Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 24

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.

Image theft accusation

Resolved-Fred the Oyster (talk)

Could an admin kindly check out this conversation User talk:Fred the Oyster#Image theft on my talk page where there is an accusation towards me of plagiarism and what is basically a personal attack. I don't want blocks or anything like that, but I would like an admin to intervene because at the moment I'm totally pissed off at the attack and given my civility record I don't want to get blocked for going off on one. Incidentally I totally deny the accusation. Thanks --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've commented at the culprit's talkpage. --Túrelio (talk) 11:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fred the Oyster, I think we can consider this resolved now, can we? --Túrelio (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can, thank you for your response, it's much appreciated. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pircture removed that I have license to use!

Hello,

A picture was removed from a post that I contributed to, but I own the rights to the photograph! How can this be undone?

Thanks,

SemperLoveMusic

This was/is being discussed at the Village pump.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack, Trolling

From User:PetrS. in discussion: Deletion_requests --W.Rebel (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Removed comment not pertinent to the discussion per request. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

- Incorrect, in my opinion - not a "personal attack" by any standard. NVO (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But incivil nonetheless, so it's good that it was removed. --99of9 (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexandronikos

User:Alexandronikos actively uploads in spite of the warning continues to download non-free images under false license. Required to clean his contribution.--Бериллий (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted obvious copyvios, and gave the user a two-week block. Will need to inspect the remaining uploads more closely, though. Jafeluv (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Luu

User refuses help and, on deletion talk page, turns his comments into ad hominem.--Sdrtirs (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoting User:Luu: I believe that in this case I should not ask for permission from the Trophée Eric Bompard, because their logo was not the subject. Therefor he is allowed to release a copyrighted logo under a free license??? That seems so strange. --Sdrtirs (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Skinsmoke

Do he/she edits have no problem?? Please comfirm Skinsmoke's cotributions, many categories "xx in the United Kingdom" in Category:United Kingdom. For example, Culture in the United Kingdom/Culture of the United Kingdom and History in the United Kingdom/History of the United Kingdom are duplicate.--Via null (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Fastily

User:Fastily has admin rights. He deleted 12 file see commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Educationcorps.jpg without any notice to uploader to clarify licence problems if any. Could you please give this admin a hint ot respect the rules. Thank you. --Wvk (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you have an advise of this image and others like it --Ezarateesteban 12:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The information requested had been added long time ago. These are all old claims for deletion. Before taking action Fastily should have noted me. I am realy tired to explain again and again the copyright law of Iran. --Wvk (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fastily (talk · contribs) is closing loads of DRs now. He generally ignores the recent clarification of the instruction to admins, that the reason for the decision must be clear. I have tried to discuss this on his talk page, but he has not changed. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:NTC LR.png for the latest example where he totally ignores the discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for Commons:Deletion requests/File:SA-Army-badge.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beret smolensk 1 b.jpg, both deleted with no explanation and seemingly contrary to the discussion itself. --Is he now on commission or something? Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Fastily's deletion of Commons:Deletion requests/File:SA-Army-badge.png against all evidence it was PD with no reasoning, is unacceptable. An unDR has been issued, but Fastily's actions are still questionable. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

An even got a barnstar for them... User:Fastily/Vanity Board --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedily deleting DRs without paying any attention to the arguements set out in the discussion, and without giving a closing statement, is not something to be proud of. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was under the impression that I was helping to reduce the DR backlog. Since that is obviously not the case, I will no longer be closing DRs. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As an admin, you should know better than to delete files without paying attention to the arguments in the DR, so I don't accept your explaination. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So now we have to build up a backlog at the undeletion requests instead? How about revisiting your work, or at least the ones listed above and spend a little time reading, and then seeing if your closure was correct? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The "DR backlog" does not really consist of formally open DRs, it consists of unresolved deletion requests. Complex DRs left open a long time are almost by definition unresolved; if you want to contribute there, you need to resolve, not merely close. That requires a summary of the issues, and a judgement. This shouldn't need spelling out to an admin. Rd232 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fastily: Good choice. Please don't come back. And I mean it. The wikipedia-to-commons transplant didn't work. NVO (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some users forgot that Burden of proof is on uploader and user who claim files could be "keep". If nobody can prove a file is Free content, it must be deleted. I think User:Fastily observes this line. There is a world of difference between approach of User:Fastily and User:Jcb. The former leave room for debate, the latter had been preoccupied with justifying his/her own decision with tricks such as ([2], [3]) and personal attack (Jcb tried to make my (our) sourced proofs as POV pushing claims).. Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you deliberatly ignore things that don't support your line of thought? There were three solid sources on Commons:Deletion requests/File:SA-Army-badge.png, which proved it was PD. I haven't seen the other files Fsatily speedily deleted, but if it was anything like the SA Army Badge, Fastily was wrong in deleting them, and they should all be brought back. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some users realised that proof was given so decided to stick body parts into their ears and then forgot that when proof is given a rejoinder is required if they wish to win the discussion. So proof was given, no-one was able to dispute it yet the file gets deleted anyway. That is the action of a newbie, not one of Fastily's pedigree. So are these mistakes going to be put right by him or another admin? There are other admins available aren't there as there doesn't seem to have been much evidence of them here over the last few days. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's more than that. Takabeg has shown not only that he sticks his fingers in his ears, but as in the case of Jcb and myself, as soon as anybody disagrees with him about the copyright pertaining to Turkish files, he calls us POV-pushers and says we're not experienced and don't know Turkish Laws. Any excuse he can make to explain us away, rather than face the possibility he could be wrong. But then, Takabeg isn't on trial here (though he should be). Fastily still has yet to explain why he deleted files against the strong direction the DRs were taking, and dispite his above resolve to stay away from DRs in the future (for the concerns voiced here), he does seem to think that his decisions were right, and is asking for moral support. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To end this drama there should be a request for deadmin. --Wvk (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That will do anything but end the drama. – Adrignola talk 15:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Wait and see? --Wvk (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

An unDR of the SA Army badge and an appology for completely ignoring the arguments made for and against the file in the original DR just to get rid of it because it's part of a backlog, would be a start. But Fastily is more interested in throwing around insults because two users show more respect and concern for proper procedures and facts then he does, despite being and Admin and (supposedly) knowing better. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The closure of this as a delete is entirely consistent with our policy on drawings and photographs of coats of arms, military badges and the like. The blazon -- the official description -- of such things is almost always PD, as it is here, but the individual representations of them have a copyright. This arises because different artists can make subtly different interpretations of the blazon.

The discussion focused on the copyright status of the blazon, which is obvious. There was little or no discussion of the status of this representation of the badge. Since the source page has an explicit copyright notice, we must assume that the representation shown here is (c).

More generally, I think that our colleagues must be more realistic about the closure of DRs. Five Admins delete approximately 600 images per day. The remaining 250+ admins do about 500 per day. The number of DRs is growing by about 1% per month. There is simply not time to comment on every closure. In my experience, about one in a hundred raises questions, which can easily be answered on the closing Admin's talk page. If you want us to comment on every DR, please get us more active Admins.

Finally, I would appreciate it if Fry1989 and Fred the Oyster toned down their comments. We are all volunteers and strident arguments are tiring and counter-productive. While I agree that Fastily might better have left a comment at the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:SA-Army-badge.png, I sympathize with his simply wanting to get it closed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, I note that at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:SA-Army-badge.png Fry1989 has acknowledged that my first two paragraphs above are correct and, therefore, Fastily's closure of the DR was entirely correct. In the two days since that acknowledgement, he or she has not bothered to come here and withdraw or correct the strident comments above. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought getting more admins was more useful than attempting to get the sympathy vote. It's not as if its going to raise the wages bill any. Other than get used to the fact that there's always going to be a backlog and it's highly unlikely it will ever be cleared entirely. Your comments are no justification for the sloppy work done here by Fastily. If one isn't going to do a job properly then one shouldn't do it at all. It's not like anyone is press-ganged into being an admin. The fact remains that a contentious discussion was closed with no summary or evidence that the discussion was even read by Fastily. The fact that the image was deleted in this way just makes everything more contentious, and even if the result was a keep my comments would still remain the same. This simply isn't the way the job should be done. End of! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

While I probably would have left a closing comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:SA-Army-badge.png, I don't agree that it was sloppy not to. As I said, it's fewer than one in a hundred no-comment closures that raises any questions and they can usually be answered by a simple question on the closer's talk page. It doesn't take a long discussion here. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughtful comments Jim. A handful of users doing most of the work on keeping a backlog under control is always a problem, and one of the ways is that they get tempted to cut corners to keep up. We should try and be a little more sympathetic when that happens, as long as it doesn't happen too often. When it does, we should use it as a reminder that we should constantly be thinking about how we can make processes more efficient and communication more effective. For instance, I'm thinking a {{DR proposed close}} template might be helpful, as something to use on some of these trickier DRs to provide a warning of a planned close (preferably with a summary). That would at least keep discussion within the DR, if the planned close is controversial, which ought to be better than being spread over UDEL and admin talk pages, multiplied by ill will over a decision already made. Rd232 (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I like {{DR proposed close}}. I've certainly seen DRs with many thousands of words of discussion that needed this sort of end. I might say "brief reasons" or even "very brief reasons". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I tweaked the template to emphasise that it's a summary of the closure reasons that's expected, not of the entire DR. I'm also thinking that a template with some standard closure reasons (with a parameter for further details/explanation of course) might be helpful; this will be much harder to construct, but I think if agreement can be reached on some standard reasons, that would be a useful exercise in itself, besides allowing automated translation of those reasons within the DR. I have it on my todo list to draft something for this. Rd232 (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- "reasons" appears twice. I suggest:

"To challenge the proposal, give very brief reasons why discussion should continue or the outcome should be different."

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think clarity matters here as well as brevity; we don't want "it's PD, as I explained above" type objections, that doesn't help anyone. "briefly give clear reasons"? Rd232 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Brief and clear, that stand on their own -- not refer to comments above -- is what is needed. If we find it is necessary we could add "Comments more than 25 words will be ignored".

Maybe you should copy this whole section to the template's talk page and then put a notice at ANB? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that copying this to the template talk page is necessary, but feel free to do it if you think it helpful. I don't think we should put length restrictions, certainly at this point. I'd say let's flag the existence of the template (I'll do that at AN) and see how it works out in practice. Since the template shouldn't be subst:ed, whatlinkshere will provide a basis for later systematic review of how it works in practice. Rd232 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

targeted vandalism

Over the last few days I've observed a strange, but dedicated vandalism by replacing the source entry (URL) of mostly Flickr-sourced images either by "own work" or by nothing. First I found this behaviour from 41.215.160.133 (talk · contribs), whose activity went completely unnoticed for full 5 days. A moment ago I found 41.215.160.135 (talk · contribs) doing the same. Both IP use the same ISP who doesn't have a good reputation. Any ideas or similarities with earlier observations? --Túrelio (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could we create an abuse filter for removal of source information or license from reviewed files? ■ MMXX ^talk 20:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Abusefilter for template removal exists, its #12. --Martin H. (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean like this, but I'm not sure if it works so it is disabled. ■ MMXX ^talk 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by 41.215.160.135 goes on this morning. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Just hope the same doesn't happen a week later but it is strange behaviour. Bidgee (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Should be detected by Special:AbuseFilter/84 now. -- RE rillke questions? 12:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone review this filter and select an appropriate action, please. -- RE rillke questions? 13:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Extractinternet keeps uploading copyrighted images from the internet

Despite multiple warnings, User:Extractinternet keeps uploading copyrighted images from the internet. --Muhandes (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done deleted the uploads with source "internet" and blocked the user for 3 days --Neozoon (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Docu / Category:Ships by name

Docu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Docu has recently (re)tagged Category:Ships by name with the magic word "HIDDENCAT" despite (i) a clear consensus on the talk page that the tag should not be applied (ii) COM:HIDDENCAT, the only relevant text on whether to use it, saying it is applied to "non-topical" categories, and the category is clearly part of the Category:Topics hierarchy. Inability to resolve this is particularly frustrating since (a) the discussion about it did lead to some clarification of COM:HIDDENCAT on the technical aspects, and (b) I've repeatedly suggested that Docu might achieve his objective if he sought to change sitewide policy/custom on use of HIDDENCAT. Well anyway, here we are: I tried one more time to discuss this with him, to no effect (User_talk:Docu#Category:Ships by name).

Summary:

applies HIDDENCAT in 2010 without prior discussion [4]
an edit war ensures in August 2011 [5] with Docu claiming consensus is needed for removal
reapplies HIDDENCAT on 26 Nov 2011 [6] with edit summary merely "fmt", following discussion with consensus against
noting this on the talk page without an edit summary (except "sp" in a secondary spelling edit): [7]
claiming as justification [8] we couldn't actually locate a rule that opposes this and there isn't any consensus for the removal of the feature. Even though he had recently edited COM:HIDDENCAT, which mentions non-topical categories, and the category is clearly part of the Category:Topics hierarchy.

What admin action am I calling for?

a review of the talk page to confirm there is consensus against the tagging
if so, remove the tag (or else explain why it should not be removed)
Suggestions for what, if any, action should be taken against Docu. I've no strong opinion on that.
Suggestions for, or even starting discussion somewhere appropriate, on how to pursue the wider policy issue of handling this type of category.

Rd232 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Vinith diglob keeps reuploading deleted image

Vinith diglob (talk) has just uploaded this image, which is the same as this previously deleted image (also uploaded by Vinith), just with a different name. Warn, then block? --Kramer Associates (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Deleted image and warned user MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Geogen

I dropped new CU request about User:Geogen (her) based on his new version uploaded in this file and revert him to the last version by admin. The user revert me and added curses in the 3RR (edit summary) in the same file. I would appreciate if another admin take action her and hide the last edit summary by that user. Geagea (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I called him Judas, that's hardly cursing.--Geogen (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple other choice words in there that raise an eyebrow. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Geogen (talk · contribs) after his/her edit here translating his/her egregious personal attack into English.[9] This user is having an off day, but wishing harm upon another editor is not to be tolerated, in my opinion. That said, a negative result from the CU request and a commitment from Geogen to cease and desist may lead to removal of the block. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Geagea (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:KosPek

This morning KosPek (talk · contribs) has filed 67 images for speedy deletion per "Request concerning own work". A number of the files were in use on projects, most were uploaded in 2008. However, only a part of these files were his own uploads. A large number were uploads of PekKos (talk · contribs) (strange similarity of the usernames).
An additional strange observation is that WPK (talk · contribs) used the same wording[10] when he had tagged File:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg a few hours earlier than KosPek used[11] after my revert. Therefore, KosPek may be a sock-puppet of WPK. I now see that KosPek is indef'd on :fi since 2008. To prevent further damage I have blocked him on Commons for 1 week now. --Túrelio (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have suspected WPK of using socks, but I never had anything solid. This however, is more than enough in my view to warrant a checkuser. There are many files that WPK has marked forspeedy deletion that he simply uploaded, but aren't his own works, so he does not own them, and I have reverted his speedys where I notice them for that reason. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Animalessueltos

Please block Animalessueltos (talk · contribs), who is continuing to upload copyright violations; on File:C.D. Málaga.gif, s/he even claimed the source was "my own drawing" when it obviously came from en.wikipedia via fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the images uploaded by this user http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arcos_de_Zapata_de_Alhaurin.jpg comes from https://www.panoramio.com/photo/48153279 and that is a CC photo. However, I think we should upload the larger version and fix the information to credit the right person. The other images were deleted as copyvios (I found the sources). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 07:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done --Kramer Associates (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem lies in two issues: 1) the user was given a final warning, and still uploaded a copyvio afterwards, and 2) it wasn't just a n00b mistake; the user used language clearly indicating s/he was the author, which s/he isn't (de mi escritorio). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User was indefinitely blocked this morning, so it's probably moot, but: point 2 is not right. "de mi escritorio" just means "from my desktop", which is probably literally correct: the user probably had the file saved on their desktop, and from there uploaded the file to Commons. There's some room for misunderstanding there. Rd232 (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are a lot of username link templates, but one with deleted contributions, like {{Userlinks}}, is often more appropriate for these situations:

Animalessueltos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user's deleted contributions, in this case, indicate a rather longer history of problematic contributions (though the bulk is from 2009 or earlier). Rd232 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios from Flavio cesar (talk · contribs)

Flavio has been uploading several copyrighted logos that are copyvios. He even wrote at the files description "to use only in wikipedia". So he knows that the logos aren't free, still he uploads them under PD-shape and PD-textlogo. All files he uploaded, even the copyvios, he put PD-shape, PD-textlogo and Trademarked templates. --Sdrtirs (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at these, and most of them are PD-textlogo. The Wikipedia file page means nothing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of them are free, but I have started DRs for the ones that aren't. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Refused dialogue

Sorry, I don't speak English that well.

I'm really in trouble. While organizing the Category:Akihabara, happened to it.

Clusternote (talk · contribs) claims "Akihabara is a music town", but there is no evidence and source. It is not written in to Wikipedia(en:Akihabara, ja:秋葉原, en:Akiba-kei, ja:秋葉系), and not books. Also, do not hit on the web (example:Keyword is Akiba + music town (Japanese) by Amazon Japan).

I can prove, because they are based on Wikipedia, books and web (example:Keyword is Akiba + Maid (Japanese) at Business category by Amazon Japan).

And, He has refused dialogue.

I ask everyone to support. --Aimaimyi (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I struggled, because I rely on a dictionary and translator. What should I do? --Aimaimyi (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Aimaimyi

Aimaimyi (talk · contribs) is attempting personal attack to me.

A few days ago, this user tried to unilaterally personal chatting on my talk page. Because I'm not interested on this user's personal POV and unilateral debate manner, I advised to discuss the theme on public space (ex. discussion page on each media or category) where everyone can participate for better consensus. However, this user ignored my kind advice, and claimed as "refused dialogue" without any attempt for discussing original theme on public space. This behavior is obvious personal attacking.

Please warn this user to stop personal attacking. --Clusternote (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We should verify User:Aimaimyi's claims carefully. Following is my observations:
This user claims he/she organize Category:Akihabara.[12] However, according to the histories,[13] these categories (and media under them) had been already intensively organized by several other users in the last year. And in a last few months, this user customize these with his/her personal tastes without any preceding consensus (i.e. bulk changes/deletions of categories of media).[14] The true unique contributions of this user seems addition of several templates (i.e. {{Personality rights}}, {{Trademarked}}, etc) and a few descriptions. --Clusternote (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack ? As long as I know, Akihabara is not music town. Akiba-kei doesn't be used as music culture. It's difficult for us to consider User:Aimaimyi's claim as personal POV. Category:Akiba-kei is not appropriate for that picture. However, it's debatable about Category:Akihabara (probably that picture was taken in Akihabara.). Takabeg (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This thread is not for discussing details of User:Aimaimyi's personal POV. For that theme, please use discussion page of appropriate category, as already noticed again and again.

Note that this personal attack was occurred when this user unnaturally avoided public discussion on that theme on public space.

best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find personal attack by Aimaimyi. Why did you feel his comment as personal attack ? Takabeg (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As already mentioned, personal attack was already occurred as above. And the rational solution for this issue is very clear since a few days ago. First, stop the offensive discussions, and then collect other user's opinion on original theme on public page (i.e. discussion page of category), and finally form a consensus of community. That's all. --Clusternote (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You reverted appropriate edit without discussion and only with claim this issue is under the discussion as you know. Shouldn't be changed until issue is solved.. I cannot understand your intention. Anyway his/her comment you mentioned is not personal attack. Takabeg (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't hurry up discussion. Urgent debate may disturb better consensus. Revert is valid because that issue is not solved yet. Detail of personal attack is already mentioned in above. This user had to examine own POV by the help of public discussion, as I've advised. However this user didn't it and still stick to me, and finally blamed me for questionable reason on user problems pages. And it is personal attacking. --Clusternote (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC) [mod]--Clusternote (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Clusternote, I get the feeling that you don't understand what is meant in this context by "personal attack". A personal attack would be if he were casting aspersions on your character. Can you give any example of where he has done that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The example is [15] where he/she claimed (Clusternote) "refused dialog" in the title. However it is false. In truth, I've advised public discussion on public place for original theme (instead of "User problems").[16] I think this user's false report damaged my character. Isn't it personal attacking ? --Clusternote (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As a general speaking:

According to the wiktionary, definition of the term personal attack is

Making of an abusive remark instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments.

Does the definition of the term on "User problems" report page (or possibly in my context) differ ? (the situation of this issue seems to match with above definition to my eyes) I'll be happy if someone kindly point out the general difference. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still seriously looking for answers for my above question. If somebody know, please teach me why the user problem report contrary to the fact does not consist personal attack. --Clusternote (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(Note:Inserted separator for different topic (instead of sub-sectioning)) --Clusternote (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

You are this revert (It is a sample image of Akihabara as music town, and Akiba-kei as music culture. Please don't delete these categories, again.) without showing evidence. Am I vandalism?

And, "Are you sure ? I'm living in Tokyo for over twenty years, and know well Akihabara.", In other words, "You(Aimaimyi) don't know Akihabara". Is not a personal attacks? --Aimaimyi (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

+ Your this talk were slander of me. --Aimaimyi (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For the first point, your large modifications/deletions of categories on media under Category:Akihabara in the last a few months, without any preceding consensus, lacks respect for the consensus implicitly accepted by users, including me, for a few years. The ignoring of consensus may be a vandalism.
Note that "edit summary" field is not for the place to show evidences. If you had any questions on that revert, you should discuss on each discussion page of media or category (instead of my "talk page" or "user problems" page) where everyone can participate for that theme for better consensus, as I already advised. Although you didn't it, several discussions were already started on each media.

For the second and third points: Here in Wikimedia (and possibly on most public discussions), objectivity should be respected. Please avoid to attempt for discussing based on your personal imaginations without any evidences or objectivity.
Note that my problem report (the third point of your "Questions") is based on evidences, and evidences are not the slander. --Clusternote (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not alter my writing, and not create a section in the arbitrary. Be done by others only!

Edits will not be that many reasons. So please stop this is your personal attack.

Your are not a discussion or question to me [17]. Why are you not a discussion?
You are criticizing to me. But, Do you got remove, move and added of all categories and files by agreement?

--Aimaimyi (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Although you wrote "Question" without any mark up, your general question(s) are different topic than my original issue (about your incorrect "user problems" report). Thus I inserted a separator to clarify change of topic.

The discussions on each media page is covering your original claim. Your original claim needs verifications and public consensus, therefore discussion on public page is appropriate.
First, I didn't criticize you. Instead, I requested careful verification of your claim, and showed several evidences for disproof of your points.

Second, I'm keeping in mind to discuss on public discussion page of each media/category when consensus is needed. Though, to my eyes, most users (including me) seem to avoid excessive framing, probably because we know we can avoid waste of time by tolerance.

--Clusternote (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure

I think this is primarily a disagreement over categorization and the best location to discuss that topic, a misundertanding of one another's non-native English, and some resulting mis-characterizations of one another's words. It is clear to me that neither of you intended to personally attack the other. I also don't think any of the cited edits are personal attacks sufficient to deserve warnings or sanction on Commons. I do acknowledge that both of you felt hurt by the way your editing was characterized by the other, but again, I think this was due to misunderstandings. In the next paragraphs, I am going to try to suggest alternate ways of interacting, but please don't take this personally, and I am certainly not threatening punishment. We are all learning, and sometimes we need to help one another. Perhaps I will not address everything above, but I am just hoping that you will both understand that neither of you intended malice toward one another. I think you were both trying your best in a language that is not your mother language.

Aimaimyi, when someone asks that you move discussion to a different area of the site, that is not meant as a rejection of you, or a refusal to discuss. Unfortunately Commons has so many places for discussion, that usually it is hard to choose the right place so that everyone interested sees the discussion. When two editors have a disagreement (here about categorization), that they cannot resolve between them, it is often a good idea to get a third (or more) opinion. To do this, it is best to move the discussion away from an individual's talk page, to a place that other interested parties would naturally watch. On the other hand, Clusternote, most users prefer if you reply to them when they approach you, usually it's best to try to sort out your differences first before appealing to a wider audience (especially since it ended up escalating to this Administrators board!).

Clusternote, "Refused dialogue" is not considered a personal attack. Perhaps it is a slight mis-characterization of what you said, and that it would be better to call it "Refused discussions on user talk page, and directed them to another location", but that is understandable given that Aimaimyi is open about not being a native English speaker. In answer to your specific question above, even if it is false, it is not a personal attack:

Making of an abusive remark instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments.

Firstly, Aimaimyi did try to provide evidence, by providing diffs.
Secondly, the most appropriate meaning of abusive remarks (about people) in that sentence is from meaning 2, not meaning 1 of the wiktionary definitions of abuse:

coarse, insulting words or by other ill usage; as, an abusive author; an abusive fellow.

I understand that you think that meaning 1 applies because "refused" is strictly false, but we all mischaracterize things occasionally, it becomes abusive when we pervert it deliberately to insult someone, e.g. "That closed-minded ignoramus refused dialogue because he doesn't know how to make an argument"

Aimaimyi, [18] is not a personal attack, because it is mostly a discussion of your editing, and not insulting who you are. I see that "this user customize these with his/her personal tastes without any preceding consensus" got a bit personal, because it attributes assumed motivation ("personal taste") to your good-faith edits. Clusternote, you should beware of that, since both of you are clearly sensitive.

Arguing about who knows more about a topic, or who has lived where is unproductive. Because we are on the internet more or less anonymously, there is no point trying to outdo one another with real life expertise. Ultimately, content conflicts come down to commons policy, external evidence (citations) and group consensus. Also, this does not mean "You(Aimaimyi) don't know Akihabara", Clusternote is just asserting that he is also knowledgeable and has a different opinion to you about the topic.

Please, both of you, try to put this behind you, and edit in a friendly manner for the future. I am confident that you both want to make Commons a better place, and I hope that you can help one another to achieve this. It is sometimes hard in a multi-lingual project like ours, but I think that it is worth it. Best regards. --99of9 (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Expression of gratitude --Aimaimyi (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi actions

User:Chesdovi has recently began mass tagging photos of mine for deletion, claiming the similar images should be deleted. Commons is a repository and not a single picture should be kept but rather a multiple of useful images. His actions

begins to look like harrasement. Deror avi (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the DRs -- how many images of a truck in the desert do we need? File:Judean Desert IMG 1904.JPG shows only the back end of the truck, which is also in several other pix. How many of a person in more or less the same pose? You should pick the best of each series -- usually only one, but not more than two. Keeping more just clutters up categories and makes Commons harder to use.

Frequently when I have a problem with one of a user's images, I will go through all of his uploads and tag many of them that have the same problem -- this is not harassment, just common sense, since where there is one problem, there are often others. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jim. I disagree with you her. But first. Looks like user Chesdovi chasing Dror. In this DR he fueling the fire in a sensitive issue and more fuel by nominating this DR as well. His nominations are not innocent.

Regarding to the issue it self. Photos can be used in many ways in many projects of wiki. Wiki articles, songs uploaded to wiki source, dictionary words in Wiktionary ect. They also can be source to derivative works like in this file. they can be used in a different ways. Geagea (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's a judgement call. If you look at some of my NRHP images, you will see more than one image of most sites. Some of them are similar. On the other hand, if a user holds down the button and takes a string of thirty images of a slowly moving object, I don't think we need all of them. In this case, particularly the desert truck, I think we might reasonably keep half of them. Please remember that for Commons to be useful, we need to exercise judgement on this, or our categories will be so cluttered that potential users will not use us because it takes too long to find good images. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually, when we have many similar (but not identical) images, we make a subcategory to avoid clutter, rather than deleting some of the images. Who knows what use someone might have in a decade for the interpolated images in a sequence, as 3D and animation come more into play. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Brainquest.co.in

Corporate account posting advertising here: File:NGO.jpg, File:Brainquest.jpg, File:Third Tier.jpg, File:Brainquest adver.jpg and on their talk page: User talk:Brainquest.co.in. --Kramer Associates (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Promotional content deleted. User:Brainquest.co.in permanently blocked as a violation of Commons:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames, with an invitation to open a new personal account. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Austin1980

This user continues uploading copyright violation image after my warning. I think she/he should be blocked--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for spotting this. --99of9 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Massive categories and images decription removal

Massive categories and images decription removal

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

Hoax description

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80.jpg 1920s image given as 1930s No, her mom does not sleep, she just died from hunger and emaciation.Low Volga region in Soviet Russia 1921/1922 from http://gallery.dspl.ru/Famine.html

1934 image given as 1933 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%86%D1%8C.jpg&action=history

bad faith delete tagging http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:UNRA_rov.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=62857392 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1942ukrpoljudeakt.jpg&diff=57485185&oldid=57484477 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:30061941rep-p4.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57485146 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:1942ukrpoljudeakt.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57485185 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:30061941shept.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57485254 http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:UIAanthem1943.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=57485293 Jo0doe (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just the background info for those who will investigate the issue: Jo0doe has been indefinitely blocked in both English and Russian Wikipedia for disruptive editing and frivolous interpretation of sources. I have no opinion on the present matter though.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment - account commented above promoted OUN deception [[32]]- Stella Krenzbach- by adding non existed book http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Кренцбах,_Стелла&diff=20031989&oldid=18735134. I hope it self-eviddentJo0doe (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue with plain English obviously [33] reflect the story, instead of insultJo0doe (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And again

[34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

Any suggestion why 2006 is 1921 or 1922 is 1933? ThanksJo0doe (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Похоже, что большинство изображений взято отсюда. Эта страница существовоала еще в 2006 году, тогда как эта создана в 2011), соответственно, первоисточником считаем тот сайт, где изображения опубликованы раньше. Значит описания, добавленные Jo0doe, правильны. Описания же Bulka UA придуманные им самим и неподтверждённые источниками.--Anatoliy (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Done I agree with Anatoliy. Blocked User:Bulka UA for 1 week for this vandalism spree. After blocking I noticed that the user had previous blocks, so other admins may want to watchlist this account. Thank you for the report Jo0doe. Sorry it took a while to evaluate. --99of9 (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Vasko444

Vasko444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this user indefinitely for copyright violations even after a last request to stop and a one week block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done last warning was for October 18 and user did not upload anything from October 17. ■ MMXX ^talk 23:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the second last warning was in October. The first last warning was in 2008, and the block after that in February. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Still

Not done. Blocking according to a warning given 3 years ago is a bit harsh isn't it? Many of the recent uploads (even some of the deleted ones) are arguably PD-textlogo. This is a tricky concept to get used to, and new users often get tricked into uploading logos when they see other logos in use on company articles. There's a fair chance this user is acting in good faith. I will leave a note on and watch the user's page. --99of9 (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JRodriguezPV

Could an admin keep an eye out for the above editor. His usual uploads are holiday resort shots several of which are confirmed copyvios, the rest look like copyvios as the images are archetypal holiday brochure-type photos. A few of the images are linked to the editor's es sandbox for articles on the relevant resort. It looks like this editor doesn't understand fair use, so could do with admins attention. Cheers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominated 4 suspect images for deletion. -- RE rillke questions? 08:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Juicyyummybanana

Juicyyummybanana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) I'd suggest a permanent block. This user's only interest is treating Commons as his mirror, uploading useless pics of him modeling his underwear with names like "sexy", "fit" and "rockin". Fry1989 ^eh? 21:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Useless vanity images, yes. But what part of Commons:Blocking policy permits blocking for this? Rd232 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What about speedy deleting the useless photos? Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't exactly fall under the blocking policy, no. But unless this user has any interests here other than modeling, this isn't the place for him. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the policy needs amending. It does seem the sort of situation where an "indefinite" block is called for - to be lifted once the user has indicated that they understand what one might call COM:PANTS (Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera. - COM:NUDITY). Except, Commons actually doesn't have an "indefinite" block option - I think it should. Rd232 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the user had any other edits or uploads, I'd say just tell him that this isn't the place for that, but feel free to entertain your other interests here. But that's not the case. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

We should be fair. And you never know. Maybe 99/100 of such users disappear and never come back from an indefinite block, and 1 turns his camera somewhere useful. Rd232 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Oddly, it's not mentioned in the blocking policy, but a longstanding standard block reason in MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown is "Creating pages out of project scope after warnings". So for this case, if it's agreed the images are out of scope, an admin would warn, and he could be blocked if he persisted. The user's already had a {{Project scope}} warning, but that doesn't mention the possibility of a block. Rd232 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the scope warning as well. Once his first batch of images were deleted though, you'd think he wouldn't upload the same material again. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Done I've warned the user. I strongly recommend against going straight to indef blocks. New users sometimes take a few attempts to get to grips with what Commons wants. Think of his underpants as a sandbox! (But not for too long.) I've archived this discussion because it appears to be morphing into a policy discussion, please take that elsewhere, this page is long enough as it is. --99of9 (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Ahmedawadh

Ahmedawadh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Please give this user a block of a week or so for continued copyright violations after a last warning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week as this is the user's first block. Bidgee (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Blue Marble

Well, I have got back here. Please redirect this previous account to my current account like User:Lycaon/User:Biopics. Thank you very much--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect done, good to see you back (& I imagine I am not the only one who noticed you were here again!). I am indifferent to unblocking the old account - happy to do it but can't really see the point? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much but I don't understand your last question. I think it's better to leave the previous one blocked--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Rd232

I have messaged 4 admin on IRC and 2 said to file a report here for discussion. User Rd232 has been acting incredibly hostile, extremely sarcastic, incivil, and outright nasty. His disparaging comments have been across the board and really inappropriate.

Take for example this. He is trying to justify an attack on a highly active and prominent user. He made the claim: "I provided evidence in two DRs that the TOO concept exists in Turkish law". This is an attempt to say that he proved that the user was wrong. I point out that in the actual DR (he only justified it in one of the DRs), that he said: "So there's no clear definition of a threshold of originality to be found in statute". This 100% directly contradicts his previous claim. That makes his attack on the user false and completely misleading not only about the law but his own statement. He then threatens me and calls me a liar for pointing out an obvious contradiction in his comments.

You have a constant line of sarcasm on multiple pages. Here is one example [53]: "OIC. I didn't realise that for the first 8 years of WMF's existence it didn't respect libel laws." The problem is that I pointed out that the WMF always respected libel laws and pointed out that the respect goes into why we have rules like BLP and the guidelines from the Foundation on how to handle living people. He makes a nasty sarcastic attack while making claims that I never did. This was while he was claiming that I was making attacks and being incivil when I never once addressed his person or made any sarcastic statements. Furthermore, as an editor on multiple projects, he should know that "BLP" is not just about "articles" but on every aspect that includes discussions about any living subjects, including talk pages on projects. The whole reason for it is that our comments can be damaging to real life subjects, especially when we assume things that we cannot actually assume. That is why there is a large burden of proof for potentially damaging claims about living people.

Then you have attacks like this. I stated that the original close, here, seemed to go off of Bastique's statements about policy and that the rationales were in the favor of delete. I also pointed out Bastique's large background and experience in determining such matters, applying policy, and that it would be impossible to claim that he was either homophobic or prude (thus causing him to be biased against the image). For that, his response is "Almost, because while it might be amusing, you show exactly 0% interest in discussing this seriously." This is a nasty attack, assumption of bad faith, and through out that section.

The problem is, it isn't just me. The section above on Takabeg have him attacking the user while making claims about certainty regarding Turkish law while I linked where he directly contradicted those claims in the original deletion nomination. I really don't know why Rd232 is doing this, and I know many others have been affected. The high level of sarcasm, the assumption of bad faith for many prominent editors, the refusal to actually argue base on policies, etc., is really unbecoming. I was told to post this request by two admin because they recently felt the brunt of Rd232's attacks and didn't want to prejudice this or have people claim they were biased. However, they were concerned and I am concerned, and I doubt he will stop any time soon. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have the time or patience, at 5.30am, to respond to all of this, so I'll just focus on the proximate cause of this business: Ottava has a problem with the following, from Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Seal_of_the_Turkish_Navy.svg, and chooses to misquote it repeatedly whilst claiming I don't understand the source.

"What may not be protected by copyright according to the Turkish Copyright Act? - According to the general principles in the Turkish Copyright Act, original or creative works shall be subject to copyright protection. The issue of originality of the work subject to copyright protection is assessed and evaluated on a caseby- case basis in Turkey within the context, and in relation to, the characteristics reflecting the personality of the author.[54] So clearly the principle of a threshold of originality exists in Turkish law. Further, software is not copyrightable in Turkish law, which suggests that the much simpler "algorithm" of a textual description of an emblem isn't either."

I summarised the above for Fry, on request, as "So there's no clear definition of a threshold of originality to be found in statute, as Takabeg seems to be hoping (it would be nice, but these things seem to be done by case law precedent everywhere), but the principle does exist." This summary is accurate, and as I originally pointed out in the Takabeg section, Takabeg hasn't acknowledged those points. For the rest, I'd prefer to respond to requests for clarification from others, since Ottava is too frequently either misreading or ignoring points made. Rd232 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked for proof. You claimed you provided evidence. The actual statement in the DR from you says: "So there's no clear definition of a threshold of originality to be found in statute" [55]. That 100% contradicted your previous claim about a definite responsible, and now you are claiming that Takabeg should be responding to your admittance there is no definite response? That doesn't logically follow, and your attacks on me for pointing out how your statement "there's no clear definition" makes it impossible to claim that you provided such. Takabeg, as been pointed out, has a really good history and the hostility to him when you yourself contradict in the level of what the actual law says makes any of the hostility unwarranted. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try quoting myself with extra formatting, maybe that'll help: "So there's no clear definition of a threshold of originality to be found in statute, as Takabeg seems to be hoping (it would be nice, but these things seem to be done by case law precedent everywhere), but the principle does exist." Rd232 (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or with added annotation: "So there's no clear definition of a [specific] threshold of originality to be found in statute, as Takabeg seems to be hoping (it would be nice, but these things seem to be done by case law precedent everywhere), but the principle [of a threshold of originality] does exist [in the Turkish Copyright Act]." Is it clear enough yet? Rd232 (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are continuing the above as it doesn't actually defend your case but highly the problem. Here is how it happened: 1. Me - ""but Takabeg hasn't even acknowledged that COM:TOO applies also in Turkish law" I don't see proof on the page verifying that. There isn't one mention of Turkey" 2. Rd232 - "I provided evidence in two DRs that the TOO concept exists in Turkish law" - 3. I point out, as you pointed out, "there's no clear definition", thus, this contradicts 2. You have reinforced over and over that my demand of proof and your proof was not as you originally claimed. You were asked for proof to verify your attacks on a user you were seeking administrator redress against. The claims turned out to be false. I find that really bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Just....... woooooooooow. Lost. For. Words. And to think - I could have just gone to bed. Rd232 (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, finding fault of other users is not constructive attitudes (this is applied not only for User:Rd232 but also for every user.). As long as I understand, this page exists not for finding fault of users, not for prevailing over other users who have a contrary opinion in each DR. I know the concept of threshold of originality, but I don't understand criteria of it. If there is evidence and/or precedent like these samples, it's easy for us to understand. However, in each DR users elaborate and amplify to other cases not by evidence but by their own POV. I think such approaches very dangerous. We have to behave and exchange views according to sources. Takabeg (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place for spite. I did hold back from any judgement of Ottava regarding the concerns (grievances?) Rd232 mentioned in the above AN'U regarding Takabeg, as I didn't know Ottava before 2 hours ago. But if he's going to do this because of that, I fully support a boomerang or block for filing a vindictive AN/U against an admin who appears to have shown great patience and self-restraint. As for Takabeg's comment, it's only another example of him insisting we're pushing our POV, as usual. No Takabeg, you do not understand the Threshold of Originality, or else you wouldn't [56] insist that "there's no legal basis for this". Fry1989 ^eh? 06:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that comment belongs more in your section (which unfortunately has rather got taken over). Anyway, I'm glad you do know TOO, and I presume you'll take the knowledge that TOO exists in Turkish law into current and future DRs, in particular the one Fry mentions just above (Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Seal_of_Prime_Ministry_of_Turkey.svg). As you say, knowing that the TOO principle exists still leaves the problem of how to apply it, and that can only be debated case-by-case, using whatever evidence we can. To some extent, evidence from other countries is relevant, whilst TOO also interacts with pre-existing PD symbols, in terms of the originality of arrangement for instance. The Islamic symbols in the Turkish case spring to mind there. Rd232 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity you weren't able to respond sooner, before Ottava became interested, because this is the sort of response I was looking for to move forward from your section above and see if future DRs where both you and Fry are involved can be more productive. Rd232 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear gods you lot, you all need to back off and calm down. Rd232, the sarcasm does you no good, please try and respond in good faith. And please, leave the Turkish copyright arguments out of this thread, they're doing my head in. Argue those at COM:L or VP/C or whatever - AN/U is a place to hash out problems between users, not dispute the legalese of copyright law. I would like everyone to calm down and please, in the sections I have created below, create a short statement of exactly what your position is. And no replying to each others' sections, I just want a nice clear view of exactly what the issue is.-mattbuck (Talk) 06:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, calm would be good. I wish Ottava had taken several hints and not pursued the conversation further until the next day, say. Would have helped everyone, I think. Equally, if I'd just gone to bed... oh well, here we are. Thanks for spraying some water on the flames. Rd232 (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Statements

Please put a short statement about what exactly your problem is in the subsection with your name. Please do not reply to others' statements in this section, save it for #Further discussion. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

I think the sarcasm is really unhelpful and makes it difficult to talk to others. Rd232 claimed that I was being angry when people who know me know that I am quite a calm person (with rather low blood pressure). Such characterizations followed up by disparaging comments, mockery and sarcasm, sarcasm that mocks exactly opposite of what I said, etc. is hurtful. When I have made comments, I have referred to the policies and the arguments mostly dealing about the logic behind an action being correct or not. I have not called people stupid, mocked them, etc. When I pointed out that the ideas of BLP, i.e. respect everyone and try to ensure that we are not damaging them, is a cross-Wiki policy, Rd232 tried to claim that such was not true and that we had no obligation besides on articles or images with identifiable people. I find that the attitude isn't healthy. It leads to a lack of respect of arguments and a pursuit of hostilities that are more concerned with waging warfare than actually trying to hash out difficult issues. I disagree with Saibo quite regularly and he has made some attacks before, but they tend to be short lived, limited, and mostly in topic areas where he leaves it at that; I don't have a problem with Saibo. Rd232's attacks are followed up by following to different areas, bringing the ideas into other arguments, etc. and, as Rd232 pointed out, we have "agreed" on a matter. I no longer feel that Rd232 has the best interest of Commons at heart, and I believe that the recent actions at Wikipedia could possibly be a source of this - statements by ArbCom that he acted inappropriate with adminship, claims that he plagiarized, his retiring, etc. I hope that his current actions are just a lack of judgment and are temporary because of these problems. If not, then I have no confidence that Rd232, based on what I have seen and been pointed to by others, is fit to uphold this projects standards with that pattern of behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Takabaeg

Users forget Do not make personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Some users misuse this page to "win" each discussion. We firstly have to try to chose problems on DRs, Commons:Undeletion requests, talk pages etc... However, some users come here at the very beginning. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Fastily is typical case. I repeat again: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rd232

Well, since detailed responses to Ottava have proven unproductive to the point of provoking me to sarcasm, I'll avoid that. (Suffice to say that no-one should believe a word of his evidence without verifying what he says from diffs.) And marshalling the evidence required to sanction Ottava is a task that I have no interest in and less time for. As I said above somewhere, if anyone has any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. (Including on the Wikipedia history, since Ottava - yes, the one indef-banned from Wikipedia, that Ottava - insists on dredging that up. Perhaps he's one of those ejected from Wikipedia who harbours resentment against all formerly in positions of authority there. That would at least explain a lot of his attitude.) PS Just for background of the origins of this: with the exception of this from 1 December, this comment of mine to Ottava was the first interaction, AFAIK. No, really. And it was just 30 hours ago! Ottava's response to that (and my response to that, and his response to that, etc...) set the tone, and things didn't improve from there. Rd232 (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fry1989

My problem is, I am trying raise several important concerns regarding Takabeg's understanding of copyright, and how it affects his being a valuable member of Commons. It getting hijacked by three other users who don't want to pay attention to any of the raised concerns (there's alot of them) regarding Takabeg, and just make it about me, is a minor annoyance but nothing more. However, Ottava starting this AN/U about Rd232 just after a short little spat that took place in my AN/U about Takabeg above, looks rather spiteful, and therefor I am simply adding my voice in this AN/U as in support of Rd232. I have no further comments for this AN/U. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

@Takabeg:"Comment on content, not on the contributor", except when on a page called "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems". Duh! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You misread his point, which is people coming to AN/U to win content battles. Rd232 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't misread it. He sandwiched his true point within the "contributor/content" mantra. This is a rather silly statement to be making on this page and bore no relationship to his true point. Sort of a sandwich-flavoured coatrack if you will. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)--Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you think that; I had to read the comments twice myself. But if you read it carefully there is only one point, and it's the one I summarised above. There is a certain ambiguity, yes, but there's no need to insist on reading that ambiguity in a way the produces a conclusion that the statement is "rather silly". Rd232 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rd232 - "since detailed responses to Ottava have proven unproductive to the point of provoking me to sarcasm" You've been sarcastic from the beginning and unnecessarily provocative, making bad faith accusations, etc. without having any actual policy argument regarding my comments. You try to justify it by saying I somehow deserve the abuse, which is never a justification. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thankyou all for providing clear statements. I think this can easily be solved simply by everyone being calm and Rd232 trying to be less sarcastic, though believe me, I do understand the difficulty that presents at times. Now, go back to the other sections and let's have a nice, genteel discussion with sarcasm and hyperbole at a minimum. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Mattbuck - this is Commons not 'pedia. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and the sarcasm is a defence mechanism under stress. That's been triggered because right from the off Ottava seems to have drop-kicked COM:AGF out of the window and shown no interest in retrieving it. Every attempt on my part to defuse things has been either ignored or met with outright hostility; this response to an apology is exemplary, although the remark "Your hostility on my talk page in the form of false "kindness" or "politeness" is just an example that you are pushing absurdities in an attack way that is highly inappropriate."[57] sums up Ottava's attitude. I should have just walked away at that point, I suppose, but my basic assumption is that talking long enough will allow such hiccups to fade into the background and the substance of content issues to emerge to the foreground. Now, if Ottava is willing to wipe the slate clean of the recent exchanges, perhaps we can manage to focus productively on content issues as they arise. I'm willing to try, but I'm not optimistic, because I've seen this behaviour from Ottava directed at others, and very recently. There is every chance that Ottava will sooner or later force someone to take the time and effort to confront this behaviour, if it continues. (I sincerely hope that someone will not be me.) Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Could we have a look in strange category Category:Should be deleted picture of Dorog

Category:Should be deleted picture of Dorog Strange case, what to do with those pictures ? (some are used). --Foroa (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've copied them all into Category:Dorogi_futball (some were otherwise uncategorized). Even if the user doesn't want to use them any more, we can wait for an actual DR to discuss them. --99of9 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Takabeg

I think it is time we need to deal with the Takabeg issue. I don't want him punished or anything like that, but we need someone to mentor him about copyright. To be absolutely blunt, he doesn't get it. I wish [58] was the only example, but it's not. I myself have desperately tried on 3 separate talk pages to explain to him many of the nuances of copyright, how every different rendition carries it's own rights, how some things are too simple for copyright, but he will not listen. He has nominated countless Turkish files for deletion, and when people tell him it's too simple for copyright, he says "There is no evidence and legal basis to prove that this is free content" and recommends we upload the files to Wikipedia under FUR. When files are kept, he re-nominates them, and calls everyone "POV pushers", or says things like "you must learn Turkish copyright law :)) Of course, it's difficult for you, you're not a Turk" (and things to that effect). I would LOVE for him to be a good contributer to Commons, but his complete lack of understanding of copyright law and how it works, and even more than that, his absolute refusal to listen to others who do understand copyright when they try and help him understand, gets in the way of that. If somebody can mentor him, that would be great. But if he refuses to listen even to a mentor, I regretfully will have to ask that he be indefinitely blocked as unconstructive and unwilling to learn. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You will need to provide a lot more evidence than a single link. At the very least, please provide a diff for each claim and quote. --99of9 (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to see why you think that, given my recent experiences with him... but as 99of9 says, you need to put together some evidence, with diffs, and not just a summary of your concerns. Others need to be able to evaluate your concerns objectively. Rd232 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The following is a list of Takabeg's "views" on copyright.

[59] Takabeg disputed the Turkish Navay seal, and repeatedly marked it (4 times) as a speedy deletion as "copyvio". As there was no source for his claims, I repeatedly told him to take it to a regular DR.

Simultaniously, on the following 3 talk pages ([60], [61] and [62]) I attempted to explain to him how conceptually, under the rules of heraldry and COM:COA, a independently-made version could be free, even it the emblem as used by the organization it represents is still copyrighted. He rejected that at every turn.

Takabeg has removed licenses from files (leaving them unlicensed) when he thinks the license is incorrect. I have told him not to do so, at which point he replies with "It's very clear that that image is not public domain. Some poor informed and less-experienced users and administrators confuse them as public domain"

At [63] and [64] Takabeg calls it a "deformation" and that we are violating the law by even having something like this. He does not understand that just because something isn't 100% identical, that doesn't make it a modification.

[65] and [66], via meat puppetry, he has Reality006 (a new and unexperienced user) renominate files that were kept under the same false understanding that Takabeg used.

[67] Takabeg calls for the re-DRing of several files that were kept, saying that "it's impossible", but not adding any new info to prove that.

[68] He nominates File:Seal of Prime Ministry of Turkey.svg (and several similar ones) for deletion. When people (including myself) say that it's too simple for copyright, he says (as usual) "there is no legal basis to prove this is PD"

[69] After three solid proofs thatthe license was correct, Takabeg chimes in and says "There is no evidence to prove that {{PD-South-Africa-exempt}} can be applied",

[70] Takabeg attacks admin:JCB and accuses him of using "tricks"

[71] JCB points out some alarming problems with Takabeg's actions, and Takabeg simply says taht JCB "isn't experienced enough" to handle Turkish files when their copyright status is in question

[72] after many files were kept here on Commons after his failed DRs, he instead tried to add speedy deletion tags to their page on Wikipedia pages. Again, he claims he is right, and gives a link to one of the kept files saying those of us who wanted it kept are "POV-pushers", one of his favourite throw-around words whenever somebody disagrees with him.

Over-all, Takabeg has been involved in plenty of files whose copyright status is in question (usually by him alone). Some have been deleted, some have been kept, but the common theme throughout all of them is Takabeg's lack of understanding about copyright, and any "arguments" he tries to make in DRs show that. Whenever somebody says something opposing his view that it's a vio, we're immediately branded as "POV-pushers", "unexperienced users with copyright", and of "not understanding Turkish copyright law". He laughs at us, saying we don't understand, but that it "must be hard for us" because we're not Turkish. He says what we are saying is "impossible". He rejects any attempt by others to explain to him how some of his understandings are flawed. I truly believe that with proper guidance about copyright, Takabeg could be a valuable member here regarding Turkish content. But so far, he has refused to believe others, and I fear he will do the same with an open hand from an uninvolved-but-experienced user here who is willing to mentor him on the things he doesn't understand. If he is willing to learn some of the nuances that are currently beyond him, that would make me very very happy. If he continues to ignore and reject any opposing view once he has set to his mind that something is copyrighted, then he is not an asset to Commons, and should be blocked indefinitely. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It also appears that you have failed to notify him of this discussion. --99of9 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I forgot, that's not a capital offence. I'm not accustomed to bringing up reports on users. I have now notified him, Fry1989 ^eh? 01:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fry1989, you have been reminded to notify the subject of a noticeboard discussion before.[73] It does not help your position to fail to do so. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So coming into the discussion and saying this to Fry 40mins after he notified Takabeg is designed to move the discussion along how? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, User:Fry1989 ignores the fact that Template:Coat of arms is not license tag. I only provide information according to the Turkish copyright law. The problem is that User:Fry1989 frequently uses here when he disagrees with other users. We can easily understand that this user focuses on users, not topics, if we look over the history of this page. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, I've only made two reports on here in my 4 years on Commons, the fact that I'm involved in many others doesn't mean I'm using this page as a weapon against users I disagree with, as you are implying. Second, no Template:Coat of arms is not a license, I never claimed it was. However, you have completely dismissed the principles set out at COM:COA, repeatedly saying they have no basis in law, and don't affect Turkish files. So lets set that straight right now. I have probably not worked with you in the best way, I'm well aware that some of my interactions with you will appear aggressive or harsh (though they're hardly personal attacks as you have claimed in the past), but I (and others) have tried very hard to get you to understand some very simple concepts, and you reject us all, and call us POV-pushers. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch yourself fry, you on your 5th Block right now on Wikipedia for similar circumstances. A little compromise can go a long way Jetijones (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

How about you go back there then. Every issue I have raised against Takabeg is a valid concern, and many other users share these concerns. Unless you can dig up a personal attack I've made against Takabeg somewhere (good luck), I don't have to watch myself at all. This is a valid dicussion. Now, if you want to discuss some of the concerns raised, feel free, but don't chime in here just to throw sand in my eyes. It serves no purpose other then to attempt and discredit me. The concerns raised above speak for themselves. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the validity of the discussion, it' you attitude to the problem. If Takabeg is as problematic as you are claiming, then be the example, and take a step back Jetijones (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking a step back doesn't address the problem. Bringing it here so others can look at it and judge for themselves does. Now, comment on the concerns raised above, or stop wasting everyone's time here trying to make it about me. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What relevance does someone's block log on WP have to the relevant discussion. Fry most likely jaywalks too but that's not relevant to commons either. The fact remains that Fry is right. Takabeg has just done exactly what Fry says he does when this topic comes up, ergo bringing up Turkish copyright law as if he's the only person round here that has an inkling of what it says. Anyone would think that in 2011 that it's not possible to translate from Turkish on the 'net. So Jet, your comment has done the equivalent of turning on the central heating and the gas fire, when before we only had a couple of 60W light bulbs (obTrivia: did you know that 100W and 60W light-bulbs are now illegal in the European Union. Fucking nuts or what?). So may I suggest that both you an I step back, an admin steps between them and does what an admin should do and mediates what could rapidly deteriorate, especially when flammable comments are made by 3rd parties. Just a thought. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, that non-response to the substance of the complaint does you no favours at all, regardless of how many people may turn up to stir things by attacking the reporter. Try again: either acknowledge the concerns and promise to do better, or else show that they are wrong. Rd232 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness, Rd232. I don't want to waste time for "personal attackers". About claim on "meatpuppecy", As formerly explained, I only asked opinions of other users. Because I'm not sure whether I understand laws, guidelines etc. I cannot know whether they will nominate them or not. Unfortunately some users ignore the Turkish copyright law and its applications and are pushing their own POV on the Turkey-related images and screaming this is completely PD without any evidences, legal basis. Formerly User:Mach was interested in copyright violation of Turkey-related images. But I couldn't see him in Commons. I asked User:Reality006 who are interested in same problem. User:Reality replied "I am interested in these issue." I asked opinions of not only Reality but also other users. For example, I asked possibility of copyvio on File:KoreanWarpostalstampTC.jpg and images in Category:Coats of arms of Turkey to User:Zscout370. User:Zscout370 nominated DR. I asked Reality006 because he understands Turkish language. User:Zscout370 said to me that he read the Turkish copyright law. Both of them didn't nominate all of them. I don't always agree with their nominations. There is no camvassings and collaborations with other uesrs. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As I feared, Takabeg is more interested in calling us POV-pushers rather than accepting that perhaps we understand some things about copyright law that he does not. As for the Meat Puppetry claim, Takabeg had a history with Reality006, mentioning files on that user's page, and then that user nominating all the files in the list. That makes me suspect (and I wasn't the only one) that he knew Reality006 would nominate the files in the new list, and he sneaked in the two files that he had already nominated and that were kept. That's just my personal feeling, but if other users who view this discussion don't agree with it being meat puppetry, I would accept their interpretation. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

en:WP:CANVAS may be more applicable than en:WP:MEAT. The latter is difficult to substantiate and unsubstantiated allegations may make communication more difficult. It is good to notify concerned editors of a discussion, but don't do it based on their opinion on the matter being discussed. One of your edits may violate the canvas guideline, unless you notified other concerned editors of this unDR.[74] You allege that "[h]e has nominated countless Turkish files for deletion". It appears that the number is 50 since Dec 2009, about 2 per month.[75] If he were nominating countless files, that would be worrisome, but 50 is less so, even if they were all ill-considered. I might support an admonition not to renominate files without a substantial new argument or evidence, however. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If only it were so simple, but the first thing he said as soon as he came here was that this is a personal attack, and then that we're POV-pushers, just as I said he would. If he is to be a helpful contributer and editor here regarding Turkish content, he needs someone to mentor him on copyright. Without that, just promising to not re-nominate kept files doesn't solve the true problem. He would still question even the most simple of files where-ever he encounters them, and then tell us we're wrong and don't know what we're talking about, when we say that it's too simple and therefore ineligible. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You talk about working with other users; maybe this is the most productive thing to explore (rather than the personal attacks on both sides). I suggest this:

you agree to stop submitting DRs for three months
you make a list of files you have concerns about on a user subpage (eg User:Takabeg/candidates for DR)
you periodically ask a user who both you and Fry trust (to be agreed here) to review the list and either remove candidates (with reasoning) or submit them for DR.
other users working with you are encouraged to support this process by adding to your list, rather than to undermine it by submitting DRs on a similar basis as you currently would.

There are too many DRs you're submitting that have issues. I think this temporary process would help you learn a bit more, and reduce conflict while you're learning. And if you and Fry can agree to this, with a suitable trusted user, it avoids the need for a detailed examination of who was right about what, which no-one really wants to take the time to do. Rd232 (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let him make his DRs. I know of at least one successful DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:TSK-emblem.svg). This measure of having to ask permission to make a deletion request puts undue burdens on editors that have copyright concerns. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not a measure of "asking permission", it is a measure of voluntarily refraining from making DRs and instead listing candidates for someone else to review, and that other person to make a DR if necessary, and learning from this process without creating DRs that engender conflict. And "one successful DR" isn't the point; even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Rd232 (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I would far rather have all of his DRs inline in the daily log than forcing one of us to go to the proposed subpage and OK each one in advance -- the former is part of the daily routine, the latter is a special task. We have over 30,000 DRs per month. Two from Takabeg is a drop in the bucket.

Since we now have several active Admins aware of the problem, we'll just speedy close any that are grossly inappropriate. I also assume that perhaps Takabeg will understand that he needs to be more careful. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any basis for making that assumption; he seems likely to proceed exactly as before. Clamping down more swiftly on obviously mistaken DRs would be better than the status quo, but it doesn't address the learning that needs to happen. If Takabeg could give me just one example of something that he's learned about copyright from these DRs, I'd feel much more comfortable with your approach. Rd232 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we are losing sight of the fact that Takabeg is one of WMF's most prolific contributors -- a total of 235,000 global edits, mostly on WP:TR, but also on WP:EN, WP:KU, and over 7,000 here on Commons. I looked through his last 500 edits on Commons, all made in the last four days, and found twelve DRs where Takabeg was the nominator:

All of these appear to be entirely correct -- in fact, I closed several of them as Speedy Deletes. Fry has cited one problem. I know that there have been several others, but we all have bad days from time to time. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I think the adjustments that you suggest are appropriate. I suggest that the parties would be well advised to make their points clearly and concisely just once and trust the closing administrator to evaluate their merits. Arguments and edit-warring are a waste of resources, engender ill-feeling, and reflect badly on the participants. The plethora of claims and counterclaims that I see in some discussions is such that a hurried administrator may miss salient points. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jim, with the greatest respect, you say that grossly inappropriate ones should be speedily closed. That is what should be talking place, but isn't. See [76], as soon as it was renominated with "copyright violation" and just a link to a website where it's used officially, but no new information was added, it should have been speedy kept for that reason, but it's not. By going through the song and dance and re-evaluating the status of the file, we're teaching Takabeg that all he has to do is renominate something, and he will succeed second time around. That's a terrible lesson, and only furthers the problem. As for how we approach Takabeg, he needs to learn, or be told to go his own way. Right now, if he has it in his mind that something is copyrighted, it doesn't matter who (or how many of us) says what, we're wrong, our evidence is wrong, we're using tricks, we're POV-pushers, we don't know the laws, and "there's no legal basis for" anything we say. That's a disruptive attitude and needs to be addressed. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg) should not have been speedy closed. One of the files was deleted as a copyvio (File:Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri Forsu.jpg) - that should make it obvious to everyone that is it was not a speedy close (as keep)! I think you just gave a good example that you do not always understand copyright policy on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand it alot better than you, obviously. The JPEG was deleted because it was directly taken from another website. The SVG was kept because it was independently made by the uploader, which means he holds his rights to his own rendition. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for a minute saying that Takabeg is perfect -- none of us are. What I am asking is that we cut a little slack for a prolific contributor. I know that can be frustrating, but if I had to choose between patience for a 235,000 edit contributor and working with some of the newbies that give us all grief, I'd pick the former in a minute. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to cut him some slack. I've said many times that, with the proper direction regarding copyright law, and the nuances of it (ex: such as ineligiblity when something is too simple), Takabeg could be a great contributer regarding Turkish content. But this attitude of "I'm right, you're just a POV-Pusher and don't know the laws" must stop now. There is absolutely no excuse for the language Takabeg uses. When he's wrong, he's wrong, it's that simple, and he needs to learn that we're not pushing our POV just to keep files because we like them, and we're not unexperienced users who don't understand the laws, and that some things are too simple to be copyrighted. Right now, Takabeg focuses on age alone. If something isn't old enough to pass the age of protection under Turkish Law, that automatically makes it copyrighted in his mind. He doesn't understand things like simplicity, blazons, independent versions, Freedom of Panorama, all things that are an integral part of the status of a file or image. As long as Takabeg rejects these principles as POV and "tricks", he is not useful here. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Fry1989 The DR was for both the svg AND the jpg. The jpg was as you said taken from a website and therefore a copyvio and therefore your comment that it should be speedy kept is wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No it's not wrong. The JPEG and SVG are two different files. I said speedy kept for the SVG in it's second nomination after it was already kept and no new information was added to the claim that it is copyrighted. Please try and pay attention. This discussion is about Takabeg, trying to make it about me serves absolutely no purpose, so stop wasting our time when you can't even get the issues right. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This feels more like Fry1989 did not like Takabeg's view more than anything else. I think Takabeg has a legitimate argument as the "PD Logo" has quite a bit of complexity that would make it a marginal case. Text and other images combined do create something original. It doesn't matter if each component is free on its own. The sheer bulk of edits by Takabeg which are good verifies that Takabeg isn't making the statements just because but has a legitimate reason for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- - No, it's not that I don't like Takabeg's view. because quite simply, he doesn't have any "views". He has a single mental state regarding copyright. If it's not old enough to pass the age of protection, its automatically copyrighted, no matter what rules of copyright apply, including simplicity, and if anybody tries to explain this to him, we're using "tricks" and are POV-pushers. What I do have a problem with is people trying to make this about me. If you have a problem with me, do an AN/U about me, don't try and discredit me and ruin a conversation which is perfectly valid considering all of the language Takabeg uses in regards to users who disagree with him about something being copyrighted, and how he simply refuses to acknowledge even the most basic of concepts such as ineligibility because something is too damn simple. He even questions (but has not yet nominated) this file, which is the epitome of "too simple". Quite bluntly, this user has zero understanding of copyright and all the details and nuances and everything else, except for the age aspect where something can be proteced once it is created, and that protection does not expire until a certain age has passed. That understanding is rudimentary, and not helpful, especially when he chimes in on other DRs and votes for files to be deleted because he doesn't understand any of the arguments made within that DR, considering them all "tricks". He needs to learn, that is what I'm seeking first and formost. Yes, I have asked that he be blocked indeffinately, but only if all attempts to help him learn fail, only if he refuses all attempts to help him learn. As long as he keeps this attitude of his, this is not the place for him, but I do believe that he could learn and become a valuable user here. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    - He had a view. You don't like it. Pretending he doesn't have a view is impossible. You can say his view is wrong or not based on policy, but he made his statement clear and has enough experience here not to be dismissed as not having posted at all. Your approach is quite incivil and not based on policy. You claim he "needs to learn" but he has proven to be far, far more productive across the WMF than you, and I find that really worrisome. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      - Ottava, it seems to me that you have the gift of hyperbole. It also seems that you use "incivil/uncivil" and "personal attack" as similes for "disagree". You aren't helping your case by using these inflammatory terms when, to the average viewer, they aren't accurate and only result in either digression or the equivalent of pissing gasoline on a fire. Please stop it. This tactic is used over and over again and has now becoming boring and expected. It's getting to the point of "the little boy who cried wolf", only these days mothers are telling their children "when Ottava cries uncivil". --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- "I think Takabeg has a legitimate argument as the "PD Logo" has quite a bit of complexity that would make it a marginal case. Text and other images combined do create something original." - that would be a reasonable argument to make, but Takabeg hasn't even acknowledged that COM:TOO applies also in Turkish law. Rd232 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  - "but Takabeg hasn't even acknowledged that COM:TOO applies also in Turkish law" I don't see proof on the page verifying that. There isn't one mention of Turkey, which makes your use of that page as some how meaningful much to be desired. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    - I provided evidence in two DRs that the TOO concept exists in Turkish law. Perhaps you should be less keen to enter so conclusively into discussions you evidently don't know the background of. In your position, you should be asking questions, if you wish to contribute usefully to this thread, not passing judgements. Rd232 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful drama, please no more uncivil attacks at each other or you will be blocked

- - - - "Prove" is not factual. You claimed. Your claims also lacked merit. Your only link showed that the law is vague and does not match anything you wished it to match. If anything, your source proved that you were wrong. You made a nasty claim above while not having anything worth while. The consensus in this page is also against you, which you fail to recognize. It is against you because your case lacks merit. You made up claims about policy, used a faulty unreliable source, your source doesn't say what you want, and you resort to incivility. That is not what Commons needs nor is it productive. However, Takabeg is a highly productive editor who has done a lot of good work across the WMF, and you are smearing him without any basis. That is really bad. I think this request already shows consensus that the nominator should be blocked for filing an inappropriate request, and your actions are 100% as bad and disruptive as his. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        P.S. Rd232 previously said: "So there's no clear definition of a threshold of originality to be found in statute" here. This 100% contradicts his current claims that there is a clear threshold and that he "proved" it earlier, which verifies that he is disrupting Commons, being incivil, and should be blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        Listen, Ottava, in view of our recent exchanges I will cut you a great deal of slack. Ordinarily, lying (most clearly, you calim I said "prove", which I didn't; but your statements elaborate on that as if I had) and selective quotation for purposes of misrepresentation (quote the full sentence, it's a clear misrepresentation) should lead to an immediate and lengthy block. Now if you have learned anything from your experience on en.wp (I'm not trying to embarrass you, so I won't elaborate), then you should pause for much thought before continuing any further in this direction. Rd232 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        "in view of our recent exchanges I will cut you a great deal of slack" - you have made nasty, incivil comments about me, about the subject of this thread, about dozens of others and all in just a few hours. This is really inappropriate and needs to be dealt with. I don't know what is going on with you, and unlike you I wont presume. But you are being really, really unconstructive. You accuse me of lying when you clearly lied and that was pointed out is rather preposterous in every way. You claimed that you gave evidence, which was your "proof" towards something. I pointed out that the "evidence" you actually gave was 100% opposite by your own admission. To be honest, you need to be blocked immediately and should have been days ago. On Wikipedia, you were chastened by ArbCom for misusing ops and on ANI for plagiarism. A deeper look showed quite a bit of that. You've recently tried to make it clear that you were allowed to make any BLP attacks you wanted here. You also acted like nasty sarcasm was acceptable. Now you are making blatantly misleading comments and when that is pointed out, you make up claims about lying. That is really bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, fine. If that's the way you want it... I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could block Ottava for repeatedly lying about me. If anyone wants clarification of what/why (it should be fairly obvious from the above), just ask. I could add defamation too; the Arbcom and ANI remarks trawled from somewhere take a short sentence, but a large volume of uninteresting explanation of why it's completely irrelevant here (and at root a couple of minor errors on my part, not major wrongdoing as implied). Rd232 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While I can't say I support that as I've never even interacted with Ottava before now, I would suggest anybody reading his comments in this discussion to ignore them (perhaps an admin should even black them out), as he completely ignored all and any of the issues I have raised with Takabeg, and just wants to make thing about being a "battle of differing views" between two editors, when that simply isn't the case for every reason I've listed above (and there's alot of them). I would also like to suggest, as we've now had 3 users jump to Takabeg's defence without looking at any of the issues and try and hijack this conversation, that all their comments be collapsed. If the reviewing admins are to make any decision concerning this matter, the main discussion should be their focus. They shouldn't have to fish through this nonsense. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright enuff all you, reslove the issue at hand,and move on! Jetijones (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't hijack it, and others didn't follow your lead, this would have been resolved long ago. But it's nice of you to chime back in randomly. Fry1989 ^eh? 06:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Any more uncivil comments will see people blocked. Bidgee (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hijack it? Awesome! yeah I put all these editors up to this. Fry again it's just those kinda comments that get you that get you in hot water. Looking back Administrators' noticeboard/User problems history Takabeg brings you up, and now your on him, and nothing seems to get resolved. And you wonder why your get blocked? Jetijones (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, really???? I was blocked (temporarily) on wikipedia for making two edits and it was called an edit war by a trigger-happy admin. Last time I checked, two edits doesn't make an edit war. Second, this isn't revenge against Takabeg. If you pay attention to the evidence, it shows that everything I'm saying is true. If I wanted revenge, I wouldn't be asking for him to be taught about copyright so he can be a better user here, I'd be asking he be punished some how. Lastly, this is the third time you've brought up my block. You're deliberately trying to make me look bad. I never said you put the other users up to this, I said they followed your lead. You made a comment about me telling me to "Watch myself". That added absolutely NOTHING to this conversation, didn't addresse any of the concerns I've raised, and only served to distract from them. Since then, two other users besides yourself have done the same, completely ignoring the issues raised, and trying to make this about me. If I had no evidence of what I am saying, perhaps you would have a point, maybe you could make it look like I'm just trying to get revenge. But considering just how much evidence there is, that's a hard claim to make, if not impossible. As I have said before, if you want to discuss the issues I have raised, you're more than welcome to, but stop wasting everyone's time here with uneventful comments like "no wonder you're blocked" (in as many words). Fry1989 ^eh? 07:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The tit for tat is making you both look bad. You could just ignore the comments and not reply or take it off Wiki. We Admin's are getting sick of it. Bidgee (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bidgee, with the greatest respect, if you read through this entire thing, you will see that I have been trying to keep it on point, and sadly, failing. I have called twice (once here, and once on an admin's talk page) for these useless off-shoots about me or others to be collapsed. So far, it's not happened. Despite all this however, the issues I have raised about Takabeg stand out and speak for themselves as true and valid. They must not be swept away by this circus. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed closure

I have read every diff and comment provided as evidence in this case. I do not find sufficient grounds for sanction against Takabeg (or Fry) at this time. But I would like to make the following comments and propose the following recommendations:

Fry

Thank you for your work on Coats of Arms and flags, and the efforts to provide accurate SVGs of everything.
The suggestion that unless Takabeg changes ("listen[s] to a mentor"), he should be indef blocked is preposterous. Wiki is supposed to be a welcoming place, and good faith contributors (which Takabeg clearly is) are to be treasured. Obviously that means we must all put up with people who we have trouble communicating with, and who we think are slowing us down. But the odd additional DR is certainly no problem, and if it's truly as baseless as you make out, it will not consume much oxygen anyway. Until you have more experience I suggest that you don't put forward a recommendation on the outcome of a user problem report, but instead concentrate on putting together an accurate and calm report for us to evaluate.
I believe the numerous discussions of File:Seal_of_the_Turkish_Navy.svg come down to the fact that nobody has provided evidence that it actually was created independently from the description alone (or that it was based on a very old representation). Takabeg appears to be assuming that it was not (and hence is an obvious copyvio because it is a derivative work). You appear to be trusting Randam's own work claim. It is crazy that it took until November 18 to actually ask. Remember COM:PRP means that the burden of proof is on those who want to keep the file. I was particularly disappointed to read you walking away when he asked for proof that it was designed or published before 1941. IMO, you have not made your case beyond doubt, which is why there is still oxygen for the DR to burn on.

Takabeg

Thank you for your extensive contributions to media related to Turkish history. Thank you also for your participation in deletion discussions, and locating files with suspect copyright.
Please do not call other people POV-pushers unless it's especially blatant. I happen to think you are wrong to characterize Fry as a POV-pusher, and calling someone names usually reflects badly on the speaker. In any case, if it's in the context of a copyright discussion, or in discussion of your own behaviour, other people's motivations are almost irrelevant.
Please read up on COM:TOO. Some shapes are too simple to warrant copyright. No matter what country they were drawn in.
As I'm sure you've noticed, there are many different issues to be considered in any COM:COA deletion. Until you are routinely getting them right (i.e. consistently deleted), please use the normal DR process rather than Speedy (or removing license templates) for emblems and coats of arms.
Renominations are best when new evidence arises, or in consultation with an experienced user.

Jetjones

This discussion was about Takabeg. Bringing up Fry's block log from a different project was an unhelpful diversion.

Ottava

Why on earth would you put the word "Prove" in quotes, when Rd232 did not use the word? ... but I digress, I'm sure that will all be discussed in your own dramatic section below.

Everyone

Please keep User Problems as simple and calm as possible. Emotive language and extensive back-and-forths make it very difficult for administrators to keep track of everything. This makes our responses both slow and blunt.

Best regards, and happy contributing! --99of9 (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done, 99of9! Agreed. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with 99of9! Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Support -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. Geagea (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Support User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Fred the Oyster All agree? Good, whose round is it then? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I endorse 99of9's analysis, admonitions and recommendations. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for that summary. I would add just briefly (a rather large text was edit-conflicted, and is now not really relevant): @Takabeg:

It's a pity you weren't able to respond sooner, before Ottava became interested, because this is the sort of response I was looking for to move forward from your section above and see if future DRs where both you and Fry are involved can be more productive. At this point, I'd encourage you to expand on Commons' documentation of Turkish copyright law, with whatever turns up in current and future DRs, including perhaps from your own research. You are, after all (a point Fry has made as well) well-placed to help clarify and document these issues. Rd232 (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Why on earth would you put the word "Prove" in quotes, when Rd232 did not use the word?" Because I asked him to prove it. Look at my original question: "I don't see proof on the page verifying that. " [77]. He then "provided evidence" to meet my proof. Hence I put proof in quotes. I asked for proof. He gave something I felt contradicted any proof of his claims. Thus, his original accusations were contradicted by his actual evidence, i.e. his proof. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While I am greatful this has come to a summary and an end, there is one or two things I must respond to. First, thank you for thanking me for my efforts and contributions here, rather than trying to weigh what user is more valuable as Ottava did. Second, I understand how some may feel that my asking for a block of Takabeg is extreme, but as I said many times, it would only be after multiple attempts to help him learn some of the things he doesn't understand and if he continued to reject that help. As I said before, he does have a rudimentary understanding based on Age of Protection. But he has rejected any attempt by me, and a few others, to explain several important factors (as laid out above), and constantly calls them "tricks". My main focus of this has always been to get someone to help him, to teach him and work with him on understanding copyright, which quite honestly is a complex issue that even I am far from understanding fully. Lastly, Jetijones has deliberately tried to distract from this AN/U three times (as well as twice in another DR unrelated to any of this) by bringing up the fact I'm currently blocked on Wikipedia (temporarily, it will pass shortly). It is completely unrelated to any of this, and serves absolutely no purpose other than to detract from the points and issues raised and to discredit me as a user, and I think he should be thankful he hasn't been punished for it. I also think Takabeg should have to acknowledge the closure points regarding him made by 99of9, and agree to them, or else eventually this is all going to come up again. He must stop the behaviours and choice of words that got him here in the first place. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Some help needed

I would be grateful if an administrator could check out and provide some help concerning this issue: There are three rebadged car models (Volkswagen up! - SEAT Mii - Škoda Citigo) all rebadges that are being built together in the same plant and making part of the same car company project according to the relevant Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Group_New_Small_Family ). Each one is (properly) classified in Wikimedia commons seperately under its own category ( Volkswagen up![[78]], SEAT Mii [[79]] and Škoda Citigo [[80]] ).

I was wondering if this is the case where redirect links

Kungfu2187

Kungfu2187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) recently uploaded the now deleted copyvio image File:PM-2.jpg. Some of his other uploads also look definitely like copyvios as well except files created by U.S. Army owned PEO Soldier (which their files are in PD-USARMY). --112.202.41.251 11:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

User:WPK

Alongside his constant vandalism of Finnish symbols such as the Presidential standard, editing their colours, uploading completely different images over others, continuing to force his unsourced version over the revert of two separate users, WPK now has the little quest to add the template {nazi symbol} to the following files:

File:Mannerheimkruis der Eerste en Tweede Klasse.jpg

File:Grootkruis van het Vrijheidskruis met Zwaarden.jpg

File:Mannerheim Cross.gif

File:Mannerheimristin2lk.png

File:Lotta Svard logo.svg

File:Gallen-Kallela sotalentajien merkki.jpg

File:Presidential Standard of Finland.svg

The above files use of swastika has absolutely nothing to do with Nazism. The Mannerheim Cross is an order and award and symbol of Finland first used by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim who was the Regent of Finland in 1918, when the First World War was still in progress, Hitler was nothing but a soldier, and two years before the NSDAP was even founded, long before Hitler's incarceration and followed release from prison, and his incorporation of the swastika as a symbol of the Party.

WPK's constant vandalism of these files needs to stop. Fry1989 ^eh? 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where you attempted to discuss this matter with WPK or notified WPK of this discussion. Please provide those links. Note that "[e]ven if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." (en:WP:VAND) If you don't have evidence that WPK's behavior meets the definition of vandalism, it may help to demonstrate good faith on your part to strike that allegation. We don't adjudicate content disputes. So far, all I see is a content dispute, edit warring and personal attacks and incivility. You are both hereby warned against edit warring. You are already on notice for personal attacks and incivility. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This has been going on for many many months. There are comments all over his talk page and in the revision histories of the files he's been involved in where users have asked him, and then told him, to stop his disruptive behaviour. He is repetitious, and ignores things that are against his view. I have not personally asked him on his talk page, but others have and he's shown no path of stopping. He has completely blanked out files and removed all their categories (multiple times) because he doesn't like them, he has uploaded his unsourced changes multiple times and doesn't accept when others revert him and ask for sources. He has no respect for how things are done here. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WPK's actions are not always constructive, but if you look at the wording of the template, it's actually more concerned with labelling content which might be legally problematic in Germany as such, rather than branding things with a stigma of being eeeevil Hitlerite symbols. There used to be a useful Category:Non-nazi swastikas, but this was recently deleted after not much discussion (and what there was was on a rather obscure out-of-the-way sub-page)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As the Finnish use of the swatiska is completely unrelated, the template doesn't apply and isn't neccesary. The design and rotation of the two are even completely separate. In any case, WPK has shown a constant behaviour of uploading his way anyways no matter how many times he is reverted (the file where he uploaded the medal over a heraldic shield, he did that countless times, an admin has since deleted it down to one). He won't accept no for an answer, but never bothers to back up any of his changes with a source. Fry1989 ^eh? 07:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Some might say that you behave similarly sometimes. In any case, as it says in the wording of the template, it's to label visual content which could be legally problematic in Germany because it is or resembles symbols banned in Germany. It's not about the origin and meaning of the symbol, it's about its possibly problematic legal status in Germany... AnonMoos (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your personal opinions of me are not relevant here (and easily disproven). In any case indeed, the template problem is only part of a wider issue with WPK. Not uploading a 100% different image over another is Commons 101, yet he did it repeatedly. Uploading yor unsourced changes after two users have reverted you constantly, is usually a sign to step back, take a breather, and discuss it. He does not, he simply keeps uploading and uploading, because he thinks he is right. Uploading non-SVG elements over an SVG file is also not proper, but he has done that as well. Uploading your changes 9 times when it is consistantly rejected is beyond rediculous, and how he hasn't been reprimanded for edit-warring on that file is absolutely beyond me. This isn't WPK's first time being reported, and it's time something be done. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of his edit waring and vandalizing of Finnish files, including just today File:Presidential Standard of Finland (1920-1944 1946-1978).svg, File:Flag of Finland 1920-1978 (State).svg and File:Presidential Standard of Finland 1944-1946.svg. He either needs to be blocked for a while, or these files need to be protected from his editing. He is a vandal. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Per his constant edit waring, vandlism (such as completely blanking out files) and disruptive editing of the following files, I am now seeking a 2 week block of WPK.

File:Flag of Finland 1920-1978 (State).svg

File:Presidential Standard of Finland (1920-1944 1946-1978).svg

File:Presidential Standard of Finland.svg

File:Presidential Standard of Finland 1944-1946.svg

File:Coat of arms of Finland.svg

File:Suomen Puolustusvoimien tornileijona.svg

File:Suomen Maavoimien tunnus.svg

File:Suomen Merivoimien tunnus.svg

File:Vaasa.vaakuna.svg

File:Military Roundel of Finland pre-1944.svg (took him 2 months to post his source)

File:Finland roundel WW2 border.svg

File:Finland roundel WW2 variant.svg

The following two files in which he repeatedly (an admin has since deleted several of his revisions) uploaded a 100% different image over another

File:Mannerheimkruis.jpg

File:Mannerheimkruis.svg

Fry1989 ^eh? 23:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Fry1989, you should know by now that edit warring is no good. You have been told so a few times by now. So please use the discussion page and provide sources for your edits. For example File:Presidential Standard of Finland 1944-1946.svg where you keep editing a file WPK has uploaded. Where is your source that proof that your version is correct and his is not? Perhaps if you add a source he would accept it? If this was en-wiki you would have been blocked for the 3R-rule. So please: 1) no edit warring, 2) use the discussion pages 3) add a source whenever possible 4) post here if you can't agree with other users 5) and if you post here inform the other user(s) about it.

That being said I fully agree with Fry1989 that WPK does not follow good practice. WPK would also have been blocked on en-wiki for the 3R-rule. The same advise I gave to Fry1989 would also usefull for WPK to follow. It seems that WPK was not informed about this discussion so I just informed him. Therefore I do not know if WPK has any arguments that could explain his actions here. However, if WPK keeps edit warring and uploading totally different files on top of excisting files I think a block would be in place. --MGA73 (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the file you're talking about, I made, and I have it sourced from when I created it, so I'm not edit warring, I'm maintaining it the way it was until there are sources to the contrary. WPK is edit warring, because he is uploading his augmented version (repeatedly) with no source. As he is changing the file, he has to prove his changes, I don't have to prove the current version. Also, he is uploading non-svg elements to an SVG file. Try and pay attention. Also, per the above list of files, diffs and links, this one presidential flag is not his only problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Try and pay attention."... Well I'm sure many users would benefit from that advise... I will take it step by step just to make sure that we understand eachoter:

I said above that I agreed that WPK is edit warring etc. and he should stop. So I'm not saying everything is your fault. Just so that we agree on that.

But:

The file I mentioned was File:Presidential Standard of Finland 1944-1946.svg. Check the first version: 03:13, 18 March 2011‎ WPK (talk | contribs | block)‎. So it was uploaded by WPK. Do we agree on that?
If you made it you should change the author (and prove it ofcourse) but you did not. Do we agree on that?
I can see NO LINK anywhere on File:Presidential Standard of Finland 1944-1946.svg to http://www.fotw.us/flags/fi_1920.html#pr20 . Do we agree on that?
In fact the only link I see is to http://flagspot.net/flags/fi.html, http://digi.narc.fi/digi/view.ka?kuid=1265959 (link does not work for me) and it was added by WPK in an attept to prove that his version was correct. Do we agree on that?

So please think again. Did you do everything "by the book" here so WPK is the only one to blame?

I'm not saying that his version is correct I'm just saying it whould have been a lot easier for everyone if you had added a source for your edits right from the start. And it is not enough if you mentioned the source on another file page or on some discussion talk page somewhere. It has to be on the file page or on the discussion page for that specific file (in this case File talk:Presidential Standard of Finland 1944-1946.svg). --MGA73 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let me go one by one. File:Presidential Standard of Finland 1944-1946.svg yes, WPK created, but I (in cooperation with him on his talk page, he even thanked me) corrected it to be in-line with all the other Finnish flags. I confused it with File:Presidential Standard of Finland (1920-1944 1946-1978).svg, which I did create. Second, the colours the WPK keeps trying to introduce, are not sourced or accurate, so they have been reverted. Third, uploading non-SVG and 3D elements on these flags are another reason his changes have been constantly reverted (and I'm not the only one who has problem with him embedding non-SVG elements). Four, he is making the changes, he needs to source them. So far, he is extremely reluctant to do that, and it can take months before he does. Five, the shape of the shield in the flags is sourced as curved at the bottom up until 1978. If it was sqaure, and he has a proper source for that, I would be happy to change it (and in proper SVG). Instead, he prefers to say non-important things like "it's this way or that way", insulting me because I disagree with him, and then mimicking me like a parrot in his revisions. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - confusions happen sometimes :-) You seems very sure that you know how the flag looks. Then it is very easy for you to add a source? In the discussion you linked to User_talk:Fry1989#Flags_of_Finland WPK gives several links and uses a photo from 1940 to back up his arguments. Perhaps if you told him why you do not think that the links and the photos are relevant?

Also I think that discussions like that belong on the talkpage of a file or perhaps on Category talk:Flags of Finland and not on a user talk page. User talk pages are often not seen by many users. You could also make a version each as you think they should be and then invite other users to participate in the discussions and say "We can't agree which version is correct. I think that version A is correct because <reason + links> and WPK thinks that version B is correct because <reason + link>". Hopefully that would lead to an agreement and the discussion will be visible for everyone - also in 2 years when someone thinks "Why does the flag look like this?". --MGA73 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Prolem is we have a source at FOTW, and they're rarely wrong. Now, WPK could come to somebody and work with them if he has proof that FOTW is inaccurate in this case, but he just uploads over and over, never posting sources till months later, and when an AN/U just so happens to be taking place in regards to him. It's rather convenient, that he would only post a source now. It's the same problem with File:Military Roundel of Finland pre-1944.svg where it took him 2 months to post his source. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So are we going to addresse the problem, or ignore it? Fry1989 ^eh? 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am Pudeo from the English Wikipedia where I have been editing since 2006. I am Finnish and have been editing Finnish-related articles and images, so I am quite familiar with the subject. I am familiar with the editing of WPK in the English and Finnish Wikipedias. While he does not make edits in bad faith, most of his edits are edit-warring and make a mess. He constantly uploads new versions of images, sometimes with different names. He often makes unaestethic new versions of current symbols or flags, when updates are not needed. It's a big fuss for a little detail he's trying to change.

That to say, I feel sorry to discourage someone from editing. But in this case, I think he's definitely doing more damage than good. I don't even want to look at this edit history here at Commons. Too much of a headache. --91.154.93.191 03:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I may add that WPK has a huge block log in Finnish Wikipedia due to similar actions as he does here. --91.154.93.191 03:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads by user Ravelnine

Ravelnine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) recently uploaded the now deleted copyvio image File:Mayawati BSP.jpg. Some of his other uploads also look definitely like copyvios as well. Can anyone please check these uploads and warn this user? Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted several of this users images as blatant copyright violations and the rest of the users images have been nominated for deletion. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Dr.K. (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a sock of Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs) who has been indef blocked on en.wiki for copyvios. I've blocked the latest sock on en.wiki. Other socks include Chindia (China-India) (talk · contribs), Goldfinger123 (talk · contribs) etc. I haven't checked to see which of the en.wiki socks have been copyvio active here. In the past he has also used flickr-washing to upload images here. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ravelnine and the other socks have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Thechunain‎

Can someone delete all images uploaded by Thechunain‎ (talk · contribs). I've tagged a few copyvios, but all uploads are copyvios. —SpacemanSpiff 11:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done 11:53, 8 December 2011 by Martin H.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A few more since then need deletion now. —SpacemanSpiff 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Done and warned. Thank you for keeping an eye out. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And another couple more copyvio uploads now. An inability to upload would help :) —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done and blocked for 1 week MorganKevinJ^(talk) 05:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Ahonc

please pay attention to the actions of the administrator on items [81] [82]. user adds a request to the existing descriptions image information. user to know which is Лист рівнодення my other account which I have not been using because it was blocked in Ukrainian Wikipedia. perhaps he intended to accuse me of evasion of blocking that I have to do because of the threat delete my downloaded images (Sorry, I'm using a translator for English). --Лист рівнодення (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding a permission request to an image with incomplete info on permission is not vandalism. - A.Savin 20:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

what information is missing? it seems everything is. --Лист рівнодення (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If you upload a file which is not created by you and is taken from an extern web site, there has to be a confirmation that the copyright holder has released this file as free licensed. See Commons:OTRS (or its Russian version). - A.Savin 23:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If there the license under which you can use the image is stated on the website, you can use {{Licensereview}} (add it to the file-description-page). But I fear the images have other problems like being itself derivative works without proper sourcing. RE rillke questions? 01:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Licensereview}} affixed. for all materials placed on the web site specifies a license distribution: (Copyleft) maidan.org.ua, 2001-2011, distributed according GNU copyleft license for documentation. --Лист рівнодення (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you forgot to check if the website is the copyright holder. Having the rights to publish something under a free license is essential to do this. File:Табачник пішов геть.png is from the website of March 16 2010, at http://narodna.pravda.com.ua/photos/4b9ca6a098766/ (#2 of 4) it was already on March 14. Conclusion is simple: The Copyleft website is copy&pasting random content from the internet, the license is invalid at least for images they reuse. The same applies to File:Табачник геть.Миколаїв.png which is credited to novosti-n.mk.ua at tis site. File:STOP ТАБАЧНИК.png which in any case is a derivative work of someone else photographic work. And maybe other images you uploaded. --Martin H. (talk) 08:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

where decency? are grounds for suspicion. just a play on words. in describing also indicated that the product appeared on 13 March. reference not valid. at your insistence addressed to the author. wait to answer. on File: Tabachnik het.Mykolayiv.png it since it became authoritative blog on the site? not a witch hunt. where that evidence used alien to work? --Лист рівнодення (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

as I said yesterday (by Kyiv time) thefir - author File: Tabachnik went het.png, he sent a letter to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org --Лист рівнодення (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

why delete the files? --Лист рівнодення (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ironmax75 (talk · contribs)

Could an admin with time on their hands have a perusal through the above user's recent contribs. As far as I can tell most, if not all, are copyvios. Images of various types of guns which look to be trawled from the web. All of these images are tagged as their own work, which they are obviously not. Cheers. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I identified several copyright violations, one with a removed watermark and another one which was a crop and thus not so easy to find. I removed all weapon images (I did not waste my time to identify all of them after I saw the what's going on). --Polarlys (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

images/upgrades/downloads

Insert non-formatted text herei am having problem with my wiki thru out my system ~thanks if you can help sincerly...Melinda Coronado — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisLozano (talk • contribs) 2011-12-13T01:26:22‎ (UTC)

Hi Melinda, this page is the wrong place for your problem. Please let's continue there: Commons:Help desk#images/upgrades/downloads ← (click on this). --Saibo (Δ) 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Saibo (Δ) 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Zscout370

As long as I understand that he is the one of the users who think (believe) that the article 13 of the Japanese Copyright Law could be applied for objects that are mentioned in notifications, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, independent administrative organs.

I've tagged {{copyvio}} according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Kyoto Prefecture.svg. Maybe user think reverted this edit. I think this his behavior is not serious problem. Because we'd better open normal deletion request for normal discussion. However, he tried to hinder normal procedure.

1. revert 1 2. revert 2

Moreover, he protected file with using his "authority".

04:50 . . Zscout370 (talk | contribs)‎ protected File:Flag of Kyoto Prefecture.svg‎ [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) [upload=sysop] (indefinite) (Counter-productive edit warring)

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Kyoto Prefecture.svg. Some users want to believe that [http://www.pref.kyoto.jp/reiki/reiki_honbun/a3000919001.html ]. However, Article 13.

He rejected even the start of a constructive discussion. This behavior is nothing but the abuse of his rights as administrator.

Takabeg (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You just kept on adding the template, not adding the discussion page. But page has been unprotected by me, a stupid move for me protecting the page on my part.

Now, as for Article 13, it says in full:

(Works not protected) Article 13. The following shall not form the subject matter of the rights provided for in this Chapter: (i) the Constitution and other laws and regulations; (ii) notifications, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities, independent administrative organs ("independent administrative organs" means those mentioned in Article 2, paragraph (1) of the Law for General Rules for Independent Administrative Organs (Law No.103, of 1999); the same shall apply hereinafter) or local independent administrative organs ("local independent administrative organs" means those mentioned in Article 2, paragraph (1) of the Law for Local Independent Administrative Organs (Law No.118, of 2003); the same shall apply hereinafter); (iii) judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of law courts, as well as rulings and decisions made by administrative organs in proceedings similar to judicial ones; (iv) translations and compilations, of those materials mentioned in the preceding three items, made by organs of the State or local public entities, independent administrative organs or local independent administrative organs.

http://www.pref.kyoto.jp/reiki/reiki_honbun/a3000919001.html is the Enactment of the Flag of the Kyoto Prefecture (November 02, 1976 Notice No. 628 of Kyoto). Article 13 (ii) is met by this page saying "notifications, instructions, circular notices and the like issued by organs of the State or local public entities" since this is a prefectural government notice. It can also be considered a regulation since both this and the symbol law talks about how to construct said flag using diagrams. People believe that pictures are never included in this, but there is nothing in this law that pictures are not considered legislation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And, if pictures are a concern, then you need to look at the textual description. See the below from the law:

(１)　府旗の大きさは、縦１に対し横1.4の割合とする。 (Flag ratio is 1:1.4) (２)　マークの中心は、旗の中心におく。 (The symbol shall be placed in the direct center of the flag) (３)　地色は、赤紫（マンセル記号10P3.7/15)とし、マークの部分は、白と赤金とする。 (The background color of the flag is Munsel Color 10 P 3.7/15)

So even without this picture, we know what the description of the flag is based on this legislation. Either way, the conditions of that template is satisfied by this law and the descriptions placed within it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

comment: JFYI, I discourage people abusing AN/U as a board to discuss actually copyright matters (→COM:VPC) masked as user problem. Is to too difficult to reduce the problem to the facts, leaving the personal layer out of the discussion? -- RE rillke questions? 11:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Farzam.parto (talk · contribs)

Could an admin, or an editor with more experience than I, check out the contribs of the above user? I'm not sure if protest images are okay, whether or not the user is in fact the artist and what to do about the watermarks. Finding copyvios is my forté, not this sort of thing. Thanks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - I was about to nuke them as "out of scope" then found there was an en wp page which has been there quite a while. I still think they are borderline but will not be hasty. Thanks for the report. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:J_1982 and his by year categories

J 1982 (talk · contribs) is creating by year and date categories without end, see his contributions. Look at the contents of the categories (if there is any content - many are empty). Most often the content is quite timeless, for exampel views of old buildings or of nature. As already indicated by his user name, J_1982 seems to have some preoccupation with dates. He has often been criticized, but he rarely responds, he just goes on and on. I think the best thing for Commons would be to block him. Let him play with a stamp collection or something. If it were useful to select images by date, it could be done with software, based on the standard format of the date field in the infobox. Fragmented by-year categories are not at all suitable for easily getting an overview of our 1970's images. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've talked to this user about very narrow categorization of buildings, and the discussion went nowhere. Some recent edits seem the opposite of helpful: for example, a musuem has a demonstration of cultural practices on Christmas in Norway, and one presentation of it happens to be on December 2. It is useless to categorize a photo from it with "December 2 in Iowa". I don't know that blocking is the answer, though. I got the feeling the user is well-intentioned but has a communications challenge, or perhaps there is a language barrier here. Jonathunder (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the categorization rules are quite cursorily. As a consequence there is actually no general method how to handle this. The only thing that is possible would be to try to convince this user and to hope he will do so. --High Contrast (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I dont see an issue wih the by year categories they are a useful tool to find events that happened or have an association with a specific year. That said the categories need content and empty categories shouldnt be creatd. Gnan garra 23:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What is useful about the single-image categories in Category:Years in bandy? The obsession of this user is making it more difficult to get a quick overview of the contents of Commons. And it is the only thing he does. He has not uploaded one single image. I think he should go play somewhere else. The problem does not depend on language, on the Swedish wikipedia he is equally unresponsive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's ironic Pieter, that in trying to stop his/her obsessiveness you display an equal obsessiveness in trying to stop him/her. So the question is, whose obsessiveness improves the project the most? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No big deal. Perhaps User:Pieter Kuiper should elaborate his desire to have User:J 1982 blocked. NVO (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, the rather timeless File:Zinkensdamms IP corner situation01.jpg now has three 2007 categories and a category:26 December. The ambition of J_1982 seems to be to create parallel category systems for every year. In this way, the category system is fragmented and all overview is destroyed. He also creates many categories that only contain categories that only contain categories, to conform to hierarchy for the sake of a hierarchy, see for example category:Religion in Lund. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

category:26 December has 49 files, 4 subcategories with a further 37 subcategories of them, rather well populated category tree. I dont see an issue here Gnan garra 10:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

category:Religion in Lund subcat Christanity in Lund sub Christmas in Lund which has media, and makes sense given that christmas is a christian festival. I assume that churches/mosques/temples would also be part of this structure, just need to be populated, so would cemeteries or other religious festivals like ramadan and easter. Because we dont have or it hasnt yet been added doesnt make the structure invalid everything starts somewhere. Lack of communication is a concern but its not a big deal at the moment Gnan garra 10:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point with those examples, but anyway. I'm simply giving up for now with categories, is already hopeless. Is quicker searching images with google. Is clear at this stage that many editors don't see the problem of either category nor image spamming. So let the kids play... Once is all 100% useless it will be replaced with a flickr style tag system, or another website. In the meanwhile more and more adds will run to gather funds to keep the servers running. --ELEKHH^T 10:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

timeless? I'm betting that a hockey expert could look at that photo and date it to within a decade or two. It certainly won't do for a representation of 1950s hockey.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said. The so-called "timelessness" of an image is so subjective and contextual that it is a meaningless label. Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Commons is (or supposed to be) a collaborative project which aims at providing a media file repository to both Wikimedia projects and public use. It is not a free web host or a social network. Still, we find here a strange complacence to some practices which, not only do not contribute to those goals, but are often detrimental to them. The usual justification to such complacence is the idea that all contributions are welcome and that new users should not be chased away by too many rules. However, by giving an exaggerated preference to a ‘people-driven’, rather than to an ‘objective-driven’, style of organization we are often affecting negatively the goals we are supposed to pursue. No big deal? I respectfully disagree. A user whose only contribution is a series of vanity underwear photos of himself (see somewhere above) is not useful to the project and is wasting its scarce resources; another one who goes on tailoring the categorization scheme of our galleries to his own surrealistic model, ignoring the opinion of other users, is damaging the project. The idea that this is all for free and that everybody can do whatever they want is wrong. The project is made possible by the money and volunteer work of many people, most of them anonymous. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment I think that as a very minimum, those categories should be hidden/no topical categories in the sense that if people put an image in it, it is not considered as valid topical categorisation. I noticed that many people put general categories in their images, such as men, people, painting, year, month, in order to get not the uncategorized label (and bot messages). And indeed, we have to think on a strategy and rule set in order to avoid that all Commons categories, such as Category:White House kitchen have a fully blown time/date category array in it. For example, in Category:History of Gävle, we have more categories than we have images for the city. --Foroa (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I agree at least for the most part. I think it is good to have some general (not too narrow) time categories, like "Year in CountryX" or even "Month Year in CountryX", and "Year in CityY" (IF there are enough images of that city AND comprehensive topical categorization for them). And, like Foroa stated, the time categories should be only a secondary way of categorization and not considered as valid topical categorization. ––Apalsola ^{t • c} 18:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Foroa's proposal. Also, I strongly agree with Alvesgaspar's comment above: whether there are absolute rules for how to categorize or not, the point of categorizing is not to create empty work to occupy editors with Asperger syndrome (like myself) but to allow users to find any relevant pictures easily and quickly. Having empty intermediate categories only serves to hide content. Having had similar concerns with other users, and having met with the same unwillingness to protect existing and functional categories I understand the frustration of Pieter Kuiper and others. While J_1982 seems to only create a parallell and meaningless category tree (thereby not actually doing any harm), his efforts are nearly completely without meaning. Losing him would be no discernible loss, but if he/she could instead begin engaging in something meaningful (like buying a camera) then their obvious energy could lead somewhere positive.

In the end, I have very little patience for editors who will not engage in conversation with their fellow editors. Naturally, I don't want this to degrade into endless talking amongst editors, but some measure of communication is necessary before anything worthwhile can occur. Mr.choppers (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would ask a bit of respect for a user that never loaded pictures, made 360000 mediawiki contributions, 50000 on Commons. It is not because one has an expensive camera and some sense of vanity that ones contributions are more worth than the others. Due to the "wiki loves monuments" action, we still have to clear out a major part of the categorisation of the pictures thrown on Commons by decent guys with a camera. Mostly people that give priority helping organising Commons in stead of hunting pictures just try to catch up the backlog of more than a million of images that need deeper categorisation.

And yes, it would be better to have a hybrid search system that extends our category system with additional medium type and date ranges. In the mean time, adding dates is a valuable compromise in between, and a preparation for future systems.

People that really work in categories know that such category structures must be made in a systematic way, not by an amateur when he feels like it; I corrected hundreds if not thousands of such categories.

The user don't communicate a lot, and that is a problem indeed. But if I see the problems by some users communicating too much, I would know what to chose. --Foroa (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

These books were categorised as "1536 in Sweden". They are mainly in Swedish and Latin. I understand "1536 in Swedish", but "Sweden" does not make sense. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I strongly agree and disagree with Foroa.

I agree completely with his comments about the guy with the camera, and he said it much better than I would have. As for topical categories, however, I do disagree. Maybe I have misunderstood his proposal, but year categories in my opinion are as relevant as any other topical category. Category:Clothing in museums of Russia is far less relevant/useful/interesting than Category:1897 in Russia, just to name two random examples, and the latter is as much a topical category as the first. I know that's just an opinion, but opinions on "primary/important" and "secondary/less important" categories are always subjective.

Having said that, not all "History of X" categories need to be subcategorized by year. The majority do not. I agree with Apalsola that the breakdown into year categories should only occur where there are sufficient files to warrant such a move and the files are already well-categorized in other category trees. Just because we have Category:1914 in London does not mean we need Category:1914 in Gävle. It sometimes suffices to subcategorize merely by century or decade (or in many cases, not by any time-related subcategories).

I agree that some of J_1982's categorization work is of some concern. Categories like Category:Christmas 2005 in Canada leave me scratching my head (I'm not sure that the Christmas category was crying out to being subcategorized by country and then by year). He's creating new parent year categories for continents, which strikes me as unnecessary (although I am prepared to admit that too is a subjective opinion). He's created a large number of year templates for relatively small cities in Sweden, which suggests to me that Category:History of Sweden is about to get subdivided into a lot more small year subcats with little content very soon. I noticed that he created year categories for the American 13 colonies (which had already once been deleted), and categorized year categories for former colonies in the year categories for the former colonial powers - keeping in mind Foroa's comment above ("category structures must be made in a systematic way"), J_1982's eagerness and high level of production have the real potential to muck up the history category tree.

Contributors usually find a niche here on Commons, and one of the great things about this project is that one can usually work away on one's niche without stepping on toes (which is often not the case on Wikipedia). So I am loathe to criticize J_1982's work. He is evidently working hard and making a solid contribution. But I do agree that year categories can be approached in a more systematic/reasonable way. I will put another note on his talk page, perhaps in a more constructive/friendly tone than the most recent one, and mke another attempt at engaging him in this discussion. Skeezix1000 (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't upload much now, as my mobile telephone can photograph, but it doesn't have the wires to hook it up to a computer. Right now, I need to use You Cam. I'm going to bu a new mobile telephone, connectable to the computer. J 1982 (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

fits to this topic:
Are category trees like this one wanted? Do they fit in the hole by year/by day structure? --High Contrast (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they can be interesting (what happened on my birthday...). J 1982 (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Commons follows an educational purpose and not possible birthday events (you know: COM:PS). --High Contrast (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

By and large I find the time/subject intersection categories appropriate and useful. The Country State and Major City by year or decade cats have been especially helpful in organizing media, and many that had only a few files when the cat was created now have many; creation of such cats can help inspire populating it. That said, certainly not all time/subject related categories are equally useful. Commons:WikiProject Time was created for discussing the issue, but there hasn't been much new discussion there for about 2 years now. I suggest that people interested in how best to organize Commons media in time related ways renew discussion there. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Putting a photo of a sign like File:Varendsvallen tavla.JPG in a category like Category:March 2007 in Sweden only based on the date the photo was made does not make any sense at all. J_1982 does not seem to be able to understand that. It is evident from the response above that J_1982 will not discuss the issue in any meaningful way. If he had any real interest in history, he would collect and upload free old images connected with some town, topic and/or period. But he does not do that, he is mechanically copying the date field to parallel category trees. I could suggest other mechanical tasks, like scanning and uploading illustrations from old books. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Yugho Mass speedy deletion nominations

So we've got flooded at en Wiki with like 50+ speedy deletion notifications, since this user Yugho (talk · contribs) has nominated every single historical flag of Morocco for speedy deletion with no valid reason whatsoever. I find this to be purely disruptive behavior, those flags are used all across wiki they should either be protected or user blocked. --Tachfin (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This flags [83] [84] [85] [86] are not moroccans ! they belong to the north african dynasties (almohads, idrissids and marinids), please avoid the nationalist-pov.

conclusion: say that this flags are moroccans is a pure anachronism.--Yugho (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Let's see. User:Bokpasa gets blocked Dec 9. Yugho comes into existence Dec. 13. Sockpuppet? Walrasiad (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't commons problem. You're nominating items for speedy as a copyvio which are not even eligible for copyright that's just disruptive. --Tachfin (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sockpuppets, Yugho does not seem related to Bokpasa: Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bokpasa. --99of9 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems more to be a sockpuppet of a notorious vandal on en.Wiki [87] and fr.Wiki [88], but he has never been blocked nor was him involved in any dispute or disruptive edits on Commons before. --Omar-Toons (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Denniss

Hi everybody. I'm es.wikipedia administrator since several years, and I have no problems with anyone. The user Denniss blocked me wrongly for two weeks, saying that I had a puppet in another account. That sentence obviously was wrong. Denniss hastily blocked me without checking our supposed relationship.

Then I asked for a formal apology in my talk page and his own talk page, but I have been completely ignored. I am very disappointed by the attitude of the User:Denniss. I wish the user formally to apologize to me, or else apply some admonishment for their hostility. Greetings, Farisori (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Denniss (talk · contribs) should explain his reason for blocking Rogers0797 (talk · contribs). I would recommend that he study COM:BLOCK. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Two comments here

The block of Rogers0797 (talk · contribs) is entirely valid and proper. I have just blocked another account uploading identical images from the same IP.
The other block I see no validity for. There should be an explanation and an apology IMO

Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you are after but any puppet blocks of mine will always be as a result of CU info. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The page linked by Marco says CU returned nothing on Farisori, so never mind. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not much time for Commons lately, I'll have to check my notices why I had done this and report back later this week. --Denniss (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Denniss, excuse me but clearly you have time. I'm still waiting for your apologies. How much I need to wait? Farisori » 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not wanting to raise any dramahz here but I'm concerned with the lack of responsiveness too, which is a must. I understand users being busy in real life (and I am in that group currently) but you've been editting and the concerns raised by Farisori & others in this thread still needs to be addressed. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 22:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think its easy to explain. Both users - Rogers0797 and Farisori - worked with files in es:Concepción (Chile) and other articles. Possible options are 1) checking the articles and the editors and mixing them up 2) Denniss only saw them editing and made a wrong conclusion, he not carefully checked that Farisori only cleaned up the mess that Rogers0797 created. --Martin H. (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Martin however a simple "sorry" would be good in that case --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This thread opened on December 4. Since the time of its opening, Denniss has made 705 edits on Commons, including only one in this thread a week ago

"Sorry, I had not much time for Commons lately, I'll have to check my notices why I had done this and report back later this week. --Denniss (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)"

When half a dozen experienced users and Administrators are asking for an explanation and suggesting that an apology is in order, ignoring them is not acceptable. While a simple apology to Farisori for an understandable mistake (as explained by Martin) might have been OK earlier, I think we now need a more general apology and explanation.

If an Admin refuses to communicate with other Admins, how can we expect him or her to meet our requirements for clear communication with newbies? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I share the same impresion as Martin on what he could have lead Denniss to think both users were sockpuppets. However & as Herby I'd loved —and I bet Farisori (talk · contribs) too— to receive that answer from Denniss himself when I asked here and later here due to non-response and the unblock request from the user in question. A simple "sorry" would have resolved the matter. We're all human and we do make mistakes. I do mistakes too. However I just can't understand what is the need of 4 talk page threads and 2 admin board threads when this could have been resolved in a simpler way long time ago and without employing community resources that would be better spent here or here for giving two examples; IMHO. Now, as Jim said, I think we have a more general problem —the lack of general responsiveness— that ought to be addressed. Sorry for my bad English. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 14:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So I'm back home with acces to my notes. As the others already thought, the edits by Farisori (working with/moving/adding images uploaded by the blocked user) led me to the wrong conclusion that both are related. I am really sorry for the confusion and for the unwarranted block. --Denniss (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, apologies accepted. Bye, Farisori » 12:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Copvios by User:Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki

User:Shobhit.Sharma.Wiki ignores warnings and keeps uploading copyrighted logos. --Muhandes (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that he placed himself in the category of "Commons Administrators" on his user page. I've nuked that little porkie, but I believe that this chap/chappess is up to no good. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days by User:Beria. Rd232 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not show on their talk page. Curiously, Commons:Blocking policy does not require such notices except for "Write a note saying as much on their talk page" (as much as what?). NVO (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It has to mean "as much as {{Blocked}}"; I've tweaked the text to clarify. Block notification does not seem to happen consistently on Commons, is my impression. Rd232 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Veronidae

[89] I don't know what does it mean "guarandinga" in Spanish, but the user is uploading copyvios and Venezuela's currency files and I have to advertise him/her and he/she doesn't adequately answer --Ezarateesteban 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Worrying - vast range of small images all apparently "own work"... Certainly needs attention - probably from a good es speaker? Thanks for the info. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I offer to help her but without harassments Ezarateesteban 20:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

«Guarandinga» is a venezolan regionalism that means «thing»; nothing offensive. Which is not very civil is asking the user 'which psychotrauma has he & the entire project for a deletion'. I agree with Herby that the user needs guidance about Commons policy & procedures. Thanks. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 22:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jeffsorensen310

User Jeffsorensen310 (talk · contribs) has been uploading photographs belonging to news organizations/agencies, ignoring messages asking the user not to. --Ytoyoda (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuked images as copyvios. Left a warning. Please let me know if he tries again. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Saibo's keeps on renominating his own DRs

The admin Saibo (talk · contribs) renominates DRs without end, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:IR 17 on Mga Pozze.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Company No. 11 on Mte Chiesa.jpg (3rd time), Commons:Deletion requests/File:Slovenian pilots.jpg (3rd time). This is not constructive. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DRs should only be closed when issues have been fully resolved; re-opening in such cases is constructive. Judging by your comments in some of these cases, you think merely renominating is disruptive - well it isn't. The burden of proof for keeping images is on those who want to keep it, and if that has not been adequately demonstrated, then renominating is the right thing to do. As for "his own DRs" - well the initial nominator is often best placed to understand whether their concerns have been properly addressed, so we can't put some rule in place against this. Rd232 (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232. We have an established procedure (UnDR) for a user to request a rehearing of DRs that were closed as Deleted. The parallel procedure for those that are closed as Keep is to open a new DR. Prohibiting this would suggest that we make mistakes on Deletes but never on Keeps, which is absurd. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Every file marked with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} should be deleted. Should I mark them for deletion, and then when they get kept, mark them for deletion again? Part of the art of working in a group is knowing when to let something go, and when two separate admins have closed a file as a keep, it's time to let it go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In the first two cases, the DR was closed without admin comment, so that's hardly answering anything. I agree with Rd232 amd Prosfilaes. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: How would your react if I or Saibo nominated your anonymous uploads over and over again? Images like File:BTM 1916 WW1.jpg. I believe you would start swearing at me, and maybe worse. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And now Saibo renominates a few more of his failed DR. Too afraid to nominate File:BTM 1916 WW1.jpg? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just a game. Who really cares? One file down, twenty files up. NVO (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with renominating an image for deletion. I agree with Jim that a renomination is a valid recourse if one disagrees with a "keep". If there is a pattern of renominations that is arguably abusive (i.e. targeting a particular uploader, refusing to accept multiple well-reasoned "keeps", etc.), that is a legitimate concern. But the only substantive complaint here is that Saibo is renominating images, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. If there is a pattern of abuse/harassment here, please explain (and, BTW, generally disagreeing about how to demonstrate the PD status of old images is not a pattern of abuse). I disagree with Saibo's interpretation of {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, and I do think that at this point Saibo should bump up the discussion to a general one on the Village Pump rather than pursuing numerous DRs on the same contested issue. But simply pointing out that he is renominating images is a not by itself a valid/compelling ground of complaint. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Ahkka

Created account only to do serious mischief. Please see here and this! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The license tag at File:Western old town shore Stockholm.jpg is a bad feature of the 'derivative work' upload option. You request for speedy of File:Western old town shore Stockholm.jpg raises some questions regarding File:Southerly Clubs.jpg. You claim that it is not allowed to remove the logo from File:Southerly Clubs.jpg because the photo is not free? --Martin H. (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo is free, and covered by the OTRS, with the logo text but not without it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Free means Commons:Project scope#Required licensing terms, means free for modification, means it must be allowed to remove the logo, otherwise it is unfree. --Martin H. (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that - and (understandably?) wondered why someone would create an account only to do that. A known user with whom I am under a mutual interaction ban has complained about the image before and removed the same categories that "Ahkka" did. Should I withdraw the deletion request? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to this discussion. This is my side of the story: I noticed a picture in Category:Buildings in Södermalm which could be improved upon, and I did so. I did not create this account to do mischief, nor have I done any mischief. I did not create this account only to upload that file, I intend to remove other watermarks as soon as I can replace images with my account. And finally, I do not have an interaction ban with you or anyone else, nor do I wish to have one. Ahkka (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That comment suggests strongly that User:Ahkka is very experienced on Commons and that he or she is likely a sock. Without further explanation, I propose that one of us block the account. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat experienced on Commons and I have not tried to claim anywhere I am not (as you say, I made it obvious above). In other projects I have been active on it is not against the rules to have socks unless you abuse it, which I have not done and I have no intention of doing it. All I did was improve upon an image to make it useful for others. On my normal account I am not anonymous and when improving on others images I decided I do not wish to take credit in my name. If you cannot have more than one account on Commons then I sincerely apologize and will stop using this account. I have no intention of causing problems. Ahkka (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand your reason. It falls within the permitted uses of a second account, see WP:Multiple Accounts. As discussed there, please take care to stay within the rules.

Unless someone objects, I think we can close this. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK by me, with the reservation that "when improving on others images I decided I do not wish to take credit in my name" seems rather odd. When changing images uploaded by others, particularly when doing so mainly to remove categories, and even more particularly when the image is used on an OTRS template used on many other images, it would seem straightforward and maximally ethical to me to use one's "normal acount". But that's just one man's opinion. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Anaxibia

Hi, we have a post in ru-wiki noticeboard from a user, who claims, he is a real author of some images, that were uploaded by User:Anaxibia with an 'own' template. Examples: File:Emus hirtus.jpg vs. [90] and File:Корнеед-крестоносец.jpg vs. [91]. Since a lot of files uploaded by Anaxibia are already deleted as copyvio, a mass deletion of his files should be taken into consideration.--Abiyoyo (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see those two examples were speedy deleted. But the problem could be much deeper! Could someone please start a deletion nomination against all of Anaxibia's files (but no need to put a template on all of them), and then add a link from here? --99of9 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So someone eventually got permission from the original author, great. But this user's talk page is covered with warnings and copyvios. I suggest a decent block (1 month?) until lines of communication are open, and the user can identify all their existing copyvios for us. --99of9 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

One more user claimed wrong copyright of photos uploaded by Anaxibia: [92], [93]. I seggest deleting all pictures uploaded by user with his copyright. vlsergey (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jokodolog

Hello. This user still continues uploading copyvios despite being warned by Martin H. Please block him/her--Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have an eye on him. --Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MGA73

Hi, User:MGA73 has been informed again and again and again (p.e. in 2009 and several times in November/December 2011) referring to massively problems with his User:MGA73bot2. I thought we agreed in a categorisation 'system', i.e. all files of "India" related wiki's may been categorised by his bot as Category:Unidentified locations in India, but several times, MGA73 'forgot' to initialze his bot, again on December 18, 2011, for further 428 (!) files, of those i've 'fixed' around 250 beginning 20:19, 18. Dez. 2011 :-((((( Thank you for 'stopping' that 'form of co-operation' resulting in a lot, lot, lot of work to 'fix' that bot-'amok' again, again and again ... Best regards, Roland 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the bot causes trouble, the bot owner must fix it himself. But the problem here seems to be "Should files be categorized by a bot-guess that is maybe wrong?" rather than a user-problem. But if you offer to categorize India-realted images, MGA73 should not ignore this, I think. Maybe it is technical difficult. Please keep in mind that we are voluntary here. Be friendly and respectful. -- RE rillke questions? 23:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem. On MGA73 You refer to this edit with amok-categorization, why? The bot sorts the file into appropriate categories. Not the most specific categories as you did with your edit, but one or two level above the most specific category. The bot follows interwiki links the same way our other category bots do. The only thing I'd like to see is a {{Check categories}} to bring the files in the process of Category:Media needing category review like other files categorized by bots. From that categories you can pick out the India related files using catscan. --Martin H. (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Service: catscan, catscan 2.0 -- RE rillke questions? 23:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That categorization bot is often adding far too many categories. It dumps loads of files in a few categories, which makes these categories unuseable. Limit the number of categories to at most two or three. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm not ignoring problems. My bot uses the same script as all other pywikipedia bot uses. I think it is very nice that Roland helps categorizing files related to India but I think he is very impatient and more hostile than needed.

To begin with I let the bot suggest the categories and I do not remember what we talked about in 2009. It was first in november 2011 that we found out that adding Category:Unidentified locations in India would be a help for Roland. After that I let a few other categories that looked relevant to me stay along with the Category:Unidentified locations in India as a service to make it easier for him to find the right category. As you can see on my talk page that made him "very upset" so I stopped that service and now only add Category:Unidentified locations in India.

At the moment I'm moving a lot of files from enwiki. I have moved about 2.000 in the last few days from the US, Australia etc. and as it happend 400+ was related to India. If I had noticed that I would have left a notice to Roland that the files was comming and that it would be easy for me to fix if he would let the files stay for a few hours.

Sadly Roland started working on the files before my bot had moved all the files and I found out that they were related to India. If he had informed me after 1, 2 or 3 files it would have been easy to fix.

Now the problem is now that I can easily move all the files to Category:Unidentified locations in India but that will also remove the categories that he added. So fixing it now will be much harder.

I'll see what can be done but it will probably take more than a few minutes. --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is only 16 files that Roland (or someone else) has not fixed. I moved them manually. 1 was not related to India and perhaps a few of the other 15 are also not related to India. --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:PereslavlFoto, User:A.Savin

1

Multiple edit warring in subcats of Category:Pereslavl-Zalessky (example 1, example 2, example 3). He/she seems to have the opinion that a «Category:Streets in xxx» has to be a subcat of «Category:Buildings in xxx» which is nonsense since both describe different subjects and belong to different category trees. Thanks, A.Savin 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have an opinion that, if a category contains only buildings, it has to be in Buildings category tree. An obvious group for buildings is a street. In the meantine A.Savin takes the categories of buildings and transfers them into Streets category tree, while there were no street images in those categories. Also A.Savin does not want to discuss the case on his discussion page, using to revert the questions and to keep silence about his reasons.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And the vandalism goes on. A.Savin 22:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly: the photos of buildings, not streets, are transferred by you into category of streets, and this is the exact sample of incorrect action. Why is it so, could you please explain? And what stopped you from explaining this in Russian forum page of Commons?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is fully legitime to have an image of a building which is located at a certain street in both the category for buildings and the category for this certain street. This and additionally this one is indeed nonsense since the image was correctly categorized and if you have the opinion that a certain category is not needed you should open a regular DR. So, if there is really no other admin with a neutral opinion on the whole story, I will must pull an emergency brake, since there is danger in delay somewhat. A.Savin 22:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Хорошо, давайте помещать эти здания и в категорию зданий, и в категорию улиц. Почему же вы убирали категорию зданий? Почему вы размещали здания в категориях улиц, если никаких улиц там не изображено?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You ignore that here is an English speaking board. So, you claim in the comment just above that I used to categorize images incompletely by omiting the building categories. This is slander since I try to categorize images completely. Just take an example on one of your files: here I added all categories that are needed for this particular file. The file obviously depicts a wooden house which is located in Pereslavl at the Lesnoy Lane. So, after my edit, the file had became 4 relevant categories: Buildings in Pereslavl-Zalessky, Wooden architecture in Yaroslavl Oblast (since Pereslavl is located in the Yaroslavl Oblast and there is (yet) no category "Wooden architecture in Pereslavl-Zalessky"), Wooden houses in Russia, and Lesnoy lane (Pereslavl). Where shall I have added incomplete categories to your files? A.Savin 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I am speaking to a Russian-speaking user, so everything's clear to you. -- On this very file the "Buildings in Pereslavl-Zalessky" cat is useless, because this file is only a part of some group of buildings at Lesnoy lane. So those several files from Lesnoy lane have to be collected in a whole group, and that group has to be included in "Buildings". I cannot see no street image there, this is why I cannot put those photos into "streets" category tree. So I will repeat my uestion once again, please: why do you put buildings images into streets category, while there are no image of the street? Why do you oppose putting the "Lesnoy lane" cat into "Buildings in Pereslavl-Zalessky", as the cat contains only buildings? Why do you put it into "Streets in Pereslavl-Zalessky", while there are nothing in common with any street? Why do you create these incorrect categories?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And why do you create empty "street categories" that contain only buildings sub-category, without any street images?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

An image of a house which is located at Lesnoy Lane is of course also an image of Lesnoy Lane. I hope that it is nearly as clear as the fact that an image of, say, Saint Basil's Cathedral, even if it depicts just a window fragment or a particular tower, is also an image of Red Square and has to be included there too (although in this special case Category:Saint Basil's Cathedral is already included there so there is no need for explicit categorization in Category:Red Square, but that's not the point). And no, I am not creating empty categories. A category has not necessarily to include files if it includes at least one subcat with media files. A.Savin 23:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So you think all the category tree of "Buildings" cannot be used in the settlements, where any building will stay somewhere on the street. And you think the images of streets in the street category do not have to show any street at all. But how can Category:Buildings in Russia by city exist then?!--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot follow this argumentation. I have just the opinion (and I am surely not alone with this) that an image of a building which is located at a certain street has to be included in 1) a category for buildings and 2) if exists, the category for this street; no matter in which level (i.e., a such category is OK provided that it is included in both trees by itself; a state that you have not to disturb). A.Savin 00:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Now you think the group of buildings has to be included both in Buildings tree and Streets tree (while there is nothing in common with the streets)? Why did you ignored this proposal before, when I set the groups of buildings in both trees, trying to find a common thought with you?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See the town buildings grouping with the Buildings category tree. [94] [95] [96] You always removed Building super-category from this group of buildings, without any reason.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

2

There is an independent user who says those images grouped by streets are to be both in streets and buildings category tree. Why did you ignore his comment? Why did you remove buildings upper category from those buildings categories?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not think I ever said that the category Streets in xxx should be a subcat of a category Buildings in xxx. I have not looked at Pereslavl cats though, may be there is a simple solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

General question is, how to group buildings? Can I group buildings into the streets categories? As far as I see now, I cannot: this will lead to the Streets category tree, but without any streets images.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

3

I would like to underscore that A.Savin prefers threatening (and dirty speech like "slander") instead of explaining his mind.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Which is a wrong assumption that lives more in your head than in reality. A.Savin 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So why did not you answer to the question about your reasons to group buildings into street categories, while there are no street images?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See my comment above. A.Savin 23:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What stopped you from making this answer in Russian in Форум page?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is my right to choose if I will discuss in the fairly low frequented Russian forum or here. A.Savin 00:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So we see you did not want to explain your reasons to me, but only to ignore my reasons.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

FFS Grow up the pair of you. Find a compromise. I'm sure two intelligent individuals can do that, it's not very difficult. This isn't a competition in which there's a winner. Either you both compromise or you both walk away and go find something else to do. Squabbling like two kids isn't going to help the project one little bit. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) It's not just "two of you". Pereslavlfoto had pissed of quite a bunch of people here, and evolved into a certified troll. No AGF left. A compromise? A twenty-four month block, at least, and a clean-up of all this mess. NVO (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your edit warring immediately. It is unproductive and clutters edit histories. Insure that your edits are consistent with the guidance of COM:CAT. If you can't agree, then ask another editor to comment. But continued edit warring will only lead to blocks for both of you. ---Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You should realize that it is the User PereslavlFoto who started this kind of nonsense with categorizing streets as buildings and uncategorizing streets as streets. Just look at diff links at the top of the thread. All what I did is trying to get some order in the Category:Pereslavl-Zalessky which was, since PereslavlFoto actively upload images there, full of wrongly and/or incompletely categorized images. A user who places value on guidelines like Wikipedia:Civility would perhaps thank me for the job, but PereslavlFoto seems to consider the whole category as his/her personal property and not to tolerate any help by more experienced users. A.Savin 11:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How can I group buildings other than by their address? There were no images of streets in these groups. Other categories that have images of streets (say, Category:Pokrovskaya street (Pereslavl-Zalessky)) are categorized in Streets tree, but the category without any street image (say, Category:Lesnoy lane (Pereslavl)) cannot be placed into Streets tree.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's check the samples of my uncategorizing streets as streets: [97] [98] [99] - [100] [101] [102] - [103] [104] - [105] [106] - You may see my horrible "categorizing streets as buildings and uncategorizing streets as streets" with your eyes.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A fine compilation. But don't forget the second "part" [107] [108] [109] [110]. A.Savin 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please give me the image in that Buildings category showing any street? There are none. The category is about buildings, not about any street.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This argumentation by you is rather similar to what Russians call «Fairy tale about a little white bull». A.Savin 17:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Again no serious answer from yours.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A change in modus operandi: earlier, PereslavlFoto harrasses other editors through cherry-picked deletion requests. Sometimes, it backfired. This time, PereslavlFoto creates barely sensible categories like Category:Buildings at Lesnoy lane (Pereslavl) and then nominates their legitimate parents like Category:Lesnoy lane (Pereslavl) for deletion "because there are no images of any street". If it's not pointy behavior then what is it? And then this vandalism grows in scope. If PereslavlFoto vandalized only the pages related to their home town, I wouldn't really care. But now it spreads over to other towns (see their "contributions" made around midnight UTC Dec. 19/20. Told once, told twice, - no reaction. NVO (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not true. I made DRs and will make DRs because of absence of FOP in Russia. Shall you ask for my reasons at my discussion page, I would explain this to you. When have you told me that clearing the overcrowded categories by making more precise categories is not correct?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just desist from categorizing, for god's sake? --Ghirlandajo (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? If you see any practical mistake, please help me to understand it, please explain it to me in Russian in my talk page. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Because your categorization efforts lead to an ungodly mess, as has been explained above. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The speech above is about one special case. What are the reasons to make "Street" category without any street images? Why do we need to remove photos of buildings from "Buildings" category tree, as A.Savin proposes?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Forget it. PF always will protect her "theory" how to categorize correctly and not the usual practice in categorizing on Commons. And if one has the courage to contradict, harassments and disturbances are to follow immediately. This is never ever random that PF "votes" in my DRs without much competence straight after editwarring in Pereslavl categories [111] [112] [113] [114]. A.Savin 13:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"This is never ever random" — could you please avoid predicting and explaining my reasons? I do respect the rules, and why don't you do this?.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Closure

I don't have the strength to read all of the claims and counterclaims above -- what a waste of time. It seems to me very simple. A building (or its category) should be in its primary category. Example

File:R. H. Stearns Building Boston MA.jpg is in Category:Buildings in Boston.
Category:Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Boston is in Category:Episcopal churches in Boston which is a sub-sub-sub cat of Category:Buildings in Boston.

In cases like this, where the street has many important buildings on it, it is appropriate to have a separate category for the street, so both are also in Category:Tremont Street (Boston, Massachusetts) along with many other images and categories of buildings and other things located on Tremont Street.

So, as I said, it's simple. A building belongs in its best category. If the street on which it is located has three or more important buildings on it, then there can also be a category for all the buildings on the street. Anything different seems incorrect to me.

I suggest that the two of you settle down and work together on that basis. I would be happy to arbitrate any problems you have, but please understand that I will not tolerate the sort of back and forth mud-slinging you have above -- one or both of you will be blocked. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a pity that you decided not to read the arguments since (i) you would then clearly see who implements the policies and who is just trolling; (ii) that gives a signal to all problematic users that once they are accused in violation of policies they should just "mud-sling" as much as they can - and chances are the accuser will be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that I would not look hard at new behavior before considering a block -- just that there is too much back and forth above to wade through it all. Since you obviously have an opinion, it would be a good thing if you told us. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, A.Savin is correct, and PereslavlFoto has, to put it mildly, unconventional views concerning the categorization, and whereas he has some useful ideas, he fails to communicate these ideas to A.Savin, resorting to personal attacks and stalking instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Block threats to everyone concerned are a poor way of dealing with the issue. The closing admin failed to understand that it's not the conflict of PereslavlFoto vs. A.Savin but it's the conflict of PereslavlFoto vs. the entire Russian-language community. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The "entire community" kept silence in Commons:Форум when I asked there. So please don't speak for the "entire community", this looks strange. Could you please explain the correct categorizing of buildings? The issue is, why buildings have to stay out of "Buildings" category tree.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a typical behavior for "neutral" admins here, despite the fact that the issue is submitted in English language and every user with a minimum of knowledge in categorization should actually realize who is just trolling here. A.Savin 13:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to stop personal attacks and return to the main topic. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Commons is an independent project and not something like Mr. Putin's empire, so please accept that criticism on someone's activity is not immediately a personal attack. A.Savin 18:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I strongly recommend everyone involved to move to Flickr - a troll free zone. Almost. There's no point in wasting time on a site run by people who side with Fernrohrs and Pereslavlfotos. NVO (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

?? @User:A.Savin I am having a polite conversation on my talk page with PereslavlFoto where he put forth a Cat tree that I don't like -- I told him why -- and he responded with another polite comment describing his reasoning. I have commented further there. So far with him I have seen what I think is a poor idea, but good communication.

On the other hand, you, A.Savin just said, "Unfortunately, this is a typical behavior for "neutral" admins here". Since I haven't sided with anyone here, this comment is both incorrect about my behavior in particular and, I think, of my Admin colleagues in general, including you. I walked into this mudbath with no preconceptions of who is right and who is wrong, and so far, it looks like on the issue A.Savin is probably right, but on behavior, he or she is not doing so well.

It seems probable that PereslavlFoto was incorrect in his categorization and possible that he or she behaved badly in the past. Unless, of course, someone thinks past behavior rises to the level of banning from Commons, I think the only thing that should count is behavior in the future.

Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I cannot follow what is your problem with my comment above. The reaction of some admins including you in this thread was indeed somewhat shallow (compare to Wsiegmund: "But continued edit warring will only lead to blocks for both of you"). I do understand if non-Russian speaking admins have few interest to deal with this particular issue, there are surely more important tasks on Commons, but then they should not comment here at all instead of threatening users whose actions are not against any policy of the project. A.Savin 18:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)