User talk:OsamaK/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Category:Renaisance statues in Alsace

Hi, i created this category but made a spelling mistake (Renaisance instead of Renaissance). Could you please move it ? Thank you, 81.64.56.107 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure!--OsamaK 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ! 81.64.56.107 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It was moved before I do, let me help you next time.--OsamaK 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:OsamaK/Tagging/1

Hi, i don't know how you did this but whith this page you appear always as subcategory of anything what you have added there. can you remove it, please!

--Ceterum censeo capitalismum esse delendam (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Using dupe

Thank you for suggesting it, but wouldn't it make sense to advertise this template? I seldom need to delete here, so I am thoroughly unfamiliar with procedures. In looking for the correct template and procedure, I went to the Main Page, selected the Help, and found Commons:Deletion guidelines. The template {{dupe}} is not mentioned there under Speedy deletions. I assumed that the templates listed there are the ones we should be using, as they are the only ones recommended. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

But that would be silly in this case. Why redirect when both files were loaded in quick succession by me, with the first one being simply an error in the file name? The error was caught right away. There would have been no point in going through that process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image tag deletion

Well, I frankly don't care what you "tell" me to do; you're not in a position to do that. For obviously PD images, we can live, at least temporarily, with no source. Biruitorul (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

DupesScript.js

Could you please repair your script or should it be deleted as dupe since it was added to that category? -- Cecil (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Flickr review

Good day. As a result of your request at Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers, I have added you to the reviewers list. Please see the instructions at Commons:Flickr images/reviewers and add {{user trusted}} to your userpage. You can ask me if you need any help. Best regards, --Kanonkas(talk) 09:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

[[1]]

Hi, please go [[2]] to continue the discussion of the delete of my image. -Eduloqui (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of namespace-rename "Image" -> "File"

Dear user, the MediaWiki developers recently announced that the "Image:" namespace is going to be renamed to "File:". "Image:" will remain an alias. The canonical namespace name wgCanonicalNamespace will change from "Image" to "File".

I noticed that you use wgCanonicalNamespace in either your monobook.js page or a JavaScript file in your userspace (check this list).

Please check and replace all occurrences of

wgCanonicalNamespace == "Image"

with

wgNamespaceNumber == 6

to ensure that your scripts keep working. Thanks! --Dschwen (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adolphe_Thiers_Nadar.jpg

Adolphe Thiers Nadar.jpg

Now this has to come to an end! How many more times do you want to tell me that my NADAR-scans have no source and are copyvios? Just see my discussion page, maybe you don't remember. Additionally, please undelete Image:Albert_I._Of_Monaco_Nadar.jpg.

Have a nice week, --AM (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete of Image:ADumas hijo 0x

Image:ADumas hijo 02.jpg
Image:ADumas hijo 03.jpg <--- I do not have notification about you have taggin this.
Sorry, but not found arguments for "unclear status" of a photo taken from a writer defeat at 1895 : 2008 (this year) - 70 (years for PD in Europe) = 1938 (limit year of defeat of phothographer) Photo are take prev for defeat of Dumas, but 1938 - 1895 = 43 years. A prefessional at this are in 35-45 or over. Or his are a very fortunated +90 years at defeat, or this photo are in public domain in Europe. Info about photographers are relativement recent in press, and I do not have this info. I have add info about origins of this images. Take note of 03 are from 1864 and the 02 are from oficial website of L’Académie française

Image:ADumas hijo 04.jpg are make for François Eugène Burney (1845-1907). I have added the aditional information and delete the template. For more info about Burney, see :

Delete of Image:ADumas hijo 05.jpg are at this moment correct. I have make a more severe search (I take this image from a Dumas page) and found this are a work of Maurice Leloir (1851-1940) the artist of The Tree Musketeers (image are included in this). I take note of this and make in futur a traslation of artiche at french wikipedia to Spanish. Also, make a recolection of images for upload at 2010. Thanks —museo8bits (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

nomination

hello dear Osama i have nominate you for adminship please voice your acceptance there --Mardetanha talk 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

File:رفع العلم فوق جزيرة طنب.jpg

Image deletion warning File:رفع العلم فوق جزيرة طنب.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

--Latzel (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

File:University of Liverpool Building.jpg

Hi OsamaK, could you please fix the license and the description of this image you've uploaded? This photograph was apparently copied by you from en-wp without stating its author. This makes it a copyright violation, even more as the original upload at en-wp was deleted. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


Image:University of Liverpool Building.jpg

Image deletion warning Image:University of Liverpool Building.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. 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)‎ | +/−

--AFBorchert (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


User talk:Ahmed Alhasanyah هذا نصاب حاول تسويق طائفة اخترعها في ويكيبيديا لذا يرجى حذف مساهماته، حتى الآية لم ينقلها بشكل صحيح! Санта Клаус (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

أو لتترك كعبرة :) Санта Клаус (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

أتذكر شيئا من هذا القبيل، لكن بالمناسبة، هل الآية فعلا لم تنقل بالشكل الصحيح؟--OsamaK 04:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

adminship!

Dear OsamaK!

Congratulations you got 69% support votes! I think this a pretty good result considering the controversial issue of the flag. So do not give up! Wait a couple of months and then - if you still want - I will propose you again for adminship. --ALE! ¿…? 09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear OsamaK!

I do agree with ALE!. You should be congratulated, you got a lot of support votes. None of the against votes were able to produce a single wrong action by you. They simply behaved as if they were in wikipedia, not commons. You will be one of the best admins commons ever seen, still that will have to wait some weeks. Keep on the good work. --Tarawneh (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Never give up, and keep going on. As the proverb says "The hit which dont break your back will strngthen it", (← sorry for the strange translation). Best Wishes --Ciphers (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
better luck next time, remember i vote for u though u tagged 1 of my pics :-) (i've just saw that old msg in my discussion page - it shows u are really fair) --Histolo2 (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

English ANI

you have been named in a discussion here [[3]]173.28.159.111 06:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noting.--OsamaK 06:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Die4 Dixie.173.28.159.111 10:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Mattbuck has added a template to your image labeling it as anti judaism here [[4]]. You might want to look to the ediits to the page and image.173.28.159.111 10:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you hero :P--OsamaK 18:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a friend who could create a userbox/ I lack the technical skills to do so.173.28.159.111 01:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I now have a commons account.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User box

I was wondering if you had time to make a box that says" This user recognizes Hamas as the democratically elected and lawful governemnt of Palastine" with a Hamas flag on one side and a Palastinian flag on the other? If you have time, Thanks.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess that its logo is not free. BTW, it would be very easy if you tried editing any ready userbox in English Wikipedia gallery, that's how I created your userbox. --OsamaK 10:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A concern about File:No Israel.svg and its use on your user page

Hi OsamaK! A concern has been brought to me offline about your use of No Israel.svg on your user page. Can you please let me know why you are using that image? It seems to be somewhat out of scope of our mission here, at least to some, so I would like to understand, clearly, what message the use of that image is conveying, and why you feel it's an appropriate one to have on your user page? Thanks for any insight you can share. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Lar. I just feel it would be OK as well as Anti Russia, Anti USA, Anti LGBT or Anti God and many others. I believe that Wikimedia Commons must give a space of equality: there is nothing like "anti USA but never anti Israel", or as I said, keep them all or delete them all. I'm using this photo just in scene of pure humanity, I didn't anti Israeli contributors here at Commons, Arabic Wikipedia or anywhere else, and we used to talk at IRC every other time. OK, I know that there are some people who want to make it a big deal, please ignore them, use your judgment. Please feel free to continue this discussion and remember that we're all here to build a powerful free library of media, this is not our issue!--OsamaK 03:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to get rid of all the anti-xxx images that aren't used within the projects for specific encylopedic/educational purposes, because that image... it just seems wrong to me. So how do we find all of them, and get the community as a whole to agree that they are all out of scope? ++Lar: t/c 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I confess I feel rather strongly that it is a bad example for any user to show such partisan sentiments here.
I believe all hate images are outside the desirable scope of this project. I hope you will consider my comments. --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I saw more than one user reject anti logos. Well, these are personal opinions, and they're fully respected, but if you want to ask me for removing it, or voting against me in a RfA just because of it, then it must be a community agreed resolution, and it must be for all anti logos I noted last few months a high caring for the Israeli crossed flag and almost nobody talked about other anti logos, again, to make Commons neutral, delete them all or keep them all, although I prefer keeping them, please reread COM:PS. Herbythyme, your comment is definitely considered.--OsamaK 10:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Removing it from your own user page is entirely your decision not that of the community. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, If it is really an 'attacking' image as some stated, or 'out of scope' as others, then it is not my chose to keep 'illegal' contents on Commons even if they're on my own user page.--OsamaK 14:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that you choose not to remove it tells me all I need to know. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it's not conflicting with our policy and as long as I think it is explaining a real reality, then I see no reason for removing it. Thank you for your involving, let's back to work.--OsamaK 17:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
May I please ask you, if under "let's back to work" you meant that you are going to work on the design for few more user boxes like this one? May I please ask you to notice that this is a rhetorical question. As Herby said: "The fact that you choose not to remove it tells me all I need to know." Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Same point again, the userbox made for a mail request and it is policy-acceptable so you cannot tell me not to do that. For myself, I don't believe it will be a successful solution to have one state. But I respect his opinion, therefore I made this userbox which is, again, doesn't conflict with our polices. and as I just said, there is no reason to remove the flag, so I won't: this is the fact.--OsamaK 18:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Herby that I think it's a bad example to show such partisan sentiment here. We should put such things aside when we are here working together. It may be within "allowable policy" (perhaps because we never before had to spell such things out) but that doesn't make it right. Commons is about free content, not free speech. So color me concerned. I hope you will reconsider your position. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Lar, I'm sorry, you still give the exact point again and again. You're former than me in Commons, and I'm very sure that you've met many anti-logos at least since two years ago, this is not a new case, the true new thing is that it is about Israel, which has no immunity here in Commons, and I gave you example nobody talked about. And please note that I really respect your opinion, but please be honest.--OsamaK 06:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You are avoiding the issue. So what if there are other images? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep a thing. All the anti logos/images need to go, not just this one. But we're talking about this one... why exactly do you have it on your user page? Do you see any logos or political images on my user page? On Herby's? What is the need? Commons is not a free speech zone. You can stand on regulations but only until those regulations are changed. I had hoped that I could reason with you because I don't want to have the fight of getting the regulations changed, but if that is what it will take... are you sure you want that fight held here at Commons? This image, like every other anti logo/image, is out of scope, do you agree or not? Leave every other image out, just answer this question, please. ++Lar: t/c 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
For you question, directly: No, I'm not. Commons is serving user page images clearly per COM:PS. if you could make a community general resolution it's not a fighting, it would be a useful discussion ends whole these repeated ones.--OsamaK 07:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

<-Osama, I would like to raise the same issue in a slightly different way. Even if the image itself is accepted to be in scope, it does not follow that you are allowed to use it in such a way on your userpage. Policy on the use of userpages is set out at Commons:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories, which says (with my boldings) that non-allowable content includes:

  • Content that does not advance Commons' aims, including advertising or excessive linking to external domains and anything apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack.

In my view, your posting of that image, with the link and wording used underneath, certainly does not advance Commons' aims and appears to have been done for the purpose of attack. I note that Mbz1 posted this comment on Dec 22nd, and in your very next edit on your return after Christmas you put the flag up. You may say you are making a point; I say you are using your userpage for an out of scope purpose. I do hope you will reconsider. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So let's be clear, the problem is not with the image itself, it is -in your opinion- with its link because it is -the link- an attack. First of all, I have never attacked specified contributors on Wikimedia projects, the image stated the oppression of Israeli terrorism, again and again, not the Israel contributors, you may understand the issue just like its equivalent: No Vista logo, is not about contributors who use Vista. The attack means actually the personal one, I haven't seen yet another definition. So please, don't link this with attacking.--OsamaK 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Could you indicate how, in your view, this advances Commons' aims? Unless you can do so, your use of the image is out of scope: see the quote above. And please remember that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's back. You're saying that anti-logos are out of scope, what I'm trying to point by giving these samples which uploaded years ago is that it's not strange to upload these logos, this is the difference is, I'm not saying there are other stuff, I'm saying these are normal and used widely. Here in Commons, we're trying to provide a wide free media library, to be used on encyclopedic articles as well as user pages, so I'm allowed per our policies to upload imaged to be used on my own user page. I'm sorry to say that, but please note that you're not talking with a somebody who just started editing Wikipedia, I know what I supposed to do here, policies are clear, Israel is (and will never be) excepted. I think we entered an endless loop.--OsamaK 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am not arguing here (though others may be) that the image itself is out of scope, just the way in which you are using it. There is no absolute right under Commons' policies to use an in-scope image in any way you wish. To comply with Commons:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories you must not have anything on your userpage which does not advance Commons' aims. The way you use the image fails that test. You also fail the attack test in that the combination of image and wording on your page is a direct attack on the state of Israel. Commons' scope prohibits "attack" on userpages, and it is mere sophistry to suggest that that word does not apply to an attack on a state. Of course, exactly the same rule would apply to anyone who had on their userpage the opposing political view "YEAH, NO PALESTINE". That would be equally unacceptable. It is not the content of your political opinion that is a problem, but the expression of that opinion on your Commons userpage in a manner which does not advance Commons' aims and which constitutes an attack. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, What's an attack in your definition? In mine, an opposition (which is on my userpage) isn't an attack. So is "No Israel" sentence. "No XXX" isn't "f*** XXX". I believe that you have a two-direction freedom, say whatever you think is right, as long as it is a policy-acceptable. --OsamaK 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that most people know an attack when they see one. I strongly support the freedom to say whatever you think is right, as long as it is a policy-acceptable. You can say anything legal you like on your own website, but our mission here is not to generate political argument but to host free media content. You are no more permitted to post things which detract from Commons' aims than you are to use your page to promote your personal business interests. So please can you remove your userpage postings? They are not within the policy which I quoted above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Political statements on user pages are out of scope. It's that simple, really. (that some get away with them sometimes is irrelevant, they are not on mission) OsamaK, I'd appreciate it if you you listened to your peers, set a good example, and got rid of yours, and then worked with others to do the same elsewhere... the alternative is less pleasant to contemplate. ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh man, don't say that. :) Right, you're all friends and peers, but please, I'm trying to get a reasonable discussion. We'll be OK after this conversion regardless the result, won't we?--OsamaK 11:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Political statements are out of scope. I don't think you can reasonably get round that. So what are you going to do? ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Lar, you're really widely respected man, and I believe that you're understanding the spirit of the policy: So please, let's try a comprehensive view. There are some facts we should all understand. Fist of all, It's not an attack, it's an 'opposition' of a very widely opposed state. It's itself free to use and was kept fairly per the policy after a long discussion. It doesn't specify any user by attacking or humiliation, it's a general political point of view about a state, and political opinions are not disallowed on a user page (keep talking about galleries :) ), everybody does that everywhere. Again, please give a moment for the real spirit of policies and what it says, for logic, helpful discussion and your judgment. and please note that I'll never keep anything 'illegal' on my user page or anywhere else on Commons.--OsamaK 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK let's forget about your user page for a moment, shall we? May I please ask you few questions? I'm hurting every time a child gets killed no matter what nationality and what religion a child is. Are you? I am ready to get killed over and over again, if every time I get killed, a life of a child is saved. Are you? With no second thought I would have sacrificed my own life, if this were able to bring the peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Would you? I support two states solution. Do you? I would have never used a hate image on my user page. Would you? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Good words, respected opinion, but it's not my point of view and we're not going to discuss that because Commons isn't a political forum. I almost said what I should and what I'm going to do.--OsamaK 13:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for wider community input here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just called them back here. I think it would be better if we complete here (if there is something more to say). Thank you for taking care.--OsamaK 18:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1

will soon be deleted, please remove from your user page DingirXul (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Thank you.--OsamaK 18:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

"Giggy, supporting my RfA isn't a crime.--OsamaK 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)"

I didn't mean to say it was. My issue was with the comments he made, not with the fact he supported. I was not attacking you in any way, I'm sorry if it felt like that. Giggy (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content

I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. You have expressed interest in this issue, and you may wish to comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:محسن عبدالهی

Hi Osama. Would you mind having a look at the edits by this user, please? I'm afraid I don't even know whether the edits are in Arabic or not (please excuse me for my total lack of knowledge here). If you can read them, are they good-faith edits or do they look like vandalism? I appreciate any help you can give. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it is Farsi. I'll ask somebody checking it.--OsamaK 09:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

you have been personally attacked...

...[5]. Die4Dixie (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please never send me such a message. Some people try to make the problem complex, and I'm afraid that such incitement is just another practice which makes the situation even worse. I don't know him\her (or you BTW), nether he\she does, and therefor surely he\she made a mistake by calling me that, so for me I won't repeat the mistake, I'll simply ignore that. Please note that Commons isn't a place to discuss Israel 'rights', the only thing which is out of scope is this--OsamaK 03:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for any offense. Of course we dont know each other. Sorry if you felt that I was trying to incite you by my "practice". The user has invited me to email him, and I shall do that. I had seen a concern about my userbox that he had voiced here, and had offered to discuss it with him. What had started out as hostile, had turned into a much more pleasant conversation then when I had left you the message. Again, my apologies for having notified you, and for any discomfort he caused you by his mistakenly calling you my friend. Feel free to remove my contribution to your talkpage by archiving or deleting. I wont be offended. Best of everything.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This is not the point, man. I do think that you're a good person, -and I completely understand your apology-, therefore I do believe that we must all work just with a little wisdom: when to tell and when not to tell, also when to use the public user talk, and when to use the privet mail. The problem of the No Israel file is almost aborted, maybe because there wasn't a problem at all.--OsamaK 17:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)