User talk:Smihael/January 2017

• Archive 1 - from 2007 to 2013

Barnstar

Hello,

Thanks for the barnstar. It is rare that my work as an admin is appreciated. Thank you, Yann (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

FOP issue

Can you please present your opinion at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama? Thanks. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Eleassar's notice board

• File:Križ1.JPG

  http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedija:Pod_lipo/Arhiv-2006-11-15#Ajdov.C5.A1.C4.8Dina_-.3Ehttp:.2F.2Fwww.tic-ajdovscina.si.2F --Miha (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• File:Konqueror-ib.png

  Spet počneš kar na pamet: Konqueror je prosto programje, na posnetku pa je bila Wikipedija. --Miha (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Spet odgovarjaš kar na pamet. Na posnetku je bila spletna stran BBC. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Ob brisanju se ponavadi poda razlog sicer je vse to netransparenten hokus pokus... --Miha (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  Lahko bi ga prebral, če slika ne bi bila nemudoma izbrisana.. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• File:Križ1.JPG

  Sem že razložil zgoraj... TC je pred leti dal dovoljenje in uporabnik Slodave ga je objavil pod lipo. --Miha (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• File:Jesenice (railway).jpg

  I think you should contact the uploader and not me. --Miha (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the municipality agrees on usage of picture material from their website: see http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedija:Slovenske_ob%C4%8Dine --Miha (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Zupancicevahisa.jpg Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Če bi pozorno pogledal, lahko vidiš, da je bila datoteka samo prenesena iz slovenske Wikipedije, kamor jo je naložil avtor sam. OTRS torej ni potreben. (For English speaking users: The file was transfered from Slovene Wikipedia. The original uploader was the author himself (licence was by {{self|CC-BY-SA-2.5}}). Therefore the OTRS is not required.) --Miha (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematična je povezava, ki ne vodi nikamor. Lahko to popraviš, da bo kazala na pravo mesto? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Urejeno. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hvala; upam da je medtem orodje za prenasanje datotek ze ustrezno popravljeno/prilagojeno novemu sistemu, tako da vsatavi vse zahtevane podatke... --Miha (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Smihael. You have new messages at Eleassar's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• File:Visnja Gora-sola.jpg Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• File:Šolski center Ivančna Gorica.JPG Eleassar ^(t/p) 07:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest that you first try to gain consensus for the changes that you want to implement at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. It is the usual practice that before any significant changes of long-present material, a consensus must be arrived at, particularly in cases when it is clear on first sight that they are contentious. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• File:Kapelica na Uskovnici.jpg Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/January 2017⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Smihael,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Križ1.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Križ1.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

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.

lNeverCry 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eleassar: This guy just made the same vote at the FPC that PetarM is currently blocked for. How many of these are we going to have to deal with? lNeverCry 22:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And then he repeats it here. So talk removed. Commons isn't for political bullshit. Does the image qualify for FP by its quality and visual appeal? then support it. Does it not meet FP quality? Then oppose it. The other shit is in the articles on wikis where it belongs. lNeverCry 23:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment @INeverCry: I agree with that you said in the noticeboard : "FPC....It's not a place for political agendas", however here it's the place to try to discuss the issue, and to try to make understand the potential issue to the user. It's the second vote in the same direction, and we can not blockl indef. every one, we have to learn to deal with this kind of situation. The first thing to do is, for me, to allow the user editing his talk page. The second thing IMO is to unblock the both users, to warn them not to show their political opinion, specially during a vote process (specially when saying their vote is motivate by a political point of view), and if they do it again, after being warned, ok to block with a reasonable block. I say that as a colleague, INeverCry, for to find a solution to deal with this kind of isse, it's not a criticism of your admin actions (I myself have my very own personal way to do the job). @Smihael: you missed a point when you voted, a photo can be featured even if it's a photo of a criminal, in FPC we are not judging the morality of the person depicted in the photo. We are judging the photo, with this kind of vote you're unfair with the photographer work and with the nominator, this is of course only my point of view. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: This person repeated the comments here, and then socked around his block via IP (he's an admin and crat on sl.wiki - you would expect better). His and PetarM's comments via IP socking (yes PetarM did it as well) have been confrontational and not constructive. Neither of them has contacted me by email, and PetarM's unblock request was declined by an uninvolved admin. I can't unblock PetarM because I would be going over the decision of another admin to deny his request. This individual Smihael seems to me to have been trolling, perhaps after being canvassed by PetarM. I doubt he could edit his talk even if I unblocked it due to my block of the IP he socked with. This is hardly the behavior you'd expect from two admins. I  Oppose unblocking this account until he has something respectful to say. He can do that via email or on my en.wiki, ru.wiki, or uk.wiki talkpages. I'm not going to jump to do favors for people who are treating me and Commons with the disrespect these two are guilty of. And yes, we actually can block every individual who makes inappropriate comments at that FPC. You violate policy, you get blocked. It doesn't matter if ten people did the same before you did it. Wrong is wrong. These guys have some problem with the subject of the inappropriate comments. Commons isn't their soapbox to voice these comments. So far these guys aren't representing themselves very well at all. They can't be rude and dismissive of the problem and expect a pat on the back from me. Pretty much everyone on AN has agreed that the comments are inappropriate, but both of these guys have flouted that view and instead have behaved rudely to me while evading their blocks via IP. I've said I'd be willing to unblock if the issue was resolved and then not repeated. So far this reasonable request has been ignored by the two individuals concerned. They've preferred to troll me at AN with IP socks. lNeverCry 05:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I've been contacted via email by this user. I hope we can come to an understanding that allows for a full unblock. lNeverCry 08:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @INeverCry: I have also been contacted via e-mail by Smihael; can I request that you restore his talk page access so that we can have a public record of the conversation regarding a possible unblocking of his account? I think it might be helpful as a reference for the future. Thanks, odder (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Odder: I originally removed talk access because he repeated the inappropriate comments here right after the vote at FPC. If you're confident that this won't be repeated, than I trust you to unblock talk. He also admittedly used an IP to evade the block. You'll have to unblock his IP range in order for him to use his talk. The short hard 3-day rangeblock is 212.38.160.0/19 (he publicly revealed that this was him at AN). If you or any other admin feel that an unblock is justified, and that he'll keep these inappropriate comments off Commons, than feel free to remove my block. I trust your judgement in a sensitive situation like this especially. I've told him that this matter can be dealt with at sl.wiki or sr.wiki where sources and BLP policy can serve as a necessary check. FPC is for the judgement of image quality not the behavior of the subject of the photo. I'll be offline asleep soon, and I'm disabled, so I always sleep in. lNeverCry 08:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I didn't see the rev-deleted comments. If it was something related to athlete, note that Nick already asked to avoid such comments in all places. So Smihael should agree to it prior to enable talk page access. Jee 11:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @INeverCry: I do agree wholeheartedly that the argumentation behind the oppose vote at FPC was out of line, for reasons that you and others have already explained in detail over at AN, which is why I believe that your block was well-placed. It's been a couple of hours since your block so I hope that Smihael has had a bit of time to reflect upon their behaviour and will not repeat it on this wiki—be it on this talk page or elsewhere—again. I have taken the liberty to remove the IP range block that you placed and will grant Smihael's access to this talk page in a moment so that we can have a productive and responsible discussion leading towards unblocking their account; I do expect Smihael to acknowledge that their comment was inappropriate and will not be repeated as a requirement for the removal of the block. odder (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@odder thanks for letting me edit my talk page. I am sorry for any inconvenience caused and will refrain from voting for FOP in advance. Reviewing other admins' opinions, I do acknowledge that my comment was possibly out of line for a FOP candidate discussion, but I think that rules should be stated more precise to avoid further similar cases. If we are only to evaluate technical and aesthetic value, than this should be stated explicitly.

I would like to emphasise that the aim of my vote oppose was not rising a political issue, but warning not to feature potentially disputed materials (which could result in further issues). Essentially I followed the same reasoning as INeverCry: I wanted to prevent Wikimedia Commons from running into troubles after featuring potentially controversial material and he/she wanted to protect Wikimedia Commons from containing possibly liable claims. Since bibliographies and images of living persons are subject to strict rules to prevent legal cases, I now see that this argument prevails. The majority concern is that the material is appropriate, so I refrain for making further remarks on that matter, as I always try to be a constructive member of Wikimedia projects. I always appreciated Wikimedia projects for dialogue between the contributors - so was Wikipedia not only an online encyclopedia but a space, where contributors can resolve conflicts in a friendly manner and find how to present even most disputed topics (let it be research with several conflicting theories or politics) in a balanced way without bias.

For the reasons named, I ask for unblocking my account. I personally think that the final decision should be left to INeverCry, who originally blocked me, to prevent further users from getting involved such as in the original PetarM's case and to reach an agreement with him to prevent further conflicts. I am sorry for expressing my concern out of line, and I hope that you (@INeverCry) can in future refrain from making generalising remarks such as "politically motivated nonsense/bullshit" or "inappropriate votes from Eastern Europeans" (as a matter of fact Slovenia is usually considered to be part of Central or Southeastern Europe which have both a little to to with the former Eastern block).

Furthermore, I can now confirm that these and only these edits (latter redone by INeverCry) where I elaborated on my vote were mine. I failed to see discussion prior to voting - if I had i would probably refrain from voting and reply directly there. I also ask here other admins to review my comment and restore it at least partially for transparency reasons. I do strongly believe, that hiding content in discussions goes against the spirit of Wikipedia (except if it were for hatred speech or other extreme cases which that was not).

Best regards, --Miha (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So you kind of realize what the problem was and you kind of think maybe you shouldn't have said it. You may not repeat it but you want comments you made with a block evading IP to be restored. That's not good enough in my opinion, so I still am  Opposed to unblocking you. Commons FPC isn't a place for politics. The nominator of the image has expressed his sadness at what's been done there. Does that bother you? It bothers me. As for my comments that you mention, I think all of this political nonsense has been disruptive, unwelcome, and unnecessary. Calling it bullshit was inappropriate, so I won't use that term again. The comments have come from a Slovenian Wikipedia admin/crat (you), and a Serbian admin (PetarM), and then the issue was discussed in Slovenian with the participation of a Slovenian Commons admin (Eleassar). Hence my "Eastern European" comment. We often get canvassing coming from a certain wiki or wikis (my own original request to become a checkuser was canvassed against at de.wiki), and so I feared that this was the situation here when I saw you repeat PetarM's comments. I didn't mean it in an insulting way, and I apologize if it was found to be offensive. I won't make that comment again.

As for unblocking you, I want to be as clear as possible, so this is what I want to see: 1. You acknowledge that your comments were inappropriate and nonconstructive. 2. You promise not to make those comments again on Commons anywhere. 3. You refrain from referring to comments you made in your defense through IP block evasion (they will not be restored because they were made in violation of policy - blocked users cannot evade their block with IP editing), and you don't waste time trying to justify your actions. It's a simple thing: acknowledge the problematic comments, promise not to repeat them anywhere on Commons, and I'll unblock you. If/when I do unblock you, I think the right thing for you to do would be to let the issue rest and move forward. As I've stated before, individual wikis are the place to discuss use of the image or the subject of the image. This is because there are policies in place regarding articles about living persons and sources can be presented to determine what goes into an article. lNeverCry 21:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I do not know PetarM except for his useful and productive contributions (he has got 20 featured pictures on Slovenian Wikipedia, and over 20 here on Commons) and he probably does not know me other than for my previous technical work (JavaScript editing enchantment gadgets) and/or a couple of featured pictures both here and on sl.wiki. As I do not have admin position here, I could not see his comment(s) on the FPC, since you deleted them. Thus my "repeating" of "his comment" happened independently of him, and if anything it shows that the picture truly is disputable and not that there was a canvassing attack. Even if there was one, I don't see why that could possibly be problematic, as "editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote" (COM:FPC) and just like campaigns asking people for higher turnout for a certain candidate are allowed or even appreciated, there might be interests of local Wikipedia communities.

As per 1 and 2: I already acknowledged, that the comment was out of line for liability reasons. However, I refuse to agree that the content of the comment itself was inappropriate as per COM:FPC (on judging photographs): "The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer". The WADA scandal I mentioned in my vote is not some kind of Eastern European conspiracy (context of observer), but a fact with files published and a matter of ongoing discussions (cultural context). As long as, Wikimedia projects remain a non-Orwelian society (2 + 2 = 5), I do not have to be sorry from having opinion, which is different from the mainstream media and I refuse to drop my opinion, just because someone else said it is inappropriate, but I will refrain from non-constructive further debate around this and will not repost that comment anywhere else on Commons.

As per 3: It is totally clear to me that using block evasion is a serious problem in certain cases such as sock-pupeting (which was not the matter here). You should realise, that this would be a non-issue if it was not for your overreaction (taking away my talk page access, undef block without any prior notice). If I regain my access, you don't have to worry about me abusing IP editing, anyway. But I do also see, that I made a mistake and could have have faith that someone will eventually restore my talk page access and hence could have waited with the comment in my defence. From my long year experience as admin on 3 other sister projects and as several other users already pointed out, you should be aware, that revoking talk page access without a pripor notice without expiry date is a problem as you give the feeling that the block is permanent (indefinite block are indeed used mainly for such cases) and only give further inertia to the conflict between the involved parties. You also had no e-mail enabled here on Commons, so it seemed to me that I had no other way to contact you (you only pointed out latter that contacting you over en.wiki is possible), I decided for a problematic method. I would have never used it otherwise and will not use it again, as I learned that writing emails to other admins is the preferred way. I doubt I will ever be in such a situation again, though.

I have just a final remark: We are not in school and you are not a teacher, who would punish me and made me write "I will never do this and that again" for 100 times. It is not without good reasons, that teachers' practices are not allowed in European countries for over a couple of decades now. Please refrain from this in the future: as an admin you should treat fellow contributors with dignity and not behave as if you had some "aura" of authority or to be in a position to make demands. Plese note, that I am not an English native speaker, so treat my messages as they were meant (i.e. in a friendly manner and not attacking you). Best, --Miha (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I've worked with you here constructively too (remember all the icons I reviewed). I hope to do so again in the future. Since you've been cooperative about the issue and you've stated that you won't repeat the contentious comment/material, I have no problem unblocking you. If I over-reacted, it was due to inexperience in dealing with these kinds of situations. I'm one of the ten most active admins in WMF history, with nearly 500,000 log actions, but most of it is deletions, blocking of socks and spambots, and fighting vandalism. If I've treated you in a heavy-handed manner, I sincerely apologize. I'll be sure to take this as learning experience. I certainly haven't enjoyed it in the least, I can assure you. Have a good night (or day as the case may be). lNeverCry 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am glad that this has been resolved in a friendly manner. I value your work regarding cleaning-up all the mess that gets uploaded here, and I hope that you can take something out of this non-enjoyable confrontation to further improve your work. I am looking forward to further constructive cooperation. Best, --Miha (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Ljubljanica near Cobblers' Bridge.JPG

File:Ljubljanica near Cobblers' Bridge.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 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!

Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)