User talk:MSJapan

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, MSJapan!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | Català | Нохчийн | Čeština | Cymraeg | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Ирон | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Scots | සිංහල | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Masonic heroes print.jpg[edit]

If the uploader got it from E-bay, then saying that he got it from E-bay would be considered commendable honesty. You seem to have removed valid descriptive information from the image description page, some copyrightable, but much of it (i.e. lists of names and transcriptions of text contained in the image) not copyrightable. AnonMoos (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: "Commendable honesty" yes. Freely licensable, no. There is nothing that indicates that an image that is clearly being used for commercial purposes (as a picture of an item being sold) is "free". I thought the whole point of Commons was that we "couldn't just upload stuff off the Internet." MSJapan (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's pretty obviously a scan of something first published in the U.S. before 1923, then it doesn't matter for copyright purposes whether he got it from E-bay, Goatse, or the North Korean government. When you substituted a Library of Congress URL for an E-bay URL, it was quite clear that you were NOT alleging that the image wasn't first published in the U.S. before 1923. AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Your RfA[edit]

Hi MSJapan,

I trust you're fine. Thanks for your willingness to help with clearing the CfD backlog. I am familiar with your works and I honestly appreciate your contributions here. I'm a bit reluctant to oppose you, so I decided to be neutral. However, looking at your contributions here in the last six months, I'll suggest you withdraw your nomination for now. I think that would help your future RfA. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother. When 11 years and 19000 edits on another project plus a willingness to help counts for absolutely nothing despite being asked to enumerate such, you apparently don't need my help, so there will be no "future RfA". I think I'm pretty much done with Wikimedia projects as a whole at this point. MSJapan (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I would be sad to seeing you leaving. You don't need to be an administrator to help. Asides roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Wikicology (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately being highly active on one project means nothing on other projects, Lets flip it around - You could've been highly active here but without many edits at EN your RFA would've failed over there too, I've been highly active on EN but I know without a doubt (like anyone) my RFA would fail too ...., Each project is different and each project has their own RFA criteria, Personally I don't think it's worth retiring/going away over but it's your choice, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 13:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm tired of fighting a rising tide of trash, and community treatment isn't helping that. The quality of content has absolutely nothing to do with policy anymore; it's about the vagaries of the userbase. File:UCLA bruins textlogo.svg got multiple keep votes for no reason, and it would have been kept if I hadn't actually looked at the file and seen several problems with it. Instead I get nitpicked about a graveyard photo that's supposed to be "an illustrative photo of a town" and another in the same area where the most prominent feature is a set of walls, when we've got policies that say the media has to portray the topic in a useful manner. I deletion nommed a whole set of uploads from a user to get consensus and information, and rather than point out the stuff that got speedied for being blatantly stolen from websites, and that the user got blocked for a month, I get "poor success rate on deletions."

It's literally taking years to deal with problems on the projects, because any garbage that's created takes five seconds to upload and three weeks to get consensus, and if I'm going to get nothing but a ration of crap for doing something about it, then I'm not going to waste my time as a volunteer anymore. MSJapan (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

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 sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you.

No idea why you don't have the tag. Well, done now. café --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)