User talk:Adambro/Archive 6

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.

Please speedy deletion, privacy violation

Please delete File:Reunió viquipedista 031.JPG

Sorry for upload, Please delete File:Nguyen-Extrajudicial killing.jpg. But if you can upload it for commons that will be more better. This kind of image necessary for other Wikimedia projects, but unfortunately it's only available for English Wikipedia. Can I upload it for Bangla Wikipedia (bn wiki)?--T@nv!r_ (Talk | Contribution) 06:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: H1N1 duplicates

OK. Thank you to warn me about this matter. It excuses the nuisances.

Fonadier Flag of Brazil.svg talk 02:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why interference Category:Gastronomy?

See also Why interference Category:Gastronomy? (Category:Gastronomy --> Category talk:Gastronomy)--Tom778 (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Adambro, better not waste your time with Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs). Just take a look at the other "dialogues" on his talkpage and you will understand. --Túrelio (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Túrelio never tried a dialog with me. He/she just made some accusations and threats, which I certainly do not appreciate. Túrelio's statement is a good example of an Ad Hominem [1], a logical fallacy that should always be avoided.
I am willing to talk and remain courteous with anyone who is interested in a rational discussion. I am, however, pretty sure nothing good will come from the current discussion on the noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How does one deal with personal attacks, slander and libel?

I have had quite enough of the constant attacks and innuendo by Drork. I delete it. It is impossible to respond to. In deletion requests or on licensing talk pages, any response would be off topic. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The most important part of Drork's edit was at the beginning, and had to do with serious issues concerning Kuiper. Perhaps Drork did follow that by making some comments directed at Pieter Kuiper directly, but they are not as venomous as things said by Kuiper himself, and the Kuiper failed completely to respond to the substance of Drork's edit. It is all to easy to feign righteous indignation to avoid discussing real problems. In my view. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I might also point out that Lar specifically warned Kuiper not to delete any more talk page content [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with Pieter Kuiper removing comments from talk pages, particularly where they are counter to his own view, but nor am I comfortable seeing every discussing he is involved in turning into an opportunity for particular members of the community to reiterate their opinions about Pieter. Drork's comments don't relate to the focus of the deletion discussion which is why I removed them. I hope perhaps you could reconsider your thoughts on their relevance and remove them so they don't risk distracting from a proper discussion about the image concerned. Adambro (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that part of the discussion should be moved to the administrators noticeboard. It is, I know, problematic in the discussion of deletion of an image, but these issues really do exist. In any case, Pieter Kuiper introduced his WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV article himself [3], and that also is certainly outside the scope of a deletion discussion. I think all those edits should be moved, not deleted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter etc

For your information I've done some documentation of the dispute at User:Nilfanion/Israel. I've noted the details of the edit war at User:Nilfanion/Israel#Edits to COM:FOP the problem really is the absence of consensus.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

After that, Deror avi has reinserted his version, although we had been told not to do that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not edit archive

I removed my comments from the talk page. It was archived with my comments after I did.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit archives of talk pages or remove comments from talk pages which would render other comments without context. Adambro (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Then how about adding back my comment that was removed, and which renders my other comment context, or better yet remove the post alltogether. Until it is not done, I would not like to see my signature next to that thing. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Since it is Pieter's talk page then he is entitled to some degree of control of its contents. Your preference not to see your signature next to particular content does not justify disrupting talk page archives. I must insist that you don't continue to remove these comments. Adambro (talk)
I believe, if those are my comments I am entitled to some degree of control over them. I am much more flexible that he and you are. I offered to you
  1. to remove all post mine and his altogether,
  2. to remove the image only, it does not add anything to contest and was added and later enlarged with the only purpose to irritate me,
  3. to add my post that was removed by him back, or
  4. to remove my other comment while leaving his comments intact.
    He and you rejected everything. So I know it is "plain daft" what I am doing, but I will continue to do it. I've already tried to explain few times that it is unbearable for me to see that cartoon. My relatives, who I never got to know because I was born much later the war has ended, died in the Holocaust. They only guilt was that they were Jews. They were innocent elderly, women, kids, who could not get out of the ghettos and concentration camps. That cartoon depicts West Bank security fence that was built to protect innocent civilians from Palestinian homicide bombers, who are entering Israel with the only purpose to kill innocent civilians Jews and Arabs alike. Do you see the difference between wire of concentration camps and West Bank security fence? If you do not, I am afraid we speak different languages. That cartoon garbage could have had encyclopedic value, if it was put to the right categories, which is "propaganda" and "anti-Semitic picture". Until it is done EV of that garbage is negative.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Please stop needlessly disrupting Commons to make a point. Adambro (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaking. It is you, who are instead of answering my direct and valid request are using your administrative power to make a point, and BTW a very wrong point. Well nothing new here I guess, one more time administrator Adambro protects anti-Semic garbage. Great job!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Adambro, can you see your way clear here to help everyone find an amicable solution? Mbz1 desires to remove her words, which is admittedly contrary to common practice, but if Pieter could be convinced to accomodate Mbz1 that would be awesome. Mbz1, can you see your way clear here to not cast aspersions on Adambro such as "Adambro protects anti-Semic garbage. Great job!" ??? That would be awesome too. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to devote any more time to this. As I see it, the fact that Pieter archived his talk page with the comments from Mbz1 in place would indicate that he feels he needs them to preserve the integrity of the talk page archive. I very much doubt he could be convinced otherwise and I don't see much value in doing anything to stir things up again. Mbz1 and Pieter simply need to try to stop agitating each other, I don't think removing a few comments would do much to improve things. Perhaps a better way forward would be to ask that neither post messages on the other's talk page? Adambro (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Integrity? Really? Is it what everything is about? Then maybe you could explain to me why kuiper made that garbage 2 times bigger after I asked to remove it? Was it done to preserve integrity or to harass me personally and make a point? It is not just any harassment (I do not care about that from kuiper, I've got it more than enough). No, that harassment is racist harassment. The message was archived few minutes after it was posted. I was not given the opportunity to respond, my response was deleted. Is it a normal practice in your opinion, "fair" administrator adambro? And, yes, until that cartoon is added to the right categories (propaganda and anti-Semitic picture) , it is nothing more than anti-Semitic garbage. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you two could just avoid leaving messages on the other's talk pages? That would reduce any risk of you feeling your comments are being associated with anti-Semitic content and not give Pieter another opportunity to upset you. Adambro (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanks for a calm response. You still did not respond my question.Anyway, I promice I will avoid leaving messages on his talk page, but still I'd like to have a solution now. I explained why is unbearable for me to see that cartoon next to my user name. I assure you, it is not to make a point, not at all. It is a real pain for me. So far nobody explained to me why it cannot be decided with one of the solutions I offered above, if it so important for me, if I treat it as a racial harassment, and if it all, but a normal practice or archiving a message.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Going forward I agree that Mbz1 and Pieter need to avoid each other and I've strongly urged Mbz1 to do just that. However, Adambro, I would ask you to consider some sort of assistance here to resolve this matter. Not to put too fine a point on it but it does seem like Mbz1 is making a valid request... if the image was added in a way that was hurtful, intentionally or not, then a way to reduce that seems good to me. I'd ask you again to help out here, as I'd rather not use more forceful methods if an amicable compromise can be reached. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome any suggestions on possible resolutions that you may have. I'm going to assume good faith that Pieter didn't add the image with the intention of upsetting Mbz1 and so it is really left to him to decide if he wishes to retain the image as it is. We could try to persuade Pieter to consider the apparent upset that this image is causing Mbz1 but I would expect he can recognise her concerns and has judged it still to be appropriate to include. I don't wish to inflame the situation by trying to convince Pieter to accept a change, I suspect we can all find more productive uses of our time. We can't please everyone all of the time unfortunately. Adambro (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how you could assume a good faith on his side, if I am repeating over and over again that he made image 2 times bigger after I asked it to be removed, and my responce was deleted, and the message was archived? Above I offered 4 ways to resolve the issue, just reducing the size is not good enough for me. If none of my proposal is adopted, I consider that matter as not resolved for me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Adambro: you abused your administrative authority by protecting that talk page, instead of dealing with a legitimate complaint. "Archived" talk pages are not sacrosanct, and neither do they "belong" to the user, especially those that were archived only days before. You do, as an administrator, have an obligation to see that the issue is resolve in an amicable manner. I fixed it myself--you could have done the exact same thing. Bastique demandez 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Bastique's action. He has done what I was politely asking you to do, or to get Pieter to do. I'm sorry that my gentle approach did not prove effective but I warned you. I have to think long and hard about Bastique's comments about abuse of admin authority but at first blush, I think he raises a very valid point. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was broken so there was nothing to "fix", Mbz1 just objected to the image being near her comments. That was something to resolve by negotiating between Mbz1 and Pieter, not by Mbz1 removing all her comments to make the archive meaningless. Perhaps my approach to this situation was poorly thought out but I would have appreciated if Bastique could have discussed it with me to help me understand this before appearing out of nowhere and intervening.
Lar, I did ask that you try to provide some suggestions as to how this could be resolved but you didn't respond. Your earlier comments didn't really help me to figure out what to do here so I don't feel your criticism is particularly helpful. You could have suggested a resolution, such as Bastique's, which we could have discussed.
Much time has been wasted here, admittedly partly my fault, and the real problem, that of relations between Mbz1 and Pieter hasn't been resolved. Had I not been distracted by Mbz1's changes to the archive talk page I would have encouraged both parties to try to be more civil towards each other.
I am happy to admit that I am not perfect. I make mistakes. I would welcome though that when I do make mistakes that it is pointed out in the clearest of terms at the earliest opportunity so I can correct those mistakes instead of making more. Adambro (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Mbz1 provided suggestions, which you apparently ignored, near as I can tell. I think they were all fine suggestions. Asking me for more suggestions seemed counterproductive if you weren't addressing the ones already made, don't you think? As it turned out, the solution Bastique implemented was a variant of Mbz1's suggestion #2. Which I endorse. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This image is by... box

Hello Adam, Myles Findlay here. I just wanted to know how you created the following and if one could be made under and/or my name/account.

Camera icon.svg
This image is by Adambro
See below for details of the licence(s) under which this image is released. This image can be reused providing the terms of the licence are complied with. If you have any queries or would like to use the image in a way which doesn't comply with the licence then please email me or leave a message on my talk page. Although not required, I'd be very interested to hear from you if you do use one of my images.

Hi Adam

Hi Adambro, I guess I own some explanations to you. First of all I would like to say to you that I am sorry, if some of the above comments I made offended you in some way. Yes, I called the office yesterday. I was crying while I was speaking. It is how hurt I was. I would like to tell you that the only thing I asked for was to remove the image from my post. I did not ask for anything else. I'd like you to believe me that it was done not to make a point. Before I did not care, if you believe me or not, but I do now. Okay now about Kuiper. If he will post unblock request, or you feel like unblocking him, I am endorsing the unblock. He hurt me badly, some of which was my fault too, but I would not like him to suffer. Being blocked quite a few times myself, I know how painful it is. Or if you feel as blocking me too, I know I deserve it, please go ahead, I really would not like Kuiper to feel as he is singled out. Adam, now I know that you have no favorite cartoonist :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel stuff

The locus of that dispute is at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. I have tried to consolidate a list of discussions at User:Nilfanion/Israel. There is some discussion on the talk page of that user page. I have not found any discussion of if images like the one under discussion at COM:UNDEL constitute "permanent" display - apart from the arguments on the associated deletion request.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper

Hi,

I just noticed that you blocked Pieter Kuiper for a week, I am reading a bit about it but I can only find 2 things about him and it makes it kind of hard to block a week for the first time.

  1. He nominated a file, that could cause a disruption, but according the FP rules it is okay to nominated a file like that, so he was playing inside the book and official he didn't do a thing wrong.
  2. He is a pain in the ass, and he will be and a block will not stop that.

He is now blocked for three days, and I suggest to remove the block because Pieter Kuiper does good work also and we also need him because he is good in the good things he do.

And in my opinion a three day block is a good started, we could build up when needed.

Best regards, Huib talk 19:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Huib, the best place to discuss protective measures is Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No, the best place is the talkpage from the blocking admin, because I want his opinion not the opinion of the rest of Commons. Huib talk 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there Abigor. The reason for blocking Pieter Kuiper was not that he nominated that particular image for feature picture, as you note that complies with the FP rules, it was the context within which he chose to do so. He had added that image to a discussion he was having with Mbz1 and she felt it was done so to harass her. Whilst I'd tried to assume good faith and defended attempts by Mbz1 to remove it from Pieter Kuiper's talk page archive, it eventually removed by Bastique. Pieter's response was to leave this comment and soon after nominate the image which was involved in that dispute for FP.
As I explained on Pieter's talk page following blocking him, it was difficult to consider that nomination to have been made in good faith, it would be a very big coincidence if it was. The length of the block reflects the fact that Pieter is an experienced user who should be able to understand by now the controversial nature of this image and be considerate of the feelings of other contributors. Regards. Adambro (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gan Shmuel fisherman image

The debate is now closed, so I'm making this comment here. You wrote, in closing, "Additionally, since the man holding a fish image exists separately, the value of this image could be increased by cropping it so that it only shows the man with the child." This is wrong, and shows that you still don't get it. Such a crop would destroy the whole point of the collage, which lies is in the juxtaposition of the two pictures. Individually they're just nice pictures, but they don't say anything. Together, they're a heartwarming commentary on a period of Gan Shmuel's history, and I'd include it in the Hebrew WP article if only it didn't already have so many pictures compared to its length. -- Zsero (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for reverting your crop, Adambro, but the point of that image, from its Hebrew name, was the juxtaposition of the SAME fisherman(Dan Levy) with his "catch" and his son (Oded). By cropping, the entire artistic effect of the contrast/comparison of two of the the main impetuses of this person's life--in similar poses--is lost. -- Avi (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying matters. I hadn't appreciated that the significance of the combination and had cropped out the other image to try to address some of the concern about it, my idea being that as individual images they could be used alone or together as appropriate. I have no problem with you reinstating the original images since you are probably in a better position to consider more of the facts. Regards. Adambro (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Adambro/Geograph

Hi Adambro, User:Adambro/Geograph is almost empty, only these images are left (not in my database dump, to new):

Maybe you could do these by hand? Multichill (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look later, and possibly figure out how I can run queries on the toolserver db instead of using AWB and dumps. Adambro (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Done except File:Bromesberrow St Mary's Church.jpg which appears to have been deleted from Geograph. Adambro (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Volume of Latuff images

Your comments are requested at Commons:Village pump#Latuff repository. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

categories

I explained on User talk:Liftarn why the categores are appropriate; neither of the categories Liftarn listed cover the ones I added. Furthermore, the categories I added are both existant on the Commons, and do not require the creation of some Latuff-specific category, which strikes me as somewhat of a perversion of the intent of the Commons. If you have a better solution, by all means suggest it somewhere centralized like the pump, but I fail to see the issue in adding appropriate, clarfying categorization that did not previously exist to the specific Latuff cartoons to which it applies. -- Avi (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the appropriateness or otherwise of the categories. I'm interested in whatever issue exists being discussed properly rather than users edit warring. You are experienced enough to understand that isn't constructive. Adambro (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at talk FOP

I have updated COM:FOP to reflect the clear consensus found on the talk page with a note that indicates Commons's following the Presenti et al interpretation of the law. Thank you for pointing out the issue. -- Avi (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not immediately convinced by the suggestion that applied, or useful art means anything but am not really familiar enough to properly judge myself. It does seem convenient though that consensus supports the more relaxed interpretation rather than a more cautious approach which might be more in line with the precautionary principle. The general idea that "applied art" means "all art" is one I am struggling to grasp. If it means "all art" then the law could have surely just refereed to art. Prosfilaes's concern about this interpretation potentially violating international copyright agreements is an interesting point. Adambro (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The precautionary principle is applied when we do not know about the copyright status. Having foremost experts on Israeli copyright Law publish (Presnti and the other book, I forgot the name) the interpretation of the Law does not qualify as do not know. -- Avi (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The precautionary principle is not for when we "do not know about the copyright status", it is for when "there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file". As I've said I'm really familiar enough with this to properly judge the situation but Presanti doesn't decide the law, the law decides that so our primary source for deciding whether something complies with the law should be the law. Unfortunately I don't have Presanti's book nor understand Hebrew so I can't really explore this issue much, particularly because a few quotes from the book might not tell the whole story due the lack of context. It also remains a possibility, remote I would accept, that Presanti has made a mistake. That is why we should work from the law, which talks about applied/useful art, not "all art" or simply "art". Adambro (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
However, commons works on the principle of consensus, and there is a rather clear one at COm talk:FOP. Perhaps you would like to start a new discussion with that argument, but the consensus as it stands is rather clear. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh I'm not disputing that consensus exists, only that perhaps the consensus isn't correct. I'd have to be a braver man though to dare question it though, even considering the likelihood that some who have supported it have been canvassed to do so based upon my observations at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png. If I was to start a new discussion on this then I'd want to be familiar with all the facts. I don't think I am likely to ever be in the position to do so. Adambro (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and you should not be afraid to question, but the evidence brought supporting this consensus is pretty strong. Also, please don't confuse watchlisting with canvassing :) -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think watchlists worked cross wiki? Adambro (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What does cross-wiki have to do with anything? Most of us have commons accounts; for example, you and I are active on both EnWiki and the Commons. I have various watchlists on lots of wikis (fr, de, he) not that I am nearly as active outside of EnWiki/Commons. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you read my observations at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png? Adambro (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
No, I did not see that. That is disappointing. /sigh. I agree with your note. -- Avi (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png
 
***** Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar *****
Thank you for blocking me for one day only.

It was very kind of you, and because of that although I cannot, and will not, say that I am sorry for what I said to pk,
but I will do my best to watch my language in the feature.

Last year that very time you called me "he" Smile and argued I should have been banned on Commons :) Please have a Happy New Year, Adam!, and BTW even if you blocked me for a week or two I still would have given you this barnstar.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Israeli FoP

I hope you know what you're doing. You reopened a closed discussion and put the Israeli users who made their utmost effort to provide answers to all questions and doubt in a strange position, where they have to prove that they act in good faith and understand the laws of their own country. There is no 100% certainty in the world we live in, and if you want to be absolutely positive, you'll end up with nothing. I am feeling almost humiliated by the fact that the work we have done to eliminate any shred of reasonable doubt is questioned again. Some remarks, such as Pieter Kuiper's suggestion that Tamir Afori might testify against us, show ignorance regarding the legal process (I'm not a lawyer, and I still know that the remark was ridiculous), and the fact that such remarks are taken seriously, while the answers to them are repeatedly questioned, makes me wonder where all of this leads us. Drork (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make is. I've not "reopened a closed discussion". The issue of Israeli FOP, like any other, is never set in stone. I've not set out to stir something up that was settled. The new discussions about Israeli FOP have simply resulted from the confusion I expressed about how FOP Israel seemed to contradict itself which prompted Avi to attempt to resolve that problem. I've just continued to explain my concerns the current version of FOP and felt we were having some constructive discussions about this issue. I'm sorry if you feel you're being asked to answer questions you've already answered. As you'll be able to appreciate, I've not been involved in FOP Israel discussions until now so have been playing catch up in some respect having missed earlier discussions. Please don't feel compelled to answer what might be repeated questions, if something has already been explained simply referring to where it was discussed would be helpful enough. Nor should you feel that my inability to understand FOP Israel implies that I in any way distrust what is being said by those from Israel, who, I have no problem accepting are in a better position than myself to understand the situation. You should appreciate that I simply like to be able to understand something myself rather than be told things. Regards. Adambro (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn (response)

I think what Liftarn is trying to do is quite obvious. I am sorry, but I am not willing to enter endless discussions about his categorization theory. There are enough evidences to show his motives are political. He will try to keep introducing categories in Israeli-related subject in order to slander people and organizations affiliated with Israel. I have noticed the method of endless discussions in several issues on the Commons. Liftarn and certain other users would drag a discussion forever until people are tired enough to let them have their way. I am not going to let that happen. Drork (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to threaten me?

Are you threatening me because you side Liftarn and Pieter Kuiper in their debates with me? I urge you to reconsider your behavior as an admin. You are not acting in a helpful way. Drork (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to suggest I'm being biased here and abusing my admin rights. I have warned Liftarn about his behaviour just as I have warned you, and am just as prepared to block him as you if that becomes necessary but I hope it doesn't. Not being helpful is fighting over categories as if that is going to resolve anything. You, and anyone else involved, needs to discuss instead of edit warring and I will use my admin rights, as is expected of me, to prevent that disruptive behaviour continuing if it does so. Adambro (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not comfortable at all with what I am going to write now, but I have to: (1) You reopened the discussion about FoP in Israel, because we reached a result which was against Pieter Kuiper's opinion as well as yours. You asked Deror-Avi and I to reiterate all the explanation we had given, and caused us a redundant time-consuming effort (2) You renominated a picture from Israel for deletion, because it was against Pieter Kuiper's opinion, and you weren't satisfied with any explanation I gave you why the image was legitimate. At the end, you managed to instill doubt in other admin's minds. (3) You assist Liftarn in his attempts to slander Zionist organizations through categorization, even though I proved his motives were not pure. (4) You took Liftarn's side in every discussion related to Latuff's cartoons. You ignored my complains about him, and redirected them at me. (5) Now you threaten to block me because I am not willing to live with Liftarns crusades on this site. Drork (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, numerous aspects of that are incorrect. On point 1, I didn't reopen the discussion, Pieter did, as I've explained above following an observation I made that FOP Israel seemed to contradict itself which prompted Avi to try to address that problem. On point 2, yes I did renominate an image for deletion. How you can conclude that was "because it was against Pieter Kuiper's opinion" is beyond me. The new deletion request was a constructive discussion about the relevant issues. If you feel the deletion wasn't appropriate then you know where to raise your concerns. On your third point, I do nothing to try to assist Liftarn "to slander Zionist organizations through categorization", only if you consider asking you to not edit war on categories to be doing so. On (4), there may well be times when my opinion has agreed with Liftarn's on issues. So what? On your final point, I have warned you about edit warring and how I might block you, or anyone else, if it continues, and that remains my position. Stop trying to discredit me and my attempts to stop you and Liftarn disrupting Commons. I will not be dissuaded from doing so by your accusations. Adambro (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am going to send a message to all Israeli users urging them to boycott Wikimedia Commons, i.e. refrain from any further uploads and from any participation in discussions here. I think the attitude Israeli users receive here is appalling, and the only way to overcome it is by boycott. Drork (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So I notice. I don't know how you expect that will help resolve anything though, just as your edit warring wouldn't. Adambro (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Surreal Barnstar

Surreal Barnstar.png
 
***** Surreal Barnstar *****
Thank you for the Simplified proposal!


Although the proposal itself is probably not to pass, but I have got my praise already, maybe even more important than passing the proposal itself. Adam, we have had many disagreements in the past, and maybe will have some in the feature, but today I'd like to thank you for allowing me to understand you better, and maybe become more tolerant to other people opinions. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How it works?

Could you please explain to me, if a simple majority of the votes supporting the proposal will make it to pass, or the rules are different. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know to be honest. Ideally, the result would be overwhelming in either direction but that not being the case makes things difficult. Whatever happens, hopefully these discussions will serve a useful purpose, possibly bringing this issue to the attention of more in the community who may have fresh ideas as to how we should resolve it. Adambro (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, as long as there is no specific Commons policy covering the issue, we look to Wikipedia policy for guidance, when applicable and not specifically contested (the use of the policy, not the issue). In this case, w:WP:NOTDEMOCRACY would seem to apply. The way I understand it, the basic principle is consensus, i. e. general agreement. Since that seems not to be the case right now, further discussion is required. Fun! ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

File:BarryHunauInspections.jpg

Have you sought clarification that the OTRS ticket permits this particular image? The ticket only seems to give permission for images from cartoonsbybarry.com, not all cartoons by Barry Hunau. Is this image available on that website? Adambro (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

cartoonsbybarry.com is just a wrapper. The actual content is actually at http://web.mac.com/thehunaus/cartoons_by_barry so it depends on your viewpoint. I would say it is. // Liftarn (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks fine. Adambro (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Section headers on file description pages

Hi Adambro, could you point me to the relevant styleguide for this edit? I'm not challenging it, I'd just like to avoid creating needless work. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you object to an edit I make, it would be normal to discuss it first with me....that is (of course) if is my edit to the file to which that you object. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Malcolm, do you ever read before you embarass yourself? Sorry to be blunt, but this matter has absolutely zilch to do with you. Check it. Paradoctor (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there are any guidelines on this but it is how the main upload form is now formatting file description pages so I assume that standard has been agreed on somewhere. The special headings allow for it to be localised for different languages, and separating out the licence from the information template makes things less cluttered. I've no idea what Malcolm is referring to. Adambro (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither do I. While I think the license looks better inside the template, that is nothing I'm passionate about. So, fingers off int: headers and leave them licenses alone, got it. Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

HD category and Latuff image

Please see my comment at that discussion, referencing how the ADL is in category:Antisemitism. -- Avi (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Trains by operator

Hi. I've done the FGW 153s for you, I'm going to go sort out some 313s for a while. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, fantastic, thanks for your help. Editing dozens of images inevitably turns up on people's watchlists. :) Adambro (talk)
No problem. ATW 153s done now. Also creating train interior by operator cats. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sidenote on this - a train interor should be in 3 cats: train interiors of operator, train interiors of class, class of operator. Bit of overlap, but worthwhile imo. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
One further thing for you - I've created a few substable templates for category creation. For the "Class Xs of operator", use {{subst:tbyo|class|operator}} and for "trains of operator", use {{subst:toc|operator|ews}}, where ews represents the countries served (delete as appropriate). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again Matt. Adambro (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Noticed that some of our stuff is categorised class > class by operator > class by specific operator and some just class > class by specific operator - do we have a standard here? The latter seems more common. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The latter is probably better, for now at least, since the other system added another layer to the categorisation system without much real benefit. Like the other categories which I've realised are probably excessive for now, my plan was to simplify the structure class > class by specific operator as I progressed with the recategorisation work. As you'll appreciate, these things have a habit of evolving as things progress and the requirements become clearer. Adambro (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Manchester rail hub

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Adambro. You have new messages at Thryduulf'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 | +/−

Deleted file on en.wiki

Hi. I have checked File:Regione di Vysocina.png, a moved file from it.wiki by bot. Originally, the file was on en.wiki. So, here on Commons original author and original source are missing: could you please check them on deleted description page on en.wiki? Thank you--Trixt (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

en.wiki uploader was w:User:Caroig, they didn't provide any other information than that. I'll update the page here. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you.--Trixt (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your undeletion of the Acco tourist maps

Nothing in these photos indicated that they were publicly displayed. These are just tourist maps. The large-scale map refers to the detail "on the other side". Anyone can make such images in their hotel room. Undeleting them without any proof is a very strange action. And toursit maps are never permanent, they need to be updated for every season. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing strange here Pieter. The points you make are worthy of discussion, you can either put them to the uploader directly or explain them in a deletion request. I think you are quite reasonable to ask questions about these points. I am sure you will agree that it will be much easier to discuss them in the context of a deletion request, where everyone can see the images in question, rather than a undeletion request where only admins can. You should have realised that your suggestion that these images were copyright violations would be disputed so it would surely make more sense in such situations to start a deletion request rather than tagging with {{copyvio}}, watching as they get deleted only for their deletion to be inevitably disputed. Adambro (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I will tag Arab maps instead. Anything Jewish is inevitably going to be disputed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Robotpeintre.gif

The animation has sinse been deleted. You never informed me of that (I know you didn't have to, especially as you didn't delete it, but it would've been nice...). As for the files Rsnewarea1 and 2, I needed then for a wikipedia article I was going to make, but decided against it as there were already articles covering it.
Mod mmg (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Rod of asclepius.png

Hello, On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. And they believe that commons policy is not so clear regarding the subject. So since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 13:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry, the thing is so urgent so I loaded all the pages and then posted the message and saved, so so sorry again :-) MaenK.A.Talk 14:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User Larry D. Alexander

Hi! Is there any way you can go over to my user page and delete it for me? I'm no longer using it. In fact, I haven't used it in years. I would most appreciate it if you could. Thank You very much! Have a great day. Larry D. Alexander (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, How can I request the deletion of a file that I uploaded?? thank you MaenK.A.Talk 11:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


File source is not properly indicated: File:LaytonPortrait.jpg

العربية | asturianu | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:LaytonPortrait.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:LaytonPortrait.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Bluemask (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Adam, I would be grateful for your permission to use your photo of heathrow terminal 5 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:London_Heathrow_T5_AB2.JPG) I am writing an assignemnt of the design of the building, and wish to use your image merely as a visual reference. I understand that incorporating our image does not assume your acceptance or endorsement of my text. Many thanks in advance, and I look forward to your kind reply. regards Tony Lyons

The Saturdays

The current picture should be added in the artical, but not as the main picture as there is only 3 members shown. An image of all 5 members would be best.--92.27.12.59 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be best but I've not been able to find a freely licensed images showing all the members. In the absence of the such an image, I don't see a problem with using the images showing three members in the infobox. Adambro (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

People who don't know The Saturdays could think theirs 3 members, not all people tend to read the artical.--92.27.12.59 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a small risk there yes but I would note that a caption has now been added explaining that the image shows some of the group, not the whole group. With that I don't see a problem. It is certainly better having an image of some of the group than no image at all so I'm glad you've stopped removing it from the article. If you'd suggest it should be moved elsewhere within the article then you could raise that on the article's talk page for discussion. Adambro (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

geograph_org2commons

In case you are not watching Oxyman's talk page, please see my message re a new version of geograph_org2commons. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ho hum

seems to me that jimbo has pretty much defined folk who upload images of actual sexual activity as trolling - now if Jimbo says something is trolling, do we talk about it, or follow his lead? ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)I'm sort of teasing a bit, of course, but am well up for a good chat if you'd like - hope you're good anywhoo.....

I assume he wasn't meaning everyone who uploads such images. I can't say I spend enough time browsing our collection of explicit images to really consider whether or not there is any credit to Jimbo's suggestions about the motives of the relevant uploaders. Adambro (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Rachelle Lefevre and Cam Gigandet.jpg

An untrusty flickr user? That is speculation, if they could find no previous problems with it, why would you suddenly find them now? Perhaps in the past the uploads have not been free of copyright but who is to determine that this one is also not free of copyright? This is conjecture based on a theory. It is a photo taken at Comic-con, a public event and has no issues, i will happily get you an email permission if you require it, the reason i upload from that account is because i know the owner. This image is not illegal, nor was it fair for you to delete it without thoroughly researching if it was illegal. If you had, you would find no issues with it since it came from a public event where photos are allowed to be taken. The deletion was unjust. Stripy Socks (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't born yesterday. I've seen plenty examples of similar issues with Flickr images in my time on Commons. Adambro (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
And so based on your past experiences there must be no other explanation other than it is copyrighted? Because anything else must be impossible since you have not seen it before? It was a mere assumption. --Stripy Socks (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Where copyright is concerned, better to err on the side of caution. Adambro (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not when i was not given a chance to defend the picture and present the arguments i pose to you now before deletion. You took caution, you did not justify this caution. It had already been reviewed and approved when others from the account had not been approved. They were caught out immediatly, this photo was not immediatly deleted because it did not have issues like the others did. --Stripy Socks (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your watchfulness in this case of (1) blatant flickrwashing by striky socks, see info@File:Alia Shawkat (Got a Room).jpg (2) blatant sockpupping of User:WhereTheLinesOverlapXX, although the sockpuppet bhaviour is strange (nominating own uploads and start the whole unecessary discussion) it is obvious from flickrwashing from the same flickr account and also from Checkuser perspective. Thanks again. --Martin H. (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking of kuiper

I have no problems with you unblocking kuiper. The block was unfair, but I do have problems with you failing to address kuiper's unblock request, which violated WP:NOTTHEM. Please try to be a better admin. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


File:TheCometPubSign.JPG

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

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


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

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Renaming files

Hi!! I would need your help to rename a couple of files which I have uploaded. Could you please help??

Renaming File:European Parl.jpg to File:Public Launch Atomium Culture - European Parliament.jpg

Could you please help on renaming?? How should I proceed? I would like to rename it as the name is a bit misleading.