User talk:RichardDemers
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Please do not advertise on Commons
[edit]
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Your account has been blocked
[edit]--Túrelio (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
How is it possible on this website to discuss something rationally? I see. Thank you for your determination. I bow to a higher authority. How can a person here have a fair and unbiased hearing on a ruling? There has to be arbritration because the first 2 rulings were unfair and I was not given an opportunity to discuss this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardDemers (talk • contribs)
- platform will have to have a chat with our lawyers (your words) — you call this "discuss .. rationally", really? Though you have been blocked only for 1 day now, I would strongly recommend you to reflect on your attitude/wording towards other users/volunteers. In addition, as your "case" seems to be related to :en-Wikipedia, you should not try to discuss it at a completely different project, i.e. Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]I apologized for that statement because the 1st decision was in error as I own image copyright and second decision was obviously wrong, why would a rational person use this platform for marketing? It was for obvious educational purposes for facebook that little i to to give information on a website...not to market anything? But i sincerely apologized and will do it again. I agreed with your ruling if you noticed, i have no desire to contest your 24 hour ban, it was fair. Thank you. RichardDemers (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- As I wasn't involved in your underlying case and thereby do not comment to it, let me be frank: of course, many people try to use Wikipedia for PR and marketing, it may be an irresistable temptation. Some might go undetected for some time or for ever, others are caught earlier. It's not all b/w, of course, and sometimes Wikipedia (or its readers) might even benefit from the contributions of a user, who came initially to contribute on his own interest. --Túrelio (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Question...if it is in fact marketing? Then why can.i.wiki other social media.websites? That seems unfair. Does.it seem that way to you? The intention was honest, no marketing was intended. It was solely for the information icon that can be found on Facebook posts. Information and education...nothing else was even thought of. I was surprised to hear you say people are doing that with an informational website and i admit that origionally i took offense to the accusation. Thats what i apologized to you and your fine website for my outburst. RichardDemers (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record. I appreciate the discussion even after my outburst. Thank you, even if we don't agree, it shows you are at least honest. RichardDemers (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that it seemed like a lack of due process, even on a private website, it's fair to allow this. There are always exceptions to the rule naturally. But, as stated. Thank you for taking the time, even if in the end we disagree. RichardDemers (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)