User talk:Gmaxwell

Roomba

Could you somehow tell Roomba not totag Image:University of Priština logo.png as scheduled for deletion? There is a revert war on the article in which the image is included, so it is sometimes used, and sometimes not. Nikola 09:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like it won't be a problem, see below. If roomba were ever to run again, I'd advise you to just slap a notorphan on the image... I was checking to make sure the image was orphaned for some span of time before marking, but if the image is in and out a lot there is a fair chance that it would be out during all of my samples and thus get tagged.

Thanks, I didn't even knew that the tag exists. Nikola 10:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Your bot roomba

I have indef blocked your bot roomba, it is marking images that ARE NOT ORPHANS as orphaned fair use. It is also not notifying anyone that an image is being tagged. It has already deleted 18 or so of the Images i've uploaded without any warnings. Talk to me for more details.  ALKIVAR™ 20:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar, excuse me? Provide some details. Roomba talks directly to the wikipedia database, and there is simply no reason that it could be tagging images incorrectly. It's far more likely that you have made a mistake... and since you've provided me with zero details I can't even check to see if something actually has gone wrong. Furthermore your block was completely unwarranted since it wasn't currently running (and hasn't run for a while). Also the bot doesn't delete *anything*... although several thousand of the images it has tagged have been deleted, *by humans* who carry the ultimate responsibility of making sure everything is kosher. --Gmaxwell 21:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind that people sometimes make mistakes.. I've responded helpfully to everyone that has come with a concern. I'm aware of the fear of losing images, although I think it's somewhat misplaced.. which is why roomba saves a copy of every image it tags (and I keep a backup copy of every image that was ever on wikipedia during a dump). But I simply do not have the patience to tolerate this hostility. You don't want my help? Fine. It's gone, I'm taking my toys and going to play someplace else for a while. You ungrateful jerkwit. --Gmaxwell 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well here's some more specifics...any image marked with {{fairuseunsure}} gets marked as orphaned fair use REGARDLESS of whether or not the image is in use. for example the now deleted Image:Colditzgateway1942.jpg which is most likely PD, since origins of Nazi German originated images is mostly PD (except for a few small exceptions) the image WAS in use, in the IMAGE QUEUE on the Talk page for Colditz Castle it got flagged as orphaned, no notification was given to the uploader (that would be me) and within 7 days it was deleted, WITHOUT me ever being notified.

Other mistakes, images not displayed but linked inline, such as Image:A_night_at_the_roxbury_cam_cap.jpg were marked Orphan fair use (while still used by the article Warez) I was again not notified, and within 7 days it was deleted. Or in the article QuakeAID there was a composited image of 2 webpages, each individual screenshot was linked rather than displayed inline "NOTE: For original (non-composited) screenshots' upload timestamps, see QuakeAID.org's screenshots: [[:Image:Quakeaid.org.png|January 7, 2005 (before)]] and [[:Image:QuakeAID_FrontAfter.png| January 12, 2005 (after)]]."

Remedies: 1) its a bot, so having it notify users that images they've uploaded are marked orphaned is minimal effort, and would likely solve this problem. 2) remove {{fairuseunsure}} from the fair use images its tagging as orphaned. Does this make my problem/position more clear?  ALKIVAR™ 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What's going on here? If the image is in use but not linked in a way that shows up in "File links" (and seeing as "whatlinkshere" is broken for images) then the bot is going to think it's an orphan obviously, it's not psycik (these cases is where the {{not orphan}} tag is usefull). Anyway if images have been inproperly deleted you should block the human admin who actualy did the deletion (that would be me in the Roxbury case). The bot is just doing it's job, I'm the one who failed to go though the entire linked article looking for a link to the image before I deleted it, so sorry about that. If you want to I can e-mail you the backup I made of the image before I deleted it, but keep Roomba out of it. As for "fair use unsure" it is clearly a fair use tag, the images may or may not be PD, but unless we can prove it's PD it's used under fair use and get nuked like any other fair use image when not used. At least that's what I've been doing, and I haven't heard a single complains so far untill now. Also if the bot had been notifying the uploader every time it tagged an image it would have been blocked for spamming a long time ago...--Sherool (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the rest of the specifics, but an image that I have on my user page keeps getting marked as an orphan by this bot, and reverting it is quite annoying. Is the bot programmed to class images just on a user page as orphans? Hedley 01:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, see what Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy have to say about fair use images and userpages. The Wikipedia screenshot is a bit of a gray area, and I believe the bot have stopped to tag those (but those images should not show any copyrighted things, like fair use images in aritcles or parts of the browser and stuff), but the rest of those images rely should not be on your userpage. I know I know hundreds of other people, including several admins have such images on theyr pages, but they rely ought not to. I keep meaning to go around telling people they they should remove the images (and ocationaly I do), but I keep putting it off because ocationaly people get grumpy when you start telling them what they can't do on theyr own userpage (mostly people are cool about it though), pluss there are bigger problems to deal with image wise before I'll make a high priority out of it, like getting rid of "unused" fair use images, and unsourced images and so forth. --Sherool (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's talk

Please come back to IRC and talk to me about this. I really think there has been a misunderstanding and I know it can be sorted. Let's talk privately, and get Alkivar involved - this doesn't have to be the end of your excellent work. Best wishes -- sannse (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've continued to support this project at great cost to myself both directly and indirectly because I believe in its goals, but my tolerance for nonsense is not infinite. I feel like Alkivar had abused his sysop bit because of a snit he had over an image and I know that no justice will ever come of it. I'm under a fair degree of stress right now, and admittedly I'm being more than a little intolerant. But I'm not currently willing to entertain further discussion on this at the moment as I have a truck to pack and a 1000 miles to travel, and right now I'd rather just pretend that none of this exists. --Gmaxwell 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

My god man, I try to write a response and get personally attacked, damn edit conflicts. IRC is where I was TOLD TO BLOCK the bot, by NUMEROUS people as the appropriate procedure.  ALKIVAR™ 22:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

here's the IRC log... ALKIVAR™ 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[03:45pm] <Rdsmith4> so block it
[03:45pm] <PhilSandifer> Alkivar - Block the bot until that's fixed.
[03:45pm] <robchurch> Block the bot and email Greg.
[03:45pm] <silsor> Alkivar: the standard procedure is to block bots that are misoperating, so there's at least some vindication in it for you :)

I understand you have other things to do right now, but perhaps we can all talk it over once you have some time? Alkivar has unblocked the bot and listed the problems he thinks there are above. I don't know anything about bots, so I don't where the differences are in your ideas of how the bot should/does work - but I am sure that any problems can either be explained or cleared up. I know that Alkivar had no ill intent here, and I know you don't either - so I'm confident we can work this out. I really don't want Wikipedia to lose you Gmaxwell -- sannse (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know all the ins and outs of how Roomba works, but in the #en-wikipedia-vandalism channel it was invaluable - it caught an amazing amount of vandalism. As I said before, your efforts with this service have made a real difference to keeping Wikipedia free from rubbish. I hope you bring it back! Dan100 (Talk) 23:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Dan100, and I do hope that you will bring it back. - Nick125

2 cents

I really understand why you feeling upset, but I want to ask it to you as a very personal favor to restart roomba... even if it's only the badwords checking bit, while the image issue is sorted? Please? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Roomba has been incalculably valuable to enforcing CSD I5. It's done a lot more good than harm. :) Coffee 19:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong ditto all the others. I understand the need for an extended wikibreak - we all get stressed out, especially when we feel false accusations have been made. But I also understand that you strongly believe in Wikipedia and our goals, and I hope you will in turn understand that Roomba was invaluable for helping us achieve them. Thanks. :) Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Kim Bruning says "Thanks"

Kim popped into IRC looking for you. When told you were in the process of moving (which is what I understand you to be doing today), he asked if someone would pop by your talk page and leave you a "thank you" on his behalf.

So here it is. =)
→ Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd like to thank you, first and foremost; if you're receiving this message, it's because I think you were one of the people I adopted as a personal mentor, and who helped to make the whole Wikipedia experience more enjoyable.

The fact is, I've got no choice but to leave. The recent sordid affair with User:Deeceevoice and my appalling conduct in that showed me that I have not the calibre required to maintain good relations with users on the wiki. Worse still, I violated almost all of the principles I swore to uphold when I first arrived.

I've now been desysopped, and I plan on devoting a little more time to what I am good at, which is developing. I don't fit in on this side of the servers, but perhaps I can still be of use to the project.

Thank you. Rob Church ^Talk 02:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User meat

I see your the creater of this template. On a not so serious note, I thought humans were mostly made of water, not meat, are they not? Im suprised by how many users think they are mostly meaty. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 06:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Script

Hey, is there any chance that you could mail me the script that you used to build Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? - Estel ^(talk) 13:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism script?

Hi, I hope your move has gone well.

I seem to recall that a few weeks ago you had an IRC-capable bot that used Bayesian filtering to recognise probable vandalism on Wikipedia (I may have gotten this very garbled, of course). I'm writing up some work that I've done and want to reference yours, but I can't find any information about it on the tools server pages (though your twistsort code looks like it addresses the kind of workgroup coordination problem I was contemplating at around the same time). Do you have anything online, or could you be persuaded to do so? The raw source code of you filter would be fine, I've been a programmer for three decades and I could write it up myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

You wouldn't mind if I used your script and had a bot running on the page performing your script on a biweekly basis, would you? --AllyUnion (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Convert files to Theora

Hi! I found a link to you in Commons for convert video files to Theora format. As I wrote in Commons Village Pump, I'm trying to convert files to upload, but I have problem with sound syncronization. I'm using Mandriva linux and I've tryed ffmpeg2theora. I simply put

$ ffmpeg2theora file.avi

and it generates an file.avi.ogg with the video in theora format.

But when video has sound there is not syncronization between image and sound (image runs slowly).

Do you know somethig more about it? Regards! --Colegota 14:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Contributing

I appreciate that you noticed my request that you not edit my user page without my consent. It was amusing to see that you deleted my request without my consent. You may wish to know that the request was made in response to edits made to my user page during a contested block of my account. I still reserve the right to consider your edit vandalism. --Dschor 06:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your desire to have webspace which other people will not edit, but Wikipedia is not the right place for that... Of course, you can consider peoples actions however you want, but in doing so you are breaking our intended use for the User space as well as violating the principle of Assume good faith. If someone actually vandalizes your user page, I may indeed by the first to revert it... but it is not acceptable or approiate to claim that others may not make changes, nor is it right for you to imply that a simple good faith edit (and indeed, accuracy improvement) by another user was vandalism. --Gmaxwell 07:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you have intentionally edited my user page without my consent. It was slightly less amusing the second time. I would like to personally request that you refrain from editing my user page unless you have something helpful to add. I do not find the past two edits helpful. I still reserve the right to consider your edit vandalism. I do assume good faith. --Dschor 07:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Dschor, Wikimedia isn't a free webhost for personal webpages: you don't get to decide that no one can edit your page... that it is editable (and that you need to be contributing to the encyclopedia) are the tradoffs demanded before we even allow you to have a page. Please don't abuse the service provided to you... If you can't trust other users to make minor changes, then how can you hope to fit in peacefully with our community? Other editors are not out to harm you, and I am not trying to upset you... but you can not claim that others are not permitted to make edits, if you want that you need to obtain hosting elseware. You say you assume good faith, but your actions seem so paranoid. Pushing other users away isn't a solution, please consider being a part of the team rather than an isolationist. --Gmaxwell 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If no one minds my butting in, perhaps I can make a suggestion to keep this from getting heated. Dschor, your warning might be better suited as a request (eg: "Please do not edit my user page without my consent. If something needs to be changed please let me know.") It will not counter policy, and will yeild a much greater response in terms of compliance (WP:Civil). Gmaxwell, I have experienced in the past that many, if not most users, find it disconcerting when another user edits their user page, especially if no explanation is given on the talk page. Unless a user is specifically breaking policy in a way that negatively impacts wikipedia (copyright violations, personal attacks, etc.) there is no real reason that an edit cannot wait until you discuss it with the user to whom the page belongs.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your point... I'm still a bit touchy after having administrators ganging up on me. I will consider a less strident objection. --Dschor 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Provide diff links please? --Gmaxwell 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I had the same problem on my userpage, but I think I found a workable solution ("Please do not edit this page unless it is urgent. I have adopted this policy for the sake of simplicity and the aid of countervandalism if need be. If you see something inapropriate or in error, please mention it on my talk page, and I will correct it if need be.")--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems a little wordy - I just went with the short version for now. I can see where the need for the longer version might arise, however, so I will keep it in mind. Thanks for being exceedingly helpful. --Dschor 08:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Your revised text at the bottom of your userpage is an improvement, although still not ideal. However, the language of the userbox you created is completely unacceptable. To whatever extent the project will allow you editorial control of your user page, the same is not extended to template namespace. As a result, I've edited the template to conform to foundation policy and to better match the template name. I'm now using that userbox myself. I understand that the revised version may no longer match your views, but since you have demanded I not edit your userpage I am unable to remove the now inaccurate userbox. --Gmaxwell 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I found this rather amusing, actually. I never demanded that anyone not edit my userpage. I simply requested that I be notified if you intend to make such an edit. Editing the userbox to suit your own purposes was a sly way to avoid my advice. I don't mind at all. It would not be a good idea to go around messing with more popular userboxes, though. I can make another template to suit my purposes, if you feel some attachment towards the edit you made to user_page_perfect. Thanks for keeping the WP interesting. --Dschor 11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

User page

As a matter of interest, Greg, what difference does it make to you whether my user page is protected or not? I protected it because of some particularly vile vandalism, and when I last unprotected it, it started up again, so I've left it as it is. Please let me know why it matters to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For several reasons: It is my primary concern that the Foundation is not abused by people using user pages as personal Webspace, while you are clearly not doing that, the requirement that user pages are editable is an effective deterrent to others who would abuse the privilege. This matters because your userpage is no more deserving of long term protection than any other userpage. As such, if it were acceptable to leave your page protected then we should just add a personal protection feature to MediaWiki, because this has been discussed and firmly rejected by the community we must conclude that your long term protection is unacceptable. Secondly, I object to your protection because it is ineffective: A vandal could just as easily write on your talk page. Your talk page has much greater visibility, and I seriously doubt vandalism would be removed any more quickly there than on your user page. Finally, by failing to unprotect your user page when SPUI objected to your copyright violation to allow him to edit you were, in effect, using your administrative power of page protection to further a disagreement which you were a party to which is strongly at odds with our community standards and the written policy on the use of protection. --Gmaxwell 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

But why your sudden and very aggressive interest? I know they can vandalize my talk page too, and this particular user has. But I don't want it on my user page. As for SPUI, I had no idea he had tried to edit it, and indeed had very little knowledge of the dispute at the time, so I was certainly not using any power to further it. But really, my main query is why the sudden interest in my page, and why so rude and aggressive? Have I done something to offend you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not trying to be rude. I'm sorry for being blunt, but you're doing something wrong and I'm asking you to quit. Now I see you are edit waring to add an image to a list in violation of WP:FU... You are giving the impression that you've taken this position as an excuse to keep the image in your user page (which is already in violation of the community prohibition against fair use image in user pages). ... I hope I misunderstand your motive because this seems very disappointing. As to why my interest is sudden, I only noticed this problem shortly ago... I'm always saddened when I see users breaking our fair use rules, but it's especially troublesome when it's an and they've defended their version with a protection. --Gmaxwell 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you could keep the aggression levels down, Greg. This is a minor issue, notwithstanding the hysteria a small number of people have tried to stir up. My page protection is completely unconnected to the image, as is my "edit warring" (I'm edit warring but you're not?) to keep it on the Iranian culture page. It's a beautiful example of Iranian culture, I didn't put it there in the first place, it's been there longer than I've had it on my page, and it was released for promotional purposes by the Iranian Cultural Heritage Museum, so I don't understand your grounds for saying it's being used illegally and inappropriately. In any event, I'm in e-mail correspondence with the museum to ask for a free licence, and I'm currently trying to obtain an e-mail address for the artist too to ask whether we can use more of her images. I'm completely mystified by your attitude and frankly quite upset about it. Perhaps you don't realize how rude you're being, but I think you must, and I don't see the need for it. If you really want to protect Wikipedia against legal problems, I suggest you use your aggression and energy to go around removing defamatory edits, because they will one day cause us real trouble, or spelling and grammatical errors, which cause embarrassment. But there will be a blue moon in the sky the day a photograph of a painting of an Iranian woman will cause trouble for Wikipedia. That doesn't mean I'm downplaying the issue of fair use, but some perspective is important too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are claiming that I am being "rude" and "aggressive" but your claim alone does not make it true. I've said nothing hostile to you. I am asking you, politely, to discontinue your violation of our policies. I am, however, being firm because in the case of the page you are discussing the question of the image being potentially fair use is cut and dry. Please read our fair use policy at WP:FU, as it is most clear that it is not permissible to claim an image as fair use when it is being used as mere decoration as is the case here. I am troubled that you are now refusing to consider the possibility that you have an error in your understanding of the requirements for fair use, and are instead completely blaming our disagreement on this rudeness you claim I am inflicting on you. I'm sorry if I've upset you, for it was not my intention.... But you must discontinue inserting the image where you are unable to do so legally, which includes your user page. If you are eventually able to obtain a copyleft license from the artist, I will applaud your work and welcome the images back, but I do not hold high hopes because I am sure that the work is of great commercial value ... it is rare that we are able to get such grants. Your final comment implies to me that you think it is okay to ignore copyright law here, is that really the case? --Gmaxwell 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR. You may want to take the opportunity to revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not, you've counted incorrectly.--Gmaxwell 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you were the first to revert... But in any case, your addition of copyrighted material here is simple vandalism and if you keep reverting (in violation of 3rr yourself) I will keep removing the copyvio until you are blocked from editing. I am saddend that you think a pretty little decoration on your user page is worth this. :( --Gmaxwell 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, in all my time dealing with Fair use issues on Wikipedia I've never encountered another user as hysterical about protecting their pet image as you now appear to be. I am ashamed of your actions and I hope you will reconsider them. If a new user had behaved as you have in response to this, they would have been blocked from editing already. If you reall don't understand our fair use policy, I'd be glad to spend the time to discuss it with you, but we will get nowhere with the way this is currently going. That the image is beautiful is just simply insufficent. I appricate that you are working to get a free copy of it, ... but all that tells me now is that you already understand that you are in the wrong here, and yet you still are behaving this way about it. :( --Gmaxwell 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You started a revert war, called me "hysterical," implied I was using Wikipedia as a webhosting facility, [1] "ordered" me to unprotect my user page, and failed to assume good faith (to put it mildly) by claiming, on the basis of no evidence, that I'm trying to keep the image in articles only in order to keep it on my user page. But it's me you're ashamed of, not yourself. Again I have to ask you: have I offended you in some way? I can see no other explanation for this behavior. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologies for calling you hysterical, but your behavior really appeared that way to me. For example, you are making obvious factual errors in your reply to me here: 1) You were the first to revert. 2) I didn't order you, I even said please. 3) Not only did I not accuse you of abusing your user page as webhosting, I poined out that you were not (above) with bold text, I know you're not, but other people do, we should not be protecting user pages. ... I have no complaint against you except your strong response to my polite illumination of your mistakes, your accusations of malice on my part, and your continued insertion of copyrighted materials into Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"by claiming, on the basis of no evidence, that I'm trying to keep the image in articles only in order to keep it on my user page." Well, I *asked* you, because thats how it looked to me.. You are suddenly edit waring over it on an article you've never edited before to keep it in, and according to you above "a small number of people have tried to stir up", this image is not a new matter for you... It was the impression your actions were giving me, and I really didn't like it, and I wanted you to correct it. I accept your word, but then I must ask.. why the furvor? In my case, it's because the image is clearly not valid fair use where it is used, and I've never had a user be so stubborn about such a case ever before.. --Gmaxwell 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Greg, if you really believe you were polite, I don't know what else I can say to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You could start by acknowledging my apology for upsetting you... --Gmaxwell 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This bullying is disgusting! SlimVirgin, I suggest that you let Gmaxwell move on to another target... --sansvoix 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gmaxwell!

It is the primary concern of myself to insure that editors are entitled to a friendly and cooperative environment here at wikipeida. It has come to my attention that User:SlimVirgin has taken moderate action to discourage vandalism on the wikipedia page under that moniker. There is no reason to assume bad faith, as there is no evidence showing the user took his action to use wikipedia as a "personal web hosting service." While I can appreciate your zeal for wikipedia standards, it does not help in any way to take a non-cooperateive, agressive approach. The same standards for acceptable behaviour that outside wikipdia, in the workplace, at home, do apply here as well. The mission of Wikipedia is not about userpages, it is about creating a quality encycolpedia avaliable to anyone with an internet connection. The last thing we want to do here is to scare productive level-headed contributers away with these rather anti-social attitutes. I see userpages are your pet issue, but may I suggest next time that you make every effort possible to work with the other users involved? Thanks, --sansvoix 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to gain a deeper understanding before making pronouncements in the future, please. Had you read my comment with due care you would have seen that I was not acusing SlimVirgin of abusing userspace, but rather I commented that she hadn't but other people do. I do very little with user pages, in fact.. In this very case we see SlimVirgin putting the importance of a image on her user page over the the importance of the copyright legality of our project... so I think you might be advising the wrong user about the importance of the encyclopedia over user pages. :( Thanks for you interest though... outside views are always welcome here. --Gmaxwell 07:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not putting my user page above anything. You're edit warring to remove that image from articles where it is being used perfectly appropriately, and where it has been for months. Then, having removed it, you're labelling it as an orphan so it can be deleted. That looks to me like WP:POINT. Please do stop, and if you genuinely feel it should not be used in any articles, say why on one of the talk pages. But above all, please stop the aggression. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I tagged it, as normal, when it was orphaned and I had no idea that anyone was going to put it back in. I've left the tag out while the issue is opened. There is a 7 day delay after tagging for deletion, so I saw no harm in tagging it now before I'd forget to do it. Please stop accusing me of agression. :( --Gmaxwell 07:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I compleatly approve of Slim Virgins use of the userspace, what is wikipedia without a friendly community of editors? The user has made thousands of high quality edits to wikipedia, including ones intended to encourage others to do the same --Such as her welcoming userspace! Your edits on the users talk page made no notice of "copyright legality of our project." If that is actually your primary concern, what is all this about?--sansvoix 07:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My concerns about her protection were outlined above, it appears that she hasn't decided to reply to any of that discussion, instead focusing on the more tangable matter of her use of a fair use image on her user page which is prohibited. The issues are being discussed at the same time because I noticed the protection when I noticed the image, but they are seperate matters. I welcome her work, but it doesn't put her above the rules or the law. --Gmaxwell 07:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, you are not above what you call the "rules" or the "law," and those include WP:POINT, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA, all of which you've arguably violated tonight. The image in question was released for promotional purposes and in fact used to have a free licence, but someone deleted it. I'm therefore in touch with the Iranian Cultural Heritage Museum who I believe are the copyright holders, in order to find out what the position is. But I cannot conjure a reply out of thin air. I have already explained this to you, so I can only imagine something else is going on here. And even if the image were being claimed as fair use, it is perfectly appropriate to use it on a page about Persian art and Iranian culture. Yet you're deleting it from those too, which is why it's starting to look like WP:POINT. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The law in which I refer to in this case is US copyright law and international treaties, please don't assume I'm some kind of Wikipedia rule monger. On one page it was simply being used with zero commentary, the use was entirely decorative and completely non transformative. In the case of the other page, please see my reply on the talk page there. And please stop with the WP:POINT claim, ... WP:POINT is when you do something you think is wrong in order to demonstrate the folly of that thinking. Trust me, I do not think it is wrong to remove the image... and please do not write on my user page accusing me of personal attacks unless you are willing to provide difflinks. I have no personally attacked you. I don't know you, and my only opnion of you right now is that you are terribly stubborn. I do not understand your claim that 'someone deleted it', licenses are in the text of the image, and the text is always available even if the image is deleted. Please explain your claim.--Gmaxwell 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to explain your claim, Max. What part of US copyright law are you discussing in these actions? United States Code § 106 maybe? If so, let's discuss this rather than getting into an edit war or succumbing to the trend of harrassment towards those who assert free speech in unfounded fears of copyright paranoia. karmafist 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist, our position on the use of copyrighted works in Wikipedia is covered clearly on WP:FU, please don't make me repeat it. In this case the limitations on the work are covered by the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works because it is a work made in Iran. Although Iran is not a direct signator to the Berne Convention, they are a member of WIPO which makes them a party to it. This was previously explained on the image page... Please don't invoke free speech here, we are talking about the unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted work, not censorship. --Gmaxwell 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not a lawyer, Greg, so please stop giving opinions as though you are. What concerns me most about this is the bullying. You've opened my eyes to it tonight and now I'm wondering who else it's happening to. Because Sansvoix spoke up in my defense, you proceeded to his user page and deleted an image from there too. [2] You may think you are right (you may even be right for all I know), but if you turn Wikipedia into a hateful place for good editors, they will leave, and you'll be left alone with your made-up rules and no decent contributors. There is no reason on earth that volunteers should have to put up with this nonsense. Don't bite the newbies or the oldies in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, I am hurt by your mis-characterization of my motives... but at this point it seems like you'll say or do almost anything to keep that silly image. This isn't a matter of made up rules, this is a rule which is enforced everywhere but .. your userpage it seems. You're making a mistake... how many users must tell you this before you understand? --Gmaxwell 09:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The following comment was rolled back as vandalism by SlimVirgin from her talk page. I don't know why she didn't want it there, so I've moved it here.

Image:Kamelia_shojaee.jpg

Thank you for removing the fair use image from your user page. I hope your efforts to get a freely license for this beautiful work are met with good luck. --Gmaxwell 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I deleted the image is because you deleted Sansvoix's for defending me. It would be wrong of me to retain my image when the person who spoke up for me lost his. I work in a profession that is broadly speaking related to this kind of issue, and I can assure you that this whole business is copyright paranoia writ large. But regardless, even if you were right, you should be embarrassed by your bullying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Iran is not a member or signatoire of The Berne Treaty. See: [3] also stipulated here: [4]

Instead of giving me threats and attitudes, please accept what Im telling you:

Trust me: I know this for a fact: I worked for the Iranian govt: Iran is not a signatory to any International copyright laws. All govt agencies use illegal microsoft product copies that are produced by govt subsidiaries. They show, sell, distribute, and copy Hollywood productions, western books, printed media without any consent or authorization.

You can buy an Autocad or Photoshop software from govt vendors for 2-3$ in Tehran. They can do this because they arent a WTO member.--Zereshk 08:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You worked for the Iranian government many years ago I would guess, but their being a party to WIPO is fairly recent.. 2002 as I recall. Their WIPO signator status obligates them to obey Berne [5]. I provided you with the authortive reference about Iran's WIPO status. It has already been carefully explained to you that you will not be permitted to violate copyright law on Wikipedia. That you will be blocked if you continue to do so is not a threat, but rather the logical result of your continued violation. --Gmaxwell 08:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The link you provided is only a country profile. It only mentions that Iran is a signatoire to many industrial patent related treaties of WIPO, which it specifically mentions. BERNE is not listed (where for other countries it is). The very same website lists Iran as a non-member. I have provided you with clear evidence. If you keep persisting in your threats, I will take it as a hostile gesture and personal attack. You have already edged to ad hominems by suggesting I worked there long time ago (and basing your argument on that). You know nothing about me. In fact I was there working in the mid 90s. Iran is the largest violator of copyright laws in existence today. And they do it with purpose: as a pressuring tactic to pursuade the US to agree to WTO membership for Iran, which it has been blocking for years. In other words: IT'S IRAN's POLICY.--Zereshk 09:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I can send you copies of pirated software of Microsoft, Photoshop, etc. with Iranian business logos on them. I can, because I visit Iran frequently. Ive been to Iran 10 times since 2002. The copyright violation situation is stronger than ever in Jan of 2006. Here: try this.--Zereshk 09:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a darn how wide the copyright vioation there is: We have forbidden you from vioating copyright on Wikipedia and that is all you need to know. If you force us to disallow you access in order to prevent your continued disregard for copyright we will do so. My point about a long time ago is that their participation in WIPO is recent and you go on to admit that your work there was prior to that point in time. I never claimed that they signed berne, but rather that their participation in WIPO obligates them to comply with berne. In any case, even there was a complete lack of international law in effect here, you are still forbidden from vioating Iran's copyrights here on Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 13:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that despite your empty apologies you continue to bully people. And who are "we"? Have you suddenly become Wikipedia? If you block this user, take note that I will unblock him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Copy vio?

An image created for wikipedia by wikipeedia violates copyrights? One of the copy was 20px. No one can tell what it is. I am kinda confused. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? what are you talking about? --Gmaxwell 21:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You removed images from my userpage telling me "I should know better". I am sure you know about it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OH! It was many hours ago and many edits ago, I'd completely forgotten! There were two copies of a copyrighted animation from the zero wing video game. My "you should know better" comment was because we'd talked about fair use on user pages ... and you'd already switched out a fair use image for a free one in advance of me asking. I removed the same animation from a half dozen other users who had it. Yes, it's funny, but it shouldn't be on your user page, you know this. As for one being 20px, ... if you say that no one knows what it is.. thats okay, so why not replace it with a nice dark blurry square which is equally meaningingless and doesn't require us to maintain a high resolution copyrighted image on the servers? :) Sorry for the initial confusion. --Gmaxwell 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That clears things up, when I started using the image it was tagged as a {{parody}}. parody shows can air on national TV so I wasnt worrying about copyrights much (as the copyright holders do not care THAT much). After all its a derived work and the new version has little to do with the orriginal. Heavly edited parodies of shows come with their own copyrights right?.

You marked the image as a likely copyright violation. And before that discussion concluded you removed it from many peoples userpages, this is something I do not particularly like (the removal of images from peoples userpages w/o asking them). But the "damage" is done and I dont care about it. Just as a future referance. :)

You seem to know me but I cant recall. Who were you? I do recall discussing fair use images on my userpage with someone (I think NullC). I do not recall your nick :(

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should visit User:NullC? ... In any case the video isn't what US fair use law would likely consider a parody, in that it's not actually parodying the zero wing game, it's a parody of Wikipedia politics. The recent popular example is the JibJab video making fun of GWB and John Kerry... The use of the music was not excusable as parody, for the same reason.. although its likely that the music had lapsed into the public domain so they settled. In any case, for parody to be rightly claimed the work needs to be making commentary about the copyrighted work it takes from... Mere use in something funny is not sufficent. I can't take your claim of 'damage' seriously: if indeed a mistake was made it would only take a tiny amount of effort to undo and in any case, user pages are not the property of the users, this is a wiki after all. --Gmaxwell 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the orphan fair use tool

Glad to see you back Gmaxwell, I hope the "incident" with Roomba earlier haven't put you off bot running completely. I for one would be very interested in having it back online. Sniffing out orphanded images and then poking though the category manualy to find ones that have been there for 7 days is slow work without those tools. If you don't think it's worth all the hassle caused by "disgruntled image owners" I can sympathise though. Anyway just wanted to pop by and say "hi" since I saw you where editing again. --Sherool (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It'll be back online soon.. there were some changes to toolserver while I was gone that I still get to get synced up with.. but after that it'll be back online. --Gmaxwell 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. There is a backlog of about 3,600 images which need to be tagged... it will be a few days before I tag them because the filtering that makes sure that they aren't being edit warred in and out of an article takes a few days. I'm currently tagging the ~400 some that were (untagged) orphan when I left and are still untagged orphan now. The report is back up at [6]. Enjoy and spread the news on the report. --Gmaxwell 06:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okies, good stuff :) Oh while I'm here, I noticed there are a couple of "ghost links" in the report. Dunno why, I asume it's something to do with the non standard characters in the filenames. For example Image:I・DE・A.jpg and Image:VaÅ‚ožyn Coat of Arms.gif there are no log entry for either of those files ever being uploaded or deleted, so I guess the real name is something else and somehow get "lost in translation" before appearing on your list, can't remember seeing anyting like that in the category either though. Anyway no huge deal, just though I'd mention it. --Sherool (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a charset conversion bug it would seem... I'll track it down later, thanks for the notice. --Gmaxwell 13:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"filtering that makes sure that they aren't being edit warred in and out of an article" - yech, sad to have to do that! Well, keep fighting the good fight, people will learn the new regimen eventually. Stan 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I didn't do that initally because I didn't expect it would be a frequent problem. Every day I check to make sure that all images which are tagged as orphaned still look like orphans.. but I found myself untagging dozens of images a day at peak. I've changed the filter some more... it will poll more times over a shorter interval, so I should be able to begin the next big batch late tonight. I processed some 400 some that had been orpahned at two sample points about a month apart and still managed to hit an image that had been subject to an active slow motion edit war all that time. Perhaps I should make a report of images with the highest 'churn' rate. --Gmaxwell 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:JetSetWilly-ColdStore-Animated.gif

This image is not an orphan. It is linked from the Jet Set Willy page. It was originally the main image on that page, but some users complained that it slowed page loading down, so we compromised by having a static version and a link to the animated version. I have reverted User:Roomba's change to this page and would ask you not to delete this image. Thank you. Richard W.M. Jones 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Then please tag it with the notorphan template created exactly for this purpose. Without such tagging it is often impossible to tell if and where an image is in use.--Gmaxwell 13:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you did .. thanks. A comment on your edit summary: there is nothing special about robots, humans need notice just as well to tell when an image is used but not inlined. --Gmaxwell 13:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

...is that you?

[[7]] --sansvoix 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I know I don't know you, but this, but this and your recent behaviour as part of the wikipedia community concerns me. I hope that you might consider taking a break, and if you ever know anyone who needs it, make sure they know there is nothing wrong with seeing a therapist.--sansvoix 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)