User talk:Adambro/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Use of photo East Midlands Train Class 43 no. 43058

Hello Adam,

We wish to use the photo East Midlands Train Class 43 no. 43058,on a news article on the site of www.petersoulsby.org. The photo would accompany a news release about the new Leicester - London schedule. We will acknowledge your name/website as the photographer.

Could your please respond ASAP.

David Newton

www.newton-smith.com

Hi David. Thank you for your message. Like all images on Wikimedia Commons, this image is available to use according to the licences under which it is released. However, to simplify this, I am happy for you to use the photo as you describe providing I, Adam Brookes, are acknowledged as the photographer and ideally a link back to my page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Adambro, is provided. Thanks for your interest in my image. Regards. Adambro (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Huddersfield to Bradford & Wakefield proximity.jpg

Hi Adam! With regard to your query on the image. The base image was given (copyright free) to me from a cartographer friend of mine. He used to make mapping images for local authorities, until he passed away in the summer. I then used CorelDraw to overlay the distance lines. If there is a licensing problem with that then by all means delete it, I have no objections, it was simply created to prove which city is closest to Huddersfield. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Flaş.jpg

I took the photo no copyright.--Walterince (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld

Oops yes I understand. The other one and the crop is a completely valid image though as it is an actual photograph of an impersonator with Michael Dell. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed. Cheers. Adambro (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Adambro,

I apologize for "Flickr washing", I am just a beginner in licensing field, and I will be grateful if you can help me out, if I needed, as for the present matter, I am most grateful that you have deleted those images, I read all wikimedia commons rules and regulation of uploading and licensing for now and I will upload those Images again in proper licensing but still I get troubles with permission thing, let see an example of photo of Mamoru Oshii, I get it from the Production IG's website so to use that Image on Mamoru Oshii page I have to take permission by Production IG by contacting them? or just go through the "Terms and conditions" of the Production IG's website to see whether I can use it or not?. And I ensure you this will not happen again, I am very serious in helping wikimedia and others wikis and please delete Glasses hihara.jpg Image, there is no specific use of that Image on wiki.--Sumit sony145 (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ticket#2008122510013929

Hi Adambro, more than 15 hours ago I responded the e-mail from OTRS about getting the permission to upload a very unique image. I wonder, if it possible to check, if OTRS got my e-mail, and if the answer is "yes", when will I get the permission? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears another OTRS volunteer is dealing with this ticket who has been in contact with you. As it stands it appears that it wouldn't be appropriate to upload the image at the current time. Adambro (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Laugh sometimes

Regarding this, it was funny. Laugh some time. It's good for your soul. ;] ALLSTAR echo 17:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding Edited an Image

I was wondering if you could possibly tell me how to revert an edit to an image file. Originally, one version of the file in question was uploaded. Afterward, a different version replaced the original under the same file name. Everything else remained the same (description, etc.), except the name of the uploader. Then, a reversion was made to return to the original image. I would like to know how to undo this reversion. Could you possibly explain this to me? This is my first time editing on Wikimedia Commons, and my attempts to do what I described have not worked so far. Homologeo (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. What image file are your referring to? If you give me the name I can take a look. Regards. Adambro (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the file now entitled "Demonstrations in san francisco about hamas Israel conflict 1-10-9.jpg." But the image has been edited again, and there's no longer any need to revert anything. Thank you, nevertheless. Homologeo (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

kylie minogue images

Sorry, I thought I could put on wikipedia musical album's cover-art, by underling fonts - autor, and putting a free commercial licence (that's what cover-art are used for), such as a lot of albums in Uk version of wikipedia.

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content

I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. You have expressed interest in this issue, and you may wish to comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Category

Why did you remove Category:Diamond DA-20 from the many pictures I took while flying in one? It's not as if I'd added a random category, and I don't see anything prohibitory on Commons:Categories. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. The aerial photographs you've taken are fantastic and it is interesting to know what aircraft you were flying in but I don't consider it appropriate to categorise the images in Category:Diamond DA-20 because a DA-20 isn't the subject of the images. The primary purpose of organising images in categories is so that it is easier to find images but in this case it doesn't seem particularly relevant when looking for DA-20 related images to have a category full of images where the only connection is that they were taken from that aircraft. Adambro (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if it seemed like it, but I know you weren't looking down on my pictures (if you're being totally truthful, you have a higher appreciation for them than I do :-) but why couldn't you create a "Category:Pictures taken from a Diamond DA-20" or something like that? Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure why it is useful to categorise images based upon the aircraft from which they were taken? Adambro (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello Adambro,

I submitted a deletion request on Jan 18th : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/01/18#File:Israelsang.jpg but it has not been closed yet. Since you were the only one to be kind enough to vote for it, and you are an administrator, I was wokdering if you could maybe now delete the file ? I'm concerned because the file has only ever been used for antisemitic purposes on Wikipedia France and I would like to avoid this happening again in the future.

Thank you.

D4m1en (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey brother

If my image of Professor X is a violation of copyright then you have this: upload it and put it in your respective articles. You know what they say: if you want to do something right do it yourself. Upload the image and everybody wins.

juliana333 16:14, 1 february 2009 (UTC)

Update

I have responded to your queries, at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Message to Scientology.ogv. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

GNER HST Mark 3 Refurbishments

Dear Adambro

GNER carried out their first refurbishment of the High Speed Train Mark 3 carriages in 1997. This work featured the following:

  • Brown cris-cross carpet trim
  • Retrimmed light brown seat moquette on existing InterCity 70 seat design
  • Walnut lamminated wall coverings
  • Improved interior saloon lighting diffusers.

The second refurbishment commenced in 2005 and was based on the 'Project Mallard' Mark IV refurbishment.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. Adambro (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I Am Being Spammed

Dear Adambro

I am writing to let you know that my e-Mail's inbox is currently being spammed with lots of junk from Wikimedia Commons Adminstrators and also Wikimedia Commons Help Desk.

Do you know what may be happening?

The problem commenced at 0445 this morning.

--Peter Skuce (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I'm experiencing the same thing. The website is supposed to email you when you get a new message on your talk page if you have that enabled but for some reason it hasn't been doing and loads of old notifications have being turning up in my email account also. Apparently this problem will be resolved shorty as the backlog is cleared. There is an ongoing discussion about this on the village pump. Adambro (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adambro,

May I please discuss with you categories of this image File:Lebanon print.png?

1. Category Politics of Lebanon . IMO this image has absolutely nothing to do with Politics of Lebanon . May I please ask you, if you have a different opinion, please explain to me how this image belongs to the above category?
2.Category Politics of Israel . IMO this image has absolutely nothing to do with Politics of Israel. The politics of Israel is to avoid civilian casualties in any way possible. Politics of Israel. is protecting her citizens (Jews and Arabs alike) from w:Hezbollah terrorists, who fire at Israeli towns indiscriminately from behind Arab kids backs.
3. Category 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict IMO this image that has not a single strike of the brush that shows the truth. It cannot belong to any serious Commons category. IMO category carlos latuff is enough and it says it all.

Now, if I may, I'd like to explain why I've chosen you to discuss this matter. I did because first-of-all our opinions are very, very different (they are just the opposite to each other), and second-of-all because you wanted to ban me from editing Commons for expressing my opinion on the matter. That's why I believe you are the best person, who will be the most fair to the image and the most unfair to my concerns, to ask my questions. I assume that by this time you're probably angry with me and once again are willing to ban me from Commons. It is your decision, which I am not going to fight, but before you do, may I please ask you to explain to me how else I could discuss the bogus categories that are added to hate political propaganda caricatures without expressing my own political views on the matter?Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your silence speaks louder than words, and now I know about you everything I needed to know (like I did not know this before). IMO you are not fit to be Commons administrator. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that since I have commitments in real life which take priority over anything on Commons, I did not reply immediately. I am disappointed that you brand me "not fit to be Commons administrator" simply due to your lack of patience. I have no intention of commenting on this issue at this time and your reaction probably indicates that your request that I do so is not quite as well intentioned as it might first seem. Please raise this on the file's talk page where I will comment if I feel it is appropriate. Clearly however, you've made up your mind that "this image that has not a single strike of the brush that shows the truth. It cannot belong to any serious Commons category. IMO category carlos latuff is enough and it says it all" and as such you've already indicated your poor judgement regarding this image. Adambro (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response.IMO if an admin is busy in a real life, it might be a good idea to mention this somewhere on his/her talk page. Yes, you are right I made up my mind about the image. Otherwise I would not have posted the message about the image at your talk page. I see you also made up your mind about "my poor judgment ". So we both made up our minds, with one difference: while I provided arguments for the statements I made, you did not.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Taking into account different time zones etc. I would suggest expecting a response within 19 hours and saying I'm "not fit to be Commons administrator" for failing to do so is a little harsh. I have no intention of commenting on this particular image but it worries me that you appear to be still getting involved in issues where you obviously are unable to stop your emotions about the content of the image and its creator cloud your judgement. Regardless of whether the current categories are reasonable, saying that "It cannot belong to any serious Commons category" would suggest that you are unable to properly discuss this image. If you would like input about the categories that this image is in then I'd invite you to raise it on the talk page. Adambro (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I see you've done so now. Adambro (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I saw you made some contributions, but did not respond the message I posted at your talk page. There's always a time to write few words like "I get to you later", or "I have no intention of commenting on this particular image". Still, if you believe that my statement was too harsh, I retract it. Cannot agree that I am unable properly discuss this image. Sure I am. I'm only asking for some real arguments to prove that I am wrong, like I provided the real arguments to prove that I am right.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea

Hi Adambro, may I please ask you to take a look here:not a bad idea? And just between the two of us I would like to tell you that I'm ready to get blocked on commenting on any subject/s of your choice by myself (without Liftarn joining me). It is not because I am not right. I am. But I feel that Commons Community is getting increasingly tired of me, and it is not what I want to happen. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts on Deletion discussion

It could be seen as somewhat poor etiquette and a little rigidly bureaucratic to deny people the right to express their opinions when they had no idea that the discussion was newly closed at the time they were writing their comments. A few minutes' sloppiness is part of the asynchronous nature of Wikimedia editing. AnonMoos (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason the comments were removed was because since they were added after the time when the deletion request was closed they wouldn't have been considered by the closing adminstrator and so shouldn't form part of the archived deletion request. For this reason I intend to remove them again. Regards. Adambro (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, from my point of view your edits seem to be aimed at seizing upon technicalities in order to deny me any right to express my opinions, which were written in good faith, starting when the deletion discussion was in fact not closed, and continuing during a period when I had no idea that the deletion discussion was closed, and could not be reasonably expected to know that the deletion discussion was closed. If this is not the purpose or goal of your edits, then please make an effort to dispel the impression... AnonMoos (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
You can believe whatever you would like. I have no intention of preventing you from participating in deletion requests but where these have been closed it isn't appropriate to add to them. The facts are not how you present them. The deletion request was closed when you added your comments. Whether or not it was when you begun composing your comments is irrelevant. I am unconvinced by your suggestion that you "had no idea that the deletion discussion was closed". You noted that you had encountered an edit conflict in your edit summaries so quite obviously you did know because you would have had to integrate your comments around the edit which was made whilst you were writing. Clearly, when the D-Kuru closed the deletion request he did not consider your comments since they were not present when he read through the discussion. As such they shouldn't be preserved as part of the closed deletion request because it doesn't represent the state of the discussions on which D-Kuru based his decision. Unless you are able to explain why we should dismiss the long standing conventions and leave comments in deletion requests which were added after it was closed I will again revert back to the edit by D-Kuru. Adambro (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Dude, don't accuse me of lying when I was not lying. As I said before, I had no idea that the discussion was closed UNTIL I PRESSED THE SAVE BUTTON when I had finished editing my remarks. At that point (AFTER MY COMMENTS WERE ALREADY FULLY WRITTEN) I obviously did know that the image had been deleted, but I resolved the edit conflict so that my comments (which I had spent over five minutes writing) would not be lost). AnonMoos (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I am glad you have clarified the situation by accepting that you did know that the deletion request was closed when you added your comments. This wasn't clear previously, I was under the impression that you were trying to claim to have added the comments before knowing request was closed which would clearly be very unlikely. It is of course unfortunate that the DR was closed before the you were able to contribute your opinion but since that was the situation, and the closing admin wasn't able to consider your comments it is not appropriate to knowingly add them to the closed discussion as you have done. It is also unfortunate however that you were quick to make insinuations that anyone is trying to suppress your opinions despite the concept of not adding comments after discussions have been closed and preserved as an archive being the norm. I would apologise for my mistake in interpreting your comments incorrectly to the effect that I thought you were claiming to have added comments to a closed deletion request without being aware it was closed. Adambro (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted back to the version of the closing admin. If further attempts of reinserting comments made after closure is made, I will revert again and protect the arcived discussion. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad that you seem to be a lot more interested in rigidly enforcing technicalities of bureaucratic regulations (the cyber-equivalent of filing goldenrod forms in triplicated) than in allowing fair scope for good-faith discussion. AnonMoos (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests are not intended as soapboxes for people to give their views on subjects. As soon as they are closed there is no longer any useful purpose for people continuing to contribute their opinions. Adambro (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict cartoons

Thanks. I think this might work out. Please see the latest comments at File talk:Ambulances by Latuff2.jpg. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I beg you to explain why you keep cooperate with the Latuff promotion issue. It is not a question of categorization, it is a question of promoting political views, and the Commons is not the place for that. Liftarn does not contribute in good faith, and here is a trace of that [1]. I have my own political views, but I would never dream of using the Commons to promote them. This project is way too important. Apparently Liftarn thinks otherwise. I appreciate your attempts to find a good settlement to the problem, and yet I don't think that assuming good faith here is the solution, because apparently there are people who abuse this assumption. Drork (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is certainly a very difficult situation. I am not cooperating, at least not intentionally, with an attempts to promote Latuff's works. This is perhaps an unintended consequence of my desire to see these images categorised appropriately since the consensus of the Commons community is that they should be kept. The unfortunate reality is that I suspect there are individuals who like Latuff's artwork and so wish to see it in more categories than is perhaps appropriate and those, Mbz1 certainly, who dislike Latuff and won't accept it should be categorised appropriately. Mbz1 has stated on a few occasions that these images should only be in the Carlos Latuff category. Clearly he is letting his political/religious opinions get in the way of sensible categorisation. There have been some bizarre additions of categories and some equally bizarre removals. I therefore think that there is a tug-of-war going on here, on one side are those which dislike Latuff, and on the other are those who like him. I find myself in a very difficult position, the middle. I've already commented on the File:BigArmySmallKids.jpg elsewhere but as I said, I do note that the description, although inappropriate, was from the Flickr user rather than Liftarn.
I would like to assume good faith here but where there is prolonged evidence that this might not be the case then one becomes unable to. I'm therefore not simply assuming good faith, I am carefully assessing what is said and done and coming to conclusions as to what the real motivation may be. Unfortunately, improving Commons doesn't always seem to be it. Adambro (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Please don't let me feel like the only responsible adult in these discussions. Latuff's images are very problematic, and crossing red lines in many cases. Most people who voted to keep them here expressed their fear of censorship. Liftarn cannot hide behind other people's back all the time, and he cannot act as if he is here "to save Palestine". If he uploads images from Flickr he has to change their description and not wait for others to do it. If he uploads problematic images by Latuff, he should do it cautiously and respect the fact that they are offensive in many way and to many people. It is also inappropriate to promote a certain artist on the Commons. The Commons are not an open gallery for people to promote their careers. I am very frustrated not because of Liftarn of Latuff, but because of the over-diplomatic way in which abuses of the Commons are handled. PS - just for the record, I don't know Mbz1 and there is no cooperation between us. I am not responsible to anything s/he says or does. Drork (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you don't consider me to be a responsible adult. Nevertheless, I've already acknowledged the Flickr image uploaded by Liftarn is problematic and the description should have been changed. Perhaps this failure on Liftarn's part is an indication that they are trying to introduce their opinions, perhaps it isn't. Either way, I am not preprepared to simply dismiss all of what Liftarn does just because he might be politically motivated. What this means is that some of what he does is inappropriate, not necessarily all of it. I have never been under any illusions that Latuff's images are anything but problematic.
I do wonder how it was that I became involved in this whole unfortunate dispute and how perhaps it is a shame I did. However, it is obvious that the community, just as is the case in society, suffers when those with extreme views are allowed to take control and force those more moderate individuals out. I consider it my duty as a contributor to Commons therefore to, despite the hardships, to try as much as I can to stop Commons being distorted by those with extreme views and their own hidden agendas. It would be very convenient I feel for those with their extreme views for me to disappear and not get involved with this but I will not do so. It is a shame that this apparently makes me not a "responsible adult".
I have never had the impression that you are in anyway connected with Mbz1 beyond having similar views with regards to this issue. Adambro (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I should point out that the way you handle this issue is the most reasonable and fair I encountered so far, however I do have a strong feeling that certain users (and I won't mention names again) are exploiting the moderate and often over-diplomatic approach of most administrators here for the worse. I know an abuse when I see it. The welcoming attitude and the no-censorship approach are not to be taken as a green light for improper use of the Commons, otherwise this site will be sooner or later loaded with inappropriate material. The contributors of the Commons are a special kind of Wikimedian community. This is a community that took upon itself to serve all other Wikimedia projects, and to support a site which is multilingual and accessible to people of different countries, cultures and religions. This is a heavy burden, which is quite unique among the Wikimedia projects. It is too often that I see contributors here judging appropriateness by their own standards or by the standards of the Commons' administrators, while in fact, they should consider a much wider set of standards. We have plenty of copyright permission tags for every country and code of laws. We should equally be concerned about the content and how it is perceived in different countries and communities. Being tolerant to people with the wrong motives might bring us to the point where people with the right motives won't be willing to take part in this project. Drork (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I was able to agree with most of that, up to the point at which you started to suggest Commons should effectively self censor and treat certain content differently because some people find it offensive. I can never agree with this. Our projects cover an immensely broad range of subjects and to serve then properly we are always going to be hosting some content which some individuals dislike. If someone doesn't like content, I consider that to be a problem for them, not us although I certainly would agree with your point that we shouldn't allow individuals to abuse content which some kind offensive by spreading it inappropriately. Adambro (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Further to my above comments, whilst I suspect that some categories are being added to try to promote these images and some are being removed because individuals don't like them, I am also worried that this continued disruption surrounding the Latuff images could be convenient for those who simply don't like Latuff's images. It wouldn't be unrealistic to imagine that if this persists, the community might be more prepared to support their deletion simply to reduce the hassle they are causing. I hope anyone who has this agenda is aware that I am conscious of this as a explanation behind some of what has been going on and will be keeping an close eye on how things develop and recommend appropriate action is taken to remove users from the community where this seems to be their intention. Adambro (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Latuff's cartoons are meant to cause a hassle. The person who uploaded them here knew they would cause a hassle. In my opinion they are totally out of scope. Some of them are even dangerous (I live in the Middle East, I know how cartoons may be used as weapons). Latuff has his freedom of speech and he exercise it in many places. The Commons are here to convey information and in this sense it is never censored, however political views are a different story. Nevertheless, I respect the community's decision to keep these images. I believe most voters were afraid of a slippery slope that would cause endless deletion requests. What I don't accept is the attempt to push Latuff's views to every possible corner of the Commons. The Commons are not meant to be Hyde Park, and with regard to Latuff's, they should be handled with a special care, because they are potentially dangerous. Drork (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
As I have said above now, we shouldn't be afraid of hosting content which is likely to offend some individuals but, as you say, we shouldn't allow it to be spread beyond what is appropriate but nor should we let those who do consider it offensive decide what is and isn't appropriate. Adambro (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Obviously there is no consensus about your interpretation of what is censorship. You give this word a very broad sense which is not acceptable on many users of the Commons. The fact that you are an administrator in a project which serves all Wikimedia projects and people from various countries and cultures obligates you to be very cautious and avoid forcing your views by the powers given to you as an administrator. When you say that offending people is better than censorship (by your interpretation of this term) you express your own view which relies on your own culture and standards. You must acknowledge that these standards are debatable, and act accordingly. Drork (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't my own view, it is the view of the Commons community that censorship is undesirable and likely to impact our ability to properly serve the various Wikimedia projects which cover a broad range of subjects. It is my responsibility as a Commons administrator, not to let those individuals who find content offensive effect the proper running of the project whilst, as I have already said, not allowing individuals to abuse the project to force these images upon people by putting them in inappropriate categories. I'm not forcing my views about censorship upon people, I'm simply enforcing the consensus of the Commons community to not go to unwarranted efforts to avoid offending minorities who don't like particular images. When we start treating content which some individuals don't like differently we are heading down a very dangerous path. By treating content the same we avoid all need to consider our own cultural background and values, instead adopting those set by the Commons community. Adambro (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you don't consider me as part of the Commons community, otherwise there is no consensus here. That would have been more-or-less fair had I expressed a unique view, but I am not the only person in the Commons who thinks there is a problem with the interpretation given to the word "censorship". Furthermore, when you say the "Commons community" to whom are you referring? There are very few people who ever expressed their opinion in this subject on the Commons, and as this project serves all other Wikimedia projects, even the entire users of the Commons do not make up the entire community using the Commons. I have a feeling that certain people with certain views try to shape their site according to their own views, and this is not the way to do things for the benefit of the general public. Drork (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It takes more than a few people disagreeing to invalidate Commons:Scope#Censorship. The project scope is broadly accepted by the Commons community and sets out that "Commons is not censored and does quite legitimately contain content that some readers may consider objectionable or offensive. The lack of censorship means that a lawfully-hosted file that is within scope will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be “child-friendly” or that it may or does offend you or others for moral, religious, social or other reasons." This is one of the fundamental values of the project and I very much doubt it will ever change even if you disagree. When I am seeking a consistent approach to images, it is this value which I am attempting to enforce. It demands that images are categorised appropriately even if some might choose to dislike them. I am very concerned about users abusing the categorisation system to promote these images but I will also not allow whatsoever the abuse of the same system to suppress these images by those individuals who don't like them. I will not, as you seem to wish, feel guilty about supporting keeping these images in categories that I feel are appropriate, even if, as am unintended consequence, the risk of more people being offended by it is increased. I am simply not prepared to compromise on categorisation to pander to individuals who choose to be offended by certain content. It seems there is a desire of some to not see these in any categories. That approach is not helpful and I cannot support it. Adambro (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
As you know two days ago I openly accused two users in spreading hate, antisemitism and racism all over Commons. You read it and responded to my post. (Thank you.) I assume few other administrators read it too. My accusations are very serious. If I were wrong, it is a blockable offense, isn't it? Yet I was not blocked. From this I came to conclusion that you and others agreed with my point of view about latuff "art" and the users, who spread it at Commons. So how could you blame me in "extreme views ", if I'm fighting extreme views? What is proper categorization for hate and racism? IMO you should either block me for falsely accusing two other users in spreading hate and racism or stop blaming me in "extreme views ". Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You are free to express your opinion that other users are "spreading hate, antisemitism and racism all over Commons". I certainly don't think you should be blocked for doing so but that doesn't mean I, nor any other admins, necessarily agree with you. You are too quick to come to conclusions. Unfortunately, whether material is hateful or racist does not stop us properly categorising it and that is what I am seeking to be achieved. Please don't tire me anymore with your desires to not do so because you find the content offensive. Adambro (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean "find the content offensive"? I've no back thought behind my question. I really did not understand what it means. Oh, and BTW I'm getting tired of you getting tired of me. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it what you about?

In this edit of yours you blamed me in acting "disruptively against proper categorisation". Because ever since my last block ended I neitherer removed nor added any category to any image (except my own images of course) I consider this accusation of yours as a denial me my rights for freedom of speech. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Consider it what you like. I trust you will allow me sufficient time to respond to your recent comments there and I will attempt to address your above comments when I do. Adambro (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, please take as much time as you need.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)