Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems: Difference between revisions

Shortcut: COM:AN/U

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~45
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No source since 7 August 2024: ~1
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2024-08: ~71

Other:

• Duplicates: ~5
• Advertisements/spam: ~2
• Personal photos/selfies: ~20
• Other speedy deletions: ~53
• Categories for discussion: 84 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~1
• Undeletion requests: ~6

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~5
• Interface admin: ~16
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~3
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

User:Fry1989

User:Fry1989 has first emptied the categories Category:State emblem of Mongolia and Category:Emblems of Mongolia, then put them up for deletion. I have voiced my opinion on that topic here Commons:Categories for discussion/2011/08/Category:State emblem of Mongolia. When I restored his file removal for example here File:Coat of Arms of Mongolia.svg, the edit was undone with the comment "I don't give a crap what you think regarding the proper name of what this symbol is, you are making it harder to find". This is not in order. User should refrain from unilaterally emptying categories and putting them up for deletion when the opposite of his argument is quite clear, and especially avoid offensive language before issues are settled, which IMO is quite clear, see name of article here Emblem of Mongolia. Gryffindor (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you go through the history, Gryffindor created the Categories "Emblems of Mongolia" and "State Emblem of Mongolia", and only put two files in it, the SVG and one non-SVG version of Mongolia's national emblem (at the same time removing them from "Coat of Arms fo Mingolia"). He made them harder to find, and I reverted him back to the long-standing consensus and common practice of "Coat of Arms of". Gryffindor then unilaterally tried to enforce his opinion by removing ALL of Mongolia's national symbols, current and historical, from the "Coat of Arms of" and put them in his new cats. You may not like my language (which is hardly harsh), but Gryffindor unilateral attempts to enforce his view of what the category should be called, over functionality and ease of use, are the real problem here. If he was really interested in consensus, why didn't he set up a discussion and possible re-name of the category "Coat of Arms of Mongolia", rather then bypassing that process, creating his own hard-to-find categories, and unilaterally removing everything from where people would look, and putting it in a place that is harder? Fry1989 ^eh? 18:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be of note, that I have no objection if the "Coat of Arms of Mongolia" cat was renamed, but Gryffindor's insistance of bypassing that process deliberatly made the emblems of Mongolia more difficult to find. We have a category "Coat of arms by country". That is the master category to find national symbols, and within that category is the sub-cat "Coat of Arms of Mongolia". That is where people would look. But because of Gryffindor's actions, they would instead have to go through "Mongolia"-"Symbols of Mongolia"-"Emblems of Mongolia"-"State Emblem of Mongolia". A lot more tedius and unneccesary process. Lastly, his claim that users shouldn't "unilaterally empty categories" is a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because that is exactly what he did, and the history will prove it. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A subcategory is not "harder to find". It looks like "Coats of arms of Mongolia" is being used for coats of arms of the various subdivisions as well, so a category for the specific national coat of arms seems reasonable to me. Much like "Great Seal of the United States" is a subcategory of "Seals of the United States". And if its proper name is the "state emblem" and not a "coat of arms", it would seem to be correctly named as well. Not sure about the more general "emblems of mongolia", but if it's not technically a coat of arms, maybe the emblems is more appropriate alongside the coats of arms category, all under "Symbols of Mongolia". There is not guaranteed to be a "coats of arms of XXXX" category everywhere; "Symbols of XXX" is generally the standard place you'd start from. I'd agree with Gryffindor here I think. The edit comment sounds inappropriate... just because you disagree, that does not mean your idea of what the "proper" category name is should take precedent. Using proper categorization, if it's not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category -- this is why there is a more generic "Symbols" level above it, under which it should easily be found whatever it is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It does make it harder if you're looking for a national symbol via "Coat of Arms by country", and it's not there. What's worse, some countries aren't even listed there, such as Japan, since their national emblem is the Imperial Seal. Do you know what I mean? If we're gonna have a master category for national symbols, then every country should be there. Gryffindor wants to use the article page for Mongolia's emblem as reasoning for his new category, but ignores that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms shows every country's symbol, whether it's officially a coat of arms or not, which is good reasoning for having every nation's symbols listed in "Coat of Arms by country". Fry1989 ^eh? 03:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're looking for a symbol, start in Category:Symbols of Mongolia. If something is not a coat of arms, it should not be in a coat of arms category, even if that happens to be the place you happen to habitually look for -- you're looking in the wrong place. Not all such symbols are coats of arms; the gallery page you indirectly link to notes for each one when it's an "emblem" vs a "coat of arms". Coats of arms typically have some heraldic aspects and are defined by blazons; some countries may use an emblem which does not have those characteristics, so they aren't always the same thing. If a country has no coats of arms specific to it, then you would expect there to not be an entry under "Coats of arms by country" for them. If you are determined to make a convenience link, maybe make "Emblems of Mongolia" a subcat of "Coats of arms of Mongolia" (using a more generic definition maybe), but do try to educate people that it is not properly a coat of arms by making the categorization accurate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand all that. But you're missing the point I'm trying to make. Anyhow, I'll let it go. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Fry1989 is certainly not playing a positive role on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, where he seems to take perverse delight in throwing around loose and inflammatory rhetoric on a subject that he actually knows very little about. He actually has a certain basic point about not usually overwriting images with other images of different meaning (though this is certainly not an inviolable absolute) -- however, he undermines his own efforts and pointlessly and needlessly exacerbates the overall situation by placing ignorant biased nonsense in his edit summaries (something which I really wish he wouldn't do). AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That issue is addressed on my talk page. I have not thrown around any "inflamatory rhetoric", I have laid out the truth. I will not respond to that issue anymore, as it is dealt with (on my talk page). As for the original start of this AN/U, I have only reverted Gryffindor's edits which he is trying to force without discussions. It's a case of Do as I say, not as I do, because everything he accuses me of doing, he has done himself (unilateral removals of files from their categories, over-categorization by creating more categories than neccesary), and all I've done is revert his controversial and unilateral edits. He responds, rather then by trying to engage in a discussion or compromise, but rather continue to push his edits to get his way. He's tried forcing himself with the Emblem of Mongolia, now he's trying to force himself with the Emblem of Israel/Coat of Arms of Israel debate, as well as the Symbols of National Legislatures. All in all, he has forced his personal view of "it's not a coat of arms, so it can't be in any categories with that in it's title no matter what", over the objection of another user. When that user tried to engage him in conversation, hye ignores it and pushes his way anyways. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Zionism over-writing history"[sic] is the very definition of loose and inflammatory rhetoric (especially when the "historical" basis of what was over-written was extremely dubious at best), and your most recent upload summary on that file wasn't much better... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you say. The facts speak for themselves. Two Israeli users have disrespected a user's personal map meant for the use only by Palestinians/Arabs and Palestine supporters. I don't seen any Palestinians or Arabs doing that to flag maps using the Israeli flag. So which side is the offender? It's pretty clear. Per my talk, the only way problems can be avoided is if both sides respect each other's maps. That is what I am maintaining, whether you like my edit summaries or not. Oh, and if you wanna talk about exacerbating a debate, go ahead and continue to claim you know the state of other people's minds, like you did on my page. What was it you said? "You take personal pleasure in..." I believe? Or how about "..on an subject you really no little about"? Yes, I'm sure it really helps a conversation to claim you can read your debator's mind. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And if you want the subject to be general policies on image overwriting rather than your personal behavior, then you really need to tone down aspects of that behavior effective immediately, as I already told you. I made the deduction that you know very little about the subject from your rather ineffectual and often irrelevant replies in a discussion which you've already deleted from your user talk page, and I made the deduction that you seem to take some kind of pleasure in being offensive from the fact that after I complained about your first offensive upload summary, you went right ahead with a second offensive upload summary. Believe me, I would be happy if these deductions were proved to be wrong! AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Deductions? More like accusations, the way you throw it around. And what you consider offensive isn't always offensive to everyone. Did you ever consider that I feel what I have said accurately reflected the situation? I'm not doing it for shock value, that's not my style. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, things will proceed much smoother with respect to this file as long as you stick to statements on general image overwriting policies -- while keeping any forceful expressions of your personal ideology (whatever that may be) firmly in the background... AnonMoos (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"Which side is the offender" is a horrible question. We don't want to encourage editors to split up into sides, and you can and should correct editors without tossing "offender" at them. Furthermore, "Zionism over-writing history" is even worse than the question, since it goes beyond the behavior of editors on Commons and starts accusing a political movement of tampering with history, which is a pretty incendiary charge. Whether or not you feel what you've said accurately reflected the situation is irrelevant; it threw fuel on a constantly troubled situation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As for Arab ideological manipulations with maps, I caught the first-uploaded version of Image:Samou-battle-1966-map.png having an Arabic label فلسطين المحتلة "Occupied Palestine" on the territory of 1949-1967 Israel -- however, the uploader was quite helpful and polite when I pointed this out (conspicuously unlike Fry1989...). Anyway, Fry1989 overlooks the sensitive issue of aggressive irredentism (among other sensitive issues) -- I wonder how much he would like a map of all of North America overlaid with the stars and stripes, under the title "Flag map of historic United States". -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Irredentism is not my concern (and your example of North America covered in the Stars & Stripes is beyond silly. I wouldn't give a damn, as long as American users leave my flag map of Canada alone. Nevermind how many of those maps I do see on the net all the time, of Americans wanting to annex Canada, Mexico, other places. You ever heard of the "Manifest Destiny" theory?) Unless you want to ban all flag maps that don't reflect the current reality or claim lands that aren't part of that country, then my example of Serbia & Kosovo (per my talk page) is the example that should be used for Israel and Palestine. And yes, this is a case of one side being the offender. It was two Serbs who kept reverting trying to force the Serbia flag map to include Kosovo, and now it's two Israelis trying to get ride of a map of the entire disputed area using the Palestinian flag. You may not like my choice of words, but the actions of these users make the situation clear enough. And if I or some Arab user had over-written the Flag map of Israel with the Palestinian flag, don't pretend for one second that I/they wouldn't be called vandals, Anti-Israeli, and trying to force our POV of the situation. It shouldn't be any different when an Israeli does it to a Palestinian flag map. In any case, File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png has been uploaded separately, so the issue is now over, as long as they leave their opposing side's maps alone (again, as Serbia and Kosovo). Now, if you want an apology for my choice of words, then fine, you get one.I'm sorry for how I said what I said. But I want one from Anonmoos, who has claimed to know the state of my mind, and accused of me getting some sort of peverse pleasure from shock value tactics. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of simple historical fact, Kosovo has been part of Serbia in the past, while as a matter of simple historical fact the flag shown in File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg has never flown over all the territory included in the map at any date in history -- which is why a significant number of people consider such images to be a malicious blatant transparent lie at best, and an aggressive declaration of war against the existence of the Israeli and/or Jewish people at worst. This makes the image a sensitive issue to start with (whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not), and you did not handle such sensitive issues sensitively, but quite the reverse. I've uploaded several images in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical, but they're all historically accurate and appropriate (though I suppose it would be possible to quibble about the neutral zones in File:Iraq-flag-map 1959-1963.svg), while File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg is neither, and would not be suitable to be included in Category:SVG_maps_incorporating_flags_-_Historical if it were an SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying either map with either flag is actually accurate, and I never did. Now, my words can be misconstrued to suggest that, but it wasn't the intent. What I did say once on my talk page was "more historic in the sense", but I didn't say it was outright accurate. Either way, unless you want to ban flag maps because they're irredentist, then the Serbia-Kosovo flag-map conflict is the example to follow. I'm still waiting on your apology Anonmoos btw, considering I gave mine. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's nice that you're softening your position somewhat, but it comes much too late in the whole current brou-ha-ha to greatly change my opinion of you based on this incident (or based on the last several years of often-contentious interactions with you). If it makes you feel better, I freely admit that I have no evidence that you were maliciously trolling, as opposed to putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way without regard to the consequences, or paying much attention to issues which other people might consider to be important. AnonMoos (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerning File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg: Commons is no place for personal points of view, we just display facts, we don't make facts! And it is a fact, that the palestine flag does not cover the whole British mandated territory. a×p_de^Hello! 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the solution has already been made. File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg and File:Flag Map of Historic Israel.png both exist. Unless you're going to delete them both, I cannot allow the Israeli POV map to stay the way it is while the Palestinian POV map is removed. I hate double-standards more than anything else. So either delete them both, or let the users keep their maps and their points of view. I don't care which you do, but no double-standards. As for your talk page, you didn't say you didn't need hints at things on you watchlist, you said "I don't need additional watchlists(sic)", which reads as "I have enough things on my watchlist, I don't need more things to be involved in". Fry1989 ^eh? 00:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

(With double edit conflict!!)

Hmmm, good point. As said before, commons doesn't make facts. Both flags/maps are intented to manifest a certain personal point of view and to provoke the other side. File deleted! a×p_de^Hello! 01:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I know exactly what I wrote, and I still don't need you to be my additional watchlist. As you might know this is "Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems" and I'm an administrator! And I'm not responsible for your missinterpretation! a×p_de^Hello! 01:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. Anyhow, if they're both gone, then I am no longer concerned in the matter. My only intent was ever to First: protect a user's file from a complete over-write to support the opposing POV (which I consider an abuse), and then Second, stop any double standards. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that any POV is bad for the reputatioin of commons. Commons has to strictly respect the NPOV! a×p_de^Hello! 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Axpde -- We can definitely host irredentist maps here, but they need to be clearly labelled as irredentist (and not as "historic" if they're obviously not historic), and they need to express the views of some notable individual or group (and not be merely the personal views of the image uploader)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said several times before, the one that's correctly "historic" is File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.svg; the User:Maher27777 version of File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg would be more accurate and less offensive if it were under a name such as "Map of Palestinian Arab territorial aspirations" or whatever. Anyway, as a result of the file uploading and re-uploading on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg, Arabic Wikipedia has changed over from that image to File:Flag map of Palestine.svg, which I regard as a positive step... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

---

It pains me to say this, as Fry has never been anything other than gracious when I've contacted him, but I'm extremely disappointed with the way he has acted lately on his talk page. Although I don't believe AnonMoos is entirely blameless, especially with his most recent edit, but Fry's response of blanking the discussion with far from complimentary edit summaries bears mentioning here, in case it was missed. Here are the three, oldest first:

[1] [2] [3]

Apologies if this is out of turn. I'm not sure if this is the correct medium, so I apologise if not. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 21:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't care so much about his removing comments by me from his user talk page as such, but it can be one manifestation of his general personal infallibility syndrome, which is definitely rather annoying overall. Part of the reason why we don't have too much patience with each other is lingering bad feelings over Fry1989's complete refusal to acknowledge -- over a period of years -- very obvious basic simple facts about Commons policies, such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive. Most recently, we're in a strange "war" at Image:Gay_flag.svg, where Fry1989 is re-uploading an old file version by me, and is again refusing to acknowledge basic facts (and nominated File:Gay-flag-thumbnails-magnified-hairline-cracks.gif for deletion because it provides factual evidence that he was wrong)... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have apologized and acknowledged my faults countless times with other users (look above, is that not an apology??????). I also have no problem getting along with others. Look at my talk page, it's full of "pleases" and "thank yous" and me having conversations with other users about changes I've made, and us taking a look at them. Perhaps Anonmoos should "get it" (as he has said to me before) that his personal approach towards me is rude, presumptive, arrogant, carries an air of superiority, and turns me off of having any conversation with him. He has yelled at me, he has called me names, he has questioned my intelligence, the emotional state of my mind, and my personal motives in my work here countless times in over a year. He has called my work "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", and he has claimed I have a personal infallibility syndrome. These are not the words of somebody who wants to get along and talk with you, it's the words of someone who wants to talk over you. All I'm asking for is an apology. Why is that so hard for him? I believe it's because he actually believes he is better then me. The way he addresses me shows such disdain that I simply can not engage with him anymore. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As a third party, it seems clear to me that AnonMoos is more experienced with vector graphics than either I or Fry - I would never have noticed the double-fill issue, for instance - and Fry's refusal to acknowledge improvements to files because they've been edited by him seems needlessly obstructive. However, whether or not it is understandable due to previous communications they've had, I cannot say. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - wikipedia} 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

NikNaks, he has abused me for too long, it's been over a year now. I simply will not allow it to happen anymore. Once he apologizes for how he addresses me, and the abuse stops, only then will I engage with him in any sort. It would be so incredibly easy for me to make a list of his systematic abuse and seek punishment. The only reason I don't is I'm not that petty. But I warn him if he reads this: If it continues much more, I may change my mind. Nobody should have to deal with what I have for as long as I have, and have him get away with it. If I had done what he has to another user, I have absolutely no question I would be punished, possibly even banned. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I told you early on that your revisions to the file had introduced internally-inconsistent color specifications, and opened the way towards possible hairline cracks (don't feel like trying to retrieve those comments from the morass of deletions that is your user talk page), and you simply ignored those concerns when I first expressed them, and when I presented objective factual evidence that hairline cracks were in fact present, your response was to try to get the evidence deleted (unfortunately, all too typical of your tendencies to often completely ignore and refuse to acknowledge in any way clear objective facts, such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive, etc. etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor: Fry1989 Edit Warring

I hope someone can point me in the right direction I'm having a problem with an Editor Fry1989 ^eh? who's edit warring w/ me on a file I've uploaded File:Transnistria Air Force Roundel.svg I'm not sure where to report this kind of activity. Any help would be surly appreciated, a million thanks Jetijones (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• See also this DR. NVO (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

  DR closed because the reason provided does not apply. a×p_de^Hello! 07:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I must say, Fry does seem to be raising a lot of hackles recently, and I think it would be in everyone's interest if he just calmed down. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you guys its seems he has ceased his harassment of the file. Side note he was recently Blocked on Wikipedia 24hrs for Edit warring. It might be a ideal thing to give him a reminder, to play fair here too. Jetijones (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I upload protected the file for a month. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanx Matt Jetijones (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I went to bed. Jetijones ignores other sources because he likes to force his own favourite sources. There are plenty of pics showing the Estonian roundel as the triangle pointing downwards. 1, 2, 3, and 4 shows it both ways. But there is already File:Roundel of the Estonian Air Force port side.svg in his prefered orientation, so why he wants to force himself on File:Roundel of the Estonian Air Force.svg is beyond me. So it is actually him who is abusing the Estonian roundel, because he says "per sources!", but ignores when somebody have sources that show it a different way. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well Fry only one problem with your four photos they all show the Estonian insignia on the wings, and on your last photo it shows the insignia in the right-side angle, on the fuselage. Furthermore, this is also the case for the Hungarian Air Force roundel seen here, and here. So I guess Hungarian roundel is WRONG as well ehhh?? I'll leave at that cause I know this is not the page to discuss such things . Jetijones (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is this: One, there's already a file with your choice of orientation, so you shouldn't force yourself on the others, and second, the wings are a source for roundel orientation as well. Look at Canada's roundel. It has the maple leaf facing upwards on the fuselage, and "forwards" on the wings. Many other countries are that way too. You should have used the other file of your choice of orientation, then this never would have happened. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

After warning by Mattbuck he continued the edit war, blocked for one day! a×p_de^Hello! 16:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm, the edit war was a revert war, and I fully protected the image... what did he war this time? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring, attitude take your pick, either way it's good thing to give the guy a some cool down time. Jetijones (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos

I am creating this AN/U to report the recent abuse from Anonmoos towards myself. He has been attacking me, my contributions, and my state of mind, and refuses to apologize for it.

Septembre 2, 2011:He calls my work and contributions "sub-optimal" and "shoddy", he yells at me, and accuses me of having a "personal infalability problem".

Septembre 2, 2011: I had previously removed one of his conversations on my page, and he reverted me to force himself back on just to make his point.

August 28, 2011 He says I have been "putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way".

August 27, 2011 He accuses me of "forceful expressions of my ideology".

August 26, 2011 He starts a talk on my page by yelling at me.

August 26, 2011 He accuses me of malicious actions for personal pleasure and of being a "spectacle". He also claims to know my knowledge on a subject, as if he can read my mind.

August 26, 2011 He again accuses me of malicious actions for personal pleasure (in this case using the term "peverse delight") and calls me ignorant and biased.

All of this is his most recent manner of talking to me ("a person like you"), but our conversations have rarely been more cordial then this. Often he addresses me with an air of superiority, and talks to me like I'm a child, and claims I have a personal infalibility complex (even though I can give consistant examples of myself apologizing for my faults). He refuses to apologize (that's all I ask for), and that is why I will have nothing more to do with him. If you have received a "please see" from me on your talk page, it is because I have told you about his attacks (or you have been involved with a dispute between him and myself before) and you either didn't acknowledge it, or said to bring it here. So I have. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate if I sometimes lose my patience, but frankly I find your long-term habit of completely ignoring and simply refusing to acknowledge basic simple obvious objective facts (such as that galleries are selective and categories are comprehensive, or that the 535-byte version of File:Gay_flag.svg -- which I originally uploaded by the way -- is technically inferior to the 485-byte version) to be quite annoying, especially when persisted in over the long term. When it comes to substantive factual issues (as opposed to occasional rhetorical exclamations betraying profound annoyance), I've been more sinned-against than sinning in our personal dealings over the past few years, and I imagine that most neutral observers who objectively examine the facts would come to the same conclusion.

It's unfortunate that you've become fixated on the issue of a personal "apology", but I found your "apology" on File:Flag-map of historic Palestine.jpg above to be extremely belated and not even all that particularly relevant anymore, since it followed extensive and pointed discussions in which you persistently ignored and refused to acknowledge basic simple obvious objective facts (something which did not really change), and by that point Arabic Wikipedia had already moved on to File:Flag map of Palestine.svg anyway. Since I can't reasonably expect you to do the right thing or behave significantly better in future, it's impossible for me to assign the same epoch-making and cataclysmic significance to your "apology" which you apparently do. And furthermore, it's simply childish to ban me from your user talk page and have "nothing more to do with" me, because that means that if we have factual issues over an image, we can no longer discuss them, but only edit war over them...

Frankly, my reactions towards you arise much more from long-term wearied annoyance (i.e. "here we go again with yet another round of nonsense"), rather than from any pugnacious desire for combat, or condescending beliefs in innate superiority over others... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All I'm asking is an apology for your sensationalist comments about me. I'm not asking for punishment or anything else. I have apologized to other users when i make mistakes. Why you can not do the same is beyond me. But until you do, I can not have you on my talk page anymore. You have yelled at me, called me names, and questioned the state of my mind. if you think it's childish for a user to no longer want or allow themselves to be subject to such things, that's your problem. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate that you focus solely on your lacerated personal feelings, to the complete and utter exclusion of the factual issues at dispute (such as that galleries are selective while categories are comprehensive), or any consideration as to how unnecessary frictions or confrontations can be avoided in future. After seeing your often obstructive and rather insensitively obnoxious behavior over the last three years or so, I don't know that I can take your alleged feelings of vulnerable wounded hurt very seriously at this point. If you had shown a little less "putting your head down and charging ahead in a pugnacious and belligerent way without regard to the consequences, or paying much attention to issues which other people might consider to be important" over the years, then your claims about your current fragile emotional state might be more credible to me... AnonMoos (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my personal feelings and everything to do with you, personally attacking another user, and getting away with it. Saying you loose your patience with me is absolutely not a valid reasoning to attack another user's work, calling it shoddy and sub-optimal, nor is it a valid reasoning to call another user names, and act like you can read their minds. You're a child and a bully, and I have no sympathy for you. Either apologize for your behaviour, as I have to others, or leave me alone. It's your choice, but I've had enough, and I'm sure any other user would too, if they were subjected to the types of personal attack that you have chosen to engage in. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that the 535-byte version of File:Gay_flag.svg (which I originally uploaded) is objectively factually technically inferior to the 485-byte version, and you've provided no way forward to resolve this issue, or even to discuss this issue, but instead remain focused solely on your interior emotional drama -- which I find hard to take too seriously at this point, given your rather unfortunate past history and patterns of behavior at Commons (see "sinned-against than sinning" above). AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Unessecary removal of discussion content/reverting by admin Túrelio

[4] [5]. He claims that the wording is a personal attack, but it isn't. It's a critic on someone else behavior. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

“

[...] You are on of the "Schreibtischtäter" [...]

”

•  Comment: Is indeed inappropriate wording because it has been used for cruel murders. Furthermore I am sure you sue the false one. -- RE rillke questions? 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is about DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Censored.png, where User:Jorm (WMF), was one of the first few voting for deletion as "funny, but out of scope".

Answering to a request by RE rillke, Jorm clarified 7 hours later that he did not vote "as a staff member".

Despite that 36 hours-old clarification, :de-User:Eingangskontrolle today commented to Jorm "I think that a user with (WMF) has no right to talk to us in this way. You are on of the "Schreibtischtäter" responsible for this."[6] (bolding by me)

For those who don't know, the German term "Schreibtischtäter" (="desk criminal") is used for Nazi criminals who planned the mass murder actions,[7] of which users Eingangskontrolle and Niabot are well aware as native speakers.

Calling another user, whether or not he is working as a designer for the WMF as Jorm, a Schreibtischtäter is a very serious personal attack, possibly criminal libel. Though this DR discussion is rather heated, such an attack is not acceptable. I therefore removed it, when becoming aware of it. Niabot immediately restored the attack, which might per se be a blockable offense per WP:NPA. --Túrelio (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You should not take everything inside quotes so literally. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Verwendung von Worten darf man nicht vom Kontext trennen. Aber genau das wird hier gemacht. Das Wort "Schreibtischtäter" wird im üblichen Sprachgebrauch für Personen verwendet, die sich hinter seinen Schreibtisch verschanzen und eine gewisse Realitätsferne inne haben. Man könnte auch das ordinärere "Sesselfurzer" verwenden. Beleidigung? Fehlanzeige! --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Die selbe blöde Sache mit dem "Blockwart". Ja ein Begriff der in Verbindung mit Nazis verwendet wurde, aber auch ein Begriff der in Verbindung mit dem Hausmeister von Neubaublöcken verwendet wurde, und eine Person bezeichnet die penibel über das Anwesen wachte. Auch hier ist die Annahme eines direkten Bezugs zur ersten Bedeutung ohne Kontext eine schlichte Unterstellung. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Túrelio's actions were appropriate, in my opinion. Please read de:Wikipedia:Keine persönlichen Angriffe (en:WP:PA). It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Comments like "It's just a provocation account and the human being behind the name plays the role of the learning resistant, permanent, instant troll" are unhelpful and serve only to inflame, not to further the discussion.[8] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only do I support the removal of the personal attack (which seems clear... quotation marks do not significantly dampen an insult), I would add a warning that the next similar attack will result in a block. --99of9 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There were three statements: the Schreibtischtäter attack, the statement that WMF was, indeed, behind the censored.jpg debacle, and the legitimate suggestion that accounts of WMF executives should not vote there. If someone deems Schreibtischtäter unacceptable, they should have deleted just this bit of "insult" and kept the rest. Why was it deleted, at all? NVO (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@NVO, agreed. I choose it that way (and left the user a low level civility warning) to invite him to eventually reword his comment, which he actually did. With that, however, he even aggravated his statement in regard to voting: "Employees of the object critized should not vote under any username"[9]. Questioning or even denying the right to vote/comment in a DR of a user, who had already stated that he did not "vote" as a staff member, is rather discriminatory, especially as I am not aware of any policy about that. --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the comments of 99of9. I see no reason to discriminate against staff members. My experience is that their perspective is often helpful. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion war

Would someone please deal with this IP and deletion. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fluffer_on_set.jpg. Deletion was closed Sept. 11 but 6 days later, the IP apparently has a problem with it and the related image and has re-tagged the image for deletion and filed a new deletion request. I don't care one way or the other about the image but tired of the deletion notices being left on my talk page by an IP who apparently can't take a hint. Thanks in advance. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 08:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I closed the DR and warned the IP. Yann (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi

As it can be seen at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054.svg , User:Iaaasi continues to support his POV even if the majority of sources states the opposite (there was a long debate about it). Moreover his activity is against the original uploaders' intention.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, many sources support my POV (Iaaasi (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how many sources support your POV. Different POVs get uploaded at different filenames, period. Powers (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Funk-you!

I think this is not an appropriate user name. --Martina talk 21:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally would let it pass, but it is very close to crossing the line of unacceptable. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little more interested in the web-resolution, no EXIF images than the username, which, IMO, is harmless. Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Flickr image no longer available

I clearly recall reviewing File:RicardoSanz.jpg that was uploaded by ODS40 and initially failed my Flickr review but after a discussion with the uploader, who obviously was the same as the Flickr user, he changed the licence on Flickr to an acceptable one after discussion on my talk page after which I gave it a passing review. Now an anonIP, who does not claim to be OSD either here or on Flickr, has been removing the licencing and author information from this image as well as from another image File:Pilar_gomez_acebo.jpg that I did not review but believe the anonIP's claim on that one is also inaccurate though it was deleted earlier today. I replied to his rants on my talk page explaining that the CC licnece applied is not revocable at will but he continues to make the same claims that the image is now unavailable on Flickr and has no licence or permission, as well as making a veiled legal threat. There is no evidence this anonIP is the same Flickr user or the same editor who uploaded the image. If he were he could easily login here to at least verify his claim that these image are in fact his. Ww2censor (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the uploader has had some sort of dissatisfaction with sysops at the Spanish Wikipedia and decided to "withdraw" his contributions, as he explained on his blog. I suppose the problem here might be also related to that situation. Ironically, his blog is under CC-by-sa 3.0 and the photo in question is still there. (On an unrelated note, that photo prominently shows a painting, which makes it a derivative work, and as such it probbaly could not be kept without the painter's explicit consent to the publication of the photo under a free license.) -- Asclepias (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cropped out the possibly copyright painting, as allowable under the licence, and uploaded to as File:Ricardo Sanz crop.jpg, so you now decide to delete the original as a derivative work without permission. Ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Coombeschico91 apparently uploading multiple copyvios

Hi. I have found that two photographs, "File:De Gea Man Utd.jpg" and "File:David De Gea.jpg West.jpg", uploaded by Coombeschico91 appear to be copyright violations, as according to [10] they are credited to "Mike Hewitt/Getty Images". The photographs "File:121131805 crop 650x440.jpg", "File:De Gea.jpg123.jpg" and "File:David+de+Gea+.jpg" appear to have been taken on the same occasion, and are probably copyright violations as well. I think it may be necessary to sternly warn and/or block this editor. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the files and a message at the talk page seem sufficient for now. (Done for both). Jcb (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Coombeschico91 may need a sterner warning. Despite being asked to stop uploading copyrighted images on 20 September, he did it again on 21 September, and re-inserted the image into "en:David de Gea". (An editor has already nominated the image for deletion.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, uploading copyvio after warning = block - file deleted and block applied - Jcb (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hold and wave

Hold and wave has recently been participating in some deletion requests regarding human nudity and sexuality, and has been most unhelpful. Every response is just copy/pasted, regardless of relevance to the image in question. He has been repeatedly warned for just saying "per nom" and not replying to people who have completely debunked the nomination. Warnings such as this by myself, Geo Swan and others are responded to by repeated talk page blanking, and generally ignoring our concerns.

The user's history on deletion requests pretty much boils down to this:

1. Find deletion request
2. Add "per nom" or whatever copypaste is his latest flavour
3. Go to step 1

I don't believe he has ever made a useful contribution in this manner. His latest little thing is to c/p {{vd}} Per “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera.“ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity onto about 10 DRs, regardless of their content. NSFW: I'm pretty sure File:Jumping ball 01.jpg wasn't taken by someone dropping their pants to take a photo, File:Male masturbation 1.jpg is a drawing so couldn't be, File:Cum eating order.jpg is a legitimate collage which is in use, and who the hell keeps their File:Tits.png in their trousers? This user has done nothing but attempt to get perfectly in scope images deleted this past month, which in turn is keeping me from doing anything but watching him. We need some intervention here, because this behaviour is frankly trolling. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"been participating in some deletion requests regarding human nudity and sexuality" It goes beyond that as there is no nudity related to this image. Nor even sexuality. I don't know if "trolling" is the right term. Maybe "over eagerness"? Newishness (he has been here for a while now)? Everyone knows that Mattbuck and I agree on nothing, but I do feel that some of his responses, while having the same "vote" as mine, aren't the best. Perhaps a stern talking to to come up with catered rationales would help? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL Mattbuck, please warn people about NSFW - that Jumping ball image was not as innocent as the title suggested and I spilled my soda as I quickly x'ed it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ottava, we tried talking to him, all he does is delete the warnings. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean this? He seems to have stopped the "per nom" after that but switched to another problematic rationale. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Oh, and sorry for the NSFW, I assumed it was obvious given I started by talking about nudity and sexuality. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm the above. He did many attempts to get rid of pictures and categories that relate to Mafia and negative connotations related to Jewish people. --Foroa (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 This behavior is more then obvious. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A two week vacation is now in effect due to disruptive editing and failure to heed constructive feedback. – Adrignola talk 17:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Support this decision. I've tried to discuss with the user on their talk page but my messages would just be deleted without reply. Infrogmation (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested to me that this user may be a sock for someone else, though quite who it might be I don't know. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Be more careful with CommonsDelinker

In this edit, the CommonsDelinker service removed a very nice little award someone had posted to my talk page. (I've since undone the edit.) Recommendation: Don't delete image references! A redlink image has two important properties: It serves as a reminder to replace the image, and it may have a caption which is important to the article (or user!) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 14:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly what CommonsDelinker's primary purpose is. Delinking. – Adrignola talk 15:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand that that is what it is programmed to do. I am suggesting that perhaps this is not a desired behavior in all cases. Discuss. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 15:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You can protect your user talk page against such changes, by adding {{Nobots}} somewhere at the page. Jcb (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's unusual for such awards to be presented as simply an image with caption; normally, the award text would remain and only the image would be removed. The bots don't have a good way of distinguishing such images from other uses. Powers (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern is larger than just awards -- users will be notified of changes to their own pages, so bot errors can be corrected. I was more concerned about the loss of information on regular articles. But... I'm no longer highly active in Wikipedia, so I am not interested in defending my position strongly. Just thought I'd raise the issue. (I posted to this board originally because I thought it was a unilateral bot action, not a service used by multiple admins.) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 18:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted University of Mississippi radio station logos

This is in reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:RebelRadio LetterHead.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:RebelRadio Logo.gif. User:Italianrebel202 has uploaded these images here claiming to be the copyright holder. If this is indeed the new logo of the University of Mississippi radio station WUMS, one would imagine the copyright is held by the University as a business logo. The uploaded has twice added both images to the WUMS article on Wikipedia and after my second removal from that article, the user has sent me a personal email via the Wiki-email system threatening me with legal action if the images are removed again and/or deleted. I've tried to explain to the user that copyrighted business logos aren't public domain or free but I'm not as well versed in image issues as most of you are and I'd appreciate some help in dealing with the user and helping the user to understand the image policy and help the user determine if one of the images could be uploaded directly on Wikipedia and used under a fair-use aspect. Thanks for any help and attention to this matter. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)