User talk:Nick

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User:Heligoland)
Jump to: navigation, search
Nick's Talk Page Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia, if you need source or copyright information from an image that has been deleted on en.wiki, please leave a message below and I'll provide all the information that I can find. Nick

File:David Garrity (32500068280).png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:David Garrity (32500068280).png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pachycerianthus multiplicatus - Fireworks anemone at Loch Fyne.JPG[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Pachycerianthus multiplicatus - Fireworks anemone at Loch Fyne.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

143.234.101.119 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jaguar XKR-S arrives in Bahrain (7179185587).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Jaguar XKR-S arrives in Bahrain (7179185587).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Jaguar XKR-S arrives in Bahrain (7364403626).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Jaguar XKR-S arrives in Bahrain (7364403626).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 12:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Reguyla[edit]

You guys should really look closer at that Reguyla block by Michael Maggs. It is sketchy as hell. A largely inactive admin shows up not once but twice, after periods of inactivity, to threaten an active editor, provokes a response, then uses it as justification for an indef block with no community input. Really? Is that how you guys operate here? And before you ask, no I am not them. I saw their posts with links on several Quora posts and on a couple other sites I watch. I am sure there is more to the story, I am sure you will assume I am them and I am sure I do not care. I am basing my judgement on links I have seen and what I have read based on the current situation. But this site is not looking very good at all. If you are wondering why I came to you of all editors on this site, it is because your name is linked there in the Reguyla thread.

An banana boat, yesterday
Hello Reguyla. I didn't come up the Clyde on a banana boat. If you're going to tell fairytale, don't do it from your usual US Navy IP range. Nonetheless, I've spoken with Michael and I'm awaiting his proposals on the appeal for your block (and that of at least one other user with the same block as yours - indef with talk page access disabled and e-mail disabled).
I would add, I agree "this site is not looking very good at all" but part of the problem is the way you imported a dispute about your block on Meta onto Commons. We cannot have users being harassed here because of actions they took elsewhere, Commons isn't blessed with a massive number of editors who focus just on Commons, most of our active editors and much of our administrative team have a 'home' wiki which isn't Commons, they need to be able to separate out their work on their home wiki and their work here on Commons, or we'll have fewer and fewer contributors happy to work across different WMF sites. Nick (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want you to know Nick, and believe this or not, but that wasn't me. As much as some people may want to believe, I am not every person in the Navy and certainly not the only one that edits or reads these sites. The whole navy uses 4 proxy IP's (1 East coast, 2 west and one in Hawaii), it's isn't just me. But you're right, I shouldn't have done that. Just like I shouldn't have been indef banned by one admin over a minor disagreement, I shouldn't have been threatened by Ajraddatz here, I shouldn't have had admins making personal attacks and insults directed at me, etc., etc. But hey, as long as Reguyla takes the abuse, insults and degredation and doesn't say ANYTHING, he can edit and everything is ok right! Hell, I even gave links about the personal attacks and no one cares including you. So what should I really think? It's pretty obvious I have no one here that appreciates the work I do.
I busted my ass to do 400, 000 edits in 5 months and no one bats an eye. And that's not even counting the Video transclusion files I was helping Revent with or the work I was doing in Quarry. In fact, no one said a thing about me being blocked except Fae and no one argued it and I have seen people here do a hell of a lot worse than try to have a conversation with 2 lousy admins about why they are trolling, attacking and bullying me. And I would do that on meta but surprise, they already blocked me there, which is why they do it. Just to get under my skin and because they know no one is going to say anything...and they were right...so I did. Contrary to what some try to argue against, I am the victim here and I really don't care if anyone believes me at this point. The evidence is there, clearly evident whether you or others choose to read it or ignore it and pretend I am this huge asshole when I'm not. Everyone treats me like a vandal instead of a dedicated editor so maybe I need to do what everyone wants me to do and just be a vandal. Because that is all anyone wants me to do anyway. Reguyla 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:F903:AEB5:4EED:AA56 00:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
PS, If you want to unblock me then there needs to be a community discussion to unblock me on all the Wikimedia sites at once including IRC and I need to be unblocked in that venue in order to participate in that discussion. This piecemeal shit isn't working and people are going to continue to harass, troll and bully me as long as I am blocked somewhere. I still believe in these sites and I still want to improve them but I am done getting fucked over by a couple trolls and bullies in the community that only want to stir up drama and not create anything like Michael Maggs, AlexZ and others. 2601:5CC:101:2EF2:F903:AEB5:4EED:AA56 00:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nick, Fae, MichaelMaggs, Ajraddatz, Billinghurst: Oh shucks, no comment on my demand to be treated fairly on these projects, that I not be bullied, trolled, insulted and baited by admins to justify unjustifiable blocks and bans, that if I am being bullied then the admin who is doing it needs to be addressed? Big surprise there. Of course it is completely reasonable for the community to have had a discussion to decide the merits of the bullshit indef block Michael Maggs put on me and that would have been needed for any other editor but because I have criticized admins for violating policy and common respect towards editors, I guess there is no reason for them to follow community practice and do that right? Because god for forbid they actually prove me wrong rather than follow the discretion and demands of one admin with a history for extremes because a Steward (Ajraddatz) threatened to use their global block Steward powers if Commons didn't give them what they want and block me. No comment on personal attacks and insults directed at my by Billinghurst and Ajraddatz?

No one wants to help get an obviously positive editor back to editing and no one cares that Michael Maggs made an overly aggressive decision to indefinitely ban me twice, although only active enough in the past year to retain the admin and bureaucrat tools themselves, or that it is preventing edits from getting done? A lot of them. Also no big shock there. You comment that we don't have enough editors here, well, stupid decisions to block the high output editors who are doing the work and favoring abusive decisions by inactive admins just because it's being done by an admin are the reason for the lack of edits getting done and the length of backlogs. Help me, help the projects and remove these stupid and abusive blocks. My ban is up for review in EnWP on the 18th. So it would be good to just have a discussion somewhere like meta and tie all these bullshit blocks into one package for unblock and be done with it. Because I would rather be a positive editor than the vandal that some people want me too be and keep pushing but that is up to you all. I am going to continue to edit either way. So we can either do it with the drama, disruption, threats, name calling, personal attacks and insults direct at me for no reason and only do a few edits or do it without the drama and I can do a shit ton of improvements made. It's your choice. If the community here want me to be a vandal and a complete and utter disruption far beyond what I have been fighting bullies and bullshit abusive blocks that have no merit then please, let me know so that I know the community here has no interest in editors improving it. If the admins here and the community are unwilling to stand up to bullying for a high output editor like me that has been editing these projects for over 10 years and has shown a high degree of passion for the projects success, then it shows that there is no respect for the community in general nor the editors doing the work. Many of whom do not desire to be admins. Reguyla138.163.128.41 15:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

PS, by all means if you want to show that you don't want editors to be able to get a fair trial and be able to request unblock, then just delete my comments. That will be a good example of what I am talking about and would be a sign to me what I need to do next and that editors are not wanted here. Everyone knows I care about the projects or I would have left already, so arguments of trolling, disruption and not being here to improve the projects are straight up 100% lies and if anyone actually believes it then they are stupid for believing it. People who argue I am being disruptive are the ones who don't want me to be able to edit because I believe editors should be treated fairly or want to justify unjustifiable blocks. There is absolutely no merit to it. I am just an editor attempting to get a bullshit block revoked and always have been. If that makes me a disruption for fighting the conduct of bullies and trolls then so be it. But if that is the case then the WMF projects have serious problems beyond just getting editors. Reguyla 138.163.128.41 15:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I've other things to do, other than just focus on your complaints. I presume you have missed [1] but to reassure you, I am progressing the issue when and where I can. I didn't know about your en.wp block being up for review on the 18 March, nor can I possibly support the blocks on English Wikipedia or Commons being 'tied up' and discussed just on one project. You know the community on each site has ultimate supremacy over the decisions that administrators make, unfortunately there's no mechanism here (yet) which allows the community to discuss this block. I would think, given the situation, we will need to discuss and review your indefinite block at some point soon, but how, when or where that takes place, I don't, as yet, have any concrete answers I can give you. Nick (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I did see that you asked about it and I appreciate that and I do understand there is no existing process. I also appreciate you have a lot of other things to do, as do we all. I could for example be renaming files, importing images, adding categories, etc. but I have to make time to fight this BS.
IMO, there is ample ability to simply have a discussion on the Community portal, the Village pump or at the Commons ANI page. All of those are, IMO, adequately places for such a discussion so although there may not be a "procedure" for dealing with overarching admin blocks against editors, I would think that a simple discussion on one of those venues would suffice. Arguments will be made for and against the block/unblock but IMO the important thing is that one minimally active admin should not be the deciding factor on indef banning a high output editor twice and forcing that work on other members of the community who already have things to do. I do disagree that the community has supremacy, because regardless of the outcome of a community discussion, if the admin says no then the block won't be lifted. I am sure you have seen instances of that as I have. I have even seen communities approve someone for OTRS and the OTRS admins decline to do it. In my case it could very well be that the community here would rather me not improve commons, but I think that indefinite bans of people who are actively contributing should be decided by the community and not by any single admin. 138.163.128.42 18:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nick, , MichaelMaggs, Ajraddatz: Greetings Gents, I know you're busy but I was just wondering if you think we are looking at days, weeks or months here? I'm just wondering because it shouldn't be this difficult to have a community discussion about an over zealous admin block for a discussion that was over and archived. In both block occasions Michael Maggs provoked a comment from me by threating me before they used that as justification to unilateral ban me from commons without a community decision.
I simply don't agree that attempting to engage two admins who participate here in a discussion is problematic. They were knowingly violating policy by making personal attacks and threats directed at me. Regardless of the site they were doing it on, with the new global accounts on the WMF projects these projects are more intertwined than ever. Ajraddatz even threatened me here stating he would use his Steward access to globally lock my account if he didn't get what he wanted. Threats and personal attacks should not be acceptable on any WMF project and it certainly shouldn't be tolerated by someone who is a Steward or a Global sysop. The only reason this is even an issue is because I am only an editor and because I have been outspoken and passionate in my believe that admins should also be required to follow the rules here on these sites. The notion that it's controversial to expect that is staggering to me and defies logic.
It really shouldn't be unreasonable to ask for the actions of one minimally active admin who took it upon themselves to jump straight to an indefinite block twice after provoking me with threats not once but twice and because I was trying to discuss the problematic actions of two admins. All they would have had to do was apologize, that's it and we could have moved on. But because this is a WMF project were admins are above the law the victim got banned. It's absurd! I really do not think a community discussion about the validity of the block is too much to ask given my dedication to the projects and my high volume of productivity. Am I really that naïve in thinking/expecting that? Cheers! Reguyla 138.163.128.41 19:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

The Red Arrows roll upside down in tight formation during display training MOD 45147906.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:The Red Arrows roll upside down in tight formation during display training MOD 45147906.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Red Arrows roll upside down in tight formation during display training MOD 45147906.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open![edit]

POTY barnstar.svg

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Nick,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

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

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

RAF Search and Rescue Helicopter in the Cairngorms MOD 45155350.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:RAF Search and Rescue Helicopter in the Cairngorms MOD 45155350.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RAF Search and Rescue Helicopter in the Cairngorms MOD 45155350.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Evoque in Dubai 099 (5957859156).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Evoque in Dubai 099 (5957859156).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Daphne Lantier 08:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated[edit]

Hello Nick, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)