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 16:08, 29 June 2007 editDurin (talk | contribs)25,247 edits →Robot imitations: Response to Mike Christie← Previous edit Revision as of 16:42, 29 June 2007 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,576 edits Trying to understand WMF's licensing policy as regards fair-useNext edit →
Line 378: Line 378:
That was great. Thanks for lightening my day; and that's not something I normally say after reading ]. ] ] 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC) That was great. Thanks for lightening my day; and that's not something I normally say after reading ]. ] ] 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
*Glad you enjoyed :) We needed a light hearted moment in there, and Brian kicked that effort off nicely. Thought it might be fun to pig pile on his idea and make some fun with it :) --] 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC) *Glad you enjoyed :) We needed a light hearted moment in there, and Brian kicked that effort off nicely. Thought it might be fun to pig pile on his idea and make some fun with it :) --] 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

== Trying to understand WMF's licensing policy as regards fair-use ==

I'm trying to understand WMF's licensing policy as regards fair-use, and specifically the 10 criteria. How would they apply to the images at ]. I rescued these pics after deletion and wrote fair-use rationales for them. Someone rewrote (or rather, templated) the rationale for the main pic. What are your views on the pics and how we are using them? ] 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:42, 29 June 2007

Mail for me
Mail for me

Some Candidates for you

Some worthy candidates?

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

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

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

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

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

No album covers??

I fully agree with Apoc2400. Are all album covers outside of bands with a Creative Commons license to be deleted? At the risk of being human, I have to wonder if these actions would be truly in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, or merely pedantic. I'll wager on the latter. --K d f m 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for accusing me of being pedantic. I'm honored! Nobody is suggesting that all album covers be deleted. What is being asked for is that a fair use rationale be provided for each use of each image. This is per our policies. It is no different than asking people to provide a license for an image they upload, or for people to avoid revert wars, or any other policy based actions here. --Durin 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A possible solution for the Fair Use Rationale problem

Hey there. These are some thoughts i posted on betacommand's page, but you seem to be taking more of an active role in this situation now than he. Many people are upset about what betacommandbot is doing - tagging pretty much all fair use images for deletion. The reason why this is such a problem is because it is not clear in any way that individual rationale needs to be added for every "fair use" image. The upload page is overwhelming, and the only mention of fair use rationale is in some brackets for the box marked "summary." Most people just ignore this box, thinking it isn't really necessary. Rationale is supposed to be given in a specific form (found on Template:Non-free_media_rationale), or it is preferred if it is given in that form. What should be done is that if an image is uploaded with the "fair use" template selected, it should bring up another page to fill out the fair use rationale (asking if its low resolution, etc.). This would make it so that hopefully, the bot would become superfluous at some point in time. What do you think? SECProto 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I've seen similar suggestions. This could work, but it requires a code change. I'm not a developer. I think suspending CSD I6 until such time as we get a better handle on this problem is an equitable solution. I don't think suspending the bot is the right way to go, because the bot is doing a fantastic job of identifying those images missing the rationale. --Durin 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I had never considered that, actually. I agree that, if it's needed, all images should certainly have fair use rationales added. My main concern was that many images which were fine, but simply lacking a rationale, would be speedy deleted. I would certainly agree with suspending CSD I6. SECProto 14:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok

Yeah, I heard about not using the fair use images like album covers on certain pages. I just didn't get round to removing them (exams!) Therefore have only been doing a few edits, and mainly just answering anything left on my talk page. I don't really have time to put comments on all those images, but I agree with the deltion of them all! Asics talk 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DIfference between these Images

In effort of trying to understand the Fair Use Policy, what is the difference betwenn these two images: *Image:Rebel Alliance logo.png


And these two:


] was on a Userbox, but you told me it couldn't be used on {{User:Tyty1234/rebeloverempire}} and {{User:Tyty1234/empireoverrebel}}. But ] is being used and I was wondering why it can be on the Userbox {{Template:user LimeWire}}. The PSP and The DS pics are part of a userbox too. Can you let me know? Thanks! Tyty1234 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The rebell alliance logo is copyrighted and rights are reserved. Thus, it must be used under terms of fair use. Our fair use policies do not permit the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace. The Limewire logo comes from a free software package. Commons presumes that while Limewire may retain copyright, there's no profit loss possibility from the use of the logo since it is freely available. Thus, not used under fair use. In the case of the last two, it's images of potentially copyrighted works. Technically, the makers of the objects retain rights. In practice, this rights tend not to be of concern here. --Durin 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Durin, I must say that I am impressed with essay on transformative and derivative works. And I am glad that you put out that we simply do not know whether or not specific uses are "fair uses". I think people often forget how little the United States code defines what is a "fair use" (compared to, say, the United States tax code ;)) (only two paragraphs and a four-part list!), and to what extent case law defines what is a "fair use". Anyways, I must say that your essays are masterfully written and researched, and were some of the most informative copyright-related information I've read in a while (that said, I'll make not to take what you wrote as legal advice). (And on a separate but not wholly-unrelated note, what do you think of Image:Univision logo.png? Fair use or not?) Cheers, Iamunknown 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the compliments :) My own understanding of fair use has been evolving over the last year. It's been an educational experience. What is clear is that fair use law is not clear. To use one judge's terms (in an unrelated case) "there is no bright line" at which a usage becomes fair or remains piracy. If there were a bright line, this would be considerably easier to judge.
  • Since we can not definitively define a narrow line in the sand, it is far safer for Misplaced Pages to stay well clear of cases that might be questionable. Certainly purely identifying uses are not within that realm of clear of the line.
  • If we were to accept pure identification of a given thing as reasonable fair use, then in the vast majority of cases where we use fair use images we could simply say "for identification purposes" and be done with it, which is essentially what has happened at Image:Univision logo.png. This is the sort of case a number of people in opposition to BetacommandBot are arguing in favor of. This sort of fair use rationale could be done with a template, and does not need to identify any particular article.
  • Yet, as some have pointed out, the legal ramifications of this are purely a small subset of the greater ramifications of fair use in our project. There is a clear legal threat that descends from this use, that much is certain. That it has not yet been acted upon does not minimize this threat or making it worthy of derision as "paranoia". But, the larger set is our purpose, our mission. In understanding this, it is important to read m:Mission which says in part "...under a free content license" Under no definition can fair use be considered as contributing to that element of our mission as it is not free content. Thus, fair use images are contrary to our mission. Jimbo has taken a clear stance on this, though in so doing has stated this is not policy. In sum, he has said that he wants fair use to be as limited as possible, preferably to a small handful of highly important historical photographs. For example, an image taken right after Kennedy was shot (Image:Altgens mary ferrell.jpg) would be allowable under his philosophy. But, a base album cover would have no standing. This is a very important concept, and one that is lost on many of the people in favor of fair use images. We are here to build a free content encyclopedia. Anything that detracts from this is contrary to our purpose.
  • My personal stance at this point is that we should eliminate fair use in all cases but an extreme minority. My position is very similar to Jimbo's position.
  • My current understanding of our fair use principles (as opposed to personal stance) on Misplaced Pages is that if a fair use image is to be used, it must contribute significantly to the article (see Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria #8) and from that same policy, that the use of such images in "user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative". I regard info boxes (such as Template:Infobox Album) as being user-interface elements. They are not there for the purposes of critical commentary, and do not constitute any sort of intellectual labor regarding the copyrighted work (per Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342).
  • To clarify this, a navigational template located on the bottom of the page (for example Template:General Motors brands could just as well have a fair use image (Image:Gm2.jpg) because it serves to identify the company in question on the template. Yet, we strictly *forbid* such use, even it it is not hard coded into the template, but coded into the page itself. If we forbid it on navigational templates for identification purposes (which, according to some, is sufficient for fair use defense) then why is it ok for identification purposes on an infobox?
  • Thus, in sum, I do not feel Image:Univision logo.png constitutes fair use in its current form. From cursory review, it appears the logo is not actually discussed, but only serves identification purposes. This, in my current understanding of our principles here, is not allowable and should be deprecated. Hope this clarifies my position :) --Durin 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I gotta stop typing!

Fair Use Rational

"What is being asked for is that a fair use rationale be provided for each use of each image." What should one write? And why is the tag not self-explanatory? Is this not why we have tags? If you could give me an answer as to what I could write, I'd appreciate it. I just want your bot off my case. --K d f m 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Update of number of 'Fair Use' images

I'd appreciate you running whatever robot it is that collects stats on the number of fair use images per page. I noted that the page I wrote was linked to some list that gave the total as eight, so I removed all but one image. However, the page is still listed as having eight images for which "fair use" was (fairly!) being claimed. The robot should have been activated when I saved the page, and the list ammended accordingly. Sa cooke 06:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The list is not updated automatically. In fact, it's working off a data set ~1 month old. If the page you are concerned about has had fair use usage reduced, you've nothing to worry about. --Durin 12:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this Commons image really free?

Hi, Durin. I normally go to Jkelly with my questions about image copyrights, but I know he's very busy at the moment, and I know you're an admin at Commons. I recently found a lot of "fair use" images in userboxes and templates at French Misplaced Pages. In particular, I found that Harry Potter's signature was in a userbox and in various templates for Wikiprojects, etc. I found a free Harry Potter image at Commons. (Many Harry Potter images at Commons are or were up for deletion as derivative, but I thought this one looked okay.) Since a lot of these userboxes and templates were transcluded, I managed, in about five edits, to remove that signature from about two hundred non-mainspace pages. I then asked Jkelly about how the fair use policy applies to French Misplaced Pages. He suggested that if I brought it up at the French Village Pump, an administrator would probably take care of it. I did, here, and a French administrator removed the images from the boxes I had mentioned. Then, someone else called "Ironie" began to put free images in instead. Instead of the McDonald's and Burger King logos, there was now a simple image of a hamburger. However, Ironie's edit to the Disney userbox was rolled back without comment by an administrator. Someone else re-inserted the Disney logo, and the administrator rolled back again. You can see the page history here.

If the image that Ironie tried to use really is free, it should be okay, but I know that sometimes some non-free images are uploaded to Commons, and that the non-free status remains unnoticed for a while. Would you mind taking a look at Commons:Image:Snow white 1937 trailer screenshot (6).jpg and telling me if the licence really is okay before I go back to fr: and query the removal? I understand that the really important thing is to get the unfree logo out of the box, but since I was the one who brought up the issue, I'd like, if possible, to keep everyone happy by leaving the userbox looking okay. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The image appears to be ok. There's a general habit to view screenshots from movies prior to 1964 as being public domain. So, this one is probably ok. I am uncertain if this is supported in law, but this is generally how we handle it. --Durin 12:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks. I'll go back to fr: and ask the administrator about it. It's possible he didn't see what the image was and thought that Ironie was putting the logo back, which, in fact, another user did later. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Update. I asked the administrator at fr, and he said that the image isn't free in all countries, mentioning Switzerland in particular. I think the issue has been satisfactorily resolved, as someone has now added Commons:Image:Magic Kingdom castle.jpg, but I'm puzzled at what the "free in some countries but not in others" means for the Commons free images policy, when it's a website with the servers in one country, a person uploading an image in another, a person adding it to a page in another, and a person looking at it in another. I've asked about it here. And, while I'm at your page, thanks very much for your supportive comments in my RfA. I have already decided that, regardless of whether it succeeds or fails, I'm not going to leave a pile of boilerplate thank yous, as I know that while some appreciate it, others find it annoying, and I don't know how individual people would view it. So, I'm just thanking people while I'm at their pages for some other reason. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Critical commentary

What is your definition of 'critical commentary'? This is in regards to your deletions in The Beatles Collection and The Beatles Box Set. Steelbeard1 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I've commented elsewhere about this. In short, if you're going to use a fair use image, at least discuss the contents of the image. Commentary could include why the image is significant, what significant thing it portrays that can not be recreated, what effect it had on society, what new ideas were expressed in the image, was it a first for something, etc. Something about the image. Just displaying it for identification purposes is insufficient. --Durin 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The items included were: album title, record label, catalogue number, original release date, highest chart position and track listings. Steelbeard1 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The album cover is one of the principal means of identifying the the album - the assertion that it is "merely decorative" is not justified. Your allusion to a similar discussion regarding screenshots from an episode guide is not relevant. If the discography pages had random pictures of the band or singer in them then it would be analagous, but the fact that the cover of an album is the principal marketing vehicle and one of the two princiupal means of identifying the said album the cover is not decorative, it is as intrinsic a part of the album as the songs itself. When you buy the album you also buy the cover art (unless you get it on iTunes) and in the days of Vinyl a great deal of effort often went into producing album covers that were works of art and not just pieces of cardboard (e.g. Sticky Fingers, School's Out (album) and Physical Graffiti etc.) Jooler 17:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And identification alone is not enough. The fact that it is the principal marketing vehicle makes our need for fair use restrictions even stronger in this case. The amount of work that goes in to the album art is irrelevant if it is not discussed within the article itself. --Durin 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You are not quoting policy when you say "identification alone is not enough". The aid to identification which the cover provides does "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" (from 8 on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria) the images certainly fall wel within the criteria of the other points. Certainly in the case of point 3 a single image will not suffice. As for "The fact that it is the principal marketing vehicle makes our need for fair use restrictions even stronger in this case" this is complete rubbish. Firstly the copyright owners of those images are only too happy to gain a larger exposure for the images (because it sells more records) and secondly the images fall within point 2 and 3b of the policy. I did not state that the amount of work that goes into an album cover had any relevance to this issue - I was merely pointing out that album covers are creative works of art that are purchased along with the songs. Jooler 22:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect, I am not interested in debating this with you any further. Both you and Jheald take every opportunity to refute any point raised that might have the slightest effect of countering your position. You are not interested in the policy. Rather, you are interested in twisting and squeezing every ounce of potential connotation out of it to your benefit in the name of having fair use images scattered hither and yon everywhere on this project. It is quite blatantly obvious to me that you are not interested in the mission of the project, that of creating a free content encyclopedia and distributing it throughout the world. Rather, you are interested in using fair use images as much as possible.
  • Quite simply, this stance of yours is unacceptable. If you insist on pushing fair use galleries into articles as you did with the Beatles discography, I expect you will be unhappy with the results. --Durin 01:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ohh yes your 100% correct. Of course you've looked back at my history and seen how I spend all my time scattering free images hither and thither. Yes it's my principal reason for being on Misplaced Pages. I scatter free images in Misplaced Pages for by own self-agrandization. Yes I'm not interested in the encyclopaedia just my self. It makes me feel great to do it and I've been doing for the last 6 years at Misplaced Pages. <In case you've had a sense-of-humour bypass that's called sarcasm>. What utter rubbish you spout. Jooler 09:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Codelyoko193 (for the last time)

I would like to thank you for your help in showing me the correct images to use on my userpages.

It's not official, nor is it a real barnstar per se, but... Codelyoko193 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!This is a Codelyoko193 Would Like to Thank You "Barnstar"

Question about mugshot

Hello again. If you have moment, can you weigh in here, please? I'm out of my depth. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see...

...this Codelyoko193 Talk 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The WMF policy

I noticed that you still tell users in a lot of discussions that the WMF policy doesn't allow uploading fair use images, except in very few cases and with a proper "critical commentary". Please note that the official WMF licensing policy resolution specifically allows using a FU images for the sake of identification (point 3) as long as it has a fair use rationale. Your personal view that WP should be a free-license only encyclopedia isn't shared by the majority of users and it is not the official position of the WMF. You're of course entitled to your own opinion on what Misplaced Pages should be, but suggesting to people that your personal view would be the actual policy of the WMF is dishonest and not acceptable, IMO. Malc82 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Your understanding of that policy is flawed. To quote, "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." Our stance is logos do not require critical commentary. Our stance is that other uses do require critical commentary. If you read, you will understand that this is what the licensing policy by the WMF is stating. I thank you for your accusation that I am dishonest. Since my being dishonest is not acceptable behavior, I formally request you report me and have me banned from the project, since I fully intend on being dishonest in this manner in the future. --Durin 12:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize for misreading your comments regarding the use of logos. However, I still fail to see which point of the WMF policy specifically says that cover art can only be used when the image is discussed in the text and notable in its own right. As far as I interpret the policy, low-resolution cover art is included in “to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works”, which leaves to us the question of what “narrow limits” means. I know that WP:FUC currently has the stance that you support, but since a reform of this policy is exactly the topic at hand in these debates, this can hardly be used as an argument. Malc82 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand a number of people wish to reform the policy. I consider this highly unlikely, as we are focused on being a free content encyclopedia. Permitting greater, more liberal use of fair use images is not contributory to that goal. --Durin 14:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Carleton University

You removed the image under the fair use policy from my userspace. I understand why. What I don't understand is how that image got loaded without any seeming rationale for its use in the first place. Am I missing something on the image page that discusses how the logo fits under fair use policy. I spoke with an admin from the University, and they were surprised it was there. Ccrashh 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The image does need a fair use rationale. For instructions, please see WP:FURG. Such copyrighted imagery can be used under fair use law in the United States in restricted circumstances. --Durin 14:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Since there isn't one, and the image was uploaded in January...how long is it allowed to remain until it is deleted under WP:FURG? Sorry about all the questions! Ccrashh 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No need to apologize for questions. Ask away! The image hasn't been tagged as missing a fair use rationale. Thus, theoretically, it could stay indefinitely. Once tagged, it's seven days. But, the image *should* be tagged as missing a fair use rationale. It's likely it will be soon. --Durin 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:Beatlescoll2.jpg

Added requested rationale. Steelbeard1 15:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Hello: I saw that you took the album covers out of the gallery. Yesterday, I took down several concert photographs from this page because none of them had fair use rationale provided for use on this page. I'm kind of new to the whole fair use issue, but this was I think the right thing to do. Do you agree? thanks. —Gaff 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


For enduring the grind

The Working Man's Barnstar
I cross paths with you often as I'm patrolling the recent changes and I can't help but often notice your excellent contributions in the mind-numbing grind of fair-use work. My hat goes off to you. Trusilver 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Want to get worked up?

I'm not sure you've had the pleasure of reading through this depressing RfA. So just in case you're missing out on all the fun, I'm sure you'll enjoy a distraction from the fair use debates. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 02:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding EngPlacesKey template

It seems pretty ridiculous to remove the images. If they're allowed to be used on normal wiki pages then why not on templates? the policy is stupid unless there's some kind of underlying copyvio. Please explain the reasoning behind that policy and I will kindly stop. 84.65.197.183 20:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Templates can be transcluded to multiple locations, both within the main article namespace and without. As a result, the policy has been established to permit their display, in limited circumstances, on main article namespace pages only. --Durin 16:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

request - fair use images

Hi I been looking into Australian articles specifically school lists which have extensively used Fair use logos, could you isolate Australian articles in you lists and I'll tackle them. Gnangarra 08:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh

Instead of stating a bunch of self-invented Wiki-Talk, maybe you should clearly explain the Misplaced Pages policies to every person you harass. State clearly what one was done out-of-bounds so one may learn what they did wrong. It's not polite to threaten others - so, please, stop. And explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SugarFREEgum (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I did explain, both here and here. You've chosen to continue to violate our fair use policies . As I previously indicated, I'm quite happy to answer questions about this policy. However, continuing as you have to willfully violate it despite having it explained to you twice now is completely unacceptable. If you have questions, ask away. However, the warning stands and is now a final warning. If you continue to place copyrighted, fair use album cover images into discographies I will recommend you be temporarily blocked. --Durin 01:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, I changed the articles back. Yes, I had reverted to the version with the pictures the first time, but then I changed it to suit your needs. I think that warning should be taken back. Also, you did not have to refer to your statements as I had left them on my talk board (so I technically did not violate any of your said Wiki-policies). Another thing, I messaged you so you can explain your rude statements. They did not make sense. I have questions and they're still not answered. Why can't said album covers be posted? Do they have to be in their own pages (ie refer to a BoA album)? Yada yada...— Preceding unsigned comment added by SugarFREEgum (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • What would you have me do? The first time I brought this to your attention, you deleted the message from your talk page and reverted me, willfully violating our policies in the process. Of course I warned you. It was the logical thing to do. If you find it rude to warn you when you deleted my message and violated policy, then so be it. I'll continue being that rude. Sorry.
  • As to the images; they can appear only on the album's article, not in discographies.
  • As to why, please see WP:NFCC. We are a free content encyclopedia and strive to have as little use of copyrighted content as reasonably possible. Thus, galleries, lists, discographies, etc of copyrighted images is not in keeping with our mission.
  • Other questions? Ask away... --Durin 02:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you recently deleted all of the album covers from the discography page of Anna Vissi. I understand wikipedia's mission to limit copyrighted images on pages, but lets not forget the meaning of a copyright. It's so that someone does not take the image and claim it as there own. Having the album cover on both the artist's discography page and their album page is a service, for its easier to find the album someone may be looking for and it looks nicer. The thing with album covers is that no one made them themselves, someone is not going to make a cd and use the same cover, thats just plain stupid. The copyrights obviously belong to the record company. A little more advertising does not seem too bad. I bet they love to see their images linking artists to their albums. Grk1011 02:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

State seals are public domain

Every single state seal on Misplaced Pages either comes from the U.S. Mission to Germany website, or is identical to the image on the U.S. Mission to Germany website.

See http://usa.usembassy.de/disclaimer.htm "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the U.S. Mission to Germany web site is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission."

State seals are public domain. Please stop removing them. --M@rēino 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • STOP. Just because they are on that website doesn't make them public domain. --Durin 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You say that you are "raising this issue in other places." Could you tell me where? I would much rather resolve this once and for all than play chicken with the 3-revert rule. --M@rēino 20:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rockstar: The seal is not copyrighted because the state"officially adopted the seal on October 2, 1849", so it's now public domain. Now reread the page that you linked to. "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use. Furthermore, the unique branding of the site and various official seals and marks may not be used without permission of the State." It's not saying that the seal is copyrighted. It is saying that the seal may not be used without permission of the State. Why? Because California, like most other states, has either a statute or a policy of preventing commercial bodies from using the seal in ways that could confuse ordinary citizens into thinking that the state endorses their business. If you're concerned about that state law, write the Calfornia secretary of state. But they don't have a claim under copyright law -- that's federal jurisdiction. --M@rēino 21:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Good work Mareino. If that seal is the same seal as today, then indeed the image is in the public domain by way of age, and California can not make any case that it isn't. This is the case by case evaluation that I was referring to. There is no blanket law that covers all seals in this manner. Some seals are old, some are not. --Durin 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Except that State Seals aren't under the federal jurisdictions. The farthest you could take the issue would be the state supreme court. In fact, there's a case like that that occurred recently... User:Rockstar915
        • Rockstar, see my analysis of that case at . In short -- yes, you're right, state seals aren't under the federal jurisdictions. But you forget that since they're not under federal jurisdiction, that means they can't be copyrighted, because the Constitution specifically reserves copyright law for the federal government. States cannot make up their own copyright laws; if they want to restrict the use of their seals, they have to use other means, like anti-fraud statutes. --M@rēino 02:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

C) 21:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC) Durin, if I've done anything wrong in my recent revert to images , feel free to say so, and I'll happily self revert. I'm relying on your expertise and on my own belief that in doubt, it's better to take the safer course. ElinorD (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"10,000 edits????????"

I hope WJB (whilst I was sleeping) and my follow-up comment cleared this up. I would never expect a candidate who does non-repetitive, non-decision-making work need 10,000. Daniel 23:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I should hope you wouldn't expect 10,000 from anyone. This is the worst case of editcountitis I have ever seen. Stunningly amazing. --Durin 01:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It wasn;t because of the quantity of edits, but rather in making that number the candidate didn't demonstrate discretional abilities needed by an administrator. See my response linked at the RfA (I've replaced my original statement with a more clarified one, and linked to the old one). Daniel 04:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Gonna Tell You Like This

Okay, I see you are one of the editers against having album covers on the artist's page because it's "fair use". Not having those covers on the artist's page iz an outrage. For years wikipedia had the policy of having the wikitable with the album covers on them. But then in 2007 some administrators (aka nerds with power on wikipedia/tyrants) decided that even though wikipedia will never be sued for this action, that they were gonna take all the album cover off the pages. But a few bold editers such as my self, did not except nor like this change and continued to put the album cover on the page due to the fact that's where they belong. I have been blocked 3 times for this and am sick of it. I'm not saying all administrators are a bad, I have even read comments by some that said that they would rather have the covers included. I also was visiting a admi. page and read "Even the most anti-album cover administrater agrees that wikipedia will never be sued for the album covers. You know what I'm sayin' Loc? We want album covers, man. Whether it be you, Steel, Spellcast, Mel Ethis, Shadyaftermathgunito or whoever keeps deleting the album covers, you guys got to stop. Do you guys get paid for every album cover you remove? That is the only reason I can think of for you guys being so anti-album cover. Damn, we only live once. I suggest a revolt, a reconsider, a vote, anything. You administraters don't run the world. Peace. Payne2thamaxx

  • One, I am not an administrator. Two, we are a free content encyclopedia. Fair use images can not be in anyway construed as being free. Thus, such images do not contribute to our m:Mission. I am committed to our mission. If that makes me, in your eyes, a tyrant then so be it. I would rather have you committed to our mission as well, but if you insist on not being so I am not concerned if you consider me to be a nerd/tyrant for eliminating fair use abuses. Sorry. Enjoy, have a nice day. --Durin 19:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of images from Guster discography

I was going by the discography setup in Daughtry (band) at the time (and many others that I saw, but forget who now). Now, I see that at least his article no longer has the album cover (I don't know about the rest), so precedent shows that they should go. Thanks for letting me know, and I wouldn't have put them there in the first place if I didn't see that that was how it was done on other discography pages. Thanks, and happy Wikying!  hmwith  talk 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

POTW on ANI

Thankyou for you comments, the whole issue was driving me mad. I couldn't understand why people weren't taking action, why people were not taking the issue seriously, and why people were just not showing any interest. J Milburn 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I Hate you

You don't know how long it took me to but in those damn pictures. The only thing I hate about wikipedia is it's corrupt Idea of citing images and the ways you use them. Colinstu 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry that you feel that way. What you hate isn't me, it's the policy. I'm merely enforcing the policy. Your best chance of getting a change to the policy is to bring it up to the Wikimedia Foundation. Their contact information is located at Foundation:Contact_us. If you need further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask. All the best, --Durin 18:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tireless efforts

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your tireless efforts, working on fair use problems and enforcing policy, despite the grief some users give you. Your efforts in doing this very important work are highly appreciated. --Aude (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I got 2 know

Durin Do-Right, The Wikipedian Wrecker, The Crown Prince of Fair Use, are you looking at my contributions? I ask this because it seems as if every music page I have ever edited, probablly all music you have never heard because no offense, you are probablly whiter than sour cream, the album covers are disapearing from the pages. You claim you are on a mission, but it's Mission: Impossible. Eventually even you will not cair about the album covers and until that time I will lay low, alright G, I'm out. Payne2thamaxx

  • I'm not interested in replying to someone who is willing to descend to racist epithets as a means to an end. Good day. --Durin 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Overuse

When you have a minute, could you take a look at Family Guy DVDs? I've removed the DVD covers twice, and an anon user has replaced them both times. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war, and they have only responded in edit comments. Another user removed the {{orfud}} tags from all of the DVDs after the first revert. I think they are just decorative, but the anon seems to think that they are useful for distinguishing among the different releases. ~ BigrTex 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Discographies

Thank you for your explanatory comments on discographies. Yes it was upsetting, but I will get over the discography for Rosalie Sorrels being denuded. I might suggest then, that the licensing for album covers, etc. include information about discographies and lists not being an appropriate or rather allowed usage of album covers. It would save some of us from wasting time creating a magnum opus and having it gutted. Had I realized the futility of my efforts, I wouldn't have wasted time scanning in all the images I did. Now the bot will delete them as orphaned images. Oh well, there are articles and articles to go before I sleep. --Robbie Giles 00:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice Robert Frost reference :) I'm sorry this caused you frustration. I don't think we can modify the licensing templates really to indicate all potentially wrong ways in which to use fair use images. :/ --Durin 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


the used discover

if u click on the image, it tells u where its is copyrighted and the license and who it belongs to and all, how much more does it need to be posted there??? i even changed the look of it the way it use to be whnen no one tried to deleted it so whats the problem? -xotheusedguyox

...so we can have the album covers on the page about the album but we can't have them on any other page in the discovery, ive seen many discoveries that are like that and don't get deleted, theres not really a point of uploading the image and putting the license on it if we cant even use it and i barely understood what you meant in your response about getting the copyright privillege nor do i feel like going crazy trying, i guess ill have to re-organize the discovery cause it looks like crap now with the pictures

...ok if that is how it works, wiki is a bit confusing some times but okay, but i wouldnt be surprised if someone else treid to change it back

Best Admin Ever

Thanks, I appreciate your comments and at least they did make sense to me once you clearing explained it to me. Lots of admins on this site just like to give out the rules and then, that's it, no answer really why except a bunch of info that's hard because of the verbiage it's written in. You gave me a great answer to the question and....I agree with you, it makes sense and thanks again for taking the time to explain and drill it down for me.The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User page image removal

The image you removed from my user space was used under acceptable use conditions of the copyright holder.

  • This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice and imagery metadata) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your family or organisation

I fail to see what rationale you have used to interfere with my user page. Please stop your vandalism. Ozdaren 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Instructions for people who want to help with image problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smile

Eduemoni has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wiki Bully Warning

Why on Earth have you randomly singled me out to bully! I had not even heard of you until you started your attacks on me. I don't even give a brass razoo about you. You cite civilty. I have posted nothing to defame you on a public space. Just go away. Leave me in peace. I don't want to interact with a person such as you. Take your school yard tactics elsewhere. Ozdaren 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"I have posted nothing to defame you on a public space"-- you don't think that calling someone a "little pathetic excuse for a man" might count? Marnanel 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Since I have never used those words in English to describe this person, your attribution to me is wrong. Though I don't disagree with the tone of what you have written. Edit summaries on my own talk space are not posted with the idea of being a generally viewed part of my page. Since what you are trying to hang me on is a point of view, was Durin's actions pathetic in nature? I think so.
Durin's whole attitude to me is that of a bully. He/She rides rough shod over me and expects no reply? Durin has no sensitivity to other users. Durin has employed tactics aimed at goading a response from me. I am only a minor W/P user. What I do, all be it small in scope, is of reasonable quality and adds to W/P. Why single me out from all of the users? Please do not fan the flames of this dispute. Ozdaren 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Point by point;
  • Whether you use English or not for the insult, it is the same. Calling someone a pathetic excuse of a man can in no way be construed as being civil.
  • The fact the insult is in an edit summary vs. a post itself is of no difference. It is still uncivil. Edit summaries are just as generally viewed as anything else here. People have frequently been blocked for uncivil edit summaries, regardless of their location.
  • You are not being taken to task for your point of view. As I've noted previously, I do not care if you hate me. Your opinion of me is of no consequence to me. What does matter is when you take those opinions and express them on Misplaced Pages. We have a policy regarding this and repeated violations of it will not be tolerated.
  • In no respect have I ever attempted to goad you. I'm simply immune to insults such as that levied by you against me as a "vandal". If you doubt this, please see the upper right of my userpage. Lots of people call me lots of things. Personal insults have no effect on my editing habits. If you wish to have my edit habits cease, you'll need to have me banned from the project. I remain at your disposal if you would like assistance in how to go about achieving that.
  • There is no way in which it can be construed that I am singling you out. I have removed fair use images from literally thousands of userpages over the last 18 months.
I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that you can not have fair use images on your userpage. I'm sorry that it bothers you so much that it causes you to refer to me as a vandal, and a pathetic excuse of a man. Nevertheless, the policy remains. If you disagree with the policy and would like to see it changed, I recommend you take the issue up with the Wikimedia Foundation. --Durin 14:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

fair use question

Is it a valid fair use reason to use a photo of a book by an artist on the article about the artist rather than about the book? RJFJR 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Botts. I created a stub on him (a really good calligrapher) and wanted to illustrate his calligraphy so I took a photo of the cover of one of his books. I guess we'll have to remove the link and delete the image. (I suppose I could create an article on the book and then link to it, but I'm not sure the book is ntoable though I'd argue the calligrapher is). RJFJR 13:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you photograph/scan a page illustrating his calligraphic work and discuss it in the article? that would be acceptable. --Durin 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a paragraph on how the cover of the book demonstrated his mastery of many different 'hands' (styles of calligraphy). That works well. Thank you. RJFJR 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nicely done! Now, add a fair use rationale (see WP:FURG) to the image noting how the image is used on the article, and that it is important to the article due to the article discussing the nine different hands used on the cover. All fair use images must have a fair use rationale. --Durin 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

the automatic

Why have you removed the images, there are many many articles that use imagery. these images are fare use. In the past week this article and all the work i have put into it has been completlely ruined so what is your shitty geeky little reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.18.177 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok sorry. Just in the past week this article, and a lot of work i have put into writing it, and making it as good as it can be has been undone, and the only help i have been given is to go read through entire articles about fare use ect ect. Even then it does not really say how i can make an image fare use, logo fare use and other images all fare use. So yes sorry, just other people on wikipedia just seem to want to undo my work and not help. --Jacksack 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • First, please log in :)
  • Second, yes there's lots to read. Fair use is not a simple subject. To make it short, and to the point; we do not permit the use of fair use imagery to depict, for identification purposes, living people. Reason; a free alternative is readily available. You like this band. Fine. Go to a concert where you can get a camera in legally. Take a picture. Post it to Misplaced Pages (or better yet, Commons) under a free license. Done.
  • Now, for album covers; there's been long debate about the use of album covers in discographies. In short, we do not permit it.
  • On both of these topics, I'd be quite happy to go more in depth if you want to read more.
  • Also, while I have your attention :), The Automatic untitled second album should probably be deleted. Please see Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Note that articles are frequently deleted under this. For example, there was a fair bit of press coverage for the Beer Hall of Fame. An article was created on the subject based on the media coverage, and the article died...and rightfully so. Plans for the hall died, and it's never been built or talked much about since then. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Beer Hall of Fame. When this album from The Automatic is actually titled, has significantly more press coverage, perhaps a single release from it, maybe some cover art, a release date, etc. then an article is warranted. Not yet though; it's mostly speculation right now. --Durin 18:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Right logged in, ha. yeah well i have pictures of them (live ones i have taken, and friends have taken), just wasn't originally that sure about using images, like Theautomatic.jpg i thought if it was available on there Myspace, Purevolume, and available on there website to download then there would not be a problem with it.
  • Album arts i have already been talking to someone about that, so they won't be added back into the discography. I have still tried to add sumarys on the album arts i have uploaded, why it is fare use ect. The Automatic untitled second album i was unsure of what the guidlines were in regards to situations like this, for example when bands like Jimmy Eat World, Rancid, Sum 41, All American Rejects are all examples i have seen at different points with articles simular to what i have done with The Automatic untitled second album, a lot of the work i have done i just working around what other articles are like and trying not to overstep the line. But yes that can be deleted until more infomation is made available.
  • with regards to Theautomaticlogo.png what sort of guidlines are there to uploading and using logos. This logo is taken off of a single (TheAutomaticMonster-cover.jpg) but heavily edited (by me) to fit wikipedia. Id quite like to get that back in? But how can i make it (if possible) fare use? Thank you for your help.--Jacksack 20:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • First, happy to help and thanks for becoming civil :)
  • Second, logos of bands are generally acceptable to use on the articles about the band in question. In the various inclusion/removals that were done several times over Image:Theautomaticlogo.png was removed from the article. It can be added back in, in the infobox, without difficulty.
  • Third, the images you took are perfectly acceptable if you release them under a free license and you could use them in the article without concern. Images that a particular group uses for promotional work, even if published on a website, are not automatically available under a free license simply because they have been published. Thus, getting images from their myspace site doesn't eliminate copyright concerns. --Durin 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the fair use rationale heads-up concerning image:Makeup.jpg. I really hate it when admins just go all willy nilly and delete stuff without letting people know. Just so you are aware, I am not actually the one who uploaded that photo, it was User:Sachabrunel. However, I have responded to the deletion proposal on the orgininal image's deletion review entry (here). Drewcifer3000 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

image:Makeup.jpg

Hey there. Thanks for the fair use rationale heads-up concerning image:Makeup.jpg. I really hate it when admins just go all willy nilly and delete stuff without letting people know. Just so you are aware, I am not actually the one who uploaded that photo, it was User:Sachabrunel. However, I have responded to the deletion proposal on the orgininal image's deletion review entry (here). Drewcifer3000 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use question

Hey Durin. I brought up our little conundrum at WP:FUC (you can find the discussion topic here). I hope I presented your side of the debate faithfully, but feel free to change anything about it. And, of course, please contribute to the discussion! (Oh, and sorry for the double post earlier) Drewcifer3000 02:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Help Me

You removed my "Piston Cup" pictures from the article. I don't want them to be deleted but I don't know where to put them. Help me! --TimySmidge 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FAC and Fair Use

I agree with your concerns; I used to always ping Jkelly when I had questions, but I grew tired of bothering him. If you wouldn't mind having a look at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/United States housing bubble, it is one that concerns me—a lot of magazine covers, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good faith.

Yes, by all means please do assume bad faith on my part

Believe it or not, I was not looking for a flame war. My comments on assuming good faith were an attempt to be conciliatory, actually, not shut off debate. Clearly either I horribly misphrased them or you horribly misinterpreted them. Possibly both.

That said, I am (obviously) still frustrated that you don't seem to be addressing the points raised, but rest assured I am not in doubt that you are acting in good faith. SnowFire 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I appreciate what you've just said above. I also appreciate , specifically the new "Clarifying the issue at hand" section. If I overreacted to your statement on "trying to assume good faith", I apologize. I've simply become disgusted with the tolerance of uncivil behavior on Misplaced Pages that is treated as de rigueur; if you're not insulting someone, or making accusations of violating a guideline or policy, nobody will take you seriously. I refuse to work with people who use these methods. Text based communications has its limits. When I see "trying to assume good faith" it reads to me like "I *know* this person is acting in bad faith, but rather than making a blatant accusation, I'll say it this way" --Durin 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP

Stop being such a girl man..stand up for what is right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibm44 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mont Blanc and the Reichstag

Hi Durin!

Hmm... in my view the Mont Blanc decree did look very similar to the Reichstag in basic gist. Both were in the "If you are upset about something, don't do some attention-seeking ridiculous drama gimmick utterly unrelated to Misplaced Pages" mold, and I felt that JzG got there "firstest with the mostest" and had the moral patent on this joke.

I did consider looking the other way when I saw it was a creation of yours... but then I thought about Geogre's advice ("vote on the article, not the person"), so I went ahead with the MFD (so you could say that the MFD was all Geogre's fault). Perhaps I should have informed you about the MFD, and I have some regrets about not doing so, although usual practice in deletion nominations is not to do so.

Best wishes, Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • It looked similar because I modeled the form of it after the reichstag essay. The intent of mine was that ongoing format disputes do little to foster a better project. The reichstag intention is very different. I don't have any problem with voting on the article and not the person; I am personally disgusted with the social currency system here, so kudos to you for not giving this a pass because I wrote it. But, I seriously would have preferred being dropped a note about this to at least defend the article. I'm not wedded to it in any respect; don't care about it that much and it didn't seem to pick up links to it, so no worries about it being gone. I won't take it to the absurd cesspool that DRV has become that's for sure. I understand it's usual practice to not be informed. I was just rather shocked when I went to revisit it and *poof* it was gone and redirected to an article with entirely the wrong meaning. --Durin 14:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Robot imitations

That was great. Thanks for lightening my day; and that's not something I normally say after reading WT:FACR. Mike Christie (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Glad you enjoyed :) We needed a light hearted moment in there, and Brian kicked that effort off nicely. Thought it might be fun to pig pile on his idea and make some fun with it :) --Durin 16:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to understand WMF's licensing policy as regards fair-use

I'm trying to understand WMF's licensing policy as regards fair-use, and specifically the 10 criteria. How would they apply to the images at Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park. I rescued these pics after deletion and wrote fair-use rationales for them. Someone rewrote (or rather, templated) the rationale for the main pic. What are your views on the pics and how we are using them? Carcharoth 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)