Using your photos
Hi Walter, I'm helping put together a website for a native plant nursery. I found your photos, and want to use some of them for the website. I had some questions about your attribution policies.
- I'd be happy to answer your questions. Please send me an email message. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Have you even read the comments at the RfC you linked? Comments like, "Why not just let him clear his user page?" and "Not really interested in it, maybe later" by ZooFari, and "do we have a sockpuppet policy here on Commons? The closest thing I could find is the sentence "User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may and should also be blocked." on COM:BP, which doesn't really apply in this case" by Ilmari Karonen hardly show a consensus. Bidgee came along and protected it without conversation, he just doesn't like the reason I made a new account. hardly enough to constitute stealing my user pages and blocking me. Alexander Liptak (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
He had also removed the link to his other page, but that's also on the user page itself, so I reckon it's OK for his talk page to stay blank. I first became aware of that editor on wikipedia, where it came out that he was as much of a royal pain in commons as he was becoming in wikipedia. The one good thing he did was to inspire me to revive my dormant commons account and start working in it as the place to store images (as some admins had been recommending to me). He hasn't done anything resembling work on either place for several months now, and it appears he popped up again recently for the sole purpose of continuing his edit skirmish over that cross-link. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have protected both userpages for a week. A discussion exists at AN/V. I suggest posting there if you wish to comment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I'll check that out. I should add that the user does have a theoretically valid complaint about being given no reason for being blocked, which is why I pointed him to the log that shows the reason. It might be best if an admin would post the actual reason within the "you're blocked" notice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've asked Bidgee to do so. In any case, if Xander keeps up these shenanigans he's liable to get indef'd just like he did at wikipedia... where, by the way, he also clear his talk page in a presumed effort to disguise things (which he's not very good at, and let's hope it stays that way). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- @Wsiegmund: As I said to Baseball Bugs on my user talk page, I added the reason but I've got no idea why it didn't show up. I had to go out so I couldn't double check if the block notice was successful or not (normally I do when I have time). Next time he remove the cross-link(s) the Xanderliptak or Alexander Liptak will be blocked indef, it been stated to him before but seems not to understand or listen. Bidgee (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Xanderliptak - more
Please do not add officious and patronizingly condescending lectures to my user talk page when I've done nothing particularly wrong, and there has been in fact no particular problem of personal quarreling between me and Alexander Liptak. AnonMoos (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't disagree in theory, as he kind of did the same thing to me, but the admin did protect the user page, to preserve the cross-link, which is the important thing, and I think he knows what's going on with Xander (if not, he should study it, for some interesting reading). We should try to avoid anything that looks like baiting of Xander. He's the real culprit here, so let's not give him excuses for further misbehavior. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
However, I object to being rhetorically placed on the same level as Alexander Liptak when I'm not on the same level as Alexander Liptak, or to the matter being treated as a purely personal two-way quarrel betweem Alexander Liptak and myself, when that has not been the case at all (if things have moved in that direction, it was only in the last few days, and not in all the previous extensive discussions with him). AnonMoos (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Your objection is noted. I don't think anyone who has looked into this matter sees it as a two-way quarrel. However, it is a waste of time to argue with someone who is unreceptive. That time is better spent developing a remedy to the problem. AN/U would be better than AN/V, as I think you have suggested, but latter will serve. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- As noted by Bidgee in the previous section, Xander is about one step away from being sent to the phantom zone permanently. When he disappeared in late October, he had been engaged in this edit skirmish over his "right" to exclusively control his user pages. My guess is he thought that after some 2 months of silence, he could slip in here and resume his edit skirmish without anyone noticing. And he thunk wrong. Be that as it may, neither of his accounts has posted anything useful since coming back, but strictly stuff having to do with the edit-warring over his user page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- An admin who appears to know nothing about the situation has taken away the cross-links. But he also indef'd the supposedly "retired" account and made the user page protection permanent. Maybe that's sufficient. I predict that Xander will gripe about that account being blocked. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes and no. Yes if there is no objection that I only occasionally pass by doing things here, and can easy escalate things here related to the pedophilia issues at en.wp. No, if it is expected that I am more active that that. I am not likely to become more active than I am now on commons, mainly uploading images, identifying images of parrots and fixing categories. Let me know. KimvdLinde (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi KimvdLinde; No requirement on activity level exists beyond a very modest threshhold. Please see Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. I thought your work on the LegitimateAndEvenCompelling case on enwiki was consistently helpful. If you do wish to proceed, please add babelboxes to your user page. We aspire to be multilingually inclusive and it is an aid to communication. You already have E-mail enabled. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.
Hi Walther, my words are far from offending someone and wasnt intention either. What bothers me that everyone got rigth to vote, but not everyone is always qualified to vote (sometimes some migth not undertand or have enough knowledge to make appropriate judgement). I had very obvious case month ago, when i represent photo with narrow Depth of field, and some user gave negative with saying nothing is in focus. So, perhaps we must get some safe voting rules. But whatever they vote, i rarely comment to negative votes, some offending is strange to me.
In this case, i explained to another user simple facts (user stated exactly same criteria in previous voting for another important monastery, and same user accepted mistake, and change his mind), not a one word was offending. So i am bit dissapointed by "Offending removal". --Mile (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi PetarM; The phrase "...planet Earth doesnt end at village next to You" sounds to me like an allegation of ignorance and/or parochialism. To avoid misunderstanding, it is best to avoid discussing reviewers on COM:VI and similar forums. You may bring allegations of violations of Commons policies or guidelines, with evidence, to COM:AN and its subpages. There, it is appropriate to discuss the behavior of other reviewers. You may suggest changes to qualifications for participation at Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list. But, please try to avoid discussing other contributors at COM:VI. Too often, the result is more conflict. It may create an atmosphere that is a barrier to new reviewers. Please review sr:Википедија:Без личних напада (en:WP:NPA). Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Photo Use Permission
Hi Mr. Siegmund,
I wanted to check with you if it's okay to use your photos of the moss Rhizomnium nudum for a project I'm working on for my independent study. I am making a field guide with a colleague to rare and sensitive lichens and bryophytes in the Willamette National Forest. We are not intending to profit from this guide. We hope everyone can use it as a reference tool.
- Please use the "E-mail this user" link to send me more title, author(s) and expected date of publication. Generally I grant a less restrictive license for such uses. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)