Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Self-blocking???

Hi, we've not found many avenues of agreement but never thought of this situation. Self-blocking! why? Anyway, as a norm, you should've provided the reason for this just as admins do in the block log when they rightly or wrongfully block other users. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC).

Possibly... but I don't need to explain myself to myself, and I don't see how it's anyone else's concern. It's a self-requested, self-executed block. Rd232 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, dealing with admins like you was not that difficult comparing to some of the admins I posted on the talk page earlier. Does your exist - temporary or otherwise - mean we've to deal with more and more such guys wandering around here perpetually? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC).

Well, that's high praise :) ... for the longer-term future, you could keep an eye on COM:RFA - watchlist Commons:Administrators/Requests. Rd232 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful messages which only highlight that we've lost one of the finest sysops - somebody with whom we would love to disagree and not hate to cooperate - the important thing here is "love". Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC).


Curiously enough, I came to respond to the thread here about your essay, which I found to have potential but lean a little toward accepting the fact that we shouldn't censor most things, only to see you blocked yourself! Over-exertion on a project can definitely take a toll. Commons is quite a beast since it is multilingual and deals with people from all backgrounds (wiki-wise and worldview-wise). I hope you have a nice break filled with happy thoughts, merrymaking, and relaxing. If you don't come back that's fine (not to imply you shouldn't), the project of Wikimedia Commons has bettered because of you and you are now a part of the history of developing it. I sort of decided that I'll just do as I like and keep to myself (to an extent, of course) if and when I decide to contribute to any wiki. Killiondude (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC

Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, after quoting the retirement of "Oh Confucius" on the RfC, I was about to announce my own exit from Commons as censorship casualty # 2. However, your thoughtful research revealed an ulterior angle of Confucius and stopped me from being a self-proclaimed martyr.

As you are well aware, your fellow admins often hurl abuses, pass stray comments and wherever possible make unrestricted and unhindered use of foul language. A recent example is Leyo. When I applied for Rollback rights, he cunningly tried to divert my reasoned example to be a masterpiece of editwarring attitude and then when I explained, he did not budge and instead accused me of BadJPEGs and provided an irrelevant link (as good as saying I've booked tickets for vacation by the latest flight). Now my talk page is on his radar and he posts whatever pleases him. His latest post seems to be aimed at downplaying my contribution.

Since these things have not stopped a humble contributor of the WikiWorld, I feel in your case the heart and soul is now rooted in the Wiki-world and even though you are not editing pages, you are still glued and observe the happenings. Hence I suggest that you make a comeback. If you can't do on your own, I'll ask another local or global sysop to help you. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC).

Thanks, but I can use {{Unblock}} if necessary; and I think I'm doing OK with disengaging, it's hard to do it instantly from one day to the next. I don't really see Leyo doing anything bad (certainly not "downplaying" your contribution) - it can be irritating to have someone's attention on your uploads but try and take it as constructive input. PS Artwork dates can be a pain - {{Art photo}} allows multiple dates in a way that's often helpful. Rd232 (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

COM:WHATCENSORSHIP

Whether or not you intended this essay to be a positive force on this project, it will serve to be nothing other than a malicious one with time. There is no practical means of acting on its central thesis without advancing censorship. Please scrap the thing before it takes root.   — C M B J   03:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Commons:What Is Not Censorship is precisely about what is not censorship. If you'd like to redefine English words, the Wiktionary entry is that way. I bow to no-one in my opposition to actual censorship; but that includes not abusing the word for other things, because that undermines its meaning and weakens its power. Feel free to write a counter-essay on what you understand censorship to be - might be interesting, and probably harder than you think. Rd232 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There are two working definitions of censorship between Wikipedia and Wiktionary:
  • (a) Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship."
  • (b) The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated."
The essay contains exactly three statements about what censorship isn't:
  • (1) "However the policy of hosting such material in order to support its educational mission in no way limits Commons' ability to regulate how and when such content may be displayed."
  • (2) "Nor does the underlying principle - of placing educational mission above users' sensibilities - require Commons to permit such material to be displayed anywhere and everywhere to anyone without distinction."
  • (3) "Empowering users is not censorship. For example, allowing users to decide whether to include certain kinds of content in search results."
...the central idea being that select content may be regulatorily suppressed (censored) or otherwise made suppressible (self-censorable). In the case of the latter, which the essay emphasizes, forcible self-censorship and censorware become serious, realistic threats to the public interest.
Once again, I know that you mean well and I realize that this has long since transformed into a sore subject, but I ask that you do away with this thing before it takes on a life of its own.   — C M B J   03:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, well...
  • (1) is simply a statement of fact about the policy, not a wider statement about censorship. You can invalidate this by making a proposal to change the policy (the wording of which would be quite interesting to see), and if that happened, the essay would need updating.
  • (2) is a simple statement of logic: that prioritising A above B does not require us to completely ignore B.
  • (3) is a simple statement that users should be able to search for what they want to search. I fail to see how anyone can disagree with that concept, or assert that it involves self-censorship, never mind the oxymoron "forcible self-censorship". Censorship is about freedom to make statements; you seem to be confusing that with the freedom to not read statements one doesn't want to or access information one doesn't need. Is it "self-censorship" that I only read 3 newspapers this morning, instead of every newspaper in the world? Is it self-censorship that I didn't read the "entertainment" section in any of them??
Finally, your repeated requests for me to remove this reasonable (if under-developed) opinion-in-essay-form because you dislike what it says is a request for actual self-censorship, not least because it carries the implication that I should not repeat these dangerous opinions elsewhere on Commons. My irony-meter just broke. Feel free to nominate the essay for deletion on the grounds that the opinion is dangerous, transforming a request for self-censorship into attempted censorship... That would just about put the dot on the i of this crazy, yet widely-shared perspective on censorship. Rd232 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Two diverse issues

Hi Rd,

Looking at the way you've blocked urself, I feel probably there might be harsh things you've got in ur mind esp. with probably people like me (opponent # 1) of ur RfC. If unrestricted flow of thoughts and words can relieve you and put u back in action, u can email me anything, however good or bad u've got to say against me or others - typing here can be disastrous, people may quote or misquote you.


On the 2nd thoughts, I've come up with a whole lot of policy issues with this incident of u blocking urself and want to initiate a discussion in one of our forums - but I fear the points may be personally hurting you (sentimentally, if not in terms of action) and hence I stopped myself.

Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC).

Well, on the first point, I guess it's clear enough why I disagree, and I don't really want to discuss that any more at this point. On the "incident" - well I do appreciate your restraint in not starting a discussion about my action that I wouldn't be able to participate in very easily, but if you think it needs to be discussed, don't let that stop you. Before doing that you can of course ask me (here or by email) any questions that might help clarify the issue. Rd232 (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


Are you Happy now ?

I've done this only to make you and the staff happy

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/GhiathArodaki

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:GhiathArodaki

GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What the…

I am on holidays and jsut checking my watchlist occasionnally. I just saw you blocked yourself. What the hell happenned ? Jean-Fred (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see Commons_talk:User_pages#RFC.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thankfully some kind soul took the time and effort to do this, which helps me not regret burning my watchlist (Edit in raw mode, select all, delete). Rd232 (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
... and this, which includes a caption that is false, since File:Censored 2.0.png is not contained on User:Example userpage old. Rd232 (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I closed the RFC about User pages and marked the guideline as rejected. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Global watchlists

Hi Rd. I've added a comment to the discussion you started about global watchlists. I'm not sure how often you visit mediawiki.org, so I wanted to leave you a note here to make you noticed it. guillom 14:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup and interest. I'll reply there. Rd232 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Guideline promotion process

Promotion of several proposed guidelines failed (was there any that succeeded during the past year?)

Perhaps we should consider a different approach:

  1. Bringing issues to the Village Pumps.
  2. If the community considers them serve, create a request for comment about what should be done against and properly explaining why these issues should be addressed and who would benefit from this suggestion. The more people are involved in creating the guideline, the more likely it is that it will be accepted. Or, if it is an existing page, not asking for oppose and support but about what should be improved.
  3. Creating a new guideline or changing existing ones based on these suggestions.
  4. Not using site notes [this just forces everyone to vote without careful reading] but instead notifying all local Village Pumps at Commons and the Administrator's noticeboard. (<irony>doing this during times like WLM where people are busy doing other things like our parliament</irony>)

-- Rillke(q?) 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I did do step 1. [this just forces everyone to vote without careful reading] - no comment!! BTW COM:GRANDFATHER was a recent new guideline. Rd232 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the obvious choice - drop guideline ideas which are not wanted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

FFS, before putting up the sitenotice I had a discussion at COM:VP and on the draft talk page, and if you look at the voting history, it initially looked very promising. I've blocked myself, I've burned my watchlist, and I'm unlikely to return to a place where such a large proportion of users demonstrate the attitudes seen in response to the proposal. What else do you want from me? Blood? Rd232 (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think so (blood is too risky … vampires must have had hard times since the break out of HBV, HIV and other viruses). It is simply distrust (that some admins could abuse the wording for [please forgive me] censorship). It's the same distrust that prevented adoption of other policies as well. I just don't know how we could restore a basic level of trust at Commons. -- Rillke(q?) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Yees... trust is a problem. But part of improving it is surely clarifying rules, by writing them down and making guidance clearer, instead of having vague or unwritten rules. That logic, together with some of the comments in the userpage discussion, suggests it was a mistake not to be clearer about enforcement (which I envisaged as being organic and consensual, with any disputes resolved by community discussion and the results leading to clearer guidance). Rd232 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure whether all users who voted there, read the introduction at all. Links were spread that directly lead to the oppose-section. As far as I can see, a translation system was also missing. Feel free to add to User:Rillke/Checklist for Request for Comments -- Rillke(q?) 06:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Some random thoughts on your self-blocking and commons policies

Hello.

Pursuant to your desire to discuss my approach with regard to your incident, I've the following points in a crude, unpolished and unreferenced form, plainly for discussion:

A. Points related to the appropriateness of self-blocking. B. Your continued sysopship.

Some of the things which come to mind:

  1. Can a user request a sysop to block him with no proper reason cites ("please block me, simply")?
  2. If not, then how is self-blocking by a sysop permissible?
  3. No proper log (reason) for blogging is maintained. True, it is self-requested, self-executed. But the norm is flawed and Commons has every right to know why its admin was blocked?
  4. If you see, from RfC, that your views are perceived as flawed and dictatorial, then even sysopship, active or passive is also dictatorial and has more chances of misuse.
  5. Admin power is for use in the maintenance. In fact, one of the reasons why some of the Request for Rights are denied is that the users do not demonstrate the need for the rights. By self-blocking for 3 months you've demonstrated lack of the need for admin rights, at least for three months. So should you be holding the stale right?
  6. Have you seen a handcuffed policeman or a general stripped of his position and yet being able to come back to action in the same post? Then how's the case with sysopship and continuing it after self-blocking.
  7. I remember an admin remained passive for 3 months on hi:wp and a move was initiated to desysop him. Ultimately, he himself requested desysoping. So how far blocked adminship is permissible where you are incapable of a single edit?
  8. Adminship is not a feebly acceptable right such as filemovership or autopatrolling where a user can be blocked and the block can be revoked as it is. In fact one or two admin warnings will inevitably follow the blocking of the errant user. Other privilege-holders can request an admin to do this, but not on their own. So admins should not be susceptible to blocking, self-blocking, etc where they can be viewed - rightly or wrongly - as errant themselves.
  9. Instead of blocking, the wise option could be wiki-break or simply be away from edits with a note on your talk page.
  10. In the present case, my suggestion will be that Rd gives up sysopship as well or the right is taken away. He can, after three months, proactively contribute to our project and in a very short time be back as admin.

Again, please note all these are from observation / academic view and I've great regard for you. In the event of me posting the above as it is or in modified form on any forum, I'll inform and help you in posting your personal comments and responses. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC).

Very quickly - there is a small but significant history of using blocks to enforce wikibreaks - see en:Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_consider_placing_self-requested_blocks. And nothing else is as effective at enforcing a break as a block. Rd232 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Again plz refer to en:Wikipedia:BLOCKME#Self-requested_blocks and en:Wikipedia:BLOCKME#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. Other issues - admins blocking non-admins on request, not themselves. +Proper block log. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC).
Ha, you are referring to an en.wp-policy. But no Commons policy exists about self blocking so what do you want? -- Rillke(q?) 09:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not me who referred to en:wp, its Rd. Plz refer to all the points before commenting. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC).
Please do not badger blocked users. It's uncomely. If you want, raise this elsewhere. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, if you have glance on my talk page, you'll find a user wanting me to take this issues elsewhere. But I stick to my promise in line with Rd's comment "Before doing that you can of course ask me (here or by email) any questions that might help clarify the issue." Until Rd deals with all my queries I'LL NEVER RAISE ANY OF THE ABOVE ON ANY FORUM.Rd is at the liberty to respond at any time, including after 3 months. I am in no haste and I'll not do anything to bring distress to him. Hope he comes back soon. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC).
OK, thanks for your caution. To clarify further: Commons policy doesn't cover this (as far as I know), so as far as I'm concerned, it's allowed. English Wikipedia policy mentions it, but neither allows nor disallows it. I think that's about all I have to say about the permissibility of my action, and I hope it's an end of it, but if you really want to, you can discuss it elsewhere (COM:AN might be best). A Commons equivalent of the WP category may be useful, or even an addition to COM:BLOCK to mention self-requested blocks as WP does. Feel free to take this elsewhere, like COM:VPR. regards, Rd232 (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have vaguely been following this and I have some experience as a couple of years as an admin on en.wp blocking many thousands of accounts. If a user requests a block on their account, it is fine for an admin to do that for them. There are many reasons this happens, and as has been pointed out, enforcing a wiki-break is one of them. Some folks need the psychological barrier to take a 100% break from editing that having a block provides, and having to make an effort to ask to be unblocked is a firm decision that the user has to make, rather than being tempted to dip back in to make "just one more" edit. Personally, I don't think we need a policy for this rare type of request, but rather than just lobbying Rd232 about it, if anyone feels this needs some guidance, such as what sorts of clear wording should appear in the block log, I suggest starting by proposing some words on Blocking policy. Thanks -- (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That smells very ironic. Because Rd232 is fed up with struggling in making progress with Commons policies, he would like a break by blocking himself for a while. But he should not be allowed to do so, unless he gets a policy on self-blocking proposed and accepted ... --Foroa (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Schëppen Damm--w.jpg

 
File:Schëppen Damm--w.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 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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Robby (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Tiziansall am Prado.jpg

 
File:Tiziansall am Prado.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 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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Robby (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately Licensed

You participated at the earlier discussion on licence choice for Featured Pictures. A number of users felt that such restrictions should be made at policy level. Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/AppropriatelyLicensed. This is a proposal to amend this licence policy to disallow future uploads where the sole licence is inappropriate for the media (e.g., GFDL for images). In earlier discussions there were a number of comments that, while reasonable opinions, did not align with Wikimedia's mission for free content. Please read the FAQ before commenting. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Review of Commons' Scope is now OPEN

Hi. Earlier this year you contributed to a discussion of Commons' scope at Commons:Requests for comment/scope. I am hoping we can build on the very interesting discussion that happened there, and I would like to invite you to add your further thoughts to a broader review now underway at Review of Commons' Scope. I hope you will return. All the best, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up PRP

Hello, I am writing to you because you have participated in this discussion to inform you that there is a discussion on PRP that is taking place here and your input would be valuable. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Great_Depression_in_the_United_States

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Mixed_religious-secular_Israeli_settlements

Hi. I dismantled this cat as I came to think that it is quite an unsustainable cat, it’s pretty hard and “unscientific” to determine in today’s Israeli constellation which criteriae make a place “mixed” or “homogenous” – ultimately, almost every populated place that is not a kibbutz has its share of religious inhabitants (big or small). ---Which makes this category a bit useless.. Thanx Orrlingtalk 04:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor @ ar.wiki

Hello. I would like to inform you that I have granted you editor flag at the Arabic Wikipedia, all your edits there will be automatically marked as patrolled. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

De-adminship warning

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Rd232/Archive 8, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2014 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

De-adminship

Hi Rd232! This is just to inform you that earlier today, you had your adminship privileges revoked on Meta by a Wikimedia steward; as you are an experienced editor, I gave you the autopatroller rights. Thank you for you service as an administrator, and I hope you will, one day, come back to us. odder (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I second that, hoping myself seeing you back here working again. -- Rillke(q?) 14:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Me too. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
+1. Jee 03:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Filetype_icons

-- Perhelion 18:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Helppagelinks

 
Template:Helppagelinks 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 template, 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.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pierpao.lo (listening) 18:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Upload help editintro

 
Commons:Upload help editintro 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 project page, 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.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Be..anyone (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer review and document improvement request

This is a Peer review request to seek broader input to improve page: meta:Help:Form I & Affidavit (Customised for relinquishment of copyright as per 'free cultural work' definition) an option available under (Indian) Copyright act 1957 rules.


Rgds. Mahitgar (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

SOPA initative

I see you were the person to post about SOPA in the VP few years back. I thought I'd ping you about Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama_2015. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

  For no particular reason ^_^ --ANDROBETA 03:19, 18 July 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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JarektBot (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Commons_interwiki_link_bots

Steak (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:German stamps review - high priority

No worries, we're both not more really active. –2A03:2267:0:0:5443:FFC2:23F9:CD9A 14:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Help talk:Contents

 
Help talk:Contents 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 help page ⧼pageinfo-talkpage⧽, 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.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Sarosh Lodhi (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/Status

 
Commons:Bots/Requests/Status 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 project page, 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.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Help talk:Contents

 
Help talk:Contents 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 help page ⧼pageinfo-talkpage⧽, 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.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

104.251.44.25 22:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Rd232/Archive 8".