User talk:EurovisionNim/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
File:FP 2230.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

1989 04:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files

čeština  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  français  galego  italiano  magyar  Nederlands  Nederlands (informeel)‎  polski  português  sicilianu  slovenčina  svenska  Türkçe  suomi  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  മലയാളം  日本語  中文  עברית  فارسی  +/−


I noticed that you uploaded a file using the same name as another file, which already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you. For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked Indefinitely
Blocked Indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.
See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

azərbaycanca  català  čeština  Deutsch  English  español  français  hrvatski  Bahasa Indonesia  italiano  kurdî  la .lojban.  magyar  Nederlands  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  sicilianu  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  македонски  русский  українська  हिन्दी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ไทย  မြန်မာဘာသာ  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Same behavior as always. Violation of COM:OVERWRITE, nominating the file again for deletion. Enough is enough. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

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

Request reason: "My apologies for my behaviour. I only thought it would be helpful. The only reason I wanted to do this is because the file that was existing was because it would make it easier for everyone to view it. My files that I uploaded were all mine and then I thought it would be helpful because what I intended to do is build up the photos that I photographed and use it for the site. I do not upload my files for nothing I always am intending to use this in the Wikipedia articles. I would like to apologise for my highly disruptive behaviour but I am young and only immature so I need you or another administrators to mentor me as I am only young and really unstable."
Decline reason: "I'm somewhat disapproving of this block, as 1) COM:OVERWRITE concerns have not been an issue the user has been warned about in the past (i.e., this is not continued disruptive behavior about which the user has been warned) and all appear to have been made in good faith (all have been the user's own uploads and all have been improvements in quality), albeit some improper per that guideline; and 2) the linked "nominating the file again for deletion" above occurred before the last block. Indeed, I actually don't see any disruptive behavior since the expiration of the last block; I would hope @Steinsplitter: could elaborate on the issues deserving of a block that have occurred since then. Perhaps I missed something. That said, you seem to have shot yourself in the foot; I’m hard pressed to unblock an editor who admits to being "immature" and "unstable." I’m thus declining the request for the moment, as the implication is that you lack the maturity to participate in a collaborative environment. Эlcobbola talk 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch  English  español  français  hrvatski  magyar  Plattdüütsch  português  Simple English  Tiếng Việt  suomi  svenska  македонски  русский  हिन्दी  日本語  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  中文(臺灣)  +/−

elcobbola, see this and this. And it seems not his upload; an old file when no {{Information}} available. But I hope he will improve along with his age and if mentored by a wise man. Jee 02:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the relevance of those edits, Jkadavoor? Those are both from September 2014, and EurovisionNim was blocked for them (or others like them.) He was last blocked for three months on 19. October 2014; between when that block expired (19. January 2015) and when Steinsplitter indef'ed him (22. January 2015), EurovisionNim made no disruptive edits. Thus, as I say above, this new indef block--the one for which he is requesting an unblock--has no substantiation. You need to pay attention to dates. Эlcobbola talk 02:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oops; I missed the month, probably Steinsplitter too. :( Jee 04:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: : I missed the month indeed. But there is still the overwrite issues. But feel free to unblock. Please remember that we are all volunteers and doing this here in our free time, so you can't think that all actions are 100% okay, further we are humans and not robots. I have made ~75000 admin actions here on commons, it isn't' possible to do all without errors... --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Unblocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I'm not sure where this is coming from. I know no one is perfect, least of all me. Nothing above was meant to scold or berate; indeed, "perhaps I missed something" was meant sincerely, not sarcastically. In any case, EurovisionNim is extremely lucky to be unblocked; I hope s/he realizes leeway has now been exhausted and will edit accordingly. Эlcobbola talk 16:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock on EN Wikipedia

Hi EurovisionNim, you asked to be unblocked on en.wikipedia and you also removed your request on my talk page. But you did give a big reason to be blocked there at en:User talk:EncMstr. So at this point you need to give me more convincing reasons that you will benefit by being unblocked. Perhaps you need to await a term break. I was going to suggest alternatives, but the best alternative seems to be to concentrate in class! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thankyou for your help but I would benefit being unblocked because I want to add my photos onto Wikipedia to be used and I think I can concentrate in class by only making edits during break. I actually would like to make some good faith edits on Wikipedia. Could you please change the block to a maximum of two months if you can with the autoblock disabled please - Nim Bhharathhan (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

OK block changed to 2 months and you can edit anonymously in the mean time. You will disclose your IP address, so only do it if you have no concerns about this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)