Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Deletion of Image:Karakaya dam-GAP.jpg Image:Karkamis dam-GAP.jpg Image:Keban dam-GAP.jpg

All three images are sourced to be from the USDA website (thats where I got them) but were deleted anyways for not having no source/license for 7 days even when they did have both a source (see the deleted pages) and license ({{PD-USGov-USDA}}). Nothing suggests that they are copyvios

Perhaps other deletions of User:Thuresson should also be reviewed.

--Cat out 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored these three images. --Raymond Disc. 07:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Your claim "All images from US federal sites unless stated otherwise stated is in the PD" is obviously not true. You were asked to provide evidence that the photos are taken by an employee of the federal government. You are the uploader, so the responsibility lies with you. You chose not to be cooperate and 7 days after notification the photos were deleted. Please add the information as quickly as possible or they may be deleted again. Thuresson 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I agree with Thuresson here. There's a lot of external images on US federal sites, and I consider it very likely that these are Turkish promotional images used on the USDA site. Had they been USDA's own images, I would have expected somewhat better quality, not tiny images that look like they've been copied from a website. Cnyborg 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
A lot of nice plant pics on USDA sites have a no-commerce license, so always be careful with USDA PD claims. -- Ayacop 16:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. Nothing suggests these images are Turkish promotional photos. A lot of USDA employees worked at GAP. Unless there is a rationale for a violation on the necessary com:del page (that process should be used), images should not be deleted. --Cat out 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FOTW (again)

I've never been a fan of people uploading images from FOTW because their claims that they own public domain images makes the people involved on their site, some of whom happen to be valued contributors to our websites, quite annoying. I did, however, receive a notice on my user page that an image I uploaded was to be speedy deleted for copyright violation. In fact, the image in question (Image:Us-ca-sf.png), in fact, one that I intentionally changed in order that it be original enough to break any ties.

However, User:Himasaram has been marking a substantial amount of image derived from FOTW with a tag labeled speedy. Firstly, FOTW cannot claim any copyright on these images no matter how much creative effort went into them. They do not own the design and thus cannot claim any sort of copyright whatsoever.

I have personally always been willing to overlook this in order to maintain some degree of friendliness, indeed, if someone put a great effort into creating a flag design, they certainly should be credited for it. However, we cannot have free images that are used all over the projects labeled as speedy delete. These images should certainly be redone so we can provide an original level, but deleted because of spurious claims of copyright? Absolutely not. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Should NOT be deleted. For starters, anyone claim of copyright over national flags would be in violation of Geneva convention (combatant identification). Furthermore, a good number of flags are PD-old. Replacement images are of course recommended though not required. --Cat out 01:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

xrmap flag images

A lot of SVG files show only a {{PD}} tag with the additional information that the flag comes original from xrmap. See e.g.: Image:Flag of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon.svg. Could someone please check whether these images are really PD or are actually GPL? Thank you! (I failed to find the information needed)--ALE! ¿…? 12:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the above example, the fact that Denelson83 modified it from something else and released his own work to PD, makes it PD. It *is* a flag, and therefore public domain to begin with. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
But what tag to we apply to that flag? And furthermore: many subnational flags are not in the public domain. However, it seems that xrmap have some status like PD or GPL or whatever. So we need a copyright tag for this flag collection. The use of {{PD}} is not useful. --ALE! ¿…? 09:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera pictures

(discussion taking place at Template:Undeletion_requests#Christina Aguilera pictures)

Image:Europe location ARM.png

Something weird is going on with this image- it seems there is a disagreement about whether Georgia and Azerbaijan are in Europe. I tried to protect it but I'm not sure that will stop the upload war. Arniep 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked both users for 24 hours. Alphax (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It appears the map links to the en:Armenia page. The maps on the English wiki pages for en:Georgia and en:Azerbaijan both show these countries as not in Europe, but it seems those maps are also in dispute. Does anyone have any expertise on this matter? Arniep 15:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Complaint about abuse of adminship by Cool Cat

Just aften being given admin rights on Commons, it seems that Cool Cat is already abusing his sysop powers. One of his first actions as a new admin was to vandalize a userpage of a user, that he had previously had a conflict with on Wikipedia. After being reverted by the user, he abuses his new admin powers, to protect the page on his preferred version: [1]. -- Igiveup 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words it seems that Mr. Cool Cat consider his new sysop rights to be a tool which he can use to fight other users with... -- Igiveup 21:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The first message of concern about this should go to User talk:Cool Cat. Please at least try to have a reasonable discussion about whatever this conflict is about before bringing allegations of admin tool abuse here. Jkelly 21:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add that Cool Cat realized the error of judgement right away and reverted himself, long before this notice was posted. It's important to reflect all of a user's actions in context rather than just particulars. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 21:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything that indicate that he "realized the error of judgment". According to his own edit summary, it just seems that he changed his mind and made the decision that a protection of the user page was not "needed". I don't like the thought of Sysops going around on their own using their powers to enforce their personal will on other users. -- Igiveup 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
What you see indicated that he realized his error was that I said it. Perhaps I know something more than you do. He reverted himself. Jkelly is right. Because of the situation, your concern should have been brought to his talk page rather than the entire administrators' noticeboard. I doubt you would have said anything had the user been anyone other than Cool Cat. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bastique and Jkelly. Igiveup you should have asked Cool Cat about this first. Also don't misuse the term vandalism like this, judging by the arbitration findings the template may have been warranted. Cool Cat reverted both the sockpuppet template and the protection within ten minutes, so was uncertain and was abusive by no means. DVD R W 04:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Raw newbie question (I'm making my first Commons non-user/talk-page edit here, I've been on en:wp for just over a month, and I came here because of discussing it with Cool Cat there): Above, Bastiq▼e says "Cool Cat realized the error of judgement right away and reverted himself", and DVD R W says "Cool Cat reverted both the sockpuppet template and the protection within ten minutes". Maybe I'm missing something in this edit history, but from what I can see, neither of those statements appears to be true.
  • 02:37, 28 March 2006: Moby Dick creates his user page, with a picture of an Ogoh-Ogoh.
  • 18:40, 6 November 2006: Cool Cat adds the sockpuppet flag and blanks out the prior content (the picture), with no edit summary or other explanation of the blanking. (I think blanking out someone else's user page is generally considered vandalism; am I wrong?.)
  • Two days pass with no change.
  • 04:55, 8 November 2006: Moby Dick restores his user page, as "rvv".
  • Another two days pass with no change.
  • 13:59, 10 November 2006: Cool Cat once again adds the sockpuppet flag and blanks out the prior content (the picture), with no edit summary or other explanation of the blanking, then protects the page so that Moby Dick cannot restore it.
  • Over the next twelve minutes (not ten), Cool Cat makes four further edits to Moby Dick's user page, concluding with undoing what he'd done.
Not until four days from his initial blanking of Moby Dick's user page does Cool Cat reconsider, and even then not until after Moby Dick has restored the page and Cool Cat has repeated and then protected the blanking. This is not "right away", Bastiq▼e; this is not "within ten minutes", DVD R W.

Add to this, one other interaction, on Moby Dick's talk page:

User:Moby Dick

Leave my user page alone. --Moby Dick 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

     Why do you even care about a userpage? --Cat out 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This does not look conciliatory; it looks unrepentant. And it certainly doesn't look to me like Moby Dick is the aggressor in that interaction, whatever may have gone on elsewhere. But I'm just a newbie, so what do I know? – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:38, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).
I'd hardly call some 7xxth admin action "one of the first". I reserve the right to make mistakes. Furthermore any admin action or edit I make can be subject to a discussion.
Things I find odd about this issue (please warn me if I am being paranoid again):
  1. The fact that someone practically convicted of stalking notices an edit of mine within 10 hours and 15 minutes. You'd expect people to watch their own userpage but that wikipedian (User:Moby Dick) has a total of four edits.
  2. The fact that it had taken User:Igiveup 1 hour and 34 minutes to notice my edits to User:Moby Dick. This complaint post came weeks after his last edit in October.
--Cat out 06:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[One of the user preferences one can set is to be notified by email of any changes to pages one is watching. I'd expect one's own user page to be among them.] – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:00, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).
My question is this; while the user is a sock of someone from EN Wikipedia, does whatever ArbCom sanctions carry over to other Wikimedia projects or no? If so, this should be clarified by someone. Despite this, the editor in question isn't blocked, Cool Cat fixed his error and this should have been brought to Cool Cat himself than start a public flogging. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not -- unless that other project chooses to wholesale adopt all decisions from ArbCom. I don't see that happening.
Anyway, we all agree user:Igiveup is out of line, matter closed, yeah? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, seems fair. As for en (or other projects) ArbCom decisions we should not blindly uphold them if they become relevant here; bringing the crossproject issue up on this page and discussing that case on its merits is sufficient. We will probably bear an ArbCom ruling in mind if it becomes an issue, but we should make our own decision as to the action needed here.--Nilfanion 14:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I noticed something just now. There is evidence suggesting that User:Igiveup is in fact en:User:Karl Meier (aka Stereotek), the second of the people stalking me aside from User:Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick). See: en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek.
There seems to me more to this encounter than what meets the eye.
--Cat out 14:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
On the question of en:wp arbcom rulings and etc... I see outcomes on other projects as input data to our decision making process, but not binding. Plus there is the matter of establishing that the users with the same names are actually the same users anyway. Best to judge by behaviours here only, I think. ++Lar: t/c 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Cat out 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If User:Cool Cat has made a mistake here (and I believe he has), I'm curious as to why there is no acknowledgment of it on my talk page. --Moby Dick 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am curious about that too. --Cat out 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Because he reverted himself. No acknowledgement is necessary. Note: Moby Dick's sole purpose so far on Commons was to create an account, upload a single image and oppose Cool Cat's previous RFA. This behavior is bordering on trolling. Please discontinue this at once. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 18:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"Moby Dick's sole purpose so far on Commons was to create an account, upload a single image and oppose Cool Cat's previous RFA. This behavior is bordering on trolling." If those three actions were in rapid succession, perhaps. But according to Moby Dick's contrib history, he created his user page (and uploaded the image for it) back on 28 March 2006, apparently so that he could use the same image on his user page at en:wp, where he's more active. Three months later, on 27 June 2006, you nominated Cool Cat for admin, but a number of other people voted "oppose", saying he'd been in too many disputes (with only 85 edits?); on 3 July 2006 Moby Dick joined them, cited them, halfway down the page, by saying "Oppose — per Kelly and James; not an appropriate person for adminship. See en.wiki for many issues." This was his one and only remark on Commons about Cool Cat, until Cool Cat started blanking his user page. If that constitutes "trolling", I think the term must have a very low threshold. – SAJordan talkcontribs 20:30, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).
This user's entire contribution history consists of signing up to Commons and participating in this discussion. Please go somewhere else and be constructive. This body elected Cool Cat with full knowledge of his past history. Cool Cat has benefited this project. You are now another user whose sole purpose is to provide evidence against Cool Cat. Furthermore, your evidence mistates the facts. This constitutes trolling, and you may be blocked if you continue this harassment. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 13:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"This user's entire contribution history consists of signing up to Commons and participating in this discussion." As I stated up front in my first comment: "Raw newbie question (I'm making my first Commons non-user/talk-page edit here...)". Is it an offense to participate in discussions as an openly admitted raw newbie?
"Please go somewhere else and be constructive." I would think that asking for clarification, and pointing to the record, are constructive. I would hope that being constructive is welcome here as well as elsewhere.
"You are now another user whose sole purpose is to provide evidence against Cool Cat." Certainly not. Everyone here started on some topic; was that therefore their "sole purpose"? I'm active on en:wp on a variety of topics, though (as said above) "for just over a month". Cool Cat went to en:wp and posted the link for this discussion. I followed it with no prejudgment of what I would find.
"Furthermore, your evidence mistates the facts." That's possible; as I said above, "Maybe I'm missing something in this edit history..." — but after going over and over it again, I still can't see what facts were misstated. And your reply doesn't specify. For my education, would you please tell me what specific facts I've misstated, so I can learn not to make the same mistake again?
"This constitutes trolling, and you may be blocked if you continue this harassment." I assure you that I am not trolling, not trying to draw angry responses, not trying to distract from the topic, not trying to waste anyone's time. I am sincerely puzzled how one user (Moby) could be accused of trolling and harassing for posting that brief and civil "Opposed" vote as his sole Commons comment on Cool Cat until now (on a nomination made three months after he'd created his user page, so it clearly wasn't his sole purpose for being here) — while the admin (Cool Cat) who edited Moby's user page seven times, blanking the prior content twice, was not harassing Moby — and now complaining about it constitutes harassment again. I don't understand it at all. I thought I had some idea of the rules and expectations of behavior in a wiki community, but these discrepancies put me in doubt. I am asking for explanation, for clarification, so that I can understand. Now you tell me that this constitutes trolling, this constitutes harassment? (Of whom?)
Another question for you, Bastiq▼e: you posted a warning to Moby's talk page yesterday in which you appeared to speak as representing Cool Cat: "Please do not engage user Cool Cat in the future. [...] He will leave you alone and you should leave him alone as well." (A remarkable assurance, given that the previous post had been Cool Cat's mocking "Why do you even care about a userpage?") Can you be both CC's advocate (as well as nominator) and an impartial judge in disputes involving him — or should you recuse yourself rather than make threats of blocking others for questioning these proceedings? – SAJordan talkcontribs 18:35, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC).

I'm shocked that Cool Cat would be made an admin anywhere, and don't find it surprising that something like this would happen (just a week after being made an admin). While the actions of other users may have been out of line, Cool Cat should have ignored these users, and his lack of restraint in involving himself with them is telling. Ral315 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hum... You do realize the entire incident happened after my actions right? --Cat out 08:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ral315, oh please... He blanked the userpage of an inactive (as far as you could tell from the contribs) non-contributor. This isn't a capitol crime, and he backed off when the user stuck their head up. If Moby Dick doesn't become an actual contributor I'll eventually blank it myself, but when I do it .. it will be matched with a block of the account so we don't have to endure nonsense like this. --Gmaxwell 14:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is (as the name implies) a common area for all the different wikimedia; it's where users of Wikipedia, WikiNews, WikiSpecies, WikiTravel, etc., have to come in order to upload pictures for use back on their main wikis. It shouldn't be surprising that some of them are active there far more than here. How does that make them "inactive" or "noncontributors"? What policy declares that their content here can be deleted because they are not also engaging in discussions here, despite the fact that they are still actively editing in other wikimedia? Has the Commons declared its secession from the Wikimedia Community? Have the borders been closed, the gates dropped across the roads? Are all those pictures on Wikipedia etc. about to go blank? How long away from the Commons puts a user at such risk? "You must have recorded contribs (not merely logged on and read) to Commons (not other wikimedia) within the past ___ months, or your user page will be blanked and your account blocked." Please fill in the blank — and then please direct me to the policy where this warning was given up front. – SAJordan talkcontribs 18:35, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC).
"it's where users of Wikipedia...have to come in order to upload pictures", right (although Wikitravel isn't a wikimedia project and doesn't use commons). In this case the user in question didn't come here to upload images for use on other projects. As far as I can tell, he came he to troll.. or at least thats all has ever done. Next time you want to whine, pick a better example case... Don't waste your time and mine with an attempt to defend the indefensible. --Gmaxwell 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"In this case the user in question didn't come here to upload images for use on other projects. As far as I can tell, he came he to troll.. or at least thats all has ever done." If you're referring to Moby Dick's edit history, please indicate which diffs were "trolling":
  • Creating his user page and its picture?
  • Restoring it after it was blanked out?
  • Asking that it be left alone?
  • Voting a brief and civil "opposed" (among many others) in an RfA?
How do these constitute trolling?
"Next time you want to whine, pick a better example case..." What would be a better example case? Say, a case where an admin harasses a user who'd not engaged in any disputes with anyone at all on Commons?
"Don't waste your time and mine with an attempt to defend the indefensible." What "indefensible"? What am I defending? What are you defending? Please specify.
Oh, and I missed this before from your earlier post: ..."he backed off when the user stuck their head up." Actually, just two days after the user stuck his head up and restored his user page, CC went back to blank it out again — is that all the "inactivity" needed to justify blanking a user page? Not ___ months, but two days? How many other users get blanked after two days away? Is this a general policy, or is Moby Dick singled out for special punishment?
I'm being accused of trolling and harassment for following CC's posted link back from Wikipedia — apparently on the grounds that it's wrong to follow an issue between wikis. But what then of CC's taking this issue between wikis in the first place — using his brand-new power as a Commons admin to indulge a grudge carried here from Wikipedia, then reporting it back to Wikipedia as his being harassed on Commons, in order to get his target blocked? Isn't that trolling and harassment? Isn't that indefensible? Yet aren't you defending that? If not, then please explain how not. – SAJordan talkcontribs 23:44, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC).
Desist at once. You have offered absolutely nothing constructive to this project or this debate. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To Gmaxwell and others: I think that the whole think is being blown out of proportion, and that many of the users are wikistalking Cool Cat. My point is that it was stupid of him to even involve himself with Moby Dick after the arbitration cases and issues on the English Wikipedia. I also don't see the relevance of blanking an inactive user's userpage, particularly on the Commons, where many users (like me) log on mainly for uploading pictures for local Wikis, and sometimes go months without logging on. Seeing Cool Cat's apology below, I trust him not to do it again. Ral315 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ending this nonsense

This entire debate is being most unconstructive so I hereby apologies for my actions. The prudent course of action would be to consult other admins. I noticed this error and reverted myself before this entire thing started here at the noticeboard. I was going to post something in the morning about it but someone had acted in impetuosity prior. --Cat out 14:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A prudent further reference to anyone reading this debate would be: en:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick --Cat out 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Which says, for instance, "Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any edit which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses." But what happened here was Cool Cat, without provocation, editing Moby Dick's user page seven times, blanking it twice; and when Moby requested "Leave my user page alone.", Cool Cat retorted "Why do you even care about a userpage?" — and went back to Wikipedia reporting the interaction as "the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick)" (et al) — which would get Moby Dick blocked.
Short version: Cool Cat initiated this interaction, then blamed it on Moby Dick to get him blocked.
Some prudent further references for anyone reading this debate would be:
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cool_Cat;
  2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cool_Cat_(01);
  3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cool_Cat_(02);
  4. Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Cool_Cat_(01);
  5. Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes/Cool_Cat_(02).
Note that Cool Cat finally became a Commons admin on 10 November 2006, and that same day he used his new power against Moby Dick. – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:11, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC).
At least properly link interwiki. All My RFAs are available on one page: en:User:Cool Cat/RfAs. There are two others you haven't listed and one ongoing one which is likely to fail. A failed RfA means absolutely nothing to sensible people.
Now, how does a complete newbie as you claim to be find pages such as RfC's or various RfAs in such a speedy manner. I JUST posted my response. You noticing it and responding had taken you a total of 28 minutes.
And just an FYI: I was promoted 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC). These red bars represent admin actions I have taken so far. By the time I edited Moby Dicks userpage I have had committed over 600 admin actions
--Cat out 19:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "At least properly link interwiki." Thank you for kindly explaining to a raw interwiki newbie exactly how that's done. Oh wait...
  • "There are two others you haven't listed and one ongoing one which is likely to fail." Okay. Since you offer the link above, that should suffice.
  • "A failed RfA means absolutely nothing to sensible people." But the reasons given might.
  • "Now, how does a complete newbie as you claim to be find pages such as RfC's or various RfAs in such a speedy manner." Using search pages like this. Not that I did it for the first time just now; I looked around before posting here, to try and understand what was going on. – SAJordan talkcontribs 23:03, 13 Nov 2006 (UTC).
Above user is offering nothing constructive. Every comment he or she makes serves no purpose other than to provoke or attack either Cool Cat, myself or other admins here at the Commons. This is the purest definition of trolling. If there's no objection from any admins, I will close this thread. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 23:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Bastiq▼e, you have accused me of misstating facts, yet you did not say which facts I had misstated. I asked you, specifically, to state what facts those were, so that I would not get them wrong again. This was a constructive request for information. You have not replied to that request, merely repeated this personal accusation of trolling and harassment. I have assured you of my sincerity; you have not acknowledged it. I've expressed other questions and concerns; no reply. Unfounded accusations in one direction; immediately dismissal of specific and cited complaints in the other. There are issues here of basic fairness, of good faith, of NPA, and of the responsible and impartial use of entrusted authority — all of which I sincerely believe are serious and valid issues that should be addressed. Yet you're going to close off this thread? Is this the impression you wish to give? – SAJordan talkcontribs 00:12, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).
You have not made a single reasonable request that has not already been answered. This is your final warning. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Forget the final warning, you're done here SAJordan: Indef block for you. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking deletion of my user account

Dear sirs of Commons, this is a great project and I can believe it can make a great contribution to humanity. I have participated as a volunteer, giving part of my time with the conviction it would help somebody. But now I would like to ask the deletion of my user account as I do not want to continue with any contribution after the acts of Mister User:Zirland and his evident vandalism. If we have to deal with persons like him, without criteria and far from any correct process, for me it is better not to lost my time here. Last yesterday I was thinking to ask the deletion of any contribution I let here, but now I think those who would need it, do not have to pay this situation. I let it, but if you consider their deletion too, please. Please go ahead with the project, especially those who real care for it, with humble, gentleness and courage. Volunteers have the best regards. Waiting instructions for my deletation, greetings and good bye. This user is auto candidate to be deleted

We cannot delete accounts. However, what we could do is delete your userpage and maybe your talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Correction, we do not have the technical means to delete accounts. --Cat out 10:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

user:Jean-no (French)

Not a dispute per se, but I would like someone who is active on French Wikipedia to speak with this user, and I think this maybe the best place to post my request on. Jean-no is dissatisfied with Commons administrators.

Fred Chess 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll drop him a note. This is clearly someone who is well-intentioned, but might be surprised by our policies and copyright laws. Cheers ! Rama 19:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Thanks for your assistance. / Fred Chess 21:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for beeing condescending but this is unfair. My image didn't deserve a quick deletion, it was not a poster but the picture of a subway corridor (public place) where a poster was shown. This kind of image is the trick that the newspapers use to show advertizings without risks. Actualy, according to the french law, the problem was to show a subway corridor : nobody respects this but for the law this place is a strategic millitary place (until ten years ago, it was forbiden to have homing pigeons without telling their names to the army). You can say that my image was not at its place here, it can be discussed, but it can't be erased without any kind of a trial. I mean I'm not a total newbie. So, admins have the power to delete : of course, but it doesn't mean they are more qualified than the whole community to decide what's ok and what's not, they apply decisions. Jean-no 00:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To use an image in a newspaper is editorial use, which is different from commercial use. At least I didn't think it was a controversial deletion at the time because the image consists of 90% poster and 10% wall?! You have also been told you can appeal discussions to the Commons:Undeletion requests. Not more I can say. / Fred Chess 17:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
So I did. Jean-no 11:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Juiced lemon (talk · contribs) and Reisio (talk · contribs)

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User_problems. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

Hello.

I uploaded a couple of times the image Image:Correct Flag of Poland.svg (I did it twice, because I did not see the upload among my contribution and tought I had made a mistake), a version of the Flag of Poland with pure white/pure red colours. The image was deleted by User:WarX, without any notification. Later, in a private mail exchange, WarX said that the image was deleted because "it had wrong filename - there were no basis on which it was correct" and, after further requests of explanation, he claimed that "You were trying to cheat people - it's vandalism". As long as I know, there is no reason for the image to be deleted.

My questions are:

  • Is it possible to upload such an image?
  • Is WarX allowed to delete an image only because of his personal judgment on how the Flag of Poland should be depicted?

--FlagUploaderTC 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this block fair?

Hello.

I am here because I would like somebody investigates User:WarX's behaviour.

I had uploaded (twice) Image:Correct Flag of Poland.svg, a version of the Flag of Poland with pure white/pure red colours; the image had been deleted (twice) by WarX, without neither motivation, nor notification. Then I was blocked for two weeks by User:WarX. The reason of the block was "Sorry, but your opinion about Polish flag is useless, couse is not based on any Polish law". I mailed WarX to ask for a motivation, and he said the reason was I removed a message from another users from my talk page (the message was a block notification on pl.wiki, posted on my commons account).

I feel he behaved rather bad, as the block was issued formally for a fact happened on another project, actually for a content dispute he was involved in, and in any case it is not proportional to any possible infringment I did.

Was his behaviour correct? --FlagUploaderTC 01:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It undoubtedly is correct, since you're a sock puppet that refuses to acknowledge reality. ¦ Reisio 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see from here, WarX' flag is the correct one, based on Polish law. Therefore, calling your image the correct one is misleading. However, WarX should not have speedied your flag and blocked you, because he was involveld in this case. He was probably correct that you were disruptive and editwarring, and should have asked some other admin to block you. Also I think the correct way for your flag to go is through COM:DEL.
Also, Reisio, in case you state such convictions, please present your evidence. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
__In any case, it was a content dispute, not disruption or vandalism. If he had an issue with my flag, why did he avoid to address it, but simply deleted the image without notification?
__Also, would you please tell me how I was "disruptive and editwarring", even more in a manner that deserves two weeks of block? I was asked to stop reverting Image:Flag of Poland.svg (in a rude manner, if politeness still matters), and I complied, but nobody, in any case, told me to stop uploading the image, or that the image name was not appropriate. Furthermore, he blocked me because I removed a comment on my talk page: would you block anybody for two weeks with this motivation?--FlagUploaderTC 19:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
With disruptive and edit warring, I meant your continuously reverts [2], without any explanation, at least that I can find, except things like it's white, not gray!. On the page is explained exactly why it is gray and not white. If you disagree, you should talk, and not ruthlessly revert.
Deleting comments from talk pages is considered to be not done. I agree however with you that would not be a reason to block you for two weeks. The reverting however would have been. I cant unfortunately find more evidence, as it has all been deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand: he asks me to stop reverting the image, I stop, and he blocks me: and you agree with him?
The comment I removed was about pl.wiki [3]: why should its removal be worth of a block, let alone a two-week block by an admin involved in a content dispute with me?
I do not understand what you mean with "it has all been deleted".--FlagUploaderTC 00:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
He's done this same sort of bull before; his current handle is just the last sockpuppet name he was left with after being found out last time. ¦ Reisio 12:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI: It has been established that en:user:RedMC and pl:user:FlagUploader were sock puppets of en:user:Panairjdde; both accounts were used for vandalisms / WP:SOCK violations on these projects, and are now blocked. I have no CU privileges on commons (nor do I know your usual practice on local checks for cross-project activities), but it is reasonable to assume that pl:user:FlagUploader is your local user:FlagUploader, particularly since their attempts to disrupt various projects seem to match. This should be in all likelihood taken into account when evaluating this dispute. Regards, -- lcamtuf (CU/sysop on pl.wiki) 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


Categories and Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs): ...the English Wikipedia is the reference...

Since 11 December Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs) is forcing to use in categories for brazilian municipalities and states the same name schema used at English Wikipedia for articles, making a edit war in dozens of Image descriptions, category pages and article/gallery pages.

The problem is: Brazil have a state and a city named São Paulo and a state and a city named Rio de Janeiro. Juiced lemon argues to use the non-intuitive (at least for me and Raphael.lorenzeto (talk · contribs), both from Brazil) name schema Category:Coats of arms of municipalities of São Paulo (state). In Brazil is imposible to a city have a municipalities. The (state) term is completely needless.

Juiced lemon says here: State categories of Brazil have the same treatment than other areas for the naming of categories: the English Wikipedia is the reference but Commons:By location category scheme says The general pattern shall be: *"[object name] of [place name]"' (Where place name uses the spelling in the English wikipedia)

This is Commons or en.wp? This is a tip for naming or a unquestionable rule?

See also:

Lugusto • ҉ 18:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This dispute concerns different basic issues:
1. An article is only categorized in one category, when both the article and the category regard the same subject. This is a common sense rule: if we not follow it, that doubles the maintenance time. User:555 reverted my edits for Itápolis and several other Brazilian cities.
2. Near anybody in the world knows big cities and never heards about administrative divisions of foreign countries. This obviousness is confirmed by the en: articles and the interwiki links:
- en:Rio de Janeiro: 48 interwiki links (en: included), about 10 with prefix and/or suffix
- en:Rio de Janeiro (state): 26 interwiki links (en: included), about 22 with prefix and/or suffix
- en:São Paulo: 45 interwiki links (en: included), about 9 with prefix and/or suffix
- en:São Paulo (state): 28 interwiki links (en: included), about 23 with prefix and/or suffix
In spite of this, User:Raphael.lorenzeto maintains that Category:Rio de Janeiro and Category:São Paulo are for the Brazilian states. And this user does not explain why most of the media files in Category:Rio de Janeiro are about the city of Rio de Janeiro. Must we waste our time with such users which ignores Commons rules and common sense?
3. Commons:By location category scheme states (about category names): “the general pattern shall be: *"[object name] of [place name]"' (Where place name uses the spelling in the English wikipedia)”.
So, we expect that [place name] will not change for all subcategories of Category:[place name]: this is another rule of common sense. If we don't follow it, we'll have to spend more time to categorize media files because we'll need to check each category beforehand. That's why I and several other users are working to standardize category names in Commons. The last actions of User:Raphael.lorenzeto stand clearly in the way of our work. --Juiced lemon 22:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for a third party commentary. Lugusto • ҉ 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, rules from English Wikipedia, nor from any other lingual version of a Wikipedia, aren't applicable on Commons. According to language policy in Commons, titles on galleries (articles, ie Rio de Janeiro) can be in any language, and titles on Categories should be roughly in English. In the other hand, I understand there are exceptions on proper nouns for both cases, galleries and categories: If it's about the name of a person (antroponym), of a cultural concept, of a place (toponym), etc... it's correct to write it in the native language related to the subject ("Don Quijote" instead of "Sir Quixot", "Sevilla" instead of "Seville", "torero" and not "bullfighter", etc...). Another exception are plants and animals wich should be in latin scientific notation. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Four reverts by user Juiced lemon within 24 hours

I would like to ask for help. If it is not good place, please move it to the proper page.

User Juiced lemon 4 times within 24 hours reverted Category:Karlův most (history). User Juiced lemon recategorizes that page without consensus and he also inserts template "move" without consensus there. User Paddy and me reverted his changes and I asked him several times for reasons ([4], [5], [6], [7] in summary and [8], [9] on this page above) but Juiced lemon's gives no links to some rules.

Juiced lemon wrote: "the reason is ON THAT PAGE !!!!!" but as you can see on that page, there si no reason, only text "It has been proposed below that Category:Karlův most be renamed and moved to Category:Charles Bridge. Upon reaching a clear consensus (Category talk:Karlův most), please move the article and remove the notice, or request further assistance there (if necessary)." There is no text on Category talk:Karlův most.

On November I ask him the first time for reason of renaming/moving some category. He answered me "categories are in English". So I asked him to add that information (link to rule) to the template "move". User Reiso wrote that it is not true what Juiced lemon write because: "The only content area where there is a consensus to use a single language is biology-related content (plants and animals), where latin binomial names are used." (see [10]).

Juiced lemon was warned about three reverts ([11]) and I asked him again for the reason. His answer does not contain any link to rule, again. Maybe Jucied lemon is right, but he can't to document it.

Is it true that categories must be written in English only (name of cities, buildings and other objects)? If it is true, where it is written? Could be that information (if it is true) and link to that rule added to the template:move?

I noticed that there are more problems with Juiced lemon's style of communication. --Ludek 17:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When I currently display the page Category:Karlův most, I read “Reason: Non-English category” below the template, as adverted. So, there is maybe some technical problem which prevents you to see this text.
The rule about English categories is on the page Commons:Language policy#Language for categories. And don't be so agressive. --Juiced lemon 18:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Your argues are wrong. It's not English Wikipedia. Place names are proper nouns not sentences, in the same way you don't translate José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as "Joseph Louis Rodericks-Shoemakers". So it can be in the native language. It can be as "Karlův". In the other hand, you are absolutelly biaised because of chauvinism ideas. Your role here is not collaborating, is only contributing with your only own rules. You should be able to do both. You have serious problems with users from non-English languages, specially from minorished languages (see User:NielsF/Arbitration)--84.120.248.119 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC) PD: A user from Catalan Wikipedia.
I will shortly address Juiced Lemon that it is better to discuss disputes (here for example) then to engage in revert war. Secondly, I also want to add that articles should be in English when an English name exist, and en:Charles Bridge is the English name for the bridge.
Fred Chess 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure! But "Perpignan" nor "Perpinyà", by exemple, aren't English words, it's French and Catalan, respectivelly. Wich to use?. It's largelly discussed in the arbitration, but it isn't the most principal problem. The first problem is the attitude of this user when someone disappoints on him. I'm agree with the anonymous user, if a title is only a proper noun, it's correct to use the native language of the subject (ie, "Italia"), but in the case of sentences, it's preferable to be in English (ie, "Churches in Italy"). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) PD: It would be a very nice salomonic rule, joining together "understanding" and "multilingualism".

Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs) and Northern Catalonia related things...

This user is reverting all changes made by anonymous user (same person who make last comment in the upper section) on French Catalonia related things, tagging it as vandalism instead to take it as a content dispute because of ideological reasons. I remember here was an unclosed arbitration still waiting to be resolved: User:NielsF/Arbitration. I think some admin should block him because he only uses reversions instead of discussions first. If any administrator disappoints with me, I'm intended to block this user in two days for one week. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC) PD: I've blocked anonymous IP for two hours to prevent editwars, altough JL reverted again by 5th time.

I've left to JL an advisory message to restore changes to former version before the arbitration in two days, as to avoid more disruptions on this content dispute wich he is involved himself. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Village Pump. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
User:NielsF does not kept the schedule he specified himself.
Obviously, the acceptance of the procedure did not bind me for eternity, but only for the previous duration of this procedure, which had to be ended on September, 2006.
More three months have passed since, and I received this only message from User:NielsF. During this period, User:NielsF had a very reduced activity in Wikimedia Commons and the arbitration did not make any progress.
This situation cannot go on anymore, since the arbitration concerns important issues for Wikimedia Commons, and these outstanding issues are causes of disputes and waste of time for many users.
Consequently, I declare that:
* I terminate the present arbitration, and I'll not recognize any further decision from User:NielsF about it.
* I am not binded by any prescription of this arbitration since October 1st 2006.
* I agree to begin a new arbitration in order to resolve the current dispute with user:Martorell (the present situation, not the situation in August 2006), with new persons, new arguments. --Juiced lemon 13:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Copy of my last intervention in User:NielsF/Arbitration. --Juiced lemon 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
My response to Juiced Lemon:
Altough you decided yourself in your own way not to recognize the arbitration started by NielsF, you've accepted already a third party opinion offered by pfctdalyse, and accepted also his claim not to edit any changes on those related things with Catalonia. If you want, you can to purpose for another new arbitration, but I'm still waiting you make undone the changes to the last previous version before the arbitration in two days.
I wouldn't accept a new arbitration if this user didn't make undone all changes to the last version before this arbitration on Catalonian related categories, articles and images, as it's clearly a disruption of the content dispute problem. If he do it, I could accept a new person to replace User:NielsF, but with the same arguments and with the same situation, as the problems still have the same meanings. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In this dispute, Joanot Martorell, YOU are the problem. So, you may not move this section to another page to conceal you responsability and your bad actions: as an implied administrator in the dispute, you are threating to block me, though such action is strictly forbidden. --Juiced lemon 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not threatening you about blocking. I'm giving a time to any administrator to disappoint with me about blocking you. It's about behaviour. If here would be only one admin user disagrees with my intention, it will be enough for me not to block you. In spite of it, I'm also offering you a first chance: make yourself undone changes in disputed pages to previous version before the third party acceptance, and we can start to talk about arbitration. If you really want to solve this content dispute talking or via mediation, please, first make undone your disruptions.
I'm sorry with you if you only can see that I'm your problem, but I'm not the only one user you have problems. You also have problem with a lot of users because your viewpoint of "Anything I disagree are wrong-things, Juiced Lemon" (I like it, I'm gonna include this quote in my fortune database). Cheers. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The way to settle disputes is through mediation, we do not have arbitration on commons. --Cat out 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
When I dispute with another user, the reasons concern generally basic issues for which there are not clear rules, or existing rules have not adequate application terms.
A mediation will not modify that. A good example is the rule Categories are in English (Commons:Language policy). See the deletion log of Category:Perpinyà:
  • IP 84.120.248.119 recreated this page though it was previously deleted twice, and that Perpinyà is obviously not English, neither local language
  • User:Martorell confirmed that action in restoring the previous revisions of the page before deletion.
Manifestly Martorell is scorning a basic rule which has been often discussed and results from general concensus. It belongs to other administrators to do the cleaning in their assembly. Don't criticize an user which wants to apply this rule, only because it is essential to do the job for the Commons project. --Juiced lemon 12:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've undeleted Category:Perpinyà because JL moved all the contents that were under this category to Category:Perpignan, and tagged the first one it with {{Delete}} template after the start date of the arbitration. I've considered it's a disruption. And about the anonymous user, it seem to be the same 1997 (talk · contribs), another user that you also had ideological dispute. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 23:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Juiced, every section on this page is about you - 'YOU are the problem. I hope some administrator will have the prudence to deal with you soon. ¦ Reisio 18:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Does anybody have some solutions to solve this and other disputes? I want to bring to your attention the thread on the VP. If we leave it like this, I can guarantee that we have the same problems within a month. Please comment. This is not an invitation to make personal attacks on Juiced Lemon, Martorell or anybody else involved. Thank you. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You could ban Juiced lemon for longer and longer periods of time each time he causes such trouble. ¦ Reisio 22:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes and you could be banned to for making disruptive comments. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I could be, but it'd be pretty silly. Exactly what sort of solutions did you expect to be suggested? If he responded to logical discussion, we wouldn't need a solution. ¦ Reisio 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No solution to the problem exists.
Feel free to invent one.
Fred Chess 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

user:nux&wikiquette[A.T_L.E.A.S.T]-YES-or-NO?

(on undoing owner's comment on e.g. Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Images pl.svg)

Original Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Images (COM-VPs working copy EN).png was published 2006-03 under cc-by-2.5. So-called "Self-created work" by user:nux under PD-self absolutely copies that Layout while transmitting it into Polish language and SVG. Original's author comment within nux' oeuvre is reverted by now-so-called "owner" with imvvho very questionable comment. Is this the way cc-by is handled within wiki by now?

Same applies to Image:Decision Tree on Uploading Images de.svg, by same so-called "author".

See also: Handling Images in commons/Copyright tutorial Seriously, Wolfgang. any IP 14:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC) (copy to village pump)

I'm sure Nux meant to remove the image from the template as it made the template ugly and cumbersome. I would recommend adding the image to "Other versions". Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
See also the COM:VP -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Martorell case

Moved from the Village Pump. The Village Pump is not the appropriate place to discuss this, and without a real good place for these kinds of discussion, I have moved it to the AN/D. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

Today, User:Martorell blocked me for a week. Why?

You'll not find any particular reason on my page User talk:Juiced lemon#Blocked for one week. The true reason is that he wants to prohibit me to edit categories regarding Catalonia, because he knows that I'll do not let him vandalize them indefinitly.

The explanation is in this diff: [12] . User:Martorell don't recognize the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, and refuse to accept category and subcategories about this en:Autonomous communities of Spain. You can check yourself that the wikilinks (ca: excepted - Martorell has changed it) of Category:Catalonia lead to articles about the Autonomous community of Catalonia (see also the first version of the category).

Martorell claims that Catalonia is part of France, and deliberately inserts wrong informations when he adds french categories to Catalonia categories and subcategories.

Other users have already noticed these anomalies, but I am the first one to resist to Martorell threats. Look also at this recent edit by User:Grondin.

Martorell said me “You should discuss first any disappointing with disputed content”. But, there is nothing to discuss: the Autonomous community of Catalonia will not become part of France as a result of a discussion. Martorell knows that perfectly well, and only try to wear down my resolution.

Look at Martorell's contributions: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Martorell : most edits are reversions to restore wrong informations.

So, not only Martorell is a sneaky vandal (see en:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism), but he uses his administrator abilities for his vandalism activities. So, my obvious question is:

Do we really need Martorell as a Sysop in Commons?

--Juiced lemon 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't take care your personal opinion about what Catalonia is. I never removed any categories that could be useful for users from every wikimedia project, instead of what you have been doing since now. For users from Wikipedia in Catalan, Catalonia is first cultural concept before to be a political concept. And when some user from WP:CA want to search something here in Commons related Catalonian places inside France such Perpinyà, Elna, or Ceret it will be more easy to find it in specific Catalan categories.
In adding, I never removed anything of your work, I never removed your categories related to France. I only made undone all those related to Catalonia you're deleting by ideological reasons. But you're still removing useful categories, you're removing our categories related to Catalonia. I'm sorry if you disagree with all users from WP:ca. So, who is the vandal here, a person removing categories and information that users need, it means: YOU?, or a person who replaces those useful things, it means: ME? And when here are a lot of kilobytes trying to make this issue understandable for you, and you doesn't take care anyway with any Catalan user, not only against me, and you know there is a current dispute with those Catalan related categories and articles, it shows me that you only want to provoke. You must to let others to make their work with under their own criteria, but you always overpass them, no agreement, no discussion, instead of it, reversion and imposing your criterias.
And yes, I've been blocked you, I'm not worried about it, because I wanted to make this decission under a shared responsability with all the admins, and because of it as I've adviced to Administrators' Noticeboard in case that any other admin disagrees with me, and so can unblock you. I'm an human, I'm not a robot, I can to be mistaken. Administrators are human also.
I've started to work on things related to Occitania. I would to be pleased you start to say that Occitania is a wrong-thing, as Catalonia. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As a clarification, the summary of this dispute is the fact that Martorell wants to refer to Catalonia as the cultural region of Catalonia, which includes parts of Spain and France, and that Juiced lemon sees Catalonia as the autonomous region of Catalonia, which is part of Spain. Am I correct in this observation? -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
For Catalan people, "Catalonia", in simple name, is always the cultural region of Catalonia. When Catalan people wants to talk formally about the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, it is always referred as "Autonomous Community of Catalonia", exactly. Southern Catalonia is often used to refer to "Autonomous Community of Catalonia", and Northern Catalonia is always used to refer to French Pyrénées-Orientales. It's look like as East-Timor, there is a independent state, East-Timor, but there is also a region inside Indonesia state, West-Timor, and both are a cultural region covering all the island, Great Timor. Political border doesn't mean cultural borders. JL's Attitude is a good exemple of French chauvinism.
A brief overview: JL says that w:Perpinyà is not Catalan, it's only French. I say it's both French and Catalonian. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't try to divert the topics. I don't categorize pages according to my opinions, but according to the Commons rules. Category:pain is about suffering, not for bread ; though, bread is a French speciality, and the French name for bread is pain. Can you imagine a French person messing up this category with French bread pictures? What you are doing with Category:Catalonia is similar. --Juiced lemon 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Short term suggestions

  1. Leave the categories as they stand this moment. Please note this is not an endorsement of Martorell's latest edit, but continuous blind reverting solves nothing at all.
  2. Begin some sort of dispute mediation process, taking into account the previous mediation. This mediation, however, should speak directly to the Category names, and only secondarily to the individuals involved.
  3. Martorell, you should not be using any sort of admin action as you are directly involved in this dispute. This is generally considered abuse of administrative ability.

This revert war should end now. I encourage other admins to comment here. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this temporarily solution. Additionally I suggest a temporarily block if one of you touches the disputed categories again. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't mind a block of Juiced Lemon actually. Because of repeated incivilities. / Fred Chess 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
A dispute mediation process was started, but the mediator disappeared... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.36.155.152 (talk • contribs) at 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As Bryan said, the discussion is mainly because of the interpretation of the word Catalonia. While Juiced lemon sees it simply as the Autonomous Community of Spain, Martorell and most of the people who actually live in Catalonia -and in fact it is probably the majority of the people who will use this category- see Catalonia as the region comprising not only the Autonomous Community but also one part of France. It is exactly as Category:Scandinavia. Even if politically Scandinavia doesn't exist, in the Commons article says: Scandinavia is a cultural and historic region of the Scandinavian Peninsula. I think the easiest thing is doing the same with Catalonia. I think nobody will be hurt to see Perpinyà in the Category:France and at the same time at Category:Catalonia and, by the other side, it will be very helpful for all those people who actually live there.

By the way, it is not the same time we discuss this. What happened with the previous mediation process? Why didn't it finish? Thank you!--Xtv 20:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The prior mediator disappeared and nobody else took up the reigns. (see note above) Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Xtv and don't see a reason to be nit-picky with forcing English "official" names at any price, especially when there is not any strong demand for us to do so. I agree with Martorell. The simplest solution is to forbid Juiced Lemon to continue with what he is doing. I think this is the simplest solution. / Fred Chess 20:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The simpliest solution is to recognize that Commons is not designed to build a new encyclopedia, but only to provide media files to other projects. So, we have to refer to an existing encyclopedia, rather to invent new ways to divide the world.
In the English Wikipedia, the world is roughly divided in countries, then the countries are divided in smaller and smaller divisions, which are generally administrative divisions with indisputable borders. This is a simple scheme which anybody can easily understand.
In the other hand, cultural or former regions have no definite borders, they often recover each other, and they seldom coincide with current administrative territories: is this really what you want for Commons? An overall mess and continuous disputes about demarcation issues? --Juiced lemon 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If those using the categories themselves are happy with it, then indeed I am happy with it too.
Fred Chess 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you are able to determine who uses such category. --Juiced lemon 00:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
JL said: "...rather to invent new ways to divide the world...". I do not invent anything, as I've stated already in User:NielsF/Arbitration the following:
"We gave there, as a reference of this present-day fact, the official website of the Conséil Général des Pyrénées Orientales wich recognizes the Catalanity of this territory, and also give the article on en:WP of en:Northern Catalonia." (and nowadays, in the top of thiw webpage it's telling "The Catalan accent of the French Republic").
"[...] the Department of Pyrinées Orientales, by exemple, states their pride of Catalan heritage and of Catalan language in this official map of Northern Catalonia; Catalan is spoken or understandable for 45% of population in Northern Catalonia; [...]".
Under his structure criteria categories about issues such Category:Palestine, Category:Timor, Category:Scandinavia, Category:Kurdistan, Category:Occitània, would be forbidden here, because those doesn't coincide with any administrative border. Are all those cultural concept also an "invent"? And I say exactly "to forbid" because it's a mirror of his attitude here, always saying his criteria is common's criteria, and it's absolutelly false.
While things that he dislikes or he disagrees are being always "wrong-things" or "invents" for him, it's impossible to reach a agreement with this user. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC) PD: Pfctdayelise, feel free to copyedit my arguments in those subpage you offered.
Let's put all relevant discussion here: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes/Catalonia. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a user from the Wikipedia in Catalan language. As Lemon Juice already noted, Commons is designed to provide contents for another projects; the point of Commons should be then finding media in an easy way in order to use it. Problems break out when searching for these media files and realising that files are poorly categorized or confusingly divided in unrelated categories. I don't think Catalonia being categorized in France is such a big problem (maybe it could go inside of Languedoc-Rousillon or something like that). Anyway, if Catalonia cannot be categorized (at least partialy) inside France, then we'll need to delete categories such Scandinavia or categorize Category:Palestine and Category:West Bank as direct subcategories of Category:Israel. Furthermore, some other territories are included in the Category:France while not being actual territories of France, such as the "French Antartic". --Rf 01:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Palestina (and also the Western Sahara) are different cases: they are occupied by a foreign country, and there are actually no countries in the world that do recognize the Westbank as a part of Israel. The situation is more or less comparable with Macedonia — the Republic of Macedonia was somewhat forced by Greece to have the prefix Republic of, so that no confusion could exist with the Greece province of Macedonia — or Timor; whether Timor means the Republic of East Timor, or the island of Timor. (We apparently don't have enough Macedonians or Timorians here to start an edit war) -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Principality of Catalonia

I don't think this is the proper place to post this request, but Fred Chess have removed it from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Here is the original text:

Today, User:Martorell emptied and deleted this category. That is an obvious part of his general action (sneaky vandalism) which consists in altering Category:Catalonia (about the Autonomous community of Catalonia) to a category regarding the en:Principality of Catalonia.

So, I ask administrators to restore the category Category:Principality of Catalonia. --Juiced lemon 18:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

--Juiced lemon 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am taking no action regarding this category until this dispute is solved. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This category is quoted in several talks regarding the dispute, and Martorell have good reasons to conceal this category, in particular the dates of the history. These informations have to be restored in order to fairly resolve the dispute. --Juiced lemon 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The page history is:
  1. 13:43, 28 October 2006 . . Martorell (Talk | contribs | block)
  2. 10:07, 27 October 2006 . . Juiced lemon (Talk | contribs | block) (Categories: Historic states | History of Spain)
Where Juiced Lemon's edit contains:
[[Category:Historic states]]
[[Category:History of Spain]]
And Martorell changed this to:
[[Category:Historic states]]
[[Category:History of Spain]]
[[Category:History of France]]
That's all. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't restore the broken links. --Juiced lemon 11:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The category can be restored after this dispute has been settled. For now, you have the evidence you need. Also please take a look on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes/Catalonia where Martorell has proposed a solution. -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Disputes_noticeboard/Archive_2&oldid=75334994"