User talk:Lar/Archive 13

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

I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.

This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from about 1 May 2010 through about 1 September 2010. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.
My archived talk        [+/−]
Archive 1 — start through about 1 Nov 2006
Archive 2 — about 1 Nov 2006 through about 1 Mar 2007
Archive 3 — about 1 Mar 2007 through about 1 Aug 2007
Archive 4 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Jan 2008
Archive 5 — about 1 Jan 2008 through about 1 Sep 2008
Archive 6 — about 1 Sep 2008 through about 1 Nov 2008
Archive 7 — about 1 Nov 2008 through about 1 Jan 2009
Archive 8 — about 1 Jan 2009 through about 1 Mar 2009
Archive 9 — about 1 Mar 2009 through about 1 Jun 2009
Archive 10 — about 1 Jun 2009 through about 1 Sep 2009
Archive 11 — about 1 Sep 2009 through about 1 Jan 2010
Archive 12 — about 1 Jan 2010 through about 1 May 2010
Archive 13 — about 1 May 2010 through about 1 September 2010

Commons:Sexual content[edit]

As someone who previously participated in a past discussion regarding this page, you may be interested in the new discussion taking place. I have endeavoured to send a message to everyone previously involved; if I have missed anyone please let them know as well. Roux (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your support. I am trying to help build a policy that both allows sexual content for educational use but still respects parents, personality rights, and all applicable US laws. I would appreciate it if you could remove the rejected template. I realize that this is only a small victory for a small group of troublemakers, however I feel that it may discourage further development. I would also appreciate your continued monitoring of the proposal and talk page for abuse, such as from the enwiki banned Roux (see COM:AN/U), and also this diff from Timtrent. I would not be questioned for removing their remarks in my home-project of the English Wiki, however the rules on Commons seem to be quite different and actually much more hostile. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the "rejected" tagging and added a note. I've also commented on the talk about your removing Timtrent's comment. That was inappropriate, please don't do that again. He could have phrased it more tactfully but labeling it vandalism is not helpful. OK? I do think a policy that addresses all these concerns is needed but the way to get it is to build bridges, not alienate others. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I work vandal patrol on English Wikipedia, and on w:Wikipedia:Vandalism there's a mention of "common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor" in the introduction. I removed the comments only once and was not trying to edit war. I'm trying to have a serious conversation on a serious topic and I don't care for obscenities or thinly veiled attacks. There does not seem to be a concise policy about what constitutes talk page vandalism in Commons that I know of. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
That comment was not vandalism. Nor was it an attack. It was a blunt comment, but it was a statement of opinion. I happen to disagree with it but your removal, even once, was wrong. That's not a debatable point in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It won't happen again. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, and this is actually very important, you made added a comment on the top of the proposal saying "Discussion of the proposal's merits is ongoing and the proposal should not be marked rejected without allowing the discussion to again reach a consensus." There seems to be a big misunderstanding. This proposal is still under development. I have not announced this proposal on Village Pump or any other forum and the only people who have commented are the 10 or so users Roux contacted who had rejected the previous proposal. All I ask is that I have a reasonable amount of time (perhaps as much as 3 months) to gather the resources I need in order to present finished proposal(s) without constant harassment. Please revise this comment to reflect the "not finished" status. - 12:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not clear what you want exactly, then. Do you want input from others? If so, yes I can revise the tagging but if you think it's still under revision and will be for a while, "rejected, but we are trying to come up with a better one" is the sense that's needed I think. If on the other hand, you want to work on it without a lot of input, maybe use your sandbox? Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I do want it in a public place and will soon invite more users to help work on it. It is "still under revision and will be for a while." My tentative plan is to split this into two separate proposals with different names while leaving a small part of this one for reconsideration. I don't think it is necessary to indicate on the Project page that the previous version of the proposal was rejected because this is declared numerous times on the talk page. I'm also unsure whether this should be a policy or guideline or where the documentation is for how to proceed with this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me see what I can come up with. The proposal WAS rejected and that should be noted on the proposal page itself. Regardless of how many times it is mentioned on the talk. Or, alternatively, why don't YOU take a cut at what you want it to say, keeping in mind that you need to acknowledge this was rejected, and is being retooled. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'll work it in and have it done by tomorrow. There's another situation happening at COM:AN/U. My request that Roux be disciplined for numerous attacks, obscene edit summaries, and gross incivility (like this) has been looked at by two admins and determined that basically Roux has done nothing wrong and I provoked him. Both admins are from either the Netherlands or Germany, both countries have different views of underage porn than most Americans. I'm beginning to think that Commons is one of the darkest places on the internet and I am not having a good experience trying to contribute. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I want to comment on this:
  1. I'm from Belgium.
  2. I was judging your behaviour, not your proposal. Where I'm from, or my age, has nothing to do with this discussion.
Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I endorse this view. "Comment on the content, not the contributor" applies as much here as it does elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


I mentioned yesterday that I needed a day to think about what to do about the page. The reintroduction of the proposal has caused far more problems than I had anticipated. What I would suggest is that the page be locked (with explanation) until order can be restored and the right to build guidelines without being harassed or censored is established. My proposal was intended to allow images that are within scope that have proper documentation in order to prevent mass deletion of all sexual content. However, my non-censorship proposal is now being censored by people claiming I'm trying to censor them. PS: If there's a page on how to write a guideline, or how a guideline becomes policy please let me know. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I doubt you will give this request more than a passing glance, but I must ask for the record that you decline it. The fact that 'development' isn't going the way certain parties want it to is the exact antithesis of any page protection policy. Roux (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see locking a page as a good idea, or as part of the wiki way. SWR needs to figure out how to work on the page, and propose changes, and not expect to be able to be the only person to edit it. I suggested before that he work on a sandbox version or something. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

all a bit tense[edit]

the atmosphere over at the page does seem to me all a bit tense - any advice? Privatemusings (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ps. the 'legal angle', in terms of non compliance with the record keeping requirements of US law, seems to be active - at least in the contributions of one account which looks rather like it has a 'single purpose'..... this whole area is messy, and getting messier. Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice: drop your crusade, as you were unequivocally told last time. Roux (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice: remain civil and collegial. As you have been unequivocally told many times now. Including, for example, here (a comment you saw fit to remove is nevertheless a warning, how ever gently phrased). Since you remove comments on your page, but I do not, and you are nevertheless here, your warnings from now on may well be here, so they're easier to find. Heed them. My next edit to your page may well be a block notice. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
(for interested readers, here is the text that Roux found so offensive: "Whatever beef you may have about SWR's unacceptable behavior, I've walked in those shoes, and far worse, so playing that card won't work. Further, I comprehend what the actual issue is. I just don't think you do. As for "how much (I) dislike you" I don't dislike you at all. I just dislike disruptive badfaith behavior. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Shape up, please. It would be greatly appreciated." ... pretty far over the line, wasn't it? ++Lar: t/c 10:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that it did not display any comprehension of the actual problem, which is what I informed you would need to be in evidence if you wished to post again at my talkpage, it was over a specific line, yes. And apparently you have forgotten exactly what happened last time on this merry-go-round. Or indeed any time Privatemusings has embarked on a crusade anywhere within the WMF umbrella. Roux (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and given your well-documented dislike for me, if you block me I will do my best to have your bit removed as an involved/personal decision. So there's that, too. Roux (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What documentation is that? You keep asserting some imagined dislike of you, but it assumes facts not in evidence. Troublesome user? Yes. Disliked? Nope. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you forget IRC conversations. Or are you going to conveniently claim they never took place? Roux (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't remember, sorry. If I said something then, it's not something I still believe because I don't hold grudges. You shouldn't either. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

< I suspect our well known warm and mutually respectful relationship is rather clouding roux's perspective - although I also consider it a conflict of interest for any admin to block me - I mean how much more involved can you get than being willing to press 'block' - that should warrant recusal right there, and probably resignation ;-) - anywhoo, I tried to implement the suggestion at the talk page about subpages etc. - which hopefully will lead to calmer waters. Any advice / feedback is most welcome, of course... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I'm not sure how to best handle the situation now besides making an announcement on the Village pump and letting the community get involved. So far there's been a policy of denial and containment that isn't helpful to WMF or the community. So far you've either banned, or threatened to ban me for things that are not against guidelines, like making negative comments about the project, and reverting section blanking. I actually don't regard you as a neutral admin, but you're the highest ranking one involved so I'm pleading for openness and fairness. Remember, consensus doesn't mean much in this case, because it was derived by canvassing by Roux (clearly indicated in edit history on April 24). This situation is adding the unmanagability in my life and aggravating my health condition and I'm taking a sabbatical. I will be observing your response. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
And yet another bloody stupid and baseless accusation. When is this going to stop, SWR? I canvassed nobody; indeed, I left messages for everyone who had participated in the previous discussion that I could find. Further, my message included text along the lines of "If I've missed anyone involved in the discussion, please let them know." So that is canvassing how, exactly? How convenient that you're taking a 'break' right after yet another one of the smears that is almost guaranteed to get you blocked. Roux (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I find fault with much about Roux's approach here, in particular I think he's abrasive, even combative, in discussion, unnecessarily so, but I find the suggestion that he canvassed in an inappropriate manner not supportable by the facts on the ground. You ought to retract that suggestion. I'm going to go further and say that I think my blocks of you and others in this matter would be sustained on review under just about any imaginable circumstance. That you and Roux both seem to find me biased or non neutral, but in opposite directions, suggests that perhaps I've got the fairness thing roughly correct already. Dunno. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
'Ought to'? Oh please. This would be the same user making false accusations of vandalism, demanding spurious CUs, and accusing me of wanting Commons to host 'my' child porn. And now accusations of canvassing. 'Ought to' is just a wee bit mild, don't you think? Had I done all of those things you would have indeffed me without blinking. Roux (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I call BS. I don't know where you get that idea. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
From w:wp:canvassing - "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not the important part of the policy. Reread it. Including the part about what kinds of canvassing are not only appropriate, but encouraged. Notifying every previous participant findable, with a neutrally worded message, and a call to identify those missed so they can be notified too... that is not only appropriate, but encouraged. Please don't cite policy unless you actually know what is said. You are fairly close to a long block here if you don't shape up. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

barometer falling?[edit]

haven't really got much time today, or poss. for the next few days - but I'm kinda detecting a bit of a wind change (when a barometer falls, it means a storm is coming, as I'm sure you probably know :-) We've now had two admins deleting sexually explicit material as 'out of scope' and one admin restore some of them (if you don't mind looking at rude pics, you can see the gaps here). If I had more time, I'd try and chat a bit more to folk like roux explaining why I feel tagging, and therefore supporting filtering tools, is actually preferable to deletion (the 'out of scope' images could actually remain on the project) - but under the current system, I feel I regrettably support the deletions - of which I'd probably expect more (and undeletions too, and eventually the fine en wiki tradition of 'wheel warring' will fully infect poor commons). Thought I'd keep you informed, and hope you're good.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

oh, and well I'm in a record keeping mood, there were also these deletions based on moral issues applying when subjects can be identified (personally I dunno why moral issues would only apply if you can identify someone - apparently having your mouth full tends to mean that the images are fine ;-) - now I really have to go earn :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Privatemusings, I deleted the two images not just on ground of moral issues but on COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues which (please read the entire policy) applies only if the depicted persons are identifiable. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I do understand that :-) - I'm really asking why that policy seems to apply moral issues solely to identifiable people - do you agree with me that 'moral issues' can apply regardless of identifiability? Privatemusings (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Privatemusing, sure. However, my deletion decisions refer to policy and not to some unidentified moral issues. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

< I think you're right that I could have made that clearer in my post, and thanks for clarifying :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Notification[edit]

Your name was mentioned at w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#File:Las_Vegas7.JPG. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded there. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Stillwaterising and [1]. If he continues with these "resignation requests" just because people write something he disagrees with, he's in for a time-out. Lupo 07:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Endorsed your thinking there. ++Lar: t/c 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting comment[edit]

Hello Lar. Sorry to bother you but I'd like to have your advice on this:

As per discussion on my talk page and given that Commons:Username policy is only a proposal but Commons:Blocking policy says that we can block per innapropiate usernames I'd like to know if Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolpñ (talk · contribs) can be blocked under that grounds for being a confusing username. I know that I can suggest him/her to change his username but I was told that renaming consumes many resources of the database and it should not be used to rename users with few edits (unless SUL usurpations, etc) Thank you for your time & reply in advance, — Dferg (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That name seems unhelpful to me. Renaming users consumes more resources if the user has a lot of contributions, yes, but we tend to grant renames based on standing (a user with few or none is told just abandon and restart, a user with a lot will get his request granted if it's otherwise reasonable). I would suggest you recommend to the user that they change their name, and see what happens. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks you for your time. I will then ask the user to start editing under a new username or to fill a request for changing his username. Since the user seems to speak Spanish, that would be simple for me. Very best, — Dferg (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Good deal. Thanks for taking this on. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight policy - documented breasts?[edit]

In response to this, I would like to what images in category:topless young women would require any "documentation"? And which ones do? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ones for which there is reasonable doubt as to whether the model is underage, or whether or not the model has granted permission for the photograph to be taken. But I suspect you knew that already. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was a non-answer. Look, I have lived in your country, although it was a while ago. I understand that it is a national catastrophy when a nipple is seen on broadcasting channels. But is there really a law requiring documentation for bare breasts? And you seemed to state that Commons had documentation of age for some images. How is that done? For what images? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
"I understand that it is a national catastrophy when a nipple is seen on broadcasting channels" NOT a helpful comment. It cuts no ice whatever with me, especially on my talk, so knock it off. You ask for examples.... The Michelle Merkin images for example are pretty solid... OTRS has permission on file, from her, and she's a public figure with a known birthdate, there is no doubt about her age or her consent. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It is not very gentlemanly to suggest that Commons might have nude pictures of the conservative author. But I will knock it off. This was enlightening anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, that was a typo. Good catch. I meant Michele Merkin, this image is an example: File:Michele Merkin 3.jpg (please revise your comment to remove the erroneous name if you'd be so kind, as you are right, it wasn't gentlemanly even if it was an inadvertant slip. (apparently I am not the only person to make that mistake, check out the article, it starts with a disambig...) ++Lar: t/c 23:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Larry,

I wonder why nobody pointed it out to you so far, but there's a de-adminship-request under Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Lar (de-adminship). Stay cool, I don't think you have to worry about that. cu --Isderion (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've taken time off and away from Commons. No matter what I say ("except I quit") will be marked with hostility from you (like in this diff). What is the appropiate forum to have your Ombudsman position reevaluated? BTW, attacking me constantly is not helping your case, take a look at your own actions (and lack of action) that contributed to this controversy. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
See m:Ombudsman commission, if you have complaints about a current ombudsmans conduct as ombudsman you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - From Stewards Election Results, you were accused of "incivility & drama (34), ignores policy and consensus & dispute on enwiki & disruption (29), unilateral & threatening (23), militant & divisive & polarized (22), alleged inappropriate behaviour (10), contributes to anti-Wikipedia forum (10), alleged breach of privacy policy (10), few article edits on enwiki (7)." and lost your position as Steward in March. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

SWR, it would seem that unless someone agrees with everything you say and finds no issue with any of your behaviour, you turn on them and start rashly calling for their resignation, removal, and so forth. I'm sympathetic to some of your concerns, but I'm more interested in fostering orderly and collegial discussion than in enabling you to rant about whatever you like. It's not about who is on which side Note, for example, that I've blocked Roux indefinitely as it seems that he is not interested in collegial discourse. You need to internalise that the problem is with your behavior, not with everyone else. Raising all these irrelevant issues is not helpful. Pointing out the issues with your behavior in a calm and dispassionate manner is not "attacking you".

If you have an issue with my activities as an ombudsman, you should raise it in the proper place, as Finnrind points out. As for my stewardship, I'm not going to comment further except to say that I feel that outcome was skewed by a few folk who were holding various grudges, including some of my former colleages among the stewards, and was not representative of true consensus. (a star chamber of a few secret deciders with secret unnamed input from a few others who have to account to no one is not exactly what I call a consensus driven process) That's unfortunate but it is what it is and for the most part I've moved on, since it's clear that my concerns with the process were glossed over or ignored. Look to your own behavior and stop picking at others. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Lar, I've decided to withdraw my RFA; the situation where it seemed appropriate has passed. I'll leave a statement to that effect and would be grateful if you could close the page. Cheers, --JN466 10:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for offering to be of service. ++Lar: t/c 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima[edit]

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote (Symbol support vote.svg Support, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose or Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PD review[edit]


I write to you because you are listed here Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers.

The Category:PD files for review was flooded some time ago and perhaps therefore PD review seems to have stopped. After some discussion on Commons_talk:PD_files#Has_review_stopped? the category has been cleaned up.

Perhaps you would like to come back and take a look at some of the remaining files?

Thank you!

--MGA73 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Lar. You have new messages at Multichill#Hi's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | 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 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

RE: Images of Brittsuza -Stillwaterising (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no messages directed specifically at me, although I could be confused. Perhaps you are asking me to comment on someting? ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have requested oversight of these images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Now I see. I have commented there. You didn't make it very clear what it is you wanted with your first message. Instead of the fancy template you might try just saying what you wanted. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for comment. I hope others find it useful. I was reluctant to start the DR because I believe these matters should be handled more efficiently and without public spectacle. It also took me over two hours to do all the "paperwork". - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A DR is appropriate as this is not cut and dried, there is reasonable doubt in both directions. However the outcome ought to be delete absent appropriate information supplied by the subject. ++Lar: t/c 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Lar, I have tied my brains into a knot over how to do an upload (probably needlessly). Could you advise me? The situation is the following: Two musicians who are covered in multiple WP articles have mailed me a digital publicity photo of themselves and have said in private correspondence with me that they are happy for this to go up in Commons. The picture was taken by one of them, and they are aware that uploading it will mean it becomes part of the public domain.

So far, so good, but I am unsure what I should do first now. Should I upload the picture, or should I ask them to mail permissions first?

If I upload the picture now on their behalf, it will be deleted, because I am not its author. If I ask them to mail permissions, there won't be a Commons picture their mail relates to.

Also, what exactly does their mail to permissions have to state? That they are the copyright owners and are releasing the image into the public domain? Is there any specific wording they need to follow? I want to help them get it right first time. Cheers, --JN466 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the image somewhere that can be linked to now? If so, their mail can reference "the image now at URL... and to be uploaded by Jayen466". If not, tell them the name you are going to use and they can reference "the image called xxx about to be uploaded by Jayen466". If you want to upload now, you can put in the file description (below all the normal information) that "OTRS is pending" which will prevent a deletion. As to the permission, I suggest you suggest to them that they grant CC-BY-SA instead of PD... PD is way too loose in my view for images of people. CC-BY-SA requires attribution (which they get to specify how they want, they can require a link to their website as part of the credit) and requires that the license remain the same for derivative works. I suggest getting agreement on permission before you upload because if you upload as PD, you may be stuck. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
PS as for the wording of the email, there are suggested boilerplates to use... see Commons:Permission and Commons:Email templates ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Lar, that's very helpful; I'll get onto that. --JN466 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


A few months ago, I asked you if you would be willing to unblock me on Wikipedia, because I was initially accused of being a sockpuppet of 98E, but then it was found that I wasn't. So, I had been trying to get unblocked, and I asked you about it. You suggested that I e-mail unblock-en-l (at) about it. Well, I did, and I got no response. It's been 4 months now. It seems that not enough admins realize that I'm not 98E. I've provided enough evidence to get unblocked here on Commons. But, no one wants to unblock me on Wikipedia. I really want to start editing it again after nearly two years of being blocked. If you are able to, I would be very grateful if you could unblock me on Wikipedia. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have sent a note to some folk asking about this. Not sure whether there will be a response but I'm hoping. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you heard anything back yet? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Not directly but you should have heard something I would think. ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Where would I have heard something? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If you emailed the unblock list, you should have gotten a response either via email or on your talk page on en. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


File:Croton_Dam_Muskegon_River_Dscn1100_cropped.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


File:CedarPoint_Maverick_TrackLayoutDSCN9523.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for renaming[edit]

Hi Lar, Yesterday I posted this problem on the admin noticeboard. Since I am requesting a user to be renamed I will need a bureaucrat and User:Ra'ike recommended you on IRC. I am bit surprised that old accounts do not automatically get blocked. I realise that I should have immediately reregistered this account, but alas I didn't. Can you help with this request and/or tell me what to do? Kind regards, --Millbart (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally the recommendation is to visit COM:CHU and make the request there. But in this case you're asking for a forced rename of another user. I think it best that we continue discussion on the admin notice board to understand why exactly. Once consensus is achieved, any required renames can be requested in the normal place or directly to any 'crat. ++Lar: t/c 13:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

B'crat task[edit]

Hi Lar. As a bureaucrat on meta, might you please take a look at RfA. One request needs closing actually. Thanks & sorry for bothering. Regards, --Dferg (talk · meta) 20:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for another few hours I don't think, if you mean Meta:Requests_for_adminship#Jon_Harald_S.C3.B8by, it would close at 23:11 UTC at the earliest. On Meta, it will probably get done at 23:12 in a flurry of ECs :) ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
True, you are right. I do not know at what date I was looking at (*facepalms*). My bad. We will see at 23:12 then :) --Dferg (talk · meta) 20:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, no one did it! So I did. Thanks for the nudge. ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your service! - glad to see you back on meta, on the other hand :) Cheers, --Dferg (talk · meta) 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The place holds little attraction for me these days. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)



Just stepped by to say hello :)

Huib talk 17:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi back. Long time no talk. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Steward question[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if you could do this import request. AFAIK, stewards can import pages with a lot of revisions (at least "Der Hexer" can do it). Thanks, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, you'll have to ask a steward. ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I thought you were a steward. But ok, Dferg apparently has already offered his help. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, I was a steward. No longer. Glad to hear Dferg is going to help. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)