User talk:Blond Thinker

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

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at

This is the user talk page of Blond Thinker, where you can send messages and comments to Blond Thinker.

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Blond Thinker!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

statues of File "Stage2.jpg", an answer[edit]

Hi. Please see my answer here:
User talk:Danny-w#Copyright status: File:Stage2.jpg
Regards, Danny-w (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Danny. The problem is that you didn't mentioned a license tag for the image before. Every file has to have a source and a license, and it was missing a license at this file. Since you mention that the file was released into public domain by a user, the problem can be solved by adding public domain tag, like {{PD-user|name of the user}}. With base on the information that you provided now, S. Jähnichen wasn't the original uploader, it was MrSandman at the English Wikipedia, and the same file (File:Sleep EEG Stage 2.jpg) was transferred to Commons by S. Jähnichen. The copyright problem is solved now. Blond (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Project scope/heading[edit]

hey, You placed that tag on my discussion page... It would be nice to know what actually had been deleted... There is no clue of it... --David Liuzzo (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I left a project scope notice, after seeing your arguments at a deletion request, to remember that Commons is a media repository that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, besides being also a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. So, Commons isn't an exclusive repository to Wikimedia projects, people can use files outside Wikimedia projects (notice that a person can incorporate a file through HTML or BBCode to a web page or a forum), therefor I think that the file usage shouldn't matter to the deletion process once the file is not a copyright violation. However, I noticed that when you added the deletion template, you also removed the file information here. The procedure should be just adding the deletion template with the reason you nominate for deletion, without removing any information. Blond (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Ritter von Wassilko.jpg[edit]

Hallo, bitte löschen, die Farbgebung ist falsch. Dank im Voraus!--Sacha47|Diskussion 17:33, 16. Okt. 2012 (CEST)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. INeverCry 17:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Photos for which a portion contains a copyrighted image[edit]

You have your work cut out for you if you want to nominate every photo that contains a portion of an image that is copyrighted. Don't just single out a single contributor on Wikimedia on which to beat up on. Have some courage and nominate the work of other users too. I suggest you start with all the categories my photos appeared in and nominate ALL of them for deletion, not must my photos. --Smiller933 (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean the deletion request about the bottles with copyrighted logos and images? There were some images that you uploaded that may have the same issue, so I nominated to deletion as per Commons:Mass deletion request and I put the reason why I think those images aren't free. If you disagree, then you are free to express your opinion at the deletion page. I don't know what you are trying to achieve with your message. If you think I'm doing a personal attack, you are completely wrong. See my contributions, your images aren't the only ones that I have edited. So, maybe paranoia? Blond (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, even when you are direct, people miss the point. I did check your history and mine are the only drink photos you've marked for deletion. Feel free to prove me wrong with a link to a single contrary example. Should I repeat my suggestion where you check the other photos in the categories and nominate ALL the photos for deletion, not just the ones belonging to me? It's easy to take your actions personally when you've aimed them directly at a single person. --Smiller933 (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Did you try to use the filter to just output the editions on Commons namespace? You will find here some deletion requests that I started, and it's not only your images. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the deletion nomination process. When an user thinks that a file isn't freely-licensed, that user can nominate the file to deletion, adding the reason to nominate it. Then later, other users may agree or contest the deletion, for that is what is used the deletion talk page, to talk about the file. Even if that user just nominates files from a specific user, every user have the right to nominate a file by adding a reason, which can be validated by consensus, by Commons:Deletion policy or by lacking at Commons:Licensing or Commons:Project scope. So, even if I just nominated your images (notice that I added the reason why I was nominating), I have that right and I would not be doing a personal attack since it's the common procedure when someone thinks that the file isn't accepted by Commons policies (nominating a file to deletion, so people can debate and talk about it). You may not agree with my nomination and you can say your point of view and how the file respects the policies, but do not turn it into a personal attack. If you do, you may be warned by an administrator to be civil. Your message can be seen as a personal attack, and remember that this talk is available to anyone, even to administrators. I think it's a waste of time if you do personal attacks, you may lose your edit rights. Just focus on following Commons rules and debate with users properly, that's my advice. Blond (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You really try your best to ignore the point. I said "mine are the only drink photos you've marked for deletion." None of your examples are drink photos. If you really were concerned about the quality of Commons, you would take my advice and examine the categories to gain some background knowledge. You would read the guidelines at the top of Category:Beer bottles, look at my images, and then look at the 800+ other photos in that category, and ask yourself if there aren't 800+ other photos in that category that are clearly less defendable. Now do you think you are serving the betterment of Commons by nominating my photos only and turning a blind eye to the over 1,500 photos in the categories I've posted that are far more egregious violations. Before I posted my photos, I looked around, saw what was being posted, read the guidelines, and created and posted my photos as I believed they were within the guidelines and certainly were within the accepted norms. I suggest you spend less time drafting threats and more time considering whether your individual actions are improving the community or making it worse. I know you won't take it, but that is my advice. --Smiller933 (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I do understand your point, but you should have exposed your point at the deletion page, that's what it's there for, so other people can debate about it. Also, you misplaced your focus. You started to "challenge" me to nominate other photos, which sounded like someone that took personally the deletion nomination, instead of being direct and refer the photos in the category which have photos of drinks. I don't see how productive can it be if you "challenge" people instead of enlightening them. Blond (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Ria Zmitrowicz.jpg[edit]

File:Ria Zmitrowicz.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!

Spider23 (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)