User talk:Stillwaterising/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive 2 →

Vandalism?

Revert a ood faith edit as vandalism again and I will do my best to have you blocked for lying. Got it? Good. Roux (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the threat. Your "ood faith" edits do nothing to further the development of these guidelines and was removed as vandalism due the use of the phrase "WTF" (What The Fuck) is the title. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sexual content proposal

I'm sorry if this offends you, but no, I will not withdraw my opposition to your proposals regarding sexual content on Wikimedia Commons. I also will not help you develop alternative ones because my personal belief is that they are completely unnecessary because they can never be objective, culturally neutral and NPOV.

Every time a proposal of this nature has been made on any Wikimedia project it has been overwhelmingly rejected by the community. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a recurring issue

Do not revert my edits as vandalism. That you disagree with them is plain. But your conduct is inappropriate. Timtrent (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

MRI images really yours?

You uploaded three related MRI images. I have tagged them with {{Disputed}}. I doubt that they are really your work, because there is no metainformation. But if you really are an MRI specialist, you could dispel my doubts by supplying technical details. It would also be good if you could upload more work, of different parts of the body. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The MRI's are images of my own body. I paid a professional radiological service to produce them and I was given a copy of the images on a CD without copyright notification. I was also given verbal confirmation that they are not copywritten and I could use them as I see fit. There's already guidelines for fee-for-service images that I feel I have complied with. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this makes it clear that the images are not own work, and that you are not the author. You have not supplied evidence of permission, so I will change the tags. You may want to use COM:OTRS to submit permission. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll work on getting written permission. If they get deleted I guess I can resubmit. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Stay off Roux's talk page, please

Your comments there are not helping matters. Step aside and let others handle this matter. Further comments there may result in your editing privs being suspended. In fact, discontinue comments to Roux or about Roux, everywhere, until further notice, as this needs to deescalate, and it needs to happen now. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I can do that. I'm going to let things settle for a while, do some contemplation on how best to proceed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising, I've blocked you for one day because of these two recent edits on Roux's talk page despite the warnings that you should stay off: [1] and [2]. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually those edits were unintentional. I'm obviously new to Commons and while I was reviewing what was said on that user's talk page I noticed those links along the side and thought they lead to policy explanations. I was confused when they didn't seem to lead anywhere except back to the same talk page. I admit that this is a technical violation of the block and that ignorance may not be an acceptable excuse under these circumstances. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising, I do not think that these links come by default. (I myself do not have these buttons because I believe in personal communication and not in templates as a substitute for it.) Do you have enabled the »User Messages« gadget in your preferences? This is the gadget that comes with a warning: Please be careful that you know what the template will say before using a given option, and that you do not spam user talk pages. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I had the box for User Messages checked (now removed) and I was also editing from a smartphone. I'm not too concerned about the block (although it is my first), but I do want the record to show that the violation was unintentional. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stillwaterising, I've unblocked you as I trust you in your statement that these edits were unintentional. Take care, AFBorchert (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

G'day

just a quick note to say that I've popped back into a few conversations here and there - and have (partly) caught up with some of the broo ha ha about the sexual content proposal, and your and roux's falling out.

From my perspective, all that really matters is the content of the ideas you're putting forward - it kinda doesn't really matter what 'tag' the text is worked on under (although people get quite flustered about it all!) - I've found that slowing down one's edit rate is generally a good idea when the heat goes up, and it's also worth bearing in mind that sound and fury often signify nothing - certainly I hope that none of this is too stressful - I'm a fan of saying that all this will come out in the wash one way or the other in the end.... I'll continue to try and work out a) what's gone on and b) what I think might be a good direction from here - I hope you're up for a bit more work etc. because I think it will bear fruit ultimately :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

ps. per the latest round of tagging and re-tagging - if you're up for carrying on, I think it's safe to say that there are now other eyes and ears on this page, and it's probably best to disengage from the issue of whether or not we can say 'in development', or whether or not a 'rejected' tag must sit at the top of the page - I remain very interested in your approach, and if we just stick to discussing and editing the body of the page, I think that's probably the best way forward? - maybe in due course third parties might be able to help manage the rather nasty atmosphere with appropriate guidance and actions as necessary - we'll see..... Privatemusings (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to take a tip from Buddha and take the path of non-attachment. Basically, continue to take action but remove myself from attachment to the results. I'm going to get some sleep and take action on this tomorrow. Thanks for the advice. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

new spot

G'day Still - per the discussion on the talk page of the proposals, I've created a new spot for development and discussion at Commons_talk:Sexual_content/April_2010 - hopefully it'll be calmer waters :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

You are welcome to make any comment in my talk page. About this discussion, I'm still wondering if Dale is serious or joking (in french we would call that « humour noir », but I will not use this with him ). I tried to make an answer as non-emotional as possible to avoid any conflict. Thanks for your message. --GaAs¹¹⁶⁷¹ 08:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were me I would report him. It happened on your userpage so I guess it's you're call. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of images in use

Hi Stillwaterising, please refrain from using the speedy deletion templates for cases which are not clear-cut and in use in other Wikimedia projects. I suggest to open regular deletion requests for them. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's "clear-cut" anymore, however I will try to refrain from speedy noms for reasons of sexual content (unless it appears involves a minor). - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Stillwaterising. BTW, I've posted a comment that refers to two of your speedy deletions. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment to TheDJ was not appropriate

Please do not threaten other editors. Your inability to express you points in ways that fit within the norms here does not mean your points were invalid. but the validity of the points does not excuse unacceptable behavior, including threats or personal attacks (or edit warring). ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Lar's friendly comment didn't help. Let me put it more bluntly: your asking several admins to resign is singularly unhelpful. Just going around and putting "resignation requests" on the talk pages of any odd admin who does or writes something you disagree with is not the way to go. (Now here's a Jimbo comment for you...)

You have been pointed to the correct procedure already more than once. Use it if you feel that an admin regularly or repeatedly or excessively abuses the tools, but then you should make a darn good case with evidence and not just "per Jimbo's so-and-so comment". Do not even think of using this process if somebody just expresses a dissenting opinion. Also note the following quote from that policy: "De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible."

In particular, I want you to explain what triggered this request. I looked, and I don't even remotely see any reason for it.

If you continue this kind of disruptive and divisive behavior, you may be blocked for an extended period of time. If I see you do this again, I will block you. See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Stillwaterising. Consider this the final warning. Lupo 07:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Calmness, please!!

Hello Stillwaterising, I ask you to please make a strong effort to moderate your comments so that they do not distract from the overall important discussion about sexually explicit content and nudity.

If you are frustrated by some comments and need to blow off stream, you can email me and talk it through. (This is an open invitation for other people that may be getting over heated by the disagreements.) Also, if you think a comment that you about to post might be inflammatory or taken the wrong way then perhaps you could run it past me or another user first. These are just offers and suggestions as a way to help. If you see no benefit to them, then I understand.

Regards, FloNight♥♥♥ 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not spread disinformation

Hello. You are accusing me of wheel warring. This is slander and completely false. I have not wheel warred, I have argued against the actions of other admins, nothing more. That is consensus-building and debate. Also, please refrain from suggesting that I support the inclusion of child pornography on Commons. Please do not accuse people of wheel warring simply because they disagree with someone. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you can be happy, I won't be here for the next 60hrs or so, so I won't be able to abuse my admin powers like you seem to believe I'm doing. Be happy! -mattbuck (Talk) 07:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know what wheel-warring is, just referring to the discussion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

These are your words cloned from Matt's talk page "As per Jimbo Wales statement advocating "removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue" I request your resignation as a sysop on Commons. Respectfully, Stillwaterising (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC), how on earth could you make such a comment if you "don't even know what wheel-warring is".KTo288 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice regarding your comment

I am notifying you, because I have mentioned your actions, in a thread in this subsection: Commons:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Restoration_of_rights. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to consider withdrawing your requests to delete my uploads

Hello, I respectfully ask you to withdraw all your deletion requests for my uploads, since OTRS, source, date of photography, date of upload, and my year of birth are all publicly available here on Commons.At the time of this writing, there are no editors who support deletion, and if the result of the discussions is to keep, you may possibly receive a ban for your disruptive behavior.Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me or insult me by calling me a liar. I repectfully regret to inform you that I'm not going to withraw the DR noms. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not an insult to call a duck a duck. You made several statements admins proved to be totally false at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Taric_Alani_Self_sucker.jpg. You are a liar. Continuing to act in bad-faith such as on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot polyamory mascot.gif will get you banned. This is a warning. Capisce? Taric25 (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

flickr image taken without concent

Can you help me open a rfd for Http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cheryl's_breasts.jpg

I'm on my mobile and can't do anything.

I also think it may be worth following up with the flickr source of such images for signs that the photographer took the picture without permission of the female. ... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 07:02, 14 May 2010

There seems like this isn't an isolated incident... I'll see what I can do. - Stillwaterising (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stillwaterising. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I am always bad with 3 letter names ... --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Self sucker.jpg

Good day, Stillwaterising. I wanted to let you know in a bit more detail about my speedy closing your deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Taric Alani Self sucker.jpg. You made multiple wildly and obviously false misstatements as the reason for your request. Maybe you didn't even take the time to see if what you said in the listing had any relationship to the situation of the image you were listing; if so please be more careful in the future.

Note that in my role as a fellow user, I may sometimes voice a different opinion than you in a discussion. I'm also an administrator here on Commons, and in that role I work to apply current Commons policies as best I can, whether the details are exactly what I would personally want or not. If/when Commons had a clear policy requiring speedy deletion of that image, I would do so. If/when there was a valid deletion request with overwhelming support for deletion, I would have not problem deleting that image as I have deleted thousands of other images.

On this image request you made multiple false statements not only about the image, but also (perhaps you weren't aware of it) about another user here on Commons. I advise you: Please don't do that. It does not help your case. I suggest you take more care to make sure that your stated reasons in any deletion requests you make are accurate. Thanks much. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have appreciated the chance to revise and improve the nomination. It would seem to me like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Would it be possible to restart the DR at a later date with revised rationale? - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to impose your retarded morals upon others. If you don't want see the human body, close your eyes instead of vandalizing commons. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

artistic

As a short answer: if there's debate over it, let that debate play out through a full deletion, and don't speedy delete it. Speedy deletion is an almost invisible process - unless the deletion log is diligently monitored, the image is gone, and noone will know that it was ever there - and, as such, should be reserved for only the clearest of cases.

However, as you ask for my definition: anything that isn't a photograph or film would be a start. A few photographs would likely come under art, but that would be a very small proportion of our photographic content in this field, and would mostly be works that came under the "creator is notable" requirement as well.

For the reasons why, one can look at Jimbo's deletions, where things that were clearly artworks, by notable artists of the "decadent" school, were deleted by him as pornographic, and one suspects mainly because he didn't understand the context - for instance, it turns out the Rops artwork is a commentary on the sexualized language St. Teresa used to describe her religious ecstasies. (One can also suggest that we could do better by cropping the full-sized, colour image, but that's more of an upload-over issue than a delete).

Long story short, it's easy to not understand the context, notability, or other aspects of an artwork, and so they shouldn't be speedy deleted. As a secondary issue we don't want to get into a situation where illustrations of sexual acts are being deleted, when I think noone would disagree that an illustration is often much more tasteful than a photograph of a sexual act to illustrate an article.

Even if a artwork manages to have no notability, and no artistic, historical, or educational merit, I think that we'd be far better served if this was determined through a deletion discussion, instead of one person taking a guess at its value. Remember, we just went through a situation where Jimbo and a few others deleted artworks precisely because they didn't understand the social, historical, artistic, and educational context of them.

We need rules that are consistent with the arguments we make about other sources of controversy - we become hypocrites if we refuse to delete images of Muhammad because we aren't censored, then go and implement blanket censorship on things that Jimbo cares about personally. I think that a very good case can be made for deleting most of the sexual content that reaches the level of pornography on an issue of scope, but that does not mean we should simply advocate for deleting all pornographic material, since Jimbo's actions have shown very clearly that's going to get into territory we do not want to go into, and serve to undermine the community values which allow us to defend ourselves against other types of censorship, such as the aforementioned Muhammad controversy.

By the way, don't forget to sign messages with four tildes (~~~~) - I had to check the page history to find out who wrote the message. In any case, I hope this helps explain my views on the matter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, do remember that documenting the past is a legitimate goal. Take File:Tameing_a_Shrew;_or,_Petruchio's_Patent_Family_Bedstead,_Gags_&_Thumscrews.png, which I believe is my only upload related to sexual content. This is not a nice image at all. But it serves to both document (thankfully) changing attitudes towards marital abuse, and clearly and quickly illustrates a major issue many people have with the play it makes an (unfunny) joke with, and, hence, is useful for teaching. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about terms?

I notice on your userpage you comment that "I tried to write guidelines so we could police ourself.[1] Consensus failed and a higher power took over. Anybody who thought the Wikimedia projects were democratically run were mistaken from the get-go." - wouldn't consensus failing indicate democracy was working as intended? Surely your definition of democracy is not that you get to write a rule to "police" everybody else? Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Democracy failed because no community annoucement was made and the same 10 editors that killed the Dec. 2008 proposal effictively also killed the April 2010 proposal as well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated, I wanted to thank you for also voting to keep some of my sexuality images currently up on DR - you'll notice I've actually voted to delete some of my own uploads as well. I think it shows increased good-faith when we aren't dealing strictly with people voting along partisan lines. Look forward to many VKs in the future ;) Max Rebo Band^{"almost suspiciously excellent"} 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to caution you about transferring sexual images from Flickr. According to US law, inserting an image onto a website, even it the image is somebody else's, could define you as a secondary producer and create legal problems if you do not have 2257 records. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)