User talk:UAltmann

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

Deletions[edit]

I see you are trying to delete photos individually for 18 U.S.C. § 2257 reasons. I tried doing this in Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Stan Spanker but came the realization that the only way this is going to get done efficiently is through establishing a guideline/policy on the issue. I have been attempting to write one at Commons:Sexual content however a small group of vocal dissenters has essentially shut down progress. A subpage Commons:Sexual content/April 2010 has been created, however the same dissenters will likely shut down progress there. Until this point it has been nearly a solo effort. I could use your help. Thanks! - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please note, once again, that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 applies only to commercial entities. WMF, per the WMF legal counsel (Mike Godwin), is not a commercial entity. Thus that law does not apply. Please stop pretending it does. Roux (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Those who are able to read have clear advantages...
"By its clear, unambiguous terms, the statute applies to any “producer” of photographs depicting actual sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2257(a), and “produces” is defined to include anyone who creates the visual representation, for instance a photographer or videographer, as well as anyone who subsequently publishes the image, id. § 2257(h)(2)... The statute by its plain terms makes no exception for photographs taken without a commercial purpose, for photographs intended to never be transferred, or for photographs taken with any other motivation.US-Court of Appeals for the 6th circuit, Please look here on page 5 and please stop claiming, that I am pretending! --UAltmann (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Insult me like that again, sockpuppeteer, and you will be blocked. Mike Godwin is WMF's legal counsel. His legal opinion trumps yours. Roux (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not insult you, therefore please stop threatening me. You did not make any new contribution to the issue, either. Mike Godwin's opinion may trump mine, but not the court's. --UAltmann (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
"Those who are able to read..." is a clear insult. You know this, of course. That you pretend otherwise is immaterial. Godwin has stated that he has not been contacted by FBI or DOJ; given his position with WMF and his general celebrity (ever heard of Godwin's Law? Yeah, that's him) he said he would undoubtedly be contacted by them should WMF be in breach. Go take it up with hi, as you clearly don't much know what you're talking about. Bye now. Roux (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course I know, who Godwin is... "Those who are able to read..." is a general statement, if you feel touched by this, it's your problem, not mine. I have only quoted the court's decision and - I want this to be clear - I have not threatended with contacting the FBI, since I believe that WMF is able to resolve the issue itself. I sure do know what I am talking about, since many professional lawyers share my point of view. --UAltmann (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't get to hide behind 'it's a general statement' when you're making insults, is that clear? Good. Whether other lawyers share your point of view is immaterial, as they do not represent WMF. Roux (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you to talk to me like that? As I said, if you take that personally, it is not my problem. My point is, that the legal counsel of WMF is not the last instance to decide on this. So far, you have not made a contribution to the legal issue itself and to the court's statements that I cited, and I don't see that you are willing to do so, therefore, consider this debate closed. EOD. --UAltmann (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the person you deliberately insulted, that's who. Unless and until court action is initiated against WMF, yes, the legal counsel is the person whose job it is--you know this--to advise of what steps WMF should be taking. He has advised none and has explicitly stated he believes WMF is in accord with the law. Take this up with him, as I keep telling you, because your opinion is of no value in comparison to his. Roux (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
You have taken a look at Jimbo's discussion page and his comments on Commons talk:Sexual content too, as I've seen. You have to admit that 2257 at least is a serious issue. Try to calm down a bit. --UAltmann (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have infinitely blocked your account for logging out to engage in harassment of another user. For privacy purposes I will not reveal the IP publicly (unless you ask), but will provide it to you via email. As always, you may contest this block by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety talk 07:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What for? I don't get it...? --UAltmann (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "I don't understand the reason"
Decline reason: "See discussion Huib talk 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)"

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

  • I would be happy to provide you with the IP you used to vandalize with, but your email is disabled. If you want, you can enable your email and I will send it to you. Or, if you feel comfortable I am willing to provide it to you here. Tiptoety talk 01:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Go ahead, my IP is this 84.142.174.3
  • Alright. The IP I have confirmed without a doubt you used was that of 217.190.245.14. Specifically take a look at the edit. Between the fact that the IP you listed above, and this one geolocate to pretty much the same area, the irrefutable CheckUser evidence, and the fact that it was well known you and Roux did not get along I can say for certian you made that edit. Tiptoety talk 21:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I concur with the checkuser related conclusions here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Geolocate to pretty much the same area? Howcome? --UAltmann (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note that I have a constant IP which is not the one you mentioned. I did not make this edit and I was for sure not the only one Roux did not get along with. That saying of yours that both IP geolocate to pretty much the same area is simply wrong. --UAltmann (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It is abundantly clear that the edit in question was made from a system which you have edited from. In recent history you have edited from some 14 IP addresses, FWIW. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The decline reason as stated is inexplicable. --UAltmann (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "reason for blocking as well as for decline of unblocking are not clear"
Decline reason: "Two checkusers concur that in the absence of a compelling alternative explanation that you performed the above noted disruptive action, as discussed above."

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

  • Since you are claiming not to understand the reason for your block, let me take a stab at trying to make it a bit more clear. I have blocked your account because you chose to log out (of this account) and then proceeded to make this edit towards User:Roux (who you have not gotten along with in the past). Doing so is abuse of multiple accounts, and basic civility guidelines. Hope that clears things up.Tiptoety talk 17:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)