User talk:MichaelMaggs

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Commons Photo Challenge January 2014[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Don Quijote de La Mancha, Teresa Carreño Teather.jpg[edit]

A question has been raised about copyright. I've looked at Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Concert photography and Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 6#Copyright status of concert photographs# where you commented. This page] seems to suggest the set could be copyright. Can you advice, on the nomination page. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems I am too late to comment as the image has already been accepted as a FP. Probably no need to say more for the moment, but if anyone should nominate it for deletion I would argue against for the reasons given on the pages you link to (unless there are issues under local copyright law - haven't looked at that). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Paedophile advocate needs blocking[edit]

Michael, we need to have a paedophilia advocate blocked on this project under en:WP:CHILDPROTECT. Leucosticte (talk · contribs) is the editor in question, who is en:Special:Contributions/Tisane. They have been blocked on en.wp as per en:Special:Contributions/Leucosticte. They have also been blocked on Meta for 3 months for continuing to advocate for pedophilia views, and they now need to be blocked on this project, as per the above mentioned en.wp policy. Of course, English WP Arbcom does not have authority over this project, but given your position as a bureaucrat you are in such a position, and I am bringing it here for your action. Thanks, russavia (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have warned Leucosticte (talk · contribs) here and have removed the links to their website. As to blocking, that would of course be immediate if there were to be any advocacy of the type you mention, on Commons, but would be done on the basis of Commons policy not enWP policy. I have checked all of the user's contributions and so far there has been no such advocacy. This user is definitely a concern and their contributions should be monitored closely, but is not our custom to issue a pre-emptive block for external acts or views that have no impact on Commons as that would open the door to the importing of controversies that have nothing to do with our educational mission, and would encourage off-wiki witchhunts. That's a good custom and applies no matter how abhorrent one may find a user's off-wiki views. Should the WMF think that a user should have no access whatsoever to any of their sites, they do have the option of applying a global lock. It remains to be seen whether Leucosticte is able to contribute usefully to our mission here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Michael, what exactly are you warning Leucosticte (talk · contribs) for? Given what the editor was suggesting on the talk page the links are actually required, and he is offering to provide nudity/sexuality-related images, so the links are not against COM:PS as was suggested in your edit summary. I have taken the liberty of reverting that removal as it was surely not within policy to do so.
As to en:WP:CHILDPROTECT, you are aware that this is not just en.wp policy, but it is actually global policy? russavia (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, there are two different issues here which we should discuss separately:
Your request that I should block Leucosticte
I'm not actually sure why you are asking me to block Leucosticte, given that you have sysop rights here and could do that yourself if you felt you had policy grounds to do so. As a crat I have no more power to block than you do. Be that as it may, I have explained above why - for the moment at least - I will not do so. That may change if the facts or my knowledge of them changes, but for the moment there is no policy basis that I am aware of that would support a block. The allegation you have made above - even if true - does not so far affect Commons and is not in itself sufficient for blocking action.
Contrary to what you say, en:WP:CHILDPROTECT is not a 'global policy' (amongst other things that would imply that the rules of the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia apply on Commons, which of course they do not). There is a global policy on Child Protection, which you can find here (see section 5), but it does not support your request for an immediate local block on Commons. As I said above, the WMF could apply an Office Action if they think it appropriate. And I will immediately block if I see anything untoward which impacts Commons, as I am sure any responsible admin would.
Removal of links to Leucosticte's website
My warning of Leucosticte on his talk page I think speaks for itself, and I have to confess I can't follow your thinking here. There is no problem in principle in Leucosticte offering to provide images for Commons, and it matters not that those are nudity/sexuality-related images. But the offer to supply images does not require live links to Leucosticte's own website. Their only purpose appears to be to drive readers to his website and they breach our policy on advertising and self-promotion: see here. The comment "or if you just want some for yourself..." makes it pretty clear that his intention is not so much to contribute to Commons' educational aims but to disseminate his own private images. And his subsequent comment makes that intention indisputable.
The links are not objectionable because they link to nudity/sexuality-related images, but because they amount to self-promotion. If anyone wants to check those links they are available in the page history.
I have undone your reversion and I ask that you do not revert again. If you disagree with my analysis of policy, please feel free to come back here to discuss, or if you prefer to open a wider discussion about the precise meaning of the policy prohibiting "Content that does not advance Commons' aims, including advertising, self-promotion.." (See here).
Finally, I'm finding it difficult to reconcile your two separate arguments: (a) that the user is a paedophilia advocate and should be blocked, and (b) that we must maintain live links to his website. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Theoretically, anything could be educational (depending on what you want to be educated about), and entertainment is not necessarily incompatible with education. Having the live links available helps people assess what their own opinions might be about the content, but my guess is that the community wants to construe "educational" narrowly enough as to support rejection of the content I was going to submit, so I'm not making any request that the live links be restored. I think another repository is needed for that.
If this were Quora, the matter would be addressed by downvoting/collapsing an offendingly spammy comment due to its uselessness to readers, which would defeat any promotional goals by making it less prominently displayed to readers. Regrettably, MediaWiki-implemented forums lack that functionality. It's one of the reasons I hang out at Quora more these days; the advantages of this type of feature, used in a decentralized manner by individual users, in promoting a better culture, I have described here and here.
With reference to the issue of pedophile advocacy, that's actually not been enacted as a global policy, that I'm aware of. Last I'd heard, metawikipedia:Child protection was still only a proposal. Once again, Quora trumps Wikimedia. Leucosticte (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #110[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #111[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #112[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems[edit]

I have replied to your question; sorry for the delay but it was night down here. LGA talkedits 22:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. Just waiting for Yann now. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Just a small reminder that this is still awaiting a close. LGA talkedits 04:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Noted, but I will probably not be able to look again for a few days. Rather busy elsewhere at the moment. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Michael, I have noticed that the sysopflag of was removed under very strange circumstance. He is a trusted long-term user (i think you know verry well that he is trusted, so i don't need to say more). I think it wold be fair to restore his flag. Wmuk should assume good faith (which is one of wiki(p/m)edias fundamental principe. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steinsplitter, I am afraid I will not be discussing that issue, and in any event it is not Commons-related. As I explained on the Wikimedia UK Engine Room, community admin rights on the charity's websites are restricted to members of the charity only. The charity does not publicly discuss any application made by an individual for admission as a company member, and will not be doing so in this case. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #113[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #114[edit]

Closure of the review of precautionary principle RfC[edit]

Hi Michael — this is just to officially (ie. on-wiki) inform you that on Saturday, I closed the review of precautionary principle RfC that you started on April 9. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the reasoning behind my closure — as always, comments are more than welcome :-) Thanks :-) odder (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

On that subject, Michael, would you mind implementing the policy changes that the outcome of the RfC implies? I've been asked to do that, but I think the action will carry more weight if it were done by you, who started the RfC in the first place. Thanks a lot, odder (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See this too. :) Jee 12:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@Odder:@Jkadavoor:@LGA:@Yann: Thanks for the messages and emails. I'm afraid my unavoidable absence from Commons for the last few weeks came at rather a bad time, as it seems both from the Wiki postings and the increasingly ill-tempered [Wikimedia-l] debates that you could have done with a few more mellow contributors over that period. I'd be more than happy to sweep things up, as you've suggested, but as as I'm out all day tomorrow the earliest I'll be able to get to it will be Thursday. It is likely to take a few hours work, as I'd like to take the time to add some hopefully useful comments and not just change things without explanation. I don't expect Commons will totally fall apart due to another day's delay. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Bleah. Flashing lights and migraine. Unable to think straight at the moment, but hope to be able to follow up more reasonably tomorrow. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Take time; and care your health. When back, read Erik's comment too. Jee 12:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Michael—I took the liberty to simplify your addition to the licensing policy. After your change, the policy basically said URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion in one sentence, and then URAA can be used as the sole reason for deletion in the next one, and that looked pretty bad. Please do feel free to reword that further if need be :-) Thanks, odder (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to do it without touching the previous text too much, but your simplification is better. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #115[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #116[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #117[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #118[edit]