User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2010/3

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Oil refinery.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Shame not to see the tanks, which are still numerous in a refinery. But the contrast between the mountain and the refinery is particularly relevant for me.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you an administrator?

Please advise where can I initiate a full sockpuppet investigation on the sockpuppets of PANONIAN. If I can present the full evidence and have it reviewed by at least 10-15 ppl I am confident the majority will agree that sockpuppetism is indeed going on. However I'm not sure where is the proper place for a full investigation here on commons. I am a bit frustrated by the obviousness of the issue (a new account suddenly appearing during a block continuing the same edit war etc) and the difficoulties of presenting my case. Thanks for your reply. VízPart (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And a full process description would be also nice so I can study the filing of an investigation and the rules and policies regarding sockpuppets. We also have a policy on the Hungarian wikipedia but it might be slightly different, as I realize, because in the same case (new account created from the same location, to continue same edit war, on the same day, while under someone else is blocked) it would mean an immidiate indefinite block to the new account. Maybe I'm wrong so I need to learn a bit on how things work at commons. VízPart (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am an administrator. Please see the userbox on my talk page to verify this. I don't work on sockpuppet investigations. Commons:Requests_for_checkuser contains instructions. Your previous attempt was removed by Martin H. because you didn't follow the instructions. You can look at other requests to see the correct format to follow. Martin H. has made it clear that he is disinclined to investigate further and has advised you against forum shopping.[1] But, if you want a second opinion, ask one of the other administrators who is active on the checkuser page (select the history tab).

Commons is not the place to resolve content disputes, which I think this is about mostly, since few have the expertise or interest that is necessary. I think you would be well-advised to put your effort into enwiki. Almost no one is going to see Common's content unless it is added to articles on the other projects. This dispute can only be resolved on enwiki and the other projects, in my opinion. Commons:Requests_for_checkuser is unlikely to help. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For argument's sake let's accept the premise that someone is using sockpuppets to duplicate his revert capacity and with this abuse he reverts all my edits on commons. Your solution is that since few have interest here in dispute resulotion I simply 1) attemt to revert the obvious sockpuppets who even if blocked just a new puppet can be created. 2) leave commons altogether and realize nothing can be done against a harasser reverting all my edits. 3) any other options? What could a non-admin do if you were followed around and attacked by a certain user and certain other that mysteriously appeared during the block of the first user to continue the same reverts. What if 3 more "users" appear only interested in nothing else but attacking? VízPart (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The sad part here that PANONIAN admits the sockpuppeting outright in my opinion. I would lie if I say that I do not know who he is (SlovenskoSlovakom). I notified this person about nationalistic anti-Slovak actions of User:VízPart in this web site, so he decided to be involved in this question. Of course, I only notified that user about the problem, but his actions are his own choice and I cannot be held responsible for them. As for the question that I edit articles while not logged in Look at the wording. Notified that person about the problem. What was the problem? That he was blocked during this time (see block log) and he couldn't edit war any more. So he "notifies about the problem" and the problem is solved, now he has double edit warring capacity if the sockpuppet gets accepted. Btw he still admits that while he was blocked he called up one of his friends to edit on his behalf, the very definition of a meatpuppet used to evade a block and edit war. And he also admits to using IP sockpuppets (As for the question that I edit articles while not logged in). Now it is clear to me that this person will do everything use every trick to 'win' and nullify and completely erase all my edits. VízPart (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your most recent edits consist of removing {{Fact}} tags. Perhaps it would be more constructive to add the requested reference(s). Commons:Requests_for_checkuser is the forum for dealing with sockpuppets. I will look at allegations of edit-warring and incivility, so please bring such matters to my attention. Unfortunately, I see personal attacks and edit-warring on both sides. If you can't settle this matter on enwiki, with all of its resources, I don't think we can resolve it here. Regarding the larger questions, you may find COM:MELLOW helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Autopatroller?

Hi, Walter. Could you kindly mark me as being autopatrolled? I would hate to waste patrollers' time checking my Commons work. Thanks! Hike395 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hike395; you should now have the patrol user right which includes "autopatrolled". Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, Sorry for spaming your talk page, but this is very important. On the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A._Talk 14:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Erythronium montanum (White Avalanche-lily).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Good nomination, best in scope. All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)