User talk:99of9/Archive 4

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

Contents

RfD[edit]

Hi there. I'm still a bit of a novice so please be patient with me. How do I go about requesting a photo for deletion? Is there a special board? And is there some sort of format that I have to follow? Thanks,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarification, The author of the photo is unknown, the date when taken is uncertain and it comes from an unreliable and rather obscure blog. I have caught other mistakes from this blog as well and they've been corrected.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay I think I figured it out. I tagged the file here[1] and opened a concurrent discussion here[2]. Did I do this correctly and is there anything else that I have to do? Sorry for being a bother.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
You did it the hard way, and didn't quite get it right, but I don't think it will cause a major prob, so just leave it and get it right the next time. The problem is that you put your DR inside the DR for a different file. Anyway, the way to do it right is simple. Just go to the file page, expand the Toolbox tab on the bar on the left of your window, and click "Nominate for Deletion". It will prompt you for a reason, and do everything else for you. --99of9 (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, now I've seen the history, you were also incorrect to use speedy, but I see that SD has corrected that. Until you are experienced at successfully obtaining deletions, steer clear of speedy. And if you haven't already, please stop edit warring immediately. The DR tag is sufficient, because a full discussion will occur there. --99of9 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a "discussion" here on the matter. A mysterious IP 99.171.125.144 that has never edited anything on Commons before suddenly shows up at the discussion and makes these contributions [3][4] It's obvious what's going on here (at the very least canvassing but probably sock puppetry and proxy editing) and I'm asking that the IP be blocked, or at the very least, prevented from partaking in the discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Totalitarian much? We don't block IPs for discussing! Nor do we discourage it. Of course their "vote" won't be counted, but any discussion is welcome. And DR's aren't actually a vote anyway. The closing admin evaluates the arguments, and often goes against the majority if the majority are unaware of copyright subtleties. Regarding sock puppetry, I'm not a checkuser. You could request a check elsewhere, but to be honest it doesn't really matter since their vote won't be counted. --99of9 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. I wasn't asking for blockage simply because it's an IP. I was asking because its appearance is mighty suspicious and was likely the result of either canvassing or proxy editing. But whatever--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, Biosketch and maps[edit]

Hello 99of9. A map of the Golan Heights used on en.wp is at File:Golan location map 2.PNG. Jiujitsuguy modified that, was reverted by Supreme Deliciousness, who was reverted by Biosketch, who was reverted by myself, who was reverted by Chesdovi. I have restored the original map and uploaded the one favored by Jiujitsuguy, Biosketch, and Chesdovi to another filename (File:Golan location map 3.PNG). I dont think there is much else to do, but the file history of #2 is a mess now. Would it be possible to clean that up and perhaps protect the file? These games of bringing en.wp disputes to commons is tiresome and purposeless, as demonstrated by the simple solution of having two files. Im not sure what else should be done, but since you have been involved with some of the players in this conflict in the past I thought you might like to know about it. Nableezy (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And in an unsurprising development, Jiujitsuguy has once again reverted. Nableezy (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't pretend that your an innocent. I've been called a "liar," a "propagandist" a "sock" by your fellow friend and all because I nominated a file for deletion (discussions are still ongoing). With respect to the file that your referring to, at least four editors have found it to be very problematic and objectionable in its current format. The file was tweaked to reflect a more NPOV perspective so that the subject territory is shown as neither Syrian nor Israeli. This compromise is entirely consistent with suggestions made by 99of9 and reflects the consensus of editors.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Sherlock, your favored version was uploaded to File:Golan location map 3.PNG. Insisting on edit-warring out the initial version shows just how far you take your POV-pushing here. To call a map showing territory recognized be nearly every single country in the world, the UN, the ICRC, the EU, .... as Syrian territory with a label showing it as Syrian territory is not "NPOV" shows just how poor your understanding of that term is. But that doesnt even matter, you already have a file with your favored map. That apparently is not enough for you and your pals. Nableezy (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Malcolm Schoscha is officially warned"...for what?[edit]

Warned for what? You say: ...like calling another user "ignorant fool".

Apparently, your complaint is over my saying: Telling users you disagree with to "fuck off" is just the same as saying that you are an ignorant fool. You think that is incorrect? In fact, the comment was directed at that user's behavior, which you know is very bad behavior; but you, and other administrators, just sat on your thumbs and said nothing to him about it. Your own inaction was deplorable, but non-administrators can't give warnings (implying the usual punishment by blocks) to administrators.

Also, your wording "...like calling another user "ignorant fool" implies that you see other problems with my comments also. I would be interested an explanation of what else.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at the notice board. In reply to the other things you brought up here: Firstly, I was only referring to that sentence. I did not notice any other personal attacks in your conversation. My own inaction was deplorable? Wow. Since you do not know what I was doing in the 14 hours between his incivility and your personal attack, I'm interested that you feel qualified to judge whether editing on Commons should take precedence over my life priorities. --99of9 (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You wrote: ...I'm interested that you feel qualified to judge whether editing on Commons should take precedence over my life priorities. You will excuse me, 990f9, for thinking that you are not actually "interested" in that at all. Your reply is 'changing the subject', which is a category of logical fallacy [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I have replied to everything else on the noticeboard. My point here is that you accused me (yes, me specifically) of "deplorable inaction", and I was replying in the nicest possible way that it is incredibly rude to presume to judge another's inaction when you have no idea what I was doing at the time when you expected me to be interceding for you. I trust that you will soon redact that statement. --99of9 (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I got an "official warning" from you that I consider unjust. All your reply consists of is a lot of complaining that you have been criticized, as though you expect that members of Commons administrative class should be exempt from the criticism you (and many other administrators) hand out in such excessive abundance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Malcolm, I have been watching this madness for some time now. Your recent edit pattern is probably one of the most annoying ones (it has reminded me of Annoying Orange) I have seen in recent times on Commons. I have learned from a wise person once, that often, when a behavior of some person annoys you, it is because there is something about what they do or say that you actually envy, or something you wish you could do yourself. I am yet to find, what is is I envy in this case, but there must be something, I just need to keep looking:-) It is time for you to move on. Your relentless complaints wear the community and its hardworking, voluntary and unpaid administrators, who does boring tasks like closing deletion requests. They do not need this and they do not deserve it! They are humans and not robots. They overlook small things, makes small mistakes, as humans does. I know of very few admins on Commons, who are more reasonable, balanced and fair than 99of9. When I read his closure of the incident on COM:AN I immediately thought: What a wise closure and end to an absolute waste of resources and time. I am saddened to see that you do not accept his very reasonable closure and takes his feedback on board. --Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Slaunger, I was expecting an edit such as this. The only thing missing is the anticipated accusation of WP:TROLL[6] with the accompanying threat of a block, if not an actual block. That's the usual smack down when one of the wiki-peons says what some administrator does not want to hear. But you are certainly right that further discussion is pointless, and I will now leave you hard workers in peace. Nevertheless my main point here, that the "official warning" from 99of9 was unjust, remains unchanged; and, obviously, my complaint contains no equivalent official warning to him. Perhaps he (and you) thought I would thank him for the bad treatment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


Missing license[edit]

Hi Kyro. Can you please add a license to File:IPod_Shuffle_2G.jpg? Thanks. 99of9 (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Clin Kyro (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

De minimis[edit]

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Day_12_Occupy_Wall_Street_September_28_2011_Shankbone_31.JPG De minimis is only actually determined by a court of law and is a defense. A person cannot say something is used in de minimis while simultaneously claiming all copyright to the work in that way - it would violate multiple ethical standards at Commons. de minimis in the US is mostly used to determine if something is being used as part of fair use, and the problems with it have been brought up many times on Commons because the lack of FOP in the US means that there are many possible legal dilemmas. I think it would probably be best to bring it up for a community discussion on how to handle authors who refuse to budge on copyright but make claims about such things as de minimis without being a lawyer and potentially giving up their legal rights to the image as a whole (contradicting statements) or putting Wikimedia in jeopardy (contradictory statements). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am simply applying Commons policy COM:DM as it currently stands. If you believe that policy is wrong, seek change with reasoned discussion. Personally, I don't think Sgreig has done anything wrong in holding back his rights on the full-res original. I am also very confident that, given his reasoned keep vote, the risk to Wikimedia is entirely negligible: "Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences;". --99of9 (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Common's policy states that when it comes to copyright, we cannot assume that people wont sue, that it isn't completely infringing, etc. We have to err on caution, and we have a copyright owner claiming that he intends to keep it copyrighted. I think there is enough to say his statements contradict which should have some discussion on how we should handle it in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No, he has not ever said that he views the photograph of a man holding a sign which includes his own photograph (as a minor element) as an infringement of his copyright. In fact the opposite, he explicitly regards it as allowable according to de minimis. He has said that he intends to reserve all rights on his high resolution photograph of the girl, that we do not host, so we are not in violation. Feel free to start whatever discussion you like, but I do not believe there is any contradiction in what Sgreig has said. (Are you aware that many photographers/copyright holders license low-res versions, but retain rights for their high-res version?) --99of9 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I said above - I agree with what you are saying in your first two sentences. Instead, what I am saying is that he is claiming full copyright. De minimis is subjective and determined by a judge during a trial and it is used for mitigating circumstances or full dismissal. No one can know if it will qualify or not until it reaches a judge. However, if this image causes the person to lose his ability to sell the image in it, such as mass reproduction with an attempted claim that the mass distribution would show a lack of prosecuting/defending copyright and undermine the rest of it later, then he could attempt to have the image taken down as no longer qualifying as de minimis (since he is not a judge nor a lawyer, so his advice isn't legally safe). This is also a big image of the work, so it doesn't matter if he has an even bigger image as it can be used for most purposes quite easily and that could be a problem. I just want some common agreed upon procedure on how to handle it. I think it would honestly be safer to have the image as fair use on en.wiki with the claims as that would complete protect us against any later copyright claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In court everything is determined by a judge. On Commons, judges are not readily available. Our procedure is that we discuss, form consensus, and a trusted member of our community closes discussion according to that consensus and site policy. You partipated, and your opinion on what would be safer was heard, but did not prevail. Nor has anything you've said here changed my decision. --99of9 (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
"that we discuss, form consensus" Right, and what I am asking for you to do is to start up a Commons discussion to form consensus on how to deal with an author who says that an item is copyrighted but still usable. That way, we have something to rely on in the future. The matter was discussed incredibly little and had no audience, but it has major ramifications throughout Commons. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I only followed existing policy. If you feel you need a bigger audience for your view that policy needs to be changed, start a discussion somewhere. It's not my job to start proposals I disagree with! --99of9 (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no existing policy that says an author saying something is de minimis is de minimis. That is the whole point. We would have to take a policy approach, mostly done from the WMF, that says that we take any authorial statement like that as an official release from legal liability and binding. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"I am simply applying Commons policy COM:DM as it currently stands." - with respect, I don't think you were. Commons:DM#An_example could hardly be more relevant, nor more damning to the claim that the poster is DM in that image. The author's declaration of "de minimis" is worth no more than any other user's opinion, and I suspect all he really meant by that, given his remarks, was that he chooses not to enforce his copyright on this case of copyright violation, because it does not materially affect his ability to sell the high-quality original. That is his right, but the declaration has nothing to do with "de minimis", which is to say that the copyright violation is too trivial to be enforceable. This decision has to be reviewed, because it is demonstrably wrong. The fact that cropping the image would damage it too severely (further evidence against DM) means it should be transferred to en.wp as fair use, rather than cropped. Rd232 (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding Commons:DM#An_example, I never "claim[ed] that the poster was DM". As I agrued with Avenue, and mentioned in my closing, I do not believe the poster designer passes COM:TOO. It is a simple arrangement of elements that individually are not his art. But that's a whole different argument. Here Ottava and I are talking about the girl's photo.
  • Now, on to the picture. Quoting COM:DM: Where a technical violation is so trivial that the law will not impose legal consequences;. The girl's image occupies less than 1/20th of the area of the photograph, and if even the author (along with many others) considers the technical violation trivial, then I for one am confident that the law will not impose legal consequences.
  • Cropping is not the only way of removing an element. I am confident that the image would work just as well (as art, but it's news value would be destroyed) if either of the following were done: pixellation, replacement with File:Asian_woman_shushing.jpg or similar. In fact, pixelation would make the message even more apt.
  • Your reinterpretation of what Sgreig meant is all very interesting, but if you don't mind, I'll take his opinion on his state of mind over yours: "I *do* agree with the view that the image of Emilie (the girl) is not the main focus of the image and therefore her part is de minimis in the overall image" (my emphasis).
Even if the author's opinion is worth no more than any others, please review the weight of consensus before declaring so many others "wrong":
  • Keep (no non-trivial copyright violations): 11 (not including me)
  • Violates company logo copyrights: 2-3
  • Violates signmaker's copyright: 1-3
  • Violates girl's photographer's copyright: 2-3
(and I've been generous in my interpretation of putting the delete voters in multiple categories if they voted before they knew the signwriter cannot claim the photograph)
In summary, there is no consensus to delete this as a copyvio, and even those who think it is a copyvio cannot agree on whose right is violated. If you really want to reopen the DR, and are confident that it's so obvious that you can obtain consensus, go ahead. Please ensure you notify those who have voted. --99of9 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed response, I appreciate it. However, the confusion between the poster and the main visual element of the poster should not detract from the significance of either for the visual composition or meaning of the overall photograph. The proportion of the area taken is not determinative of DM; it is the arguments laid out most clearly in the DM#example section I cited. To quote:
perhaps the poster takes up a small, insignificant part of the image, is entirely out of focus compared with the main subject, or is largely hidden in the background... In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. So, for example, if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. The poster is not incidental to the overall image - it is a key part of the composition (and it isn't even in the background). The photograph is a key part of the poster, because of the message it conveys. The fact that the same message might have been conveyed by other means (similar photographs) is entirely irrelevant. You're right that the image may be rescued by replacing the photo with another - but the mere fact that this solution is even raised further indicates that this is not a case of DM.
Finally, consensus in DRs is highly significant for some deletion reasons, but consensus cannot override policy, especially legal policy. The photograph is not incidental to the image, therefore it is not de minimis. On this aspect of the DR, it really is that simple. PS you cite approvingly the remark "the image of Emilie (the girl) is not the main focus of the image and therefore her part is de minimis...", but the phrase "not the main focus" is an imprecise negative statement of what de minimis is actually about, which is being incidental to the image composition. And if we attempt to defend the use of that phrase, then at minimum the disputed image element will need to be, as DM#example says, out of focus and in the background. Rd232 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

close[edit]

could you please close this:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Golan_evacuation.jpg

if its deleted im gonna upload it as fair use to Wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I was slow off the mark. I would have closed it the same way as Jim. --99of9 (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Civility[edit]

I saw that you closed a section on the admin noticeboard - can you do a civility patrol on the admin noticeboard? Not only are there personal attacks, there are unfounded accusations in which the accusers refuse to provide any proof. WP:CIVIL, which we tend to use here quite often without one of our own policy says that you are not to make any claim of inappropriate conduct without proof. You can see here that James refuses to provide any evidence to back up his claims and continues to insist that I harass people, which is an extremely serious claim, without any basis. It especially says here that harassment is not good faith disputes, and seeing as how I don't stalk anyone's edits or make any statements without backing up my rationale, it is utterly impossible to put forth the charge. It is character assassination without any proof and hoping that they say it enough that others believe it. That isn't allowable on WMF wikis and they just don't seem to get it. I've had to endure a lot lately - outing multiple times, homophobic slurs, claims I should kill myself, etc., and that is true harassment. It is not really fair for them to behave that way and it doesn't help this community at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Fred the Oyster was being actively incivil against you, and has now been blocked for this, along with his worst comments being removed. 99of9 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
James is now saying that pointing out claims of harassment need evidence is equivalent of an act that could have me be thrown in jail in the UK. That is really, really inappropriate and verifies that his unwillingness to provide evidence for his nasty claims of wrong doing are defamation and against Commons policy. Someone needs to talk some sense into him because we have a code of conduct that he is completely unwilling to follow. He refuses to provide any evidence for his outrageous and false claims about me and that can't be tolerated. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You are shooting yourself in the foot. If you had left it at "pointing out that claims of harassment need evidence", your argument would have attracted some support. However, arguing that he must use the legal sense of the word harassment to interpret commons policy is silly (even though he eventually decided to do a thought experiment down the legal line). If you make hyperbolic comments like ""Feeling harassed" is not real nor is it allowed to be used.", people are even less likely to treat your good point (evidence) seriously. Merely pointing something out would not take four visits to a talk page and four paragraphs. --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think he has to use the legal sense as consider the legal sense. It is the same as using "rape" or "murder". Both can be used in non legal senses, but going around accusing someone of being a rapist or a murderer has a legal connotation. Does that make sense why I am upset? And "feeling harassed is not real" means that anyone can claim anything about what they feel, but you need evidence to verify that there is an actual action. After all, anyone can accuse anyone of harassment by merely feeling it. The Wikipedia policy has some strong words on using the term for that reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I'm referring to this with particular emphasis on "Like the word stalk, harass carries real-life connotations—from simple unseemly behavior to criminal conduct—and must be used judiciously and with respect to these connotations" and "Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
More false claims of harassment. Now he says challenging someone's use of the term is harassment when it clearly is not. The harassment policy makes it clear: "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." Why are they allowed to make such blatantly inflammatory and incivil comments without proof? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop citing English Wikipedia policy as if it applied to Commons. Further, as the author of the words you quote, I can assure you this was not the intended purpose. The purpose of the section in the policy was to prevent casual accusations of harassment as a way to win content disputes, not to prevent the examination of behaviour which may (or may not, on examination) amount to harassment. In the statement you object to just above it is clear enough what the evidence for the assertion is; it is up to readers to judge the quality of the evidence. Rd232 (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The harassment policy applies to everything, on Wiki or not because it is based on Common sense. And if you think that the policy there was not about this situation where people refuse to provide evidence because there is absolutely no legitimate harassment then think again. They are throwing the word around to smear and only to smear, hoping that it resonates enough where people don't require proof for the claim. That is incivil everywhere. All claims like that need evidence. An examination of behavior, by definition, looks at behavior. There hasn't been any examination. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Marcus claims he can accuse me of harassment without proof because my en.wikipedia blocklog stated harassment. There are only two instances of harassing in my block log - a claim that an email to an admin was harassment whereas it was debunked as such in discussion and a generic block that says "persnal attack or harassment" that lasted only a short while before consensus deemed it unfounded. It has already been demonstrated that these claims without proof are not to be made and an admin reverted his previous bad statements before with a warning. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Rima. Asking for admins to engage in Randy in Boise behaviour would seem to gaming, canvassing, or otherwise abusing the system. ANUI is read by admins all the time, the fact that none or few of them are reacting to "your aggressors" is because they don't feel need. That you seek a "master" to defend or enable you, is disturbing. Also, you contadicted yourself: "Marcus claims he can accuse me of harassment" followed by "there are only two instances of harassing in my block log". Therefore, I don't claim.. I do it, based on evidence. If the evidence were false, you would not still be community banned at en-Wiki. So, moot point. The fact that you've created a number of sub-headings on the ANI about you to distract the main consensus, that you are canvassing admins, and harassing pro-block editors, is also disturbing. You have turned Commons into a battleground. You lack humility, and havenever apologised to anyone for the trouble you are inflicting on the community. You bait, goad and provoke people, relentlessly, which is harassive, like it or not, English is my first language, I am well aware of what it means and entails. You also continue to dictate and demand terms, evidence, diffs, etc on a subject about your conduct, and make no attempt to improve your conduct. Your persistence is slowing everyone down, because you are being selfish and self-centered. There is a high level of disregard and disrespect for everyone around you, except a couple of admins who you are a sycophant to. Apart from those few, you maintain a constant belligerence, and deviate effortlessly from the primary role on an editor. I see little point in your being mentored, restricted or interaction banned, given previous bans from 2 projects, and failure to maintain a friendly atmosphere here. You war-monger on the Commons ANI, you attack others, you look for their faults and try to spin their comments to mask your own behaviour. You are unruly, and lack self-control. You are also hypocritical, accusing editors of what you do yourself, only far more. Bear one thing in mind.. consensus seeks to deal with you. Not those who you feel are being uncivil to you for partaking in the consensus. Not those who stand up to your indecent attempts to bully, scare and threaten. You are harmful to the community, in my judgement. I don't see why you should find it appropriate to be posting on admin talk pages, looking for "favours", which are clearly just your spiteful attempts to get someone to power plan for you.. you make the bullets, and hope some admin will fire them. You need to get banned, and go away for a long time, and grow up, and learn to function as a team-player. Because all you'd doing is turning the team against you and trying to make them hop through your hoops. Until yesterday I had never seen you, but you instantly attacked my right to support your block, and challenged me on a personal level. That is not how Wiki works, anywhere, and why you have to go. Because you cause collateral damage. That has been my observation. Observations are not personal attacks. Only your inability to control yourself has led to the community becoming disheartened with your attempts to be opportunistic. You have never demonstrated and show of good faith on that ANI thread, and made it revolve around you, seeking sympathy. The community is of paramount importance. And you are not building up anyone's hopes by holding yourself in high regard, making out to be better, or harder working, or more valuable. You don;t seem to "get the point", and despite so many people supporting your block, you remain obnoxious and ignorant, and claim they are all "wrong". I think not. Actions speak louder than words.. what do you think your actions say about you over the past few days. Desperate.. defensive.. disruptive. Your words say far worse. Stop acting like a child, and, if it's not too late, try some showing some dignity. Ma®©usBritish [Chat] 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You attack me to the point you were warned for it and you are nasty while making up claims without evidence, and you say I am turning it into a battleground? You can't bully a person, treat them like shit, then say they should be blocked because they were your target of bullying and attacks. That isn't how Commons works. You have been utterly incivil and you have picked up where Fred left off after his block, and I find that really, really suspicious. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
99of9, just look at Marcus's talk page and you can see where he tries to justify his attacks on me by labeling me as things like "daft kid". He is unable to not make personal attacks. We are supposed to focus only on actions here, which I have done 100% but he, like many others, make nasty personal attacks on me over and over. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Summary: Boring reiteration of the same character assassination tactics that he uses to harass people wanting him blocked. Not work reading. He has a history of harassment.. 2 project bans. Needs an outright Wiki ban. Ma®©usBritish [Chat] 22:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
99of9 - this is what Marcus thinks is appropriate language. He also thinks it is appropriate to claim that dealing with statements and responding to people is equivalent of "harassment" when that has never been the case. The Wikipedia page says that such accusations are tantamount to harassment, and the sheer bulk of incivility that he has lodged at me is really upsetting. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
What's the matter.. you give, but can't take? Even 99of9 isn't stupid, biased or blind to the fact that you're making more unsubstantiated accusations than anyone, and that several admins and editors have made points which you continue to refute, deny or lie about. You think 99of9 is interested in putting a rope round his neck and joining you in your silly antics? You stand alone in your trials and tribulations. The community is your judge.. running to 99of9 like a kid to his teacher will not save you. 99of9 doesn't wear rose coloured glasses for you. Ma®©usBritish [Chat] 15:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
For the sake of the archive, here is my reply. --99of9 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I redacted my comment but Mattbuck restores it. I would also like someone to archive threads like this current one to move on. Is that possible for a neutral person to go through and see what no longer matters? I talked to Magog and I'm no longer going to be participating in any of that discussion so I think a lot of it can be closed. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done the normal strikethrough redaction for you. The way you did it could be interpreted as wanting history not to record that you ever said it. --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks mate, I should have done that myself rather than just restoring, but didn't think of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding closure, if you stop participating for some time, naturally the conversation will end, and it will eventually be archived (and perhaps first closed). This is not a big issue. --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the commitments you made to Magog, you should explicitly state them on-wiki (your talk page), and apologize for anything you are sorry for. --99of9 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know[edit]

I think I am going to start blocking folk who disrupt via sniping/whatever Commons from the work that needs to be done - thought you should know - I might get some of the blocks wrong... Best --Herby talk thyme 15:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I support this, but perhaps you should post your warning at the admin page, so that it is generally known. I have just warned Marcus directly (before I read your message). --99of9 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I decided to chill and close a thread or two instead.
However I do consider a number of users are "disrupting" Commons simply because they are tying up scarce resources - maybe I am canvassing your opinion on that as much as anything - I trust you more than a lot :) --Herby talk thyme 15:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ottava Rima email correspondence[edit]

Hi, according to this post of User:Ottava Rima, you are one of 9 users to whom he showed private email correspondence (from me to him). Can you please tell me (i) if this is true, and if it is: (ii) when and how he did this (iii) why you did not feel it necessary to tell me of this breach of trust (iv) what your view of my comments is, since Ottava claims of the 9 users "they agreed that you were defending Fred's action in an inappropriate manner."[7]. Please either email me or respond on my talk page, since I'm asking the other users Ottava has identified and I would prefer not to have discussion scattered on different talk pages. Thank you. Rd232 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My reply. --99of9 (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I wanted to tell you that i responded to your questions. All best! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 12:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Good answers. --99of9 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You got mail. --WhiteWriter speaks 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
And responded in the request... --WhiteWriter speaks 13:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You got mail. Again. :) --WhiteWriter speaks 01:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

COM:REVDEL[edit]

Those seem like good examples. I was thinking actually of expanding MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown - those two could be added. Then they would go into the main list in the policy, which would be slightly neater. Rd232 (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not fussed either way. It's rare enough that I'm usually happy to write a custom reason. --99of9 (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Well fair enough, that's one way to look at it. I'm thinking of it more from the angle that carefully crafted standard reasons may (often? sometimes?) be better than a custom reason written perhaps quite hastily. The current ones don't demonstrate that, but I'll have a look and try and show what I mean. Rd232 (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you'd see it anyway, but just so it's clear I didn't forget this conversation :) Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Common_revision_deletion_reasons. Rd232 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

The relevant part of the admin board has been "archived" now and I'm not sure I'd post there anyway however I just wanted to say thanks for your closure. Obviously that considerable thought went into. I am not at all keen on blocking established users however I am not keen on Commons being disrupted either. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

+1. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
And from me

Please accept my thanks as well, for tackling a hard one, and doing a really nice job with the closure. Well done. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all, it's kind of you to stop by. --99of9 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sock ?[edit]

Hi 99of9. Thank you for your interest. What do you think of a possible sockpuppet issue that I mentioned in this DR ? Can I request checkuser about them ? Is it possible technically ? I think most of their contributions are very old. So maybe there is no record of their edits and IDs. Takabeg (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Takabeg. You may be right, but Checkuser will not be able to help, because they only store data for 3 months [8]. --99of9 (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

On the organization of highlighted (FP/QI/VI) media in Commons main category structure[edit]

Hi 99of9, I have started a discussion regarding some thoughts about getting a better integration and display of FP/QI/VIs in the main category structure at Commons:Village pump#Highlighted content in main category structure. Feel free to join the discussion. I have contacted you because you know the circuitry in FP, etc and I also see you as clever administrator seeing the bigger perspectives here. Feel free to invite other, if you think they could have an opinion on my ideas. Best wishes from Denmark, --Slaunger (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll comment there briefly for now, but hopefully can come back to it in about a week. --99of9 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for help[edit]

Hello 99of9! I'm seeking help from administrators to clear up a slightly complicated copyright situation regarding an image I uploaded to Commons a few years ago. I've recently submitted the image for deletion (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fort Lachine.jpg). When I originally uploaded the image, I thought it was published before 1923 and in the public domain in the US. However, with a little more research and help from other Commons editors, it was discovered that the image came from a book that was published in Belgium in 1927 (I don't believe it was originally copyrighted in the US). Since then, I've become concerned that the image isn't in the public domain in the US because its copyright was restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. If the image is indeed still under US copyright, as the original uploader, I am NOT comfortable leaving it on Commons. If you have time, I would be very grateful if you could provide your opinion on this matter. Kindest regards, --AlphaEta (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Alas, I am not an expert on this type of case. The good news is that you already have the attention of at least two who do know much more than me. Since you are not comfortable, even if it kept, it will be reuploaded to ensure that your username is not associated. --99of9 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Thanks! --Accurimbono (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --99of9 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ristesson history[edit]

Ristesson history is a source category. Please reinstate it on the images where you've removed it as all those images were donated to Commons by Ristesson History. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove it from any images. It's fine to stay on images. But categories for individual people are not subcategories of an archival source. Also, please use the preview button rather than repeatedly causing edit conflicts. --99of9 (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Used it, always do, but failed. Exhausted now. Not intentional. Sorry. Thanx for helping! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, I am sincerely grateful for your quick action and all that good work re: Southerly Clubs category. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. --99of9 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kamal Abbas (cropped).jpg[edit]

Comment about the B&W objection: I have talked to Hossam and he looked everywhere to see if he has a color version of this image but he couldn't find one. This this only version he has of this photo. He took it in black and white (If you look at this work, he mostly takes B&W photos, rarely colored ones). As for this image, its not same one, as you can see the mouth is a bit more open in it. Hossam has been kind kind to release some of his images so we can use them on wikipedia (even though his photos are his main income) that we wont be able to find under a free license anywhere else. As for the historical misleading issue that the B&W version might lead to, I dont think it will happen; This is picture of Golda Meir in B&W even though colored photos existed in her time. The reason Hossam takes a lot of his photos in B&W is because he feels it capture the subject much better and it shows more soul then the colored ones but that's his POV as an artist (Photography is a form of art). Some artists like to use colors while others like to draw with a pencil but they are beautiful in their own way :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also not worried about "historical misleading" - the date is clearly marked. My main issue is with the educational value, and on this issue I think art and education often diverge. It is unfortunate, but since this is a site primarily concerned with educational value, I usually oppose BW images unless there is a special reason for it. And please do not read me as saying that I do not appreciate this photographic donation, I think great portraits are essential to the wikipedias, and I am very glad Hossam licensed it freely. PS I think that coloured pic you linked to has heaps of soul!! (and would make a perfect taxobox portrait) --99of9 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I asked Hossam to release the colored one but he felt it didnt refelect this work and what he does well. The photo shows both Kamal Abbas and its shows Hossam's style of photography. That's why, in my view, it has an educational value but I might be wrong. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Used your media file[edit]

This is a courtesy note. One of your media files is featured in a new commercial eBook in Apple’s iBooks store: http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/dr.-kemps-kids-love-bugs/id497852225?mt=11

I’ve contributed images to Wikipedia for over seven years now (including several POTD and Featured Images) and I designed the WikiSpecies logo. I respect your work here and the CC-BY-SA license we all labor under.

I know commercializing Wikipedia work is tricky and so I’ve taken great pains to follow your CC-BY-SA license requirements. I also plan to donate 10% of my proceeds to the Wikimedia Foundation directly. This is the very first self-published e-book created with Apple’s new tools and sold in the store.

I’ve given your file a credit line in the “Image and Video Credits” section starting at page 24 as required here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

This compilation features many of the finest Wikipedia media files in their exact form and not as derivative works. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying_under_the_GFDL#Making_verbatim_copies_of_images

If I did alter your work -- such as cutting out an insect part or adding a video sound track -- I shared a Share Alike version of the new media in a DRM-free format and listed the web address in the credits section.

Thank you very much for uploading your work to Wikipedia and releasing it for the world to use in enriching educational formats.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeremykemp

  • Which image of mine are you using? --99of9 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus[edit]

I assume you read my earlier one - likely they are using open proxies but no proof yet. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, got it sorry, was in too much of a rush to incorporate yours into the archive :). --99of9 (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Please respond here at Commons:Village pump#Picture of the year 2011 --Katarighe (Talk) 18:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for undeleting that image—I've added {{pemissionOTRS}} to it. And thank you for dealing with those socks; I'm used to that sort of thing on Wikipedia, but no on Commons! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucratship[edit]

After Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/99of9, well done and welcome aboard Comrade. russavia (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck, 99of9! Trijnstel (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Good Luck 99of9. See you later :-) --Katarighe (Talk) 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

File names[edit]

The practice of putting 1 at the front of a file name was suggested to me years ago by one of the others. The idea is that a file with 1 at the front goes to the "head of the queue", where it will be seen by people. This may sound egotistical and probably is, but one does want one's work to be seen. After all, that's the whole point of doing it in the first place.

Sardaka (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I guessed it might be something like that. But I'm afraid this is a really problematic precedent to set. Obviously if everyone used that method we'd end up with an arms race of nonsense characters. Instead, I suggest you engage with our genuine methods of making some content stand out: COM:QI, COM:VP and COM:FP. If your content is actually demonstrably better than some other content, then it will be promoted in the proper forums. --99of9 (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Hello, 99of9. I am personally asking you to review my autopatrol request. It has been left unanswered after I defended myself. I have uploaded more than 60 files; where one of them was currently the POTD for the Odia Wikipedia. Dipankan001 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My reply. Sorry to disappoint you, but don't feel rejected, Commons is a big place, with lots of policies and copyright laws to understand. Please focus on submitting your own photographs, well-described and categorized. If you do that consistently for some time, I'm sure someone will decide that patrollers no longer need to monitor your work. --99of9 (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For your extreme civility, while those discussions were going on! I always like people who are civil, and do not tend to argue. Dipankan001 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Likewise, I appreciated your civility. It's hard not to take it personally when your files seem under attack, but we've all got plenty to learn on Commons, and you seem keen to learn. --99of9 (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain me the OTRS thing? For File:Mangaia's Milky Way.jpg, I sent an email to the copyright owner; and I hope he will respond soon. Dipankan001 (talk) 11:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I probably couldn't explain it any better than COM:OTRS, and in particular Commons:Email templates. --99of9 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Little deletion request[edit]

Hi! I've made a mistake naming a file, and it has been already renamed, but I'd like to use the old file name for a new picture. Could you please delete it? I don't know if I should make a formal deletion request, because it is just a redirection page. This is the page (well, it redirects to the picture with the right name). Thank you very much. --Kadellar (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! Kadellar (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RfCU[edit]

Thank you for your support and kind words.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your deletion debate close[edit]

Thank you for your well thought out deletion debate close of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rick santorum caricature satire made with frothy santorum pic 1.jpg. I respect your decision regarding your evaluation of the input from the community. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for the comment. Scope is a blurry line to navigate, but we need it! --99of9 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rick santorum caricature satire made with frothy santorum pic 1.jpg[edit]

Are you going to delete the other 3 images? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I just saw what you said about them, though IMO they should be deleted as being useless. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, and will happily {{vd}} in a DR more focused on "the materials". --99of9 (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Antaya → Benoit Rochon - Proof of ownership[edit]

Hello 99of9,

As requested, see the proof of ownership. Thank you very much for your help. Antaya (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

Hello, I kept a low profile during the RfA because I didn't want to spend too many words, in fact I'm not used to long debates which - if too long - make us lose the main focus. I'm not upset for what you wrote, nor I am afraid of criticism. But there was a thing of which I wanted to talk with you, especially after I read ArséniureDeGallium's failed RfA. Of course he did wrong when he accused you of bad faith (since I can read French I'm referring to his original sentence not to the Google-translated one :-) ), but since ArséniureDeGallium and I share the same Latin cultural influence (he is French, I'm Italian), it seemed to me that for someone that comes from an Anglo-Saxon culture like i.e. you it's be perfectly normal asking such question which can be seen as "captious" (not that they are meant to be captious mind you , but that can be read as such) for someone that doesn't share the same cultural background. I used to play rugby and most of times the referee warns the players when they are about committing some fouls instead of waiting for the foul then blow the whistle. And, reading a question which point was not immediately clear made me feel uncomfortable, because it gave me the impression that no matter the answer it would have been wrong. And I guess the same was for the French user. As for being used to handle matters more uncomfortable than a question of yours, you're right, I guess that life for an Admin is not easy here. But note that I come from it.wiki, where you can find your daily dose of arguing users pratically everywhere: polls, RfDs, RfAs, Village Pump and so on. -- Now, given my knowledge of English, I don't know if what I just wrote will be fully understandable (in case is my fault) but note that none of what I wrote must be intended as offence. :-) Thanks for your attention -- Blackcat (talk)

Congratulations on your adminship, and welcome to the team! Thanks for the comment. I was aware of the language and cultural differences, and it's reasonable to characterize it as a "captious question" (though IMO not in the nastiest sense of that term). I think of them more like entry-examination questions... if an applicant's copyright knowledge is top notch, they will immediately understand the issues at play behind the question, and be able to give a satisfactory reasoned answer (perhaps in either direction keep/delete) (e.g. see the excellent answers from PierreSelim, another Frenchman). So I think your answer showed your knowledge is still somewhat lacking in some areas. (Hence my oppose, but I'm sure with continued participation and humility that will improve.) On the other hand, you passed the attitude-in-the-face-of-criticism test admirably, even if you are not culturally used to "captious" questions. By the way, I've never heard the word "captious" before in my life, so this time it is you teaching me English! --99of9 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? I can't believe that. The first time (or one of the very first times, I don't remember well) I read that word whas while translating a Christopher Hitchens's article, and I liked it so much :-) -- Blackcat (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, 99of9. You have new messages at Dipankan001's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Dipankan001 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity removal[edit]

As you've confirmed the validity of the requests of removal on m:SRP, please reply to the questions I posted on Commons talk:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2012. Thanks, Nemo 12:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Or you might want to answer directly on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, as I think it might require a consensus among you crats ;-) Regards, odder (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I've replied. Obviously I have no way of properly checking if an email was sent, hence my "as far as I can tell". My primary concern is for the on-wiki record, because anything else can be argued about. --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't delete either ...[edit]

bugzilla:34959 has been lodged to assist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Kobo[edit]

Good catch. I suspect you're right, but I converted the deletion request from a speedy to a regular RfD for the reasons set out at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kobo Touch eReader 2011.jpg. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Lingerie photoshoot.jpg - Commons:Questionable Flickr images#Flickr users[edit]

I can't access the flickr-stream. We have Commons:Questionable Flickr images#Flickr users and the account is not listed there. If the account is full of license laundering, then please add

{{qfi|munsy08||22701447@N05|reason}}

to the list and the id to User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors. This will prevent uploads from the stream/ autoreview of them. Thanks in advance and have a nice WE. -- RE rillke questions? 15:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Review?[edit]

Hello, 99of9. Can you please give me a review about how I'm doing? Thanks. Dipankan001 (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a bit, and now have to catch up on what I missed, so don't really have time to do a proper review. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban[edit]

I just saw your suggestion of an "interaction ban" between Fae and me, unfortunately, only after I posted this to Fae's Talk page. I am perfectly willing and happy to see a Commons interaction ban going forward between the two of us, but I also hope that Fae would understand that that means he would no longer be allowed to use my real name, my user name, or the names of my enterprises (e.g., Wikipediocracy, MyWikiBiz) in his various discussions and activity on Commons. Likewise, I would not use his real name, his user name, or the names of his enterprises (e.g., Wikimedia UK) in my various discussions and activity on Commons. I realize this extends somewhat beyond an "interaction" ban, as it is almost a "topic" ban; but I feel that it is necessary, considering Fae's recently incessant and vicious campaign to disparage me and my enterprises (e.g., calling members of Wikipediocracy.com a "traveling circus"). With this, I submit that I will cease interaction and topical discussion of "that person", and I hope that he will consent to same. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If you two can make some kind of agreement, that's perfect. You're both adults, I'd prefer not to barge in if possible, so go ahead and try to find a solution first. --99of9 (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

2011 POTY[edit]

Hi Toby. When does 2011 POTY scheduled to start? I didn't see any dates or estimation anywhere. I saw that in earlier years it started in May. Can I help in any way to progress its start? Tomer T (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think setting the date as May was premature. I'm not completely sure where things are up to, but my suggestion is to just keep pressing forward to make sure we have things like voting tools in place. --99of9 (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, but I didn't understand from it if I can help in any way. Tomer T (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem. I even don't know how is enhydra (perhaps kalan?) - that's the one who wants to write the voting-script and mono who calls himself being the Committee Chairman is not very responsive. They are not using QUA for the reasons given there but because he "want[s] to use it so we don't answer the same question over and over again" and "but mostly for the heck of it - to see how well it works in case it needs to be used somewhere else"
As for the galleries, someone could make some nice fresh icons (e.g. for arthropods, plants like used on mobile-devices) so we don't have to translate them. -- RE rillke questions? 15:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your participating in voting[edit]

Dear 99of9,

I can see that you participated in the featured picture voting on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png. Fortunately, this beautiful picture became a featured picture because many persons participated in the voting period. The rules says that there has to be at least 7 supporting votes and a ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority).[9]

Therfore, I would kindly ask you if you would like to give your vote in this similar voting Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model K-132, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png before it ends on 9 May 2012 at 01:58:26 (UTC).

Thanks!

Yours sincerely, --Hereiamfriends (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC).

File:Australian Defence Medal (Australia) ribbon.png[edit]

removed Category:Military decorations of Australia. Why? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ribbon bars of Australia is already a subcategory of Category:Military decorations of Australia. See COM:CAT for more info. --99of9 (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/FrescoBot[edit]

Hi! There is no need to test the upload component, please read the explanation at the bottom of the discussion. Thanks. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 13:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


"Voting closed"[edit]

Hi 99of9,

Just wondering, since when do we vote on bots? Your page protection at Commons:Bots/Requests/FrescoBot is a bit odd. --  Docu  at 08:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Docu. I just picked the closest generic reason available on the list. I agree it's not perfect, but it's close enough to be understandable, and I didn't think a custom explanation was necessary because closing a bot request is a pretty normal circumstance. I'd be happy to have a better targetted generic reason, and would use it appropriately. If you're concerned that I actually consider it a vote, do not fear. --99of9 (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation - Featured picture voting[edit]

Dear 99of9,

Thank you very much for your last participating in a featured picture voting about a musical instrument. I would kindly ask you if you would like to give your vote (and comments) in this featured picture voting about an upright piano of mahogany "Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model K-52 (mahogany finish), manufactured at Steinway's factory in New York City.jpg" before it ends on 23 Jun 2012 at 08:07:03 (UTC). The rules says that there has to be at least 7 supporting votes and a ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority).[10]

Thanks!

Yours sincerely, --Hereiamfriends (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer not to be canvassed or notified about image reviews in future, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Fbot[edit]

Do you think you could also assign me a bot flag? Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi Toby:

I remember your first comment in my talk page; it was very encouraging. Now I'm very active here and enjoying the community. But some discussions/quarrels are very distracting and meaningless. See example: Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:2012-06-04_14-34-01-volucelle.jpg. Any immature behavior from a generic user can be tolerable; but difficult from a moderator (Sorry; I don't know the exact titles in the Commons hierarchy). This is a continuation of previous unsolved (uncompromising is more right because of the unwillingness to forgive) issues between some users. So I request your kind attention in this case/such cases. Regrds, Jee -- Jkadavoor (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I notified it at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Biopics too. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jkadavoor. I'm glad you found my welcome encouraging - please do the same for other new contributors that you notice. It's great seeing amazing work like yours and knowing that I played a small part in your continued contributions to Commons. Sorry I didn't answer at the time, but as the others said on AN, Biopics is not an administrator, and has no special powers. He is however a very experienced contributor, a great photographer, a scientific expert, has high standards for QI, knows that the most important aspect of our work is its educational potential, and so it is worth taking his opinions very seriously. --99of9 (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have no personal issues with him. But still he is making so many issues in QI. See Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#File:Cerithium_vulgatum_02.JPG. He is not contributing any more images now and trying to stop people from that, I afraid. Regards, Jee. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Occupy Toulouse 2011-11-11 03.JPG[edit]

Hi, thank you for starting this DR, it's been months we already agreed on my RfA this file should be nominated, but it slipped my mind. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --99of9 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Note to self[edit]

Check problem here File:ABS-3101.0-AustralianDemographicStatistics-PopulationChangeSummary_Australia-NetPermanentLongTermMovement-Australia-A2133253A.svg. --99of9 (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Turns out the source data had a glitch, not my script! --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Assessments/commons[edit]

Your edits eliminates my ability to compromise in the actual discussion (where there is no strong opposition). I am not suggesting or even implying a revert... However I would like to note my immense displeasure of being forced to discuss content issues at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems where I am threatened to be blocked if I do not comply as "ordered" (by Alvesgaspar).

I realize my worth on commons is very small because I resigned my sysop flag years ago on my own and I do not upload files that get the featured star. Despite this I feel I can be of use to commons.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 15:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you are going to oppose anything and everything I do with {{Assessments}}. I suppose I should expect an indef block soon. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 05:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh? What is this sweeping generalization and dramatization based on? In any case, I am entitled to support or oppose things I like or don't like, it's certainly nothing personal. --99of9 (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Really? I am facing blocks, bans, demotions on one end and on the other end I am expected to discuss content issues over the same issues. If issue isn't personal what is the emergency? If I am going to be indefinitely blocked, so be it.
Why can't the issues not be discussed after the /UD is closed. I am rather puzzled. I get the feeling of being cornered over edits that otherwise aren't too important. You propose something and if no one objects it for over a month you go along with the edits. That is how wikis work. You do not need prior approval to edit pages.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

'Crat related question[edit]

Hi Toby,

Just FYI, I have raised a question, which relates to approval of bots by 'crats. If you get the time, I would appreciate to hear your opinion regarding this. Thanks, --Slaunger (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much, I only got involved in bots recently, but I've replied briefly. --99of9 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Communication[edit]

Can we please talk on email or IRC? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't promise extensive correspondence, but you're welcome to email me. --99of9 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Principal Adjoint -Gustavo neto[edit]

hello, I'm here to report to block the User [11] , he and crazy, no one knows how to receive requests for kits, he thinks, and persecution, he informed me, that would make the rest of the kits that I had asked before. please. --Gustavo neto (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Hello. I'm really sick of this Gustavo neto. He keeps harassing me with his football shirts. He always asks me to draw him while normally it is for him to do. I told him to stop, without success. NOW! So, I ask you to block at least one day for him to stop bothering me. If this continues, I will retire from Commons just because of him. Thank you for your understanding.--Principal adjoint (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Info[edit]

I've sprot PK's talk page for a couple of weeks given the nonsense but feel free to revert if you feel it wrong. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine, since they are via deletion requests we will have to keep an eye out to see if his files get nominated anyway. --99of9 (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah -point taken. If it screws things up feel free to revert. --Herby talk thyme 08:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Too many files in Category:Gnuplot_diagrams[edit]

Hello,

In the past, I found the category Category:Gnuplot_diagrams useful as a gallery of gnuplot's features. Since you've uploaded all the files about Australian Demographic Statistics, this category is unusable (sorry...). Your files seems to be 43031 (!!!) on a total of 43733. As files created by Gnuplot - but not uploaded by your bot are after yours - I don't see how to skip your files to go to the others.

Don't you think it could be appropriate to withdraw the tag "Gnuplot_diagrams" from your files to facilitate browsing of the other files made with gnuplot ?

Regards,

User:Gvdmoort

Thanks for the note. I've recategorized those files so that they are now in Category:Gnuplot_charts_using_data_from_the_Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics instead. It will probably take a while for mediawiki to flush the category, but I expect it will be finished within a day or so. --99of9 (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes the Australian War Memorial[edit]

Hi. You're invited to Wikipedia Takes the Australian War Memorial on 25 August at the Australian War Memorial. --LauraHale (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessments template[edit]

Would you mind if I revert or modify your edit to the template? It unfortunately disabled all labeling of POTY files. Categorization still works fortunately. I do not believe there ever was consensus to disable the feature nor do I believe that was your intention.

Also my proposal at Commons talk:Picture of the Year does not seem to generate any attention. What should I do? I do not want to spam peoples talk pages or shop for people through noticeboards/village pump as I fear that could be disruptive.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If I have turned off the prizewinners, that was inadvertent. But please don't turn the candidates pictures or text back on. A few clear objections to this have been expressed, so I think you need to let go of the idea, or look for a clear consensus in favour. Village pump or featured pictures are the two communities who will be most interested, but to be honest I think most people like the status quo of not marking candidates. --99of9 (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Not only was my proposal not given a fair chance, I was threatened with blocks and issue pursued over at user disputes. There was some off-wiki campaigning against it as well - which failed as most people did not care. You can see how I disregard such malicious intent.
However, I am not going to touch the template don't you worry. It seems like I am required to compromise while everyone else can make demands left and right. This is not how consensus works. One user is essentially filibustering any progress that is to be made on the template even if he explicitly states he does not care either way.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 04:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Hello Toby. I wanted to request rollback rights here at Commons. I have been an admin in he.wiki (in this user name) for about five years (I recently requested the removal of the admin rights), and I have also been a checkuser there. Regards, Tomer T (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --99of9 (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Tomer T (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Paralympic Categories[edit]

Good morning 99of9. Just wanted to leave a thank you note for streamlining the swimming photos away from "Australian Paralympic Committee" but leaving them in the more important and official "Images from the Australian Paralympic Committee". I was just about to do that myself when I realised the category duplication! But you have already done the work, thank you :) Thanks also for the category creation of the Category:2012 Australian paralympic shadow team - a much better name than the 2012 Australian Paralympic (shadow) Team athlete that I originally came up with. I'll use these categories in future. Have a great Tuesday. --TaraMacphail (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Tara. Thanks for your note, but also special thanks also for all those high quality uploads - I'm looking forward to seeing the rest. Head and shoulder profiles are perfect for the lead image of biographies, and to have such a comprehensive and uniform set is amazing for wiki. I'm very happy to help in some small way by categorizing them. Best regards. --99of9 (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Re:Problem with Odderbot[edit]

Ouch, thanks for letting me know about that! There have been exactly 13 ocurrences of that behaviour; it's because the pywikipediabot script I run to send the messages recognises links like [[en:blablabla]] as interwiki (example), and moves them to the very bottom of the page (where they normally belong on Wikipedia). I'll make sure to set the --noreorder parameter when running the script next time. Thanks, odder (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, thanks for fixing the situation with str4nd and informing him about the current run; I've already removed him from the list of admins to be desysopped I posted on Meta earlier today. odder (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Australian statistics graphs[edit]

Many of your bot uploads ended in Category:Media without a license as of 25 August 2012. Many lacks description. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the note. Nikbot had also alerted me to this. It was a set of graphs that I thought I was updating, but in fact had never been uploaded with their descriptions. I've just run a separate run to add descriptions, which they should all have now. I will remove the template once I'm sure that I've fixed things. Regards. --99of9 (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done This should be all fixed now. I've also added an extra step so that it checks for this after each update upload. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor Uploads' Names[edit]

Hi, I'm adressing you as a "bureaucrat", as noted next to your username in the Admins' list - I'm not sure about the accurate meaning of that title though.. I'm experiencing an unpredictable difficulty and would appreciate if you put an end to it very simply. Yesterday I published five move-requests for images I had uploaded long time ago - with the stated rationale of fixing spaces, capitalizations, script etc.. - while of course expecting that the mover-on-duty take these tasks as simple as they should be taken and plainly move the files to the specified new names, as follows:

The first one of the five was moved successfully – but the rest were all undertaken by another person who retitled those 4 files in a fashion that had nil to do with the requested names in the tags... So first I posted a nice, trivial request on the former mover's wall, so they can fix the thing quickly. But, I was surprised to find out I was irrespected . I then moved a step forth and texted 3 different admins with the same idea, adding the above list so these four images could be re-renamed hassle-free, but, I realized that the two who replied to me trended to rather develop a discussion instead of just perform the moves with all simplicity & overturn the harm that's done, as a obvious careful regard to me as the uploader. I have little interest in trying to understand the reason for that chain of operative functionaries' behaviour, but would honestly like to simply get those 4 files named with the names that I as their dedicated contributor have chosen for them.

I'm sure you'd not wait before just fixing this one with your tools so that I become a happy editor as before. Thanx. Orrlingtalk 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't reward forum shopping, so am not going to engage with this issue. In any case, there are better channels available than asking for an individual to override another individual's decision. Bureaucrats have no special authority over file-moves. --99of9 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)