User talk:Durin

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

Google User box template discussion

Durin - this matter has died down in February but doesn't seem to be resolved. Could you weight in please. Doesn't the typing in the

Template: user Google

being discussed at

Template talk:User Google

resemble and infringe upon

Image:Google logo transparent.png??Michael Dorosh 14:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ford Vedette

As the image currently illustrates an article on the front page, please do not delete it until the DYKes are revolved, OK? Secondly, I have only one question regarding the information left on my talk page - and why is that?

Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. The user who has been directly involved in securing the permission has (AFAIK) sent the email to permissions(at)wikipedia.org - if this was against WP policies, why wouldn't he receive a negative answer?

Moreover, I find absolutely impudent to delete those images just like that. Perhaps we might have secured additional permissions if we were given time and appropriate explanations. I can't even express how upset I am by what I perceive as extremely user-unfriendly conduct. Bravada, talk - 13:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel this is user-unfriendly. The directive comes from Jimbo Wales himself. I'm following that principle, as it is the underpinning for WP:CSD I3 and is a criteria for immediate, speedy deletion. If Jimbo felt there was negotiation room on this, he would have indicated an acceptable wait period, such as the 7 day wait period for unused images hosted here under a claim of fair use.
• I've removed the Ford image from "Did you know?" because of the policy violation, and did so prior to it's deletion.
• As I noted, I appreciate the effort to gain permission and sending such permission to Wikipedia is a good step. However, the lack of a response from Wikimedia is not an affirmative proclamation that the use of the images is acceptable.
• Please understand; I'm not trying to be in any way hostile towards you. I didn't see the images and think "Hey, I'll be a jerk to this guy". I'm simply following the explicit policy decreed by Jimbo Wales, the founder of this project. --Durin 13:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess Jimbo Wales not only said so, but also provided some explanation. I mean, if I corrupt the integrity of an article, I am not immediately blocked from editing WP, I get a warning because maybe I was just experimenting or not aware of the results of my actions. But when I have uploaded an image that does no possible harm to anybody (will the owner of Garage de l'Est sue WP for using images he just allowed WP to use???) it gets deleted without a prior warning. If a purported vandal receives warning messages and explanations concerning the way WP articles should be dealt with, why don't I receive a prior notice explaining why an additional license needs to be obtained, so that I had time to obtain it? I have every reason to believe we could have obtained such license from the copyright owner, but I am not sure whether I want to help Wikipedia now after how I am treated.

And please do not say "Jimbo says so". To me, you represent WP at the moment, and if you exercise power on behalf of it, it would only be curteous of you to say why it is so. Who set the rules is not that interesting to me, it is interesting to me why do they work like that (what is the rationale). Thank you in advance for an explanation. Regards, Bravada, talk - 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Good Lord, it was even too much for you to delete links to those images from the articles! Apart from the Vedette, they were used in ONE ARTICLE EACH, so this is an unbelievable toil, is it?

• Respectfully, I did inform you of why it was so and took pains to be as polite about it as possible. I am sorry you feel this was offensive; it most certainly was not my intent.
• You do have an opportunity to gain permission from the copyright holder to freely license the image and re-upload the images, presuming you still have copies of the images, which I think is a reasonable conclusion. Deleting the images does not in any way prevent you from re-uploading the images again, under a free license. In fact, I heartily encourage you to do so! They are great images, and I'd love to see them here. We just need to have them under a free license.
• I'd just like to juxtapose the images you uploaded under a limited license with Image:Simca Ariane - cropped.jpg. This image was released under GFDL.
• As to why it needs to move quickly and what harm can be caused: I'd like to have you take a look at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. There are literally hundreds of sites that are using our content. The images that you uploaded are for use of Wikipedia alone. However, the images would rapidly propagate to a number of sites having no affiliation with Wikipedia. The use of the images on those sites is in direct contravention of the permissions granted by the copyright holder of the images you uploaded. We are trying to be respectful of copyright holders who grant "used with permission" licenses who are frequently unaware of how widely their work is distributed. A copyright holder would be rightfully angered if a used with permission image showed up on hundreds of non-Wikipedia sites, with us saying "Hey, it's not our fault. We're not responsible for their actions!" While it is true we are not responsible for those sites, we do have some responsibility to be respectful of copyright holder's wishes, else gaining access to copyrighted work through a free license could be considerably more problematic.
• Again, I'm sorry you feel offended. I had no intention of trying to upset you in any respect. Deleting the images was not a knee-jerk response to a used with permission problem, but a process built on sound reasoning as you can see from above. I heartily encourage your contributions, but we must have material available to us under a free license or under terms of fair use (which is narrowly defined on Wikipedia, for reasons of self protection among others). --Durin 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Durin, I appreciate that you are as polite as could be concerning the tone of your messages, but these are actions that matter to me and upset me. In other words, you could have sent me the message as an elaborate song telegram delivered by high elves, but this does not change the shock and horror I am subject to concerning the ways the Wikipedia Foundation works. I understand it's not your fault you act as you've been told to, but then you have agreed to act on behalf of the Foundation so I believe this mission encompasses explaining the actions to the user.

OK, this still sounds moderately illogical to me. You say that it is "to protect copyright holders' interests" - if so, why does WP simply not disable the forking of copyrighted content? I really don't think it is THAT technically difficult. A copyright holder might be absolutely OK with helping build a better free encyclopedia by letting WP use his or her photos, but not really to license some unidentified forks and other organizations to make commercial use of his or her work. I would never ever propose anybody to agree to such a thing! I would, however, gladly inform them that there is a possibility that the images will be forked because there are sites that fork out the content of WP as it comes, and that he has to declare that he will not hold the WP Foundation accountable for that.

If I were you, I'd bring this issue before whatever the Supreme Body is above you within the WP structure - the whole thing makes me feel like packing my bags and leaving, while also asking for all the content I have contributed (bar my own images, which I always upload releasing them into public domain) to be removed, as I was mislead as to how the Wikipedia works. The content I contributed is not of too much value, I guess, so no big harm would be done, but I guess WP does not want to be dishearten users - rather on the contrary, yup? Bravada, talk - 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for removing the links. I was so surprised you did not do that because when you upload an image marking it "education/non-commercial use only", the template that pops out and says it's foo-foo also instructs the admins to check for such links, so I thought this is standard policy.

PS2. I am puring it all on you, because I obviously will not email Jimbo Wales about that. I am sorry that you serve as a bumper here, but what I hope to achieve, apart from a logical explanation, is you also complaining to the higher instance that you are being subject to impolite treatment because the policy and instructions for admins are formulated like that, which will perhaps make some people rethink them.
Moreover, everything related to the issue "why no images with permission" links to Jimbo's email in which he does NOT explain why they can't be used, and also mentions examples that are clearly irrelevant in the cases like that - while it is fairly easy to take a photo of a bulding standing in the middle of a big city in the US, or blinds on a window, it is absolutely not that easy to take a picture of a Ford Vedette (which makes me wonder why I haven't uploaded it into fair use not asking anybody for permission - so much outright "FU" stretches survive for so long here...).

• de-indent Respectfully, I did explain why the images needed to be deleted. Please note that most of the images were tagged for speedy deletion before I ever got to them. Most items that fall into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion are rapidly deleted without any commentary left to the creator/uploader at all. In most cases, this is entirely proper; considerable content that is deleted through that category is of a nature that does not deserve deletion explanation (for example, an article on John Smith being created saying "He's a terrible teacher! The worst at North Sebastian Junior High!"). I took time to explain why the images were deleted because it was apparent you had put forth considerable effort with regards to the images, and it deserved an explanation. I recognize there are limitations to textual communication and that the explanation was not sufficient for you. From my chair, I thought it would be as I explained the policy under which it was deleted. Since then, it's become apparent that explanation was insufficient. But, I chalk that up to communications limitations rather than willful intent on my part. If we'd been talking in person about this, this would have gone considerably more smoothly, I am sure. It's not you and I that are really at odds here; I think we can get along fine. It's the limitations of our communication medium here in this case causing disruption to the explanation.
• We don't disable forking/mirroring of content because the only copyrighted content that we allow here is used under terms of fair use. Thus, any other use of the copyrighted content is also (hopefully) legitimately under terms of fair use. With that in mind, we are not violating the rights or permissions of any copyright holders. The principle behind this is that we are striving to build an encyclopedia that is free to anyone, for any purpose, anywhere in the world. For example, one of the projects that is using Wikipedia content (in this case under the auspices of the Wikimedia foundation) is a printed encyclopedia intended to be distributed to third world countries for the education of children. It is entirely possible that some for-profit actions will need to be involved in that in order to pay for the significant costs of that project, though of course to the children it would be free. If we had content here that we could only use on Wikipedia, we'd be significantly restricted in our ability to conduct such projects. This devolves into a messy situation; if we permit images to be here under a "used with permission" license, we should also permit textual content under such a license. The two types of material are not subtantially different. It would create a very messy situation that would be immensely difficult to untangle to create derivative works from Wikipedia. We're trying to keep it simple; It's either free use or fair use.
• As to requesting your content be removed; it is my understanding you can't. All textual content that you have contributed has been licensed under terms of GFDL.
• We can't use an image of the Ford Vedette here under a fair use license because there are multiple such vehicles in existence (maybe hundreds, or even thousands). The car was produced for 7 model years. This particular image is not of unique historical value (one of the ways in which fair use can be claimed) nor is access to such a vehicle to take a photo of it impossible, such as no surviving vehicles being in existence (another way in which fair use can be claimed). Fair use taggings are regularly disputed. See Category:Disputed fair use images, which contains several hundred images. So while the images in question might have slipped in under the radar on fair use, it is likely they would have eventually been picked up. The only reason I found these images is because I was doing recent changes patrolling against templates and pulled up {{Did you know}} looking for fair use violations, which is something I frequently do. See User:Durin#Fair_use_work. Other people may have found them in other ways, such as reviewing recent changes for images.
• I apologize that I did not remove the images from the articles in question. As you noted, I have now done this. It is indeed standard policy to remove them. I'm human too. :)
• I don't mind you pouring it on me. I don't mind being a bumper. I probably type more in explanation of various things than the vast majority of Wikipedians (for example, see this; most admins just close/delete without explanation). I'm not bragging on this; just noting that I'm happy to be the person you butted up against in this, as I'd much rather have me explain than have someone else barely explain or not explain at all and have you leave the project over a misunderstanding.
• I don't intend to complain to Jimbo about this policy because it's well founded in my opinion. Please understand; Wikipedia is under a *constant* onslaught of image uploads that are wildly inaccurate in their licensing and in their use on Wikipedia. A recent estimation of mine showed that we have more then 34,000 fair use violations, and that's just one area of copyright problems that we have with images. Used with permission images created a very significant problem for us, and it is an area that became intolerable because it was being badly abused. The CSD I3 criterion was in response to that, to give up some weapons to fight the very serious problems we have with copyright abuse. This goes to the core of the very survival of Wikipedia; if we come under an onslaught of copyright lawsuits, it would drain our (very limited) coffers. We just don't have the resources to fight such problems in court. I am not saying your images in particular are so egregious; just that the category they found themselves in is one of the battlegrounds of copyright problems on Wikipedia.
• As for being subjected to impolite treatment; Hey, that's your fault not mine :) Seriously, I don't take offense at people getting upset when policies are applied properly. We try very hard to educate users, and offer plenty of opportunity for them to be exposed to and understand our policies and guidelines. Still, it's a heavy task and one that only a small subset of users undertake prior to conducting a given contribution. I don't think there's much more we could do to educate our users prior to making contributions in contravention of our policies without locking down the encyclopedia for editing by all but trusted users. Of course the problem then is how do we get new trusted users, and the answer is we don't. So, some negative outcome of the application of policy is to be expected. It hurts, and we have users who get upset, but I'm not sure we can do much more short of a mandatory bootcamp or some such for new contributors. But, that again undermines the very basis of what we are as a project.
• I am at a loss as to understand the disconnect we are experiencing regarding the intent of this project and your viewpoint on what the intent of this project is. I wish we could amicably resolve this. I was rather startled to read this when my explanation was no less illuminating or less polite. --Durin 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Durin, please accept my full and remorseful apology for what has become of this issue. You have now pointed out towards a significant difference in perception of it due to one small fact I was not aware of - that the images were tagged for speedy deletion. I am convinced they were on my watchlist, so I believe either they were tagged for deletion in a very short time before they got deleted (I was online at that time and I was checking my watchlist every now and then, where "now and then" stands for "like every 15 minutes") OR somebody embedded the speedy deletion category tag into the template, which I was not aware of. Either way, for me it seemed that I am bein a terrible goodie-goodie, asking for permission (actually asking another Dutch-speaking user to ask for permission, he wasn't informed of the whole kerfuffle yet, I have to explain it to him), doing everything as said in the "asking for permission" page, describing everything in the image summary, and this all was done because I have been told by the people updating the DYK page that it would be good to have images with nominations.

So, I was thinking I am going the extra mile to ensure everything is OK while everybody around do outright copyright breaches, and you were thinking you are going the extra mile to explain to the offender who sees the deletion notice and does nothing about that.

Again, I would like to offer my full and sincere apology for what happened and my reaction, which was caused by this misunderstanding.

As concerns WP policies etc., I've had a talk with Interiot on that too, and I believe this needs to be discussed in more detail, as this does not actually work for the benefit of Wikipedia. Interiot pointed out towards talk pages where the issue could be raised to gain further attention. I need some time to formulate my conclusions, but I will make sure you are notified of that.

One thing that makes Admins' work hard and unrewarding is that you are, for the most part, very intelligent people. You seem to assume that there are equally intelligent people on the other end of the line, which is not always the case (like now). I studied business - this can probably give you enough insight into my limited intellectual capacities. Interiot has a way with people with limited intellectual capacities like myself and is able to explain the issues to us so that we understand. You have probably done everything to explain that to a fairly intelligent person and it must have been annoying for you to find out I am not satisified with or even thankful for that. For me, it was fending me off with some legal stuff I don't understand :D (I'm talking Wikipedia "legal system" here, not the copyright law thing, this is more or less understandable for me!)

So, again, please do accept the apology of the intelectually-challenged :D

Bravada, talk - 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I would also like to warn you of my rudimentary English knowledge - English is not my native language and I do not always understand what other people say to me the way they intended it, and I also sometimes say something that sounds different to a native speaker's ear than I thought it will.

• Apology, though not needed, accepted. I have no grudge with you nor am I upset with you. I just wanted to try to amicably resolve this so that a person such as yourself who is making such fantastic contributions isn't pushed off the project. There are some people here who are quite happy to rip apart other users. I'm not one of them; everybody is important, from Jimbo down to the person making the first edit.
• Studying business does not mean you're an intellectual weakling :)
• Your English is fine! Prior to my looking at your user page a few minutes ago, I had no idea you were from Warsaw or indeed a non-native speaker of English.
• I don't have a big interest in cars, so I don't know how often our paths will cross in our work here. But, I hope we will cross paths again. Apart from some misunderstandings, it has been a pleasure to work with you. I think we've ironed out the misunderstandings. All the best, --Durin 16:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Durin, thanks for advising me on the policy on images. (I feel honoured just to have you on my talk page, and now feel entitled to use the phrase Durin's beard even in casual parlance). Take care -- Samir धर्म 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PSI Award!

I would like to award you this PSI Award to you for being unfalteringly civil and kind to users while handling admin issues, even when you have every reason not to - Bravada

As with Interiot, I have a problem with finding a "Barnstar for a Great Admin", so let me present you with this remotely-related PSI Award - do exchange it for the Barnstar that would be appropriate, I have little experience with them, but I intend to give you one that is awarded for Great Admin Service!

I must say it was really impressive for me to read your unfalteringly courteous replies even when I was expecting some angry words. Bravada, talk - 17:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Very much appreciated! I'm exceedingly glad we amicably resolved this. I would have hated to see you leave the project! --Durin 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Limited license on en.wiki

<grin> Which wiki is that? I'm on at least 4 en.wikis; but I assume you were referring to en.wp.

I created this template to address a specific circumstance which developed in April. The images and license were discussed on Foundation-l. Where en.wp wants to go with this is up to the community. But thanks for the head's up about it! I really appreciate it. - Amgine 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Could you clarify about the specific circumstances? I'm concerned that we're left with a tag that is against policy without any justification for it's existence. If there's a reason, it should be detailed; else the tag will be used inappropriately (it already has). --Durin 21:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you know it was inappropriately? Perhaps there are just conflicting policies we have unearthed! Bravada, talk - 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My presumption is that a special case was created for Image:GOJ 03.jpg, Image:GOJ 07.jpg, Image:GOJ 08.jpg, and Image:GOJ BOOKTWO.jpg. Note the special note on each of these images in bold. They were all uploaded by User:Amgine. I presume that this special case does not apply anywhere else. Given the peculiar nature and status of these images, the case of the use of this template is also peculiar and unique to these images. Thus, it's use elsewhere is quite likely improper, especially since it radically disagrees with CSD I3. But, Amgine and Brad Patrick are considerably experienced members of the Wikipedia community; this wasn't an accident, but a reasoned process. I'd like to know what that reasoned process was, and whether we should move to delete that template. --Durin 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
      • OK now, this actually sets a precedent - there is some content within the WP database that CANNOT be dumped just like that to another sites. I believe if this image is OK with Wikipedia, there is no reason not to uphold the rules on which it is used to all images for which an appropriate permission was obtained through an acceptable policy. I would have a hard time trying to explain Mr. Stedehouder why he has to let all his competitors use his images, but I guess I could convince him it would be very nice of him to send a special declaration of consent, or license, to the Wikimedia Foundation. Bravada, talk - 22:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• de-indent This is precisely why I am asking for clarification from the respective parties. If this tag is used beyond the four images mentioned, we are most definitely going against what Jimbo stated, and we lead ourselves into another massive battle over copyright problems at Wikipedia. I strongly recommend not using this tag until such time as it is very clearly delineated as to how and when it can be used, IF it remains here at all. --Durin 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess I now know how this came about. Still, WP policies clearly need a refresh on that - I perhaps understand why they were created, but seems like nobody thought of the conflict of interests they generate and that they per saldo hurt WP.
    

BTW, I have asked you a question on the Ford Vedette talk page. Could you check that out in your spare time? Thanks! Bravada, talk - 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Zelda

You've been doing a lot of reverting to this template. Perhaps you could ask someone else to keep an eye on it too; you're the only one and you're beginning to make decisions that aren't perfectly simple and clear to everyone involved. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you regarding the copyright status; I'm asking you to voluntarily call in a second opinion or second copyright-educated user. I'm sure you'll let me know if you have any comments :) BigNate37_(T) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Not a bad suggestion. I think I'll implement a modified form of that. Thanks! --Durin 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)-

---

I have a question, then, about copyrighting generally. What if I got a tattoo of the Triforce on my body? Am I breaking copyright law? I know of many people who've done this. They are representing themselves via the logo on their bodies. Why can't we represent ourselves via the logo in Userspace? I understand that fair use images are generally not permitted in Userspace by Wikipedia rule. But using it in Userspace to represent myself, or any other person, would not in any way claim that the icon is theirs! One doesn't imply that they have creative rights or ownership simply by using it... it doesn't make sense. Isn't there some way to credit Nintendo on the Image page and let it lie?

• The policy at Wikipedia was written to provide a manageable environment with regards to fair use. There are certainly plenty of cases where a fair use claim could be made regarding a particular image used outside of the main article namespace. But, the policy does not permit this because having an environment with a dizzying array of exceptions, exclusions, and explanations is essentially impossible to manage. The policy is written to be clear and simple to understand; no fair use outside of main article namespace. This is considerably easier to manage. --Durin 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And I also have a point to make. My three-triangle arrangement that you reverted is NOT a Triforce. The Triforce has each golden triangle touching at the vertices at which they meet. My grouping of images leaves blackspace between the three triangles. The Triforce is never depicted this way when considered whole, and furthermore when used as an official icon. Thus, my arrangement should not break copyright. It does not use fair use images, and I would openly expect rebuttal if I had merely altered a pixel or something minute along these lines, but my version is distinctly different, especially given the natural simplicity of the icon itself—the spacing stands out all the more for that reason. It's like the pseudo-word "fcuk." It's not a real curse word, in fact it's distinctly different, but people understand what it's referencing. If you think the spacing isn't that noticable — it was at least on a few computers I checked — it could be increased to further distinguish the differences. Check again if you wish. --Tryforceful 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Derivative works of copyrighted images do not need to look precisely like their creative ancestors in order to violate copyrights. If this were the case, I could make minor modifications to the Coca-Cola logo and sell a zillion t-shirts without fear of legal retribution. Rest assured, if I did that the Coke lawyers would be on more door very, very fast. --Durin 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Tryforceful, two things. Asking leading questions like those assumes an unfriendly tone and certainly won't help you reach a resolution on this matter. May I suggest if you are upset about this, that you take a break from editing this template? In the long run, it won't matter much who wins. Second thing, to address your arguement of expression, it may qualify as legal fair use but Wikipedia has chosen a stricter policy than that demanded by copyrgiht law. WP:FU states that fair use images must be only used in article space, even if legal elsewhere.

With respect to the three triangles being sufficiently different, consider if you will: three triangles, made up of three free GPL images on a black HTML background, in nearly the exact formation of the triforce—the difference is one pixel of black space between each triangle. No copyrighted image is used. From your comments above, you imply that you would agree that this is a copyright violation. Where then, do we draw the line? How much black space is enough? You're debating something in a grey (gray?) area; that along with the fact that the images are being used as a substitute for the triforce is why you will need to be very convincing and receptive to discussion if this is to be resolved satisfactorily for you. BigNate37_(T) 06:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Two things; one, fair use law in the United States is deliberately vague. It is difficult to legally define where the line is. Wikipedia takes a conservative approach; better to have no image than to end up in court. Two, the matter has been resolved to my satisfaction at [1]. Based on that discussion, I'm going to be changing the tag on the base image and putting it back from where it was removed. BigNate37, thanks for your hand in this. --Durin 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

so many stones-play cog

in humam sence not to deny it hurts bad

help me ajust for what Ihave to parse

Kisida 14:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• ??? --Durin 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question

I would like to bother you with copyright issues once again - User:BabyNuke has emailed Mr. Stedehouder again asking him if he would license the photos under Creative Commons 2.5 (BY), providing the link to the license text in Dutch. He answered something like "OK" (see BabyNuke's talk page for details), but I am not sure whether this is enough for us to upload the photos using the CC tag. Would you be so kind and tell us whether it would suffice or do we need something more from Mr. Stedehouder? Thanks, Bravada, talk - 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think I would make it clear to Mr. Stedehouder what the ramifications are of releasing the images under that license and noting the numbers of mirrors and forks. He will have no control over the images once released under that license. If he's comfortable with that, then great. --Durin 23:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I will forward it to BabyNuke! Bravada, talk - 23:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Uno momento - does that mean that it is enough that he sends an email saying "OK I agree with that" to BabyNuke and we can use all photos from his website, or should there rather be some more formal declaration?

• I would seek a blanket statement from him regarding all images on his website releasing them under terms of CC 2.5. Make sure he understands the ramifications of that release; anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If he doesn't want to release all pictures, I would get a list of pictures he is willing to release under those terms. Then, attach his communication to each image on the image's page, under licensing. That will clarify the copyright situation. --Durin 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• You're up late this evening :) --Durin 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I always am - I have a sleeping disorder and this is how I cope with the resulting "spare time" :D Bravada, talk - 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah. Makes sense :) --Durin 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

TS guy is back

I put a speedy tag here: TourettesGuy.com. Sandy 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted before I got to it. I just added {{deletedpage}} to it and protected it. --Durin 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

just wanted to check

Were you all the way done with your review? I know you're thorough; I responded on the subpage to your commentary so far, and took your advice about the userpage. -- nae'blis 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, not all the way done. I completed as much as I had time for at that moment. I'll try to get some more done soon. --Durin 13:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

SUNY Potsdam Images

Durin,

Thank you for clearing up the copyright issues with Image:Satterlee.jpg, Image:Merritt.jpg, Image:Hosmer_Hall.jpg, and Image:Crane_Banner.jpg. I have contacted the creator, Matthew Keller, to see if he will release the images under GFDL. Will the images remain on Wikipedia in the meantime? I will let you know what he says. Thank you. Jondude11 14:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, they'll remain for now at least under the current tagging. You might have as little as a week to clear this up though. Thanks, --Durin 14:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The coats of arms in questions are all creations of a user. He in good faith tagged them with what seemed like the right tag but is simply the wrong one. As they are creations of his he could retag them to PD-user and fix the problem in one go. Removing them is patently nuts as given that he is the copyright owner of those images he is hardly likely to sue if they remain in situ as fair use until he fixes his own tagging. Next time before ripping up templates try reading the file and contacting the owner of the image first. That way problems can be solved quickly without time having to be wasted undoing damage done to templates and the pages they sit on, where often images on the pages are linked to the size of a template and can be thrown all over the place if a big chunk of a template is unnecessarily deleted. All your actions result in as a messed up template, messed up pages, pages needing fixing, then the user fixing the tag and reinserting the image, then checking all the pages to see if things need adjusting. If you had checked with him first all that would have been needed was one quick fix on the image page. Next time please check first. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)