User talk:Amitie 10g

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

Amitie 10g (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

Blocked[edit]

Blocked Indefinitely
This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

العربية | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Zazaki | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | jbobau | 한국어 | Kurdî | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Daphne Lantier 01:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As a condition of your last block being lifted you promised to stop being rude and intimidating toward @Ellin Beltz:. Per @Steinsplitter:'s warning above, concerning this, and continued rude and uncalled for responses like this, you haven't lived up to your promise. You're rude in far too many of your interactions. This is bad for commons. Editors need to express themselves respectfully, and you don't seem to be willing to behave in that way. This is obviously a long-term issue with you. Hence my indefinite block. Daphne Lantier 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "I promised to stop my rude behaviour, but once again I failed and I need to apologize again.
The problem with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Al Tantura.jpg is both of us (Ellen Beltz and Me) are involved users in that DR. I see nothing bad in my comment (except in the «Leraning some History does not hurt.» maybe; I took my time to research and I found some information, and I believe it is already in the PD. Also, Ellin Beltz has been complained by another admin for her nominations, just because I removed the Speedy tag due these files are in the PD, and also other discussions where I'm an involved user (that could be also considered as harassment and conflict of interest). Complaining the admins for his/her bad (administrative) actions is part of the Community concensus (maybe not in the way I be done this time), and if someone gets blocked for complaining admins (insulting they, that I didn't), the Community will not work.

Also, please don't block User:WebArchiveBOT for the reason I exposed in my previous block.
"
Decline reason: "Amitie has had talk page access removed, by the blocking admin, for continuing to criticize Ellin Beltz in the following discussion. It is my intent (and I have asked him to remind me) to restore his talk page access in a couple of weeks, and see if we can then work toward a resolution that allows him to resume editing at some definite point in the future. For now, there is clearly reason to leave the block in place. - Reventtalk 22:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

In my knowledge, alternate accounts will not be blocked unless if you will use them to evade your block, or it is likely that you will use them to evade your block (which isn't the case here). When I was blocked by Natuur12, he didn't blocked my alternate accounts, and I didn't evade my block using them either. Poké95 03:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about that. I have no intention of blocking a useful bot as long as Amitie 10g doesn't use it to edit. Daphne Lantier 03:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, if WebArchiveBOT have editions, please block it and let me know it inmediately (this means it was compromised). --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The community won't work if you can't treat other editors with respect. You can disagree with other users, you can vote keep in a deletion request, you can file undeletion requests, and you can post comments on the userpages of other users, but you can do all of these in a respectful manner. Constant rudeness and snarky comments harm the community, even when you're right. As for Ellin Beltz, you made a direct promise to get INeverCry's indef block reduced to 3 months. As can be seen above at Steinsplitter's diff, you broke that promise. You've continued to be rude to Ellin Beltz in deletion requests as well. When you make a promise in order to have a block shortened, you have to keep that promise. If you have a problem with Ellin Beltz over something you think she's done wrong, returning to your former rude and confrontational behavior is the wrong answer. You could talk to an uninvolved admin about it, or you could even post at COM:AN/U. To be clear, I oppose any unblock at this time. Perhaps a last chance could be given at a future time, but nobody should be unblocked after flouting a promise made that involved a three-month block they themselves agreed to and even directly suggested. Perhaps this block could be reduced to 6 months or 1 year, but anything less goes against the promise that Amitie 10g himself made. He clearly and directly promised to cease this behavior. He continued it after the three-month block expired. A longer or indefinite block is clearly warranted in this situation. Daphne Lantier 03:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Then, could an uninvolved admin review the block an reduce at the time you etimate convenient (if possible no more than 6 monts)? And also, uninvolved admins, please review the rationale applied to this block, considering Ellin Beltz nominated the files I removed the Speedy tags for good reasons (I'm an involved user for these cases), and she nominated these files for invalid reasons. My behaviour is unacceptable, but, as an involved user, I need to complain the other involved user. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    It is already posted here for a review. You can answer here if anybody ask any questions (there). Jee 05:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This has been going on for two years. Here are summaries of three blocks. Notice that of the three, two are for negative behavior and they date from just shy of one year ago - at which time the negative behavior had been happening for one year.
  • 24 June 2016 This user has been blocked 2 weeks. The reason for the block is Another invalid ticket (ticket:2016060610017431) and another undel request based on a clearly invalid ticket. We are not talking about difficult cases open for interpertation but about major screw up after major screw up.. Natuur12
  • 29 May 2016 You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Intimidation/harassment. Christian Ferrer
  • 26 April 2016 "It would be nice if you realized that other editors who spend a large amount of time here, as well as administrators and bureaucrats are here because they love this project and think it is important. Everyone makes mistakes, and it is good that we can all check each others' work - so please continue to do so, but your hostile tone and comments should be left at the door. Your "us vs them" attitude is not helpful..." Storkk
In each of the previous two situations, promises were made to stop the behavior. However, every time the negativity and harassment starts up again, Amitie 10g blames me for the problem. See the unblock request above where the bad behavior is apparently required because of something I did. This is classic abuser behavior; do something and blame the victim. If I didn't constantly try to "forgive and forget" I could list these events with metronomic regularity - and the list would be over 2 years in duration. It used to get worse around holidays, now it's just troublesome all the time. I have recently gotten abrasive talk-page correspondence from Amitie [1] where I am accused of "blaming the backlog" but that comment doesn't appear in the conversation or the Deletion Nominations to which it references. It appears this upset note was left from imagination, not from any statement of mine. And it's this repeating behavior of imagining that I'm doing "bad actions" shows Amitie 10g is not operating within COM:AGF. This manifests in the hostility mentioned by Storkk above and also the intimidation/harrassment referenced by Christian Ferrer.
I have not seen that the prior blocks have improved the behavior. Therefore, I have no faith that shortening this block - even with "promises" - would change anything - none of the prior blocks has had any effect on the negativity.
Thus I oppose removing or shortening this block and am participating in the discussion on the Administrators Noticeboard, Blocks & Protections which relates to this block[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz, Daphne Lantier, Yann, Steinsplitter, MichaelMaggs (who participated at the AN) and also @StorkkNatuur12, I answer the above comment form Ellin Beltz.
I need to apologize for my rude comments, but not without complaining you.
You started yor comment with «This has been going on for two years», so, what is the exact moment? This. I provided strong rationale to keep the file, including the raster version nominated and withdrew, but you insisted to keep your point and insisting the file is non-free but not actually why (but, also, that discussion bringed another issue: SVGs can be copyrightable).
I left some messages to you:
  • End of 2014, simple and kindly: You speedied some files clearly bellow the Threshold of originality. You answered with «I don't think they're free images, they're certainly not own work», but you failed to answer if these files are bellow or above the TOO. These files remains deleted. This was much before the Bethelem Steel logo case.
  • Mid March, 2016: Free software screenshot but with non-free content. Deleted for invalid reasons, restored, then deleted for valid reasons. The Free software nominations case is understable.
  • Mid April, 2016: Not own work. Nominated for deletion due is claimed as Own work, but the actual author died in 1943. Everyone know this is a wiki, and the mistakes can be fixed, but not in the "Deletion way". WP:BITE is an important guideline in Wikipedia that should also be implemented here; most of the newcomers don't know how to edit the page and correct the authorship, and a non-sense DR does not help the newcomers nor the project.
  • End of May, 2016: So, this mass DR became Me anger, I admit. You nominated 174 files without even checking these files has been uploaded originaly several years ago (some of them more than 10 years). If nobody took the time to review the DR, I see a serious risk of deletion. (and notice that I found the DR during my License review jub, not because I'm stalking you). Whith these kind of cases is hard to stay mellow.
  • Tagged as Copyvio by Blythwood (a human),
  • I removed the speedy tag and added {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} because I believe it is bellow the TOO in the United States,
  • You reverted my edition,
  • I reverted your edition and mentioning clearly the logo is bellow the Threshold of originality in the United States
  • You added {{No source since}}
  • Jcb removed the {{No source since}} and corrected the author
  • Tagged as Copyvio by Krdbot (a bot),
  • I removed the speedy tag and added {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}, and corrected the authorship
  • You reverted my edition,
  • I reverted your edition without leaving a summary
  • You added {{No source since}}
  • Clindberg removed the {{No source since}} with the summary «PD-ineligible does not need a source.»
So, what we learned with the Betlehem Steel logo case?
  • End of Marh, 2017: I left that comment because I'm one of the involved users. For the following files:
You repeated exactly the same actions done at File:TractionLogo.png and File:West Lafayette High School logo.png and nominated for deletion just because someone (Me) removed the Speedy tag (and for File:Al_Tantura.jpg adding {{PD-Israel}}) instead of providing information why these files are not in the Public domain. What was your motivation for these nominations? If you felt harassed for my comment, I also felt harassed for these actions, you know?
About the «"blaming the backlog"», this is a general issue for some admins, and the reason why Jcb is the centre of a Desysop discussion (not just yours) (and where I participated actively, but with this block, I can't participate any more). And about COM:AGF, I already requested an explanation above for the files I edited and you reverted. I edited these files in good faith, and you?
An apologize should come with a change of behaviour, but from both. I agree is hard to work together if one of the us don't cooperate (sometimes Me but also the others, specially Jcb and the discussions I also involved). I'll not harass again, but this does not mean I'll not complain you for the cases I already involved. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz, Daphne Lantier, Yann, Steinsplitter, MichaelMaggs (who participated at the AN) and also @StorkkNatuur12, Comment for the block:
I need some rest and time for other projects, but I don't and I will not consider to leave Commons. I'm already established here and I created some tools to help in mi job. However, the toxic environment caused by my anger behaviour is unacceptable. So, I'll accept the block for the time the community estimated convenient (if possible, no more than 6 month please). For the prohibition to participate in DR/Speedy discussions, this is the major part of my job at Commons, but if the Community decided that, well, I could participate in limited manner and only in the files I already involved (uploaded or License reviewed by Me). But, please don't be surprised if I return with an Undeletion request as the last time; I'll still reviewing my Watchlist periodically. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
You need to focus on your own poor behavior here, which is the reason you've been blocked. As a blocked user, your talkpage is not the place to repeat your problems and disagreements with Ellin Beltz. You need to stick to explaining how you intend to resolve this issue with your behavior. I don't see you saying much about how you're going to deal with these issues differently. If you continue to go on about Ellin's faults and mistakes or anyone else's, I will remove your talk page access.

Please stick to explaining how you will change your confrontational and argumentative behavior. This is what the length of your block depends on. I will add that if you are allowed a shorter block (6 months to 1 year maybe), you will have to resolve your issues with Ellin Beltz and anyone else you deal with in a constructive and respectful way when you come back. You can make your point with out resorting to confrontation, sarcasm, and disrespect. If you are allowed to return to editing at some point, you will be expected to behave in a much different way than what you've been doing.

You have good knowledge of policy and copyright, and you can be a constructive and positive contributor to Commons. You will have the opportunity to use that knowledge to discuss things calmly and respectfully. I would suggest that you focus on that rather than what you think Ellin Beltz or any other user has done wrong. They're not the ones who are blocked. I would like to see you contributing in a good way here at Commons. If you can focus on giving the community assurances that you will return to Commons after 6 months or a year with a new approach and a new attitude, that will be more to your benefit than defending your old stances that have led to multiple blocks. Daphne Lantier 07:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amitie 10g, thank you for writing "the toxic environment caused by my anger behaviour is unacceptable". Being angry stops us from seeing the world clearly, and unfortunately it keeps us locked in our interior view. It may be helpful to think about finding a local Spanish Wikimedian who can help by discussing how you feel when you get angry. Having an off-wiki outlet by instant messaging or meeting up in real life for a chat, can help diffuse your emotions and help you reframe the problems you have been having with others. It's okay to ignore this website and put yourself first. If you do that, you'll probably find the problems you experience with others are more down to relying on using just the written word to talk to each other, where only a fraction of meaning ever gets through, and the fact this is not your first language.
With regard to the block, I am sure you understand Daphne's point, the block is yours alone. In a block appeal you are not resolving any arguments with others. No matter how much others have faults, it is only your behaviour that should be under discussion. When you come back to editing, if you have a reasonable dispute with others, ensure you ask a third party to take a look, even informally, and then the easiest path is to follow that independent advice. If the issues are not fundamentally solved, despite following a dispute resolution process, just walk away and move on. The Commons project is a big place, we can easily stay out of each other's way if we want to.
I see you helping with our collections, your name popping up on my watchlist, and it would be a shame to lose you, so do tackle your anger. :-) Thanks -- (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I would support a shorter block, but 1. you should evaluate why you are not able to discuss without being rude, 2. probably avoid any interaction what so ever with Ellin for a long period (at least one year). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I agree with this block is needed to make more time for incoming important projects. I also agree with an interaction ban with Ellin Beltz (with few exceptions like discussions where I already participated), but she must also cooperate: I closed this and this DRs due has been opened by a well-known vandal. Afterwartd, she opened another DR with a near valid reason but invoking my previous closing, claiming I assummed bad faith when I closed these DRs as vandalism. She also supported another long-term abuser who nominated files uploaded by Russavia and accused @ for sockpuppetry (where the vandal is also a confirmed sockpuppets and blocked in the English Wikipedia since 2014 due sockpuppetry), but despite the evidence against the vandal, she preferred to support him just because I commented the DR and left a message in his Talk page. @Daphne Lantier, is this not harassment? What hostile behaviour we're tralking about? --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I've removed your talkpage access because of this new attack on Ellin Beltz. You just can't stop yourself it seems. Instead of saying what you will do different to resolve the issue you were blocked for (which is what a blocked user is supposed to use their talkpage for), you go right back to justifying yourself and saying what Ellin has done wrong. At the moment, I think the indefinite block will have stay in place. Daphne Lantier 20:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Daphne Lantier, Ellin Beltz: Amitie should not have closed these DRs, and Ellin was right to reopen them. But you must recognize that the users who opened these are vandals. So I agree with Amitie that this edit by Ellin is not appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Yann: But that remark you quote, was not to Amitie, nor intended to be at Amitie, it was to a sockpuppet, telling him to "not pay attention to the little man behind the curtain," I.E. "stop socking". That Amitie took it wrong isn't my fault, it wasn't on Amitie's page, addressed to Amitie or about Amitie except in his mind. It certainly wasn't my intention - I guess you haven't seen the movie either it's Wizard of Oz one of the last scenes where the little dog finds the wizard behind the curtain and the wizard bellows out "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain". Once you see the film you will see the applicability of snarking that at a sockpuppet; it has utterly no referent to Amitie as was said at the time. The edit which should be quoted is this one where I explained to Amitie that it had nothing to do with him and everything to do with Unfitlouie, the sockpuppet. Perhaps if Amitie quoted the diff for the end of the thread, not the beginning, you'd have realized I was making a joke - and not at Amitie's expense. CC: Daphne Lantier to stay in loop. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz: OK, my apologies. Please beware that cultural references may vary greatly between people, and I believe they are part of your conflict with Amitie, without excusing his behaviour. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access[edit]

I have restored Amitie's talk page access, as I stated previously was my intent, after a discussion with him on IRC. Amitie has explicitly agreed to the following statement, by me, as the terms by with access was restored...

“What I expect, for you to get talk page access back, is for you to agree to not continue to attempt to justify your behavior on the basis of actions by Ellin… even if she is wrong, you are responsible for your own behavior, and what Daphne said in response to your unblock request was spot on.
If you have an issue with someone elses behavior, the appropriate response is to complain about the behavior itself, not to attack the person or their motives.”

- Reventtalk 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: FYI. - Reventtalk 02:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pixabay_files_for_migration[edit]

Speravir 18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pixabay_files_for_migration/Migrated[edit]

Speravir 19:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Block[edit]

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "6 months passed since my latest block, and I already apologized for my behaviour (specially with Ellin beltz), then, I think this is enough time to refresh and return to Commons. Also, considering that INeverCry blocked me actually twice (the latest block made by his sock account Daphne Lantier), block that I considered as a clear conflict of interest, due the ongoing discussions for banning Jcb (who I seen chilled down, fortunatelly), and also the discussions about Russavia (where INC just hates him for nothing) while I just commented in these cases (in discussions just limited to files). Therefore, I request my unblock, starting fresher. Also, just mention, I never used sockpuppets during my block (but the IPs where I contributed to the WMF websites from are shared, including a school). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "I see no real apology, but accusing other administrators for improper block. This is not a proper way to request unblock. But main reason for declining unblock is that Ellin opposes that. My experience says, that I must revoke talk page access too. Taivo (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

I think an eventual unblock should have some conditions to prevent you from consuming our energy the way you did before, e.g. on these fields:
  • Personal attacks.
  • Never ending ridiculous discussions in a large number of DRs with obviously mistaken arguments.
  • Reverting of deletion taggings without converting to regular DRs (many copyright violations remained online because you removed the taggings).
It should also be clear that if you would be unblocked (which I would rather not see happening, you just wasted so much of our energy over a long period of time), that this would be the last time. Jcb (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks: it is done (I'm less busy and stressed now, therefore mellow)
  • Closing discussions: I'l l be more minucious with the deletion-related DRs and I'll try to avoid DRs of files that I'm not watching (and at least out of my interests). I'll focus more in the License reviewing.
  • Reverting of deletion tags: I'll avoid to do that (unless the tag is just vandalism, but also for invalid reasons and without strong proof of copyvio).
Expecting the above for me, I also request the users and admins in general (specially Ellin Beltz, and specially you) to be more minucions when dealing with copyvio, according to the recent cases where you has been subject of a Desysop discussion. And please, PLEASE, don't use Russavia (or any other banned user) to justify your own actions (this is for everyone). Most of my personal attacks are not gratis, so, collaboration from everyone is required., specially the involved users arround my block --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Amitie 10g and I are often on the opposite sides of the table. I can live with that. I don't want to live with personal attacks, esp. below the belt. Those are, IMHO, blockable offences, often indefinite. I think we need to ask other contenders for comments as well. @Ellin Beltz, Christian Ferrer, Natuur12, Steinsplitter: As a general vote, for now I tend to grant the unblock as long as it is clear that this is the last one and others approve as well. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose You wrote: "also request the users and admins in general (specially Ellin Beltz, and specially you) to be more minucions when dealing with copyvio" You are doing it again, even here in the unblock request you are continung with your rudeness toward Ellin Beltz for which you have been blocked for. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Please see my answer to Ellin Beltz bellow. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - Amitie, are you willing to struck this comment "also request the users and admins in general (specially Ellin Beltz, and specially you) to be more minucions when dealing with copyvio"?. You were blocked for what you did wrong and not for what others did wrong. Thus, emphasize on how you plan to conduct yourself if unblocked and how you will contribute constructively to this project without the need to attack other users. BTW....I don't think that accusing the blocking admin of COI is helpful. It seems you want to take advantage of their block (as sock of INC). Wikicology (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I already agree with the conditions by Jcb. Menawhile I'll be more meticulous when dealing with files, this is why I'm requesting the same for the rest (as I answered to Ellin Beltz bellow). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I oppose the removal of this block because this user is abusive, makes mistakes and blames other users which is typical abuser/bully behavior particularly because I have not seen them take responsibility for their own behavior and change the behavior. This user also makes up rules and applies them to others without following them personally. For example as above: "PLEASE, don't use Russavia (or any other banned user) to justify your own actions (this is for everyone)." And immediately the user has mentioned INC/Daphne's block as justification. From these post-block writings, I do not feel the user has changed behavior and that letting them back in will only start the drama all over again. In their absence, conversations have been professional, respect has been mutual and the absence of uselessly dramatic contributions to the deletion discussions has been not only apparent, but refreshing. I also oppose due to personal attacks both on me and other administrators. These are obviously not going to stop given that the above attempt to put preconditions on administrators of Commons. Looking only at these post-block writings, it's obvious that the problem is not mine, or anyone else's - but simply and obviously belongs to and created by this user. I would point out that we would never have had any of these discussions had the user's behavior been consistently polite, professional and in good faith. Additionally, it's impossible for myself or any administrator to be "minucious" as there is no such word in the English language and so, even if one were to agree to the above preconditions, they are meaningless. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • About to be minutious (call it meticulous, thorough or anything you like), you know the english is not my native language, but you know what I'm talking about. I don't want more drama, just collaboration for everyone. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:TV Tokyo entrance.jpeg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:TV Tokyo entrance.jpeg 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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sw0 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access 2018[edit]

@Taivo: Talk page access was removed in October 2017 with the rationale "unblock request was rejected". Considering the time elapsed, and that talk page access is rarely removed from accounts that are not globally blocked, could you please restore this user's ability to write on their own talk page?

As a point of information, it should be noted the involvement of Daphne Lantier (talk · contribs · logs · block log) not long before this account was blocked. The facts behind the sockpuppetry of 'Daphne Lantier' was not understood at the time of the first significant block. Regardless of the behaviour of Amitie_10g, this background may be relevant when considering a future unblock request.

Thanks -- (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am agree to enable talk page access, but not before @Ellin Beltz: agrees as well. Taivo (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree to talk page access. I do not agree to lifting this block at all - in any form or in any part. That an administrator now blocked was involved at sometime in the past is not a valid reason to overturn a block that was earned by the user on multiple occasions and in multiple locations. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Hi Ellin. In the light that there is no global block, nor any oversight issue, how is removing talk page access in this case supported by existing Wikimedia Commons policy? Thanks -- (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, Fae I mis-edited or typed too fast. It should read: "I do not agree to [limit or remove] talk page access. I do not agree to lifting this block at all...". I was trying to show the difference between the two actions and mistyped. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. That makes sense. If there is a block appeal, then it is healthier for the applicant to be able to make the case openly rather than off-wiki, unless there are known oversight issues or this page gets misused for resurrecting unnecessary drama.
@Taivo: there appears to be no rationale to keep this talk page closed. Thanks -- (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:PD-Chile-doc[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Template:PD-Chile-doc 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 template, 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.
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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warko (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)