Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Bobo11 in topic Benutzer commons.limousin
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
Note
- Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (
~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp. - Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.
User:Fry1989 has first emptied the categories Category:State emblem of Mongolia and Category:Emblems of Mongolia, then put them up for deletion. I have voiced my opinion on that topic here Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:State emblem of Mongolia. When I restored his file removal for example here File:Coat of Arms of Mongolia.svg, the edit was undone with the comment "I don't give a crap what you think regarding the proper name of what this symbol is, you are making it harder to find". This is not in order. User should refrain from unilaterally emptying categories and putting them up for deletion when the opposite of his argument is quite clear, and especially avoid offensive language before issues are settled, which IMO is quite clear, see name of article here Emblem of Mongolia. Gryffindor (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you go through the history, Gryffindor created the Categories "Emblems of Mongolia" and "State Emblem of Mongolia", and only put two files in it, the SVG and one non-SVG version of Mongolia's national emblem (at the same time removing them from "Coat of Arms fo Mingolia"). He made them harder to find, and I reverted him back to the long-standing consensus and common practice of "Coat of Arms of". Gryffindor then unilaterally tried to enforce his opinion by removing ALL of Mongolia's national symbols, current and historical, from the "Coat of Arms of" and put them in his new cats. You may not like my language (which is hardly harsh), but Gryffindor unilateral attempts to enforce his view of what the category should be called, over functionality and ease of use, are the real problem here. If he was really interested in consensus, why didn't he set up a discussion and possible re-name of the category "Coat of Arms of Mongolia", rather then bypassing that process, creating his own hard-to-find categories, and unilaterally removing everything from where people would look, and putting it in a place that is harder? Fry1989 eh? 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- It should be of note, that I have no objection if the "Coat of Arms of Mongolia" cat was renamed, but Gryffindor's insistance of bypassing that process deliberatly made the emblems of Mongolia more difficult to find. We have a category "Coat of arms by country". That is the master category to find national symbols, and within that category is the sub-cat "Coat of Arms of Mongolia". That is where people would look. But because of Gryffindor's actions, they would instead have to go through "Mongolia"-"Symbols of Mongolia"-"Emblems of Mongolia"-"State Emblem of Mongolia". A lot more tedius and unneccesary process. Lastly, his claim that users shouldn't "unilaterally empty categories" is a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because that is exactly what he did, and the history will prove it. Fry1989 eh? 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you go through the history, Gryffindor created the Categories "Emblems of Mongolia" and "State Emblem of Mongolia", and only put two files in it, the SVG and one non-SVG version of Mongolia's national emblem (at the same time removing them from "Coat of Arms fo Mingolia"). He made them harder to find, and I reverted him back to the long-standing consensus and common practice of "Coat of Arms of". Gryffindor then unilaterally tried to enforce his opinion by removing ALL of Mongolia's national symbols, current and historical, from the "Coat of Arms of" and put them in his new cats. You may not like my language (which is hardly harsh), but Gryffindor unilateral attempts to enforce his view of what the category should be called, over functionality and ease of use, are the real problem here. If he was really interested in consensus, why didn't he set up a discussion and possible re-name of the category "Coat of Arms of Mongolia", rather then bypassing that process, creating his own hard-to-find categories, and unilaterally removing everything from where people would look, and putting it in a place that is harder? Fry1989 eh? 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- A subcategory is not "harder to find". It looks like "Coats of arms of Mongolia" is being used for coats of arms of the various subdivisions as well, so a category for the specific national coat of arms seems reasonable to me. Much like "Great Seal of the United States" is a subcategory of "Seals of the United States". And if its proper name is the "state emblem" and not a "coat of arms", it would seem to be correctly named as well. Not sure about the more general "emblems of mongolia", but if it's not technically a coat of arms, maybe the emblems is more appropriate alongside the coats of arms category, all under "Symbols of Mongolia". There is not guaranteed to be a "coats of arms of XXXX" category everywhere; "Symbols of XXX" is generally the standard place you'd start from. I'd agree with Gryffindor here I think. The edit comment sounds inappropriate... just because you disagree, that does not mean your idea of what the "proper" category name is should take precedent. Using proper categorization, if it's not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category -- this is why there is a more generic "Symbols" level above it, under which it should easily be found whatever it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- It does make it harder if you're looking for a national symbol via "Coat of Arms by country", and it's not there. What's worse, some countries aren't even listed there, such as Japan, since their national emblem is the Imperial Seal. Do you know what I mean? If we're gonna have a master category for national symbols, then every country should be there. Gryffindor wants to use the article page for Mongolia's emblem as reasoning for his new category, but ignores that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms shows every country's symbol, whether it's officially a coat of arms or not, which is good reasoning for having every nation's symbols listed in "Coat of Arms by country". Fry1989 eh? 03:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a symbol, start in Category:Symbols of Mongolia. If something is not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category, even if that happens to be the place you happen to habitually look for -- you're looking in the wrong place. Not all such symbols are coats of arms; the gallery page you indirectly link to notes for each one when it's an "emblem" vs a "coat of arms". Coats of arms typically have some heraldic aspects and are defined by blazons; some countries may use an emblem which does not have those characteristics, so they aren't always the same thing. If a country has no coats of arms specific to it, then you would expect there to not be an entry under "Coats of arms by country" for them. If you are determined to make a convenience link, maybe make "Emblems of Mongolia" a subcat of "Coats of arms of Mongolia" (using a more generic definition maybe), but do try to educate people that it is not properly a coat of arms by making the categorization accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I understand all that. But you're missing the point I'm trying to make. Anyhow, I'll let it go. Fry1989 eh? 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a symbol, start in Category:Symbols of Mongolia. If something is not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category, even if that happens to be the place you happen to habitually look for -- you're looking in the wrong place. Not all such symbols are coats of arms; the gallery page you indirectly link to notes for each one when it's an "emblem" vs a "coat of arms". Coats of arms typically have some heraldic aspects and are defined by blazons; some countries may use an emblem which does not have those characteristics, so they aren't always the same thing. If a country has no coats of arms specific to it, then you would expect there to not be an entry under "Coats of arms by country" for them. If you are determined to make a convenience link, maybe make "Emblems of Mongolia" a subcat of "Coats of arms of Mongolia" (using a more generic definition maybe), but do try to educate people that it is not properly a coat of arms by making the categorization accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- It does make it harder if you're looking for a national symbol via "Coat of Arms by country", and it's not there. What's worse, some countries aren't even listed there, such as Japan, since their national emblem is the Imperial Seal. Do you know what I mean? If we're gonna have a master category for national symbols, then every country should be there. Gryffindor wants to use the article page for Mongolia's emblem as reasoning for his new category, but ignores that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms shows every country's symbol, whether it's officially a coat of arms or not, which is good reasoning for having every nation's symbols listed in "Coat of Arms by country". Fry1989 eh? 03:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- A subcategory is not "harder to find". It looks like "Coats of arms of Mongolia" is being used for coats of arms of the various subdivisions as well, so a category for the specific national coat of arms seems reasonable to me. Much like "Great Seal of the United States" is a subcategory of "Seals of the United States". And if its proper name is the "state emblem" and not a "coat of arms", it would seem to be correctly named as well. Not sure about the more general "emblems of mongolia", but if it's not technically a coat of arms, maybe the emblems is more appropriate alongside the coats of arms category, all under "Symbols of Mongolia". There is not guaranteed to be a "coats of arms of XXXX" category everywhere; "Symbols of XXX" is generally the standard place you'd start from. I'd agree with Gryffindor here I think. The edit comment sounds inappropriate... just because you disagree, that does not mean your idea of what the "proper" category name is should take precedent. Using proper categorization, if it's not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category -- this is why there is a more generic "Symbols" level above it, under which it should easily be found whatever it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Fry1989 is certainly not playing a positive role on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, where he seems to take perverse delight in throwing around loose and inflammatory rhetoric on a subject that he actually knows very little about. He actually has a certain basic point about not usually overwriting images with other images of different meaning (though this is certainly not an inviolable absolute) -- however, he undermines his own efforts and pointlessly and needlessly exacerbates the overall situation by placing ignorant biased nonsense in his edit summaries (something which I really wish he wouldn't do). AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- That issue is addressed on my talk page. I have not thrown around any "inflamatory rhetoric", I have laid out the truth. I will not respond to that issue anymore, as it is dealt with (on my talk page). As for the original start of this AN/U, I have only reverted Gryffindor's edits which he is trying to force without discussions. It's a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because everything he accuses me of doing, he has done himself (unilateral removals of files from their categories, over-categorization by creating more categories than neccesary), and all I've done is revert his controversial and unilateral edits. He responds, rather then by trying to engage in a discussion or compromise, but rather continue to push his edits to get his way. He's tried forcing himself with the Emblem of Mongolia, now he's trying to force himself with the Emblem of Israel/Coat of Arms of Israel debate, as well as the Symbols of National Legislatures. All in all, he has forced his personal view of "it's not a coat of arms, so it can't be in any categories with that in it's title no matter what", over the objection of another user. When that user tried to engage him in conversation, hye ignores it and pushes his way anyways. Fry1989 eh? 02:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but "Zionism over-writing history"[sic] is the very definition of loose and inflammatory rhetoric (especially when the "historical" basis of what was over-written was extremely dubious at best), and your most recent upload summary on that file wasn't much better... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever you say. The facts speak for themselves. Two Israeli users have disrespected a user's personal map meant for the use only by Palestinians/Arabs and Palestine supporters. I don't seen any Palestinians or Arabs doing that to flag maps using the Israeli flag. So which side is the offender? It's pretty clear. Per my talk, the only way problems can be avoided is if both sides respect each other's maps. That is what I am maintaining, whether you like my edit summaries or not. Oh, and if you wanna talk about exacerbating a debate, go ahead and continue to claim you know the state of other people's minds, like you did on my page. What was it you said? "You take personal pleasure in..." I believe? Or how about "..on an subject you really no little about"? Yes, I'm sure it really helps a conversation to claim you can read your debator's mind. Fry1989 eh? 02:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- And if you want the subject to be general policies on image overwriting rather than your personal behavior, then you really need to tone down aspects of that behavior effective immediately, as I already told you. I made the deduction that you know very little about the subject from your rather ineffectual and often irrelevant replies in a discussion which you've already deleted from your user talk page, and I made the deduction that you seem to take some kind of pleasure in being offensive from the fact that after I complained about your first offensive upload summary, you went right ahead with a second offensive upload summary. Believe me, I would be happy if these deductions were proved to be wrong! AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Deductions? More like accusations, the way you throw it around. And what you consider offensive isn't always offensive to everyone. Did you ever consider that I feel what I have said accurately reflected the situation? I'm not doing it for shock value, that's not my style. Fry1989 eh? 02:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, things will proceed much smoother with respect to this file as long as you stick to statements on general image overwriting policies -- while keeping any forceful expressions of your personal ideology (whatever that may be) firmly in the background... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- "Which side is the offender" is a horrible question. We don't want to encourage editors to split up into sides, and you can and should correct editors without tossing "offender" at them. Furthermore, "Zionism over-writing history" is even worse than the question, since it goes beyond the behavior of editors on Commons and starts accusing a political movement of tampering with history, which is a pretty incendiary charge. Whether or not you feel what you've said accurately reflected the situation is irrelevant; it threw fuel on a constantly troubled situation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- As for Arab ideological manipulations with maps, I caught the first-uploaded version of Image:Samou-battle-1966-map.png having an Arabic label فلسطين المحتلة "Occupied Palestine" on the territory of 1949-1967 Israel -- however, the uploader was quite helpful and polite when I pointed this out (conspicuously unlike Fry1989...). Anyway, Fry1989 overlooks the sensitive issue of aggressive irredentism (among other sensitive issues) -- I wonder how much he would like a map of all of North America overlaid with the stars and stripes, under the title "Flag map of historic United States". -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Irredentism is not my concern (and your example of North America covered in the Stars & Stripes is beyond silly. I wouldn't give a damn, as long as American users leave my flag map of Canada alone. Nevermind how many of those maps I do see on the net all the time, of Americans wanting to annex Canada, Mexico, other places. You ever heard of the "Manifest Destiny" theory?) Unless you want to ban all flag maps that don't reflect the current reality or claim lands that aren't part of that country, then my example of Serbia & Kosovo (per my talk page) is the example that should be used for Israel and Palestine. And yes, this is a case of one side being the offender. It was two Serbs who kept reverting trying to force the Serbia flag map to include Kosovo, and now it's two Israelis trying to get ride of a map of the entire disputed area using the Palestinian flag. You may not like my choice of words, but the actions of these users make the situation clear enough. And if I or some Arab user had over-written the Flag map of Israel with the Palestinian flag, don't pretend for one second that I/they wouldn't be called vandals, Anti-Israeli, and trying to force our POV of the situation. It shouldn't be any different when an Israeli does it to a Palestinian flag map. In any case, File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png has been uploaded separately, so the issue is now over, as long as they leave their opposing side's maps alone (again, as Serbia and Kosovo). Now, if you want an apology for my choice of words, then fine, you get one.I'm sorry for how I said what I said. But I want one from Anonmoos, who has claimed to know the state of my mind, and accused of me getting some sort of peverse pleasure from shock value tactics. Fry1989 eh? 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- As a matter of simple historical fact, Kosovo has been part of Serbia in the past, while as a matter of simple historical fact the flag shown in File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg has never flown over all the territory included in the map at any date in history -- which is why a significant number of people consider such images to be a malicious blatant transparent lie at best, and an aggressive declaration of war against the existence of the Israeli and/or Jewish people at worst. This makes the image a sensitive issue to start with (whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not), and you did not handle such sensitive issues sensitively, but quite the reverse. I've uploaded several images in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical, but they're all historically accurate and appropriate (though I suppose it would be possible to quibble about the neutral zones in File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg), while File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg is neither, and would not be suitable to be included in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical if it were an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying either map with either flag is actually accurate, and I never did. Now, my words can be misconstrued to suggest that, but it wasn't the intent. What I did say once on my talk page was "more historic in the sense", but I didn't say it was outright accurate. Either way, unless you want to ban flag maps because they're irredentist, then the Serbia-Kosovo flag-map conflict is the example to follow. I'm still waiting on your apology Anonmoos btw, considering I gave mine. Fry1989 eh? 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's nice that you're softening your position somewhat, but it comes much too late in the whole current brou-ha-ha to greatly change my opinion of you based on this incident (or based on the last several years of often-contentious interactions with you). If it makes you feel better, I freely admit that I have no evidence that you were maliciously trolling, as opposed to putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way without regard to the consequences, or paying much attention to issues which other people might consider to be important. AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not saying either map with either flag is actually accurate, and I never did. Now, my words can be misconstrued to suggest that, but it wasn't the intent. What I did say once on my talk page was "more historic in the sense", but I didn't say it was outright accurate. Either way, unless you want to ban flag maps because they're irredentist, then the Serbia-Kosovo flag-map conflict is the example to follow. I'm still waiting on your apology Anonmoos btw, considering I gave mine. Fry1989 eh? 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- As a matter of simple historical fact, Kosovo has been part of Serbia in the past, while as a matter of simple historical fact the flag shown in File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg has never flown over all the territory included in the map at any date in history -- which is why a significant number of people consider such images to be a malicious blatant transparent lie at best, and an aggressive declaration of war against the existence of the Israeli and/or Jewish people at worst. This makes the image a sensitive issue to start with (whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not), and you did not handle such sensitive issues sensitively, but quite the reverse. I've uploaded several images in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical, but they're all historically accurate and appropriate (though I suppose it would be possible to quibble about the neutral zones in File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg), while File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg is neither, and would not be suitable to be included in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical if it were an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Concerning File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg: Commons is no place for personal points of view, we just display facts, we don't make facts! And it is a fact, that the palestine flag does not cover the whole British mandated territory. a×pdeHello! 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the solution has already been made. File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg and File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png both exist. Unless you're going to delete them both, I cannot allow the Israeli POV map to stay the way it is while the Palestinian POV map is removed. I hate double-standards more than anything else. So either delete them both, or let the users keep their maps and their points of view. I don't care which you do, but no double-standards. As for your talk page, you didn't say you didn't need hints at things on you watchlist, you said "I don't need additional watchlists(sic)", which reads as "I have enough things on my watchlist, I don't need more things to be involved in". Fry1989 eh? 00:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- (With double edit conflict!!)
- Hmmm, good point. As said before, commons doesn't make facts. Both flags/maps are intented to manifest a certain personal point of view and to provoke the other side. File deleted! a×pdeHello! 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- P.S.: I know exactly what I wrote, and I still don't need you to be my additional watchlist. As you might know this is "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" and I'm an administrator! And I'm not responsible for your missinterpretation! a×pdeHello! 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about the edit conflict. Anyhow, if they're both gone, then I am no longer concerned in the matter. My only intent was ever to First: protect a user's file from a complete over-write to support the opposing POV (which I consider an abuse), and then Second, stop any double standards. Fry1989 eh? 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fully agree that any POV is bad for the reputatioin of commons. Commons has to strictly respect the NPOV! a×pdeHello! 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Axpde -- We can definitely host irredentist maps here, but they need to be clearly labelled as irredentist (and not as "historic" if they're obviously not historic), and they need to express the views of some notable individual or group (and not be merely the personal views of the image uploader)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I fully agree that any POV is bad for the reputatioin of commons. Commons has to strictly respect the NPOV! a×pdeHello! 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about the edit conflict. Anyhow, if they're both gone, then I am no longer concerned in the matter. My only intent was ever to First: protect a user's file from a complete over-write to support the opposing POV (which I consider an abuse), and then Second, stop any double standards. Fry1989 eh? 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the solution has already been made. File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg and File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png both exist. Unless you're going to delete them both, I cannot allow the Israeli POV map to stay the way it is while the Palestinian POV map is removed. I hate double-standards more than anything else. So either delete them both, or let the users keep their maps and their points of view. I don't care which you do, but no double-standards. As for your talk page, you didn't say you didn't need hints at things on you watchlist, you said "I don't need additional watchlists(sic)", which reads as "I have enough things on my watchlist, I don't need more things to be involved in". Fry1989 eh? 00:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
As I've said several times before, the one that's correctly "historic" is File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.svg; the User:Maher27777 version of File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg would be more accurate and less offensive if it were under a name such as "Map of Palestinian Arab territorial aspirations" or whatever. Anyway, as a result of the file uploading and re-uploading on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, Arabic Wikipedia has changed over from that image to File:Flag map of Palestine.svg, which I regard as a positive step... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It pains me to say this, as Fry has never been anything other than gracious when I've contacted him, but I'm extremely disappointed with the way he has acted lately on his talk page. Although I don't believe AnonMoos is entirely blameless, especially with his most recent edit, but Fry's response of blanking the discussion with far from complimentary edit summaries bears mentioning here, in case it was missed. Here are the three, oldest first:
Apologies if this is out of turn. I'm not sure if this is the correct medium, so I apologise if not. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care so much about his removing comments by me from his user talk page as such, but it can be one manifestation of his general personal infallibility syndrome, which is definitely rather annoying overall. Part of the reason why we don't have too much patience with each other is lingering bad feelings over Fry1989's complete refusal to acknowledge -- over a period of years -- very obvious basic simple facts about Commons policies, such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive. Most recently, we're in a strange "war" at Image:Gay_flag.svg, where Fry1989 is re-uploading an old file version by me, and is again refusing to acknowledge basic facts (and nominated File:Gay-flag-thumbnails-magnified-hairline-cracks.gif for deletion because it provides factual evidence that he was wrong)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have apologized and acknowledged my faults countless times with other users (look above, is that not an apology??????). I also have no problem getting along with others. Look at my talk page, it's full of "pleases" and "thank yous" and me having conversations with other users about changes I've made, and us taking a look at them. Perhaps Anonmoos should "get it" (as he has said to me before) that his personal approach towards me is rude, presumptive, arrogant, carries an air of superiority, and turns me off of having any conversation with him. He has yelled at me, he has called me names, he has questioned my intelligence, the emotional state of my mind, and my personal motives in my work here countless times in over a year. He has called my work "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", and he has claimed I have a personal infallibility syndrome. These are not the words of somebody who wants to get along and talk with you, it's the words of someone who wants to talk over you. All I'm asking for is an apology. Why is that so hard for him? I believe it's because he actually believes he is better then me. The way he addresses me shows such disdain that I simply can not engage with him anymore. Fry1989 eh? 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a third party, it seems clear to me that AnonMoos is more experienced with vector graphics than either I or Fry - I would never have noticed the double-fill issue, for instance - and Fry's refusal to acknowledge improvements to files because they've been edited by him seems needlessly obstructive. However, whether or not it is understandable due to previous communications they've had, I cannot say. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- NikNaks, he has abused me for too long, it's been over a year now. I simply will not allow it to happen anymore. Once he apologizes for how he addresses me, and the abuse stops, only then will I engage with him in any sort. It would be so incredibly easy for me to make a list of his systematic abuse and seek punishment. The only reason I don't is I'm not that petty. But I warn him if he reads this: If it continues much more, I may change my mind. Nobody should have to deal with what I have for as long as I have, and have him get away with it. If I had done what he has to another user, I have absolutely no question I would be punished, possibly even banned. Fry1989 eh? 18:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- As a third party, it seems clear to me that AnonMoos is more experienced with vector graphics than either I or Fry - I would never have noticed the double-fill issue, for instance - and Fry's refusal to acknowledge improvements to files because they've been edited by him seems needlessly obstructive. However, whether or not it is understandable due to previous communications they've had, I cannot say. NikNaks talk - gallery - wikipedia 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have apologized and acknowledged my faults countless times with other users (look above, is that not an apology??????). I also have no problem getting along with others. Look at my talk page, it's full of "pleases" and "thank yous" and me having conversations with other users about changes I've made, and us taking a look at them. Perhaps Anonmoos should "get it" (as he has said to me before) that his personal approach towards me is rude, presumptive, arrogant, carries an air of superiority, and turns me off of having any conversation with him. He has yelled at me, he has called me names, he has questioned my intelligence, the emotional state of my mind, and my personal motives in my work here countless times in over a year. He has called my work "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", and he has claimed I have a personal infallibility syndrome. These are not the words of somebody who wants to get along and talk with you, it's the words of someone who wants to talk over you. All I'm asking for is an apology. Why is that so hard for him? I believe it's because he actually believes he is better then me. The way he addresses me shows such disdain that I simply can not engage with him anymore. Fry1989 eh? 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Cluster of copyvio uploaders from Birmingham Museum of Art; weird colors
I suspect that Bookgeek205 (talk · contribs), ArtLibrn2011 (talk · contribs) and Librndiva7 (talk · contribs) are all the same, uploading images from artsbma.org without permission, sometimes in a weird magenta color, like for example File:Gelede Mask.jpg and File:Maxfield Parrish's painting of the Gardener.jpg. There may very well be more sockpuppet accounts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Weird. Could they be people employed by the Birmingham Museum of Art? Yann (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ask for OTRS? -- Docu at 13:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Their policy is rather restrictive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ask for OTRS? -- Docu at 13:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi guys, a few of us in the GLAM community have noticed that people from Birmingham signed up to volunteer. I'm going to bring this up with a few GLAM volunteers and we'll investigate. You can see their sign ups here: [GLAM Outreach Volunteers please be kind to them :) Missvain (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Aye, no need to worry at the moment. OTRS tickets check out, and GLAM have it all in hand. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Missvain when you talk to them can you check what's up with the cyan color of their images? As such they are not very useful. If they need any help I will be happy to assist them. --Jarekt (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Valid OTRS tickets, close and a trout to Mr Kuiper for not assuming good faith. I don't know what you're talking about regarding "magenta" or "cyan" colours either, the colour balance on the images looks perfectly correct to me. Perhaps an error with your PC? Lankiveil (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
- It does seems like browser bug since if I download the image, than it looks fine. However in my Fifefox 6.0 this jpg does not display some RGB channels. I have never run into other images having this problem. --Jarekt (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is this a
cannonballtrout from the other side ? ;) The greenie discoloured jpegs contain embedded colour profile "Phase One H 25 Product flash". On Win7, these are rendered correctly on IE8, but not on Firefox 6. I tried to convert their profile to sRGB in GIMP and reuploaded File:Grand Canyon, Yellowstone River, Wyoming.jpg (+ 4 others). Now it's ok in Firefox, but in IE the sRGB looks distincly different to the original (subtle tonal differences - ok for white vases, quite a difference for a painting).This case needs a bot that can strip all these alien colour profiles. NVO (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)- never mind the bot, they're all set, uploaders notified. NVO (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Valid OTRS tickets, close and a trout to Mr Kuiper for not assuming good faith. I don't know what you're talking about regarding "magenta" or "cyan" colours either, the colour balance on the images looks perfectly correct to me. Perhaps an error with your PC? Lankiveil (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
- Missvain when you talk to them can you check what's up with the cyan color of their images? As such they are not very useful. If they need any help I will be happy to assist them. --Jarekt (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Aye, no need to worry at the moment. OTRS tickets check out, and GLAM have it all in hand. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Any "machine gun tagging" guidelines?
I've noted a "machine gun" image tagging incident last week, but no comments about any policy or guidelines have been made yet about such mass tagging. Are there any? By tagging 44 images uploaded over a year's time, they have effectively undermined the goal of rational discussion for a any particular image and made it impossible to respond in a timely or rational way. The tagger was previously warned about this on EN/WP. I posted this to the Commons:Disputes noticeboard three days ago, but no one has yet commented there.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Mass deletion nominations are not forbidden, it's not unheard of that 100 or even 200 pictures are nominated at once (it's recommended to use a single DR for such noms, see COM:MASSDEL). Of course random, badly thought out "machine gun" tagging can be considered as disruption, but it seems that User:Damiens.rf is mostly correct (with only few exceptions), so it's not the case here. Anyway, 44 pictures nominated once a week is not an unreasonable high count. Trycatch (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I realize that this isn't the place to be discussing U.S. copyright law or any single image, but I'm just responding to your comments. The 44 deletion requests were posted over about 30 minutes(!), not a week, thereby not leaving time to respond in any rational manner. The typical rationale on most was:
- No evidence provided to support the claim that this photo was first published without a copyright notice. We can't simply assume that all publicity still photographs were published as such.
- Both sentences are clearly wrong: Each and every image has an explanation with source of why they are PD. And saying "we can't assume . . ." is attempting to overrule U.S. copyright law and scholars who made clear in cases and treatises provided that,
- It has been assumed that these images are most likely in the public domain or owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation (2007).
- So an editor is giving his personal opinion, who can't believe and doesn't understand U.S. copyright law, uses the all-too-easy technique of mass deletion WMD. It's just another way of some editor saying, "Personally, I don't care what your rational says, I simply don't believe it, and am not interested in discussing it." That's the effect of the tagging blitz for these images, which were added over a year's time. (BTW, many were actually discussed with Commons editors and approved after being uploaded.)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- The key word in your second quote is "or": images meeting the first criteria (public domain) are acceptable on Commons, while images meeting the second criteria (distributed for no compensation) are not. It's the difference between "free as in speech" and "free as in beer". If an image description page doesn't distinguish between the two situations, the image needs to be deleted. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I realize that this isn't the place to be discussing U.S. copyright law or any single image, but I'm just responding to your comments. The 44 deletion requests were posted over about 30 minutes(!), not a week, thereby not leaving time to respond in any rational manner. The typical rationale on most was:
- Regarding the first quote, User:Damiens.rf seems to be confusing two issues. 1st: Are publicity photoes public domain? (Copyright law says that they are.) 2nd: How do we know a particular photo is a publicity photo? User:Damiens.rf got suspicious of the methodology of User:Wikiwatcher1 on the basis of sound w:en:WP:Good faith edits he made to the WP article on w:en:publicity stills. Also, User:Damiens.rf seems to confuse "no evidence" with "insufficient evidence". I would grant that it is questionable to presume a photo is a publicity photo on the basis of "preponderance" of evidence without more solid "proof". So while there is some substance to the challenge, the exact wording of Damiens' rationale for challenge is confused on two counts.
- All the followup comments from other folk have focused on the correct issue: how exactly do we know for certain these are really publicity and/or otherwise public domain photos? The discussion has been informative, and useful.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright law says no such thing. It says things like "works published without adhering to certain formalities are public domain". Publicity photos were often published without those formalities, thus making them public domain, but nowhere does the law say "publicity photos are public domain". --Carnildo (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Correction accepted. I meant really that they were de facto public domain by standard studio practice, rather than PD by law. Thank you for the clarification--WickerGuy (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Copyright law says no such thing. It says things like "works published without adhering to certain formalities are public domain". Publicity photos were often published without those formalities, thus making them public domain, but nowhere does the law say "publicity photos are public domain". --Carnildo (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Carnildo. It's really better to pick an image and comment there rather than here, which is intended to discuss "machine gun" tagging good faith images. But the U.S. cases and experts have made it clear that the difference between the two situations is almost irrelevant in the case of publicity photos. Stills taken and physically "owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation," are also PD. There are literally hundreds of thousands in archives and out in the wild that were intended to be as widely published as possible, as explained in the Film still copyright section. There's even a major case cited settled last month that explains and confirms this. If a U.S. photo is assumed to be PD by U.S. law, the Commons should accept it. These photo PD issues are not based on international law, but U.S. law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- And yet you give no cites. Looking at the major case, Warner Bros. Consumer Products v. X One X Productions, I'll note that it doesn't say anything about publicity photos being PD, it says that the particular publicity photos in the case are PD. Big difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is unlikely that Warner was an exception when they did not copyright their publicity photos. It is telling of the customs in Hollywood. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- And yet you give no cites. Looking at the major case, Warner Bros. Consumer Products v. X One X Productions, I'll note that it doesn't say anything about publicity photos being PD, it says that the particular publicity photos in the case are PD. Big difference.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- @Carnildo. It's really better to pick an image and comment there rather than here, which is intended to discuss "machine gun" tagging good faith images. But the U.S. cases and experts have made it clear that the difference between the two situations is almost irrelevant in the case of publicity photos. Stills taken and physically "owned by studios that freely distributed the images without any expectation of compensation," are also PD. There are literally hundreds of thousands in archives and out in the wild that were intended to be as widely published as possible, as explained in the Film still copyright section. There's even a major case cited settled last month that explains and confirms this. If a U.S. photo is assumed to be PD by U.S. law, the Commons should accept it. These photo PD issues are not based on international law, but U.S. law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I nominated several hundred unused personal images in a week before. Being separate images not uploaded by the same person, they all required separate nominations. The speed at which files are uploaded to Commons can require such actions. If it's the same uploader, as Trycatch stated, a combined request is less disruptive (but requires more effort on the part of the nominator). – Adrignola talk 14:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently this user has decided that Category:Female politicians should be removed from Commons, and he is busy untagging pictures. TwoWings has apparently started a discussion with him on the topic but it does not seem very fruitful. The intervention of an admin could be a good idea. It might also be necessary to mass-revert his contributions. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- There is already a discussion about the issue itself on VP. --Túrelio (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- OK sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Kriloff77 (talk · contribs) is semi-rapidly uploading unlicensed files, despite numerous deletion notices and several warnings. Administrator intervention needed to perhaps delete the files and wake the user up. Cheers, theMONO 15:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked for 2 hours. Yann (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. --theMONO 16:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Upload not working
I have been trying to upload images for the last two days, but when I click on 'Upload file', nothing happens - a little icon spins round and round indefinitely. Is it me, or is there a system problem?
ThanksEpzcaw (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Both UploadWizard and regular upload form are in order now. An erratic glitch here or perhaps something on your end. If the problem persists, ask the folks at Commons:Prototype_upload_wizard_feedback. NVO (talk) 09:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Still not working so will follow your advice. Thanks. Epzcaw (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Benutzer commons.limousin
User:commons.limousin Verstoss gegen Anonymität Nennung von Wohnort und vollem Klarnamen gegen meinen Willen ! User ist zu Sperren und alle Bemerkung dieser Art zu endfernen [4] und in der Versiongeschichte zu verstecken! PS Bitte User auch in en: udn de: Sperren, wurde schon einmal deswegen auf de: verwarnt. --Bobo11 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
![[4]](/w/index.php?title=File%3ALimousin2010RVT01.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=58923293&oldid=39467083){kind=link}