I don't know about how "cultured" my contributions are, but thanks, WAS. I agree with your notion of "balance"; it's just too bad this "free" side is run in such an unprofessional manner. -- TheKohser (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a shame that this "free" side is run in such an unprofessional manner. Maybe you can help with that. Remember that there is nothing in itself wrong with doing well by doing good. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I'm wondering what exactly do you mean in the description of Spiraea x Margaritas.jpg with "cross with Margaritas"? the name "margarita(s)" seems not to appear within the Spiraea genus. to me the pictured plant looks like a cultivar of Spiraea × bumalda (resp. S. japonica), like 'Anthony Waterer' or the like. --Yeahx3 (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely transposing what was depicted on the brass sign labeling this variety at the Winterthur Gardens in Delaware. I am not a botanist. -- TheKohser (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, the photo in question appears to the right. Spiraea × Margaritas or Spiraea × Bumalda? You decide!. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thekohser, I am not aware of you having violated any policy here at Commons. (I have not checked your contributions, though.) There was a global ban issued by Jimbo Wales on his talk page (see here for the relevant diff) which was implemented by Drini. This global ban was, however, apparently lifted by Pathoschild, allowing the individual projects to decide whether to have you blocked or not. Given this, I have forwarded your request to COM:AN/B#Thekohser (talk · contributions). Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abigor/Huib, your decline states that Thekohser can't edit Commons because "your account is still locked." This appears to be incorrect. The global lock was lifted, see Global account log for Thekohser. The general consensus appears to be that bans are local decisions, so if Thekohser is to be banned, it should be by each local wiki; making these decisions independent encourages good behavior and cooperation with editors who might be disruptive elsewhere. Please see the COM:AN thread cited by AFBorchert. --Abd (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 month for the following reason: {{{2}}}.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
Whilst it is within your rights to publish whatever you like off-wiki under the guise of US freedom of speech, it is not within your rights to continue to pursue a campaign of harassment/intimidation of Commons editors, whilst using this site to do so. Your obsession with User:Fae, and your portrayal of the facts is unhealthy for participation on this project, and it is plainly obvious that you intend on using Commons to intimidate other editors, which by this you have unfortunately resorted to said intimidation of editors, namely Fae. After 1 month, you are welcome to contribute to the project in a healthy way, but further intimidation and/or harassment of editors on this site will not be tolerated. russavia (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh, Russavia... will you appear?I wonder how Russavia now feels about this? Maybe he'll comment, in "spirit form", as in a seance. - Thekohser (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the worst block ever in this sad story. Greg simply said this "We all know the facts about Fae's past self-portrait photos that were uploaded to Commons. He apparently had terrible misgivings about those photos, so he got them removed. Then he engaged in a campaign to cover-up that the photos had been removed. Now all he's doing here is engaging in another step of that campaign -- trying to censor the group that was merely trying to keep the facts in plain view." This is the unvarnished truth. Van Haeften, a trustee of Wikimedia UK, tried to get some photos of himself removed, after misgivings about them. Then he conducted a cover-up campaign. Now he is trying to censor the site that was merely stating these facts. This is CENSORSHIP pure and simple. I thought Wikipedia was not censored? Being able to speak the truth is far more important than uploading another picture of a penis. I protest this block. Peter Damian (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I've just noticed something. User:Russavia says here about me, "Thekohser took it upon himself to come to this thread, and delve into continued intimidation/harassment of Fae..." I took it upon myself to come to that thread, because a web domain I own had been placed onto a "spam blacklist" when no spamming had ever been done; not to mention the fact that User:Fae had taken it upon himself to publish my full name in the thread not once, not twice, not three times, not even four times, but five times before I took it upon myself to respond to his defamation of my name and my brand. How is it that Russavia could possibly mangle the evidence so grotesquely, yet somehow still have access to the administrator tool kit? -- Thekohser (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.
Request reason: "Blocking admin states that my portrayal of facts is "unhealthy" and constitutes "intimidation". Since when is restatement of clearly known and observed facts an unhealthy and intimidating practice? While a one-month block is certainly survivable, I think I must go through the motions of protesting this block, lest anyone characterize my non-response as tacit agreement with what is clearly out-of-bounds and quite ludicrous. Thekohser (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
Note: Any uninvolved admin who is considering looking at the unblock request is requested to contact me via email for private information prior to considering unblocking. Thanks. russavia (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Any uninvolved admin who is considering looking at the unblock request, please discuss this on wiki. I see no reason whatsoever why this unblock could not be discussed on wiki. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Continued baiting and harrassment of Fae.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
Just noting that this wrongful block (there was no "harrassment" (even if misspelled)), performed by an involved administrator, has expired. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for duly notifying me. Your nomination is preposterous, and I advise that you cease wiki-stalking my uploads. -- Thekohser (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote in your comment that you have uploaded some images. I was surprised to read that and had a look. That you got informed on you talk page was the result of using the deletion tool. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for duly notifying me. Your nomination, if it has any merit, is washed out by the fact that you are clearly wiki-stalking my uploads, while letting sit numerous other highly similar photos of the Disney Electrical Light Parade, which discredits your nomination to the utmost degree. I advise that you cease wiki-stalking my uploads. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thekohser, comments like this are inappropriate within deletion requests. If you want to claim that someone is stalking or trolling you, please do this by opening a case at COM:AN/U but nowhere else. The deletion requests should just focus on the point whether the images in question are to be kept or deleted. Thank you for your understanding. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this, and this hypocritical reaction, I wish to publicly announce that "any further comment from Niabot on my talk page will be removed without any answer." -- Thekohser (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing Commons indefinitely. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.
Hi Thekohser—this is just to notify you that, since your account has been unlocked, you can now request unblocking on this project, as I haven't taken away your right to edit this page here. Unlike the English Wikipedia, there is no required format an unblocking request should take, so just go ahead. (Also, I think that Michaeldsuarez might soon be starting a wider community discussion on whether to unblock your account.) Thanks, odder (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any plans. That's simply what you advised me to me. Since thekohser isn't banned by the community, I don't see the need for a community-wide discussion. I'll start a discussion at the Village pump or one of the noticeboards only if a standard unblock request fails to resolve issues regarding the block. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think I have the authority to make any decision in this specific situation just on my own, and would advise all admins against doing so. I strongly encourage you to seek wider community input on the matter at hand. odder (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The block was a result of the global lock which in turn was based on a decision made by Jimbo Wales (talk·contribs), therefore I don't think I am able to overturn it on my own, especially considering Thekohser's past activities both on and outside of Wikimedia projects. If Thekohser requests an unblock, I will refuse it, but if the wider community decides to allow him to edit here, I am willing to perform the unblock myself. odder (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. The global lock was overturned by a steward (and it seems that not all of them agree with this outcome), not by the global community at large. The block on Commons stands indeed and it will stand until there is wider approval to overturn it. odder (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pathoschild did and removed these blocks for technical reasons (at that time there was no global lock). So in order to follow Pathoschild's example Odder should downgrade our mediawiki's installation ;) --Vituzzu (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: "The initial global lock imposed on my account (now lifted) was conducted out-of-process. I am ready to rejoin the Wikimedia Commons community, and willing to have this decision discussed in a collaborative way."
Thank you, odder. I understand your need to follow procedural norms. I hope that the community's outcome will be favorable to my participation, so that I can join you again in adding free content to this amazing repository that is Commons. -- Thekohser (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You write “amazing repository that is Commons”. Given your engagements and your past statements, one has to assume it is meant ironically. Please post a request that does not contain irony. I would appreciate if you explain which kind of free content you intend to add exactly? How will you work with Fæ and Niabot in future? Which step will be your first to resolve a conflict with a user? Thanks in advance. -- Rillke(q?)21:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The word "amazing" can be used ambiguously, it could be understood without irony as anything from "shockingly awful" to "impressively awesome". So I agree that a clarification might help. --99of9 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am asked to post a request that does not contain irony. My request stated: "The initial global lock imposed on my account (now lifted) was conducted out-of-process. I am ready to rejoin the Wikimedia Commons community, and willing to have this decision discussed in a collaborative way." Apologies if that sounds ironic to you, but I'm frankly not seeing any irony or sarcasm in that request. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Status of community discussion appears to show 10 Commons folk who wish to see the out-of-process block of my account here lifted, and 10 Commons folk who wish to keep it in place. I note that not one of the "keep him blocked" crowd seems able to point to a single Commons policy that I've violated, so I am wondering how long this process needs to continue? -- Thekohser (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all well and good to say that you are "prepared to work collegially in the same environment", but what about your off-wiki activities -- publishing libel, encourage harassment, engaging in outing of editors, etc, etc. Some comment on that is appreciated. As you can see from my AN comments, this is what many in the community want you to address. russavia (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When have I ever published libel, Russavia? You had better back that up immediately with some facts, or I will be taking that comment to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team. Likewise "encouraging harassment". I have (of course) engaged in "outing" of editors who have clearly identified themselves by name on the Internet, or even on Wikimedia Foundation sites. -- Thekohser (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Russavia continues to prance about on Commons, adding to discussions elsewhere while my challenge to his falsehoods above remains unanswered, I suppose (especially for those who are slow on the uptake) there would be some benefit to me giving "some comment on that". Russavia states that my off-wiki activities include "publishing libel". This is absurdly false. I take great care to publish facts that can be documented and sourced, and at no time have I been formally accused of publishing libel, because I have never published libel. Russavia should be ashamed of introducing this falsehood about me, but I am willing to forgive him if he is apologetic. Russavia states that my off-wiki activities "encourage harassment". I don't know what sort of demented individual would ever interpret my activities off-wiki to encourage harassment of any individual or organization, but apparently Russavia believes that factual criticism of certain unseemly behaviors by individuals or organizations constitutes "harassment" or "encouragement of harassment". Such a misguided interpretation is obviously intended to poison the well, and I hope that Commons participants in good standing will see through that disdainful tactic. Just as the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation is utterly displeased with Russavia's persistent antics, I too add my voice of displeasure about Russavia. It is a shame that he is permitted to publish falsehoods such as those above, without any sort of corrective action being taken by the community that tolerates him. -- Thekohser (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question for Russavia... What about your off-wiki activities -- scraping dogs' testicles with a plastic fork, licking Catholic nuns behind the ears, engaging in nighttime encampments on the back lawns of supermodels, etc, etc. Some comment on that is appreciated.
And, a question for odder... What about your off-wiki activities -- wrapping small children's ankles and wrists in duct tape, taking photographs of men in the fitness club showers, engaging in deliberate filing of old magazines in reverse chronological order at the local library, etc, etc. Some comment on that is appreciated.
I have to say this actually made me smile, thanks :) I do see your point, and that's why I'm just going to let other people see it. odder (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the unblock is a step in the right direction. Commons can't undo everyone's mistakes, but on occasion it can undo its own.
Apropos of nothing, I notice your chart of the power law for American names deviates a little bit from mathematics, and the point at which it does is right where Garcia, Rodriguez, Martinez come in. Of course, those are random picks as far as I know. It is probably hopeless to sort out black vs. white names, but I wonder if that one bulge at least could be proven to be related to the Hispanic community. Do you think you could plot the relative number of Hispanic names along the curve somehow? (Yeah, it is a lot of data though) Also, could you cite the source data table directly? Wnt (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first 12 surnames were not "random picks", they were the first 12 surnames:
SMITH - 1 - 2376206
JOHNSON - 2 - 1857160
WILLIAMS - 3 - 1534042
BROWN - 4 - 1380145
JONES - 5 - 1362755
MILLER - 6 - 1127803
DAVIS - 7 - 1072335
GARCIA - 8 - 858289
RODRIGUEZ - 9 - 804240
WILSON - 10 - 783051
MARTINEZ - 11 - 775072
ANDERSON - 12 - 762394
The chart is not labeled in a precise and professional manner, as it was originally intended merely for my blog. If you wish to further investigate ethnic variations in the original data, the file can be obtained here. Thanks for noticing my work, Wnt. -- Thekohser (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it looks like the top Latin names are all clumped up: Garcia 858, Rodriguez 804, Martinez 775, Hernandez 706, perhaps Martin 672, Lopez 622, Gonzalez 598. I think that accounts for most of the bump, but unless I decide on a statistical test I can't say that with much meaning. I'm thinking there has to be some dispersal mechanism to prevent the top names from eventually taking over the whole population, or they would have: I wonder if a split between Martinez and Martin is a part of that, but I don't really know. Some of the top non-Hispanic names are also a bit clumped, but not as much, but I don't know their ethnic variation well; I wonder if among individual ethnicities (Scotland, Wales, etc.) the same trend would be seen as with the Hispanics. I would speculate that the bumpy profile we see in the U.S. is the short-term result of a simple addition at different concentrations of minorities, and that the result of bringing together many minorities in many different ratios would be a restoration of the mathematical curve. (Making it something of a "fractal", in that large countries and small villages might have come by it by the same means) Wnt (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thekohser,
I would like to apologise to you for having re–blocked your account after you were unblocked by Fastily (talk·contribs) earlier today. I did not notice that he had closed the discussion I started on the administrators' noticeboard, and felt that it should have been left open to gain some definite consensus. In any case, this does not justify my action, as I should have waited to see Fastily's opinion on the subject. I am truly sorry I made you part of this. odder (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, in relation to the 14 April 2016 update on the Wayne Ray story, you have to be fair to the WMF and James Alexander. They would rather spend their time in making sure I can't edit on Commons, than spend time on ensuring paedophiles and other kiddy fiddlers can't edit. That's their priority, so give them a break eh. Ücretsiz Kürdistan (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Done --AFBorchert (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Support unblock.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
_-_building_name_etching.jpg){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg){kind=link}
_-_building_name_etching.jpg){kind=link}
