User talk:Lcarsdata/Archives/2007/May

WP: Assume Good Faith. Removing unregistered voters

You recently removed the votes of unregistered voters at Link:[1] and provided a grounds that these voters could be sockpuppets. There are tools for Admins and Sysops to attempt to detect sockpuppets - if you had such suspicions you could have employed them. It is not right to simply void a large number of votes because they theoretically could be ballot stuffing sock puppets (it is unanimous so far, so a non-issue). There are very good reasons why Wiki allows for anonymous editors. Amongst the many reasons are legality in some jurisdictions (censorship, restrictions on free speech), WikiStalkers and more. In my case I am not a puppet. Besides, as a Sysop that is something you can check with a reasonable level of confidence. The mere fact that someone could be a sockpuppet does not provide justification to void a lot of peoples edits or votes. Specifically allowing unregistered editors has been Wiki policy for a long time. There are some limitations, as is the case for Semi-Protection, however I am not aware of any limitations on Voting on an unprotected page. You can not unilaterally ban unregistered voters yourself, and many of us have good reason to be anon. Besides, would you remove all the votes of registered voters on the theoretical possibility that they could be MeatPuppets:[2]? 71.204.133.75 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You also suggested this was my first edit on WikiCommons, it is very very far from it, and by definition of me being an unregistered user, it is highly likely not my first edit, as this IP is not fully static - I have edited under a variety of IPs as my ISP changes them. 71.204.133.75 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You stated Striking them out is common sense, since you could be a sockpuppet of someone who has already voted and may not understand the copyright policies and principles behind the Wikimedia Commons. Where is your following of en:Assume Good Faith? I may not understand copyright polices? Actually I have more than a few patents and copyrights to my name and do have a good feel for the law. Again, you are being highly presumptuous, and discriminating based on seeing an anonymous IP. I choose not to give you or anyone else the ability to easily create a large database of my editing activities on-line because I value my privacy, and the Wiki Foundation allows for that. With unregistered users you can safely assume nothing without further investigation. Again, the overriding principle you need to follow with unregistered users is en:Assume Good Faith unless you have reason to believe otherwise. 71.204.133.75 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not discriminating in anyway against unregistered users, you could easily register an account if you wanted too and nobody is prohibited from doing that unless they have been blocked. Regarding the assume good faith policy: You will find that it is Wikipedia policy and this is, in fact, the Wikimedia Commons. You also show much experience with this wiki as you call it WikiCommons, it is, believe it or not, actual called the Wikimedia Commons. You should be happy that I closed the discussion speedy keep and didn't re-cross out all the votes, you got your way so I fail to see why are you complaining. Lcarsdata 09:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the vote matter doesn't bother me so much, that was one minor image of millions. What seriously concerns me is your unilateral removal of votes based on a theoretical possibility (some would call it vandalism if not assuming good faith), with absolutely no grounds for suspicion of puppetry given that there were unanimous responses to the poll. Yes I know I could register for an account - I don't want to, and the Wiki Foundation explicitly allows for that. You do not have the authority to make up policies because you personally would rather we all registered in some database. Please desist from interfering with future voters on the sole grounds that they have not registered. Are you implying that Assume Good Faith does not apply in the Commons? 71.204.133.75 10:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you have caused me such bother I doubt I will be striking out votes again. Why are you being so presumptuous in thinking that I will not learn from my actions that result in people like you bothering me on my talk page. A simply revert is all that was necessary but you have expanded it into an argument. Lcarsdata 10:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to bother you, and the reason I used your talk page is twofold.

The vote was closed so I was not longer meant to edit there

A talk page is where you reach someone to discuss something. I almost get the impression you are offended that I brought this to your talk page. You should not be, except in the case of Admin Warning templates, a user is free to delete anything they want on their page.

I am just pointing out just how serious your unilateral removal of votes is in principle, it wasn't a content dispute at all. What you did was in such obvious conflict with Wikipedia Commons policies. because of severe ongoing copyright problems, anonymous media uploading is now prohibited, but voting is still allowed without registration. If you don't like this there are procedures to advocate a change in this policy, but you should not do so unilaterally because you disagree with policy - that could be construed as vandalism. And of course you are free to delete this from your page when you get it. I am merely trying to point out to you just how serious this can be viewed as. 71.204.133.75 10:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring

I'm sure you got my last rant on the whole anonymous business above - you might as well delete it now. Unrelated to that row, you do seem to know your way around the commons very well and have helped many users. Generally I edit in en.Wikipedia, though I have provided some content to Wikipedia Commons in the past. I'm utterly sick of Wikipedia and the endless POV wars, photos may be more fun! I do have a very large number of photos I took around the world, and have access to a huge variety of image and video development tools. But I don't know my way around the commons... and need help. Do I just upload and tag things well (creating orphans) or should I upload only when a wiki article needs something? I'm setting up a user here in the commons, different from my past en.Wikipedia user name. Username is the first word of the second link on the domain name used in my email when I recently used your email form about the Wiki policies on adminship. (SOMETHING LLC)71.204.133.75 10:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to upload any images you have. It helps if they can be put in a Wikipedia article, but so long as you place them in a category here on the Wikimedia Commons (and possibly a gallery) there will probably be no complaints. Won't be here for one week BTW. Lcarsdata 12:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW I will not be away for a week due to my parents slack punishment. Lcarsdata 19:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You...

...deleted all the files I uploaded although I took those photos with my own mobile phone. So I pretend you to repair to the enormous damage you did, now and immediately. You hadn't the right to destroy all my work, in my opinion you're just an idiot, but I want an explanation from you anyway. --Max 17:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Lcarsdata, thank you for helping out with deleting copyvios. But why did you delete Max's images? / Fred Chess 16:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea, it was suggested on IRC that they were all copyvios by two people and I was asked to delete them. Since due to there resolution, the diagrams some images contained and the URLs given in some of them. They will all be restored as quick as I can press the restore button, apologies once again for any inconvenience caused.Lcarsdata 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I now see that some of his images are clearly not self-created. I was just curious on what premise you were acting. Ok, we'll sort it out on Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests, don't worry. / Fred Chess 19:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I suppose that at least this is a copyviol. It's impossible to take a picture with flying lecters on the sky. I suppose that this image (and others such as Enna45-settimana_santa and Enna46-settimana_santa) are taken from a book. 193.205.94.8 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok Lcarsdata, for this time I forgive you... About what 193.205.94.8 wrote, I can assure you that those photos were taken from a no-copyrighted brochure. So I kindly ask 193.205.94.8 not to bother more about a question whic doesn't really exist. --Max.

Max, do you read this? Everything is copyrighted per default, even brochures. This is very clear. I will start to delete several of your images again. Please help by telling us which images that came from brochures, and which you actually took yourself. / Fred Chess 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Use of {{Badname}}

thanks for the explanations :) that file was uploaded by a friend at es.wiki (Techarrow) and was misspelled. I just re-uploaded the same file with the correct name. ---- Fernando Estel · ^{(Talk: here- es- en)} 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests

In relation to you revert-reason "not an excuse to delete":
Is it OK, when I set {{delete|image=.... --~~~~}} instead of {{speedy}}? Or is this not a good reason at all?
--D-Kuru 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please use Commons:Deletion requests, details of how to use it are outlined on that page. Lcarsdata 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the german deletion guidelines, but I don't know if they are uptodate.

However, is it now a correct deletion request?

--D-Kuru 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct usage. Thanks. Lcarsdata 06:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beyond Good and Evil - 03.jpg

Hello, you have delete this image, but Ubisoft developpeer (and publisher) of this game have sent his agreement. Read {{Attribution-Ubisoft}}, and take a look at Category:Beyond Good and Evil. Can you restore this image ? Thanks a lot. ~ bayo or talk 18:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Flowers

As a thanks for helping to bring back my photos. Samulili 15:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, glad I could be of help. Lcarsdata 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Women making out.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Women making out.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

your banner

I uploaded a new version at Image:Wikimedia brands awareness banner2.gif. Have fun, --Elian ^Talk 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Protecting GDFL templates

Hi - I see you protected one. These get deleted on an almost daily basis - my understanding was that it was better not to protect them as someone passing might be able to do the translation? Think it might be better to ask? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

templates is a bit of an exaduration, I protected one because it was repeatadly getting vandalised and deleted. Your reasoning is correct so maybe it was bad-judgement to protect it - I didn't realise we had any formal system for doing this sort of thing. I will think before touching this page in future as it seems to mean a lot to you. Lcarsdata 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey calm down - I know no more than you but if you look at something like this you will see what these can be like. I placed something on the Admin board (IIRC) about these when I started with the tools and was ignored so assumed that they should not be protected. However in looking for this I found that User:Verdy p had done this which seems a constructive way of dealing with it? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my attitude, you are indeed correct. Verdy p's way is probably best. Regards. Lcarsdata 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

np - I've tried it out on one today and asked Editor at Large her views as she deletes almost as many as me! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)