Open main menu

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.


Deutsch | English | français | magyar | македонски | +/−

Contents

Copyright wikimediaEdit

Hello AshFriday, I'm writing you because I saw your job to clean up Wikimedia.commons. Yesterday I found a new user account, Matt414, made to upload amateur pornography and maybe a kind of porn revenge. This user created it account 02th of January. He uploaded amateur porn photography of few women, one of which people is overpresent. These photographs seem to be really privates and used to make a kind of revenge. I'm not accustomed of the deletions procedures. I let you see by yourself. Contributions of the account. Thank you for your job !, --Aavitus (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


COM:AN/UEdit

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Português | Русский | Sicilianu | Svenska | +/−


 
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Disclosed his/her intention to violate the Terms of Service. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no rule forbidding the deletion of out of scope images. AshFriday (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your account has been blockedEdit

Yann (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

AshFriday, I hope you have learned your lesson. Commons does not want people with an agenda, especially if that agenda is cleaning up Commons. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed: this wouldn't be the first out of process block I've witnessed on this particular project. AshFriday (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Warning: Further disruptive or tendentious editing may result in further blockage, perhaps indefinitely.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely invalid warning. Please check your facts before posting. AshFriday (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

COM:AN/UEdit

Template removed as there was - quote - "no evidence of actual wrongdoing". My thanks to Sebari for clarifying that particular issue. AshFriday (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

See also...Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Topless 1.png

For more images by the editor whose image you commented on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

DR commentsEdit

Just curious, but why do you always seem to comment "{{Vd}} Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope." On images of nudes and porn regardless of their quality? You are free to comment on deletion requests as you like, but I would at least want to see some actual arguments put forth as you've stated this of both high quality images of a penis as well as those that are in use, I think that both you and the project would benefit more from making actual arguments for deletion based on the individual files and their status within current policies and guidelines than just repeating the same sentence. If you keep repeating the same arguments there will come a point that sysops will just turn a blind eye to them and ignore them in their decision, also deletion requests are not elections and simply voting "  Keep" or "  Delete" doesn't shouldn't affect the outcome. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope.Edit

Dear sir

you have had all my images removed on the back of your campaign to eliminate 'smut' from Wikimedia under a definition of your own making. You labelled every one of my images 'worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope', a definition that is both inaccurate and offensive. Inaccurate because the images were of good quality and, while most were of a nude man (non-pornographic), two were head and shoulder portraits (please explain how they might be described as 'smut'?). Offensive, because you didn't have the wit or good grace to find helpful reasons why you objected to each individual image and because you disregarded a body of work with such a cavalier attitude (who are you to decide what is 'worthless'? I have qualifications in both the history of art and art itself - do you?).

In short, I find your comments tantamount to libellous and suspect they arise from bigotry and prejudice. I am making my views known to the general editor of Wikimedia in the hope he removes you from your current position as an editor with powers to judge the work of others. This way, perhaps, you may not cause the offence and injury you have done to me on others. Bigotry and prejudice should have no place here. It is, in my opinion, often far more damaging than a little 'smut'

Richard Fitzroy Richard Fitzroy (talk)

Dear @Richard Fitzroy:
Thank you for bringing these matters to my attention. In reply to your comments, I would like to point out the following:
1. I did not nominate your files for deletion.
2. I did not delete your files, nor do I have the power to remove any image from the site's collection.
3. Files are deleted by consensus. Subsequently, I have very little influence over the outcome of any given deletion request.
4. I have never referred to any of your images as either "smut" or "pornographic."
5. Notions of technical and artistic quality are highly subjective.
6. Please note that nobody opposed the deletion request at the time.
As you are probably already aware, you have the option of requesting the reinstatement of your files. Another user has already begun the process for you here.
If your files are reinstated, I would suggest that you nominate them as quality image candidates. If they pass the established criteria, they will have the community's "seal of approval", so to speak, making their removal on the basis of quality highly unlikely. Please note, however, that this will not place them automatically within scope, as there are numerous other factors to be considered.
Further: if you are accusing me of "bigotry and prejudice" as indicated above, state in writing what I'm accused of being bigoted and prejudiced against. Please use plain and unambiguous language, so that there can be no room for misunderstanding.
Thanks for your time. AshFriday (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Fitzroy:, AshFriday does not have any special judging powers and they leave that comment below almost every request for deletion they participate in (see the above section), I've enquired them into this behaviour (see the above) and though they certainly are capable of making intelligent arguments as to why an image should be deleted, for whatever reason they've reduced their participation to Wikimedia Commons to repeating that same sentence (the title of this section), I hope that any admin reading this will disregard their "votes" in deletion requests and not let it affect the consensus if no reasonable arguments are made. And I hope that AshFriday will make actual arguments as to why they want to delete "the smut" off of Wikimedia Commons, but unfortunately they haven't shown that many signs of improving. It is probably vest to point out in the deletion requests that their comments aren't adding any substantive argumentation to the discussion and should be disregarded if fallen into repition, otherwise admins might delete valuable high quality images that had a valid educational value. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Though Fitzroy is getting a bit ranty here, there is a good point being made that a little kindness goes a long way. Clearly you are an anti-pron cruisader, if you want to continue raising deletion requests on images with nudity, do so without personally insulting or degrading the photographer or models. Any comments which appear to be promoting bigotry or harassment will and should be taken seriously. Thanks -- (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fae::
1. Are you formally accusing me of "promoting bigotry"? If so, what kind of bigotry do you mean?
2. Are you formally accusing me of "promoting harassment"? If so, harassment against whom?
Please answer all questions in clear, unambiguous language, so there can be no room for misunderstanding. AshFriday (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Admin Request VoteEdit

Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Elisfkc anymore, I wanted to reach out and thank you for your support on my admin request. Even though it didn't end the way I wanted, I appreciate your support. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Elisfkc: You're welcome. Personally, I think you would've made a fine administrator. AshFriday (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

My imageEdit

Who has the right to tell me my image is wrong.? Pancet56 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your responseEdit

Thanks again. Pancet56 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

PrecedentsEdit

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked male.jpg:

An otherwise unacceptable file does not become "in use" if the uploader simply inserts it into an article.

AshFriday (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Links of interestEdit

I Like What You DoEdit

I like what you do here and I feel it's a disservice to ban your account for cleaning up this site of porn and nudity with no purpose. I dont feel theres any agenda being forced and if there is any it's a good agenda. You may be noticing soon, I opened 3 separate mass nomination requests of the user Richiex. About 100 files in total. They were truly redundant and most of them were duplicate files or him getting a handjob. I'd like you to say however more than just the normal "out of scope, lacking content" sort of thing that you usually say. I do think he has some good things, and some really bad things. If theres anything else you want me to nominate before I'm banned just let me know.

Thank you for you time

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilerk (talk • contribs) 05:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

CivilityEdit

Hello, I am concerned by two of your comments on public notice boards, your reference here to "corrupt and openly hostile administrators" (I am drawing a veil on your additional comments here) and your statement here that "we have more important things to deal with than perceived "civility" issues". Kindly read Commons:Civility, Commons:Staying mellow and en:Wikipedia:Civility, and consider the general consensus on civility's importance on a collaborative project like Commons. You are free to think whatever you want but you should be more careful with the public expressions of your thoughts. I am sure you are aware protracted incivility could lead you to a block. Thanks and happy Commoning, — Racconish💬 11:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Racconish: Thank you for drawing these matters to my attention. In reply, I would like to point out the following:

1. Commons:Civility and Commons:Staying mellow are not official policies, they are essays. To quote the caveat at the head of each the page:

It is not a Commons policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

2. Wikipedia:Civility is not Commons policy. To the best of my knowledge, Commons and Wikipedia are two separate entities and users on this project are not required to follow the policies of the other (an example being that Commons does not have the same NPOV requirements of en.Wikipedia).

3. Apart from supportive remarks on behalf of Incnis Mrsi and Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, I have mentioned nobody by name in the diffs you linked to. Therefore I have made no personal attacks on any individual.

4. I do not deny the importance of civility on any collaborative project. However, my exact words were 'perceived "civility" issues', ie it is my view that a number of editors here are overly sensitive to criticism and mild sarcasm.

5. To the best of my knowledge, neither Incnis Mrsi nor Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton have used foul language in their comments and criticisms. By contrast, I have seen other long-term editors employ four letter obscenities with complete impunity.

6. I stand by my belief that the blocks and incident reports mentioned above are setting a dangerous precedent, effectively limiting the community's right to level legitimate criticism against the administration.

If I may, I'd like to ask you a few questions.

1. Are you prepared to state on the public record that there is no administrative corruption or hostile administrative behavior on Commons?

2. Do you believe that general editors have the right to level legitimate criticism at the administration?

3. Do you agree or disagree with this statement by Tuvalkin?

There’s nothing in the list of complaints against this user (Incnis Mrsi) that could not be said also about an admin or another. And since admins become untouchable, it would be a masquerade to demand from simple users what cannot be asked from admins.

Thanks for your time. AshFriday (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please consider yourself duly warned. Thanks, — Racconish💬 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks. AshFriday (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dark Web InfographicEdit

Hi AshFriday,

This infographic is accurate and I did not see anything else on the page helping illustrate the content so I am not sure why it was flagged for deletion.

--Panopticon.exe (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Panopticon.exe

Return to the user page of "AshFriday".