Misplaced Pages

User talk:Durin: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:12, 31 August 2007 editDannaShinsho (talk | contribs)213 edits Images← Previous edit Revision as of 14:17, 31 August 2007 edit undoDurin (talk | contribs)25,247 edits →Images: Response to DannaShinshoNext edit →
Line 239: Line 239:


Please let me know exactly what you pretend so we get on with this, do you want name, address and date or you want just "is mine" or "I swear I created it" Please let me know, so we don't keep on this longer than necessary. Thank you <sup>]<font color="black">❀</font>]</sup> 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Please let me know exactly what you pretend so we get on with this, do you want name, address and date or you want just "is mine" or "I swear I created it" Please let me know, so we don't keep on this longer than necessary. Thank you <sup>]<font color="black">❀</font>]</sup> 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
*I have verifiable evidence that at least two of the images are not yours, and are not available under a free license. Finding something on the web and downloading it to your computer does not transfer rights of that image from the original copyright holder to you. The original copyright holder retains rights. Even if you modify the image, you do not gain full rights; the work is a ] of the original and the original copyright holder retains rights. We need to have the source of the image in order to be able to independently verify the licensing status of the image. Please provide sources for these images. If they are not provided, the images will be deleted in seven days. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --] 14:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:17, 31 August 2007

Mail for me
Mail for me


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

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

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

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

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

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

In case you didn't know

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

Hello.

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

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

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

  • I strongly request that if I'm going to get in trouble, you might as well just report me now. No sense in beating about the bush. Report me and be done with it. Since you're experienced, you certainly know how to go about getting me banned from the project. But, if you require assistance to help you in such an endeavour, please do not hesitate to ask. I'd be more than happy to help you make such a report. The images will not go back. They are against policy and will not be accepted. Several admininistrators have already chimed in on the matter agreeing with the stance I have taken. As to the deletion suggestion, I have no control over it. I did not put the article up for AfD and I did not protect the article. Thank you, and do please let me know if I can assist you in reporting me. --Durin 02:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought you were one of the two admins who locked and put the article up for deletion. And I do agree, not all of the images should be brought back, only the ones who have proven their signifiance and notability, even on Akatsuki level, (Kisame and Deidara) and the two leaders (Pein and Tobi/Madara) because they simply are the leaders. In the end neither Kakuzu or Hidan is notable, and Sasori was a one-arc member. Orochimaru and Itachi have articles. Zetsu and what's-her-name have yet to do something. Kisame is already important and still playing a role, and the reader(s) might get confused with the term "shark-like appearance" should they have not seen him before. Pein's appearance is like a very big jigsaw puzzle in word form, which will lead to confusion without a pic. Deidara was notable, and Tobi/Madara is the leader. And the article looks like crap without them. MAJOR crap. And that by far isn't a good thing. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • An article looking like crap is not a reason to violate our fair use policies. When do you plan on reporting me and getting me banned from the project? --Durin 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

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

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

Bob Bingham

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

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

Thank you

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

  • Yes. The best piece of advice I can give you; go and find the largest bottle of pain killers the world has ever seen. Take two of them, every four hours, during waking hours. When you're tired of taking them, keep taking them. When you're tired of being tired of taking them, keep taking them. To lighten your mood, consider stabbing a knife into your arm, and pouring scalding water onto your leg. In all seriousness; the work you're doing is fine. Keep at it for as long as you can tolerate the pain :) --Durin 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A Parisian Durin-thank you parade, perhaps?  :-D --Iamunknown 19:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Excessive use of fair use image ?

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

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

  • Screenshots of copyrighted programs are just as copyrighted as the programs themselves. Rights do not transfer from the creators of the programs to you simply by act of taking a screenshot of the work. "How many" is a question that can not be answered. We go based on precedent, context, usage, and a variety of other factors. Sometimes one is too many. Other times, 13 might be ok. It depends. --Durin 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My heartfelt gratitude for that instruction which I must have somehow missed among Misplaced Pages's mass of policies. No snideness intended, in case you suspect my rectitude. Profet 666 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Seriously...can you comment on this when you get a chance? Thanks! Willbyr (talk | contribs) 19:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm trying to multi-task on limited time here. If I can get to it tonight, I will. I wish I was paid to do this stuff but I'm not :) --Durin 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem, I figured you might be running ragged with this non-free stuff. I just don't want the images that have been delinked to vanish before I have a chance to get input on the above questions. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

  • When you are willing to address me in a civil tone, rather than beginning statements to me with "idiotic", I'll be happy to address your concerns. I'm disregarding the rest of your comments until you are capable of non-insulting discussion. Thank you and have a nice day, --Durin 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, because your consistent snide and elitist tone is so much better. That is a civil tone, albeit an angry one. Deal with the big, bad words, they won't bite. - The Norse 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I urge you to read WP:NPA. If you are incapable of abiding by that policy, I will recommend you be temporarily blocked from editing. --Durin 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't suppose you're actually ever going to address anything that I said, are you? Just become a bot like Betacommand if you're going to insist on being this way. - The Norse 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I am under no compulsion to discuss any subject with someone who is willing to use personal attacks. If you are willing to engage in civil discourse, you will find me a willing listener. If not, I choose to ignore your commentary. This is highly inappropriate. Final warning. If you insist on using such attacks, I will recommend you be blocked. --Durin 22:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Nevermind. You've already been blocked. Perhaps you'll learn the lesson granted by this block. --Durin 22:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Crimany, this is dumb. Good thing Egamm is here to save this talk page subsection from being wasted space on the interenet: The tons of pictures you're removing are for visual identification purposes necessary for an encyclopedia, and certainly are a much better thing to have in articles than tons of paragraphs consisting of "well the character looks liek dis" which would inevitably take up much more space in articles and make them harder to read than images ever would. Though, you said "if each of these characters had their own article then the images would be allowed" or something to that affect. What is the difference between having a ton of worthless tiny articles that would inevitably get merged/deleted just so you could have a picture of the one thing in question and having one article of decent size with a bunch of small pictures on the side? You say you're "upholding Wiki policy" but from a seemingly logical standpoint you're making the site worse. Good day, sir. - The Norse 19:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If a character is so minor that we do not have a separate article on that character, then why do we need an image? It's a MINOR character. --Durin 00:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • (If I may?): Amen. — pd_THOR | 06:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't "amen" please. The merits of "minor characters" should only be discussed by those who are at least mildly familiar with the subject at hand. - The Norse 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • All areas of Misplaced Pages are open for editing to all people. If you do not appreciate the open editing environment of Misplaced Pages, this might not be the place for you. --Durin 11:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • The same could be said for you, you obviously don't like people adding images and reverting your edits, claiming that you're a troll. This is irrelevent however, since my response to Thor's comment has really nothing to do with what you just said. - The Norse 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • As for the main reason I return, I'd like to make a modest proposal that you start doing some real work while you're on your holy crusade. I've noticed by looking at your contributions and actions as of late, any time a user comments, argues, edit wars, etc with you, you go through their Contributions page and delete the images from articles and just those articles. Instead of acting out of some sort of moral grude or trolling attempt, why don't you go after the big articles? You know, the prominent ones with dozens or even hundreds of images like The Simpsons, Pokemon, Digimon, Futurama, Family Guy and other long-running series of cartoons. That right there would be respectible work for Misplaced Pages's mission unlike raiding the favorite articles of people you show displeasure towards for the sake of around 6-8 images. - The Norse 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
oic. It still doesn't make much sense to focus on smaller articles with limited visitor bases rather than the large ones. Deleting all the Pokemon/Final Fantasy/Simpsons images would definitely set an example for many other articles and probably "inspire" others to go on image-destroying crusades too. As long as you insist on being "this way" you have my full support on removing all Fair-Use images from English Misplaced Pages, if only because I can't stand the thought of my favorite articles being mamed while so many others still have their images. - The Norse 21:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no intention and no need of defending my actions with regards to major vs. minor articles to you. My track record speaks for itself. Thank you, and do have a nice day. --Durin 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That was really uncalled for. I was expecting something more along the lines "I'm glad we could patch this up, thank you for your understanding and suggestion, I hope we can have no further conflicts in the future, have a nive day, etc". 1/4 is that bad, but man. I'm sorry I offended you. - The Norse 22:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Your suggestion is irrelevant. If you had reviewed the actions I've taken previously on this matter, you would already know that I've dealt with fair use image abuse on large and small cases, across a very broad array of topics. I haven't picked on anime or anything else in particular, and I haven't purposefully selected small cases over large or anything else of the kind. As to the conflict, the conflict is of your own making. You started this thread with "Idiotic" and have routinely used personal attacks in an attempt to somehow sway me to your way of thinking. I'm not motivated. I do hope that you don't engage in starting conflicts in the future. All the best, --Durin 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. I'm glad we could put this thing behind us and become such close friends. See you around. Love, The Norse 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Non free content criteria have been partially rewritten

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

  • When I have time, yes, which is not right now. Tomorrow probably :) --Durin 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. One of the issues I raised somewhere on that page is the matter of this deadline of April 2008. I had a closer look at the WMF Licensing Policy, and it looks like the layout of the document is confusing. The deadline is the third subclause of bullet point 6, and thus appears to be only referring to projects without an EDP. Bullet point 5 contains a date for projects with an EDP, but the date only refers to the point from which the policy applies to new images. There appear to be no deadline for the discussion of old images on projects with an EDP. I'm convinced this is a layout typo, but it is rather sloppy. Carcharoth 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Indeed it is. Discussions I've had with at least one member of the board indicated that the deadline is for everything. It'd be nice if they made that clear on the resolution. --Durin 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chess Piece, MAR, etc.

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

  • I've instructed those of you involved in this dispute as to the policy and the prior decisions. The endless debates about this issue are pointless. The policy, and how I am editing in support of it, stand. If you want to have an image at the top of the page such as a logo for the anime in question, fine. A group photo, perhaps. Individual photos of individual characters is a violation of our policies. There's really no room to compromise on this. If there were, I'd be quite happy to do so. The core principle here is that we are a free content encyclopedia, and copyrighted content is discouraged, not encouraged. Minimal use must be supported, and the Foundation recently ruled on this as you have been directed to before. As one Board member said, consensus can not outweigh this issue. Even if you had 100 people saying what I am doing is wrong, and I was the only one on this local project saying I was right, the *Foundation* would still be right. I'm not sure how I can be clearer about this. The overuse of fair use images is being deprecated project wide. We have a deadline of April of 2008. If you have issue with this, take it up with the Foundation. I don't write the policy. You can contact them at Foundation:Contact us. Thank you, --Durin 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the honorable Durin may have missed the part where Wiki's articles, policies, etc are in constant change because of discussions and comprimises involving sensible ideas and open minds, so I'll add this comment to remind him. - The Norse 21:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • As I noted above, this issue can not be outweighed by consensus. Please fully read and understand Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. The Foundation can and does dictate and can override consensus on any issue they so please. --Durin 22:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That doesn't really say anything, it's just the ground rules for adding images. Where in this does it say images in "list of" aren't allowed?
        • Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works.
        • WP:NFC points 3 and 8(mostly 8) are the only things you're really operationating under, and there's a discussion on that going on right now. You should cease this until some sort of resolution is met or your overzealousness will lead to the orphaning and deletion of hundreds of images. - Egamm 22:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's me, overzealous. Better have me banned from the project ASAP. I'm a serious threat. Hurry! Don't wait! --Durin 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • By the way; the next time you want to talk with me, please use your real account. Single purpose accounts for the purpose of communicating in a civil manner with a single user are pointless. --Durin 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Whoa there, cowboy. Not only did I not say anything about banning, stopping you, etc, none of that had anything to do with my point. - Egamm 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
                • I'm not a cowboy. I only play one on TV. You claimed I was overzealous. I'm obviously a threat. Since I fully intend on supporting the Foundation's resolutions and our policy, I suggest you get me banned from the project for being a zealot. If you need assistance on where to make such a report, please let me know. I'll be happy to assist you. --Durin 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm still trying to wrap my head around exactly what is ambiguous about the Non-Free Content policy... minimal use means nothing other than minimal use! I wish I could understand why some folks find this issue so confusing. Rockstar (/C) 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • There isn't anything ambiguous about it. "Minimal" literally means "no more than needed", therefore eight notable characters on a notable "Characters of ____" page constitutes eight images and not eighty. - Egamm 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The reason is largely because there are two camps; one camp is commited to the m:Mission of Misplaced Pages. The other camp isn't. The second camp is largely willing to use fair use images as much as possible and will defend, at great length, every use of them. It's a very tough ideological war. It's depressing that so many users simply do not suss what it is we are here to do. Personally, I far prefer having an encyclopedia that is *free* and can be dispersed with as little copyright concern as possible. Many of our users are more interested in being pretty. In your battles, you may find yourself getting depressed on these issues. Something that may inspire you; remember that for-sale encyclopedias essentially block information access for people who do not have means to buy an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is making information available for all, regardless of their socio economic level. That's a very noble cause. The people who want fair use used liberally do not care about that cause. Many of them do not care about our mission. Stay focused. --Durin 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • To be fair, there are various middle-grounds between the two camps. I find it depressing that people can't distinguish between modern images with clear copyright concerns, and old images with possibly zero and at the least minimal copyright concerns. Lumping in 70 year old pictures with the latest screenshot of an anime is, well, silly. They are different cases and should be treated differently. The current NFCC fail to make these distinctions, but the discussions and rewrites are helping with that. Watch this space, and don't assume that Misplaced Pages's NFCC will remain static. If you want more on this, read all of WT:NFC, as I said before. Carcharoth 00:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • To add on to what Durin said, non-free images must be proven, without a doubt, that they are absolutely essential to an unaffiliated reader's understanding of the subject at hand. A simple image of a character does not significantly improve such understanding. Jimmy Wales and the Foundation have said over and over that if they could, they would remove all non-free images from Misplaced Pages. Since we can't possibly do that, they request that the use of fair use images is restricted unless absolutely necessary. And by absolutely necessary we're talking the article would fall to pieces without the image. Needless to say, the articles about television characters function perfectly without images. Thus, adding images back constitutes fair use overuse. In short, policy trumps aesthetics, which is pretty much what Durin already said above. Rockstar (/C) 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments

Just to let you know, It's general practise to put your comments under what your commenting on, even if it's in the middle of a discussion. If thier are other comments on the same thing, it goes underneath those. As I was commenting on the reason for deletion, My comment goes underneath that--Pheonix15 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Everyone is commenting on the reason for deletion, and they are commenting "under" it ... just at the bottom of the page. If everyone were to comment at the top of the page, right under the nom's rationale for deletion, then the talk page would be completely disorderly. --Iamunknown 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MfD

I notified those users because they were in the middle of the round. They were playing the game, and I wanted to let them know that they could finish it up in my sandbox. It won't be continually played there, but I wanted to let them know so they could finish up. I notified Marlith and told him to vote, because he was it's creator.--Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that despite having sandboxes, "Misplaced Pages is not a kindergarden", but I shouldn't. Oops. Carcharoth 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Historical images

Just a brief note, as I found one of my summaries on historical images: Image:1heldeplatz.jpg: "This is a notable and historic event. We have every right to use this image to convey the history being presented in the article. Old images are important for the understanding of historical articles. Mere text does not do enough." - I fear that people sometimes, when focusing on the free/non free issues, fail to remember the educational aspect of historical images. When presented in the right context, is Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg more educational than Image:Rei037.jpg? Carcharoth 01:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chess Pieces response

We would, but have you told Profet 666 that. He uploaded those pictures so people would know what they look like. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry + guideline

Sorry about the edit war but I was just doing what it says on Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#Formatting. Won't happen again--Pheonix15 18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for this. I don't like cabals, even if they are jokes :-) Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

User Space

User space or not, if you plan on posting Fair_use_overuse_explanation anywhere else you'll need to provide citations. Additionally, your piece is an essay, and hence meaningless insofar as Wiki guidelines or policies go. Finally, your essay is clearly POV. Hey, if you just want this here to blow off some steam, cool, but I sincerely hope you don't intend to post it on main space until it's cleaned up. Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no intentions of providing sources for any "legal claims". There are no legal claims. The essay is about Misplaced Pages policy and Foundation resolutions. Further {{sources}} is for articles, not outside of the main article namespace. Yes, I know it's an essay, That's why I wrote it. Yes, I know it's POV. This isn't main article namespace. There's no requirement it be NPOV. There's no intention of putting this on mainspace because it's not an article, and a reading of it shows that. I've been using it as reference in edit summaries to further explain actions. For example . --Durin 21:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Using it as a reference counts as being used in main space. You might want to reconsider your argument as it holds no water. And yes, you do make legal claims: shall I list them? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you lack an understanding of what mainspace is. The page is in my userspace. It does not need sources. It is not an encyclopedia article. Thank you for your input, but you are quite incorrect. --Durin 21:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I lack no understanding...if you are referring to your essay in mainspace, you are stating that it has the authority of a guideline or policy and therefore it needs to be referenced. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Acorn Electron gallery

Re: your message (Per WP:NFCC item #8, we do not permit the use of fair use images in galleries such as you have attempted on Acorn Electron. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Simple reversion is not acceptable and would violate policy. Thank you, --Durin 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Retro_junkie"

I don't wish to get into a prolonged argument with you or start an exchange of abuse but I see there are many users that disagree with your interpretation of Wiki policy. Firstly, I personally have not 'attempted' anything with that gallery - I have only added missing links, put it in correct order etc. It has been there for over 2 years and was added by User:ThomasHarte, one of the leading experts on the Electron (and creator of ElectrEm). Removing it in its entirity is in my opinion nothing short of vandalism.

I am slightly surprised you quote WP:NFCC#8 because I would quote it back to you! Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.

The screenshots DO add significantly to the article. A quick glance gives the reader a much better understanding of the graphical capabilities of the computer and the type of programs that were commonly used. The omission of any screenshots IS detrimental to the understanding of the Acorn Electron. There is no text that could as accurately convey the same meaning.

If you meant to quote another policy please do so. If you think there are too many, that would only be your opinion. A variety of shots is necessary. Any more would be excessive as they would not all fit on the screen for comparison but as it is, it is a perfect, descriptive illustration of what the Acorn Electron was (and is!).

I will undo your revision but please do not be annoyed by this. As I have tried to explain, the gallery does not violate the policy you are basing your decision on. If you have a problem with the gallery, please start a discussion about it on the article's discussion page. It is surely better to leave it up until it is decided by more than one user that it should be taken down.Retro junkie 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Decision after decision after decision after decision after decision after decision after decision after decision has ruled against the use of such galleries. I am reverting this change and reporting it to WP:AN/I. I cautioned you against simple reversion. --Durin 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Please please please point me to the policy that rules against such use of images. The problem with deleting it straight off is that some of those images are now orphaned and will be deleted. Why can you not just be reasonable and debate the merits of the screenshots in that particular article? In what way are they not relevant? In what way do they not add to the article? In what way could that information be conveyed in text?Retro junkie 11:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:BetacommandBot

Hey Durin. As someone who generally supports the tightening of our fair use of images, I wonder what your answer would be to the questions I posed at User talk:BetacommandBot#Defunct, specifically:

  • Why is my cribbing (by hand, after research) a (bot-)acceptable fair use rationale for an image of the cover of a book to illustrate the article on the book any better than a general statement about the acceptability of this type of fair use? I don't think this acceptability is under challenge anywhere.
  • How does Betacommandbot actually determine whether the fair use rationale given is an acceptable one?

It would be better in my opinion if a template could be made and the bot used to apply it to the image pages, with the uploader only required to confirm that the rationale was accurate, rather than having to copy one by hand for every fair use image. Bots are supposed to make things easier. --John 06:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The rationale isn't necessarily better or not. The bot does not evaluate that. It's job is to catch obvious cases. I have not seen the code so I do not know how it evaluates this. You may wish to leave a message to User:Betacommand. The bot is not capable of making fair use rationales because each usage is generally unique; it can not determine how a person intended the image to be used. That requires a human. The bot is making things dramatically easier; we've got literally hundreds of thousands of fair use images that are used improperly on Misplaced Pages. Since the bot was fired up, the job of cleaning that mess up has become immensely easier. --Durin 11:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably sick of these, but...

I have a question about a, yep, you guessed it, fair use image. Actually, three images. Image:Wolfey.jpg, Image:Mantisss.jpg, and Image:Rave.jpg. I know we had been deleting out images (screenshots) in "List of..." articles. These three screen caps are located only in List of Metal Gear Solid characters, and they all have fair use rationales listed for this article. My issue is, I am not sure they are valid, and I can't quite figure out the Fair Use Review page. They all state the following as their rationales:

  1. Konami has not released any such images to the public domain
  2. The image is used to demonstrate the game's distinctive art style
  3. The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the game
  4. The image is a small, web-resolution image
  5. The image is used to illustrate important characteristics of the game mentioned in the article, which conveys to the reader an idea of what they look like
  6. The image's only purpose it to aid in the description of the fictional world of Metal Gear Solid, and for no other purpose
  7. The image does not limit Konami's ability to sell the game

I understand some of them (1, 4, 7), but I don't think the others (the seemingly important ones) really hold water. There is no real discussion of the images (or the art style, or the description of the fiction universe) in the List. It conveys to the reader what the characters look like, but that is an unimportant matter, not discussed in the List. I'm not sure they add anything significant to the List (other than decorative). As the reigning free images co-champion, please advise, or feel free to copy-paste this somewhere appropriate. Feel free to answer here, if you chose to do that. Mahalo nui loa, Durin. --Ali'i 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed them from the article. I recently wrote a response to the typical defense of this situation. See . In this case, we see a situation where some characters are notable enough for their own articles (Main characters section) and then characters are not major. There's no real justification to infringe on our m:Mission to provide content under a free content license to provide fair use images of minor characters. If they are major enough to have their own article, then an image is appropriate to the sub article. Not here. --Durin 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Durin. That's kind of what I figured. Care if I link to your overuse explanations in the future? --Ali'i 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
      • That's fine by me. It's being used liberally already. --Durin 21:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I've just read the "If you want to change this application of policy" bit of that, and it could do with encouraging debate in areas that haven't been settled yet. The impression a careless reader could gain from that section is that you are saying that everything has been decided and there will be no more debate, when what I think you are saying is that some areas have been extensively discussed before, and re-running those debates is a waste of time. Would you consider adding something saying that if people come up with new ideas and issues, they should by all means discuss them. I'm thinking in particular of the issues I've raised at WT:NFC in past weeks. During those debates I was working on the assumption that people would point me at archived discussions if I was repeating old arguments, but no-one did, so I assumed I was bringing up new stuff. Also, I never did get an answer as to the reason for the "original market role" clause of NFCC#2. How do you determine original market role and how do you determine when it changes? Carcharoth 22:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Short on time, but two things; if you want to modify that section, feel free. We can hammer it out. Two, I've often thought it would be a good idea to have a list of prior debates and how they turned out. User:Durin/Fair_use_overuse_explanation#Prior_debates is a meager attempt at that. It is just an exceptional amount of work to maintain all of that. There's literally dozens (if not hundreds by now) debates on these subjects. --Durin 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Galleries

I thought you might be interested in this thread about galleries. Carcharoth 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again.

Hello again, Durin. In the above section pertaining to List of Konoha ninja and List of Naruto summons' articles, you provided me with the following link: foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy.

This time, I am representing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pokémon's task force. It appears as though images of the monsters are being removed from our newly-formed lists because they do not currently conform to policy. However, it comes to my attention that we may re-upload these images if we could somehow adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy, as stated on the link you had given me. As such I have several questions:

  1. Would you happen to know how we could acquire an EDP?
  2. If you do not know how to adopt an EDP, would you at least refer us to someone who does?
  3. Given enough support at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Images, and given that you know how to adopt an EDP, would you help us request one?

We ask this because most of the pocket monsters cannot be described well in prose. I know your stance against image use in lists. However, we at Wikiproject Pokemon feel that these images will improve the various Lists of Pokemon, as the alternative would be blocks of incredibly awkward descriptions that will push article size to the limits.

Sorry to disturb you again, Durin. Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 04:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The EDP has already been written at WP:NFCC. As for these images in lists, please see which I think will help answer your questions. If not, please feel free to inquire here again. --Durin 04:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am still not sure about this whole thing but I'm getting the impression that you believe I am against you. I'd just like to make it clear I'm against no one on this issue and will comply with whatever goes. Peace. -WarthogDemon 04:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Text based communication has it's limitations. If I conveyed anything that smacked of irritation, please accept my apologies. I was sincere in asking to please inquire here if that section didn't completely answer your questions. There's few people that I think are "against" me, and they're only a subset of people who actively engage in personal attacks. You did not as you've acted quite civilly. Thank you! --Durin 04:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I must say, you gotta have the worst job in the world, having to be the one to convince hundreds of Wikiprojects on Misplaced Pages that what Misplaced Pages's top brass of policy makers says about previously "okay" images not being okay anymore goes, and everyone wants to blame you for spreading a big "problem" in response. I'm just extremely glad that you're trying to be as civil and reasonable as possible, unlike a lot of other users I see on various talk pages and edit summaries nowadays. Good luck with your future endeavors, then. Erik Jensen 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Similarly, thank you for being so patient with me even after all of my questions. I can't say that I agree with you, but I definitely see where you're coming from, and as Erik pointed out, there's something to be said about your dedication. I suppose we at the Wikiproject will just have to find another way, then. Here's to hoping that we're on the same side of the policy during the next massive movement! Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 05:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:Personal attacks

It wasn't a personal attack, I wasn't calling you a jerkass, If you want to take that as a personal attack by all means take it like that. Humans are far to sensitive now. But I wasn't calling you a jerkass I was calling the method of ignoring people and repeating the same thing over and over again which makes it look like you don't listen to anyone who doesn't agree with you "jerkass". But whatever. Take this as an apolgy "I am sorry you think I called you a jerkass, me comparing what you would call courtesy as jerkassedness was out of line." P.S. Your talkpage is not on my watchlist anymore so I won't know if you reply to this. Also if you have to reply to this, please watch your "courtesy" if you must bring it up in my Talkpage. Thank you.--TheUltimate3 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

Please let me know exactly what you pretend so we get on with this, do you want name, address and date or you want just "is mine" or "I swear I created it" Please let me know, so we don't keep on this longer than necessary. Thank you 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have verifiable evidence that at least two of the images are not yours, and are not available under a free license. Finding something on the web and downloading it to your computer does not transfer rights of that image from the original copyright holder to you. The original copyright holder retains rights. Even if you modify the image, you do not gain full rights; the work is a derivative work of the original and the original copyright holder retains rights. We need to have the source of the image in order to be able to independently verify the licensing status of the image. Please provide sources for these images. If they are not provided, the images will be deleted in seven days. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 14:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)