User talk:Tiptoety/Archive 3

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

Mister Spex user account blocking

Hi Tiptoety, may you explain me the reason for blocking companies accounts like User:Mister Spex? Thank you, --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Because their sole purpose is to spam commons and or use it for advertisement. That even includes their username. Tiptoety talk 09:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
How can they donate a collection of quality product photos (glasses, goggles, sunglasses) w/o having an account? Do they have to use a personal account? --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
In this case, that's not what they were doing. They were simply spamming commons. Should they wish to use their account as a role account, they must first email OTRS. Tiptoety talk 16:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Post Canada

I'm not sure that I follow as to why the Canada Post Miscellaneous Tags was deleted, there was 112 files in it. I wouldn't call that an empty category (Unless it means something different from what I'm thinking)--The Navigators (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. It seems that the uploader of most of the images in there had wanted it deleted due to legal issues or something. See the category history and this thread. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


May be worth watching (follow the cross wiki link). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will keep an eye on things. In regards to the block, he is currently up for an unblock and may be so soon. Tiptoety talk 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Never was any good at form filling... Reasonable money will get you a common IP here and here. There may be sleepers and given the image upload on the later other wikis may be interested. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Checked this, but only down to /16. Accounts related to a Bond-themed talk page vandal posting nude photos. Will block some obvious socks next minutes. --Martin H. (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Martin - didn't realise you were around - that image has been used SO often. Regards --Herby talk thyme 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, deleted that quite often from vandal accounts. However, this one was clearly related to others, making edits like this. Worth more checking? No, just a stupid schoolboy. --Martin H. (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Martin, I was sleeping like a baby. :-) And thanks for bringing this to my attention Herby. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear you slept well :) And yes Martin - that image gets used by all kinds of idiots, thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Tiptoety, I didnt know of the 1=blocked/confirmed functionalities of that template and it looks as I was the only user who used it wrong with subst - as I use all user notifications with subst after the autotranslation.

The result is, that we have a lot of wrong inclusions, most are from my bad edits. Do you think it is a good idea to correct this subst'ed templates with correct {{sockpuppet}} (the parameters are the same) via bot to benefit from the categorization and uniform use of the template?

The categorization is a good think to keep the overview, but I strongly suggest to keep those categories hidden. There are some to create at Special:Categories, I will do this with AWB. Additional we should try to come back to an autotranslated template in future. --Martin H. (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make whatever corrections you feel are necessary. I trust your judgment. The only reason I changed the template so was because the previous one did not have an option to list a sock as blocked and/or confirmed. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 18:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw, thats a good improvement. Ill ask someone with bot rights to correct the template use. --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Contributions to deletion requiests

Request for deletion of images

Thank you for following through with deletion requests I posted a while ago such as this one. I noticed that some of the other ones I listed for deletion also were deleted by other administrators but some are still sitting in deletion requests. They have been there for over a month and other Wikipedians have either agreed with me or said nothing about them in this time so would you please just delete them? This would be appriciated! (Leave any comments on my talk page if you wish or here if you need follow up).

They are as follows: Commons:Deletion requests/Nonsense Spanish Empire maps Maps & Lucy (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is probably best if you file one big deletion request listing all of the above files to be deleted. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 09:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sounds fine, but how do I do that? The group deletion request? Couldn't you just wipe them out like you did to that other imasge I nominated above? Maps & Lucy (talk)
Just file a deletion request and list all of the files above on it, stating that you are nomination those as well. Tiptoety talk 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I just looked at the image subpages and User:The Ogre appears to be in fervant agreement with me and it looks like they are already starting to get deleted! Thanks again for your support and advice! Maps & Lucy (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for image replacement on language Wikis

I need an administrator's help and since I have already written to you in the past I am asking you: Please help me with my continuing quest to remove duplicated images from the Commons by replacing their existance on language Wikis so they can be deleted. I hope you can do so as soon as possible.

Images I would like you to deal with are listed below: Commons:Deletion requests/Nonsense British Empire maps Maps & Lucy (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

continuing deletion nominations

Thank you for your support in my deletion nomination quest to clean up the commons. Most of what I wanted to clean up is now deleted and I have looked through the areas I new of such clutter. If you have any suggestions as to where to go from here that would be great! Maps & Lucy (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


How long did it take you to become an administrator? What did you have to do to become one? And how rewarding or stressful is it to be one? I am not trying to become an administrator persay but I just wanted to know more about the administrator possition from the viewpoint of someone who actually is one rarther than just read the'Administrator' page on Wikipedia.

The last time I asked this question to an admin they just said, "Not every user should strive to become an administrator". Maybe becoming an administrator is or is not the path for me on Wiki-Commons but I would like to know about the possition before any moves may be done to go in that direction in the future. Thanks again for your help above! Maps & Lucy (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It took me about six months to become an administrator here, but that is in part because I am an administrator on other projects and thus have experience. For other users, I suggest waiting approximately a year before they run for adminship. In order to become an administrator you must pass a request for adminship, where members of the community review your contributions and vote. As for it being "rewarding", I am not sure that is the right word. It is just another tool that allows me to be my job easier. And is it stressful? It can be, but that all depends on what kind of administrative work you plan on doing. Tiptoety talk 22:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


is being targeted by /b/ on 4chan.

Yep, I know. Hence the protection. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage prot.

It would appear that someone is very unhappy about this and this image. I can't imagine why as the licensing is fine, but someone just insists on vandalizing them. Thanks for the prot, too ;) - Alison 02:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

/me adds those to his watchlist. And you are welcome. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Tiptoety. You have new messages at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Affect2.jpg.
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)‎ | +/−


Hi, Tiptoety! I wanted to ask you two things! First, to rename this file

File:Само за Челичног.jpg
In Serbian language, it means, "Only for Steelman" but this is Bajrakly mosque in Belgrade.

Second, regarding this

File:Osterstein Castle from the air, 2008.jpg
I talked to photographer, and he told me that he sent the e-mail with permission. Can you help me, and see who can i found that, and what is that actually? What else can i do about it? All best, --Tadija (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For starters the URL you provided me with of the first file is broken. Could you give me a better link please? Second, I found nothing in OTRS that would indicate the copyright holder send an email. I recommend you have them re-send an email with permission to
Cheers, Tiptoety talk 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
O, thank's you are kind! I told him :( I will informed him to send at (, and i fix the link! :) --Tadija (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC) should have worked as well, but I do not see any open tickets that relate to that file. Resending it won't hurt. Also, what is the exact name you want the file to be renamed to? Tiptoety talk 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Bajrakli mosque dome.jpg This is dome of the Bajrakly Mosque, as you can see here (File:Bajrakli džamija.jpg) --Tadija (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done - Tiptoety talk 16:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:TwoWings/Uploads (not self-made)

I am a bit confused. What is the reason for your request? All of the files appear to be properly licensed and most if not all also appear to be used on Wikimedia projects. We do not delete perfectly good and licensed images simply per "uploader request." You would need to open a COM:DR for that. Tiptoety talk 00:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm confused too ! What are your talking about ??? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
OK I understand now... But It's not me who asked for the deletion of that page : see history and please contact Fasten for explanations (I would actually be curious to know the reasons of such a behaviour). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I just assumed that it was you who placed those deletion requests. I will go ahead and ask Fasten. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Return of Rukshanawahab?

Hey, it looks as if User:Rukshanawahab's returned under a new name. Check out [1]. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also [2]. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Why you removed the file Jan_Dzierzon.jpg

Why you removed the file Jan_Dzierzon.jpg

I deleted that file based upon this deletion request. Tiptoety talk 02:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It could mistake made by him but on other hand it can be something you do not know. According to my knowledge the copyright are from the date of creation not from the day of painter death. Let check the law.

User:Pank claw

Can you run a check and see if any other accounts popped up for User:Pank claw (as they have, vandalizing my userpage the past week as User:The Pank claw Tyrant and User:The ghost of Pank)? They're been blocked on per wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pank claw/Archive. Alternatively, you could block the others, but I don't know if all of his socks were SUL'd. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed and blocked the following: The Pank claw Tyrant (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser), The ghost of Pank (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser), Pank claw (talk contribs Luxo's SUL deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser). Tiptoety talk 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


I've (well, technically Shanel has) promoted you to oversight on Commons. Congratulations! If you have any questions, feel free to ping me and I'll see what I can do. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Let's get you on the mailing list. Mail me with the email you'd prefer to have subscribed. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Sent. Tiptoety talk 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Subscribed. You may want to (if you haven't already) put a despamified version of your email address somewhere so people can mail you private requests even if they can't email via the mail interface. Advise of problems. ++Lar: t/c 10:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello Tiptoety,

Please allow me first to congratulate you for passing your RfO. Well, now I have a problem with the file listed on the heading. It's a week since it was tagged as "no license" but on the permission field it has a note saying that a mail has been sent to OTRS. Can you please check if it's true? Otherwise I'll have to delete the image. Thank you, — Dferg (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and the same with File:Sidetrip-Underwater-cover.jpg. Thank you, — Dferg (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I will take a look when I get home later today. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Dferg, I took a look and neither of those files appear to have a ticket pending in the OTRS system. Tiptoety talk 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've deleted both per "No OTRS permission". Thanks for your reply. — Dferg (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Have a nice day, Tiptoety talk 21:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Images

I see that you have interest is applying current guidelines like COM:NUDE. There's a proposed guideline called Commons:Sexual content that you could help on as well. The current draft version is Commons:Sexual content/April 2010 - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

further to this (and I should note that editing in this area seems to kick up a broo ha ha for almost any, or even no particualr, reason) - I mentioned your deletions as part of another conversation - basically just saying that I support them, but it'd be nice to try get some consistency in policy and practice around these images. Would you mind taking a look at this gallery of explicit sexual images to see if you feel any of these are also out of scope? - I was preparing a demonstration collection of images which I feel should probably have some sort of facility to allow others (like schools) to prohibit access in some way. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a very specific reason for the brouhaha: your refusal to stop beating the dead horse. You have been told this many times. You never listen. Roux (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

2 questions about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wide Leather Cock Ring & Condom Sex.jpg

  1. I clearly remarked that not all users were Americans so we're not supposed know about the law evoked in this DR. That would have been more honest to give a link to inform everyone.
  2. I don't understand the lack of coherence in the message of the closure : "Out of project scope" is NOT the reason why it's deleted !

--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are getting at. I did not delete the file per the DR, hence I did not delete it per the law cited. I deleted it per my rational shown in the deletion summary. Tiptoety talk 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
So you really do think that sexuality is out of scope, even if we deal with such subjects on Wikipedia ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I never said sexuality is outside of scope. I just feel that commons is not a porn site and that unused pornographic images such as this one do not fall within the boundaries of the projects intended scope. Tiptoety talk 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm always surpised to see that we never use the "it's unused" argument for a subject fo which a variety of file choice is not seen as a problem (the Eiffel tower for instance). But when it comes to sexuality, for some reason this argument seems to have a meaning... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
How should a pornographic image be used if you delete it right away? You're making me laugh... What's about using it in en:sexual intercourse? Put it in section Risks (condom use and safer sex), fits perfectly, doesn't it? Or in de:Vaginalverkehr. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
You should note delete images just because you think it is out of scope without checking if it is nominated for deletion. As far as I know it is not even a valid reason to speedy. --MGA73 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see [3]. Out of scope is a reason for speedy deletion. Tiptoety talk 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes pages can - not sure images can. Well if everyone agreed it WAS out of scope then probably noone would complaint. Problem is that scope will often be subjective and therefore a DR is safer. --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

<just a quick follow up to see if I could steal a couple min.s of your time to review this gallery to see if you feel any of these images are also out of scope. A couple of words on how you come to your decision / opinion would help clarify your position a lot, I think :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that most, if not all of the images listed at Commons:Wikiproject:Erotica/image_level_demo/Gallery are outside the projects scope and violate both COM:NUDE, as well as COM:PORN. That said, I am not arguing that sexuality has no place on commons, or that it is inherently noneducational. I am simply saying that we do not need 40 pictures of men's penises (most of which uploaded them for the purpose of being exhibitionist), or 20 pictures of someone giving someone else a blow job. I am also not arguing that we should censor commons, but instead ensure that we do not allow it to turn into a hosting site for porn. Instead, I feel there are a number of better alternatives to hardcore photographs such as the drawings portrayed here. Lastly, as for the issue of child porn I feel strongly that if in doubt we should delete. We can always find another image that depicts the same act and that does not raise the issue of the subjects age. Hope this helps. Tiptoety talk 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thanks tiptoe - it does indeed help from my perspective :-) - I suspect I'm just a wee bit more ok with large numbers of penis and blowjob pics than you - I do feel that a system to allow restricted access to such media for minors is ultimately going to be both desirable and required though - particularly for users like schools. I hope that the community here is capable of discussing this issue and working on it sensibly, though it's not really showing signs just yet! - I'll let you know how things are going in a month or two, at which point it might be a good idea to address some of the out of scope images. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tiptoety. Existing policy can be enforced firmly and swiftly. Anyone doing so has my full support. Speedy deletion is an appropriate solution to a longstanding problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

And again ! But this time without even asking the community's POV ! [4] A DR was necessary, it's a kind of "abuse of (admin) power" to delete files like that. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales -- co-founder of Wikipedia-- (above you) has stated his intent that Commons should be "cleaned up", so to speak, with regards to the pornography and nudity it hosts. Killiondude (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


Your very personal deletions listed on nl:Speciaal:Bijdragen/CommonsDelinker are violating policy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to see Jimbo's talk page. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Pieter. I hope you know that the reason for my deletions are not "personal." Instead, I am enforcing long standing policy (commons policy on scope, commons policy on nudity, commons policy on pornographic images, & commons policy on identifiable people). It is rather unfortiante that it took us this long to actually enforce such policies and clean up the project. I ask that you also take a look at Jimbo Wales (Wikimedia co-founder) statement on his talk page.
As for images you linked to, I am trying to not delete files that are in use on other projects. Instead, I am going to go through and manually replace them with more educational images (once I have more time). Cheers! Tiptoety talk 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You are violating the longstanding commons policy on scope not to delete files that are in use on projects. But this mornings burp by an emeritus chairman of the Board seems to carry greater weight. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Please note that I am not simply deleting based on COM:SCOPE. Also, policy is not the end all know all. Oh, and in regards to the board comment, Jimmy has already stated that board will be making a statement within the next few days supporting these actions. Tiptoety talk 19:37, 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)

What's about waiting till there's a consensus instead of deleting images that could be used on the projects? Unbelievable ... Seems that Commons and Wikimedia is censored now - someone want to start a fork? ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Someone made a request to undelete one of your deletions. Please see Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Several_files_speedy_deleted_already_in_use. TheDJ (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 10:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

that is not porn and not low quality picture. „File:Eichel des Mannes.JPG“ it is not a reason for delete.

Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Tiptoety (removal)


I have started a vote to remove your oversight rights, because your recent actions are against Wikimedia policies.

Best regards, Huib talk 19:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Huib talk 12:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for? Not notifying me earlier, or...? I am a bit confused. Tiptoety talk 19:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read my second statement. Huib talk 19:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Thanks for the apology, but like I said in my statement it is really not needed. Commons is going through a time of change, and many are going to be resistant to such change. I have no doubt you acted in good faith in an attempt to protect the project from what you perceived as harm. That said, I stand by the fact that I too acted in good faith. Like Raymond said, all of my actions are reversible, and seeing as they were in fact reversed, I made a mistake. As such, I have learned from that mistake and have agreed to no longer handle cases of perceived child porn but instead defer to the other oversighters who I trust to make a sound decision.
Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
ttt - thanks for staying mellow through that discussion. SJ+ 20:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Tiptoety_(removal)#Comments Not sure what this is about, but I certainly think you should know about it... Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice regarding your comment

I am notifying you, because I have mentioned your actions, in a thread in this subsection: Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_rights. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If I have time, I will take a look. Can't say I will comment. Tiptoety talk 19:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)