User talk:Nick

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Heligoland)
Jump to: navigation, search

Nick's Talk Page Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia, if you need source or copyright information from an image that has been deleted on, please leave a message below and I'll provide all the information that I can find. And if you anything else, feel free to let me know also. I will always have your back. Remember that we are all friends here. Love, Nick.

A kitten for you![edit]



Ferakp (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


He's being disruptive by falsely labeling several dozen files here as "factually inaccurate" and dumping massive amounts of text as to why on their file information pages based on his absurd claim that the images in question are fabrications by the original uploader. There are multiple discussions he's started on enwp as Sturmgewehr88 alerted me to via email where he's doing exactly what he's done here to me to him. And FFS he's dumping every single image out of their categories into Category:Hoaxes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu, w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive reverts by Sturmgewehr88, w:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A "national flag" without secondary sources, and w:Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#Suggestion for a case study for Nanshu going off the handle with regards to the reverts I made here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Nick, I'm addressing this. Ryulong screwed up, got upset over the outrageous behavior of Nanshu. I've been promoting an understanding of meatball:DefendEachOther on Commons. I am warning both Ryulong and Nanshu, but as to content, Ryulong was basically correct, but procedurally had his head wedged. So to speak. It's common, long experience on Wikipedia apparently doesn't teach civility and how to find consensus. Essentially, both users need guidance. As do I, often. We'll see what happens. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Are you trying to eliminate every trace of Russavia? Please explain removal and deletion of "uploaded by Russavia" cats. Those are valid user categories. --15:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am also surprised. What is the rationale? Ariadacapo (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
These changes were requested by Russavia. As I understand it, he's concerned that good images and media are either being ignored or unfairly targeted for deletion because of the categories they are in. I'm sure Odder or another user known to be friendly with Russ can confirm this isn't some sort of witch hunt (for that, please speak to WMF). Nick (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There could be a problem here, Nick. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cool t-shirt (8034616524).jpg. Russavia made mistakes on occasion. The file in this DR was transferred to Commons by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), and it looks like it was never checked by Russavia (because I assume he'd have handled it properly). Yes, people might put attention on Russavia files. That's a good thing. I, for one, as I see the details, am totally impressed by what he did. That file had Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (cleanup) on it. An IP just removed "(cleanup)" from that file. That was obviously improper. I assume that Discasto found this file problem because it was in that category. The IP also modified two other such categories. Contributions. (I'll probably revert these)
You just removed all instances of Category:Videos uploaded by Russavia and Category:Featured pictures uploaded by Russavia, apparently. What's your intention with respect to Category:Files uploaded by Russavia? Because Russavia used the bot so often, if those categories are removed, it's the only way we can see the corpus of his work. We should be defending it (and fixing errors), not erasing it, making it invisible. If Russavia asked for this, where? And how can we discuss this with him? (Thanks, WMF, for not only making it extremely difficult to communicate with this prolific user here, but also for shutting down email access to him, which I believe requires developer access, touching what has always been assumed to be totally private and untouchable.)
This should be undone, or discussed. For reference, Here is the set of 76 removals. Here are the log entries. --Abd (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Abd You need to get in contact with Russ before doing or undoing anything. This was a specific request he made and which can be confirmed by him. He's available on IRC and through the Commons Aviation Twitter account (via direct mail) so I'd encourage you to get in touch with him first to confirm what he has requested to be done. Nick (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No; while you have not stated how you know, and it's unverifiable, I'm assuming you did not just make it up. However, if Russavia himself asked, verifiably, on his Talk page, for this, the same issue would exist. If Russavia started mass-removing categories, I'd be concerned. I'd want to talk with him about it before he went ahead.
I had an email address for Russavia, it was recent. He has not responded to several emails. I don't use IRC or Twitter. How would I know that I was in contact with him? His request, however, may not be enough, for reasons I think should be obvious. I'm not planning on restoring those categories, except maybe the handful of (cleanup) categories. I would not go either way without community approval. What I'll do, I expect, if you don't, is ask the community. This is about Commons, not "Russavia." While certain courtesies are extended, we don't own our work here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Abd Russ also requested User:CommonsDelinker/commands (via Steinsplitter today). I've paused the work being done there for the time being. Nick (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick. I've asked Odder about this. My hope actually is that the WMF will negotiate with Russavia (and vice-versa). It could be win-win-win. Of course, I'm certifiably insane. Still, I've seen things considered more impossible happen. --Abd (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer, Nick. Ariadacapo (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Denniss, Ariadacapo, et al. This is Russavia. I did indeed make a request on IRC for the Featured Pictures and Video categories to be deleted. Both of these were categories which I used as part of external outreach -- e.g. to show organisations/people I want to relicence the various types of content which is possible, etc, etc. The other categories I will explain in a few days. I appreciate that you have expressed a concern that Commons is being wiped of traces of me, but sincerely this is not the case. Cheers y'all 12:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why are you adding Category:Aviation files (check needed) to so many photos ?[edit]

E.g File:Bae146 (540596929).jpg : it has all relevant categories and obviously does not need further checking. Etc. Having this category unnecessarily diverts attention from photos really in need of checking. regards, Rod in Sydney Rcbutcher (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Rcbutcher, this is Russavia. The file used to have Category:Files uploaded by Russavia (aviation) on it, which was a check category. Other editors were moving already checked files from Category:Files uploaded by Russavia into that category, thereby doubling the work. Having this "generic" "Aviation files (check needed)" will ensure that once files are checked, this category will be removed. Hope this explains things a little? Keep up the great work mate.

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them.
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)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, A.Savin 15:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


Nick, when deleting duplicates, make sure that you substitute them in advance. Bots don't do that, they just remove the links to originals from articles. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

The replacement was being taken care of by the uploaders, they just asked me to delete the duplicate files. Nick (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)