User talk:Lar/Archive 12

I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

---

This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from about 1 January 2010 through about 1 May 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.

My archived talk        [+/−] Archive 1 — start through about 1 Nov 2006 Archive 2 — about 1 Nov 2006 through about 1 Mar 2007 Archive 3 — about 1 Mar 2007 through about 1 Aug 2007 Archive 4 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Jan 2008 Archive 5 — about 1 Jan 2008 through about 1 Sep 2008 Archive 6 — about 1 Sep 2008 through about 1 Nov 2008 Archive 7 — about 1 Nov 2008 through about 1 Jan 2009 Archive 8 — about 1 Jan 2009 through about 1 Mar 2009 Archive 9 — about 1 Mar 2009 through about 1 Jun 2009 Archive 10 — about 1 Jun 2009 through about 1 Sep 2009 Archive 11 — about 1 Sep 2009 through about 1 Jan 2010 Archive 12 — about 1 Jan 2010 through about 1 May 2010 Archive 13 — about 1 May 2010 through about 1 September 2010

---

From User talk:Mbz1

Lar wrote on Mbz1's talk page: I think taking a swipe at me when thanking Mbz1 pretty much sums you up in a nice neat package... Mbz1 is going to be hard to turn against me though, you might try on more fertile ground. Or better, just leave, one way or another. Mila, feel free to delete this whole thread. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I have no wish to turn Mila against you, and I am quite sure you are right that I could not do that if I tried. It is bad enough as things are between us, and I would not want to drag any person into our dispute. She is a great person, and I have to give you credit for having been helpful to her. I never said you have no good points, and there are things about you I sincerely respect.

Between us it is different, and I do not appreciate the vicious treatment I got from you on WP. I understand that you feelings about me are base on my rough treatment of you. But now it is easy enough to end this dispute by simply ending discussion between us. I have said I am returning to my self-imposed Commons exile. If you (or others) make no further accusations of bad faith, and other insults directed at me, there will be silence. But, if you continue your attacks against me, I will stay as long as necessary to respond fully.

Feel free to delete this if you choose. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You were banned from en:wp because you showed a consistent pattern of inability to get along with others. Your talk page here, your interactions with others here, shows us the same pattern. Pointing that out is not "vicious", it' not "bad faith", it's not an "insult"... it's just an observation, and you can take it any way you want, but one way or another, you will be civil and collegial here, or you won't be here at all. If you leave and don't come back, fine. If you improve your approach and contribute constructively, even better, in fact. But if you stay on the path you are on, you're going to be retired involuntarily. Commons gives less latitude to bad behavior than en:wp does, not more. We just don't have time here for 19 rounds of back and forth and 15 warnings. You're already about 1 "surly" post away from a short block. Internalize that, or don't, as you like. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The usual ad hominem [1] accusations that you have made against me in the past. In the noticeboard thread called "Israel disputes", I see four edits made by you, all of them directed at me, all of them commenting on me in a negative way, one containing a threat. Anyone who did not know the history of the dispute would think from your comments that I was the cause of it all. In fact I have little to do with it, and suggested that it be resolved with a compromise. Why have you chosen to focus on me, when the problems were elsewhere?

The only suggestion I recall making about an actual category in that dispute, concerning the Latoff political cartoons, was just before it went to the noticeboard, and was that Category:antisemitism be included, which I justified because WP:RS sources have discussed that, not because I consider it proven. That is what categories are for, as I understand it. But, when it became clear that neither side in the dispute much liked the suggestion, I decided to stop advocating for it, and I assume that when the file is unlocked that category will be removed.

My guess is that the real cause of your strange focus on my editing, and all the accusations you have made against me, goes back to the argument we had on my WP talk page, which is still in the edit history, but which someone seems to have deleted from my talk page. My own very negative view of you follows from your having declined a block appeal I made following that argument. It was wrong of you to do that because you were very angry over what I said to you, and therefore you should have left that to an uninvolved administrator. Here on Commons, I see a continuation of the same problem. You are angry at me over things I have said about you, things you do not like. But, instead of pursuing your personal vendetta against me, you should leave these issues to other administrators who are not involved, such as Adambro or Nilfanion.

As I said, I intend to return to my self-imposed Commons exile, and do no further editing. But you can be sure, if you continue your personal vendetta against me on Commons talk pages and noticeboards, I will stay as long as necessary to defend myself. Leave these issues to other administrators who are uninvolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You were banned from en:wp because you showed a consistent pattern of inability to get along with others. Your talk page here, your interactions with others here, shows us the same pattern. There's nothing more to say. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar wrote: "There's nothing more to say." Lar, you are giving me the impression there was nothing to say in the first place because you keep referring back to WP as though that is relevant to current discussion; while, at the same time, you continue to ignore what I actually do here on Commons.

In the Commons noticeboard discussion, my main contribution was a suggestion to compromise to resolve a dispute. I also suggested that since blocks for WP:PA do occur on Commons, it would be a good idea if Commons formulated a block policy for that. I also suggested that Commons needs to formulate a policy for WP:BLP because BLP violations do occurred in Commons talk pages and noticeboards. Even if you disagree with my suggestion of rules for PA and BLP violations, that hardly seems insulting to anyone, nor does it suggest an inability to get along with other editors.

In fact, I was not blocked from WP for an "inability to get along with others", and there were plenty of WP editors I got along with just fine. I did edit a number of I/P dispute articles, which are difficult to edit in the extreme, and there were editors on the other side of the dispute who did a lot of wiki-lawering to get me blocked to remove an editor they regarded as an obstacle to their own editing goals. If you want to spend some time on it, I am quite willing to go over, in detail, the history of events that got me blocked from WP. But please stop accusing me of an "inability to get along with others", because my wiki-exile had nothing to do with that. Please try to stay with the facts instead of throwing accusations at me. If you persist in that, I will move this discussion to a noticeboard for additional comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I always welcome review. However, I'm comfortable with my characterization of the matter, as your characterizations are quite inaccurate (berating someone for not citing a specific sentence in the blocking policy isn't quite the same as "formulated a block policy", for example). What you need to do is change your approach to be less combative, and more open to feedback. Absent that, I suspect a review is not going to give you the result you desire. Either retire and be gone, or change your approach. Because this one won't work at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved discussion to the Village Pump. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Larry,

New Years morning in Denmark.

A slightly delayed New Years greeting from me. Thank you for good mentoring and advice in the past year in various difficult situations. --Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why thanks! Happy new year to you and yours as well! ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert warring over cross linking

What you are forcing into Lycaon page is a clear and not acceptable violation of privacy. Of course, it was undone by me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but I'm going to lock the "sock" account because he doesn't want to make it clear its his wife or answer our quistions. Huib talk 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But those who need to know already know, he has made it clear, and they won't be editing "collaboratively" again. I can't see that the cross link achieves anything but advertise Lycaon's marital status, which is clearly not the point of Commons. No one cares or will care about the few instances of past Estrilda/Lycaon interaction, and those who do can peek at the Checkuser case. Maedin\^talk 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the outcome of Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Estrilda#Results. The consensus there is clear, the accounts need to be marked. Lycaon was encouraged to engage in discussion but chose not to. Either the accounts stay crosslinked, or one of them gets blocked. Alvegaspar: Do not revert me again, revert warring is unacceptable and you are editing against consensus. Spend your energy on getting Lycaon to participate meaningfully in deciding what to do. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lar has acted according to the consensus at the checkuser discussion where nobody objected to leaving both accounts unblocked if a disclosure were in place. If new objections have arisen now, perhaps they should be discussed at the admin boards. Let's avoid recriminations or edit warring. The best possible outcome would be if Estrilda or Lycaon provided the additional explanation that Estrilda promised in October would be forthcoming; we'd all like to put this in the past. Wishing a happy New Year all around, Durova (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Question - What consensus? Maybe my English is to blame but that is a wild departure from what really happened in the discussion! By the way, did anyone care to contest the conclusion drawn by Tiptoety? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It arose early in discussion that notation in user space was a bare minimum response. Your first post to the thread came much later, Alvesgaspar. It might possibly have slipped your attention in the long discussion? At any rate, if this really needs reopening then the admin boards might be best. Lar seems to have acted in good faith. Durova (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I went through the whole text and still see no consensus. Yes, the idea arose during the discussion but was far from being consensual. On the contrary, some users were strongly against it. I see a lot of resentment and little common sense here. Lycaon already produced the necessary explanation. Why insist on a public trial or on forcing a crosslink note in their pages? Don't you see that both alternatives are humiliating and out of proportion? And that the whole process is self-defating? Yes, I believe that Lar acted in good faith but am not so sure about his discernment on this case. I would leave Commons immediately if I were forced to accept such notation in my userpage. I would see it as some physical mark on my skin. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Conflict of interest needs to be disclosed. It's accepted practice that when CU investigation finds connections, and there is deception, or the possibility of deception, that we block the account. We forebore to do that in this case, pending an explanation, which was never offered. Lycaon is active enough to revert the crosstagging, so it's not like he's not around at all. If no explanation is forthcoming, either crosstagging or blocking of one of the accounts is required. That's not a "mark on my skin", which seems a bit dramatic to me. It's just a requirement of editing collegially, we don't tolerate sockpuppetry. If you like I can do what I usually do when I find socking, instead of this very gentle approach that we've embarked on. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Lar I'd say lycaon is more than active :), and no matter what I am glad he's back.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Alves, you asked "did anyone care to contest the conclusion drawn by Tiptoety". The thing is that Tiptoety conclusion was drawn few weeks after crosslink was first posted to lycaon's user page. Apparently posting a crosslink at a user page is not considered an action at all. Lar has the crosslink at his talk page, and he has never deserved any actions taken against him. I also agree with Lar that approach was more than gentle. Probably any other admin, but lycaon would have been desysoped fot that, and besides, if my husband kept removing ctosslink that he is married from his user page, if he had an account on Commons, I would have been more than upset --Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

One more point: Here lycaon wrote :"Full explanations and (where necessary) apologies were offered to Lar by mail several weeks ago.", which means that fill explanations were never given at CU request. More than that, apparently lycaon considered that some apologies are proper in the situation. I believe the apologies should have been offered in public, and not via private email. It is not easy to apologize publicly, but who says it should be easy?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Durova... Perhaps we do need to thrash this out on the COM:AN/UP page? Not sure. As far as I'm concerned, consensus at that RFCU discussion (which ran for the better part of 2 months) is clear, either there needs to be crosslinking, or there needs to be a block of one of the accounts. I'd prefer the crosslinking but I'm OK with the block. Admittedly the discussion is long, and you have to read the whole thing to see the full resolution. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is disappointing

1. Explanations given off wiki on a matter of concern to the community...?
2. Trust and transparency go hand in hand. I'm not getting the "invasion of privacy" issue here? Real names are not being used. Strike the word "marriage" if you like but these people are "together" - the community should have access to this information given the rfcu in my opinion. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a connection should be made explicit, but I do disagree that the nature of the relationship must be disclosed. A note indicating that the editors are linked (sister? mother? wife? good friend? shouldn't matter) should suffice . . . marital status goes over the top. (P.S. to Herby: Lycaon does use his real name on wiki.) Maedin\^talk 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Lar won't mind us playing on his page...:)

Yes I agree with you Maedin completely as far as I can see. I don't care what the relationship is merely that there is something for transparency. As to real names on wiki I guess I would say "his choice" really. In practice real names are one of those things. I started with almost my real one, changed for my perceived privacy, however a minor amount of looking would now establish my (apparent) real name (after all how real is real). I certainly respect the need for privacy, I think transparency is important in people who wish a community to trust them. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a crosslink like that "User A is using the same IP address as user B is" will be acceptable.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice suggestion, ty. But that doesn't make it clear that there could be/was editing with interest; how about something like "User:Estrilda is associated with User:Lycaon and shares an IP address." That doesn't establish gender or what the relationship could be, which is what I think is most respectful of privacy while still acknowledging conflict of interest. Is that acceptable as a crosslink, please?  :) Maedin\^talk 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maedin, I would like to make myself clear please. For me personally any crosslink, or no crosslink at all is an acceptable solution. The only thing I really like is lycaon coming back. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1:: "No crosslink" is not acceptable unless the other ID is blocked. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Maedin:I'm fine with that wording. I want a crosslink. I don't care about the exact wording (which is why the crosslink I put in that stood for 2 months has (in comments) the request to reword to suit) as long as it carries the connotation that the editors are somehow related, connected, influence each other, what have you. So that wording works for me. Stick "and there may be potential conflicts of interest" in there and I'm even happier. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for being flexible, Lar. I've added the bare minimum in terms of wording; embellishment isn't my place. Could Estrilda be unblocked? Maedin\^talk 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth Maedin's edit seems perfectly acceptable and appropriate to me. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I rephrased the cross-link on Estrildas user page, such that it mirrors the revised one at Lycaons user page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

When the checkuser result came out I inquired whether Commons has a local precedent for this situation. Responses were that this is the first time here. If that's mistaken please provide other examples. There's another WMF site where Lar and I and some of the others are active where this sort of thing occurs a couple of times each year. The precedents there are clear: involuntary desysopping. The last time they had a sysop who got caught and went inactive while people were asking questions, he was desysopped and sitebanned in less than a month. From my perspective and probably from that of other Commons contributors who are familiar with that site's standard practices, we have been been handling this situation with extreme patience and generosity. To a degree that's absolutely unprecedented. Yet for some people that's not enough. Consider the precedent that would set: I honestly don't believe that sysops are above scrutiny or that it's a good idea to have vested contributors. Durova (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a big believer that sysops are not untouchable/above the law. However Lycaon was effectively inactive and so I was not that concerned.

It saddens me still that such a good contributor does seem to want to interact with people who have had considerable respect for him.

I like Maedin's link solution but if there are other issues this may need to be moved from such a minor talk page (:)) to somewhere more appropriate. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't moved it is the potential Streisand effect. If someone wants to take this to a noticeboard I wouldn't object. Really, I just wish Lycaon would talk to us. Durova (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On that I agree with Durova. I also wish lycaon talked to us, and to me in particular. I begged him quite a few times to talk to me, like for example here. He never had, and up to now he keeps removing all the messages I've left on his talk page for the last few weeks. Only, Durova, please do not believe, that bringing the matter to any administrators board will make him talk. I know quite well from my own experience with him, if he does not want to talk, he will not, and I am sure he does not want to talk now. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There is another matter I want to talk to him about as well. I'll leave it at that for now. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the consensus, it was apparent to me. Not only had no one reverted the edit made by Lar, but others had agreed that it should be made (just because some opposed does not mean there was not consensus). As to the handling if the case, I feel that it was handled rather well. Everyone had a cool head, we gave the parties involved ample to respond, and ultimately no one was blocked. As to the wording of the statement made on Lycaon's and his partners page, I agree that a more neutral wording is good. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Graphic credits

You once sounded interested in this page (not sure if you're still), but in case you are, I'd be happy to hear some feedback by you as I've just finished it. Thank you, --The Evil IP address (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. When you first started talking about it, I thought it was a great idea, but I wasn't quite sure how it was going to turn out. It came out really professional looking! Very nice. What's the right place to talk further? I think it should go live. THANKS for your efforts on it. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See this village pump dicussion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

that image

Hi Lar - Hopefully I'm just noting something that is underway already - I feel that it's important for 'that' image to be actually deleted from Commons, ie. it really shouldn't remain accessible to those with the oversight op.s - obviously I'd like to see a systemic solution for this sort of thing (having raised it before) but short term, I trust someone has contacted the foundation or a dev.? In fact - someone should probably contact the police too, to be honest, depending on the nature of the pic. which I haven't seen. As I said, I suspect this is being discussed on the oversight list, or somewhere appropriate - but I'd appreciate reassurance that the matter is properly resolved, and the image deleted. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which image you mean (there are a number of problematic ones I'm aware of), feel free to mail me if it's key, but in general, there isn't a "higher level" than Oversight, short of direct developer intervention. Those who have the Oversight permission are among the theoretically most trusted WMF volunteers there are. They're not going to go passing things around for amusement's sake. Perhaps I'm missing exactly what you're getting at though. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the replies, Lar :-) - the image in question is this one - if it really was a 16 year old girl masturbating, then access to it really should be removed from all, including those with oversight op.s (I trust you folks, I really do, but I don't really feel happy that oversighters have access to child porn.) - if, as some over on en have mentioned, this is in fact a fake account, then it gets a bit darker in my view - either ways, I suspect that someone should do a 'checkuser' and notify a local police department - would you agree? Privatemusings (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In theory, I agree. In practice, it's not that easy. we don't (in general) routinely do this sort of complete deletion. There area lot of images that are possibly of underage or possibly not model released (or both) subjects, who are in inappropriately revealing poses, that we have trouble even getting deleted, due to resistance from some rather intransigient community members whose mantra seems to be "no censorship" and "don't delete it unless you're sure it's bad". I think these sorts of images should be routinely revision deleted and flagged for potential complete deletion but I don't have the political capital to get such a change to happen. I would support your efforts on this, but would it be better, instead, to fight harder to at least get all those potentially damaging images deleted? Instead of focusing on this one? ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really consider myself a fighter, largely because I'm just not sure that any effort is effective, really (this is a sad state of affairs). I had a long chat with nathan yesterday about splitting these issues (explicit media from child porn. from model age and release) and I can see the benefits of such an approach - but really don't perceive any traction being gained anywhere. We recently had User:Max Rebo Band, a rather prolific contributor of sexually explicit material (much of which is rather beautiful), asking for OTRS to consider expanding its role to include release and model age info. - that was shot down rapidly both here, and in the most forceful terms my Mike (Godwin) on the foundation mailing list. There seems to me to be little chance of positive evolution in that regard.

Which brings me to another kind of serious request - would you, if you get a mo, give a little bit of thought to how you would consider it ethical and useful to share some of the information you are privy to - perhaps a record of the volume of unsettling images, perhaps you might be prepared to share some oversighted files with an appropriately credentialed authority, such as a child protection agency, or the police? Alison mentioned that there has been some very ugly, indisputably illegal child pornography uploaded to commons - would you be prepared to share your experience of such, including whether or not relevant authorities were contacted, and what advice came back from them? It continues to greatly concern me that we're playing amateur hour with potentially illegal material, and that ultimately, if the foundation doesn't accept any role in the management of said, then it's really an acceptable risk to volunteers - it's just not fair in my view. Mileage may vary, and advice is most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That latter question is an exceedingly difficult one. Not one I'm willing to give any snap judgments to. My loyalty is to the project. Except where other things outweigh it. Whether this is clearly one of them is not clear to me by any stretch of the imagination. The ends do not always justify the means. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

it's something I'm still thinking through too - unfortunately, not finding resolution means maintaining the status quo :-( - I have one more (small) question on this specific image - are you able to confirm who 'oversighted' the image? For some reason, I had in my mind that it was User:Kylu, but she doesn't appear to be an oversighter here? It's possible (likely!) that there are gaps in my understanding of the various ops, mind. best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I did, on request of the deleting admin, and then asked said admin to please send an email to the Commons oversight people explaining why and to request that one of the sysadmins delete the picture from upload. As far as being an oversighter, stewards have suppression as part of the global group (handy for emergency oversights). Upon receipt of a query, I posted my apology regarding not directly reporting the oversight to the local oversight group, among other things. If you want more data regarding the oversight, however, I'd have to direct you to your local oversighters, as I'm unsure as to how much of the oversight log data they're willing/able/restricted-by-policy to release, sorry! Hope that answers your questions, have a nice day! Kylu (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record there is absolutely no issue with any of Kylu's actions in this matter, they are completely within policy, revisiondeletion or oversighting needed doing and no local oversighter was immediately handy. We apparently need to improve our explanations of how to notify us after the fact but that's it. Thanks Kylu, as usual. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

nothing new really - just a note that I'm following up this one a wee bit. I wanted to clarify that I'm correct in saying that you personally didn't report this picture (of a self declared minor female masturbating) to any external agency (police or child protections, or somesuch)? - I'm also curious if you've ever reported such media, or if you're aware of any such reports being forwarded by others? - I'm going to drop a not in to Alison on en too, because I think she may have experience in this rather horrible field too... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

< following up - will copy to new section at the bottom, if that's ok :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Help on Wikimedia

A file to be dispersed

I notice that this file File:Giraffa cabarceno.JPG is used only on the italian wikipedia, can this be used on others? --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

More Pokémon

I think that there should be more pictures of Pokémon on this page, to make this a more complete page

I think it's about right already. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me make this a wikimedia template!

This template, Template:Fact disputed, is not a set template on wikimedia,although a similar one,

References for this description (or part of this) or for the depiction in the file are not provided. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.

is please help me make this a template!

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are asking? You may find more people that can help you at the Village Pump ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For info

And sadly - here. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

In case you don't know who I am, I am someone who was accused of being a sockpuppet of 98E on Wikipedia and here on Commons. However, I was unblocked here on Commons because I provided enough evidence that I wasn't 98E. I've tried asking several admins about unblocking me on Wikipedia. However, Spellcast and Kanonkas completely ignored me, and Herbythyme used to be an admin but he isn't anymore so he couldn't help me. But, it's been proven that I'm not a sockpuppet of 98E. Therefore, if you could unblock me on Wikipedia, I'd be very grateful. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should send a note to unblock-en-l (at) wikimedia.org and make your case there. Make sure to include links to whatever you're claiming as support for why you should be unblocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Is unblock-en-l at wikimedia.org an e-mail address? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Technically it is lists.wikimedia.org but either form should work. Replace the "at" with "@" Also, was I the blocking admin or the CU that performed the check(s)? If you know who the blocking admin or CU are, you should note that in your note. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spellcast was the one who blocked me, claiming that there was tons of evidence of me being 98E, but no IP check was done. However, if an IP check had been done, it would've showed that I wasn't 98E. I've seen the IP address that 98E used by looking at his sockpuppet category on Wikipedia, and his began with "71" while mine began with "24." So, an IP check should've been done prior to my block and it would've showed that I wasn't 98E. However, in September of 2008 I was unblocked here on Commons, and I tried to nicely ask Spellcast to unblock me, but he ignored me. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I sent an e-mail to the unblock e-mail address. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A._Talk 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

On Commons

Oh. I was looking for a mediator in this discussion [2]. As you can read, the discussion has been in some cases, a bit wild. I appreciate your time. Thank you.--Aylaross (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well I can try to peek in or you can ask any admin. Turelio is a good guy and should be able to help keep things calm. Durova striking some of her stuff seems helpful to me. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

follow up

G'day Lar - I posted this a while ago way up there somewhere;

nothing new really - just a note that I'm following up this one a wee bit. I wanted to clarify that I'm correct in saying that you personally didn't report this picture (of a self declared minor female masturbating) to any external agency (police or child protections, or somesuch)? - I'm also curious if you've ever reported such media, or if you're aware of any such reports being forwarded by others? - I'm going to drop a not in to Alison on en too, because I think she may have experience in this rather horrible field too... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

so now I'm following it up in a shiny new section all its own :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm really just not sure where you are going with this. We agree this issue in general is problematic, but I'm not sure your questions make a lot of sense to me. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry to have not communicated better - and yeah, I think generally speaking we share quite a lot of common ground. I'm trying to learn / gauge how the commons community has responded to illegal, or potentially illegal, material in the past, and I thought you'd be a pretty good person to ask first - having been around a while etc. - the short version of the above is;

• Have you ever reported material uploaded to commons to any external authority?
• Are you aware of any other volunteer doing so?
• (obvious follow up - and where I'm heading really)Do you think (like me) that an organised / systemic response to such material is a good idea, and if so, does it exist at all?

Hope that's a wee bit clearer :-) - for what it's worth, here's another image which may well be illegal in some jurisdictions - I think perhaps it should be deleted but currently lack the morale and initiative to nominate :-( cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha.

• No, I've never reported material uploaded to any external authority.
• No, I'm not aware of other volunteers doing so. Although it may have happened.
• I think a systemic response to such material is a good idea, yes, but I'm not sure that necessarily involves reporting things to authorities. Just a more systematic deletion policy.

As for the last item, it doesn't seem to be recongizably anyone in particular and while it may be illegal in some jurisdictions that's not a bar to it being on Commons. My concerns would be with scope (what is this image used for or likely to be used for) and copyright/license questions. The art is high enough quality that good provenance seems a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks SatuSuro (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NP. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Lar, I have a quick question. At this CHU request, Eugene says the user needs to provide evidence of account ownership on other wikis. However, as far as I can tell, there are no active accounts using the target name at any project. Am I missing anything? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a toss up. Commented there. I'd probably decline the rename, actually. Renaming is a priv we extend to significant contributors. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see now and I think I understand. Sorry for the newbish questions :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no worries, ask any time, I'm glad you asked... Don't be afraid to use the list to bring it to people's attention if you don't hear from me (or whoever you ping) right away. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Another newbie question

One more question. What is the generally accepted standard for closing RfAs I voted in? Is it de facto disallowed like on enwiki, or is it just a matter of common sense? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it close? That's the key question in my view. If it's close, stand aside. If it's both well over the minimums (8 votes in favor or 10 overall-ish) and well clear what the outcome is, sure, close it. But if it's close, leave it to someone else. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. The one I'm talking about is Commons:Administrators/Requests/myself488, which doesn't seem too close to me. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Barring a late breaking change, I'd close that one without any qualms in your position. It's unopposed and well over the threshold. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A recommendation regarding Pieter

I would suggest that you not do any more blocks of Pieter as I think you've become too involved at this point. Leave it to others going forward. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How have I become involved? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I just think it would be better not to be involved more, you've issued two blocks and there has been wheel warring, best to leave it to others at this point. There are plenty of admins on Commons. I have heard talk of people seeing sanction against you if you continue to stay involved, I think that's a bit overblown but I do think it better (my advice) that you step back. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a sanction is completely and totally ridiculous. But I don't intend to wheel-war, if that's what you mean. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm glad to hear you're going to take my advice. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, Pieter's agreed to back off. That's all anyone wanted, I think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)