Last modified on 1 February 2014, at 20:44

User talk:Walter Görlitz

  • Discussion
Return to the user page of "Walter Görlitz".

I don't frequent the commons so please leave talk for me on the English Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Walter Görlitz!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

KitsEdit

Did you now what's that: [1]. --Gustavo neto (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. One kit at a time, unless you'd like to assist. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Our the kits in the portuguese Wikipedia has logos, if you don't now, i'm brazilian, so had logos in the kits. Please don't reverse the kits. --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Commons does not permit copyrighted logos or crests. I do know that you're Brazilian. We have been talking about you on the English football project page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rapaz deixe os logos, você trabalha na Nike, Adidas, Puma. Que negócio é esse. Defedendo um logo de mentira. --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC) (translated as: Boy keep the logos, you work on Nike, Adidas, Puma? What is this? Defedendo just a lie.)

No I don't work for any of those companies, but I think that understand copyright law and how it applies to the commons, which is why I'm removing them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can to reverse the kits, but, later talk with: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno-ban, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Principal_adjoint, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abdul_Qayyum_Ahmad, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ricky_Sen, and other, tip: don't reverse, leave with logos. Thanks --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No don't revert. Leave without logos. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

ProblemsEdit

[2] --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I responded before you posted, but thanks. Copyrighted material is not permitted on the commons. And you know that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User conduct thread resolvedEdit

I have recently closed the thread at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems involving you. Please be aware of the following three things:

  • Edit warring (revert warring) is unacceptable. Commons does not have a 3RR policy, however the same rationale for 3RR exists on all other WMF projects. Edit warring is still disruptive, and still blockable, on Commons.
  • You are correct in that the logos have to be removed.
  • Your communication during this incident leaves much to be desired. This ties in with the edit warring, but even when you two finally did stop and discuss the issues, you were curt, condescending, and did not make any real effort to explain your position. In the future, you need to do a better job of explaining your positions.

Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I trust that the images with copyright vios have been removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, with that in mind, it would be reverting vandalism and not a3RR at any rate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be. Don't fall into that trap. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So repeatedly adding images that break copyright laws is fine and can't get you blocked? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, the other three editors in the cabal have not been informed and should be. They were involved in the edit war.
Also, who is going to delete the copyrighted images: the ones with the logos. It's not appropriate for me to revert them, based on the discussion above. Ideally, deleting the revisions with the logos is the best solution. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: File:Kit body arsenal1213a(2).png has 21 uploads in the span of a few hours. The other Arsenal shirt has 23. If I had seen those instead of the one that only had eight or so, I would have blocked you both immediately. It dosen't matter if you're utterly convinced that you're right, you don't just keep clicking revert, you go and talk to the person. If that fails, you go to the user conduct board. Do not revert war.
On a related note, the Nike swoosh is in the public domain (it's too simple), so if that's all you're removing, you're not actually removing a copyright violation. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Final warning for edit warring in football kit imagesEdit

Hello there.

This is a final warning to all editors involved in the upload war over football kits. Pages like File:Kit body rmcf1213a.png, with over a dozen back and forth uploads, are disruptive.I have seen this same type of edit war on several pages, and going back several months. It does not matter if you think you're right or not, it has to end. If you are on the side advocating for logos, and the image has no logos, upload the version with logos as a separate image, and add the version with no logos to the other versions section of the file description page. The same goes for if you are on the side advocating for no logos and the current version has logos already. It is better to have two stable versions than to have one very unstable one.

Also, since at least one party has already started this, I am explicity forbidding you from putting each other's versions up for deletion at DR. This is an extension of the edit warring, and is, like the edit warring, highly disruptive.

Because of the length and severity of this mess, the minimum block length I would consider for continued violations after a final warning is one month. Repeated infractions will quickly scale up in block length. I do not consider myself too involved to take admin action here. It has to end, and repeated pleas for you all to talk it out have fallen on deaf ears.

Sven Manguard Wha? 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you assume that I am edit warring. It is a simple matter of being responsible to Template:Football_kit#Creating_and_naming_a_new_pattern on English WIkipedia: "Club badges, sponsor logos, and manufacturer logos should never be included." You know that this is a case yet have argued against it. You seem to think that you are above that RULE. Please explain your refusal to comply with it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I just red your ridiculous restriction of putting up a version for deletion. You can't forbid that and if you do, you're being a dictator since you are heavily involved in the "logos are permitted" side of the discussion. You should recuse yourself and find a neutral admin to administer any disciple. You are not only acting as judge and jury, your the complainant and the prosecuting attorney. What you're asking for is a separate version of every football kit for English wikipedia and those who believe that copyright of small images such as this does violate copyright law in the English-speaking world and another for the rest which is a waste. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore it. I would be more than happy to block you for doing so. Whether you think that they matter or not, a large number of other projects also use Commons files. Those projects do not necessarily have the same rules that English Wikipedia does. The fact that multiple other users are reverting you indicates that a significant enough group of people have a differing opinion, or that there are other projects that have other rules. That your group and their group continue to revert each other does mean that it's an edit war. You might be utterly convinced that you're right, but that doesn't change that, by definition, what you're doing is edit warring, and that edit warring is a blockable offense. I am really rather tired of going back and forth with you on this. You can either accept that you're not going to get what you want, and then shoot for a very reasonable 'second best' option, or you can get blocked. There are no other options at this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I didn't realize that admins were allowed to lie on Wikipedia. Only two editors, User:Principal adjoint and User:Gustavo neto, have been consistently reverting not "multiple other users". Then there's you, who have been kind enough to warn the other primary editors involved as well.
I'm sorry you're tired of explaining why you have have chosen to ignore one Wikipedia's policies in favour of others. If you'd rather, you could point me to a better place to discuss this. In short, all I'm asking is how should the divergent needs to the various wiki projects be handled. Obviously, those of us removing the logos assume that it should be the lowest common denominator but it seems that others favour having project specific versions of files, which in essence negates the need for the commons. Feel free to advise, or direct me to, what the official policy on the commons is, or ask someone else to.
And perhaps the commons has a different policy on what constitutes edit warring, but reverting several days apart, and attempting to engage the other editors in discussion, isn't an edit war on English Wikipedia. I am simply attempting to offer additional information as to the problem the image gives our project.
Finally, you'll notice that I uploaded a neutral image only to discover that another editor had already done so and so the need to remove the logo on File:Kit body bayern1112h.png is no longer necessary.
So to summarize, you're not a particularly adroit admin, who seems to like to throw his weight around instead of engaging others in discussion and to explain things to them. I fully understand that you may get tired of doing this day in and day out. If I have offended you during the process of trying to learn the way things work here, I apologize now. You, on the other hand, might want to step back if you're finding this admin thing too taxing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It is de facto policy on Commons to Avoid overwriting existing files. If two or more versions are both considered useful by different users, we keep both; you can discuss on Wikipedia which one you want to use. If one of the versions is illegal, the solution is not to overwrite it with a different image (which preserves the illegal version in the file history) but to upload the new version under a different name, and nominate the old version for deletion. You are free to contest Sven's particular claims or assertions, but please refrain from personally attacking him - if you continue to do so you will be blocked. This is also not the venue to discuss his suitability for adminship - if a request for de-adminship is later made, you can discuss your opinions regarding his suitability on that page. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)