User talk:99of9/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Problem?[edit]

Hey, I added the GH and Syria cats to this map:[1] the left is a Syria map and the right a GH map, per the cats in this map:[2], this is alright? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SD. Yes, those categories look fine, since the map is specifically relative to Syria. You might want to say in the description what each of the panels show.--99of9 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted file-name[edit]

Re: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:31018BRD.JPG Can this file-name be changed, please? As your the first in the list, I chose you! I have already edited the description, & the file-name should read something like; "BR_Class_31jpg". Please see the talk-pages for background. Thanks, Archolman (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non neutral names[edit]

99of9 there are some images that have pov and non neutral names:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PikiWiki_Israel_3_63d7c10170acca880b997428b3ee5366.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PikiWiki_Israel_3417_Geography_of_Israel.JPG

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to rename them because the name are also too non-descriptive. If you can improve the English description (e.g. species of bird, and name or location of river/waterfall), that would help me to choose the best renamed name. Thanks. 99of9 (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bird is an eagle at the Gamla nature reserve, the waterfall I dont know, you can change it to "Waterfall in Golan" or something like that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. --99of9 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I found some more non neutral names, can you move them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_-_Banias_-_Agrippas_city_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_-_Banias_-_Temple_of_Pan_001.jpg

I'm also having trouble with this SVG file:[3] please delete it.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So whats the deal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to save time next time, make sure the file description is clear, and put a rename request on it (perhaps linking the agreement). There are file renamers for this, special requests to admins are not usually required. Done now. --99of9 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

How does one report edit-warring on the Commons site? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a formal 3RR rule, afaik--DieBuche (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DieBuche is right, but edit warring is still a blockable offence, as soon as it's clear that it's a war. It could be reported on one of the Administrator's noticeboards, either User Problems, or Blocks & Protection. 99of9 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's already under discussion on the user problems page, but no action is being taken. It has do with that Xander guy. This is off track, but what's the best way to learn about commons - how to move my images from wikipedia to commons, and that kind of thing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the best way. It looks like you're working it out gradually. I've never transferred images from en-wiki, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hi 99of9, Thank you for your inputs on AN/U, and for reopening the nomination of my image that was closed by Alvesgaspar. I'd like to ask you, if I am allowed to vote on my bans? Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter has suggested a delay to allow voluntary agreements first. So maybe you'd like to state who you will voluntarily stay away from. I don't know of any written rules about voting, but it's safe to say that those being sanctioned usually don't get much say in the final decision. So I'd suggest leaving your comments out of the voting sections. I guess most people will read the opinions you've stated on your talk page anyway. Perhaps you want to make statements about Rama and Adambro, since Pieter Kuiper brought them up as possibilities. --99of9 (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a nice laugh over your comment --Mbz1 (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi 99of9, I believe you forgot to sign the message you left at my talk page. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help[edit]

Hi I am a user in both English (user:logicalthinker33) and malayalam wikipedia(user:സ്നേഹശലഭം). I had uploaded my image here. But I reduced its quality and uploaded another one to make it less probable from misuse. So Kindly delete my first upload from its history. Thank you--സ്നേഹശലഭം (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done --99of9 (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi 99of9. On English wikipedia editors, who have an active ban are required to keep the notification of it on their talk pages until the ban is in effect. May I please ask you, if it is the same requirement on Commons or I may archive the notice? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any rules, and in this case I'm not particularly fussy as long as the participants have officially been told. So go ahead and archive. Thanks for asking first. --99of9 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rights[edit]

Thank you. Albertus teolog (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I hope you find them useful. --99of9 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

blocking of "DrorK" (with capital K)[edit]

Please see a response on my behalf below your post: User talk:DrorK Drork (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Six Day War Terrritories.png[edit]

Hello 99of9. Can you please revert the new version uploaded by Supreme Deliciousness to uploaders version. And hide his version to remove the POV sentence. Thanks. Geagea (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your edit? Geagea (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did the reversion you requested and explained it in the edit summary. I don't see a reason to go hiding POV. In fact, when SDs file is uploaded as an alternate POV, it should be explicitly linked from this file. --99of9 (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This allows POV attacks by uploading new versions and also in 3rr's. I believe it is wrong decision. Uploader have the right to clean page. He can upload his map by himself. And you dont know for sure that the first version is POV. Anyway thanks. Geagea (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was a controversial change, even drork didn't object to it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I objected the description you introduced under the map. Apparently you also introduced changes on the map itself which I haven't noticed. SD, your edits are extremely tendentious and controversial and you try to impose them forcefully. I am doing my best to recover damages that you make, not by making another tendentious edit, but by restoring a more neutral version. Your suggestion that your edits are consensual while mine are biased is another attempt of yours to force your opinion. Your attempt to take advantage of a technical error in order to ask for my block, while deceiving administrators, rather than politely indicate to me that something went wrong, is also quite unacceptable to say the least.
99of9, I am with Geagea here that we should be very careful about POVized files. The NPOV rule applies to all Wikimedia projects, but it is more laxed on the Commons, because some important material cannot be NPOV by definition. However, we cannot agree to maps showing false information or suggesting that in a certain conflict one side is right and the other is wrong. The least that we can do is write explicitly that the map reflects a certain opinion and not necessarily a reality, in order to make sure people won't be misled. I don't believe the Commons are a backdoor for introducing POV to Wikimedia projects. Drork (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the agreement about reference to the Golan Heights[edit]

Referring to your remarks in the discussions here and here, I would like to bring to your attention that User:Nableezy violated the agreement shortly after it has been reached. See here. When I noticed that today, I restored the map to its previous more neutral form and also corrected errors on the English description (I'm afraid my Spanish is not good enough to correct the errors there too). My changes were re-reverted by User:Supreme Deliciousness, who has been making tendentious edits to similar files in the past. I am very sorry to say that Adambro protected the file and warned me, rather than the users who violated the agreement and uploaded new version without consensus. I am also very sorry to see this issue of tendentious edits goes on and on. The damage affects those users who really look for genuine impartial information about the region. Please see to this issue. Drork (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, it was Drork who violated the agreement, the original image said: "Syria (Golan Heights occupied by Israel)", and drork changed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion File:DAMC-05-Wappen-2008.gif[edit]

THX for deleting! Please don't forget my 2nd picture File:DAMC-05-Wappen-1905-DMC.gif. regards --Pitlane02 (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other one is not as clear, it may be old enough to be PD. --99of9 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

problem[edit]

Hey, Im trying to upload a new version of this file:[4] but its still the same picture showing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's changed to me. I guess you're seeing a cached version. --99of9 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On so-called "edit-warring"[edit]

99of9: I have placed a response on the talk page of User:DIREKTOR. As I explain there, edit-warring is a misnomer in the case at hand; I have made no war with anyone, only highlighted a crucial aspect, namely a precondition for placing MY personal property into public domain. I do hope that the matter can be settled in an amicable way, otherwise I will take the matter directly to Jimbo Wales for final resolution. --BF 13:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question: is this image public domain as Commons says or isn't it??? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied where the discussion started, and will continue watching both of your talk pages, there is no need to split the discussion here. However, I will answer one point here. It was most certainly an edit war, any sequence of so many reverts is an edit war, no matter who is "right". --99of9 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so do I upload the modified image or not? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and upload it to a new filename as a derivative work. However at this point IMO they would both be unlikely to survive a deletion request because it sounds like the uploader does not own the copyright, and the picture was never published. --99of9 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope and speedy[edit]

Just a note relating to [5]. The addition of "A page that falls outside of Commons' scope" was never intended to relate to files. That criteria relates to non-file pages, such as encyclopedia-type articles in gallery space (Example).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've taken back that comment while I reflect on it. --99of9 (talk) 09:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, of course the intent of a rule may be different from the exact wording or how it is used in practice. Personally, I think the speedy scope deletions (of files) that do happen are the result of WP:IAR and the fact that an out-of-process speedy deletion is not wrong if a regular deletion request certainly would reach same outcome, not because its in-process through that clause. The community certainly considers speedy scope deletions out-of-process (whether they agree with specific instances or not).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping[edit]

Hi 99of9, I sent you email. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh[edit]

Sorry about that, you marked it as not done when I was checking their edits. But I'm OK with that. Have a nice rest of the day. --Màñü飆¹5 talk 02:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Maybe we need a little test when applying for filemover rights: "Name one file that you think should be moved, and where you would move it to." --99of9 (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* * * :) * * *[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy New Year! I wish You all the best in New year!
--George Chernilevsky talk 12:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Causes for deleting the file of ProsperBofarull[edit]

Hello, 99of9

First of all excuse my poor English, because as you will read below, some expression is fully translated or child or Castilian, my mother language.

That said, I have not answered before because I did not know how long it takes candidates to see with deleted files. The explanation for my application prosperobofarull file deletion, is simply described is wrong and despite my attempts to change this description I could not do it in any way.

I am not referring to the party if you can change, if not a part that I think is called "Information file" which is below the description that if I could change on the other hand also wanted to put the correct file name, it would ProsperdebofarulliMascaró.jpg

If you can delete it then I will upload the photo, the correct description and so happy.

Thanks for everything and sorry for the inconvenience.

Regarding the photograph of Mohammad Mosaddegh[edit]

Just to let you know that the photograph physically belongs to me (in fact, all the conceivable rights associated with it belong to me), and it was I who made it first PD on the English Wikipedia --- it had never been in public domain before I placed it in public domain (the date it has been placed into public domain exactly coincides with the date of my uploading it to the English Wikipedia --- one must therefore wait for another 29 years or so before the Iranian copy-right law becomes applicable to this particular photograph). The photograph has reached me through the late Colonel Shahgholi whom you can see in this photograph --- the Shahgholi's were family friends. Now, this User:DIREKTOR has taken on himself to stamp his bad taste on MY photograph, and as I have said before, should my explicit wish be so blatantly disregarded, I take the photograph down even if it takes me to write directly to Jimbo Wales. It is utterly reprehensible, that while I have given away a piece of valuable personal property, there comes someone out of the blue and repeatedly shows his middle finger to me by disfiguring the photograph! Where do these unwholesome characters come from, one wonders? If this man had a trace of honour in his entire being, he would not have forced me to write pages upon pages of comments, and now this response to you! You know, some people are simply not gentlemen! And have the ability to introduce the culture prevalent in gutters into Wikipedia! I am absolutely furious, and feel totally let down by people like you, who have had the temerity to question me! I have already more than once written that I am the legal owner the the photograph! And I am being told that I did not understand PD!!! Whither has gone basic decency?! This is just rudeness to the extreme to tell me that I did not understand PD! I ask for the last time: bring the photograph at issue to its original state, or the next message will reach you through Jimbo Wales. I will not allow a historical photograph be rubbished in the way it has been! Never had been insulted so much! Feel to have been an idiot to have uploaded the image into Wikipeda --- most certainly it will have been the last time I ever uploaded a valuable image into Wikipedia, the place where one is treated like a piece of garbage after having given one's valuable properties. --BF 06:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

99of9, just discovered that this self-declared DIREKTOR has called me a terrorist bomber! I demand that he be thrown out of Wikipedia without delay; (personal attack removed)! It is utterly unacceptable that YOU have cleaned the traces of (personal attack removed), instead of sanctioning his ugly and libellous action; you are complicit in this libellous action. Now, things begin to make sense to me. (personal attack removed) Could you please inform me as to the issues that make this man interested in Mosaddegh, and Mosaddegh's photograph? What in his edit history shows that he knew anything about Mosaddegh? I will not allow this (personal attack removed) go unnoticed, and therefore will raise the issue with some senior Wikipedia editors. --BF 06:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I'm on a wikibreak for a few weeks, I'll certainly come back to this when I return. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this file has been deleted in the meantime. I am deleting your personal attacks on DIREKTOR, just as I deleted DIREKTOR's on you. You should be careful calling for harsher sanctions, because they would apply to you too. Before you upload more images, please try to understand that if you release them into the Public Domain, others are permitted to use and change them without your permission. --99of9 (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

closed[edit]

I'm sorry, I didn't notice it was closed, sorry. --DPC (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - the person above you made it look like it wasn't. --99of9 (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:OBS 20110131 OBS0003.jpg[edit]

Hello 99of9 I'm very concerned about the File:OBS 20110131 OBS0003.jpg because of the message "This media file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion." its an image I uploaded recently.

The image as its a simple orange colored rectangle with three letters inside only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text so does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore a public domain license.

Please can you help us that the "media file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion"-message disappears.

Its also important because the former used logo (as an infobox in the article) for the article en:BZÖ is deleted already. because the imaage didnt meat public domain criterias as it had a coroporate identity and was of more difficult geometries, than the new images. Thats why the Article in the infobox uses a new logo that was created some time ago for reasons like Wikipedia useage. So can you stop that process? It would help me very much. Thank you, 99of9! Have a nice day. Spam (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got this too late. It seems like it might be a possible candidate for Template:PD-textlogo. I've invited the deleter to comment here. The other resort for a full discussion would be Undeletion requests. --99of9 (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Althought I don't know how to create an Undeletion request.

The logo can stil be seen here The logo is to be seen here [6] if that fits the PD-textlogo criterias the request could be started. Spam (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and probably my bad - I looked at the "fair use" tag rather than the image properly. Should be changed tho in case someone else does the same thing! --Herby talk thyme 11:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, now it can be used again. Thanks for all your help Herby and 99of9! Spam (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem[edit]

I am only commenting here because I noticed that SupremeDeliciousness left you a message that concerns me. He subsequently reverted the message for reasons that I am not certain of. I am relatively new to Commons and am not fully familiar with its intricacies. However, I’m having some difficulty with what appears to be two seasoned editors (Supreme Deliciousness and Nableezy) who have tag-teamed against me. They have been dismissive of sources that I’ve utilized at Talk claiming that they’re “from Israelis” and therefore can not be utilized. Supreme Deliciousness has previously been topic banned at Wikipedia for precisely this type of behavior (knee-jerkingly dismissing Israeli or Jewish sources) and I believe that Nableezy is gunning for me because he holds me responsible for a 4-month topic ban that he is currently under. Is there anything I can do? Or should I just raise the white flag and walk away. Thanks--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Jiujitsuguy is saying is false, I have never been topic banned for dismissing Israeli or Jewish sources and I am not doing it here. I have also brought up several reason at the talkpage that Jiujitsuguy has not replied to. Jiujitsuguy himself has actually just come of a long topic ban, and now he is pushing his pov here also at the expense of a neutral pov. 99of9, my suggestion that Jiujitsuguy is reverting is not following the minority side or the majority side, it only says that the buildings are destroyed as no one can disagree with, Jiujitsuguy is removing this neutral phrasing and is pushing a minority pov that its "war ruined". See here:[7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what Jiujitsuguy is saying is true then it appears that Supreme Deliciousness may be trying to evade his topic ban on the Wikipedia English by trying to change descriptions of files housed on Wikipedia Commons that are used in the articles on the English Wikipedia which he currently cannot edit Although I am not familiar with rules and regulations it would make sense to impose a similar restriction on Wikipedia Commons since it appears that Supreme Deliciousness is trying to move his disagreement from one project to another.Anitsepticmouse

Topic ban on Wikipedia has no relation to commons, I asked admins before to be sure and thats what they told me.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are making the edits here that caused you to be topic banned on the Wikipedia English because you have been told that your topic ban on Wikipedia English will not have affect Wikipedia commons That some how does not seem fair It seems in poor taste if you have been banned for making a type of edit on Wikipedia English and you go to Wikipedia Commons make the same edits to files because you know it will influence articles on Wikipedia English because the files are used in Wikipedia English articles Anitsepticmouse

I have not made any edits here that caused me to get topic banned there. And even if I did, I'm not topic banned at commons, so why wouldn't I do whatever edits I want here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is an editor here saying you were topic banned for dismissing content about israelis and jews Have you ever been topic banned for what editor jiujitsuguy says or are you topic banned on israel articles on Wikipedia English right now I dont see why someone would come here and make lies about another editor being banned because it would be not productive

He was blocked for Gaming here[8] and subsequently he was topic banned from any article dealing with Arab-Israeli issues, broadly construed, for a period of two months. The Topic ban expires on 24 March, so it is obviously still very much in effect.[9] Previous to the instant topic ban, he was topic banned for engaging in tendentious editing and dismissing any source or opinion originating from Israelis or people of the Jewish faith as well as tag-teaming with now indefinitely banned User:Ani medjool [10][11] This is precisely the same conduct he is engaging in here and for an inexperienced Commons user like myself, it is very frustrating and discouraging. If his goal is to make me give up, he is succeeding. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I was never topic banned for dismissing any source or opinion originating from Israelis or people of the Jewish faith, and I was never topic banned for "tag teming" with anyone, you are making up stuff that never happened. The uninvolved admin never said one single word about these accusations. You was topic banned for 3 months for gaming the system as can be seen by the comments by the admin: "it seems the JJG intentionally waited until Nableezy had made a revert (on a page restricted to 1RR) to make an edit he knew Nableezy would revert." "both have attempted to game the system and the filer is now attempting to use AE as a weapon to gain an advantage in their dispute," [12]. Jiujitsuguy has also been indefinitely banned for "serious intent to disrupt wikipedia via off-wiki canvassing and personal attacks." [13]. So the real question here is, who is this "new" user "Anitsepticmouse" ? who have suddenly for no reason but to attack me come here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "indefinite ban" that you refer to was lifted about two days later so your credibility right now is about zero. As for the reasons for your first topic ban, you can submit denials until your blue in the face but the link is posted above for all to review and incidentally, you are still under a topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you apologized doesn't mean that you didn't do what you were blocked for. Exactly, the link is above and anyone can see that the admin Tznaki did not say one single word about "tag teaming" or "dismissing any source or opinion originating from Israelis or people of the Jewish faith" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like both of you have blame in this And how did I attack you I questioned that User Jiujitsuguy said about you and you became defensive I arrived here after noticing you were fighting over some images I am using in my class I think my concerns about you are correct I think there are some obvious editing problems here and that you have just chosen to import your dispute here since you appear to be blocked from doing so on Wikipedia English. Anitsepticmouse

Blah Blah Blah... seriously guys, haven't you got something better to do than argue about each others biases and blocks on a talk page? For those of you who are new to this, please familiarize yourself with Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_17#Stop_the_war, where we established a few guiding principles for dealing with disputed territories like this. --99of9 (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dragon dance vs lion dance[edit]

Hi, I left an explanaton on File talk:ChineseDragonDancing Ashfield.jpg. Would be advisable to ask an admin to rename the file, as this is not dragon dance, but lion dance. They are often confused. Regards, --Teemeah (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The dancers didn't make that distinction, it was promoted as a dragon dance. I'll think about a file move. 99of9 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the Chinese communities make a lot of aspects of their cultures "simplified" for westerners, it's easier to associate China with the dragon than with the Lion and in any case, the costumes look alike a lot :)) (You know that what Chinese fast food restaurants sell is not real Chinese food, either :D) It's a common misunderstanding that people simply call the lion dance "dragon dance", also because they are usually performed at the same festivals. Not such a big issue, I was just browsing for pictures for my dragon dance article @huwiki when I noticed them. Thanks for the correction. (At least you get to see lion dances, I don't :D). Teemeah (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the agreement.[edit]

99of9, continuing on from above, the agreement was: "Only add information like "building was bombed in the war" when you know that it is true, and ideally have a reference. Only remove that kind of information if you know that it is not true."

Please take a look at these sources including a UN report: [14].

The claim that it was destroyed during the war is a minority believe.

The version that he is removing is the neutral version: "Remains of destroyed homes in Quneitra." even if he don't believe the majority view that Israel destroyed the city after the war, then these are destroyed buildings in the city, while its a minority view that its "war ruined". I brought this up at the talkpage:[15] and he just reverted one more time without addressing this, removing the neutral phrasing "Remains of destroyed homes in Quneitra." and replacing it with the minority believe [16].

This is a violation of the agreement.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no reply? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it briefly. Since both sides were bringing sources, I didn't have time to read through them all and evaluate them. I'll try to make time sometime, but this is not really my area of expertise. In the meantime, keep discussing, and looking for better wording. "Neutral" usually means something that all parties agree is true - the lowest common denominator. So I agree that "destroyed" or "ruined" is more neutral than "war ruined". Whether this particular image is from Quneitra is another issue, do you have evidence for that? If not, try to find a broader term for the region which is more certain to be true. --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like discussion works with him, for example I showed him at the talkpage that its a majority believe and suggested a neutral phrasing that doesn't take side [17], and he did not respond to me, he just kept on reverting claiming its a Syrian claim in one of the images:[18], in the other he did the same, I brought sources saying showing its not war ruined including UN source, and I suggested a neutral phrasing that doesn't take side and he just kept on reverting [19]. It doesn't seem like reason works with him.
No one disputes that the images are not from Quneitra, so thats not an issue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SLQ recategorisation[edit]

Hi, thanks for all your help with Commons:State Library of Queensland in February. The bot automatically moves existing images into the sub-category after a contributor does this or this. It can only do this when there is a parent-child relationship between the old and new category. The recategorisation job will be run nightly from now on. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great. Clever bot. I'll concentrate on the subjects page (and categories), rather than the files themselves. --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Images[edit]

Geez-oz (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement[edit]

99of9, considering our agreement to upload two versions of each image. Would it be alright if I ask at the talkpage if someone objects to a modification of an image, and if no one objects then I could upload a new version of the image over the old one? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the uploader may no longer be active (or may not be monitoring their watchlist). If they actually agree to the change, it's fine, but otherwise please respect their original choices, and make your own choices at a derivative file. --99of9 (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bigben 2.JPG[edit]

Request touch up to Featured pic quality --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion request[edit]

Hi, I noticed from this page that you're an administrator. Could you please speedy delete this file, wich I uploaded yust to try UploadWizard? Thanks in advance. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --99of9 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Hi 99of9, thank for your advice at the FPC. I've done it your way and i hope i do it right?! I didn't know that the bot works so good! ;-) So thanks again and I hope now everything works well. best regards mathias K 15:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --99of9 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV disruption by sock[edit]

Hello, an account which is blocked as a sock at Wikipedia: [20]

Has come here and added pov category's at several articles [21][22] and uploaded a POV svg map here without discussion:[23] these changes are against the agreement that we had. Please stop this sock. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've sent him a message and reverted the edit that had not yet been reverted. --99of9 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serial copyvio uploader won't stop after warning.[edit]

User:Srinivas0131 keeps on uploading copyvios!!. Please intervene. Moros y Cristianos 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack against xyz?[edit]

You blocked me (User:Niabot) for a personal attack. But i can't see any personal attack. Please justify you 3 day block. --79.213.213.102 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should direct queries to your own talk page. Otherwise editing from an IP is evading the block, but I'll assume you didn't know this. Anyway, I provided a diff in the block log. Quite simply, calling another user names ("diva") is a personal attack. After my earlier warning, you should have been on your most civil behaviour, and if this is the best you've got at the moment, it's not good enough, you need to cool down. --99of9 (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain Niabots request to unblock him. First I can also not catch a personal insult he should have done. Second: with blocking him and simultaneous tolerating obvious abuse of socketpuppets and provocations you side with the moralist in Commons. This stands in opposition to the neutrality a admin should have. Third an last: with blockades - equal on witch side - you can not educate persons. Therefore I request you to unblock Niabot. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The personal insult is clear to me. Calling anyone a name like "diva" with negative connotations is automatically a personal attack, and it followed a warning I had already given him.
  2. I agree that there have been provocations on both sides (I have seen some from Niabot too - do you want me to extend his block because of them?). Provocations are always less clear than personal attacks, so are harder to judge. I tend to act when there are crystal clear violations of the civility code (like Niabot's) to ensure I cannot be accused of subjective bias! If you have any specific diffs you would like me to consider, I am happy to evaluate them.
  3. I don't understand your third point, please can you further explain what you mean?
--99of9 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling s.o. a "diva" is definitely no insult; not in RL and not here. And the dubious "negative connotation" you see (or will see?) is your personal sentiment. Feelings should not be fundament for administrative activity but facts should and calling s.o. a "diva" is for sure no insult. As you agree in #2 it is not comprehensible why you does not black other participant of this conflict, especially obvious socketpuppets. Either both or none one. Otherwise you make you guilty of being biased. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File moving question[edit]

I have been renaming a few files in Category:Media_requiring_renaming. I see that the first of valid reasons for renaming is given as "Uploader requested", does this mean that all rename requests from the uploader are automatically accepted? --Tony Wills (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, but usually. Things like minor spelling corrections are permissable if the uploader wants it (and you're willing to do the work). If you think the request makes the name worse you might prefer to decline and discuss a better change. If the file is in heavy use and has been around for a long time, flippant/cosmetic moves might not be good idea since reusers might be relying on a stable name (in this case I'd do the move but ensure a redirect is left in place). -- 99of9 from IP
Ok. The question came up while I was looking at current rename requests a couple of days ago. There were a number of requests of the form
"File:Fiume Oglio - Capo di Ponte.jpg" -> "File:Fiume Oglio - Capo di Ponte (Foto Luca Giarelli).jpg"
"File:Cimbergo2.jpg" -> "File:Panorama di Cimbergo e Pizzo Badile (Foto Luca Giarelli).jpg"
Reason "1. Uploader request 2. change from completely meaningless names into suitable names, according to what the image displays 3. harmonize file names of a set of images"
where it looked to me as though the user simply wanted to add their name (oops, assuming bad faith ;-). I was inclined to decline the renames as the original name was adequate, but as "Uploader requested" appears as a valid reason, perhaps I shouldn't. As it turns out someone else carried out the renames anyway.
I would accept that, because in a sense it's a method of attribution, and most CC licenses allow the user to specify how attribution should be done. --99of9 from IP
  • I don't know of a policy (I'd like one), but my preference is to pretty much always leave redirects. Exceptions would be for things like completely misleading names (e.g. we don't want dog.jpg to redirect to a photo of a politician), or unused redirects that had been recently uploaded. --99of9 from IP
Thanks :-). The best I could find in terms of policy and discussion was
  1. In most cases a file redirect should be left on the original page, except if it is a misleading or promotional name.
  2. ...redirects to another file as a result of moving files should almost never be deleted
  3. What should we do with File redirects?
  4. Adding suppressredirect to Filemovers.
--Tony Wills (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was very decent[edit]

Just to say that I appreciate your removal of that attack on me. It was a very decent thing to do. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --99of9 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi there. There are two related deletion discussions that seem to have stagnated, as no admin has weighed in yet (c.f. 1, 2). They both involve images that were uploaded by a sockpuppet [24] of a banned Commons user, one Brunodam. Despite this, the user has attempted to participate in the discussion and sway the outcome in his favor. He has claimed both files as his own work, although each dates from at least the early 20th century. He has also misrepresented the subject and location of one of them, a file which was actually deleted in the past when he attempted to upload it using another account (deletion rationale: "Deletion of files added by NBDA: Abusive sockpuppeteer"). I have documented the specifics on each deletion discussion page, with the requisite links. Can you please have a look and help break the stalemate? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient, an admin will get around to it eventually. I skimmed the argument, but do not know enough about historic laws in those countries to judge. --99of9 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Переименование файла[edit]

Hello, rename the file in the Наташа Королёва please --Ivan Chernyenko (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I only understand English. You can make the request directly at the file using {{Rename}}, but you will need to provide a suggested filename and a reason. --99of9 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One hello, file was rename, this is what you know, thankyou --Ivan Chernyenko (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion problems?[edit]

Hi Toby!
Have a look, please, here
I have made something wrong?
With best regards, -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You acted fine in the examples I randomly chose. I didn't see any cases where you did it, but I would advise against closing before the 7 day mark. Even if some images eventually get undeleted, it doesn't necessarily mean you did anything wrong. 99of9 (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 99of9, I've seen this, and I'm not a native English speaker so I don't know if you use that in English as well, but in Portuguese what AlvesGaspar has just said is generally interpreted as funny, and not as rude. It's something one could even say to his own grandmother without incurring any wrath. It's generally used to say to someone who is intentionally making some cruel insinuation disguised as an innocent saying, "Hey, I know what you are doing, stop the BS!" in a funny way that generally is not taken as offensive.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard it in English usage before. In English, although it is in jest, it is poking fun at someone. It is quite close to calling their comment venemous, which is certainly not a nice thing to say. Sometimes grandmothers are more understanding than random internet users that you have had past conflicts with. --99of9 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite close, it's really calling the comments venomous. Even worst, not only the comments, but the tongue who has produced them, so it's a bit nasty if you take it literally. But it's generally understood as funny and tongue-in-cheek, to my experience. But you probably know much better than I do about the subtleties of user interactions here in Commons, therefore I'll not insist. I've just said this because I suspected AlvesGaspar could be Portuguese and it could be some idiomatic misunderstanding, though that saying perhaps is something more universal than what I initially thought.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My FF crashed while I was writing that comment, when it restarted something must have gone wrong... I don't know how I failed to notice the disgrace I've accidentally done. Thanks for cleaning it up. :) -- Darwin Ahoy! 06:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Remember to keep a slightly open mind. We have had cases before where for example it ended up being a husband/wife. I think it would be better not to tip your hand regarding the camera/exif evidence, but instead wait for a more expanded answer and see if there are inconsistencies with the evidence you have. --99of9 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case at least we know "they" are not husband and wife... The exif stuff is all in the open further up in the thread, I don't know how he missed it. But I'm very open minded (though I would rather say "cynically open minded"). I follow very closely a case of obvious socketpuppetry in my home wiki which is still today in denial, though how it was almost completely harmless I don't mind about it, and even play with the other guy about it with subtle jokes on the issue (which he usually replies in the same tone). In this case, however, it was not harmless nor innocent. But I'm not looking forward to burning someone at the stake, as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 07:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser procedure[edit]

Toby,

There is something I would like to clarify with you, about the checkuser procedure. My understanding is that, because of the intrusion of privacy it represents, very few admins have access to the tool, one should make it only in special cases (when there is strong circumstantial evidence of abuse) and it should be preceded by a formal public request. Now, concerning the use of sockpuppetry by User:Florent Pécassou, no checkuser request was made, as far as I know; at least, it was not preceded by a normal request. On the other hand, User:Mattbuck, responding to an insinuation of User:Paddy that I am closely linked with the puppeteer, writes that "A checkuser was performed. There is no conspiracy, just one user who went wrong. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)". My question is: should a checkuser verificafion be made without public notice or without informing the users involved? From Mattbuck’s words, one may infer that I was investigated and cleared. Is that really so? Thanks for your attention. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you misunderstood him. In this context i had to assume, that mattbuck was talking about the CU at Florent, without any further check on you or conspiracy. Maybe you want to ask him, what he exactly referred to. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 17:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert about CheckUser, since I do not have CheckUser access myself, and have never requested one. So I don't know if FAP should have been notified. I think the process checks IP details of one user against *all* others - FAPvsFlorent FAPvsGeorge FAPvsAlves FAPvsNiabot FAPvs99of9... I interpret Mattbuck and other's comments similar to the way Niabot does. In short, they investigated FAP, found a connection to Florent, but did not find a connection to others. They explicitly excluded connection to George, which in my view means that Niabot, in my opinion, you owe George an apology. It is a matter of good manners to not leave unfounded accusations hanging out there when contrary evidence comes to light. --99of9 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Eiffel Tower reorg[edit]

Hi 99of9,

Good idea to re-organize this category slightly. I moved a few images to the categories you created the other day and added a few more. Now that it seems somewhat stable, I started a short thread about it on VP (Commons:Village_pump#June_1). --  Docu  at 06:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed lots of help from you. Thanks. I like the little pictorial subcat table up the top, it would be nice if we had that elsewhere. --99of9 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I had a go at Category:Statue of Liberty and Category:Sydney Opera House too, and have plans for Category:Sydney Harbour Bridge. --99of9 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subcat table is nice indeed. Oddly images that thumbnail well there aren't necessarily ones one would order prints of. BTW I added a shorter table at Eilean Donan Castle. --  Docu  at 06:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 99of9.
Wouaw ! Great job ! I created the gallery of subcats in december 2009 because the category:Eiffel Tower was overcrowded. I wanted to help wikipedians for choosing the right subcategory. I moved many images into these new subcategories. But I did not have the courage to do that for most of the images. I think that 240 were remaining. You did ! The names of the subcategories are OK. Congratulations ! --Tangopaso (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate your leadership on the issue. I think this kind of subcat gallery could really take off if we work on it. I like it much more than gallery pages. --99of9 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of Panorama[edit]

France does not have Freedom of Panorama for buildings that pass the threshold of originality (it must have a high level of originality!). See COM:FOP#France.

It's not true for ALL buildings but only for buildings that pass the threshold of originality.

OK?

Djampa (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but I don't think the threshhold is "high". The building simply has to qualify for architectural copyright. Assuming you're protesting about File:Antony_Synagogue.JPG, that appears to be well over the line to me. If you want to contest this, the correct place is Commons:Undeletion requests, please don't modify the deletion request once it has been closed. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission[edit]

Hello.

I have written a book for children about animals that I want to publish. In searching for photographic images, I have found your picture that is very beautiful and fit the storyline that I want to convey. I will appreciate it if you will give me permission to use these photo in my book. Below are the animal that will represents your photo. I will also include all info that will accompany the acknowledgements.

I will acknowledge your work - Beneath the photo and at the end of the book, your information. I ask that if you agree, to kindly send me your Name and appropriate information as you wish it to be published.

Photographer: Toby Hudson. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nephila_edulis_back.jpg Spider.


Thank you very much. Louise - zandtree@yahoo.com

File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg[edit]

Hi, I would like to know your opinion about this work, I corrected issues that you and others mentioned at the previous nomination, this new version is currently nominated at en-wiki.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I've corrected the reflections of Airbus and Statue of Liberty and few other corrections. do you think it would be more realistic without the earthrise or maybe Statue of Liberty?   ■ MMXX  talk  06:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at FPC, your reviews and constrictive comments are very useful for me, I appreciate it, thank you.   ■ MMXX  talk  11:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please show me on this file that where do you feel is the correct location of reflection of the plane, please notice the file annotation, the cloud that I marked is actually behind the plane.   ■ MMXX  talk  12:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the new version that I uploaded here, I just noticed that the reflection of Airbus was smaller than the plane, it seems I was working on an older psd file, please let me know if it's improved, I've uploaded a new demo version too and I moved the reflection as you suggested, please see how is it, I feel the plane reflection shouldn't be in-line with the Statue of Liberty. also I've nominated this new version for FP.   ■ MMXX  talk  18:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request reopening[edit]

Good day, 99of9. I suggest if/when you object to the closing of a deletion request, rather than simply reopen the closed request, you make a fresh deletion request. That way it will appear on today's deletion request log, and more people interested in the matter will have a chance to see and comment. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a regular closure, I would have done that. But since I found it soon enough after a speedy, it is still within the regular time control. I added it back onto the request log, and the file itself was still tagged anyway, so I expect people will see it. --99of9 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Northern Sea Nettle (Chrysaora melanaster).jpg[edit]

Hello 99of9, I have cloned out the second jellyfish from the background. --Jovian Eye storm 12:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatoo[edit]

Re: File:Eolophus roseicapilla.jpg This has been identified as a juvenile Galah. It has grey hue on its chest and abdomen. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. --99of9 (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo[edit]

The owner is allowed to work @ah0ra (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page. --99of9 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denying FPC[edit]

Hi, please notice that when I denied those nominations, the user already had five open nominations so I denied three of them and explained to the user that they can nominate them again after the old ones closed.   ■ MMXX  talk  11:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't realize that, sorry. Anyway, I guess I've done the reopening for him then. --99of9 (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
You made my day when you cleaned up Category:High-heeled shoes. I truly appreciate your help!! FloNight♥♥♥ 09:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! My first ever barnstar :). --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amber images :)[edit]

Hey, thanks for nominating those uploads for deletion. I was not very aware of Flickr washing that time, but now I share the same concern as you do. I have nominated another on of mine here. If you find anything from those sets, feel free to nominate (that was almost a year ago, I cannot remember my uploads much, but I think it was only those 4 images). Sad thing is, those were under the scope, but questionable license cannot be considered. Thanks for you great work! — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masking problem[edit]

Hi, Can you elaborate? I don't find the problem, maybe my eyes are not that good ;-). พ.s. 14:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK found it (had to turn up brightness). Thanks. พ.s. 14:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good, I was having trouble figuring out what more to say! --99of9 (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you look around the whole edge, there are a few more than I marked. --99of9 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will, but probably only in a couple of hours :-(. Thanks again. พ.s. 14:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you scrutinize again? I reuploaded. Thanks. พ.s. 10:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woosh!. Had to turn the brightness really high up to see those issues. Were they really so obvious your side? Anyway, they should be all gone now (I hope). If so can you delete all the September 6 versions and the first September 7 version in the history? It is a bit messy now. Thnx. พ.s. 12:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's a cache problem, but when I open the latest version, I still see most of the bits I just marked. I've tried forcing a reload. --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, you're right. I should go to bed earlier ;-). Should be fine now. พ.s. 15:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VI[edit]

Hello Toby, Look at the recommendations I made ​​to your pictures of VI. these are small procedural problems, the images should be promoted without any problems. Bien amicalement. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windsurfer at Davenport Beach.jpg[edit]

Can you please explain to me some more on my talk page about the composition. --Jovian Eye storm 12:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consent template[edit]

Hey, thanks for helping clean up the {{Consent}} template. I moved the free license consent to an optional parameter called "full", so that people could still use the template to indicate simple consent to be photographed (which is the type most laws are concerned with). Hope that sounds like a good idea. Cheers. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended it again, basically reversing this. In my understanding, for private photos, we also need consent to publish. Otherwise it doesn't exclude "ex-boyfriend" type pictures. This is the usual interpretation of COM:PEOPLE. I can supply a list of deletion requests which have turned on this exact distinction if it would help. I also specifically asked Pheobe whether the WMF requirement of evidence of consent was about consent to take or also to publish. She said she would check with them, but in her understanding it included publication (I haven't heard back again, so I assume that was it). --99of9 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and also think that our default should be that they agree to a free license that can be used for commercial use. This is basic to the way that we deal with images when we are getting permission, so it is being consistent for us to verify that the identifiable people understand that it is a free license. If an image is taken in public, the lack of expectation of privacy might make that less significant, so a parameter for public is a good idea. But a parameter for identifiable people who might have the expectation of privacy should not not include that they did not agree to a free license because this seems like it would violate the May 2011 WMF Board resolution. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the exact form of license has to necessarily be agreed. I think agreement to publication is the key requirement. For example if a commercial publication goes out of copyright, I think it would be legitimate to host on commons, even though the subject only originally agreed to publication under a closed commercial license. --99of9 (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While in some circumstance it might work out okay, there can be problems with allowing it. If someone thought that their image was going to be used in a controlled way by a specific publisher, it is quite different than them agreeing to a free license where their image could be used much more broadly. For example, it is very different to agree to have an image of your child's birth defect used in an ad campaign for an genetic test that you strongly believe in, than agreeing for it appear in a publication that mocks people with the birth defect, or who promotes eugenics. For this reason, I think that we need to keep people from being exploited by ensuring that they agree to a free license. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's that list if it's of interest:
--99of9 (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@FloNight: While I agree with all of the arguments above, I would like to emphasize that we need to take baby steps here. The entire idea of documenting any type of consent is largely non-existant on Commons. To jump from suggesting that you should get people's consent and document that on the file page, all the way to requiring that every person in every photograph give consent for publishing their photograph under a free license is a huge jump and not likely to be well received by the Commons community. I think once people are used to seeing consent templates on images (even if they are only for basic consent) it will be easier to push for more stringent standards of consent. Also, keep in mind that Commons:Photos of identifiable persons is still only a guideline, not a policy. Perhaps it would be useful to push for it becoming a full policy at some point. Kaldari (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9: I agree with all of your changes to the template, per the explanations above. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari, The intent of the May 2011 WMF Board resolution was to require model consent for identifiable people with the expectation of privacy on all WMF wikis. So, the wording of the Commons:Photos of identifiable persons reflects the policy as set out by the Foundation Board. IMO, with or without the guideline that would be the policy. We were lucky that we had a guideline that already spelled out most of the issue, and could be tweaked for a fuller meaning. As to the pace of making changes, while I see your point and agree that people need time to adjust to change, I think that we need to go forward with the full implementation of the resolution. For the most part, people just want to understand the correct rules, so that they can do the right thing. I found this out from working on ArbCom where a lot of the time people had strong views, but in the end, they most of all wanted clear direction on what are acceptable contributions and what is not. I think that the same is true here. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Part of the problem is that most people understand what guidelines and policies are, but have no idea what a Board Resolution means (myself included). If I cited a Board Resolution in a deletion discussion, I would probably just get blank stares. If we are expecting the resolution to carry the weight of policy (in practical terms), I see no reason why it shouldn't be officially proposed as a policy. That way there is no ambiguity. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lara Cover Art by Lord Byron.jpg[edit]

Hi. :) Thanks for taking action; I wasn't entirely sure if there was room on Commons for this kind of thing. Is it okay if I tag the other files listed there now for the same deletion debate? I'm not sure if it's frowned upon to rope in others, but am hoping it wouldn't be, given that obviously the same rationales for keep or delete would apply. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead. I'm sure it will be all or nothing. --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) On it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPC[edit]

Hi 99of9,

can you please response to my question at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Goetheanum - Orgel2.jpg? Thank you --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magpies[edit]

Looks like they grow 'em big in your area. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one thought a good plan for growing big was to perch on my foot and ask for my lunch. --99of9 (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request[edit]

Hi. I see that you've requested a Wikimedia cloak. However, your username starts with a number, which means that your cloak should be wikimedia/99of9, and that format is not supported (the cloak can't start with a number). So, if you still want a cloak, you'll have to register an alternate (ASCII) username with a non-number as a first letter, and then redirect that account's userpage to this user page. Once you've done so, please contact me or send a memo to wmfgc. Thanks --Filip (§) 14:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done [25] --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pov pushing[edit]

Good evening, previously a notorious non neutral pov pusher from wikipedia was pov pushing here at commons and you gave him a warning: [26]

Despite this he has now continued with the exact same non neutral pov pushing and not listened to what you said: [27]

Please do something now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reflecting on it. He hasn't edited since you notified me, and he's only edited 3 files this month, so it's not that urgent. --99of9 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate names[edit]

Hello again, there are 9 images here:[28], and two here:[29][30] that have inaccurate names. They contain the name "Israel", although non of the images are located there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote the last time you raised this, the best way to address this is to make the description in the Information template clear (and NPOV), and then use {{Rename}}, making clear why you think the filename is misleading. Also, geocode them if you know where they are - that is far more important than the current geopolitical situation. --99of9 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99of9/Archive_3&oldid=358611150"