Jump to content

User talk:Durin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wahkeenah (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 16 May 2007 (→‎Spoilers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Mail for me
Mail for me

image

How is it not a legitimate fair use claim? The Placebo Effect 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category transclusion workaround

I came across your attempt to transclude the contents of a category. I spent some hours with coffee, vulgarity and MediaWiki documentation looking for a solution. I believe I have found a way to effectively display the desired information. Here you can see the edit showing the functioning "hack". I used the CategoryTree extension of MediaWiki. Be well! :D Vassyana 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vassyana, I'm thoroughly impressed! Fantastic piece of work! I'm sure the vulgarity was the chief deciding factor, even if the paint in the room you were sitting in at the time didn't appreciate it :) --Durin 12:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vulgarity absolutely did the trick. Sometimes you just need to scare the net into giving you the information you desire. *chuckle* I can be quite dogged when I get it into my head that I need to find some piece of information. Thank you for the compliment, by the by. It certainly means something to me if I've managed to impress you. ;o) Completely off-topic, I was wondering if you had any plans to live test other RfA formats. I found the tests done so far to be interesting, both in the proposed formats and in the various responses to them. Vassyana 08:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A compliment from me is not worth much, at least if you ask around at WT:RFA :) I do plan more tests, yes. The next test I think will be quite, quite interesting. It'll be one of, if not the, most suggested format alternative. --Durin 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, disturbing the status quo is always sure to ruffle a few feathers. The compliment is worth something to me because I respect you and you don't seem too easily impressed. ;) On the tests, I'd be willing to be a test subject for one if you'd have me. I'm interested in the sysop bit, and would likely focus on dispute resolution. However, not passing RfA wouldn't cause me any undue stress, since I can easily continue doing what I do regardless of the outcome. If you'd be willing to have me as a guinea pig, let me know. Vassyana 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've garned my respect. Key to the testing process is, as you suggest your willing to endure above, an expectation that it would fail simply because it's a test. Further, you should be willing to see the test to conclusion. There has been very significant pressure brought to bear to end tests before the 7 days is up in the first two that I conducted, most especially with the first Matt Britt RfA. If you're willing to endure that pressure, and willing to accept the undoubted assaults upon you by people who criticize you for being willing to be a guinea pig, then you'd make a reasonable guinea pig so far. --Durin 00:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason I couldn't ride it out the full seven days. I full well expect there shall be some pointed questions and opposition due to format. A lack of the sysop bit won't stop me from participating in dispute resolution, editing articles or doing anything else I do on Wikipedia. It would give me a few more tools to work with and allow me to help lighten the admin workload, but it is "no big deal". :) Vassyana 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's launch this early next week, ok? --Durin 04:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Sounds good to me. May I inquire what format I might expect? Also, I should probably let you know a few things about me. ;o) I am a MedCab participant and recently have become a coordinator. Good examples of my participation in dispute resolution/informal mediation outside of MedCab can be seen at Talk:Prem Rawat and Talk:Techniques of Knowledge. I have participated a fair amount in XfD. I've made significant edits to Taoism. Taoic religion passed as a good article mainly through my efforts to expand and source the article. I have previously undergone an editor review to help assess my contributions and actions. If you have any further questions about my participation, or in general, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The format will be "discussions for adminship", where there's discussion for three days then straight voting for four days. I suspect the format will be received as poorly as the RfC format. --Durin 12:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads up. I find that format interest and a potential way to spur greater discussion. If it is as poorly received as the RfC format, so be it. I am greatly interested to see what the discussion period generates. In this format, would there be any more or less expectation for a candidate to respond to comments? Am I correct in envisioning that the visible format would be similar to the current one, except the vote sections would be added after three days? Vassyana 20:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I had almost forgot I volunteered to be a test subject. :) The conversation below about discuss-then-vote reminded me, since that was the general format discussed. Were you still interested and willing to test the idea and use me as a test subject? Vassyana 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use criteria numbering

Just a heads up - recent changes to WP:FU have changed the listed items and numbering, so references to #9 on that page may not be the criteria you intend. FYI. --Minderbinder 17:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peterborough and Cambridgeshire infoboxes

I have noticed your little "edit war" last night and would like to draw your attention to the following page Template:Dynamic navigation box with image. Armorial bearings are not logos, please do not remove them. 163.167.129.124 13:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any image marked with a non-free licensing tag may not be used on any non-main namespace article. This prohibits their use on templates. If the image you wish to use on templates is in fact available under a free license, then by all means please provide affirmative proof that it is, and re-tag the image as appropriate per whatever free license the image is available under. Please note that there has been considerable debate as to the status of coats of arms. The general outcome has been that this must be treated on case by case basis. Thus, if you provide affirmative proof that the image is in fact available under a free license, then you are free to use it on templates. However, barring the provision of such evidence, the use of non-free imagery on templates is strictly forbidden per terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria item #8. Please do not undo their removal without providing evidence of them being available under a free license. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you, --Durin 13:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Civic Heraldry of England & Wales. I consider the arms to be in the public domain and their inclusion as fair use. Please also see Template:University of Cambridge and all Italian provinces for example. 163.167.129.124 13:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, if a given image is available under a free license, then per image please provide this evidence and update the tag on the image to a free license tag. Without the provision of this evidence on the image, and the image being tagged as a non-free image, they can not exist on templates. --Durin 13:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On goons and goonage

Hey cool, I'm a fair use "goon" now! --Durin 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense meant. If it weren't for the fair-use goons and their rampant fair-use goonage, I'd get much less template-space work. (Full disclosure: I also moonlight as a fair-use goon when it suits my purposes, but no one knows this. ... Wait... Damn.) --Dynaflow 04:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

loosen up, seriously man

This user needs to loosen up. Seriously, man its not good for your health.
You might want to check out some of the wonderful contributions of this editor.--MONGO 15:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup...that's part of the problem of course.--MONGO 15:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you know, sarcassim is the lowest form of humor, although i usually find it hilarious.I am Paranoid 20:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot-owner who deserves a barnstar from you

Hi Durin. I don't know if you have seen User:Gnome (Bot) yet. The bot is removing all nonfree images from userspace. My stats tell me that out of the 9499 images scanned by the bot till now, 230 have been in userspace. That is 9499 less images for you to scan. See offenders list here :) - Aksi_great (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Password security

Re: [1]. I don't think that is a good checker. It rates "Password123456" as BEST... I suggest [2]. WjBscribe 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

My adminship has been restored and let me tell you, we've got to very careful with our passwords. You know, despite the headache that this caused me, it really made me feel good to know how many friends I have in Wikipedia. The support has been incredible. I can't let my friends here down. Thanks for the birthday wish too Tony the Marine 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the person that's closest to being an image copyright expert on Wikipedia that I know, I've got a question for you. Is Image:Metaxa 7 star amphora.jpg freely licensed or not? It's a picture of a bottle with copyrighted material on it. I could see the fair use of it but, can it be used freely because it is a photograph of it? I'm confused. Thanks --Kimontalk 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hey man... Sorry I've been such a dick about the fair use images, I just wanted to make my userpage look freakin awesome. I'll try to follow policy better in the future.
DarthSkynyrd

RFA/B

Hi there - I have been reading your comments over at User talk:Cecropia#Further thoughts regarding consensus and your RfB. Thanks for the fascinating external link. Food for thought.

You said that the essay would be shocking, if read in the context of RFA, and I wanted to see what you meant.

The essay lists three things to accept, and four things to design for, to create successful interactions in large groups:

Accept
  1. social and technical go together - are we failing here? The devs seem quite disconnected from the editors, although there are clearly lots of people who overlap.
  2. members are different from users - are we failing here? Wikipedia is so large that I don't know half of the admins, let alone registered users. On the other hand, I know people that work on things that I work on pretty well, and an IP or newly registered editor is clearly different to a 10,000+ contribution old timer.
  3. the core group trumps individual rights - surely we are OK here - admins and "old timers" fiercely defend the core policies (BLP, NPOV, etc)
Design requirements
  1. handles (usernames) so people develop a reputation in their pseudonym - surely we are OK here (and the Kaycee Nicole story makes a nice counterpoint to the Essjay debacle, I though)
  2. members in good standing - I guess edit count, and the ability to review an editor's edit history to find their FAs, DYKs, etc, is a proxy for this
  3. barriers to participation - I am guessing that this is the one that you think is problematic for RFA - yes? That virtually any editor can vote at RFA, with no regard to how much they have invested in Wikipedia? And that we need to defend the "core group" from the unwashed masses? If so, some kind of account age/number of edits voting restriction would be sufficient, no? (My guess is that the bureaucrats already treat reasoned objections from seasoned editors with more weight that drive-by supports or opposes by anons or new editors.)
  4. dealing with scale - perhaps you think we have a problem here too? I'm not sure how to deal with the problem of scale at RFA, but it is a problem elsewhere too - I guess the Village Pump was originally the way to connect everyone at once, but it became too large and was subdivided. WP:AN and WP:ANI are now the ways for admins to coordinate, but there is already too much traffic IMHO for it to be that useful. Perhaps IRC is the way forward? And Wikiprojects helpfully break editors down into manageable units to collaborate by subject area.

The essay also says that a constitution is necessary - not a set of formal rules, but a core set of rules about how to make other rules. I think we are not too badly off here.

Anyway, I would be interested in your thoughts. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What jumps out at me is scaling issues. When taken with Dunbar's Number, it shows a situation that is ultimately untenable. RfA has become too large of a group to achieve consensus on anything. In April 2007, there were 231 contributors to WT:RFA. 231. Such a large group can not hope to evolve to respond to changing needs. Another issue is the barriers to participation, in the sense that one person can create a negative situation. Bureaucrats are empowered to ignore some opposition/support, but in practice rarely do. Quite a number of people argue quite vociferously that their "vote" should carry equal weight, regardless of rationale for it. Problem there is, as David Gerard puts it, one moron-one vote, and an opposition vote has three times the weight of a support vote. If RfA were a straight majority, this would be considerably less problematic. What we have now is a crossbred system that serves neither voting nor consensus garnering well. If it were a straight vote, it should just be support/oppose, and signature. No commentary. There would be no objections, no disputes, far fewer hurt feelings. If it were a consensus system, it would have to be significantly redesigned. What goes for consensus now is just drive by opinions of people who jump into the meeting, speak their opinion, and walk out without waiting for anyone to comment. Sorry if this is rambling; a bit distracted right now. --Durin 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woot, sane conversation has erupted!

[3]

Your numerical skill would rock here. :-) --Kim Bruning 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure what figures you'd like. Ratio of editors to admins? That's not terribly useful since new article creation required an account. The numbers of new accounts have sky rocketed. Ratio of edits to admins? Potentially useful. This figure keeps getting "worse" (read: more edits per admin per day) and worse and worse.
  • Something this conversation seems aiming at; defining a need for more admins. That debate is fatuous. Being an admin isn't about need for more admins. We do need admins, but need is not a requirement for more. Anyone who can be trusted should have the flag, whether they perform one admin function a year or ten thousand.
  • I would *love* to see 100 new RfAs noms in a day. That'd blow the system apart and prove the scalability problems. --Durin 17:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kim, if it helps; the number of edits per admin per day ratio has risen 26% over the last year, from ~178 per admin per day to 224 per admin per day. --Durin 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: vandalism

I'm very disappointed in your actions Durin. How could you go as low as creating a sockpuppet to wish my death by cancer (and stairs!). Shame on you man... :-) Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstractopera.JPG

Durin, thank you for your clear and polite message regarding Abstractopera.JPG. You said the image was OperaLogo.png, but pasted onto a different backround and I can understand why you think that; it looks very similar. However, if you take a closer look you will notice that it is not. First of all, I would like to say to keep in mind that both "O's" are the same size when comparing distances.

  • In operalogo.png (lets call that "A" to save time) the space in the hole from the first appearance of red to the second (vertically) in the "O" is 278 pixels (approximately).
Abstractopera.JPG (lets call it "B") is only about 263 pixels.
  • In "A" the width of the space in the hole (first to second occurence of red again) is 104 px.
In "B" it is 114 px.
  • In "A" the width of the area where the light is most abundant in the top left of the "O" is about 7.6 px
In "B" it is around 10 px
  • The most major difference between the two images is that "A" has (towards the bottom left section of hole in the "O") a thickness of 11 px
Image "B" has a thickness of 50.2 px

Thank You.--eskimospy (talk • contribs • count) 01:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • The differences you note are miniscule. If I were to make similar adaptations to say, the logo for Coca-Cola and then make a million t-shirts for sale around the world, the lawyers would be on my doorstep faster than I could put one of the t-shirts on. --Durin 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq logos

But they were NOT in a template! Why are you not going after J. League - 2007 and other alike? What is the problem? In the 06-07 series, I did it one by one - Iraq Super League (2006-2007) - so your telling me this is ok, but if I create a shortcut then all hell breaks loose? You want me to do them one by one? What is the point of templates then? Chaldean 15:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your telling me what I did here; Iraq Super League (2006-2007) - is right? Chaldean 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its annoying people like you that make wikipedia tasteless. Good day. Chaldean 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I am so embarrassed to ask since it might mean that I'm woefully lacking in procedural knowledge, and please let me apologize in advance if I'm speaking out of turn. It looked to me like the cut-off to add comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tenebrae2 is 22:33 today, but a comment was removed with the edit summary "not open yet". Help! This is all overwhelming and I feel so ignorant. Could you clear up the deadline discrepancy for me. Thank you so much for your help and patience? --Tenebrae 17:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The RfA was never transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. As such, it never officially opened. Being inexperienced in how to do this is perfectly acceptable. Canvassing other people to get votes is way out of line. This calls into serious doubt your ability to judge consensus on things such as AfD closures and the like. Consensus is not about voting. Trying to get friendly acquaintances of yours to support your RfA is seriously bad form. --Durin 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just found Wikipedia:Canvassing; I had gone to the what-to-do-when-you're-nominated page, and hadn't seen anything about it, and I've been contacted in the past in this manner for RfA. I just want to assure you again it was innocent.
I'll go withdraw. Truth to tell, I hadn't asked, expected or wanted a nomination; I only agreed after several days of mulling it over and deciding to do it out of a sense of responsibility. Maybe this is meant to be. Thank you again for your help. My God, am I embarrassed ... all these people I know must think I'm an idiot (although for the record, I did contact editors with whom I've clashed, in order to get a rounded picture). You've been right to point to this out. --Tenebrae 17:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's perfect. There's no withdrawal necessary, since it never went live. Instead, I'd recommend tagging it for speedy deletion. --Durin 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry again. I saw a whole list labeled "Admin stuff" on your user page.
That said, since it never went live, and because I believe I can do some good, I'm going forward with this, and you can and should oppose it for your valid reasons. I think my inadvertent vio here (which I've cleaned up as the page specified) needs to be balanced with the totality of my work. --Tenebrae 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your graciousness, even though we view things differently. There's no rush — I hadn't asked to be put in this position of extra work and responsibility. But now that I have, I need it to be decided so it's not hanging over my head. Given that we are all anonymous volunteers, taking time for what in my case is less is a hobby than an educational cause, I don't think that kind of closure is too much for which to ask. And as well, people do need to know about my mistake today, to judge me it totality, so I honest-to-God need you to point it out in the debate. I know you'll be fair. --Tenebrae 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'm a sentimental sort, but even so, the time you're taking, the care and effort you're giving, the encouragement and the advice ... maybe it's just the whole emotional thing about what one's peers think of one, but your last posting was very moving, and I wish the lack of facial expression in these postings don't lead to any impression but my sincerity. You are really being very nice to me, and in this hard world, I appreciate that very, very much. --Tenebrae 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Well, hello there! --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hello. I just saw the Letterkenny Retail Park article. It uses 15 fair use logos to say what stores are in the mall. I'm sure it is a violation of some policy, but I can't seem to find it. I remember reading something about the decorative use of fair use images, but I can't seem to find it. Please help if you can. Thank you. Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The issue has already been solved by User:Iamunknown. Thanks anyway! Yours truly, BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! 21:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BoricuaeddieTalk • Contribs • Spread the love! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by copying this message and posting it on their talk page, along with a friendly message.

Image:-Burmapolice.jpg

Instead of just tagging that I've written it wrong, help me to make it acceptable. Hundreds of police agencies around the world have their insignia on the article, it's not intended to defraud any agency, claim to be law enforcement itself, or make any profit. Your help in making it acceptable would be most appreciated, especially as you think I'm doing it wrong. Chris 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps-despite your comments, I have no doubt we respect copyrights, I'm just not skilled in how they properly should be written as you seem to be, therefore I request your help rather than continually removing images and retagging them. Chris 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I'm asking for your help on this. I'm good at a lot of things, as you can see I am a two year contributor here. Legalities and such are not my strong suit. Chris 15:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Will do!  :) --Elonka 16:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

Why don't you put the interests of the readers ahead of your own? Wahkeenah 17:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I put the interests of the project ahead of my own and yours. Please read the instructions on the template. It's quite clear. I do have considerable respect for our readers. I expect that if they see a section titled "Plot" they will be able to figure out for themselves that there will be content in the section telling them about what happens. --Durin 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durin&oldid=131336945"