User talk:Drork: Difference between revisions

File:HolonEmblem.png

File:HolonEmblem.png 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!

--Túrelio (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Drork!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 11:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Wm-il exhibition 02.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Israel dispute

Hi Drork,

I'm aware that there is a long-running dispute regarding Israeli copyright in which you appear to be involved. The dispute appears to be scattered over dozens of pages and as a result an uninvolved user cannot readily follow it. I personally consider myself uninvolved in this, and would like to help all people involved in this reach a resolution. I have no desire to act as an arbitrator or mediator, but I am attempting to help the broader community understand the dispute.

I have created a page in my user space in an attempt to list any discussions relevant to the dispute. I'd appreciate it if you would help by adding discussions that you consider relevant to that page. I'd also be grateful if you could notify other people involved if I have not done so already. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't just stop discussion by edict, though it does look like it is running out. The past few days I've tried to stimulate discussion to gain additional facts about the situation, which has worked to a point. My intent here is to attempt to give a reasoned (and detailed) argument when I actually express an opinion, which the community can then choose to endorse (or not). I haven't got to the point where I can do that just yet.

One thing I will point out though. You have misread Pieter's last comments from User talk:Nilfanion/Israel. He is not discussing the Israeli national flag, but the flag of Jerusalem (which is the example I gave on the user page). If he was seriously questioning the copyright of the Israeli national flag I'd block him instantly.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly appreciate seeing such images. You could either upload the files to another image hosting site (admittedly it would still be copyvio, but its not on Commons) or alternatively email them to me (use my user name at gmail . com)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got the email. Don't have time to really look at it right now, but will do later thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the licence tag of COAs, flags etc.

Hi Drork, does the proposal made by Pieter here: Template talk:PD-IL-exempt makes sense to you? to me it does. Currently this tag is used for Israeli stamps. Their status here is unclear as well, i posted a question on the Hebrew Wiki on the stamps issue and i still remember you had some concerns regarding this as well. It would be nice if we could, for a start, conclude the issue of COA's, flags and Insignia. Let me know if you prefer reachnig me by Email. Best Regards --kippi70 (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2009 (UtC)

Advice

Your response to my query on COM:UNDEL is helpful, thanks.

I think the general problem here is that there is a tendency on your part to just state the bottom line, without giving any attribution to that info. For example consider the following statements:

1. In Israel, ice sculptures are permanently displayed because they have no other purpose.
2. According to Dr Presenti, in Israel, ice sculptures are permanently displayed because they have no other purpose.

Both statements are equally valid. However, if you say the first on-wiki all the rest of us have to go on is that it is your opinion and we don't know how you came to that conclusion. This means we cannot evaluate your position effectively and judge if you are correct or not. The second provides us with that indication, as when we evaluate it we know it is the opinion of one of the foremost experts in the field.

The problems arise when people question your view. Instead of providing that little bit of information (in this case that you are basing your view on Presenti) you have a tendency to go on the defensive. The fact you are from Israel does not mean you are right on matters regarding Israeli images, the fact Pieter is from the Netherlands doesn't make him wrong on matters regarding Israeli images. What matters is what the letter of the law says, what the courts say and what the actual experts in the field say.

Bear in mind with the 2D FOP situation I personally think your position is the correct one, the vote is running as its up to the community to decide not just a single administrator. The reason I agree is primarily because the quote from Presenti's book is unambiguous. I can say with a degree of certainty that she would have written supporting evidence for that opinion in her book, and that supporting evidence is what would give her opinion the ability to stand up in court. Obviously I'd like to see that info for myself, but that's more out of curiosity than a belief that I'm being misled.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Volume of Latuff images

Your comments are requested at Commons:Village pump#Latuff repository. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of Latuff related images

This is a request to those who, looking at page histories, seem most active in changing the categories of Latuff related images. As per my comments here, I must encourage you all to participate in discussions to arrive at a consensus as to appropriate categorisation instead of changing the categories without consensus.

The constant changing of the categorisation of File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png has necessitated its protection from editing. This is an invitation to properly discuss this on the talk page, not to find another Latuff related image and continue to edit war regarding that image's categories.

If the constant changing of categories continues then I will be compelled to take further action to reduce the disruptive nature of this by considering the protection of further pages or blocking of users involved, all of whom are experienced enough to understand why edit warring isn't constructive.

Please try, however difficult it may be, to engage in proper discussions with other members of the Commons community to find an acceptable categorisation to all. Adambro (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please consider this a final warning about changing controversial categorisation without discussion as you did again here and here. Adambro (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#user:Drork. // Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

my unsolicited opinion

The problem is fighting back the rising tide of antisemitism. It becomes so time consuming that the effort can come to dominate one's life. If you can step back for a while, it might help, but when you return nothing will have gotten better and all the same problems are there to greet you.

I fought over these issues on WP until I was sent int wiki-exile, even though antisemitism is far from my real areas of interest. I never intended to get involved in fights over antisemitism here on Commons either. Probably, close up, it all seems more important than it really is. Neither WP nor Commons are particularly important. I know for a fact that, librarians, school teachers, and experts in the various fields of human knowledge warn that WP is unreliable. That unreliability is particularly obvious in areas like the Israel/Palestine conflict where so many fools think they know the answers, and (since many of those fools have no job) they have plenty of time to work their mischief.

In my view there is, at the foundation of this problem, the unfortunate fact that in WP and Commons there are two incompatible goals:

1. The failed experiment in social engineering
2. The creation of reliable information

The experiment in social engineering takes precedence over the production of reliable information. As a result of that emphasis, actual experts in the various fields of knowledge are usually expelled from the project, while fools continue to fill the project with nonsense. I think WP rules such as WP:NPOV, WP:Verify, WP:NOR, which attempt to guide volunteer editors toward writing a good articles for a good on-line encyclopedia, have real value. On the other hand, the set of rules that involves WP's failed experiment in social engineering are highly problematic; and rules such as WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:BATTLE, etc, have become the means used by editors who are often lacking intellectually, but are expert at using whining, squealing, and wiki-lawering to achieve editing goals by having their editorial opponents blocked. I have in two years seen many expert editors bounced out because of "lack of collegiality", although genuine collegiality is more difficult to find in Wikimedia projects than among pro-wrestlers.

Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn

Drork, please don't allow yourself to be drawn into pointless conflicts with Liftarn and try to focus on the issues that need to be discussed. This, this, and this are all examples of comments which may or may not be valid but only prolong the time it will take to reach a resolution of the issues being discussed.

Also, I have asked that both of you stick to discussing categorisation issues rather than simply enforcing your own opinion. The edit history of Category:Lehi (group) suggests this behaviour has resumed. My request, whilst primarily in reference to the Latuff images, shouldn't be seen as a green light for similar behaviour regarding other related issues. Therefore, I must warn you both that if this continues blocks may have to be considered. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How to fight cartoonists we do not like

Here's how , but seriously, Drork, I believe you are not exactly fair to Adambro. IMO the administrator tries to do his best to be impartial. He warned you and the other party at the same time, and IMO should be given credit for that. Of course I wish Multichill was warned too, but I guess it is too much to ask for . You know quite well what I am thinking about latuff, but I honestly believe our fight here is not winnable. While we fight over categories of old garbage, the new one is uploaded, and new invalid categories are added. I am glad you are optimistic about antisemitism issues, but I believe it is because you were lucky to be born and to live in Israel. If you lived in Europe, as I did, I assure you, you would have had a very different opinion on the issue. I wish you all the best, and please feel absolutely free to delete the message, if you do not like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue went well beyond Latuff. Liftarn constantly tries to introduce his political opinions by categorizing certain organizations under "Terrorism". He has been told why this is wrong, and yet he insists, and uses illegitimate manipulations to force his view. Pieter Kuiper is keep questioning the good faith of Israeli users who work hard to enrich this project. Instead of asking how this project can benefit from the experience we have in outreaching to the public, he keeps suggesting that we are lawbreakers and unfortunately he gets too much support. As for Latuff's catoons - putting a caricatures portraying a Der Stuermer-like figure next to portraits of Jewish scholar who fled the Nazis in WW2 is an obnoxious political statement. It is certainly not in line with the categorization system, and yet Liftarn is given free hand here. I said before I felt some people here are testing my patience. They should not be too surprise when I lose it. Drork (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit to FOP

Please do not blank information on pages like you did here, that is a form of vandalism and could result in you being blocked. If you are angry with Pieter, I suggest you try to calm down before engaging in any discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not participating in Commons is your choice, and you can try to arrange a boycott if you wish. If you choose to disrupt Commons to prove your point, that is a matter of concern however. Just remember you may not always be right on Israeli law, and Pieter may not always be wrong. You might be able to give a better legal opinion on a certain matter in the UK than I could, the fact I'm a British citizen is irrelevant to that ultimately.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boycott

Drork wrote on his user page: "I CALL UPON ALL ISRAELI USERS TO BOYCOTT THE COMMONS NOW, DUE TO HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT TOWARDS ISRAELI CONTRIBUTORS."

Hi Drork, I would suggest expanding your boycott call a little by requesting that all conscientious users join the boycott, not just Israelis. I am not sure any such call for boycott will be effective here, because Commons is such a central component of the internet addiction that controls the lives of so many users, but a call for principled action is certainly justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone could create a boycott template that users could put on their user pages, that would help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Block

Hi Drork, I admire the work you have done for the PikiWiki project. I am also well aware of occasions of hostilities towards Israel users which I very much regret and for which a block was recently issued. While I understand that you are behind the PikiWiki project with all your heart, you must also accept that Commons is a collegial consensus based project where not every doubt in regard to the interpretation of Israel law is to be seen as an attack against Israel users. It is far more helpful to your cause to contribute facts and insights then to attack those who happen to have a different opinion. You have been multiply warned during the previous discussions (see Lar's comment, for example) and just recently by Nilfanion. Nevertheless, you continued edit-warring at COM:FOP and you submitted an uncivil comment. Because of this disruption I've blocked you for three days. I would be more than happy to unblock you if you could promise me not to continue edit-warring and not to continue incivilities. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Call for Boycott"

Your "call for boycott" is counter-productive and damaging. It renders useless all the good work that's been done by the great amount of contributors who have been working toward a resolution. Bastique ^demandez 19:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just delete it from my page (I'm currently block) and forget about me as far as this project is concerned. I am not involved anymore. Drork (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you feel Drork, please believe me I do, yet I have to agree with Bastique on that one. Just imagine what would happened to Commons, if all good images are gone and only latuff is to stay. I know we're loosing the battle, maybe few battles now, but I am very sure that eventually the History will put everything to the right places. She always does. Maybe we will not live long enough to see it, but IMO it does not really matter. I said it before, and I would like to repeat it one more time that sometimes, me and you were not exactly fair to others. It is not good. Let's, for example, talk about kuiper. You know what I am thinking about the man, but to be fair, I would like to point this thing out to you, for what I believe kuiper should be given at least some credit of impartiality. I believe after your block ends you should come back and try to stay cool :) Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Latuff nazi camp 2.gif

I note this recent edit. I have asked you on a number of occasions to refrain from changing the categorisation of Latuff related images because you should be well aware that it is controversial. On a number of occasions you've disregarded this request and changed the categories. As has been explained, this is unhelpful and disruptive.

You said in your edit summary that, "There is no consensus that thee image fits the category", but that isn't quite how things work. If something is controversial, then you should look for consensus to make a change. If there isn't consensus to make a change then things should remain as they were. In this case, that would mean leaving the category unless consensus emerges in support of its removal. Also, I note that this issue has been discussed on the talk page. There I see two people expressing their support of the category and one, you, expressing opposition to the category. In that context, it is difficult to conclude that removing the category is appropriate.

This is the last warning you will get about this. If you change the categorisation of any other related images in similar circumstances you will be blocked to prevent the disruption that such actions cause. Adambro (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit regarding Latuff was perfectly legitimate. There is no indication that the image fit the category, and the person who assigned the category failed to prove relevancy. In such case, the burden of proof is on him, not on me. The caricature is slanderous in nature, and assigning it to that certain category suggests the Commons support a controversial political opinion. It is sad that you haste to defend people who act by illegitimate political motives rather than defend the reputation of this site. Drork (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved your comment back here since I put this page on my watchlist to monitor for any replies and it makes sense to try to keep discussions in one place as much as possible. I would still maintain though that, even regardless of my previous request for all involved to refrain from changing the categorisation without discussion, your edit was still inappropriate. Both Pieter Kuiper and Liftarn express their support for the category and explained their reasoning. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with their reasoning, you cannot simply dismiss their views because it is convenient to do so. If a proposed change is controversial, removing the category in this case, the burden of proof is always on whoever is proposing that change to explain their reasoning and convince others to agree so that consensus forms in support of the change. In this case, you may have explained in the discussion why you propose the category is removed but you didn't manage to convince the others who participated in that discussion to support your proposal. The discussion clearly indicates that there was no consensus to remove the category. I fully support any attempts to "defend the reputation of this site" but those attempts have to be done in accordance with established principles. That means not ignoring those who disagree with your proposals and going ahead anyway. Adambro (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bro Abambro, it is not proper you to act as an administrator and at the same time participate in the argument on the behalf of one side. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)