User talk:Lar: Difference between revisions

Note: I like thank yous! I collect them for the English Wikipedia at w:User_talk:Lar/RFA 1 but generically thanking me for voting in their Request for adminship. Or bureaucratship. Or botship. Or checkusership. Or anything else that could possibly be voted on there... is kinda boring. (So please don't.) Say something special if you can.

Hi! I am Larry Pieniazek and I am not notable. For more information, see: Wikipedia:User:Lar

Feel free to leave me messages here, as an admin, 'crat, and Checkuser, I do check here a lot. If I do not respond right away, feel free to leave me a message by either emailing me, or by leaving me a message on the english Wikipedia: Wikipedia:User_talk:Lar. Thanks!

Hi, Lar. I'd like to point you to Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/MRDU08, where you'd said that you had blocked all the users you checked. Well you appear to have missed one; DRB394. Just thought I'd let you know! Thanks! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That user at the time was blcoked, but it subsequently expired, which I missed. 22:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey again, Lar. I just noticed a new sock from this group pop up at enwiki, and followed him back here and noticed a flurry of restored copyvio images. Check out RepDom809's contribs, where you'll note the author for each image is the sockmaster (see for example File:Flag of the Muncipality of Puñal.PNG). No idea if there are more sleepers to find. Sorry if the appropriate course would have been to reopen the RFCU or open a new one; I'm not familiar with Commons vs enwiki processes, so I hope you'll excuse me if this is the wrong place to ask. I'm going to go ask about the contributor at enwiki. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening the RFCU is ok as is nudging me.. things are a bit more informal here. I'll take a look. ++Lar: t/c 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked. No new sleepers found, but that's a hit. Blocked. thanks for letting me know. Case updated. Contribs need addressing though. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank for promoting me to +sysop. I just have one quick question: where can I find a directory of all the deletion/project scope/vandalism user templates? Thanks in advance, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Category:Message templates. (Please remember that Commons is multilingual, but also please remember that users prefer not to be templated) ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was looking for, thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. Could you (and your colleagues maybe) have a look into this, this and this? Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been requested at COM:RFCU ? Don't want to duplicate effort. If not, why not? (feel free to mail me if it's sensitive). If so, does it have some rationale attached? Just asking us to run through contribs looking for a reason may not be the best way to go (again, feel free to mail me if it's sensitive). ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a multiple vote issue at FPC. I'll open a request at COM:RFCU. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up doing a little digging and I warned a couple of the accounts. If the problem continues advise, I'll block the lot of them except one, chosen randomly. ++Lar: t/c 05:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Lycaon (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lar, I'm not sure of the process on Commons for amending to a closed CU investigation (Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/MRDU08), but I think Inefable001 (talk · contribs) might be another sock, as he/she seems to have uploaded a lot of Dominican Republic related photos that are almost certainly not his/her "own work". Thanks Andrwsc (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably ping a CU and add it to the case (going forward... I'm working this one now) ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this user is related. If the behaviour is problematic I advise blocking. Have updated case. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for checking. The uploaded files weren't exactly the same areas of interest as those of MRDU08, but two of them were Miss Dominican Republic contestants, so that's what caught my eye. Andrwsc (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own User:AeronPrometheus and now User:AeronPeryton because I changed my name properly on en.wikipedia.org and opted for a global account not thinking that I still had my old name here. Could you help me merge them together so I can keep my contribs and such in place? Thank you. AeronPeryton (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see COM:CHU. Account mergers (in which two accounts contribs get credited to one) are not possible at this time. However renames are. Pick the account with the contributions you want to keep, and request a rename there. LMK if that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't miss this. While there wasn't a problem this time, the policy is in place for good reason; you're bound by it; and I can't criticize others for breaking the policy unless I also criticize you (well, unless I'm a hypocrite). According to a few other people there was some behind the scenes machinations you couldn't reveal publicly; AFAIK your posts to stewards-l still get through without a problem. Thanks for your response.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of it. I think your approach leaves a lot to be desired, because it assumes, or appears to assume, that I didn't have a good reason for what I did. You should have raised your concerns privately. ++Lar: t/c 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Thanks for your help. Treehill 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you're welcome. ++Lar: t/c 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pleas proceed now [1] --КаіСорен (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did. Advise of concerns, if any. ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, sorry for "botting" in, but I noriced you have been active here today. Do you recall I had my bot request on hold for a few weeks and that I needed to do a test run. Well, I am back and I have made a test run, and another users has said it seemed OK for him. I you have the time and agree that the test run is OK, I would be very happy to have a bot flag flipped, such that I could set it to work ;-) --Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done... will archive it shortly. ++Lar: t/c 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thanks. I will get my bot moving then... --Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on holiday, you just caught me when I happened to be on. Best. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said CU request page would be the appropriate place.But I Have no idea what CU stands for. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser. When allegations of socking are made, probably best to bring it before the checkusers. Try COM:RFCU if necessary. If AN is handling it, good. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you removed removed the colon from the License MediaWiki Template. Unfortunately in the german Version it is still there. I now finaly found the right page. Can you please edit this too MediaWiki:License/de? I will watch these pages an write you, if someone complaines. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had been deleted (it's good practice to use the default versions of MediaWiki messages if at all possible) so what you were seeing is the installation default. I restored it, so it's non-default again. The version I restored already is missing the ":" so you should be all set. Advise of issues. ++Lar: t/c 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this message is used on the upload form as the label for the license drop-down menu, and there it should have the colon! Lupo 09:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all languages? I certainly don't have any clear idea of the right answer here. I tink maybe we need a wider discussion. ++Lar: t/c 09:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most. The problem is that the server-side software uses this message for both purposes. Maybe file a bug report (assign to Michael Dale) about it? I think it'd be better if the software used two different messages for this. Lupo 09:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you file a report I'd vote for it. I could file it but I'm not 100% certain I can describe the problem correctly. Will look in later today. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:19966. Lupo 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voted. Thanks! Best. ++Lar: t/c 07:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you again. I had an idea on the colons problem. But I do not have the rigths to test it. If you use the following code in for example the german Version MediaWiki:License/de it should do the trick:

{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|Lizenz|Lizenz:}}

It will use the "Lizenz" version in Namespace 6 (File) and hopefully the other version in all other cases. This would be a simple trick to use the same Template for both uses without software changes. --Schlurcher (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... interesting. I have found that sometimes some of the magic words and parserfunctions don't work in the MediaWiki namespace though (when the text is used directly by the interface to display, it sometimes isn't run through the full parser, or so I speculate). Some testing would be needed I think, but it seems worthy of investigation. Commons may not be the place for it. Maybe get an admin ID on the testwiki and try it? ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try. I will inform you of the results. --Schlurcher (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. I tested it on the Testwiki. And it works. Unfortunately the license message is not used, so I use the MediaWiki:Upload-maxfilesize. The code here [2] and there [3] produces the correct message in the upload form, and at the same time it produces the other message at a file: [4]. After the change I had only to wait until the template was updated. Changes in Language also work. --Schlurcher (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS for testing this! I will take a look at those and try to determine how to apply that here. Appreciate your taking the time to work on this. ++Lar: t/c 23:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, as requested, I'm here to request a Flickr review for the above. Many thanks. --Mcginnly (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC) (aka. Joopers)[reply]

OOps - wait! I've just noticed someone's already uploaded it as File:Pv jensen-klint 05 grundtvig memorial church 1913-1940.jpg. Would you mind deleting my one instead. Wipes egg from face.....sorry. --Mcginnly (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded the biggest version available, arguably more useful... (if for example someone wants to make a crop of a certain detail for something) so it's your image that ought to be kept. But the other image's paperwork is "better" :)... good categories, geolocated nicely, and has better links to Flickr, as well as having been reviewed. Since you still have that big image locally, presumably, can you upload it at the other file name, replacing the one there with the bigger version? Use "replace with larger version of same image" in the edit summary. Then tag yours for speedy using {{Duplicate}} (add File:Pv jensen-klint 05 grundtvig memorial church 1913-1940.jpg as the parameter, so it's clear what it's a dup of...) Thanks for your efforts to secure a high quality image! ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God this is complicated, but I understand and wilco. Has anyone produced a flickripper tool, where you point it at flickr images you like with the correct licenses that are then ported over here automagically? --Mcginnly (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. However it's currently not working for lack of a sufficiently knowledgeable maintainer. Contact Bryan if you know of someone that might be able to take it over (requires time and mad coding skillz...) ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Tryphon has beat me to it. I'm afraid I don't move in those sort of circles. --Mcginnly (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit thick today, beat you to what? ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the August 1st deadline has rolled around, I plan to do a little bit of post-event cleanup and then relinquish the bit on Wednesday or so (coinciding with my plans for a good long wiki-vacation). Just wanted to keep you updated on my time table. Dragons flight (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up. ++Lar: t/c 06:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lar,

How are you doing?

I think we give User talk:24.159.24.87 two times the final warning, my message was also mend as first and final warning :)

Best regards, Huib talk 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well, thanks! you? I started editing before you did, and I wasn't going to throw it away :) so I made it an "elaboration" of yours. The next thing 24... does that's off, a short block is in order, maybe I'll beat you to it, who knows? Perhaps you could try to get Erik9 to calm down too? A much defter touch there is needed, I think. Best. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have. As have others. Thanks! I think your last edit you forgot to sign, though? Best. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot to sign, thanks for the note about that.

I hope both the users will calm down and that no other actions are needed, it looks to me like the are both taking it a bit personal and the IP user is trying to provoke a aggressive reaction by removing content from the page.

The way its going in now is kind of useless to discuss because both are just on a collision course with the other, but when they not calm down it would result in a blockade, and I would prefer to not let it come that far. ( I still dislike blocking)

See ya,

Huib talk 18:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nod, I don't want to see anyone blocked either. Hopefully Eric9 and 24... will take the hints and mellow out. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry

I've been shaking off the effects of a chest infection for the last three months, and am feeling a bit jaded. At the moment I don't feel motivated enough to put in the time and effort here that I would like to, and I'd be grateful if you could for now at least remove my admin and 'crat bits. A rest should do me good and enable to to return invigorated in a few months or so. If the community thinks I should reapply in the normal way when I return (as I fully intend) to admin-type duties I will be happy to do that. In the meantime, I plan to drop in and out and perhaps use some of the time to contribute a few photos from my new camera. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Have a good rest. In my view, all you need to do is ask for your bits back and you shall have them, but it's your call. Best wishes, have fun with your new camera, and don't be a stranger! ++Lar: t/c 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I told in the email Michael take care, Lar is it needed that I temp remove Michael of the list of administrators and crats? Huib talk 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone should. I suppose I should but if you beat me to it I'm not going to get upset. :) Let's just comment him out (wishful thinking! :) ) ... Thanks for remembering! ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I just hope he gets back soon :( Huib talk 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi1 Who do you have to sleep with to rename a Commons category, and why is it impossible to discover this information by navigating from the Community portal? Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! See COM:CFD... not sure who you have to sleep with, though. Where do you think this should be linked from? Does the Comm Portal need better links? Did you check COM:VP? Should it be linked from there? Meta has a list of common places you might want to go that is embedded in a lot of those places so once you find one you can find a lot of the other ones. ++Lar: t/c 01:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it is on a template at the VP, but I never thought of looking there. To judge by the level of traffic, not many have found it. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your assistance is needed in this case here. A few days ago I uploaded this picture to wikimedia commons. I then got the written email permission from the owner of the picture and forwarded the email to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org. After that I contacted someone with an OTRS account, Trixt. Trixt confirmed the permission and fully released the picture under the required license. A few days later Trixt tagged the picture with the "Personality rights warning" tag. I asked Trixt why this is being done. You can read the reply of Trixt here and here on our talk pages. Finally, Trixt wrote me, saying that his english is bad, that I should get in touch with an English admin, that he doesn't know what to do.

I have checked through many wikipedia pages and have taken a close look at the pictures used from wikimedia commons. There are loads of pictures that do not have the "Personality rights warning" tag. Trixt claims that all pictures of living people should have that tag. This claim makes the whole issue suspicious. If all pictures of living people must be tagged with the "Personality rights warning", and the only way to properly upload pictures into wikimedia-commons is to get the approval of someone with an OTRS account, then what happened to all those pictures AFTER they were confirmed by someone with an OTRS account? How come those people with OTRS accounts didn't immediately tag these pictures with the "Personality rights warning" tag, the way Trixt did to the picture I uploaded? This looks like a double standard, and I thusly ask you to look into this and please remove the "Personality rights warning" tag from the picture in question.

The picture in question shows a nigerian actress, Genevieve Nnaji, in 2008 at a public event, the launch of Genevieve's new fashion label. Genevieve Nnaji is one of the top nigerian Nollywood actresses. She is also a model. Her pictures are all over Nigeria and Africa on billboards (she is the Face of Lux 2004), and she has played in over 100 Nollywood movies. Thus Genevieve Nnaji is a "person of contemporary history". She is a public figure. The picture I uploaded was taken by Niyi Tabiti, a nigerian journalist. Mr Tabiti has fully agreed to the full usage of the picture under wikimedia commons license. There are no personality right infringed with the usage of this picture. If wikimedia-commons claims, like Trixt does, that all pictures of living persons SHOULD be tagged, then this rule must apply to all pictures on wikimedia-commons. The fact that wikimedia-commons has loads of pictures of living persons without the "Personality rights warning" proves that different standards are being applied to different pictures. I thereby ask you to please remove the "Personality rights warning" from this picture. Thank you.
Amsaim (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Personality Rights Warning template adds a caution to re-users of the image, that they should keep in mind that they need to honor the rights of the subject. It applies whether or not the subject is a famous person or not. (remember that the CC-BY-SA license allows derivative images. For example, someone could take that image, and a freely licensed image of a horse, and put Genevieve's (G's) head on the horse (or on someone's freely licensed nude torso, for example).... from a license perspective, that's allowed, but it violates the personality rights of G... and G might have a case to sue, depending on the jurisdiction, for defamation. Adding this template is a way to try to increase awareness among reusers that they need to respect G's rights. It's not a restriction on reuse of the image as is in WMF projects, nor is it a reflection on the subject or the photographer.

As to whether other images should have it, in my personal view, pretty much all images of living people should carry this warning, that we don't do a good job of doing that is not a credit on us.

So I'm not inclined to remove the template. It's not doing any harm to WMF users, it's not a reflection of either the subject or the photographer having done any wrong, and it may do some good. I hope that helps explain matters. If not, perhaps we should take this conversation to the appropriate place (the VP perhaps?) for wider input. Best. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for swift reply. The text in the template itself does not state the same thing which you've written. The link in the template leads to this page. There the following is written:

Re-use of the image - Commons images are released under wide licences, but without any guarantee that they are free of non-copyright legal restrictions on re-use. Someone re-using in a derogatory manner an unexceptional Commons image of an identifiable subject might run the risk of the subject suing for defamation. But since neither the photographer, the uploader nor the Foundation have encouraged such defamatory use, the image itself is still perfectly acceptable to Commons. The fact that a photograph is capable of being misused does not mean, in itself, that it is objectionable here.

The last sentence in that text says it all. Just because misuse is possible, doesn't necessitate tagging of all the uploaded pictures of identifiable persons.

The question still remains: why are some pictures tagged and some aren't? There seems to be a very clear-cut line of approach which is being taken by wikimedia-commons admins in tagging pictures, and it evidently has nothing to do with trying to increase awareness amonst reusers. If increasing the awareness of reusers was the motif for tagging pictures, then how come there are loads of Hollywood actresses, Hollywood actors, artists, songwriters etc. who have up to 20-30 pictures in their wikimedia gallery, and not even one of these pictures is tagged with the "Personality rights warning" tag? The wikimedia admins that confirmed and approved these uploaded pictures, weren't they informed that they had to place the "Personality rights warning" tag unto the pictures they just confirmed and approved? The fact that not all wikimedia admins tag all pictures of identifiable persons with the "Personality rights warning" tag shows that there is no direct regulation concerning tagging pictures and thus tagging pictures is left to the mood of the wikimedia-admin. If tagging pictures of identifiable people is a must-do action, then all wikimedia admins would have done so.

Placing this tag on the picture I uploaded is done in discrimination against my picture. If there is any rule for tagging my picture, then that rule must and should be applicable to all other pictures of identifiable people. Any other situation leads to double standards and uploaders feel discriminated against. So, if wikimedia admins want to tag my uploaded picture, then they should also place the same tag on all other pictures of identifiable persons. Please remove the tag. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placing the tag should be done on just about every picture of a living, identifiable person. As I said above. It is by no means discrimination against the picture that was uploaded that it was tagged. Rather, it was that we are volunteers, and apparently somewhat overwhelmed. If it makes you feel better, go and tag some other images that are of living people, who are personally identifiable, and which are not yet tagged. I hope that helps clarify this matter. For reference, although this is not en:wp, you may want to review w:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which deals with this same principle applied to a different scenario... that item X doesn't have tag A but should, is not an excuse for item Y's uploader wanting tag A removed, and that item Q, not currently up for deletion is of type R does not excuse item P also up for deletion which is also type R. ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, You have some time for IRC? Best regards, Huib talk 18:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe tonite... ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and nomination. I look forwarding working with you and the others. Best regards, Kanonkas (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure... I look forward to working with you as well. However, in view of this comment, please do give some thought to your tone in interacting with others. Herby is a stalwart contributor here and your comment, even inadvertantly, called his judgement into question. ++Lar: t/c 15:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't on purpose, just FYI. I wasn't even aware that I did that, so I'm really sorry if that is how it was being interpreted. Kanonkas (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review this again. In other words, should we grant a bot flag or not? I think the latter, but it would be nice to have your opinion on this. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be closed as not granted. The bot owner is not responsive. ++Lar: t/c 13:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the deletion reason. --J.smith (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for the help. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to this. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, commented there. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, As discussed, can you please delete the following pages/categories? The pages have no links to them and the categories are empty and defunct. Thanks.

• User:Wadester16/Template:Credits
• User:Wadester16/Restoration
• User:Wadester16/Header
• Category:Images by Wadester16
• Category:Restorations by Wadester16

upstateNYer 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... did you end up moving images to new categories or just leaving them out of the "by ..." cats ? ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I ended up replacing the transclusion of User:Wadester16/Template:Credits with User:UpstateNYer/Credits on each of my images (350+), like this, as well as changing the author. The template adds the category Category:Images by UpstateNYer, which supersedes Category:Images by Wadester16. It was actually a good thing to go through them all; a lot of them needed clean up and weren't to the standard of images pages I fill out now; something I had been putting off a while due to the required effort. Good thing I didn't do it before! Thanks for the help. upstateNYer 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I just did this. Are there any other pages that need updating? upstateNYer 01:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The list of lists is at Commons:Administrators/Lists of administrators if you want to triple check. I think I got all the lists on that list updated correctly, please check my work if you would be so kind. ++Lar: t/c 01:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more links to User:Wadester16 from Project space. upstateNYer 02:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lar, Sorry for my late reaction to your comment. I needed some time to get better and to take yet another look over my contributions. All the time I was trying to understand what did you mean, when you said to me: "That includes you contributing peacefully and productively, in a way that doesn't stress you, or others out." May I please ask you what of my contributions you consider to be unpeaceful, and what of my contributions were stressing other contributors out? I would also like to ask you what did you mean, when you said: "But I hope everyone can set this episode aside and try for a fresh start." Who's everyone? slaunger, maedin, lycaon? Do you believe any one of them is in need for a fresh start? Oh, yes, because I doubt Martin H. would have a time to answer the question I asked on his nomination page, maybe you'll be so kind to tell me if in 2+2=4 situation CU would have been the right thing to do, and if "yes" why yes? I would also like to find out if you personally believe that a person with my block history has a right for a fresh start? (I would only like to point out one more time that I've done what I've done not to hide my block record, but avoid being harassed. It was my only reason). Please do forgive me, if these questions of mine are stressing you out. I'm simply trying to learn from my mistakes. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• p.s. although Martin responded my question about CU, I would still like to ask you to address it in your response too. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more I can usefully add. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing more "usefully to add" to respond my very particular and important to me questions, then I believe it might have been a good idea not to comment on the post on AN/N all together. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. ++Lar: t/c 18:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, for you Commons is just a website. For me commons is a rather big part of my life. Even if commons is just a website, there are absolutely real people behind that website, people, who could get hurt by unreasoned comments, especially made by somebody like you. I asked you few particular questions: what of my contributions you found to be unpeaceful and what of my contributions were stressing out other contributors, and, if you administrator, bureaucrat and checkuser , you personally, would have granted CU request in that particular situation, and who do you have in mind when you said ... (anyway no need to repeat, all my questions are written above and none of them is answered). The only response I have got was that you have nothing more "usefully to add", which looks to me as you're trying to avoid the answer. Once again, I am deeply sorry, if my questions are stressing you out. Please do believe me, it was not my intention at all. I'm simply trying to understand the comments that were made by a person, who I used to respect. So please let's leave it here. It matters to me no more.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is "just a website", maybe, but it's also an important one to me. I try to keep a sense of perspective, neither "nothing" nor "everything". If you really want an answer to your specific question, I consider it reasonable to carry out checks when I am presented with reasonable evidence for there being multiple accounts controlled by the same person, and that those accounts are acting in ways that might be disruptive, such as multiple votes in one question (RfA, FP candidacy, deletion discussion, what have you) or if there is some other sign of possible disruption. In this particular case, I may well have decided to check, although at the time I wasn't asked. I tend to trust the judgement of my fellow CUs as well, so if one or more of them had said they saw reason to check I'd tend to go along with that, and if one or more of them had said they saw no reason to check, I'd tend to go along with that as well. I hope that helps address the question. I go back to what I said before, I hope you find ways to contribute in ways that you find fulfulling, and that everyone else finds collegial. But when I see comments like this [5] I'm not sure if it's all going to work out. Please try to assume the best of everyone, not the worst. You and I have conversed at length in the past, and I was happy to try to help you where I could. But when you switch from conversing to accusing, then I'm not sure there is much more useful I can say. In our recent email exchange, I tried to explain where things went awry, and I tried to apologise... but it all seemed to end badly. So I'm not sure what else to tell you, except best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I am afraid we're talking different languages. I asked you not about CU policy in general. I asked you about my very unique and very specific situation. I did not run multiply accounts ( user:mbz1 was blocked on my own request at the moment), I did not vote two times anywhere, I did not do any disruption.
My comments you refer to were made on my own talk page only, and BTW after you made your comment on AN/N. I did not go to involved user talk pages or to AN/N as they did. I wrote them on my own talk page to express how I've felt. If you believe the comments to be offensive or uncivil or whatever, why didn't you remove them? Why didn't you warn me about them on my own talk page? Why didn't you block at least my other 2+2=4 account, which of course I use no more? Don't you understand that it was me, who was and still is stressed out by the comments made on my FP nomination, on my talk page, and on AN/N by other users and you, Lar? I did not start to use another accounts because I suddenly decided I want to have a fresh start and get rid of my blocks record. I started to use another account because I (and not only I) felt I was being harassed on my old one as Mbz1. To me using that other account was kind of a Witness protection program, except I was not a witness, but a user, who was being harassed on Commons by two other users.I consider my questions to you unanswered, but as I said few times already I am more that willing to let it go now, because your unwillingness or inability to respond them is already a good enough response IMO.Sorry I took your time. Best wishes to you too.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I'm sorry for overreacting in some of my above comments. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, please note that I left a comment here -- User:Docu at 04:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lar, I've noticed this request which it seems to me a clearcut case of WP:SNOW. Regards, — df|  19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like disruptive behaviour based on cross-wiki contribs. I've deleted the page as vandalism. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hei Larry,

I made a proposal to change the 4 votes into 10 votes and made a other proposal to try and get more people to vote in a rfa, could you please take a look on it so we could change it before proposing it in the village pump. I placed the proposal here

Best regards, Huib talk 19:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Thx for letting me know. Nice work. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar,

Would you look into this request (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#File_history_revision). Conclusion of the discussion seems to be that COM:OV is needed. -- User:Docu at 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're a bureaucrat, I'd like to ask you if you can change my nickname?.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 00:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a request at COM:CHU... make sure you read the instructions carefully, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering. Thank You!. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! I know how to do it, COM:CHU, but I wanted to make a conversation.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry! Sure... What did you want to talk about? ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lar. In the meantime I translated to Spanish language Commons:Administrator and Commons:Guide to adminship, so I read this information, which is very helpful. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks a lot, that's very thoughtful of you. :) ++Lar: t/c 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wikimedia logo mosaic

Thanks, that was fun to do and watch it change :-). I remember my computer was really slow then and it died on every 2 or 3 edits. Now the Mosaic is a really good browser benchmark for rendering tables and images ;-). --Nux (talk··dyskusja) 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you weren'0t aware, but he's a known sockpuppeteer Heraldicos • Wikisole • Prodigynet • Prodigynet • Thecircle • Hambrientino • Americko • Elzodiacogriego • Vexilio

• commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Heraldicos
• eswiki http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solicitudes_de_verificaci%C3%B3n_de_usuarios/Agosto_2009#Multiplos_titeres
• enwiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TownDown/Archive

and he carries already blocks on all those wikis. -- Drini 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware of the TownDown connection, actually, because I didn't check en:wp's case, AGF I guess. Thanks for letting me know... I better run some more checks and update the Commons and en:wp cases to crosslink. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More linked accounts:

• Allpex
• Heraldry
• TownDown
• Thecircle
• Pueblounited

-- Drini 20:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the enwp and commons pages with crosslinks. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 07:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please fix a spelling error on en:wiki's current POTD? Image is here. Under "Other versions", the first image in the gallery is labeled as "unresored". Thanks. upstateNYer 02:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar: I'm currently getting an error that will not let me upload over an existing file, at any time. User:ZooFari has been having the problem for a few days now, but it only just happened to me tonight. Error page is shown at left. Is there a fix in the pipeline? As a secondary issue, because of this problem, an update I planned to upload had to be uploaded under a new name, making this image useless. Could you delete it, please? upstateNYer 02:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw something on the VP about this problem, but I'm not the most up on what might be causing it. If there isn't a thread already on VP, you might consider starting one? You're both editors with enough time/edits to be autoconfirmed and SHOULD be able to upload on top of things I thought. If it happens again, you can tag the obsoleted file with {{Badname}} I think, that way any admin working the queues can deal with it. I'll delete the obsoleted image for you though, as soon as I check usages (goes off, yep all set). Deleted. BTW how does ZooFari make those? I use Inkscape and I find drawing maps to be a lot of work. ++Lar: t/c 06:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him a file to base it on. The rest is his skill, which I extensive, but not anything I can yet comprehend. Thanks for the deletion. upstateNYer 16:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Stuff like this (shown at right) is about my best in that area, and it's done by importing TIGER images and then fixing up the result to correct multiple paths and the like. takes way longer than it should ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Inkscape because it has to run through another program on Mac. Plus, I find it non-intuitive and know enough skilled users that are happy to help. These people are rare commodities here, but they do great work. upstateNYer 21:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inkscape is way counterintuitive. I find that I really have to want to use it to do so, and it's best used in large doses, get in a groove and crank stuff out while I remember the commands. But if you've found a mapmaker, keep him or her well plyed with their favorite vices to stay in their good graces. ++Lar: t/c 02:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar-- not sure where to post this. Can you move a page for me? I would like

File:HMS Calliope Under Sail 1884.jpg

retitled to

File:Calypso class corvette under sail.jpg.

thanks

Kablammo (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{rename|Calypso class corvette under sail.jpg|Your reason here}}

Put that edited template to File:HMS Calliope Under Sail 1884.jpg. From there a bot will take care of your request. A trusted user or an admin, has to make the last edit, otherwise the bot will refuse to rename the file. How long it takes depends on the bot. It's not something specific, FYI. I hope this helped. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File renaming for admins seems to have been enabled again (great!). As such I took care of your request. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! It's great to have talk page watchers :) ++Lar: t/c 20:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you said that the template should better use autotranslation, but I don't think that it's appropriate in this case. Autotranslate is mostly when you can't know which language someone's speaking the most. Likewise, you can't know who reads an image description page and their licenses, so you make it autotranslatable. But if we would just post the specific language message to the appropriate village pump then I think it's better to write it in the appropriate language. For example take a look at the German Forum: There are a lot of people from de.wikipedia who visit the Forum but might not use the German language setting. Also, many people who are more active on de.wikipedia have the Forum in their watchlist; if they then see a diff-link like {{Autotranslate|1=Some random guy|base=Current checkuser request}}, then they might just skip this as they have no idea what this is. If they see the text, then they maybe read it. Thus, I'd recommand to not use autotranslate here, but to transclude the templates directly. Creating /lang links might be an option, though I don't think that this is necessary. What do you think of this? I'd be happy if you and your fellow bureaucrats would approve the template, but if there's anything left to do, please let me know. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a way to see the other language versions from the template, but perhaps not actually autotranslate. If you look at how some of our multilanguage templates looked, say 18 months ago, they didn't yet use autotranslate, but they DID have a bar that showed all the language versions you could see the template in.. and you manually clicked on each one to see the desired version. Can we do that? ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, possible and  Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you! I've added de: as well. Hopefully some kind native de: speaker can improve it a bit, my translation is not the greatest. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar. I would like to request to be granted confirmed user status for oneself Billinghurst (talk · contribs). I promise not to abuse the privilege. It will help me to do some moves to better align Wikisource-linked files, and some of the cleanup work that I do at WP. Thanks for your consideration. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Billinghurst. I don't think you need the right. You're autoconfirmed anyway, so this right would be redundant. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was confusing my movefile, with move. I see that it is a sysop privilege. I will work out whether I really wish to pursue that or not. I was just looking for the easy way to undertake this tight section tidy.-- billinghurst (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to grant it but not seeing the need, as K says. ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts and comments are welcome here: [6]. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier for people to reach your talk page, would you be so kind and add a link with the title "talk" to your signature. Limiting the link to a small "t" letter isn't really convenient. Alternatively you could just use the default signature, this would really make it easier. I'm asking this of you not because you are a user or an administrator, but a bureaucrat. Thanks. -- User:Docu at 18:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your concern to my attention. I'll take it under advisement, although I don't see it as all that confusing.Feel free to change yours first, as it's a lot farther away from the default than mine is. Are you sure you aren't just making this request as a way to make a point ? ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick bash at a simplified one - check the VP.. Any thoughts welcome of course!--Nilfanion (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder to me, that I need to actually go off and do this fixup. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lar! Me at placing Ruine Berghof.JPG, a mistake (in the first version of the file) posted picture mate, he would not like to have in the wiki. All other information and the latest version of the file is correct. Is it possible to remove the photo of my friend with the specified file? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a red link. Did you mean File:Ruine Berghof.JPG ? Do you want the entire file deleted? We can't edit images to remove just one person easily. Do you want one version deleted? If this is an oversight issue and you'd prefer not to answer publicly to limit the details revealed, you can write commons-oversight@lists.wikimedia.org with more detail. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, but Rama is all well done.--Kolchak1923 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear it. Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. See discussion about you at User_talk:Docu#Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. --Jarekt (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Very odd. I've asked for a fuller explanation of what this is about there. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as a steward, are you able to import this page from file upload and move it to User:The Evil IP address/graphic credits then? It has been argued here that making images unclickable might break licenses, which is why I'd like to create such a page like fr.wikipedia so that this fits them. Of course, I'd put the page up in the VP before linking it in the footer like on fr.wikipedia to see if the community supports this as well. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to be imported? Can't you just copy the source and in your initial edit summary note that it came from fr:Wikipédia:Crédits graphiques? I'm not opposed to this idea or bringing the file over, I'm just not sure I seee the need for an import. Would you translate it to en? Or set up multiple language versions? ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since a lot of such pages have been imported, I would say we should do it here as well. The only reason that I can't do it is that fr.wikipedia isn't in Special:Import. I would probably make only one page, but translating the captions where the license information is using {{LangSwitch}}, since I think that's easier than having to create an own page for localization. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages all came from wikis that aren't on the exclusion list, though, right? Let me ask Cary's opinion... I think really, the way to go is to just copy it and put the link/souce in the edit summary (and on the talk) ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now mentioned the French wikipedia page in the introduction. This might make it more clear, as people might miss my edit summary. I've also used {{Mld}} instead of {{LangSwitch}}. This template is able to find out the user's browser language, which might be better here as reusers of these images might often be unregistered and then their fallback would always be English. If you're interested, you can see a draft here. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An absolutely splendid piece of work, well done indeed. I spotted a minor grammar nit, which I fixed. I strongly support moving this forward into general use. What next? ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Lar, has there been any conclusion/decision in the "case" uploads of User:Herr stahlhoefer in regard to notifying re-users of his copyviolating images? In fact, it seems there was only one clear case of re-use[7]. Just by chance, it was the first file in his cv-list. --Túrelio (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I think I lost track of where things stand (and where they are being discussed). Notification of other entities seems a very big job, so perhaps no one has taken it on? ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refering to the email I sent you quite some days ago. From my side there was intentionally no public discussion about that, in order not to wake sleeping dogs. --Túrelio (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the nudge. Answered via email. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a w:100 Years' War which is a problem for many users. Many users are annoyed/frustrated/at wits' end due to a very large number of long arguments centering around a small number of users, over similar issues again and again on page after page, that are very disrupting. They are nominally mostly about copyright; see how Nilfanion describes it. Please see my comment here (tagged 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)) followed by an understating long reply from Nilfanion and the follow-up there and on the page Nilfanion created. Someone in authority needs to take the time to get a grasp on the situation (and I don't think that'll be easy) and take some decisive action. Are you up for it? I've got a hunch the problem is bigger than a single user, but I'm not sure. Should I ask Bastique, or do you think there's a regular admin up for the task? Please, please help! Pretty please?--Elvey (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nilfanion seems to have made a good start at trying to organise what the dispute is about. There isn't a formal dispute resolution process here at Commons beyond the various noticeboards. I think getting Bastique's view on this will help, as I don't see resolving this as something any one admin can do. It will take multiple admins working together I suspect. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Notified Bastique. I recall Nilfanion said somewhere (I can't find it) that he wanted someone else to assist with enforcement; which is mainly why I come to you and Bastique. --Elvey (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an enforcement matter I can certainly help. but I may not have the time or depth of knowledge of background to help (a great deal) in determining what the right outcome is. And that is key before we have any enforcement of anything! Goes without saying that you know that, but I said it anyway, for the benefit of any talk page watchers I may have. I think Nilf's approach is good as I said there. Best. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in November we delayed a final discussion and resolution until December on this matter. You commented in the discussion; welcoming you to return. Let's figure out the best solution. Respectfully, Durova (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lar, there is need to correct a bit the text in protected template Template:PD-old-70 per (already archived) discussion Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_23#Public domain templates. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you let me know what specifically needs doing? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text "the United States, and" from the template. --Snek01 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did the en one. However I'm not sure it was protected! Someone else will need to do other languages. ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh off the camera - with thanks for your support in 2009 and regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Something found" or "something created" ?? :) ... Happy holidays to you and yours as well! (from snowy Delaware which got 20 inches or so over the weekend, but I'm heading home soon.) ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and advice everytime I needed it. — Dferg ^(disputatio) 14:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of the projects, which are many! ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are requested at Commons:Village pump#Latuff repository. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks. I suspect you may not like my viewpoint though. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar wrote on Mbz1's talk page: I think taking a swipe at me when thanking Mbz1 pretty much sums you up in a nice neat package... Mbz1 is going to be hard to turn against me though, you might try on more fertile ground. Or better, just leave, one way or another. Mila, feel free to delete this whole thread. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I have no wish to turn Mila against you, and I am quite sure you are right that I could not do that if I tried. It is bad enough as things are between us, and I would not want to drag any person into our dispute. She is a great person, and I have to give you credit for having been helpful to her. I never said you have no good points, and there are things about you I sincerely respect.

Between us it is different, and I do not appreciate the vicious treatment I got from you on WP. I understand that you feelings about me are base on my rough treatment of you. But now it is easy enough to end this dispute by simply ending discussion between us. I have said I am returning to my self-imposed Commons exile. If you (or others) make no further accusations of bad faith, and other insults directed at me, there will be silence. But, if you continue your attacks against me, I will stay as long as necessary to respond fully.

Feel free to delete this if you choose. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were banned from en:wp because you showed a consistent pattern of inability to get along with others. Your talk page here, your interactions with others here, shows us the same pattern. Pointing that out is not "vicious", it' not "bad faith", it's not an "insult"... it's just an observation, and you can take it any way you want, but one way or another, you will be civil and collegial here, or you won't be here at all. If you leave and don't come back, fine. If you improve your approach and contribute constructively, even better, in fact. But if you stay on the path you are on, you're going to be retired involuntarily. Commons gives less latitude to bad behavior than en:wp does, not more. We just don't have time here for 19 rounds of back and forth and 15 warnings. You're already about 1 "surly" post away from a short block. Internalize that, or don't, as you like. ++Lar: t/c 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual ad hominem [8] accusations that you have made against me in the past. In the noticeboard thread called "Israel disputes", I see four edits made by you, all of them directed at me, all of them commenting on me in a negative way, one containing a threat. Anyone who did not know the history of the dispute would think from your comments that I was the cause of it all. In fact I have little to do with it, and suggested that it be resolved with a compromise. Why have you chosen to focus on me, when the problems were elsewhere?

The only suggestion I recall making about an actual category in that dispute, concerning the Latoff political cartoons, was just before it went to the noticeboard, and was that Category:antisemitism be included, which I justified because WP:RS sources have discussed that, not because I consider it proven. That is what categories are for, as I understand it. But, when it became clear that neither side in the dispute much liked the suggestion, I decided to stop advocating for it, and I assume that when the file is unlocked that category will be removed.

My guess is that the real cause of your strange focus on my editing, and all the accusations you have made against me, goes back to the argument we had on my WP talk page, which is still in the edit history, but which someone seems to have deleted from my talk page. My own very negative view of you follows from your having declined a block appeal I made following that argument. It was wrong of you to do that because you were very angry over what I said to you, and therefore you should have left that to an uninvolved administrator. Here on Commons, I see a continuation of the same problem. You are angry at me over things I have said about you, things you do not like. But, instead of pursuing your personal vendetta against me, you should leave these issues to other administrators who are not involved, such as Adambro or Nilfanion.

As I said, I intend to return to my self-imposed Commons exile, and do no further editing. But you can be sure, if you continue your personal vendetta against me on Commons talk pages and noticeboards, I will stay as long as necessary to defend myself. Leave these issues to other administrators who are uninvolved. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were banned from en:wp because you showed a consistent pattern of inability to get along with others. Your talk page here, your interactions with others here, shows us the same pattern. There's nothing more to say. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar wrote: "There's nothing more to say." Lar, you are giving me the impression there was nothing to say in the first place because you keep referring back to WP as though that is relevant to current discussion; while, at the same time, you continue to ignore what I actually do here on Commons.

In the Commons noticeboard discussion, my main contribution was a suggestion to compromise to resolve a dispute. I also suggested that since blocks for WP:PA do occur on Commons, it would be a good idea if Commons formulated a block policy for that. I also suggested that Commons needs to formulate a policy for WP:BLP because BLP violations do occurred in Commons talk pages and noticeboards. Even if you disagree with my suggestion of rules for PA and BLP violations, that hardly seems insulting to anyone, nor does it suggest an inability to get along with other editors.

In fact, I was not blocked from WP for an "inability to get along with others", and there were plenty of WP editors I got along with just fine. I did edit a number of I/P dispute articles, which are difficult to edit in the extreme, and there were editors on the other side of the dispute who did a lot of wiki-lawering to get me blocked to remove an editor they regarded as an obstacle to their own editing goals. If you want to spend some time on it, I am quite willing to go over, in detail, the history of events that got me blocked from WP. But please stop accusing me of an "inability to get along with others", because my wiki-exile had nothing to do with that. Please try to stay with the facts instead of throwing accusations at me. If you persist in that, I will move this discussion to a noticeboard for additional comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always welcome review. However, I'm comfortable with my characterization of the matter, as your characterizations are quite inaccurate (berating someone for not citing a specific sentence in the blocking policy isn't quite the same as "formulated a block policy", for example). What you need to do is change your approach to be less combative, and more open to feedback. Absent that, I suspect a review is not going to give you the result you desire. Either retire and be gone, or change your approach. Because this one won't work at Commons. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved discussion to the Village Pump. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry,

A slightly delayed New Years greeting from me. Thank you for good mentoring and advice in the past year in various difficult situations. --Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks! Happy new year to you and yours as well! ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are forcing into Lycaon page is a clear and not acceptable violation of privacy. Of course, it was undone by me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say but I'm going to lock the "sock" account because he doesn't want to make it clear its his wife or answer our quistions. Huib talk 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But those who need to know already know, he has made it clear, and they won't be editing "collaboratively" again. I can't see that the cross link achieves anything but advertise Lycaon's marital status, which is clearly not the point of Commons. No one cares or will care about the few instances of past Estrilda/Lycaon interaction, and those who do can peek at the Checkuser case. Maedin\^talk 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the outcome of Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Estrilda#Results. The consensus there is clear, the accounts need to be marked. Lycaon was encouraged to engage in discussion but chose not to. Either the accounts stay crosslinked, or one of them gets blocked. Alvegaspar: Do not revert me again, revert warring is unacceptable and you are editing against consensus. Spend your energy on getting Lycaon to participate meaningfully in deciding what to do. ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar has acted according to the consensus at the checkuser discussion where nobody objected to leaving both accounts unblocked if a disclosure were in place. If new objections have arisen now, perhaps they should be discussed at the admin boards. Let's avoid recriminations or edit warring. The best possible outcome would be if Estrilda or Lycaon provided the additional explanation that Estrilda promised in October would be forthcoming; we'd all like to put this in the past. Wishing a happy New Year all around, Durova (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question - What consensus? Maybe my English is to blame but that is a wild departure from what really happened in the discussion! By the way, did anyone care to contest the conclusion drawn by Tiptoety? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It arose early in discussion that notation in user space was a bare minimum response. Your first post to the thread came much later, Alvesgaspar. It might possibly have slipped your attention in the long discussion? At any rate, if this really needs reopening then the admin boards might be best. Lar seems to have acted in good faith. Durova (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through the whole text and still see no consensus. Yes, the idea arose during the discussion but was far from being consensual. On the contrary, some users were strongly against it. I see a lot of resentment and little common sense here. Lycaon already produced the necessary explanation. Why insist on a public trial or on forcing a crosslink note in their pages? Don't you see that both alternatives are humiliating and out of proportion? And that the whole process is self-defating? Yes, I believe that Lar acted in good faith but am not so sure about his discernment on this case. I would leave Commons immediately if I were forced to accept such notation in my userpage. I would see it as some physical mark on my skin. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conflict of interest needs to be disclosed. It's accepted practice that when CU investigation finds connections, and there is deception, or the possibility of deception, that we block the account. We forebore to do that in this case, pending an explanation, which was never offered. Lycaon is active enough to revert the crosstagging, so it's not like he's not around at all. If no explanation is forthcoming, either crosstagging or blocking of one of the accounts is required. That's not a "mark on my skin", which seems a bit dramatic to me. It's just a requirement of editing collegially, we don't tolerate sockpuppetry. If you like I can do what I usually do when I find socking, instead of this very gentle approach that we've embarked on. ++Lar: t/c 01:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lar I'd say lycaon is more than active :), and no matter what I am glad he's back.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Alves, you asked "did anyone care to contest the conclusion drawn by Tiptoety". The thing is that Tiptoety conclusion was drawn few weeks after crosslink was first posted to lycaon's user page. Apparently posting a crosslink at a user page is not considered an action at all. Lar has the crosslink at his talk page, and he has never deserved any actions taken against him. I also agree with Lar that approach was more than gentle. Probably any other admin, but lycaon would have been desysoped fot that, and besides, if my husband kept removing ctosslink that he is married from his user page, if he had an account on Commons, I would have been more than upset --Mbz1 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: Here lycaon wrote :"Full explanations and (where necessary) apologies were offered to Lar by mail several weeks ago.", which means that fill explanations were never given at CU request. More than that, apparently lycaon considered that some apologies are proper in the situation. I believe the apologies should have been offered in public, and not via private email. It is not easy to apologize publicly, but who says it should be easy?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Durova... Perhaps we do need to thrash this out on the COM:AN/UP page? Not sure. As far as I'm concerned, consensus at that RFCU discussion (which ran for the better part of 2 months) is clear, either there needs to be crosslinking, or there needs to be a block of one of the accounts. I'd prefer the crosslinking but I'm OK with the block. Admittedly the discussion is long, and you have to read the whole thing to see the full resolution. ++Lar: t/c 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is disappointing

1. Explanations given off wiki on a matter of concern to the community...?
2. Trust and transparency go hand in hand. I'm not getting the "invasion of privacy" issue here? Real names are not being used. Strike the word "marriage" if you like but these people are "together" - the community should have access to this information given the rfcu in my opinion. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that a connection should be made explicit, but I do disagree that the nature of the relationship must be disclosed. A note indicating that the editors are linked (sister? mother? wife? good friend? shouldn't matter) should suffice . . . marital status goes over the top. (P.S. to Herby: Lycaon does use his real name on wiki.) Maedin\^talk 12:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Lar won't mind us playing on his page...:)

Yes I agree with you Maedin completely as far as I can see. I don't care what the relationship is merely that there is something for transparency. As to real names on wiki I guess I would say "his choice" really. In practice real names are one of those things. I started with almost my real one, changed for my perceived privacy, however a minor amount of looking would now establish my (apparent) real name (after all how real is real). I certainly respect the need for privacy, I think transparency is important in people who wish a community to trust them. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a crosslink like that "User A is using the same IP address as user B is" will be acceptable.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion, ty. But that doesn't make it clear that there could be/was editing with interest; how about something like "User:Estrilda is associated with User:Lycaon and shares an IP address." That doesn't establish gender or what the relationship could be, which is what I think is most respectful of privacy while still acknowledging conflict of interest. Is that acceptable as a crosslink, please?  :) Maedin\^talk 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maedin, I would like to make myself clear please. For me personally any crosslink, or no crosslink at all is an acceptable solution. The only thing I really like is lycaon coming back. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbz1:: "No crosslink" is not acceptable unless the other ID is blocked. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maedin:I'm fine with that wording. I want a crosslink. I don't care about the exact wording (which is why the crosslink I put in that stood for 2 months has (in comments) the request to reword to suit) as long as it carries the connotation that the editors are somehow related, connected, influence each other, what have you. So that wording works for me. Stick "and there may be potential conflicts of interest" in there and I'm even happier. ++Lar: t/c 15:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for being flexible, Lar. I've added the bare minimum in terms of wording; embellishment isn't my place. Could Estrilda be unblocked? Maedin\^talk 16:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth Maedin's edit seems perfectly acceptable and appropriate to me. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I rephrased the cross-link on Estrildas user page, such that it mirrors the revised one at Lycaons user page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that seems a good idea. ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the checkuser result came out I inquired whether Commons has a local precedent for this situation. Responses were that this is the first time here. If that's mistaken please provide other examples. There's another WMF site where Lar and I and some of the others are active where this sort of thing occurs a couple of times each year. The precedents there are clear: involuntary desysopping. The last time they had a sysop who got caught and went inactive while people were asking questions, he was desysopped and sitebanned in less than a month. From my perspective and probably from that of other Commons contributors who are familiar with that site's standard practices, we have been been handling this situation with extreme patience and generosity. To a degree that's absolutely unprecedented. Yet for some people that's not enough. Consider the precedent that would set: I honestly don't believe that sysops are above scrutiny or that it's a good idea to have vested contributors. Durova (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a big believer that sysops are not untouchable/above the law. However Lycaon was effectively inactive and so I was not that concerned.

It saddens me still that such a good contributor does seem to want to interact with people who have had considerable respect for him.

I like Maedin's link solution but if there are other issues this may need to be moved from such a minor talk page (:)) to somewhere more appropriate. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I haven't moved it is the potential Streisand effect. If someone wants to take this to a noticeboard I wouldn't object. Really, I just wish Lycaon would talk to us. Durova (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that I agree with Durova. I also wish lycaon talked to us, and to me in particular. I begged him quite a few times to talk to me, like for example here. He never had, and up to now he keeps removing all the messages I've left on his talk page for the last few weeks. Only, Durova, please do not believe, that bringing the matter to any administrators board will make him talk. I know quite well from my own experience with him, if he does not want to talk, he will not, and I am sure he does not want to talk now. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is another matter I want to talk to him about as well. I'll leave it at that for now. ++Lar: t/c 20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the consensus, it was apparent to me. Not only had no one reverted the edit made by Lar, but others had agreed that it should be made (just because some opposed does not mean there was not consensus). As to the handling if the case, I feel that it was handled rather well. Everyone had a cool head, we gave the parties involved ample to respond, and ultimately no one was blocked. As to the wording of the statement made on Lycaon's and his partners page, I agree that a more neutral wording is good. Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You once sounded interested in this page (not sure if you're still), but in case you are, I'd be happy to hear some feedback by you as I've just finished it. Thank you, --The Evil IP address (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. When you first started talking about it, I thought it was a great idea, but I wasn't quite sure how it was going to turn out. It came out really professional looking! Very nice. What's the right place to talk further? I think it should go live. THANKS for your efforts on it. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this village pump dicussion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Thanks again. ++Lar: t/c 11:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar - Hopefully I'm just noting something that is underway already - I feel that it's important for 'that' image to be actually deleted from Commons, ie. it really shouldn't remain accessible to those with the oversight op.s - obviously I'd like to see a systemic solution for this sort of thing (having raised it before) but short term, I trust someone has contacted the foundation or a dev.? In fact - someone should probably contact the police too, to be honest, depending on the nature of the pic. which I haven't seen. As I said, I suspect this is being discussed on the oversight list, or somewhere appropriate - but I'd appreciate reassurance that the matter is properly resolved, and the image deleted. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which image you mean (there are a number of problematic ones I'm aware of), feel free to mail me if it's key, but in general, there isn't a "higher level" than Oversight, short of direct developer intervention. Those who have the Oversight permission are among the theoretically most trusted WMF volunteers there are. They're not going to go passing things around for amusement's sake. Perhaps I'm missing exactly what you're getting at though. ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the replies, Lar :-) - the image in question is this one - if it really was a 16 year old girl masturbating, then access to it really should be removed from all, including those with oversight op.s (I trust you folks, I really do, but I don't really feel happy that oversighters have access to child porn.) - if, as some over on en have mentioned, this is in fact a fake account, then it gets a bit darker in my view - either ways, I suspect that someone should do a 'checkuser' and notify a local police department - would you agree? Privatemusings (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I agree. In practice, it's not that easy. we don't (in general) routinely do this sort of complete deletion. There area lot of images that are possibly of underage or possibly not model released (or both) subjects, who are in inappropriately revealing poses, that we have trouble even getting deleted, due to resistance from some rather intransigient community members whose mantra seems to be "no censorship" and "don't delete it unless you're sure it's bad". I think these sorts of images should be routinely revision deleted and flagged for potential complete deletion but I don't have the political capital to get such a change to happen. I would support your efforts on this, but would it be better, instead, to fight harder to at least get all those potentially damaging images deleted? Instead of focusing on this one? ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really consider myself a fighter, largely because I'm just not sure that any effort is effective, really (this is a sad state of affairs). I had a long chat with nathan yesterday about splitting these issues (explicit media from child porn. from model age and release) and I can see the benefits of such an approach - but really don't perceive any traction being gained anywhere. We recently had User:Max Rebo Band, a rather prolific contributor of sexually explicit material (much of which is rather beautiful), asking for OTRS to consider expanding its role to include release and model age info. - that was shot down rapidly both here, and in the most forceful terms my Mike (Godwin) on the foundation mailing list. There seems to me to be little chance of positive evolution in that regard.

Which brings me to another kind of serious request - would you, if you get a mo, give a little bit of thought to how you would consider it ethical and useful to share some of the information you are privy to - perhaps a record of the volume of unsettling images, perhaps you might be prepared to share some oversighted files with an appropriately credentialed authority, such as a child protection agency, or the police? Alison mentioned that there has been some very ugly, indisputably illegal child pornography uploaded to commons - would you be prepared to share your experience of such, including whether or not relevant authorities were contacted, and what advice came back from them? It continues to greatly concern me that we're playing amateur hour with potentially illegal material, and that ultimately, if the foundation doesn't accept any role in the management of said, then it's really an acceptable risk to volunteers - it's just not fair in my view. Mileage may vary, and advice is most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That latter question is an exceedingly difficult one. Not one I'm willing to give any snap judgments to. My loyalty is to the project. Except where other things outweigh it. Whether this is clearly one of them is not clear to me by any stretch of the imagination. The ends do not always justify the means. ++Lar: t/c 03:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's something I'm still thinking through too - unfortunately, not finding resolution means maintaining the status quo :-( - I have one more (small) question on this specific image - are you able to confirm who 'oversighted' the image? For some reason, I had in my mind that it was User:Kylu, but she doesn't appear to be an oversighter here? It's possible (likely!) that there are gaps in my understanding of the various ops, mind. best, Privatemusings (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, on request of the deleting admin, and then asked said admin to please send an email to the Commons oversight people explaining why and to request that one of the sysadmins delete the picture from upload. As far as being an oversighter, stewards have suppression as part of the global group (handy for emergency oversights). Upon receipt of a query, I posted my apology regarding not directly reporting the oversight to the local oversight group, among other things. If you want more data regarding the oversight, however, I'd have to direct you to your local oversighters, as I'm unsure as to how much of the oversight log data they're willing/able/restricted-by-policy to release, sorry! Hope that answers your questions, have a nice day! Kylu (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record there is absolutely no issue with any of Kylu's actions in this matter, they are completely within policy, revisiondeletion or oversighting needed doing and no local oversighter was immediately handy. We apparently need to improve our explanations of how to notify us after the fact but that's it. Thanks Kylu, as usual. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nothing new really - just a note that I'm following up this one a wee bit. I wanted to clarify that I'm correct in saying that you personally didn't report this picture (of a self declared minor female masturbating) to any external agency (police or child protections, or somesuch)? - I'm also curious if you've ever reported such media, or if you're aware of any such reports being forwarded by others? - I'm going to drop a not in to Alison on en too, because I think she may have experience in this rather horrible field too... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< following up - will copy to new section at the bottom, if that's ok :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this file File:Giraffa cabarceno.JPG is used only on the italian wikipedia, can this be used on others? --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 01:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there should be more pictures of Pokémon on this page, to make this a more complete page

I think it's about right already. ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template, Template:Fact disputed, is not a set template on wikimedia,although a similar one,

References for this description (or part of this) or for the depiction in the file are not provided. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.

is please help me make this a template!

--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) --RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you are asking? You may find more people that can help you at the Village Pump ++Lar: t/c 00:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sadly - here. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know who I am, I am someone who was accused of being a sockpuppet of 98E on Wikipedia and here on Commons. However, I was unblocked here on Commons because I provided enough evidence that I wasn't 98E. I've tried asking several admins about unblocking me on Wikipedia. However, Spellcast and Kanonkas completely ignored me, and Herbythyme used to be an admin but he isn't anymore so he couldn't help me. But, it's been proven that I'm not a sockpuppet of 98E. Therefore, if you could unblock me on Wikipedia, I'd be very grateful. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should send a note to unblock-en-l (at) wikimedia.org and make your case there. Make sure to include links to whatever you're claiming as support for why you should be unblocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is unblock-en-l at wikimedia.org an e-mail address? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Technically it is lists.wikimedia.org but either form should work. Replace the "at" with "@" Also, was I the blocking admin or the CU that performed the check(s)? If you know who the blocking admin or CU are, you should note that in your note. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcast was the one who blocked me, claiming that there was tons of evidence of me being 98E, but no IP check was done. However, if an IP check had been done, it would've showed that I wasn't 98E. I've seen the IP address that 98E used by looking at his sockpuppet category on Wikipedia, and his began with "71" while mine began with "24." So, an IP check should've been done prior to my block and it would've showed that I wasn't 98E. However, in September of 2008 I was unblocked here on Commons, and I tried to nicely ask Spellcast to unblock me, but he ignored me. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I sent an e-mail to the unblock e-mail address. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I was looking for a mediator in this discussion [9]. As you can read, the discussion has been in some cases, a bit wild. I appreciate your time. Thank you.--Aylaross (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well I can try to peek in or you can ask any admin. Turelio is a good guy and should be able to help keep things calm. Durova striking some of her stuff seems helpful to me. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Lar - I posted this a while ago way up there somewhere;

nothing new really - just a note that I'm following up this one a wee bit. I wanted to clarify that I'm correct in saying that you personally didn't report this picture (of a self declared minor female masturbating) to any external agency (police or child protections, or somesuch)? - I'm also curious if you've ever reported such media, or if you're aware of any such reports being forwarded by others? - I'm going to drop a not in to Alison on en too, because I think she may have experience in this rather horrible field too... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so now I'm following it up in a shiny new section all its own :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really just not sure where you are going with this. We agree this issue in general is problematic, but I'm not sure your questions make a lot of sense to me. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to have not communicated better - and yeah, I think generally speaking we share quite a lot of common ground. I'm trying to learn / gauge how the commons community has responded to illegal, or potentially illegal, material in the past, and I thought you'd be a pretty good person to ask first - having been around a while etc. - the short version of the above is;

• Have you ever reported material uploaded to commons to any external authority?
• Are you aware of any other volunteer doing so?
• (obvious follow up - and where I'm heading really)Do you think (like me) that an organised / systemic response to such material is a good idea, and if so, does it exist at all?

Hope that's a wee bit clearer :-) - for what it's worth, here's another image which may well be illegal in some jurisdictions - I think perhaps it should be deleted but currently lack the morale and initiative to nominate :-( cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, gotcha.

• No, I've never reported material uploaded to any external authority.
• No, I'm not aware of other volunteers doing so. Although it may have happened.
• I think a systemic response to such material is a good idea, yes, but I'm not sure that necessarily involves reporting things to authorities. Just a more systematic deletion policy.

As for the last item, it doesn't seem to be recongizably anyone in particular and while it may be illegal in some jurisdictions that's not a bar to it being on Commons. My concerns would be with scope (what is this image used for or likely to be used for) and copyright/license questions. The art is high enough quality that good provenance seems a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SatuSuro (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NP. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, I have a quick question. At this CHU request, Eugene says the user needs to provide evidence of account ownership on other wikis. However, as far as I can tell, there are no active accounts using the target name at any project. Am I missing anything? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a toss up. Commented there. I'd probably decline the rename, actually. Renaming is a priv we extend to significant contributors. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see now and I think I understand. Sorry for the newbish questions :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no worries, ask any time, I'm glad you asked... Don't be afraid to use the list to bring it to people's attention if you don't hear from me (or whoever you ping) right away. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. What is the generally accepted standard for closing RfAs I voted in? Is it de facto disallowed like on enwiki, or is it just a matter of common sense? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it close? That's the key question in my view. If it's close, stand aside. If it's both well over the minimums (8 votes in favor or 10 overall-ish) and well clear what the outcome is, sure, close it. But if it's close, leave it to someone else. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. The one I'm talking about is Commons:Administrators/Requests/myself488, which doesn't seem too close to me. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a late breaking change, I'd close that one without any qualms in your position. It's unopposed and well over the threshold. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you not do any more blocks of Pieter as I think you've become too involved at this point. Leave it to others going forward. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How have I become involved? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it would be better not to be involved more, you've issued two blocks and there has been wheel warring, best to leave it to others at this point. There are plenty of admins on Commons. I have heard talk of people seeing sanction against you if you continue to stay involved, I think that's a bit overblown but I do think it better (my advice) that you step back. Hope that helps.++Lar: t/c 14:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for a sanction is completely and totally ridiculous. But I don't intend to wheel-war, if that's what you mean. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm glad to hear you're going to take my advice. ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Pieter's agreed to back off. That's all anyone wanted, I think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who previously participated in a past discussion regarding this page, you may be interested in the new discussion taking place. I have endeavoured to send a message to everyone previously involved; if I have missed anyone please let them know as well. Roux (talk) 05:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your support. I am trying to help build a policy that both allows sexual content for educational use but still respects parents, personality rights, and all applicable US laws. I would appreciate it if you could remove the rejected template. I realize that this is only a small victory for a small group of troublemakers, however I feel that it may discourage further development. I would also appreciate your continued monitoring of the proposal and talk page for abuse, such as from the enwiki banned Roux (see COM:AN/U), and also this diff from Timtrent. I would not be questioned for removing their remarks in my home-project of the English Wiki, however the rules on Commons seem to be quite different and actually much more hostile. - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "rejected" tagging and added a note. I've also commented on the talk about your removing Timtrent's comment. That was inappropriate, please don't do that again. He could have phrased it more tactfully but labeling it vandalism is not helpful. OK? I do think a policy that addresses all these concerns is needed but the way to get it is to build bridges, not alienate others. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I work vandal patrol on English Wikipedia, and on w:Wikipedia:Vandalism there's a mention of "common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor" in the introduction. I removed the comments only once and was not trying to edit war. I'm trying to have a serious conversation on a serious topic and I don't care for obscenities or thinly veiled attacks. There does not seem to be a concise policy about what constitutes talk page vandalism in Commons that I know of. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was not vandalism. Nor was it an attack. It was a blunt comment, but it was a statement of opinion. I happen to disagree with it but your removal, even once, was wrong. That's not a debatable point in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It won't happen again. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and this is actually very important, you made added a comment on the top of the proposal saying "Discussion of the proposal's merits is ongoing and the proposal should not be marked rejected without allowing the discussion to again reach a consensus." There seems to be a big misunderstanding. This proposal is still under development. I have not announced this proposal on Village Pump or any other forum and the only people who have commented are the 10 or so users Roux contacted who had rejected the previous proposal. All I ask is that I have a reasonable amount of time (perhaps as much as 3 months) to gather the resources I need in order to present finished proposal(s) without constant harassment. Please revise this comment to reflect the "not finished" status. - 12:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you want exactly, then. Do you want input from others? If so, yes I can revise the tagging but if you think it's still under revision and will be for a while, "rejected, but we are trying to come up with a better one" is the sense that's needed I think. If on the other hand, you want to work on it without a lot of input, maybe use your sandbox? Let me know. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do want it in a public place and will soon invite more users to help work on it. It is "still under revision and will be for a while." My tentative plan is to split this into two separate proposals with different names while leaving a small part of this one for reconsideration. I don't think it is necessary to indicate on the Project page that the previous version of the proposal was rejected because this is declared numerous times on the talk page. I'm also unsure whether this should be a policy or guideline or where the documentation is for how to proceed with this. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can come up with. The proposal WAS rejected and that should be noted on the proposal page itself. Regardless of how many times it is mentioned on the talk. Or, alternatively, why don't YOU take a cut at what you want it to say, keeping in mind that you need to acknowledge this was rejected, and is being retooled. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll work it in and have it done by tomorrow. There's another situation happening at COM:AN/U. My request that Roux be disciplined for numerous attacks, obscene edit summaries, and gross incivility (like this) has been looked at by two admins and determined that basically Roux has done nothing wrong and I provoked him. Both admins are from either the Netherlands or Germany, both countries have different views of underage porn than most Americans. I'm beginning to think that Commons is one of the darkest places on the internet and I am not having a good experience trying to contribute. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to comment on this:

1. I'm from Belgium.
2. I was judging your behaviour, not your proposal. Where I'm from, or my age, has nothing to do with this discussion.

Kameraad Pjotr 19:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this view. "Comment on the content, not the contributor" applies as much here as it does elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned yesterday that I needed a day to think about what to do about the page. The reintroduction of the proposal has caused far more problems than I had anticipated. What I would suggest is that the page be locked (with explanation) until order can be restored and the right to build guidelines without being harassed or censored is established. My proposal was intended to allow images that are within scope that have proper documentation in order to prevent mass deletion of all sexual content. However, my non-censorship proposal is now being censored by people claiming I'm trying to censor them. PS: If there's a page on how to write a guideline, or how a guideline becomes policy please let me know. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I doubt you will give this request more than a passing glance, but I must ask for the record that you decline it. The fact that 'development' isn't going the way certain parties want it to is the exact antithesis of any page protection policy. Roux (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see locking a page as a good idea, or as part of the wiki way. SWR needs to figure out how to work on the page, and propose changes, and not expect to be able to be the only person to edit it. I suggested before that he work on a sandbox version or something. ++Lar: t/c 02:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the atmosphere over at the page does seem to me all a bit tense - any advice? Privatemusings (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps. the 'legal angle', in terms of non compliance with the record keeping requirements of US law, seems to be active - at least in the contributions of one account which looks rather like it has a 'single purpose'..... this whole area is messy, and getting messier. Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: drop your crusade, as you were unequivocally told last time. Roux (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: remain civil and collegial. As you have been unequivocally told many times now. Including, for example, here (a comment you saw fit to remove is nevertheless a warning, how ever gently phrased). Since you remove comments on your page, but I do not, and you are nevertheless here, your warnings from now on may well be here, so they're easier to find. Heed them. My next edit to your page may well be a block notice. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(for interested readers, here is the text that Roux found so offensive: "Whatever beef you may have about SWR's unacceptable behavior, I've walked in those shoes, and far worse, so playing that card won't work. Further, I comprehend what the actual issue is. I just don't think you do. As for "how much (I) dislike you" I don't dislike you at all. I just dislike disruptive badfaith behavior. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Shape up, please. It would be greatly appreciated." ... pretty far over the line, wasn't it? ++Lar: t/c 10:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it did not display any comprehension of the actual problem, which is what I informed you would need to be in evidence if you wished to post again at my talkpage, it was over a specific line, yes. And apparently you have forgotten exactly what happened last time on this merry-go-round. Or indeed any time Privatemusings has embarked on a crusade anywhere within the WMF umbrella. Roux (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and given your well-documented dislike for me, if you block me I will do my best to have your bit removed as an involved/personal decision. So there's that, too. Roux (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What documentation is that? You keep asserting some imagined dislike of you, but it assumes facts not in evidence. Troublesome user? Yes. Disliked? Nope. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you forget IRC conversations. Or are you going to conveniently claim they never took place? Roux (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember, sorry. If I said something then, it's not something I still believe because I don't hold grudges. You shouldn't either. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< I suspect our well known warm and mutually respectful relationship is rather clouding roux's perspective - although I also consider it a conflict of interest for any admin to block me - I mean how much more involved can you get than being willing to press 'block' - that should warrant recusal right there, and probably resignation ;-) - anywhoo, I tried to implement the suggestion at the talk page about subpages etc. - which hopefully will lead to calmer waters. Any advice / feedback is most welcome, of course... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I'm not sure how to best handle the situation now besides making an announcement on the Village pump and letting the community get involved. So far there's been a policy of denial and containment that isn't helpful to WMF or the community. So far you've either banned, or threatened to ban me for things that are not against guidelines, like making negative comments about the project, and reverting section blanking. I actually don't regard you as a neutral admin, but you're the highest ranking one involved so I'm pleading for openness and fairness. Remember, consensus doesn't mean much in this case, because it was derived by canvassing by Roux (clearly indicated in edit history on April 24). This situation is adding the unmanagability in my life and aggravating my health condition and I'm taking a sabbatical. I will be observing your response. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another bloody stupid and baseless accusation. When is this going to stop, SWR? I canvassed nobody; indeed, I left messages for everyone who had participated in the previous discussion that I could find. Further, my message included text along the lines of "If I've missed anyone involved in the discussion, please let them know." So that is canvassing how, exactly? How convenient that you're taking a 'break' right after yet another one of the smears that is almost guaranteed to get you blocked. Roux (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find fault with much about Roux's approach here, in particular I think he's abrasive, even combative, in discussion, unnecessarily so, but I find the suggestion that he canvassed in an inappropriate manner not supportable by the facts on the ground. You ought to retract that suggestion. I'm going to go further and say that I think my blocks of you and others in this matter would be sustained on review under just about any imaginable circumstance. That you and Roux both seem to find me biased or non neutral, but in opposite directions, suggests that perhaps I've got the fairness thing roughly correct already. Dunno. ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Ought to'? Oh please. This would be the same user making false accusations of vandalism, demanding spurious CUs, and accusing me of wanting Commons to host 'my' child porn. And now accusations of canvassing. 'Ought to' is just a wee bit mild, don't you think? Had I done all of those things you would have indeffed me without blinking. Roux (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I call BS. I don't know where you get that idea. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From w:wp:canvassing - "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." - Stillwaterising (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the important part of the policy. Reread it. Including the part about what kinds of canvassing are not only appropriate, but encouraged. Notifying every previous participant findable, with a neutrally worded message, and a call to identify those missed so they can be notified too... that is not only appropriate, but encouraged. Please don't cite policy unless you actually know what is said. You are fairly close to a long block here if you don't shape up. ++Lar: t/c 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

haven't really got much time today, or poss. for the next few days - but I'm kinda detecting a bit of a wind change (when a barometer falls, it means a storm is coming, as I'm sure you probably know :-) We've now had two admins deleting sexually explicit material as 'out of scope' and one admin restore some of them (if you don't mind looking at rude pics, you can see the gaps here). If I had more time, I'd try and chat a bit more to folk like roux explaining why I feel tagging, and therefore supporting filtering tools, is actually preferable to deletion (the 'out of scope' images could actually remain on the project) - but under the current system, I feel I regrettably support the deletions - of which I'd probably expect more (and undeletions too, and eventually the fine en wiki tradition of 'wheel warring' will fully infect poor commons). Thought I'd keep you informed, and hope you're good.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and well I'm in a record keeping mood, there were also these deletions based on moral issues applying when subjects can be identified (personally I dunno why moral issues would only apply if you can identify someone - apparently having your mouth full tends to mean that the images are fine ;-) - now I really have to go earn :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Privatemusings, I deleted the two images not just on ground of moral issues but on COM:PEOPLE#Moral issues which (please read the entire policy) applies only if the depicted persons are identifiable. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that :-) - I'm really asking why that policy seems to apply moral issues solely to identifiable people - do you agree with me that 'moral issues' can apply regardless of identifiability? Privatemusings (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Privatemusing, sure. However, my deletion decisions refer to policy and not to some unidentified moral issues. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< I think you're right that I could have made that clearer in my post, and thanks for clarifying :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name was mentioned at w:User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#File:Las_Vegas7.JPG. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've responded there. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Stillwaterising and [10]. If he continues with these "resignation requests" just because people write something he disagrees with, he's in for a time-out. Lupo 07:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Endorsed your thinking there. ++Lar: t/c 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lar. Sorry to bother you but I'd like to have your advice on this:

As per discussion on my talk page and given that Commons:Username policy is only a proposal but Commons:Blocking policy says that we can block per innapropiate usernames I'd like to know if Qazwsxedcrfvtgbyhnujmikolpñ (talk · contribs) can be blocked under that grounds for being a confusing username. I know that I can suggest him/her to change his username but I was told that renaming consumes many resources of the database and it should not be used to rename users with few edits (unless SUL usurpations, etc) Thank you for your time & reply in advance, — Dferg (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That name seems unhelpful to me. Renaming users consumes more resources if the user has a lot of contributions, yes, but we tend to grant renames based on standing (a user with few or none is told just abandon and restart, a user with a lot will get his request granted if it's otherwise reasonable). I would suggest you recommend to the user that they change their name, and see what happens. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your time. I will then ask the user to start editing under a new username or to fill a request for changing his username. Since the user seems to speak Spanish, that would be simple for me. Very best, — Dferg (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. Thanks for taking this on. ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, I would like to what images in category:topless young women would require any "documentation"? And which ones do? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ones for which there is reasonable doubt as to whether the model is underage, or whether or not the model has granted permission for the photograph to be taken. But I suspect you knew that already. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a non-answer. Look, I have lived in your country, although it was a while ago. I understand that it is a national catastrophy when a nipple is seen on broadcasting channels. But is there really a law requiring documentation for bare breasts? And you seemed to state that Commons had documentation of age for some images. How is that done? For what images? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand that it is a national catastrophy when a nipple is seen on broadcasting channels" NOT a helpful comment. It cuts no ice whatever with me, especially on my talk, so knock it off. You ask for examples.... The Michelle Merkin images for example are pretty solid... OTRS has permission on file, from her, and she's a public figure with a known birthdate, there is no doubt about her age or her consent. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very gentlemanly to suggest that Commons might have nude pictures of the conservative author. But I will knock it off. This was enlightening anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that was a typo. Good catch. I meant Michele Merkin, this image is an example: File:Michele Merkin 3.jpg (please revise your comment to remove the erroneous name if you'd be so kind, as you are right, it wasn't gentlemanly even if it was an inadvertant slip. (apparently I am not the only person to make that mistake, check out the article, it starts with a disambig...) ++Lar: t/c 23:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry,

I wonder why nobody pointed it out to you so far, but there's a de-adminship-request under Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Lar (de-adminship). Stay cool, I don't think you have to worry about that. cu --Isderion (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken time off and away from Commons. No matter what I say ("except I quit") will be marked with hostility from you (like in this diff). What is the appropiate forum to have your Ombudsman position reevaluated? BTW, attacking me constantly is not helping your case, take a look at your own actions (and lack of action) that contributed to this controversy. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See m:Ombudsman commission, if you have complaints about a current ombudsmans conduct as ombudsman you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - From Stewards Election Results, you were accused of "incivility & drama (34), ignores policy and consensus & dispute on enwiki & disruption (29), unilateral & threatening (23), militant & divisive & polarized (22), alleged inappropriate behaviour (10), contributes to anti-Wikipedia forum (10), alleged breach of privacy policy (10), few article edits on enwiki (7)." and lost your position as Steward in March. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SWR, it would seem that unless someone agrees with everything you say and finds no issue with any of your behaviour, you turn on them and start rashly calling for their resignation, removal, and so forth. I'm sympathetic to some of your concerns, but I'm more interested in fostering orderly and collegial discussion than in enabling you to rant about whatever you like. It's not about who is on which side Note, for example, that I've blocked Roux indefinitely as it seems that he is not interested in collegial discourse. You need to internalise that the problem is with your behavior, not with everyone else. Raising all these irrelevant issues is not helpful. Pointing out the issues with your behavior in a calm and dispassionate manner is not "attacking you".

If you have an issue with my activities as an ombudsman, you should raise it in the proper place, as Finnrind points out. As for my stewardship, I'm not going to comment further except to say that I feel that outcome was skewed by a few folk who were holding various grudges, including some of my former colleages among the stewards, and was not representative of true consensus. (a star chamber of a few secret deciders with secret unnamed input from a few others who have to account to no one is not exactly what I call a consensus driven process) That's unfortunate but it is what it is and for the most part I've moved on, since it's clear that my concerns with the process were glossed over or ignored. Look to your own behavior and stop picking at others. ++Lar: t/c 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, I've decided to withdraw my RFA; the situation where it seemed appropriate has passed. I'll leave a statement to that effect and would be grateful if you could close the page. Cheers, --JN466 10:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for offering to be of service. ++Lar: t/c 10:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have participated in the long debate about Ottava Rima. You may want to vote in the final poll about his block. I might have summarized your expressed opinion already, if so please check that it is correct! Only one vote ( Support,  Oppose or  Neutral), with a block length in case of support. Nothing more in this subsection! Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I write to you because you are listed here Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers.

The Category:PD files for review was flooded some time ago and perhaps therefore PD review seems to have stopped. After some discussion on Commons_talk:PD_files#Has_review_stopped? the category has been cleaned up.

Perhaps you would like to come back and take a look at some of the remaining files?

Thank you!

--MGA73 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lar. You have new messages at Multichill#Hi's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

RE: Images of Brittsuza -Stillwaterising (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no messages directed specifically at me, although I could be confused. Perhaps you are asking me to comment on someting? ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested oversight of these images at Commons:Deletion requests/Files of Brittany Suza (brittsuza) from Flickr - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see. I have commented there. You didn't make it very clear what it is you wanted with your first message. Instead of the fancy template you might try just saying what you wanted. ++Lar: t/c 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment. I hope others find it useful. I was reluctant to start the DR because I believe these matters should be handled more efficiently and without public spectacle. It also took me over two hours to do all the "paperwork". - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A DR is appropriate as this is not cut and dried, there is reasonable doubt in both directions. However the outcome ought to be delete absent appropriate information supplied by the subject. ++Lar: t/c 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lar, I have tied my brains into a knot over how to do an upload (probably needlessly). Could you advise me? The situation is the following: Two musicians who are covered in multiple WP articles have mailed me a digital publicity photo of themselves and have said in private correspondence with me that they are happy for this to go up in Commons. The picture was taken by one of them, and they are aware that uploading it will mean it becomes part of the public domain.

So far, so good, but I am unsure what I should do first now. Should I upload the picture, or should I ask them to mail permissions first?

If I upload the picture now on their behalf, it will be deleted, because I am not its author. If I ask them to mail permissions, there won't be a Commons picture their mail relates to.

Also, what exactly does their mail to permissions have to state? That they are the copyright owners and are releasing the image into the public domain? Is there any specific wording they need to follow? I want to help them get it right first time. Cheers, --JN466 12:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image somewhere that can be linked to now? If so, their mail can reference "the image now at URL... and to be uploaded by Jayen466". If not, tell them the name you are going to use and they can reference "the image called xxx about to be uploaded by Jayen466". If you want to upload now, you can put in the file description (below all the normal information) that "OTRS is pending" which will prevent a deletion. As to the permission, I suggest you suggest to them that they grant CC-BY-SA instead of PD... PD is way too loose in my view for images of people. CC-BY-SA requires attribution (which they get to specify how they want, they can require a link to their website as part of the credit) and requires that the license remain the same for derivative works. I suggest getting agreement on permission before you upload because if you upload as PD, you may be stuck. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS as for the wording of the email, there are suggested boilerplates to use... see Commons:Permission and Commons:Email templates ++Lar: t/c 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Lar, that's very helpful; I'll get onto that. --JN466 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, I asked you if you would be willing to unblock me on Wikipedia, because I was initially accused of being a sockpuppet of 98E, but then it was found that I wasn't. So, I had been trying to get unblocked, and I asked you about it. You suggested that I e-mail unblock-en-l (at) wikimedia.org about it. Well, I did, and I got no response. It's been 4 months now. It seems that not enough admins realize that I'm not 98E. I've provided enough evidence to get unblocked here on Commons. But, no one wants to unblock me on Wikipedia. I really want to start editing it again after nearly two years of being blocked. If you are able to, I would be very grateful if you could unblock me on Wikipedia. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent a note to some folk asking about this. Not sure whether there will be a response but I'm hoping. ++Lar: t/c 02:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Croton_Dam_Muskegon_River_Dscn1100_cropped.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:CedarPoint_Maverick_TrackLayoutDSCN9523.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]