march 21, 2008 I guess, you deleted the image Prdc1.jpg and was questioning the image Prdc5.jpg They are the initials of paulo robeto da costa. They are mine.I am very new at this so please help me to undelete... The photos are for my husband' pages in Portuguese, French and German. The page is Paulinho Da Costa Prdc1.jpg and Prdc.5 user:ALR thank you so much
Hi, sorry to see that you semi-retired at WP. I hope you enjoy Commons more. I just want to thank you (again) for defending me against Allison Wheeler. You take care, and you can message me back at my WP user talk. Thank you! By the way, this is a shared IP and this is Cuyler91093. 126.96.36.199 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thanks--03:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
could you delete (or fix) the most recent image I made, it seems to not load for some reason. thanks 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be working now but I already put a copy on wikipedia it's self, so do what you think is best.
Deletion of Image:XBox 360 (pixel art).pngEdit
- Commons only allows media that is freely licensed as defined here. In short this means that any image must allow commercial use and derivative works. The reason for this is to maximise the freedom to reuse wikipedia and wikipedia articles. I hope that explains it. /Lokal_Profil 01:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both, for the clarifications. Xenocidic 04:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Bandiera della Repubblica Italiana PMS 20060414.svgEdit
Hi! You are free to upload any flag in any colours, this is not the point. The point is that your flag is not the correct flag of the correspondig Coutry. That's all. Cheers, F l a n k e r 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if this debate is over about our image because it has been more than a week since you opened it again and so does that mean it is alright?--Blackwatch21 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm requesting that the issue over the Xbox Project Logo be closed. It has been has opened now for 2 weeks and nobody feels the need to respond. Anetode's request to re-open to respond, was granted. I'm now asking for it to be closed. Regards DJS--DJS24 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You deleted this photo without present any evidence that it is really a copyvio... Can you show me one, please? Regards Electron 07:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I can help wikipedia, wikimedia commons and You disturb me with this. I know that I blocked, and upload a few not permission photos (true), and I never do this again, but I ask You why? Why instead of help with copyright You delete everything photos even short-eared dog with permission from my friend. I don't understand. I now three photos and this is some right reserved and GNU license photos with permission upload from autors on wikipedia. I thought that admin of wikipedia should help common users, but I disappoint with this. Can I again unblocked ? and upload this legally photos? With You help me with this?
regards, thomas as Caniche
I suggest, we've found the reasoned consensus for respective problem (section Proposal for the most appropriate solution and especially Third. Copyright status). We are waiting only your final POV, because you was initiator for re-opening of respective discussion. Alex Spade 08:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Is our image dispute over yet?????--Blackwatch21 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm running at a 2% error rate at the minute. TBH it's better to 'catch' them and get permission now, rather than in two years time when they aren't actually paying attention. Megapixie 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not very happy that you've closed this discussion as keep because of your personal opinion rather than the consensus. Rather than closing this you should have simply commented on it. Low quality is a perfectly good reason for deletion and so I'm disappointed that you've simply dismissed this based upon your opinion. I'm inclined to reopen this deletion request. Adambro 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
part picture for deletionEdit
I'm not sure if you remember this picture. well someone asked Jimbo about it recently and he clarified his early statement here. needless to say, apparently he doesn't like it, would you mind deleting it then? Thank you-- 20:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I liked it to (considering I made it) but I am trying to respect Mr. Whales feelings, but if you want me to ask someone else, I will--02:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks in deletion discussionEdit
- This guy has apparently uploaded numerous pictures of derivative works, released them under GNU and then gets downright mean when people try to remove them, as he did again here. I've had several of his images removed off the English Wikipedia, where he resorted to name calling (cumcloud, etc) in the IFD to try and save them. I don't think he's getting the message, since he continues to upload copyrighted works and call them his own. Let me know what you think, and as always I appreciate your help. Cumulus Clouds 18:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- His remarks in the edit summary [here are a good example of his usual response to IFD warnings. Cumulus Clouds 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- These are not personal attacks. Your week long block was highly inappropriate, and "being a fucktard" is a personal attack in itself, and not a reason to block. I've unblocked the user, as the block was punitive. Majorly (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I think those are personal attacks (strange ones...) and the block was possibly justified (haven't looked close enough), but "fucktard" as a block reason is out of line. Don't do it again. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- If Majorly would not have stopped me I would have blocked you (1 hour) for the "fucktard". Its more worse as the thing the user you blocked did. Please do not comitt such attacks in future. Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Indentation reboot. "No warning" isn't quite accurate (see here and here), though my warnings should have been more prominent. Responding to deletion requests with "u need a lawyer lol"-type comments was what I was referring to with the latter part of my block message: if he wasn't trying to troll and generally fuck people off, he was doing a damned good impression of someone that was.
With that said, a week-long block was excessive, and calling him a fucktard (however true it is, and it very much is, IMO) wasn't acceptable either. Sorry about that. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Lol, another person who hasn't contributed anything trying to ruin commons and WP. I do nothing but contribute *productively*, using legal arguments against me when the arguments are not legally grounded is plainly wrong. Using f-tard is not very helpful. Chensiyuan 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I only give a crap about Wikipedia insofar as it intersects with things here, so that's okay. You could be the best contributor in the world there (as per your link), and I simply would not care. You're acting like an idiot here.
- "Fucktard" wasn't helpful. Then again:
- Calling someone "cumcloud" is not helpful.
- "go c ur lawyer" is not productive (and really stupid, troll-ish behaviour). Neither is accusing someone else of knowing nothing about IP, despite the fact that you were completely wrong on this subject (I could deal with that sort of arrogance if you were right about the matter; as it is, it just makes you look like a troll or a fool)
- This isn't helpful given that you were, once again, completely wrong on the issue of derivative works.
- Using "fo" (I'm guessing that doesn't stand for "fine oratory!") as your edit summary several times is not helpful.
- hu r u lol in response to someone who has given you a fair warning for personal attacks (which I did not) is not helpful either (though this happened after you were unblocked).
- Anyway. Apparently the whole "personal attacks will get you blocked" thing has not sunk in (many people would differ with "another person who hasn't contributed anything trying to ruin commons"). If the stupid side of you needs an outlet, you should probably carry on the personal attacks against me, because I don't give a shit. Do it to anyone else, though, and you will be blocked for a long time. You've been given a fair warning. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 10:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You've tried to carefully orchestrate this discussion to make yourself appear as a victim, but the fact remains you have a history of being abusive and condescending both here and on Wikipedia. You've uploaded dozens of pictures in clear violation of policy on Commons (and you knew as much too, since you removed them from your gallery as soon as they were nominated for deletion) and then berated and abused anybody who had them removed in accordance with policy. You've thrown tantrums before over images that were deleted and threatened to never come back, even though your primary purpose here seems to be your own self promotion. You've reserved a special level of hostility for anybody that contradicts you and now we're here again listening to you tell us you know better because you're in law school. The administrators have been notified here and on the English Wikipedia of your behavior and a warning has been posted in both places. I'll be keeping a very close eye on how you treat other people in the next several weeks. Cumulus Clouds 05:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can't interpret the law, and you berate someone who can. And yes do keep a close eye on me, you do that all the time and seem to enjoy it. I only have a reserved hostility for you, and others have already said characterising your interpretation of law as plain wrong is just that. Keep watching me, by all means, no one cares. Chensiyuan 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Once again, the laws of the Republic of Singapore are nothing like the laws of the United States. The servers of the Wikimedia Foundation are located in Florida and all free media on those servers must comply with United States copyright law. Even if that weren't true, it's not your job or your right to berate anybody for what you believe is a misintepretation of the law. There are policies in place both on Commons and on Wikipedia which expressly prohibit personal attacks against anyone.
- After nominating a considerable number of your images for deletion, it's pretty clear that you don't have any real concern about the rules for free media on Commons and, as a result, I keep a watchful eye on the things you upload. If you continue to upload non free media to Commons, I will continue to have it deleted. The best way to solve this problem is to read the policies on nonfree content so you understand what that is and we don't have to waste anybody else's time with the voluminous and spiteful debates. Cumulus Clouds 03:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not unblock yourself in the future. If you believe a block is unjustified, contest it on your talk page. While the edit the block was for was indeed offensive (even though you were intending to insult yourself) I would not have blocked you for it, so I am not reinstating the block. In the future, you would do well to think about what you write before clicking save. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Discovery mapEdit
I've just noticed that the map has been deleted from the Discovery Expedition page - on its big day out as main page article! The map was offered to me as "from Nasa and therefore PD". I accepted this - I'll believe anything - and I got someone to adapt it for the article. Do I understand that now that it is not from Nasa? Or at any rate, not PD? Is there anything I can do to get the map back? 188.8.131.52 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a duration of 2 daysEdit
- In practice I am not very happy with this block & have asked ABF to review his action. I don't like what you have said (& might well have blocked you myself for some of your postings) however you are a valued Commons admin (when behaving!).
- I'd like to think that you would reflect on your postings and the fact that others are not happy about them. That being the case I see no reason for this block to continue. If you want to mail me - feel free. I'm watching for some change in this situation. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- It has been a few hours since I left this message & one of ABF's talk page and I'm guessing that ABF has not been on line to review this.
- To me Collard was wrong to make the postings (& block log entry) that he did. He was also wrong to unblock himself. However this new block merely looks like a "punishment" block to me & we do not do that.
- Reluctant as I am to overturn another admin's actions in such a way I have unblocked Collard on that basis. Should Collard be so unwise as to repeat these sort of actions I (or anyone else) should block him & seek the community's opinion on his sysop status. --Herby talk thyme 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote on my RfA - it went fine and I'm now commons admin :) --Leafnode 17:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I used to ask general Wikimedia Commons questions to User:GeorgHH, who also is an administrator of Wikimedia Commons. Last night, I left a message in User:GeorgHH's talk page and then he directed my question to you.
Would you be able to have a look at the attachment below and give me some advice about the Image:Breizoz - A French Creperie Resturant at Nelson Place Williamstown.jpg and deleted Image:Williamstown - French Creperie Restaurant.jpg.
Thanks in advance--Donaldytong 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You helped me to put the Image:Breizoz - A French Creperie Resturant at Nelson Place Williamstown.jpg in deletion request. Today I received a message at the following.
|Image deletion warning||Image:Breizoz - A French Creperie Resturant at Nelson Place Williamstown.jpg 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 image, 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.
However, I found the editor might accidentally delete the Image:Williamstown - French Creperie Restaurant.jpg, so that I have to upload the same image again to Wikimedia Commons but under another name called Image: Williamstown - Breizoz (French Creperie Restaurant in Nelson Place).jpg. Would you be able to let me know what has happened about that deletion of Image:Williamstown - French Creperie Restaurant.jpg.
Thanks in advance --Donaldytong 11:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Williamstown - French Creperie Restaurant.jpg was deleted by User:Collard with the reason User request: superior image by same author exists. I don't know what this deletion is based on. --GeorgHH • talk 16:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It is understancable. No worries at all. Thanks for your help anyway.--Donaldytong 05:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Non-commercial use restrictionEdit
The text I added to the license of my photos was to ensure that commercial use is limited but not impossible and to make it compatible to korseby and flickr. Don't you think that such a combination is possible? How should the license-addition be modified that it'll work/fit for the commons? Fabelfroh 09:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)