User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 6

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Special:AbuseFilter/4

I was just testing this filter (as an IP) and saw that warning before disallowing doesn't make sense. In the warning it says "If you believe this edit to be constructive, you may click Submit again to confirm it." Of course that doesn't work since it's not allowed. The filter should also make an exception for blanking one's own userpage. I would do these changes myself but I haven't messed around with the filters yet. Thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a rate limit (3,120 on user,ip). There is already an exemption for the sandbox and userspace pages. Thanks for your help - I totally missed the illogic on what actions that filter would take :)  — Mike.lifeguard 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Rocket000 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

WRT the message you left me on my talkpage

Hi Mike. You sent a message to my talkpage that I find inscrutible. What is it you're referring to, again? Thanks.Justmeherenow (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Image accuracy question

Hi. I've left a note at User talk:Inductiveload#Accuracy of image, File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg concerning the accuracy of File:Anatomy of the Human Ear.svg. Since like this would also impact File:10.1371 journal.pbio.0030137.g001-L.jpg, which you had uploaded. Since I'm not quite sure what to do about it, I'd welcome your input there. :) Very perplexing situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

bull###%$**!!!

Commons etiquette is to assume good faith, but alas only a true gentleman can manage such a task. E-communications are so great in so many ways, but this petty bull###%$**!!! of accusing someone on zero grouns of being less than an honorable member of this community is just really really low down. I've never once in my entire life, ever ever ever tried to, quote, avoid scrutiny. I don't even approach three reverts on WikiCommons either. If you say I have. Please bring it on. Show me. Diffs. Or keep your bad faith and lack of perception of others' sincerity to yourself, please.
If you're referring to my using an IP to tag a file I uploaded for deletion, that, my friend, is not a revert. (I didn't want to use my account to tag my file for deletion because I didn't want people to believe I was arguing for its deletion; but I did want it to be decided at a forum rather than via a speedy.) If I ever have not been logged in other times than that, it was entirely inadvertent. (which is possible, I suppose. I'm not at Wiki Commons that much and don't always check whether I'm logged in or not.Justmeherenow (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
In my first communication to you I told you I didn't understand what you were getting at. Then you wrote me an even ruder statement accompanied with zero intelligent analysis or facts. Therefore I've determined that you have no intention of treating me with respect. Therefore I'm asking you politely never to talk to me on my talk page again. Thankyou. Since I have to get to the bottom of your empty accusations, I'm going to have to figure out how to challenge you through some kind of formal process on Commons.Justmeherenow (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Logo updates

Hi mike.lifeguard, as you've seen here I'd like to update some Wikimedia Logos, but I can't. You wrote "Done" to the Wikimedia Community Logo but I can't update it, because it's protected from the mainpage. Maybe you can update it? I could upload the file to my server - as I have done it with the other files - and you download it there and upload it on Commons? Kindest regards, Fleshgrinder (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not your call

You can't shut down my proposed deletion vote, it's not your call. This template is an acronym for "what the fuck" which has no place or purpose in this kind of project.--Avala (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Mike,

Thanks for your advice on the copyvio tag. Actually, I have used this tag for several images where I know the uploader hasn't a clue on what forms of CC licenses are acceptable here. (like Urban or Rojk) Other times, I subject an image to a formal DR to see the community's reaction because some images which failed flickr review may have been licensed freely at upload because the uploader seems trustworthy...or because it is a historically important image. I have got several images, which were subject to a formal DR, passed by flickrmailing the flickr owner. This is one case (a heavily used image which failed flickr review--all someone had to do was contact the flickr owner) I don't do formal DRs to waste anyone's time including yours...and I apologise if I conveyed this impression. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The question I have here is how a Featured image could go on to fail flickr review? This is a real puzzle. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well I'm not involved with FP :D ... but surely you could try to contact the flickr uploader as part of the flickr review process? If you can't verify the licensing (or if you verify it to be unacceptable on Commons) then I doubt anyone else will be able to either. In such cases, a {{copyvio}} suffices.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusion?

Don't call me a liar - if it makes not to much efforts to you - Sir!!

Please could't you me explain the diffrent between theese Files?

File:K.u.k. Feldmarschall-Lt 1918.jpg
File:K.u.k. Feldmarschall-Lt 1918.jpg

...but I'm sure, you'll find one. (Sb.A.)

With my very best regards
allways your servant --Erwin Lindemann 07:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The lie was that you said it was replaced when it wasn't. The difference is that one is smaller and cropped (the one you want). And the formats are different (jpg and png). But even if they were bit for bit identical, it still wasn't true that it was replaced. I still see Feldmarschall-Lt 1918.jpg&w=_100000#end two uses. Rocket000 (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that a reason to insult me? --Erwin Lindemann 09:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Insult you? By saying "don't lie"? Well, you shouldn't lie... how else do you tell someone that? A lie's a lie. Don't be so sensitive. Rocket000 (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what's your level on behavior. I don't call someon a liar, like in this case, without to ask first if it's could be mistaken or simply an error by myself. However, thank you for your understanding and helpfulness, Mister.
EOD --Erwin Lindemann 10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was about 20 of the same case: the image hasn't been replaced and in fact isn't even the same! I'm not sure why you think that's acceptable, but I believe it's common courtesy to not waste the time of other contributors. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My userpage

Just wondering why you deleted my user page? Please respond on my talk page. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont remember either... its been along time since Ive looked at that page. Thanks anyway.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter conflict/bug

Try this: Log out, go to a random image page, remove all content, save. You'll see that you don't even get a warning. I check the Abuse log and it was logged (action: tag) because of filter 27, not filter 4 which would have warned instead of simply tag. I checked if the blanking even matched 4 and it did so my guess is that if something matches more than one filter, the latest one is applied. This is obviously a issue in the extension itself. (It should always apply the strictest filter, i.e. disallow > warn > tag/nothing, or let us choose the order in which they are applied). But maybe you can make these coexist somehow. I'm thinking either we need to start making very specific filters or move some things around. Rocket000 (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a general issue with the Abuse Filter... I would suggest getting advice from Werdna. I'll try to remember to mention it to him at some point.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this isn't the case. It's probably another issue. I'll take a look at it when I have more time (I'm sitting in San Francisco packing up for my onward flight to New York right now). Werdna (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Rocket000 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My error

I think this is a prime example why a DR is sometimes necessary sadly. Its all my error. I guess if I had slapped a copy vio here, I'd be in big trouble here.

  • As an aside, this DR should be closed as delete. I did contact the flickr owner and he allowed another image to be licensed freely. The uploader and flickr owner was a former Admin in 2005/2006 on English Wikipedia. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

Thanks for the offer. Ready to go now [1]. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I forgot I didn't have pywiki installed on this OS, but this provided a much-needed impetus to do it :)  — Mike.lifeguard 18:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Stewards

Re this edit. I included Stewards in the list as new users will hear about them and may wonder what they are and why the is no page for applications here. I was planning to write a paragraph on Commons:Stewards to explain they are not Commons-specific, and then to link to meta for the full details. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, best to not mention it at all... there's no need since Commons has no stewards. Do we also need a page to explain editor, reviewer, patroller, account creator, founder, and import groups on Commons? Maybe new users will panic after finding we don't have those request pages?  — Mike.lifeguard 20:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I think Special:ListGroupRights is enough. Pages on stewards aren't really relevant on Commons (or any local project). Users might start assuming they are some sort of super-admin/crat with a regular role on Commons. Rocket000 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

SMS König / SMS Seydlitz / Borodino class scale model pictures

Hello Mike,

You have deleted my warship scale model pictures from wikipedia commons. I have built, painted, and photographed those models by myself. Each contains parts from several manufacturers and parts designed by myself. What would I have to do to have them reinstalled? I thougt it was a good idea to upload them in order to provide the corresponding articles with some illustrations.

Thanks. Muskelkater

I see you've made a request at COM:UNDEL - that's the best thing to do, so you're on the right track :)  — Mike.lifeguard 15:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Shankbone images

Regarding all of those images, they still need their licenses changed. As they are, they are someone else claiming copyright ownership of images by Shankbone. I've also left an apology on his talk page explaining my actions. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 02:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means you're not doing it? I'll fix it up then...  — Mike.lifeguard 20:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Goodricke John.jpg

Personally I don't see how you can condone scanning stuff from books and magazines and uploading it as though it were a free image. If the publication itself were over 100 years old then I would agree with you. But in this case it isn't. I have added the original source of the image, i.e. the Royal Astronomical Society, which the original uploader did not do. RoyalAstronomicalSociety (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the explanations given in the DR. There, you will find your answers. I'm sorry you feel slighted, but we do not accept copyfraud.  — Mike.lifeguard 20:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Code

Tell me, does this code randomly change the image displayed on your userpage? 

<center>
{{#switch:{{#expr:{{CURRENTHOUR}} mod 10}}
|0=[[File:Peace and love.jpg|500px]]
|1=[[File:Peace and love.jpg|500px]]
|2=[[File:Peace and love.jpg|500px]]
|3=[[File:Peace and love.jpg|500px]]
|4=[[File:Homo.JPG|500px]]
|5=[[File:Bomba atomowa.gif]]
|6=[[File:Peace and love.jpg|500px]]
|7=[[File:Peace and love.jpg|500px]]
|8=[[File:Peace and love.jpg|500px]]
|9=[[File:Tux-G2.png|500px]]
}}
</center>

Does it have a predefined interval? How does CURRENTHOUR effect it? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not randomly, but yes. Currenthour mod 10 yields the integers from 0 to 9, so it changes once per hour.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Very cool. I put it on my en.WP talk page. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oberwolfach photo collection

Hi Mike

Two months ago, you nominated three pictures from the Oberwolfach photo collection for deletion, however it is not entirely clear to me why. The description pages at mfo.de still allow us to use the pictures - why do you think this is a mistake? I have myself uploaded quite a few pictures from mfo.de, so it would be good to know. Otherwise, if there is no problem, could you close the discussion? -- Momotaro (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment and watched that DR.  — Mike.lifeguard 11:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Admin Privileges?

It seems to me that they were given pre-maturely and probably incorrectly. Could you see to it that I get unblocked? User:Fcb981 -76.115.129.13 22:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please comment at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Fcb981: Indef block removal and User:Mike.lifeguard Admin privilege revocation.. Multichill (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mike, can you please tell me why coats of arms of different countries were deleted? Regards, --George Mel (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I aggree, please explain, I couldn't find a recent discussion on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com (2nd request). Michiel1972 (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Initially the deadline for conversion was set to May 2008, but it was delayed, so the images has had over one year to be fixed now. →AzaToth 11:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kadar flag

Why did you delete this flag? You know that's what I don't like in commons (I never upload a picture here). Some of the users are like elephants in the china shop (no sense, no sensitivity). This is not the first case, that somebody from commons deletes something useful without proper reason. This might not be in your case. Last time a Czech guy deleted an individual insignia, because it was also in a bigger picture with 25 other insignias, saying it was a duplicate (that was certainly not true). It seems unreasonable, if you want have/talk about the particular insignia alone. Now it seems that there was no Kadar flag. No matter what the English article said (that it was not in official use), I can assure you that THE KADAR COAT of ARMS WAS IN USE EVERYWHERE IN COMMUNIST HUNGARY!!!!!! I don't see the reason to delete it, even if it had not been an official flag. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but I'd like to see the reason in the decisions. You can find me here. Carlos71

I didn't delete it because it is not official (or something); please see the DR referenced in the deletion summary.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian flags

According to the deletion discussion, images of PD flags should have been kept; you can even see on the {{Vector-Images.com}} that official Hungarian flags are PD. Anyway, there are lots of better images (the VI.com version seems to be slightly altered,too), so I'll just reupload one. Could you next time please not delete images without any warning? I'm sure it's not that difficult to bot-post a deletion notice and wait a few days so interested parties can react. --Tgr (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(The image in question was File:Flag of Hungary (1957-1989).png. And there is a duplicate with incorrect information under File:Flag_of_Hungary_(1957-1989yy).png which probably should be deleted. --Tgr (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

I'll take care of the dupe momentarily. The PD flags should be kept - if you know which ones those are, please tell me and I'll undelete them. While there has been ample time for users to take care of this, it is sometimes not done until after the fact. Of course, this is why deletions are reversible.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Hello Mike. I am MacedonianBoy, admin on the Macedonian Wikipedia. I would like to ask you why the coat of arms of many countries and cities have been deleted? The articles miss that pictures and it is a lot of work returning them back. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

At least some of the deletions I noticed were doubtful or wrong:

Anither question: is temporary undeletition of state coats of arms (at least SVG) possible? I'm going to transfer them to Ukrainian Wikipedia as fair use, but I haven't found any versions of normal quality on the Internet. Thanks — NickK (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, by doing this you have screwed up literally thousands and thousands of articles all over Wikipedia. I fear it is too late to fix a lot of it, but please restore images that are public domain (and those that may be – in situations like this it is better to give images the benefit of the doubt, rather than facing the consequences of deleting them). Research the copyright status first, then shoot – not the other way around, because that will cause a huge mess. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They have had over one year to correctly tag the images; It's not like you hasn't had time. →AzaToth 15:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you tell me which images are PD I'll undelete them immediately.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Coat_of_arms_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago.png to start ... thanks in advance. Bwilkins (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I also need to know why they're PD so I can fix the information on the image description page. I've undeleted this for now though.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist

Hi Mike, regarding your edit on the title blacklist: On the top of the page, it says To disable an entry, *remove* it, don't comment it out.. I haven't tried whether your commenting this out has been successfull, but you might consider double-checking and eventually removing the entry. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 07:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It does work - the notice is intended to apply to permanent removals, which this probably isn't. Thanks for your vigilance though.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

hi mike, i posted a few photos in the article "daniel mattes" (danielmattes1 and 4 specifically) that i got from him personally and that are free to be published, please do not delete them again. thanks, stephan --Sjcx

MiszaBot, please archive this normally.  — Mike.lifeguard 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Sierra Leone.svg

Could you pls restore it and maybe give authors a minimal chance to discuss? DR concerned images tagged with VI template, but I still believe that each file should be considered individually? Especially that author weren't even notified about DR! And I believe that author can explain how file was created and vectorized, and that it has NOTHING to do with (auto)conversion of original raster! Thanks in advance. Masur (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There's been well over a year to clear up issues, even after the DR closed. If the image is PD, please tell me why, and I'll undelete the image and fix the licensing.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This file is only taken of Vector-images.com. It is our own work and I ask for it to be reverted. Poznaniak (dyskusja) 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it's fairly clearly a derivative of the vector-images.com png. Feel free to ask on COM:UNDEL.  — Mike.lifeguard 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So u know better how we drew that file? Did you compare it carefully with the original? Do you know what is our vectorization technique? I put the template "vect images" cos then I havent know much about licensins and derivatives. However now, I'd just write that it is my own work inspired by VI raster. You know, they cannot copyright everything what looks more or less the same as their file, cos not a single coat of arms would be free then. They can copyright only exact copies of their interpretation (and I'm not talking about pixel here or there!). So I can say that it was our interpretation of that CoA based on VI interpretion. And our SVG wasnt excact copy, mainly because we drew it manually (have you chekced it? Have you opened our file in any vector graph. editor?). And because raster had got a restricted quality, many things we just drew on our own, so it was much worse. So, as long, as Sierra Leone coat of arms is PD per se, our derivative work is as well. That's what I meant, mentioning that EACH file in that case should be considered individually, because not everything what was tagged with "vect images" template, was really VI image. Masur (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, please fix the license information etc.  — Mike.lifeguard 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Escut Dorset.png

I noticed that you deleted the above file from the Commons after an extensive DR. I've tried to follow the DR, but there seem to be a lot of (copyright) issues (which I'm unfamiliar with). If at all possible, could you sum it up for me and what can be done to amend this? It would be much appreciated; WikiProject Dorset has been left with a red link where there was previously a nice coat of arms, so I'm hoping I can 'resolve' the image issue and whether there is a realistic chance of getting an alternative quite quickly. Thanks in advance. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In short, images from vector-images.com are not free enough for Commons unless they cannot hold the copyright (ie the image is PD, which is the case for many coats of arms etc). So, if this one is PD then it would be restored, and you can fix the license information. If not, you will need to find an alternative.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Ethiopia

Hi Mike.
I notice you deleted File:Flag of Ethiopia (1987-1991).png. I have two questions:

  1. Why? The deletion discussion you linked to seems not immediately relevant (although I haven't read through it in detail)
  2. Does the same reason also apply to File:Ethiopia 1987-1991.PNG, which I've just used at en-wiki as a replacement in en:Template:Country data Ethiopia

Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the png you're using was derived from the vector-images.com image, so that looks OK. The DR is about a copyright mess having to do with images from vector-images.com which are possibly copyrighted. I suggest not reading the DR in detail unless you want a headache :P  — Mike.lifeguard 02:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Huh. Well, alright, thanks. :) Amalthea (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

coas from vector-images.com e. g. File:Turks and Caicos coa.gif

First of all your decision to delete all these coas was wrong because they are in the PD (also if vector-images.com says anything elese)... But ok, I don´t want to restart a closed discussion... Could you please help me with transferring these coas all to German Wikipedia? They are free in Germany so we´d like to use them there.

Which coas have been deleted? Did only you or also another one delete them (then it wouldn´t be enough to go through your delete log)? Chaddy (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I cleared out the category myself. If that image is PD then please tell me why so I can restore the image and fix the information accordingly.  — Mike.lifeguard 11:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It´s not only about the image in the caption but also about all the deleted images. Why did you exactly delete these images? Because vector-images.com says they have a copyright on them? Why should they have copyright on coat of arms of countries? Do you know the term Copyfraud? This is a good example for that. Chaddy (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It was decided over a year ago in an DR that they are not all valid for inclusion on commons (a log of legal mumbel jumbel there to read). →AzaToth 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
And for which reason are they not all valid?
And by the way, what do you mean with "mumbel jumbel"? ;) Sorry, I´m not a native speaker (but I took English as one of my two intensive courses this and the following year in grammar school = Gymnasium ;)). Chaddy (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
AzaToth means that it is a very complex and somewhat confusing situation. The decision was that we cannot accept images with an unknown status - we assume that they are not acceptable on Commons, but give a long delay to fix things before deleting them. That is why over a year was given to figure out the status of all affected images and update their information. There must be some limit on how long images with an unknown status can hang around, so those which were not updated and remained in the unknown state were deleted. Post-deletion, any images for which we can find accurate information can of course be undeleted and updated.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, if you think the coas are not acceptable on Commons then please help to transfer them to German Wikipedia. There, they are acceptable. Chaddy (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please participate there (you can also write in English there that shouldn´t be a big problem)? This discussion is on the one hand about why these coas were deleted and on the other hand how to transfer them to de-WP. A full list of all in this case deleted images would be nice. Chaddy (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi! can you tell me how to upload images correctly wthout getting in trouble? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossCountryTrains (talk • contribs) 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You should take a quick read through our licensing policy. On Commons, we only accept images where the four freedoms are attached:
  1. the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
  2. the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
  3. the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
  4. the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works
That means we accept no works which are "all rights reserved" which is the default, and was the case for the hotel logo you uploaded. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. If you have more specific questions, feel free to come back and ask.  — Mike.lifeguard 15:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

See my comment here. Thanks for helping with the Pikiwiki issue. Drork (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will always defend you if you're right and condemn you if you're wrong, so don't think you're getting off the hook for edit warring just because I think Commons has treated the Pikiwiki project very badly. I've unblocked you because you're going to be busy fixing the Pikiwiki issues instead of edit warring.  — Mike.lifeguard 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed

Hello Mike,

I have a great deal of respect for you, because of your hard work on Commons and other project but what you just did doesn't make me really happy.

I really have no problem that you removed the block on Drork, but couldn't you leave a note on my talkpage, Email or IRC? I did took the time to think how I was going to handle this and made a kind of plan, since you removed the block it is a waste of my time. This is the way I wanted to handle it.

I send a email to him 5 minutes before the blocking saying that I have blocked him for a editwar, the block will last for 72 hours but can be lifted sooner. Please place a {{Unblock}} template on your talkpage saying you will not editwar or remove deletion templates anymore and I will lift the block. (or by email).

This way the editwar would have stopped and Drork could just continu editting on his project. You lifted the block without asking me why I blocked. But you are reffering in a email to block-happy admins. And that makes me really really sad.

Best regards, Huib talk 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're not one of the block-happy admins I was referring to since I made that reference before you made the block (or at least before I was aware of it). Nevertheless, I think unblocking him is the right thing to do. He does have work to do, and if he is focusing on that, then he won't be edit warring. A block should be a last resort - here it appears to have been a first resort, and that's not OK. As for letting you know, I was in the middle of drafting several emails, one of which was to you - I don't habitually wheel war unnecessarily, as you well know.  — Mike.lifeguard 15:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't seeing it as a first or last resort. It was more of the middle way, there where 2 warnings adressed to him and he didn't stop. By a block he would have needed to stop and by staying checking my watchlist every 10 a 15 minutes I was pretty sure I could unblock him right after he placed the message. I really dislike blocking and I don't do it often (That ways I asked pikiwiki opionions on COM:AN instead of blocking it myself.) but when I do place a block I have a idea or a plan how to handle it or it is really the last possible way to go. Huib talk 15:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Latuff again and again

What do you think of this discussion? I see two problems here:

  1. Those who made an effort to keep the Latuff's cartoons here, are those who decided to delete my "response" to them. This is not a proper way to make a decision. In fact it is even an abuse of power.
  2. Political cartoons are not documentary stuff. They are not NPOV by definition, they express one person's view, and I believe that if they are kept here (in fact, I strongly believe they shouldn't, but if they are kept) then a response is legitimate and welcomed. If the original is educational, then the response is educational (unless it is a mere corruption of the original). Latuff took a calculated risk here. He released the cartoons to the public domain in order to get more exposure, even through the Commons, but he knew his own drawing can be used to criticize him - that's part of the fair play. By deleting my responses to Latuff and practically forbidding such responses on the Commons, the administrators take a political position.

I strongly recommend (again) that these problematic caricatures (in particular the defamation of Dershowitz) be taken out of those categories not related to Latuff himself. It is also very recommended to delete some of them which clearly don't have educational value (quite the contrary in fact). But if there is policy which allows such cartoons, then this policy should adhere to the principle of fair play. Drork (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point of view & I do agree regarding the nature of the cartoons. Where we disagree is whether they should be deleted or not. You already know this, so I don't understand why you're asking me again.
As for your uploads - I don't see that they are any more in-scope than the standard attack images we speedily delete on a regular basis. They're not by a notable artist, and they can't be used to illustrate any Wikipedia article, Wikinews story, Wikisource text, Wikiversity course, Wikibooks text, Wikispecies entry, or Wikiquote page in a useful way. I don't have anything against the content (in fact, I can agree with the content of AMessageToLatuff.png). Furthermore, that you're uploading them specifically do make a disruptive point, I don't see how you think you have a leg to stand on at this point. You're doing yourself in, and I am losing sympathy for this game of constantly playing the victim. If you're not going to help yourself, then I'm not going to bother to try either.
If someone removed comments inappropriately then show me where and I'll fix it and reprimand them, as you were reprimanded (appropriately) here.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You see what you're doing here? You suggest that attacking people, whether private people or groups of people, by drawing a cartoon and releasing them to the public domain, is allowed on the Commons as long as the artist is "notable". Who decides who's notable, hence entitled to attack? The administrators of course. Most of whom, by the way, live in North America or Western Europe. More than that - the people who uploaded Latuff's cartoons enjoyed the "assume good faith" principle. Any attempt to claim they are turning the Commons into a soapbox was rejected on the account that we don't censor. On the other hand, you don't let me even enjoy the benefit of the doubt that I might act in good faith, or at least trying to make a legitimate point (rather than "disruptive"). You see this as a game, we are talking about the future of this project (I hope it has a future). I know of many people who won't enter the Commons due to problematic content. I know that, because I talk with people, and I hear they reactions. Many people already regard it as an "adult only" site. There were complaints and press reports about antisemitism and hatred material on this site. You choose an attitude which is not only unfair, but will result in more and more resentment towards this project. You may lose you patience, but the more serious issue is the general public losing its patience. Drork (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes yes yes, all admins are evil Western antisemites whose only purpose in life is to upload porn and attack images to Commons. Are you done yet? If so, there is constructive work to be done.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You mean there are plenty of Latuff antisemitic cartoons that haven't been uploaded yet. I should add some of his cartoons calling to blow up Israeli buses and dancing on Israeli graves. That would be constructive alright. There are some Israeli contributors that haven't been blocked yet. They have a tendency to write the source field in Hebrew characters which is unacceptable. You claim there is no conspiracy here, and at the same time you do everything possible to prove there is, and you patronize me, as if I were a 3 year old child, because I demand you take action. You have been entrusted with unlimited and indefinite power to manage this international project, and yet you and several other administrators act as if it were you own private project, and a platform for extreme political views. I joined the Wikimedia movement because I admired the values it was based upon. Nothing is left of these values, because there are enough people who are willing to throw them to the garbage. Drork (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Piki Wiki

I am trying to assist in solving the problems, before a 200K picture donations and 50K$ donation go down the drain. see here and here. Deror avi (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can you please delete this picture: File:Whitney Museum PC230112.JPG - I have uploaded it to the commons by mistake - It should have been uploaded only to wiki english being a fair use picture and not within the scope of the project. I have requested deleteion here however Pieter Kuiper refuses the request. Deror avi (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the image. I think you misunderstood what Peter Kuiper was doing - {{delete}} on Commons isn't the speedy delete template & it needs to have the parameters you removed. The deletion request is here & I've noted your request there as well.  — Mike.lifeguard 13:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I will reply in email. Deror avi (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
[2] further to my email to you, can you assist? Deror avi (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
We normally leave deletion requests open for 7 days, but I'll be sure to take a look when that time is up.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculously spurious?

In view of your comment here: would this be another ridiculously spurious deletion request? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

upscale gloryhole image

In light of your close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Upscale Glory Hole.jpg, where you said bad filenames aren't cause for deletion, would you please opine on this revert by Allstarecho to the file page, which removed a rename request, as well as a description and categories change. I'd discuss this with ASE himself, but I'd feel more comfortable asking a third party before troubling him more with this if I'm completely off-base with regards to how things work on Commons. It just strikes me that, even if ASE is within accepted Commons practices, the mitigating circumstances of the image would suggest a rename/redescription/recat per m:IAR. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say all four categories are appropriate. I'm not aware of any hard-and-fast rule that we always use the Flickr description... I think we can do better than the current one. However claiming it is not a glory hole contradicts what I said in closing the DR. I don't guarantee that I'm right, but you said you agree with me. You're correct that this is a humourous file name - but there's nothing wrong with that and little reason to change it. Perhaps the image description should mention that.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I think I understand your close a bit better now- you mean to say that it's OK to show the image as an example of a glory hole because it decently resembles one (at least as well as, for example, items in Category:Sex drawings resemble the real thing, though I'd suggest there are certain parts of it which would make it poor by that standard; see below). I can jive with that, but I suppose in that case my gripe would be much more with the description. It suggests it's an actual glory hole at an Ikea, and was being used in enwiki's glory hole article as such. I just think it's deceptive to both people who use files from Commons and to editors from Wikimedia projects who might be looking for images of glory holes to pretty clearly imply it's a glory hole from an Ikea.
Extended commentary about the suspected source of the image.
As I stated in the deletion discussion, I'm reasonably certain that it's not a real gloryhole, and not just from the Flickr description page, but from contextual hints in the image- darkness behind the hole despite the great deal of ambient light apparent in the shot; angle of the shot, coupled with angle of light reflection suggests the hole is either high up off the ground or horizontal; size clues (light reflections, circular scratches) also suggest it's a smaller hole than most (compared to other gloryholes which appear designed to permit the passage of scrotal sac in addition to erect penis); the lip at the top of the image may be a threshold, suggesting the hole is in a floor. I've also recently visited the Ikea where it was likely taken (presumed anyway via the Flickr description page), and recall a display with the big letters "TRY ME" on it, but don't recall specifically what it was.
Thanks for your attention in this matter! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, but all this should be going into the description. I don't think it's relevant that the image was taken at Ikea, but it may be relevant that although it's not a real glory hole, it could be.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive_6&oldid=126081901"