User talk:Durin

Mail for me

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

Some Candidates for you

Some worthy candidates?

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 Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, and have added links to my user page in order to be able to find them quickly. Also, I find Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 [1] 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.
• Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia... 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 Wikipedia, you're doing it. This is Wikipedia, just as much as any other aspect of it is. If you question the policy, you can bring it up at places such as [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)] or Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It is not enough to gain permission to use the images here on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 [2] 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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/wiki/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)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, it is not an interpretation of policy. This is essentially inviolable law so far as Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Harassment where it says that stalking "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia 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)