Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:43, 6 August 2011

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-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism ^{[new section]}	User problems ^{[new section]}	Blocks and protections ^{[new section]}	Other ^{[new section]}
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
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	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	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	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

^{Translate this page}

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.

And Again User:Fastily...

Please, administrators and other user, say here who is fool, vandal or incompetency user - he or me? (If it is me write me why). He again, again, again nominated for deleteing another file under US-1923 license. File:View of Piermont, NH.jpg He wanna deleted this file, again as the files. I am not US citizen but I know All published things before 1923 is under PD. He is admin but he doesn't know such the simple Laws. :( Please, Help! --Pauk (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:deletion requests/File:View of Piermont, NH.jpg

While I would not have nominated the image for deletion, User:Pauk's report above of this DR does not describe it well. Fastily's reason for deletion is that there is no way to verify that the postcard is, as claimed, from 1913 and therefore PD-1923. There is no indication whatever that Fastily does not understand the law, simply that he does not believe that this image fits it.

I do not think this is a question of a "fool, vandal or incompetent user" -- simply a disagreement, something we have often -- far too often, in fact. Fastily looks at the image and sees a photograph with no date or photographer and thinks it might be unpublished and therefore still in copyright. I look at a photograph that is in the shape of a postcard, is a typical postcard scene of a town street, and has no automobiles and think that it is a pre-1923 postcard. I disagree with his assessment, but that's all.

Our rule is clear that where there is significant doubt, we should delete. The subject DR certainly falls within the ordinary scope of things we do. If Pauk wants to complain about this one, then perhaps he or she should complain about many more DRs. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Comrade Jameslwoodward, I don't want to complain. I only moved free files from Wikipedias to Commons. :) Sorry for my hot words (fool, vandal or incompetency user) but it is not first time. Say me about "normal" source for 1910s photos? Or any user thinks about it is postcard 1990s or 2000s? Absurdly... --Pauk (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant doubt. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the standard for deletion is that the community should have significant doubt. That isn't the standard for creating a DR -- I've created a DR when I'm 50/50 about an image, to gather other opinions. One of our colleagues -- no one in this thread -- has created scores of DRs about logos that are marginally PD-text logo -- I think they're a minor nuisance, but I haven't brought him or her here for chastisement. We should not be discouraging users from creating DRs that may be marginal, except, perhaps, by a friendly note on the user's talk page. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A misleading DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vespas Night Club in Funchal.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was probably mistaken, but "misleading" would require intentional deception which I don't believe for a minute and Pieter Kuiper certainly can't prove. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I felt mislead by the DR when I later looked at the other images that he had nominated. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saibo (talk · contribs)

over and over claims that I would try to censor commons. Similar thing in other deletion disussions. If he cannot discuss without personal assaults, he should leave it.

I would appreciate that this user ceases to publish his (false) opinion about others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Saibo's defence, you do seem to pop up on most deletion requests regarding partial nudity to say the image in question is useless and out of scope. Oh, and I've informed Saibo about this topic. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this a personal assault seems quite extreme, and demanding that someone not offer their opinion where it is relevant is rude.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@mattbuck: Where have I said that a picture is "useless"? Am I not allowed to participate in DR just because they are - as pointed out - blurry, redundant, and of questionalbe scope?

Finally, it does matter how you are calling others, just saying that "it is my opinion" is ridiculous - "you are an idiot" would not be an assault anymore, as this is always an opinion and for the attacker maybe not quite extrem enough.

Arguments matter, not how I see or call others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop deleting his vote from that page and respond to his arguments. Deleting his vote is a clear example of censorship, by the way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll note on that very deletion request, you say "I do understand that you cannot give some facts.", which is opinion about the person, not argument.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather say: Ignoring my concerns is a clear example of censorhip. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not censorship, because we aren't silencing you. We aren't even ignoring you; we're responding to your objections, although we don't agree with them.

Since you chose to ignore part of my last argument (Ah! Censorship!) I'll expand and repeat it. In that very deletion request you say that another editor cannot give some facts, which isn't about the argument; it's about the person. You fail to apply your own rules to your own behavior.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting me you are silencing my concerns, which of course could also be interpreted as "response".

In your single (!) example I had the impression that no arguments have been provided - but of course it is always easier to claim others "censors" or fullfiling some agendas. Or have I censored commons at some point? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikrazuul, you just makes your case worst here. Please stop argumenting uselessly, and (re)read COM:SCOPE. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mumohdunais (talk · contribs)

Can someone handle the images please? Too many copyvios being added. I've left an end of copyvio warning after another copyvio upload subsequent to initial warnings. I haven't been able to find sources for two images but given the rest I'm guessing they could be deleted too. cheers. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- mostly. There are only two images left, both of which have {{No permission since}} tags from two days ago. They look like problems, but Tineye did not turn up a source. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppetry in conjunction with Take 5 related copyvios

Hello!

I have the suspicion that the accounts Tsting123 (talk · contribs) and Tjsngh02 (talk · contribs) are operated by the same person. Within a few hours, both uploaded a comparable (copyvio) image and included it in the EN article, first as file:Take5.jpg‎, then as File:Take 5.jpg‎. T*02 has other copyvio-probable music related files in his uploads. The username patterns are similar, so I think that there may be enough evidence for further investigations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and blocked 1 week/infinite. --Martin H. (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

This user is circumventing the outcome I determined for images that were previously nominated for deletion, ignoring the arguments made in the most recent undeletion request and the second undeletion request and has renominated [1] two of them. He also added a no source tag to one when arguments were specifically made that these were inspired by photos in general and not derived from specific photos. I don't appreciate people renominating images until they get the outcome they want or circumventing process. – Adrignola talk 14:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please report Rama then, who kept pushing for undeletion, after a previous undeletion request had failed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating does not harm but if it is with the same group of peoples then it will not have a good result..--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's completely fine to nominate something for deletion after an undeletion request. Undeletion request is not a "higher court", opinion of an admin on undeletion is not more important than an opinion of an admin on DR, so basically undeletion after deletion is just a return to the pre-deletion status quo. Moreover, DR and UDEL are not symmetric -- non-admins can't see deleted pictures discussed on UDEL, so discussions on UDEL are inherently crippled, and it's reasonable to initiate a new DR discussion if someone is not satisfied by the UDEL request outcome. Trycatch (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Şahzadə

Şahzadə (talk · contribs) asked me to unblock him (see User talk:Axpde/Archive 3#Why?), he claims to be no sockpuppet as stated by User:Martin H. in Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sortilegus, he's just using the same IP as Sultan11 (talk · contribs) ... what do you think? They missed to indicate this right from the beginning ... a×p_de ^Hello! 21:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect images uploaded byKumarrajendran

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of processes here. I know what I am doing on en-WP but this looks a little different.

User:Kumarrajendran has been uploading images for some time now both here & on en-WP, quite a few of which have been of uncertain origin and some of which were certainly incorrectly licenced etc. A contributor copyright investigation was filed at en-WP following yet another discussion on the user's talk page there.

The user was blocked for a while & is not communicating much. Worse, similar behaviour started once more yesterday. There has been a suggestion that the user is related to some of the Indian politicians whose images he has uploaded but it appears that even if this is correct then their statement regarding ownership of copyright only applies to the older images that have been uploaded, as s/he is a descendent.

I have spoken with the blocking admin at en-WP and was advised to raise the issue here as that admin is also "aghast" with what is going on.

Thoughts on how to deal with this situation would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He or she has uploaded only one offending file recently here -- his only recent upload, which I have deleted as an obvious copyvio. I have also put a warning on his or her talk page. One problem does not warrant a block. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have blocked this user on en.wp for the same problem [2]. There are multiple uploads there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ww2censor

Ww2censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have become convinced that Ww2censor is incompetent and should be forbidden from nominating files for deletion. His latest gems are nominating a couple of photos taken in 1943. He demands that the Flickr user, who gave permission to upload, "prove" they were taken by himself. How, pray tell, is he supposed to do that? That moronic logic would rub out every personally-taken photo in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give us a link, but I assume the case is Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shibe Park 1943-3.jpg. It seems to me that the DR is entirely reasonable. While we Assume Good Faith as a matter of policy, we have here a 67 year old photograph taken from Flickr. The Flickr source page does not say anything about the photographer. It appears at first glance to be simply another sourceless fan pic from Flicker. I might well have done the DR myself.

I will add that the only violation there appears to be your unwarranted personal attack:

"What are you using for brains, anyway?"

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your equally-ignorant reaction to that picture, I should ask you the same question. The author says he was born in 1922, so he would have been 21 in 1943 when the picture was taken. More telling is the fact that it appears nowhere in Google Images except for the Flickr page, so it's unlikely he ripped it off from somewhere else... and it's obviously not of professional quality, so it's indeed likely to be a fan's snapshot. That reasoning is, of course, beyond the abilities of the average deletionist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can follow your and the other keepers' reasoning, let me make 2 things clear to you, personally attacking other users does only weaken your arguments, and after your next attack you'll get a break. --Túrelio (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to block ww2censor on the grounds of incompetence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being mistaken is not a blockable offence. Making personal attacks is (just as it is on Wikipedia, as you know). —LX (talk, contribs) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs is hereby blocked for 24h for continued personal attacks. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs' vitriolic attack, both here and on my talk page, are totally inappropriate, and I see he has been admonished for that. My Flickr review of the images I nominated for deletion were entirely proper based my experience of reviewing both copyright and non-free images for several years here and especially on the enwiki. As we all know there is a lot of Flickwashing going on, so, because I did not find any evidence these 1943 images were actually taken by the Flickr uploader himself, nor did I find the 1922 birth date, but I did see the word "probably" in the file description which was one of the reasons that made me question if these were really his images, hence I nominated them for deletion as questionable, not a copyright violations. Baseball Bugs has claimed they were taken by the uploaded (I don't know how how he knows that for sure) but he says "In communications with the user who asked permission to put it on wikipedia", while other say the uploader was born in 1922. If he had communication with the Flickr user then he should easily be able to get OTRS permission to verify the images. Deletion discussions are designed to determine the status of the image if possible, and I am entirely happy to keep any properly licenced images. BTW Google image results are no measure of the status of any image found online and numerous free images cannot be found by Google or even Tineye.

I don't do drive-by deletion nominations but carefully consider several factors, however, I suspect Baseball Bugs was already angry because a non-free stamp he used in the same article Shibe Park, an article that already contains many historic image, where some of these Flickr images are now being used was nominated for deletion by me recently on the enwiki and was deleted despite his protestations. Ww2censor (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won the stamp argument despite a lack of consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I question the logic behind your decision to nominate those Shibe photos for deletion. It suggests someone who's in too big of a hurry to delete something without spending a minute or two looking into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question the logic all you want on the DR. I see no bad faith here, or egregious misjudgment.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you actually see is an editor so anxious to delete stuff that he didn't bother to ask the uploader about it. Inadequate communication, typical deletionist "F.U." attitude toward uploaders, admins posting obscenities on talk pages... somehow I expected better from the folks on commons, goddess knows why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you act in an annoying manner, you will be treated as an annoyance. Simple fact of life. You are right however, what I said was uncalled for and I apologise. However, I still think you are taking things far too personally - deletion requests are essentially people saying "I have some concerns about this image, could you guys please tell me what you think about it?" It's not meant as an attack, it's out of concern. You call people deletionist, damn right we're deletionists here. If something has a copyright issue, it is much better to just remove it than hope no one cares. The issue that was originally raised was about copyright status, and frankly it was a perfectly valid inquiry. We get a lot of people claiming copyright over things they have no right to, so when something looks suspicious, we nominate it for deletion to get others' input into it. Then if consensus agrees there is a copyright problem, it gets deleted. If people think otherwise, it doesn't. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If you act in an annoying manner, you will be treated as an annoyance." Which is exactly why I filed this complaint against a very annoying user called ww2censor. Yesterday you blocked me for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". The reality is that it is ww2censor who engaged in intimidating behaviour and harassment, by taking an aggressive and ignorant stand against an uploader. None of you bothered to take even 1 second to look into the discussion around this picture. Nor did you all demonstrate even 1 iota of logic. An amateurish photo taken by a guy in 1943 who's now approaching 90, and your gripe was that he initially couldn't recall for sure what year he took it. I have to ask again, what are you all using for brains? Until demonstrated otherwise, I have to assume you and your ilk don't care about anything except your insatiable desire to delete anything you don't like, and will continue to be annoying impediments to the rest of us who are actually trying to build instead of destroy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it a little more simply: Would it have killed ww2censor to ask the uploader a question instead of just trying to shoot it down? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have killed you to respond to the DR as if it weren't an attempt to shoot it down, instead of making a huge fuss over it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to what it was, which was an attempt to shoot it down, pure and simple. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Commons' "ilk" gets a lot of copyvios and garbage that volunteers sift through daily. I'm not sure you're very familiar with how this wiki runs, otherwise you might more clearly understand the community's SOP and how one ought to act. It's poor form to make judgements without that knowledge. Killiondude (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, here's what's going on: Having won that illegitimate victory on the stamp issue, ww2censor was emboldened, and specifically targeted the next upload from the same user. Only this time he's not getting away with it, because all the respondents have repudiated his ignorant attempt to clobber a 68 year old snapshot taken by a now 89 year old man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have killed ww2censor if he asked you a question? I'm going with yes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm irritated with him because he did NOT ask a question. I welcome questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the thing of it... We've had a boatload of discussion about various Shibe Park photos. We've been careful to distinguish those that are public domain (such as LOC) vs. those that are off-limits (Temple University Archives, for example). One of us had private discussions with the owner of the pictures in question, an 89 year old man who saw the game in 1943 (which he confirmed by checking a logbook he had). If ww2censor had asked somebody about the picture or done a little research, instead of turning his anti-aircraft gun on it, all this rancor could have been avoided. Instead, he took the "F.U." stance and basically got what he gave. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this rancor could have been avoided, if you hadn't started the shitstorm here. Frankly, the only offended person I can see here is you. As has been explained, a deletion request is just a request for comments. If you had simply given your opinion in a friendly manner over there and not started throwing allegations at people, the deletion request would have been closed as usual and everything would have been fine. Instead you are insulting long-standing users and behaving rather impolite. The way I see it, you are currently heading with high speed towards a longer block. Please stop this and calm down. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 08:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it wrong through and through, but that's par for the course here. It could have been avoided if ww2censor had done things in an ethical way from the beginning. A "deletion request" is not a "request for comment", it's a request for deletion. If you want to call it a "request for comment", you should call it that. P.S. If you block me again, I'll have to ask that all the images I uploaded here be deleted, on the grounds that they are all copyright violations (using the Alexander Liptak strategy). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely to say that I agree with ChrisPK. Take some time out and get to know Commons better. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it all too well already, and I am not impressed. The way they botched the Alexander Liptak case continues to prove to not be just an anomaly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 140: / Line 140: @@
 :::::::::::See, here's the thing of it... We've had a ''boatload'' of discussion about various Shibe Park photos. We've been careful to distinguish those that are public domain (such as LOC) vs. those that are off-limits (Temple University Archives, for example). One of us had private discussions with the owner of the pictures in question, an 89 year old man who saw the game in 1943 (which he confirmed by checking a logbook he had). If ww2censor had asked somebody about the picture or done a little research, instead of turning his anti-aircraft gun on it, all this rancor could have been avoided. Instead, he took the "F.U." stance and basically got what he gave. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 22:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::All this rancor could have been avoided, if you hadn't started the shitstorm here. Frankly, the only offended person I can see here is you. As has been explained, a deletion request is just a request for comments. If you had simply given your opinion in a friendly manner over there and not started throwing allegations at people, the deletion request would have been closed as usual and everything would have been fine. Instead you are insulting long-standing users and behaving rather impolite. The way I see it, you are currently heading with high speed towards a longer block. Please stop this and calm down. Regards, -- [[User:ChrisiPK|ChrisiPK]] <small>'''([[User Talk:ChrisiPK|<span class="signature-talk">Talk</span>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/ChrisiPK|Contribs]])'''</small> 08:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::You've got it wrong through and through, but that's par for the course here. It could have been avoided if ww2censor had done things in an ethical way from the beginning. A "deletion request" is not a "request for comment", it's a ''request for deletion''. If you want to call it a "request for comment", you should call it that. P.S. If you block me again, I'll have to ask that all the images I uploaded here be deleted, on the grounds that they are all copyright violations (using the Alexander Liptak strategy). ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 08:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 :::::::::::::Merely to say that I agree with ChrisPK.  Take some time out and get to know Commons better.  Thanks --[[User:Herbythyme|<font color="green">Herby</font>]] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">[[User talk:Herbythyme|talk thyme]]</span></small></sup></b> 08:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::I know it all too well already, and I am not impressed. The way they botched the Alexander Liptak case continues to prove to not be just an anomaly. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 08:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:43, 6 August 2011

Contents

And Again User:Fastily...

Saibo (talk · contribs)

Mumohdunais (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppetry in conjunction with Take 5 related copyvios

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

User:Şahzadə

Suspect images uploaded byKumarrajendran

User:Ww2censor

Navigation menu

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:43, 6 August 2011

And Again User:Fastily...

Saibo (talk · contribs)

Mumohdunais (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppetry in conjunction with Take 5 related copyvios

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs)

User:Şahzadə

Suspect images uploaded byKumarrajendran

User:Ww2censor

Navigation menu

Search