Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:49, 8 June 2006

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

vicrovers logo

G'day,

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

Patrick McCormick VicRovers Chairman www.vicrovers.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmc82 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• If you send me an e-mail to wikidurin@hotmail.com from an e-mail address obviously associated with Victorian Rovers, then yes I would be happy to change the licensing tag on Image:Rovers-Victoria.jpg to a tag that would allow its use as you indicate. --Durin 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WTC7

There's just got to be a way we can come to a compromise here. Will you accept a link to an alternate POV site if we can find one which isn't over-commercial? Or is your stance an absolutist one? Because it seems to me you have changed the basis we were arguing on in the article's talk page. Have a think about it and let me know. I do not have any particular POV on this but my stance is that s a point of principle, common sense and (I would argue) Wiki policy, there just has to be a link of some kind there. Once we can agree on that it just becomes a problem of finding the right link, you see... Guinnog 00:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've never argued against the POV. I've argued against the link to wt7.net and later whatreallyhappened.com, and have been consistent in my opposition to them based on Misplaced Pages guidelines. My arguments against them are on the talk page of the article. In short, find a sight that doesn't violate copyright, does not have false authority, and is not overtly trying to sell something. --Durin 12:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. In that case, it should be possible to solve this argument without resorting to mediation I think.Guinnog 17:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's unlikely that it will not escalate. I have no interest in seeing it escalate, but there has been a distinct lack of capability on the part of both parties in this situation to come to any middle ground.
• Regarding the POV's notability, I don't think we've established that it is or is not a notable POV. There's plenty of conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. This is not surprising given the dramatic, unprecedented nature of the events on that day. Humans tend to look for astonishing answers to astonishing situations, rather than find solace in the mundane answers that might be reality. One of the conspiracy theories out there is that WTC 1/2 came down as a result of a nuclear bomb that was blown up at some depth beneath the towers. The claim of that theory is that the buildings "jumped" before they fell, and the only way that could happen is a very large force from beneath them. An astonishing answer to an astonishing situation. Is it a notable POV? From what I've seen, it isn't...but I'm not the final arbiter on what is notable by any means. I think the determination has to lie somewhere in other means, and to help that we need independently verifiable evidence that a POV has significant notability to it.
• It might come as a surprise, but in this project we are not after the truth, first and foremost (see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability). I personally do not think there's any basis in reality for concluding that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished. There's a huge, huge amount of evidence which completely undermines that flawed notion, even without a final report (as yet) from NIST. But, this theory being flawed or not is not a basis for including or not including it here on Misplaced Pages. Is it verifiable and is it notable? That's the criteria. We can certainly verify that this POV exists (and we can also verify that the notion of nuclear bombs under WTC that day is verifiable), but we also need to verify that it is notable. That sets it up for inclusion; from there we need to then follow guidelines for inclusion, which wtc7.net does not pass (nor does whatreallyhappened.com).
• We include information here at Misplaced Pages on Chemtrail theory, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and TWA 800. All of those conspiracy theories I find (and the mass majority as well) to be crackpot 'science', with little basis in reality. But, I would mightily defend the presence of information on these conspiracy theories here on Misplaced Pages. They are notable and verifiable. There's no questioning that they are. For WTC 7 being intentionally demolished, I think we've yet to prove if its notable or not on its own. What is notable enough is whether people thought there was government collusion in one form or another regarding 9/11. Breaking it down from that, we get significant factionalization of the varying conspiracy theories; supposedly unmarked 767s, United 93 being shot down, no plane hitting the Pentagon, F-15s being told to stand down, SAM sites being turned off, nuclear bombs beneath the towers, demolition charges inside WTC 1,2, and 7, no muslims onboard any of the hijacked planes, all of the terrorists being reported alive, jews being warned before hand, muslims celebrating the fall of the towers watching from New Jersey, a trial in a nearby court house being disrupted by the 9/11 events, nefarious trading on the stock exchange in the 48 hours leading up to 9/11, and on...and on...and on. It virtually doesn't end. Sifting through all of that and finding what is and is not notable is difficult at best.
• I don't personally know how notable the theory that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished is. So far, the only sites that I have seen fronting this theory have been hawking books, DVDs, t-shirts, etc. They also, to a site, use supposedly authoritative sources but none of them do. I remember one site (not the ones we're discussing here) that cited a professor as an authority figure who turned out to be (this is no joke) a professor of leisure and entertainment. I'm not making this up. The existence of such sites does not lend credibility to the idea that this theory is notable, in fact rather the opposite in my mind.
• So, I think we need to find if this theory on WTC 7 being intentionally demolished is notable. I grant that is subjective, and there's plenty of room for argument, but it is a necessary step. Once that is done, then whatever site(s) we use to illustrate that POV needs to pass our inclusion guidelines. Then we will, I think, have achieved a happy neutral zone. However, I hope rather than believe the existing parties in this debate are capable of reaching that compromise.
• I fully expect User:Hyperbole to file an RfC against me because of either intentional or unintentional misconstrueing of my intent. He insists that I have been defending a POV when I most definitely have not. I can easily prove this, and even he agrees in one post of his that I wasn't. It is going to go poorly for him if he does bring this to RfC. I don't want to see that happen. I really don't. But, at this time, I think it's a foregone conclusion that he is going to take it to RfC.
• I don't know if the above has helped, but thanks for listening. --Durin 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• One, in general my position on the article is rather radically different than MONGO's. My position on the POV of what happened to WTC 7 is completely irrelevant to this dispute; it has no bearing on my actions or what I think should or should not be in the article. As I noted above, Misplaced Pages is *not* about truth, it's about verifiability and notability.
• Two, a heated revert warring was going on. I attempted to stop it with rationale and a poll to gain consensus. This was ineffective. Since the revert warring continued apace, I as an administrator stepped in to stop in. With the exception of a few additional reverts over a new link, the revert war stopped. You can call that over zealous if you like. The result was that the revert warring stopped, and people are doing what should be done...discussing it on the talk page. The outcome was precisely what was needed.
• Three, you are correct; nobody died in the collapse of WTC 7. Or at least, so far as we know. There were efforts on the part of FDNY that day to ensure the building was evacuated.
• Four, since I am not arguing in favor of one POV or another, FEMA's interim conclusions on the matter in so far as they apply to my position are irrelevant.
• Five, I have taken no position regarding the Popular Mechanics article.
• Six, not arguing against the POV and requesting that determination of a POV's notability are not mutually exclusive. Consider the difference between "The notion that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished is flawed" and "Is the demolition theory notable enough for inclusion?" are radically different statements. In the former case, it's not something I've used to direct me in any way regarding the content of the article. In the latter, I have asked that question because it is a question Misplaced Pages asks us to ask prior to including such links. I haven't changed my mind on this in any respect; the two points are simply not mutually exclusive.
• Seven, the site you referenced, as I noted elsewhere, is immediately attempting to sell something; a book based on the website. Further, every image in that presentation is unattributed, and violates copyright if only for that reason alone. If something is used under fair use, credit should be given but none has been given. The site violates copyright. Further, there's no basis in authority for the site, and we have as yet no assertion that the POV of WTC 7 being intentionally demolished is notable enough for inclusion.
• Eight, the difference between the sites we're debating and sites like cnn.com is that cnn.com isn't trying to get you to buy a book about 9/11. The sites that have been put forth so far are doing precisely that, which makes them objectionable as external links.
• Lastly, I've offered a potential way out of this morass at Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#A_way_out_of_this_mess.3F. Feel free to agree/disagree. --Durin 22:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good input. I appreciate your courtesy and good faith. I read that you are keeping an eye on this. Please accept that I too am editing in good faith. I only got involved because I saw what looked like censorship at work. My POV on this is that the degree of mystery about this building's collapse, years after the event, is weird however you look at it. I don't believe for a moment any of the laser-guided 757 theories about the WTC 1 and 2, the Pentagon etc. But if a steel framed building could fall down after seemingly minor fires, and the evidence not properly collected from the scene of crime, surely that is noteworthy? And if the best we can do to reflect that is a link that you find unacceptable, would a summary of the info be any better? At the moment the article lacks either. I think we should have both an honest description of the mystery of the cause, and a link. My instinct is that a link, properly labelled as a POV one, will allow our readers to judge for themselves.

Anyway, thanks for reading, Guinnog 22:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:BladeRunner Deckard and Rachael.jpg

Wow... a great improvement. Noticed it immediately when skimming the article. Good work.
- RoyBoy 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! There's a number of images on that article that suffer the same problems. Some simple cleanup really improves them dramatically. I might get around to it eventually. --Durin 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. Behind. You.

<taps you on shoulder> yes, I'm around ;-) Kim Bruning 19:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RfA candidate being present for 7 days

Hello Durin. As a famous nominator of RfA candidates, I noticed that you noted that one should not accept an RfA at a given time unless one will be logged in regularly for those seven days. Speaking personally for myself, I don't have internet access on weekends, and I have stated this on my userpage for the whole of this year that I have certain hours of the day only when I am around. Is this a major problem? Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Most new questions added on to RfAs happen within the first three days, and any commentary that needs to be responded to will most likely happen in that window as well. It'd be best if you could be around for the duration of the RfA, but if you must miss some days it's better to have those towards the end of the seven days rather than the beginning. So, I'd recommend in your case that you begin the RfA on a Monday or Tuesday, and at the latest a Wednesday. Hope that helps, --Durin 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to...

... nominate me for adminship?

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

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

However, I may still be looking at myself too highly, so I'd appreciate any decision you make. Thanks and regards, Kimchi.sg 09:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've got one other person to nominate before you. Once I'm complete with that one, you'll be first on the list to review. --Durin 12:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

history of CGI in film entry

Hello,

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

I'm new to Misplaced Pages but I thought the idea behind the site was to keep things accurate, so why were my (correct) revisions removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnbc (talk • contribs) 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Edits by anonymous IPs that are not sourced are frequently reverted. My initial reversion of the information was done correctly; it was not sourced and thus should have been reverted. You then posted to the talk page, and reposted the content. I was in error for not checking the talk page after your first inclusion of the information and my reversion. I've now reverted myself to your last version. All the best, --Durin 21:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Picsquare

Hi Durin,

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

Thanks, --Kartik.jain 22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Hi Durin,

We are a start-up 5 months old. However, to give you some idea about the Picsquare, kindly visit the following link (we were featured in the San Jose Mercury News and Indiana Business Journal)

• http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?s_site=mercurynews&p_multi=SJ%7C&p_product=SJ&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=Picsquare&s_dispstring=Picsquare%20AND%20date(last%20180%20days)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=-180qzD&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
• http://www.ibj.com/html/story022006_2.html

I would appreciate if you could put up the article for Picsquare on wiki.

Thanks, Kartik --Kartik.jain 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Durin,

Did you get a chance to look at the links that I had mentioned?

Thanks, Kartik Kartik.jain 05:47, 17 May 2006

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

Quake template image

Just wondering exactly where the image fails the fair use policy. The quake logo and indeed the cover has been released to the public previously. Reason I am asking is that there are many more under the Userboxes/Games section which use logos of the games they represent. Metroid, TES, Jax just to name a few so your modification seems inconsistent. Enigmatical 22:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Any image marked with a fair use tag may not be used in template or userspace. This is per WP:FUC #9. The existence of images in other userboxes that violate policy is not grounds for inclusion of other violations in userboxes. There are literally thousands upon thousands of userboxes. I am personally working through every one of them. But, this effort has taken two months already and will take more. By the time I am done, I am quite certain that a number of the boxes I previously checked will have violations in them again. Additionally, there will be plenty more new userboxes with these violations. Nevertheless, the work must be done and the presence of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is simply not permitted. --Durin 00:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Understood, was just confused as to how you could change these when already existing ones were clearly evident and have been there for a very long time. Will keep this fact in mind for the future, many thanks. Enigmatical 05:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

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

Policy pages

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

BTW, do you have a comment for that page? I know you weigh things carefully. I'm really shocked: scratch beneath the surface, and lots of people want us to lock down pages. Marskell 22:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• I saw it, but wanted more time to sift through it. If I can get some time, I'll weigh in. --Durin 22:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pudgenet revert war/related issues

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

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

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

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

216.204.69.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Just a note: I went ahead and blocked this one even though the user had stopped, based on the history. RadioKirk talk to me 16:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw. I handle such cases differently, but I don't have an issue with the way this was handled. --Durin 16:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of userbox from userpage

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

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

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

User:Jesus On Wheels

The Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate_usernames username policy outlines problematic names, including "Names of religious figures such as "God" or "Allah", which may offend other people's beliefs", we wouldn't permit "Mohammed on wheels", so I can't see why we'd permit this. He is more than welcome to change his username to something else. FWIW I did discuss this with a couple of other admins before putting the block in place. The user hasn't emailed me or requested an unblock on his user page (nor had he editted for a gap of 6 months prior to turning up to accept an RFA nom.) --pgk 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I still disagree with the block. More appropriate would have been an attempt to get him to change his username rather than slapping him with an indefinite block, which had been done before and cleared on appeal. If I were this user, I'd feel pretty smashed into the dirt over this. Right now, he can't even make the username change request because he's been banned. There's no reason to believe this person is WoW or a vandal other than his username. His lack of contributions should not be used as a means of demonizing him. Please unblock him, at least to give him a chance to change his username. --Durin 16:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who is it who believe he is WoW of a vandal? No one is accusing him of that, it's been blocked as an inappropriate username which clearly it is. I don't know of this "cleared on appeal" an admin unblocked him because he believed he isn't WoW, since I've not blocked him on the basis of being WoW I can't see the relevance of it. Nor am I demonizing him for a lack of conributions, my point was that given his inactivity he quite possibly hasn't even noticed. He can make requests for change since he can post to his talk, also he can email me. He's done neither. If you feel strongly about it by all means unblock and request him to change it. --pgk 16:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Since I will not engage in wheel warring, I will not undo your actions. That's why I've been trying to convince you of the error I feel you have made. You feel otherwise. So, we smash a user into the dirt. Not to worry; there's lots more where they came from. Sigh. :( --Durin 16:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider it wheel warring, I've openly invited you to undo my action if you feel strongly about it. I'm not going to instantly redo the block. --pgk 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've said what I'm going to say. Apparently, it wasn't enough to convince you. --Durin 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

U.S. state seal images copyright status

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

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

– Swid 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• Durin, I came across your answer here and want to point out that MOST state seals have been around so long that, even if they were originally protected by copyright, they would have entered the public domain long ago. That is not to say that there might be some other form of protection, either under common law or specific state statutes, but the protection granted by the U.S. copyright statutes probably does not extend to most state seals. -- DS1953 04:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Probably so, but we should not be making assumptions. Instead, we should not be using images of questionable copyright status in improper ways until we verify their copyright status. Our general stance is that seals and other emblems are copyrighted. Without confirmation of their copyright status, images with that tag must be presumed to have copyright protections and thus their use here must be under terms of fair use law. --Durin 12:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree 100% that we should never assume anything is in the public domain (even a very old state can have a newly designed seal). Though I would assume that the Nebraska state seal dates back to early statehood, I would not allow a tag based on that assumption. However, if someone wanted to use that assumption to do the research to establish that the Nebraska state seal was adopted in 1867 and determine that the original seal is still in use today and noted that fact on the image page, then I would conclude that the seal is in the public domain. -- DS1953 14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• In a fit of productivity, I sent an email to the Nebraska Secretary of State's office yesterday; I will pass along the results of my inquiry. – Swid 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• May we all be blessed with such fits :) --Durin 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Well, here's the email exchange that's taken place between the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office and I. To be honest, I don't know exactly how I should handle this; any advice you (or anyone else you know who can also provide useful advice) can offer would be greatly appreciated.

In response to your e-mail concerning the status of the Nebraska Great Seal, I submit the following:

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

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

Ronald D. Moravec

Chief Deputy Secretary of State

Secretary of State's Office

PO Box 94608

State Capitol, Suite 2300

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4608

Phone (402) 471-4071

Thank you for your response.

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

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

Jesse Whidden

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

Ronald D. Moravec

Hopefully, I haven't gotten in over my head here... – Swid 14:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Re: Image problems

I will look into the copyright for the images, but I will need a few days to contact the appropriate officials to receive permission to upload the pictures. TBC found this but I'm not sure whether it applies to all Montgomery County government pages (including MCPS's website) or just their own website, so I will have to sort this out. Thank you. --M@thwiz2020 20:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted the webmaster of www.mcpsmd.org. --M@thwiz2020 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Please ask rather than editing my user page and my userboxen page. I'm more than capable of doing it myself. Thank you. ···日本穣 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Those pages are not strictly yours. They were not in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, and within the bounds of that policy what I did was perfectly acceptable. All the best, --Durin 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless, it's considered good manners to ask me to do it first. As it is, you completely broke several of the userboxes on my page, causing all sorts of funky formatting problems. It would behoove you to not use a steamroller when something much more delicate could have been done. I appreciate your cooperation in the future should you ever feel the urge to edit my pages again. ···日本穣 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Your complaint is not isolated, nor do I expect it to be so. To date, I've done nearly 800 of these edits with little in the way of complaint regarding editing of userpages. Also, please see User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images#You_could_have_at_least_asked_me_before_doing_this.21. Please understand these are not just violations of Misplaced Pages policy, they are most likely violations of copyright law, and this constitutes a real threat to the very existence of Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry you incorrectly feel as possessive as you do about your userpage, but the reality is that your userpage is not "yours", and it must adhere to policy just as articles must. If you still feel motivated to insist people not edit your userpage, then please by all means start an RfC on the matter. --Durin 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not that you are editing (and trashing, essentially) other people's user pages, but that you don't have the courtesy to give the person a chance do it themselves. I would support a complaint against you if Nihon started one as you did the same thing to mine.Michael Dorosh 14:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Then by all means please do. I'd welcome it. --Durin 14:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

hi, I was working on something at my sandbox, User:Preschooler.at.heart/Sandbox, and you erased all the images I had. i understand your complaint, but it's a personal wiki sandbox, not a userpage. please ask before editing it. thanks. preschooler@heart 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Whether a sandbox or no, they are still pages in userspace. The use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace is not permitted by WP:FUC #9. Thanks, --Durin 03:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This is another example of you using a steamroller when you could have done things much more politely. Would it have inconvenienced you so much to wait long enough for Preschooler.at.heart to reply to a note on his/her Talk page? ···日本穣 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • See above at "My user page". --Durin 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyright issues deleting Image:Kickflip.gif.

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

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

thanks for clarifying this for me.

Cheers --Peej 03:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've deleted it. Thanks! --Durin 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Block of User:68.226.23.44

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

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

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

Ok, done. Could you keep that IP on your watchlist in case he/she replies when I've gone off? (i.e. please unblock if a positive response appears) Petros471 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm heading out myself. But, I'll add. Going to be away for much of the (US) holiday weekend. --Durin 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Meep! And now I blocked User:204.209.59.11 as you removed him from WP:AIV :) In this case, I decided to block because there was ongoing vandalism and the IP had been repeatedly blocked before. We're just working at odds :) --Durin 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol. If it was a static I might have blocked, but being shared I generally treat them as if it's a new user at the computer. Btw, I haven't seen you at AIV much- is it the calls for more attention recently that brought you there? Petros471 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, I just pop in there every so often. It's on my watchlist, and when I'm looking for admin stuff to do, I check it out (among other things). I agree the anon-IP could be a different person. My own metric is that if I can't find any real contributory edits from the IP in the recent past, and there's a history of blocks for prior poor behavior, then I move to block. Maybe that's too hasty. --Durin 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Every admin has there own blocking style, and often it's only the very extreme ones that are doing anything wrong, so I'm not going to worry to much about it either way. Petros471 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm insane, don't you remember? :) --Durin 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm, not really... In fact I remember you as the very first user on Misplaced Pages I learnt to respect as being plain reliably good (and that was when I was in my lurking days well before anyone paid any notice of my presence). Petros471 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• And now look at you! Now you're a rouge admin! :) --Durin 22:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No problems here

I've come to appreciate your perspective on Fair Use Images and so I have no quarrel with you anymore. I'm sorry that others haven't come to the same conclusion. --Dragon695 04:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Given that you were quite upset with me before about this subject, this means a great deal to me. I really appreciate your kind words. Thanks! --Durin 12:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Advise On Image:Daw_Aung_San_Suu_Kyi.JPEG

As you may or may not know, the nonviolent pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest was indefinitely extended by the Myanmar (Burma) dictatorship. So, as I was checking the page to see if it had been updated, I noticed someone has removed her biographical image. Investigation shows that it does not have a copyright tag. Can you help me determine the appropriate copyright tag based on the this copyright statement from the website it was taken from? Thanks in advance! --Dragon695 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've modified Image:Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.JPEG to have a {{Fair use in}} tag, which I feel is appropriate given the copyright statement you cited. That statement is somewhat contradictory, with the most restrictive statement being personal use only. Thus, it's not clear of copyright claims for use in Misplaced Pages. As a result, the fair use tag is probably the best tag to apply. I've re-added the image to Aung San Suu Kyi. --Durin 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: BN

Durin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orphaned fair use template

Hi Durin. I just wanted to drop you a message that when tagging images as CSD I5, you can just use {{orfud}}. Your previous method was causing the images to not correctly be sorted by date. {{orfud}} does that for you. I have already corrected the problem images. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and of course they have to always be subst: to make it work correctly. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

chonga

"Chonga" is NOT a neologism, it is an ACTUAL high school stereotype that is ACTUALLY used to describe people, the same as prep, emo, jock, etc. All of those DO have articles about them and I don't see why chonga shouldn't. I didn't just make it up. Are you insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamajared (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages works on the basis of verifiability and notability. Show me a way to verify that the term "chonga" actually exists, and do so using notable means and I could see a case for inclusion of the article. Failing that, I won't undelete the article. If you like, you can take up the matter at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, rather than make attempts at convincing me. All the best, --Durin 02:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't you help Tamajared even a little bit? They took the trouble to contact you! :-) Kim Bruning 16:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did a little research and found a couple of articles mentioning chongas. However, they had nothing to do with the deleted material. Besides the football player, Kenyan region, and a few people with the surname Chonga, I found an interesting meaning. Chonga is the word that Japanese use for businessmen who have moved to a city for work, perhaps anticipating bringing their families along later, who basically live in the city during the week, and spend the weekends back with the family. It is a "joke label" meaning "bachelor husbands". Specifically, "To-chons" are "Tokyo-chongas" where Tokyo is the city in question. (LA Times 10-11-93; NY Times 9-11-84) Not like you really care, just thought you might find it interesting. Cheers. --You Know Who 16:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting :) I'm mainly going off of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chonga. I doubt little has changed since then to warrant the inclusion of the article, or another AfD. We have one person being very vocal about it's inclusion. This is not a unique situation to be sure :) --Durin 16:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think it should be recreated in its last state of things (fairly unverifiable and frankly, uncivil and ridiculing). Nor probably with anything I have found, I was just adding a little twist. Thought I'd interject a little research into things. Silly research and sources... :-) --You Know Who 16:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• How dare you! Do it again and I'll ban you! ;) Wait a minute...you're an admin. You can unblock yourself. Crap. I wish I'd voted against you in your RfA! ;) --Durin 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't!! That's it, buddy. One more threat like that and it's off to ArbCom with you! ;-) --You Know Who 17:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

PeeWipes - please clear the edit history

This protected deleted page currently has some edit history that involves the deleted content. Please clear out the edit history by deleting this page and then reprotecting it with {{deletedpage}}. 69.117.11.27 19:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• The only edit history there not from me is a page blanking. There's no reason to wipe it. --Durin 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion

I don't understand why the Michael Muhammad Knight page was deleted - he is a VERY well known author in the progressive islamic movement and the author of The Taqwacores - a book with it's own wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daynamarie (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• It isn't uncommon for articles that lack any significant information substantiating a person's notability to be deleted. Feel free to recreate the article, but please do include substantial information on what this person is notable for, using verifiable sources. If you have questions on the matter, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it IS unusual for articles to be deleted in that manner - generally speaking, an article is identified as a stub and the creator of the page asked to provide proof of notability instead of just being deleted. Again, part of that common courtesy thing you've been talked to on other pages.Michael Dorosh 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• And which you've failed to engage in discussion on despite repeated invitations. If you want change to happen, you need to engage in consensus garnering discussions. I'm sorry Michael, but you are quite incorrect. Please see WP:CSD A7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." and see {{Db-bio}}. Biographies of non-notable people are deleted on a regular basis, and with good reason. In fact, as of right now, 39 of the last 500 articles deleted were because they were biographies of non-notable people. --Durin 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

stansberry page

I am unclear as to why you delete the stansberry article I am inputting. While not internationally famous, the company is still quite known and is in the top 3 independent financial newsletter and publication companies in the world. The content I am publishing is our own material and is not a violation of any copyright material sinec we are the owners of it and are the ones creating the article. I would prefer a detailed explanation and if it is possible, what needs to be changed in order to include this on wikipedia. regards.

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

Deleting copy from other people's user pages

Remove fair use violations if you want, but don't delete other users' personal copy in the process. I doubt you would appreciate similar 'creative edits' on your own user page.--Primalchaos 17:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually I would appreciate it if someone found images on in my userspace which in their user violated wikipedia policy. I removed fair use violations from your userpage, and nothing more. I am unclear as to what you mean by "personal copy". I retained the text of your comments on those images, just removed the images. You re-inserted Image:Isaac asimov.jpg. I've removed it again as it is tagged as a fair use image, and you are not permitted to display it as you have been doing in your userspace. --Durin 20:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Response here: User talk:Primalchaos#Removing_fair_use_images--Primalchaos 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor grammar tweaks to introduction of User:Durin/Removal of fair use images

I couldn't resist making this small change to fix a minor grammar fault and (I thought) make it read better. My apologies if this is unwelcome. --Tony Sidaway 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember me? ;]

So how are you these days? Could we finally finish things up? (sounds so mysterious, doesn't ;]) Renata 11:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Who are you? Have we met before? How did you find my name? ;) Yes, I remember you. Been thinking about you this week in fact, as things have freed up a bit. I hope to get to it soon, possibly today (depends on a few factors). Thanks so much for your patience! --Durin 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol, and I heard it somewhere before ;P Renata 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Carolina Website

Good Afternoon,

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

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

Thank you for your time.

schappells@hhbrown.com 800-438-7026 x 234 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.69.37 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Superiority Complex

You need to get over yourself.... it's just an internet website. Get a life and stop patrolling my userpage talk #c 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages isn't just an internet website. It is run by a non-profit organization and can be sued in a court of law for copyright infringements. If you do not think this can happen, just look at what happened at The_Pirate_Bay#May_2006_police_raid. Companies take protection of their copyrights very, very seriously. The policy against fair use images in userspace was established to prevent lawsuits. I should think you would be in favor of this since preventing lawsuits aids in the continued existence of Misplaced Pages. --Durin 17:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I come to Misplaced Pages to have fun... I think adding information to the best encyclopedia is very fun. Do I get paid for it? No. Do you? No. So why do something (i.e. policing wikipedia) that gains you neither money nor pleasure? My only answer can be that it DOES give you a sick, self-important sort of pleasure, which is just pathetic. talk #c 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• In removing fair use images from your userspace, I work to protect the project against copyright lawsuits so that it can exist for all of us. Removing such images is boring and mind numbingly dull. I'd rather not do it. But, it must be done. I am motivated to do it because the violation of trademarks and copyrights is one of the most serious threats facing the very existence of Misplaced Pages. --Durin 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding information is great. Having fun is good too. Breaking the law, however, is a nono. I'm sure you didn't do it intentionally though!

As long as you listen to Durin carefully when he points out that something is illegal, and you won't do it again, that's fine.

Durin, don't forget to be nice to new folks. You did take the time to explain upfront, right? :-) Kim Bruning 17:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I am not new.... I've been here since Fall 2004 or thereabouts... I know the rules, I just don't always follow them. talk #c 18:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• No Kim, I did not and will not unless consensus dramatically shifts at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals. --Durin 18:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Perl admin

Just noticed you had tried to get involved in the Perl issue in mid may. I am the mediator for the Mediation Cabal case that was filed soon thereafter. Mediation has not been succesful due to lack of cooperation. I need administrator assistance to resolve this issue (a little bit of a stick). Are you willing to help? (I'd be asking for things like page locks, 24 hour blocks...) nothing serious and not repeated. Just enough to get their attention. You can reply here I'll monitor this page jbolden1517 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)]

Excellent! Can you give me a page protection (main page not the talk page) I'll probably need it for 2 days. I'll let you know when to pull it. Also if you can make a statement "Interfering with the mediation process will be considered trolling. Attacking other users is forbidden." That would be very helpful. I can start changing the culture once I can get them to cooperate with the process. Thanks! jbolden1517 12:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --Durin 12:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry forgot to ask but can you put the protection template on the main article, I'm not sure they will know what's happening without it. jbolden1517 12:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• You can do that yourself :) But yes, I'll add it. --Durin 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, we got there attention. Next thing I need is a block on Pudgenet. You've had problems with him, he was being highly disruptive on my previous mediation, he's trying again on this one and he's now deleted stuff I explicitly told him not to delete on his talk page. Basically a short term trolling block. I want him to have to agree to terms of behavior. jbolden1517 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is dicier. I'll investigate, but I want clear basis for blocking before doing so. Removing content from his own talk page is not a blockable offense. --Durin 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Right after your warning I got this one . As long as this nonsense continues I can't work with the rest of the group. jbolden1517 18:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

I replied to your comments on my talk page at your email address. Same account name at yahoo. jbolden1517 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you let me know if you got and haven't replied yet or didn't get? jbolden1517 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I replied, just now. --Durin 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is a Coat of Arms a fair use image, or in the public domain?

I've noticed that you're something of an authority on the legality (or otherwise) of images on wikipedia. I've noticed the following in the Fair Use Policy:

9. Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are often enough not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. (My emphasis)

My query is about Image:Sweden lesser arms2.png. The licensing section does not say that it is copyrighted but does restrict its use in commercial advertising. Can I use this on a template (specifically this one that I'm drafting)? Does it count as a "fair use image". I assumed that, by definition, only a copyrighted image can be fair use. Also, the coat of arms is on Commons (who don't accept any unfree images, even fair use copyrighted images). But I'm no expert on this. I hope you can help. Tamino 20:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• My read on it is that the image is free to use on a non-commercial basis. Such images are simply not allowed on Misplaced Pages to be used under such terms. Instead, a fair use tag is appropriate. The image resides on commons however. I've had little success in getting things corrected there. --Durin 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So I definately can't use it on a template? Can I use the Swedish flag, or is that under the same restrictions? Tamino 17:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Flags don't suffer the same restrictions, generally. You're probably safe to use that. --Durin 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing my images

If you must removie my profile images without warning, please don't leave leftover tag information to clutter up my page when i try to edit it. I have no need for blank "center"/center" tags that don't serve any purpose. RatherBeBiking 00:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I remove images that are in violation. I do not remove other elements that are not in violation, as it up to the user to decide what to do with it after the image removal. For me to decide would be presumptuous. --Durin 01:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser complete

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

Thanks

Thanks for linkifying the images on my Userpage. Can you show me the syntax so that I can do that in the future? - Mike(talk) 23:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you edit the page, you can see the syntax I used. --Durin 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Croatia_Footbal

is there any way that the logo of the Croatian Football Federation can be include on the Template:User_Croatia_Footbal, or does it have to be another image? Can you suggest a good image to replace the old one? Ivan Kricancic 11:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm sorry. The Croatian football logo is used here under the terms of fair use. Our usage policy prohibits the use of that logo (and any other fair use image) outside of the main article namespace. Since I'm not familiar with Croatian football, I have no suggestions on a replacement. --Durin 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Durin/Removal of fair use images page

Hi, would you mind if I made an (almost) duplicate of this page User:Durin/Removal of fair use images and put it on my user page. I want to use it the same way as you do. Maybe that would help some of the fair use discussions I had recently. Garion96 15:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Everything on Misplaced Pages is open source, you don't need Durin's permission to use anything he creates here - see the free licensing agreements. :-) Michael Dorosh 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• That's certainly true but asking if someone minds is politeness, even if not required, and can often lead to offers to work together and make a reusable thing. Reuse by transclusion is much more powerful than reuse by copying. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Correct, one can for instance copy someone's userpage, but it's polite to ask. And just common sense. Garion96 19:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And after reading some of the comment's on this page. I like to add that I also don't think it's necessary to warn a person before removing a copyright image on a user page. Which I now realise Michael was arguing against. Garion96 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're in favour of courtesy by discussion before action. I find it quite impossible to argue with that. You have my respect.Michael Dorosh 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• This is a predictable response by you Michael, and makes attempts to undermine my position on another topic using completely unrelated circumstances. I'd appreciate it if you stopped using my talk page to front your position. I've invited you to contribute regarding this dispute at appropriate locations and you have categorically refused to do so. --Durin 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

State seals

Where did you come up with the fanciful idea that state seals were being used in Misplaced Pages under a "fair-use" license? The license for seals is not a fair use license at all, it discusses the types of licenses seals can covered by. The state seal of New Jersey was published in the 1700s. Please do more homework before you start deleting material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please see the licensing tag that is on Image:New Jersey state seal.png. Observe the section for seals. On this image there is no verification that the copyright has expired. Given that absence of such, it must be presumed that the image is used under a fair use license here on Misplaced Pages. You may wish to see User_talk:Durin#U.S._state_seal_images_copyright_status where a similar issue was discussed. In that case, Nebraska became a state in 1867, and presumably it's seal was created around the same time. Nevertheless, the state still actively protects it's copyright on the image. Failing presentation of evidence that the seal of the state of New Jersey has been released in the public domain or proof is provided that the copyright has expired and the state of New Jersey recognizes this, the image is used here on Misplaced Pages under terms of Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria. I am reverting your re-insertion of the image into Template:New Jersey Prep. Please do not re-insert the image without contacting the state government of New Jersey regarding copyright clearance. Thank you, --Durin 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Also, if I might suggest, you could use Image:Flag of New Jersey.svg instead of the seal. The flag does not carry the same copyright encumbrances. --Durin 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Also, I did a bit of investigation and found that the New Jersey state seal was redesigned in 1928. Thus, claims that it is in the public domain because of age may not be valid. --Durin 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated blanked license information

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

Congrats!!...

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

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

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

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

More WTC 7

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

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

Of course the 'sides' are the problem. If you, and your 'side' could listen to my (never mind my "side"'s) suggestions towards improving the article, maybe we could stop thinking in terms of sides. --Guinnog 18:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're expecting me to do, beyond the near constant dialogue that has occurred on this subject for these last months. I feel myself heading towards yet another explanation regarding this situation, yet I am tempered with the knowledge that such an explanation will once again fail to produce anything. I have repeatedly shown basis in guidelines and policy as to where I think the article should be. If you have any concerns about where I stand, read the talk page history. It's all there. --Durin 19:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I've read the history. Your consistent record of interpreting wiki policies towards not including any reference to the doubt about specifically WTC7's collapse is a matter of record. How you can further contribute to this debate is of course a matter that only you can decide. As before, I only ask that you treat the article as you would any other and try to be fair-minded in your interpretation of NPOV, and fair, well-balanced and intellectually honest in any edits to the talk page. Thanks --Guinnog 19:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• One thing that I have observed is that my stance has routinely been misinterpreted, whether by you or others. I'm not sure how I can be more emphatic about this. Please don't take this as insulting, but consider that I am saying this in mile high amazingly bright neon lights along with the biggest sound system the world has ever seen: I am not opposed to the doubt about WTC 7's collapse being in the article. I am opposed to it being in the article without any rational assertion of notability for the particular theory. Please, I beg of you, please stop stating my position as being opposed to the theory being in the article. I've stated many times now that I think the theory is absurdly ridiculous, but that has nothing to do with whether I think it should be in the article. Misplaced Pages is not about fact, it's about truth. There's a distinct difference. I thoroughly believe that it is a fact that WTC 7 was not intentionally demolished. Every claim that I've seen to support that theory is laughably absurd. I've been in hysterics reading some of the incredibly imaginitive stuff people have popped out of their heads on this theory. But, it doesn't matter if everyone here on Misplaced Pages believed it was a fact that WTC 7 was not intentionally demolished. If there were rational, reasonable basis on which to assert notability for that particular conspiracy theory, we're obligated to include it in the article. But to date, nobody has provided proof it is a notable theory. For example, Hyperbole insists the Zogby poll proves the demolition theory is notable; yet the poll makes no mention whatsoever about a demolition theory. If the above does not convince you as to what my stance is, I am at a loss as to how to communicate my stance. --Durin 19:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you do seem to be. I am not Hyberbole, I am Guinnog.

I wasn't talking about any particular hypothesis, I was talking about the doubt you say you agree with including, and which the Zogby poll verifies, albeit imperfectly. --Guinnog 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Zogby poll isn't just imperfect, it's misleading. It's junk, and useless as the basis for any assertion. I've also stated this several times, but you and others insist it is useful. --Durin 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RFAr

Barry has filed an RFAr regarding Pudgnet. I added your name since you had been involved with him before I was. jbolden1517 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)