User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/Q2

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

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 002.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 001.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 001.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 002.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ida B Wells High School San Francisco January 2013 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 004.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 004.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Avoid putting beans into your nose (not urgent)[edit]

Can you explain this concept or your edit more in detail? I don't fear people will now start using this technique to bypass our abuse filters but if they would, it would be quite easy to catch this. It's just that an empty heading is now floating around that page and that I do not get why you removed this report. -- Rillke(q?) 16:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A sizable proportion of the people on that page are vandals, so they might come across it. We just don't want it to be that easy for them to find out how to bypass our filters. -- King of ♠ 18:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 003.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Painted Ladies San Francisco January 2013 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

problems with user FAEP, again.[edit]

Hello, I'm sorry to bother you again but I have problems with the user FAEP and do not know how to behave and frankly I'm tired: despite having already received a block for his behavior and although there is still a block that should remind him that you do not contributes and collaborates with users through edit war, he perseveres and continues to ruin my contributions. Can you please take action, I'm tired, regularly intervenes to wage war on my edit changes constantly with me, I'm tired, who do I contact? thank you and sorry for disturb --Pava (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You've received a block for your behavior (not somebody else's), which included sockpuppeteering, insulting vandalism etc..
@KoH I'm not ruining his contribs, I'm correcting some of his mistakes/misunderstandings (or POV influenced judgement) as I did for example here (with ecplanantion etc.).--FAEP (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
do you think you smart, you're just biased. In addition discredit me will not improve your behavior nor justify your actions. With that leave space for the administrator to draw their own considerations. i only ask someone to tell me if it is possible to go on like this, with these edit-war stupid, harmful and counterproductive and totally out of regulation [1] --Pava (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
@KoH please also read here. And a little bit of inside information about Pava's behavior in the past (and some closely related problems). Thank you in advance.--FAEP (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't care who's right. However, I have added categories to your restriction list, so neither of you can add or remove a category from a category page when the other has previously edited it. -- King of ♠ 03:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you seem to be two cats that fight is disheartening, because I'm not going to bother anyone, and every time I have to suffer the penalties for things that do not make, and he can unleash all the edit war he wants, and is punished. Frankly, if you do not care who is right, I am concerned that your purpose is to improve the collaboration of commons and make it clear to users how it works, but ok, I will not come and tell you how to do your job, but for me as well is wrong. Hello, thanks anyway for your intervention --Pava (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I write to you again, if you prefer that I turn to another administrator please tell me: how do you explain this action ([2]) I know why this person haunts me? how else should I do? I lose a lot of time to categorize the best I can, put the right template and do things properly, because it does so? no longer makes sense to ask him now. can you tell us please? I'm afraid you trade it for two cats that fight, but I do not want to take punishment for his fault, there is an administrator who advise me to turn to? thank you very much and I'm sorry for your patience and disturbance--Pava (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The filter catches only the adding or removal of categories, not the changing of them. To implement the latter cannot be done without leading to a lot of collateral damage, up to and including an interaction ban between you and FAEP on all file and category namespace pages. -- King of ♠ 05:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes but why user:FAEP continues to commit these actions harmful to Wikimedia only to assert its interests to have fun or just to provoke me? that is, you can do so freely of commons without receiving any penalty? it's not like on it.wikipedia? --Pava (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

photo of Spongebob Squarepants balloon[edit]

Hi, I noticed that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg was last closed as "delete" but the photo exists and its info page was last edited by you with the comment "rm DR". If this file should be published, could you please explain the reason on those pages? Rybec (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion on COM:UNDEL a while ago that indicated that FoP in Mexico applies to everything, not just permanent installments. I therefore undeleted the image. -- King of ♠ 21:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. I've made another deletion request at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Leon_hot_air_balloon_festival_2010.jpg. Rybec (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocks and protections[edit]

Thank you.[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Files by Nikunj Vasoya[edit]

Hello, You recently restored two files by User:Nikunj vasoya citing some ticket number. I assume that ticket has to do with OTRS permission or something. However, atleast one of these file description given by uploader says "Previously published: www.facebook.com/mycromfilmsindia". Does that not make it copyrighted to Facebook and not to the uploader. I am asking only for the purpose of future references. TIA. Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Facebook does not automatically own everything you upload to it. Copyright stays with the uploader. -- King of ♠ 08:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, could you take a look at Kolega2357 (talk · contribs) (and Special:UserRights/Kolega2357)? It looks like the user is hat collecting (a ton of permission requests recently) and there are some copyright problems. I wanted to consult you for your opinion on the matter, seeing as you recently granted their request. Cheers, —Mono 15:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll keep an eye on them and watch out for any patrolling problems. -- King of ♠ 17:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately Licensed[edit]

You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)