User talk:99of9/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

File:Merry Beach Insect.jpg[edit]

Thi is Conopidae In Europe I would say close to Physocephala but for Australia I simply don't know.Try posting the pic to atb from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, hopefully I'll get around to following this up soon. --99of9 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Mount St Helens Summit Featured Picture fix[edit]

Just so you know, the image was restitched. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Potd format[edit]

I know it's already been some time, but I'm wondering if you're still interested in changing the Potd format. I've created a draft at User:The Evil IP address/potd, which didn't give any problems. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I definitely want it shorter than it was, but I've lost the energy to edit or carefully analyse myself. So I'd say go for it if you think it's better and shorter. --99of9 (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I did it, and you can see the new design here for example. AFAIK, there are no known bugs. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


Replied to you there. Don't really want to go into more detail than that just now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


Can any of my images stand a chance of getting the coveted feature picture or quality image? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 21:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO not so far, but some are not too far off QI. I suggest reading through the QI criteria and work on getting at least 10 of them before thinking about FP. In general the main thing you are missing is a simple elegance of composition, try not to have anything other than the subject in the shot, and then make sure the subject is well lit and sharply in focus. --99of9 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Which pictures for example? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I think File:Redflowerstafford.JPG is one of your best, but my advice applies to all your pictures. Additionally you will always be at a heavy quality disadvantage if you continue to use your phone, since most of us are using digital SLR cameras. Perhaps you should aim for a Valued Image? --99of9 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 70ac0c76cdcd0d1e75ebb4046df01334[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Location details[edit]

Hi, the image of the Little Corella is fine at File:Cacatua sanguinea upright crop.jpg. I have had a look at the geo coordinates and see that it was photographed in Sydney. I have written a caption for it in the infobox on the en wiki, so the the viewers can see that it is a bird in the wild and not a zoo animal. I am not sure if the coordinates point to Melrose Park or not. In general for animals in the wild the location is useful. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was in a bit of a hurry last night. --99of9 (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

99of9, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and Commons:Deletion requests), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons on There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators:#wikimedia-commons-admin.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

File:00 St Gervais les Bains Aiguille de Bionnassay.JPG[edit]

Hi 99of9,

Congratulations to the new administrator and thank you for your message. I have made the modifications with the new above-mentioned uploaded file.

00 St Gervais les Bains Aiguille de Bionnassay.JPG

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that, I've deleted the duplicate. --99of9 (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


Your renaming of this file was inappropriate and contrary to Commons guidelines: Commons:File renaming states that "there's no reason to favor English over other languages". The word "tempel" was not misspelled. "Tempel" is the correct way of spelling this word in German, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish and Danish (maybe more). As the picture originally came from nl.wikipedia, it is only logical to assume that its name correpsonded to the Dutch orthography. V85 (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I was not favouring English. It simply appeared to me (and the requesting user) to be a spelling error. Further, there were no other language translations in the image description (or category) to alert me to the issue. I will move it back. --99of9 (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Glad I could be of some help. ;-) V85 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You could be of even further help by adding additional language translations to the image description ;-). --99of9 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

FPC careless reviews[edit]

Hi Toby,

You may be interested in participating in this_discussion. Cheers, Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Floods in QI[edit]

You might be interested in an ongoing discussion regarding QI floods, here. Cheers, ianaré (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Change in FPC guidelines[edit]

Hi 99of9,

I have undone your change in the revised text of the guidelines because I don't think it will be consensual. Will you please add a comment with your proposal? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually made three changes, and you've only reverted the last one. Are you happy with the others? --99of9 (talk)
I didn't notice the other changes... Maybe I should leave the text as you left it and add a comment myself on the explanation issue. What do you think? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind which way around it's discussed. But I'm not sure it's a good idea to reopen discussion on that one (which was genuinely inconclusive), because it might be seen as an invitation to open discussion on the other issues (which were much more clearly decided). --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Uploading duplicates[edit]

Hi! I'm very sorry for the annoying situation I caused to the administrators. I thought that using duplicate or bad name instead of rename would speed up the renaming process, not the opposite. Now I'm going to change all the templates, but be patient please, there are a lot of them! Thank you for your attention, have a nice day! -- Vonvikken (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: But now that I already uploaded the duplicates, putting the {{rename}} template in the old ones will be useless, won't it?... -- Vonvikken (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, now that it's done it's done. The duplicates do need to be deleted, so we will eventually get around to removing them all. --99of9 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, next time I've got to rename large amounts of file I'll use the rename template, it's a promise! ;-) Bye! -- Vonvikken (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. 99of9 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 3d9ef041b32f77a2e70456d73ff248ad[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


[1] and [2]--Mbz1 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi! Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sibeliusmonument in Helsinki 01.jpg. However, you seem to have missed Sibeliusmonument in Helsinki 01.jpg itself. Could you delete that one as well, please? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving files off bad names[edit]

Given that I took the photo, uploaded the File:ColumbiaNRHP 287.JPG, realized my mistake and asked for a rename to File:FirstPresbyterianColaSC.jpg, shouldn't my request to delete the redirect be honored? It continues to show up under the old file name here. Abductive (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Abductive. Yes, I performed the rename request. The reason it still shows up under the old file name (as well as the new name) is that I left a file redirect in the original location. This is standard practice for renames because it allows 3rd party users to follow the paper trail if they are still linking to the old filename. Notice that when you click on the old filename it actually comes up with the new filename, together with a little note "(Redirected from File:ColumbiaNRHP 287.JPG)". --99of9 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom[edit]

talk moved back to User_talk:Gryffindor#Category:Elizabeth_II_of_Australia, to keep things in one location.

File:Obraz 019.jpg[edit]

Can you delete this image, please? I made a mistake and it has a bad name now. Greetings Jos. (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FPC new guidelines implementation[edit]

I have reverted all actions by Adam Cuerden as they are against the consensus of the community, clearly expressed in the last discussion. Enough is enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Stained glass terminology[edit]

StAndrewsRoseville StainedGlass Main.jpg

This window was described as a "main panel of stained glass". Not correct. Since you have uploaded a fair few stained glass images, I'm leaving this here FYI:

  • This whole thing is one "window". It is a "five-light" window.
  • Each upright section is a "light". The squarish bits at the bottom are divided from the others by stone transoms, so they are lights as well, but, no matter, when you describe the window, you describe its main vertical divisions, so this is a five light window (even if it has ten lights.
  • The bits up above are termed "tracery lights".
  • The window is divided into "panels" for ease of construction, installation and repair. Panels are bordered with metal, which might be just the soft lead used to hold glass, or might be iron, brass or steel. A panel might be completely set into a stone frame, like the rectangular panels at the bottom of this window, and the tracery lights. Or it might be a vertical section making up part of a large "light". The tall lights in this window are almost certainly divided into panels, marked by the widest of the horizontals. Other visible horizontals are thin rods, often brass painted black, than the window is wired to, to prevent sagging.

Cheers! : Amandajm (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Labelling the whole window a panel was a copy-paste error, but I didn't know the light vs panel difference, so this will help me. --99of9 (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Ho, there you are! I was just writing to you!
I've been involved in a number of restoration projects. Alfred Handel's work is unmistakable! He used those same window designs repeatedly. The one of the Presentation at the Temple is the same as he used for the memorial window for his own father at Holy Trinity Erskineville where his father taught Sunday School for many years. His son Philip Handel followed him into the business and is still working.
As for Lyon and Cottier, Daniel Cottier was a Scot who did some training in London and went to the US by way of Australia where he set up a really successful business in interior design, providing domestic glass as well as church window, fitting, tiles etc. Those stunning colours are typical. Lyon and Cottier's window are among the finest in the world, up there with the great English firms, Heaton, Butler and Bayne, etc. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. Yes, I have seen some very similar designs in other places. Now that you've recorded the names, I can easily find obvious links [3]. --99of9 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Handel loved those waratahs! The Australian wildflowers in this window are just terrific! Amandajm (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your voting on QIC[edit]

I left you some comments on QIC and encourage you only to vote, if you know what your are talking about. --Niabot (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have responded there. It's a discussion, I'm happy to be convinced (and have been on some points), but I choose not to self-exclude if I see quality issues (especially since you brought it to FPC, where you can expect the widest level of discussion). --99of9 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Main Page[edit]

Please fix the MOTD message on the Main page. Atomaton (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I think I've fixed it. Let me know if you see any further problems. --99of9 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

FP Delisting rules?[edit]

Hi Toby!
What is rules about FP delisting candidates? 7 votes need or only 2/1 ratio?
With best regards, George Chernilevsky talk 15:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

as currently written 7 is required. I dont think we ever discussed changing it up from 5 but it makes sense for promote and delist to be equal,so i think we might as well leave it. But feel free to start a discussion if you like. 99of9 (cant sign properly with my mobile)
OK, thank You. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Do you really feel that [4] was disrupting Commons? Ironically that part applies directly to this situation. :) Rocket000 (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You missed one. I'll let you try and find it. It's not that sneaky. Rocket000 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes it disrupts, it may not disrupt much, but it does disrupt. Your point should be made in Talk space rather than Commons space. You are welcome to remove the one I missed yourself! --99of9 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That was actually a rhetorical question (thinking you used the phase simply because of the page we editing). My god, lighten up. It was just a little joke directed at the creator, who I thought would be the only other one that would see it. I thought slip in a little message to the creator that he should actually read what he's importing and change it to fit Commons. Rocket000 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In which possible way was that disrupting? How can a single edit ever meet the definition of POINT? I think you have no idea what it's actually saying. Rocket000 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I take it that's another rhetorical question. Good day :). 99of9 (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers. :) Rocket000 (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


  • File:Bird blink.jpg ; is an exceptional image that shows the character of reptilian birds I propose to bring in competition for VI!
  • For Vanellus miles miles.jpg: There are chromatic aberration red on the beak and the top and back of the skull, if you made your image in RAW you can easily fix it.

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm glad you liked the blink, I love it too! Thanks for the tip about the CA, I'll attack it tonight. --99of9 (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


Nomination for Quality Image much appreciated. Nick Nhobgood (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I took my first underwater shots the other day, and then had a look around to see what was on commons. Some of yours are magnificent. Thanks for contributing them. --99of9 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


I saw your question about the picture I put for nomination. I ment to put the superseded one. Idk how to change it to the superseded one. If you can tell me that would help. Spongie555 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've swapped it for you. --99of9 (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin inactivity[edit]

Hello 99of9, you might be interested in this discussion: Commons_talk:Administrators/De-adminship#Activity -- A9 (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Meatloaf Graph[edit]

So... am I supposed to AGF now? You deleted the file I uploaded without notifying me on my talk page or giving some time to resolve the allegation of copyright violation? Also, notice that this is my first time uploading to Commons, at least have the decency to communicate instead of blatantly accusing me of something you're not even sure I've committed. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You made it very clear in the upload that it was not your own work. You listed permission as "public blog", and source as the URL where you found it. In addition the same graph can be found in many places on the internet. Anything that has been previously released is supposed to be accompanied by proof that you are the original author. Hence another user marked this as an obvious copyvio (which justifies a speedy delete), and I agreed. We take copyright law very seriously. You have not actually said anything now to indicate that we were wrong. Best wishes, and I hope now that you understand our position, you will take the opportunity to contribute your own works instead. --99of9 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I made clear that it's one of those viral pictures. Isn't this what the Commons are for (as opposed to Wikipedia) – these kinds of public domain images? Their author is mostly unknown (a-la "folk lyrics") and the pictures, as you yourself agreed, can be found in many places over the internet, meaning they are already widespread and "free for all." Where is the copyright when the author is so vague (till virtual non-existence)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, that's certainly NOT what Commons is for. Please read Commons:Project_scope#Precautionary_principle (and the rest of that page if you're interested in continuing to contribute to commons). Copyright does not go out of existence just because lots of people violate the author's copyright. --99of9 (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In that case, how can you tell the difference between copyrighted works and public domain when no one is there to claim authorship? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Every work is copyright unless there is a special reason. Nobody claiming authorship does not make something public domain. One reason that works become public domain is when the author has been dead for over 70 years. Here's a page about it: Help:Public_domain. 99of9 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Not in the US, where the servers are. The copyright laws in the US basically are about it having been published before 1923, not when the author died.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Obviously my statement was a gross oversimplification (but actually the author death rule does matter in the US, depending on the publication status of the image). It is explained in much more detail in the link I gave. Hearfourmewesique was trying to come to grips with even the basics of what Public Domain means. The image in question was a viral image produced in the last 20 years. --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough (albeit slightly paranoid on Wikimedia's side) – thanks for clarifying. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I hope you can go back to AGF now! :-) All the best. --99of9 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help speedy delete file[edit]

It was deleted (history). Thanks.--Kusurija (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Lady in Bundi, Rajasthan.JPG[edit]

Hello, I corrected the saturation of this image. Could you please look if it is sufficient to promote it as FP? Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fungi ID[edit]

Hi Toby!
File:Table Fungi Cairns.jpg - it is Fomitopsis pinicola, (Red Banded Polypore). You can compare it with File:Fomitopsis pinicola on Pinus sylvestris.jpg
It is probably parasitic fungi invasion from Europe or North America. With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help George. --99of9 (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chalice Pizino MBA Lyon L689.jpg[edit]

Please come back and have a look at the alternates I added, thank you! --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Two Questions[edit]

Two things: (1) I have tagged several images uploaded by Tm as duplicates but he has since undid my edits because he/she believes they are "derivatives" and not duplicates. Here is an example. Is there a difference? Am I wrong? (2) I have been in the process of moving images by photographer Mark Sebastian to the category that I created for him. While editing I have noticed that some of the images—in the description and/or permission parameters—there are statements being made that appear to be from Mark Sebastian but, I believe, are not from him (Here is an example of what I mean in the "Permission" field). I believe this because at the bottom of the page it says the image was uploaded by Tm who is not Mark Sebastian and because Mark Sebastian has a message on his flickr profile page that states "Dear, Stop jacking my stuff. Thanks." So I've deleted these statements because since he didn't upload these photos and since he appears to not like the fact that his photos are on the commons, it couldn't come from him. The problem is these edits are being undone as well so these statements are being added back. Is there some kind of policy on wikimedia that prohibits this—pretending to be the photographer? I would like to leave a message on Tm's talkpage about this but I don't know what policy, if any exist, that this would fall under. Please answer. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. To be fair the statements that I've seen that were in the description parameter were taken directly from Mark Sebastian's descriptions on his flickr page. Here is an example: Same image on commons, then on flickr–same description. Still don't think this is allowed (correct me if I'm wrong) but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Your duplicate link seems to have been deleted, so I guess that was resolved. Regarding the permission field - if that permission statement was present on his site when the upload was made, it cannot be taken back, and should stay in our permission field. I would guess that Tm got it from there rather than making it up. If Mark Sebastian now regrets that, it should not be placed on any more images. Can you provide a link for the statement "Dear ...", I didn't see it on his profile. I'd encourage you to talk to Tm even before you talk to an administrator - you can probably work it out between yourselves. --99of9 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The statement is at the top of his profile page. It starts out with When I was 5, I could draw people with more detail than any other kid in my class. But when I tried to color them in, I could never stay within the lines. That's the story of my life. Then two spaces below that it says:
Stop jacking my stuff.
I think you're right about the permission field. I went to Mark Sebastian's twitter a couple days ago and I saw a message there similar to the one in that's in the permission field. It wasn't verbatim though. It said something to the effect of New high resolution photos. Graphic designers and photographers can download them... something like that. So I guess Tm got that message from Mr. Sebastian at one point in time. Thanks for your help. // Gbern3 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

one click duplicate remover[edit]

I managed to write one up. If the files are different, you are prompted to compare them, then you can combine the details; aftwerwords the old file gets deleted and redirected. Feel free to try the beta version by adding the following to your /vector.js or /monobook.js

var AjaxDeleteDev = true;

(you'll need to clear your browser cache) --DieBuche (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seemed to be stable enough in testing, so I enabled it for all admins--DieBuche (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll test it out sometime. I'm sure it will help make the admin corps just that bit more efficient. :-) --99of9 (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the statistics at User:99of9. Some that I find interesting:

  • Administrative actions per month, 30,695

Of which

  • 50% are done by the most active nine Admins.
  • 90% by the most active fifty Admins.
  • less than 1% by the bottom half of all Admins.
  • an Administrator's share, 30,695 / 264 = 116 actions per month, a total reached by only 116 of us.

All from the table here, as raw data, not adjusted for the fact that several of the most active have not been admins for six months.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I copied them from somewhere else :-). I appreciate you hardworking/fastclicking admins. This is a typical power law distribution as far as I can tell :). --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Or, what is known in business as an 80/20 rule.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My COM:AN/.U thread[edit]

Hi. Thanks for removing that attack, though I feel it rather unnecessary - if anything it makes his argument weaker, which is all the better for me. Also you missed the bit where he called me a little man, which is also a personal attack. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

mattbuck, you are really unbeliavable! How about you calling me a dick? is that a personal attack? Jeez!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit[edit]

I think that you over edited my post, but in the interest of calmness I will let it go, for that is not really the issue. I wish that you would pay attention to mattbuck´s behaviour, personal insults and attacks also. I really feel that the administrators are gangbanging me on this even though I keep pointing out time and again tangible proff of administrator misconduct. Not one has addressed my complaints, and as bothersome they may be, they are legitimate, their insults and attacks are there for all to see (mattbuck called me a dick) and yet administrators are blind to this. He calls my work irrelevant and promotes its deletion, arguing lack of educational value. What does he know about education or educational value? I was an educator for 20 years, with a long and respectable record on these very issues. If he were an educator, he would have never made such assertions! But anyway, my beef is not with you nor mattbuck nor adambro. I just want to know why my image was deleted without due process and to have it reinstated, and if someone wants to delete, to do so through the proper procedure and not through a gut, baseless and uniformed position. Is it too much to ask? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I removed personal attacks from your post, they are not appropriate at Commons, and since you are well aware of that, I considered blocking you as well. I have already answered that the deleted image was obviously not in scope, and thus was a fair candidate for speedy deletion. If the undeletion review had convinced the community that it was in fact in scope, then you would have grounds to claim some process violation, but that did not happen. You need to accept consensus. --99of9 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again... the whole thing started for another issue, but you got involved in the mattbuck issue... He called me a dick. Is that an insult? Yes or no. Please be patient, I will walk you through the logic... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We are only going here again because you asked again. Soon I will tire of your persistent failure to listen to what I am saying. I did not get involved in the mattbuck issue, I simply removed personal attacks from a statement you made. That doesn't give you the right to call me into your battles. But I'll humour you one more time. The DICK essay is about editing behaviour (that recently resembles yours), rather than anything particularly personal. --99of9 (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)