you're doing is fine. Keep at it for as long as you can tolerate the pain :) --Durin 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Ta! This sounds familiar.  ;) --Iamunknown 16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it's time to start planning a Durin thank you parade! In any case, I already have a huge jar of advil on my desk, so it looks like I'm ready to rock! Maybe I should start boiling a pot of water? Or maybe I should just throw some beer in the fridge... :) Rockstar (/_C) 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, copious quantities of alcohol can help at times too :) --Durin 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm all set then! Good thing my work keeps hard alcohol in the supply closet. Rockstar (/_C) 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • God help me. They'll probably trump up charges of using steroids right before the parade begins. --Durin 19:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Your secret is out! That's how you can tag so many non-free images for deletion. How could you? *shakes head* :P --Iamunknown 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Excessive use of fair use image ?

Thanks for reminding/answering me. No beating around the bush, then - unless I'm very much mistaken, if I can submit images -in this case, self-captured screenshot- under a free license or get a free lisence from the copyright holders of (entirely out of the self-capturable category) images, the articles can keep them ? And should there be some images for which I can do neither, how many of such images can we keep in one article ? Since 'minimal use' does not strictly mean their use is prohibited - or so I believe.

Of course, if you defined every media-related work as non-free content, there's no point to it. Thank you for listening. Profet 666 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Screenshots of copyrighted programs are just as copyrighted as the programs themselves. Rights do not transfer from the creators of the programs to you simply by act of taking a screenshot of the work. "How many" is a question that can not be answered. We go based on precedent, context, usage, and a variety of other factors. Sometimes one is too many. Other times, 13 might be ok. It depends. --Durin 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ZOMG! ANOTHER fair use question! Run for the hills!

Seriously...can you comment on this when you get a chance? Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Aside from your idiotic copy/paste reasons, why are you doing this?

By "this", I of course mean your wanton removal of images for very little sensible reason. The tons of pictures you're removing are for visual identification purposes necessary for an encyclopedia, and certainly are a much better thing to have in articles than tons of paragraphs consisting of "well the character looks liek dis" which would inevitably take up much more space in articles and make them harder to read than images ever would. From what I read though, aesthetics, content and logic aren't your priority, as you said "if each other these characters had their own article then the images would be allowed" or something to that affect. What the hell is the difference between having a ton of worthless tiny articles that would inevitably get merged/deleted just so you could have a picture of the one thing in question and having one article of decent size with a bunch of small pictures on the side? You say you're "upholding Wiki policy" but in reality from any logical standpoint you're making the site a much shittier place for the common man. You know, just disregard the question in the header because I'll answer it for you. The answer is you're incompetent and are obviously unable to see anything from a logical standpoint. Good day, sir. - The Norse 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• When you are willing to address me in a civil tone, rather than beginning statements to me with "idiotic", I'll be happy to address your concerns. I'm disregarding the rest of your comments until you are capable of non-insulting discussion. Thank you and have a nice day, --Durin 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, because your consistent snide and elitist tone is so much better. That is a civil tone, albeit an angry one. Deal with the big, bad words, they won't bite. - The Norse 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I urge you to read WP:NPA. If you are incapable of abiding by that policy, I will recommend you be temporarily blocked from editing. --Durin 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't suppose you're actually ever going to address anything that I said, are you? Just become a bot like Betacommand if you're going to insist on being this way. - The Norse 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I am under no compulsion to discuss any subject with someone who is willing to use personal attacks. If you are willing to engage in civil discourse, you will find me a willing listener. If not, I choose to ignore your commentary. This is highly inappropriate. Final warning. If you insist on using such attacks, I will recommend you be blocked. --Durin 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Nevermind. You've already been blocked. Perhaps you'll learn the lesson granted by this block. --Durin 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Non free content criteria have been partially rewritten

Hi Durin. I was looking through WT:NFC and I noticed a link to User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation. I thought you should know that what you've written there is a bit out-of-date, as WP:NFCC and WP:NFC have been changing a bit lately. Not massive changes, but enough that those heavily involved in image work should be aware of. I'd be interested in your opinions on the changes and the discussions on the talk page at WT:NFC. Would you have time to do that? Carcharoth 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• When I have time, yes, which is not right now. Tomorrow probably :) --Durin 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. One of the issues I raised somewhere on that page is the matter of this deadline of April 2008. I had a closer look at the WMF Licensing Policy, and it looks like the layout of the document is confusing. The deadline is the third subclause of bullet point 6, and thus appears to be only referring to projects without an EDP. Bullet point 5 contains a date for projects with an EDP, but the date only refers to the point from which the policy applies to new images. There appear to be no deadline for the discussion of old images. I'm convinced this is a layout typo, but it is rather sloppy. Carcharoth 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chess Piece, MAR, etc.

Okay look, unless you actually TRY to make a comprimise or at least discuss this, then I see no point to listening to you when I have just as much authority. I will listen, however, should we sit down like adults and discuss what images should and shouldn't be used, rather than take one-sided opinions and then take nothing else into consideration. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've instructed those of you involved in this dispute as to the policy and the prior decisions. The endless debates about this issue are pointless. The policy, and how I am editing in support of it, stand. If you want to have an image at the top of the page such as a logo for the anime in question, fine. A group photo, perhaps. Individual photos of individual characters is a violation of our policies. There's really no room to compromise on this. If there were, I'd be quite happy to do so. The core principle here is that we are a free content encyclopedia, and copyrighted content is discouraged, not encouraged. Minimal use must be supported, and the Foundation recently ruled on this as you have been directed to before. As one Board member said, consensus can not outweigh this issue. Even if you had 100 people saying what I am doing is wrong, and I was the only one on this local project saying I was right, the *Foundation* would still be right. I'm not sure how I can be clearer about this. The overuse of fair use images is being deprecated project wide. We have a deadline of April of 2008. If you have issue with this, take it up with the Foundation. I don't write the policy. You can contact them at Foundation:Contact us. Thank you, --Durin 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the honorable Durin may have missed the part where Wiki's articles, policies, etc are in constant change because of discussions and comprimises involving sensible ideas and open minds, so I'll add this comment to remind him. - The Norse 21:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As I noted above, this issue can not be outweighed by consensus. Please fully read and understand Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The Foundation can and does dictate and can override consensus on any issue they so please. --Durin 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)