DLindsley

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DLindsley.

This is the user talk page of DLindsley, where you can send messages and comments to DLindsley.

• Be polite.
• Be friendly.
• Assume good faith.
• No personal attacks.

• Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• Put new text under old text.
• New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
• Click here to start a new topic.

Archives 1

P.S. Any discussions/messages that are older than 3 days or have seem to have died out will be archived. Thanks for reading this message.

Do you need to leave a message for me? You've come to the right place!

This is my talk page. It is the place to leave any messages that you may have for me.

Any new messages that you leave should be on the bottom, so I don't have to search through a pile of messages to find your message.

Also, please be sure to put subsection headers on your messages (== (Subsection header title here) ==), so that it is easier for me to find your message, just like above.

Also, here are a few rules.

1. Please do not leave any insulting messages. I have low tolerance of adult language and therefore should not see it here on Wikimedia Commons.
2. Do not ask me to describe my personal information. This is not safe to give out to others on the Internet.
3. Do not spam. This is an offense not only to me, but to Wikimedia Commons as well.
4. Do not falsely accuse me. This is considered being a false accusationist.
5. These rules come in addition to the rules from above these rules. The rules also are in addition to Commons policies and more.

Failure to comply with these rules will result in your message being removed, and, in worse cases, being reported to the Administrators' noticeboard.

Messages

Sockpuppetry

DLindsley, I've blocked you for one week. Please see COM:BLOCK, particularly "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus" and your edits to COM:AN/U and User talk:Tm. The duration is in consideration of your past blocks for disruptive behavior. Эlcobbola _talk 22:48, 26 February 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: "I am not abusing multiple accounts. The person using the IP is not me." Decline reason: "Enough games. I see from CU that you've used 71.64.197.17 abusively as an anonymous editor and logged in with your account, and that you've now abused another IP to comment in a DR for your own uploads and file two other DRs, etc. We don't need deception and disruption like this on Commons. INeverCry 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Note that Эlcobbola is a CU; so your argument that "The person using the IP is not me" has little weight. Jee 03:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: @Elcobbola: hasn't stated here whether they performed CU or not. So I am hesitant to assume it. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rillke: "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus" > yes. Otherwise it must be a bad faith accusation? Or I miss something? Jee 10:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a maybe. Maybe there were other facts leading to this conclusion, who knows? BTW, which are the other accounts? Can't see them on in the revision history of said page. Or is Tm a sock of DLindsley? That would be indeed shocking news. Please clarify. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

An IP is not a user account. elcobbola, could you revise the block rationale, please? We want to adhere to the facts, right? -- Rillke^(q?) 11:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And a user revealing his IP while accidentally logged out is also not a big issue. I see only two edits from that IP. Tm is not warned; so little chances to guess him as the master account. Better wait for a response from elcobbola. :) Jee 11:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rillke, at this point I do not believe it is necessary to revise the rationale; rules regarding the use of the CU tool require as little detail as possible, even no detail. Yes, the tool was used and this is Confirmed, unambiguously. I've contacted the other CUs; the response has been that the block is appropriate. Эlcobbola _talk 12:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I still did not use that IP. The IP made only a couple of edits, so your rationale is wrong. Therefore, the block is not appropriate and is invalid.DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 12:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

elcobbola, I entirely agree with you that Check Users should disclose as little as possible about what they saw but to know the fact whether an action was backed up with a Check User Action or not is crucial. If you state that you do not believe it is necessary to revise the rationale, together with the rationale Abusing multiple accounts, I have to assume that there are other accounts by DLindsley and continuing with the rationale to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus, I am wondering why the block duration is one week and not infinite. -- Rillke^(q?) 19:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Your rationale is still false.DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 21:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rillke, I don't understand your comments. "[T]o know the fact whether an action was backed up with a Check User Action or not is crucial" - I said very clearly above that the CU tool was used. Sockpuppetry is not necessarily a "capital offense" requiring an indefinite block. It was my judgement that one week would be adequate in the circumstance, and other CUs have agreed. Frankly, with DLindsley's behaviour here and other wikis (blocked indefinitely on en.wiki and de.wiki, for example), he is likely on the path to an indefinite block anyway. Эlcobbola _talk 16:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: Rillke proves you wrong here. I did not use accounts, nor did I use any IPs. Now we both agree that you are wrong. DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 21:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll make a deal with you. I'll look take a fresh look at your case, including CU data, and give you a fair hearing. I will not let myself be influenced by an old boys' club| (i.e., what the other CUs want me to say).

• If it looks inconclusive that you are guilty of what you're charged for, I will remove your block.
• If it looks pretty likely but not definite, I will keep your block in place.
• If it looks unambiguous, I will extend your block by a week.

Do you agree to take this deal? You are absolutely free to decline, although I think that will speak volumes as to whether you are guilty or not. I have no desire to see you fail or be persecuted by anyone, but keep in mind the repercussions either way. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I agree to take this deal. DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 23:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment The above talk about a deal is you trying to take advantage of Magog the Ogre's willingness to give you a chance. At the same time you're agreeing to this deal, you know you've edited at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by DLindsley, filed several DRs, and created a sleeper account with a very questionable name (User:Conboy456). I like to give people a chance, but first you pretend that Elcobbola's lying, and then you pretend you're ready to work with Magog. No wonder you're indeffed at other projects. INeverCry 00:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I struck my comments, so never mind them. Also, it must have been someone else who created that account, because I know for a fact that it was not me.

P.S. I actually agreed to take the deal, and did not pretend to. DLindsley ^{Place your order here.} 12:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

 Comment @INeverCry: I revoked DLindsley talk page access. Seems only here for making deceptive comments. We have a huge backlog here on commons, therefore we should not wast too much time with such users :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:Atom Smasher error message 8.png

And also:

• File:Atom Smasher error message 6.png
• File:Atom Smasher error message 5.png

Yours sincerely, Josve05a (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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.

INeverCry 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Atom Smasher error message 2.png

And also:

• File:Atom Smasher error message 3.png
• File:Atom Smasher error message 4.png
• File:Atom Smasher error message 7.png
• File:Atom Smasher error message 9.png
• File:Atom Smasher error message.png

These files have been nominated for deletion.    FDMS  4    00:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello DLindsley, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)