User talk:83.61.247.43

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

Profil utilisateur[edit]

Bonjour. Pourquoi vous ne créez pas un profil utilisateur ? Ce serait plus simple qu'une adresse IP. Sauf si vous avez déjà eu un ancien compte bloqué ? LIONEL76 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LIONEL76: I never had an account here, but I'm considering create one soon. 83.61.247.43 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, ce serait bien, d'autant que vous connaissez beaucoup Wikimedia Commons. Avez-vous participé à d'autres projets de Wikipédia ? En ce qui me concerne j'ai travaillé un peu sur Wikidata, mais surtout la Wikipédia francophone (très peu sur la Wikipédia britannique). LIONEL76 (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LIONEL76: Sometimes I also collaborated with Wikidata and the English, French, and Italian Wikipedias, but primordially in Wikidata. 83.61.247.43 21:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator templates[edit]

Hi. I notice you have been adding creator templates to images but you have been doing so in the wrong way. Here you apply the code directly to the image page. However, the correct method is to first set up a Creator page with the standard code and then call that page from the file page. This has four benefits; first editors don't have to remember the Wikidata ID, they just call the creator page; second, if the Wikidata page moves, you only need to update the one reference on the creator page; third, you are reducing calls to the Wikidata servers as any call to the Creator page caches the latest information once, instead of caching duplicates of the same information for each file; and fourth, having the code on a separate page allows you to use the advanced creator settings, such as calling "1=after" for a work based on another person's work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore: I noted it wile I created the Wikidata entry and Commons category for Clifton R. Adams, but I found that only registered users can be ables for create new creator templates. Due to that I recurred to the use of Wikidata number as alternative. However, thanks for adding the creator template for Adams' works. I'll consider inform you for help me with new photographers and artists that require have a creator template if you are able. 83.61.247.43 18:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't promise a quick response but I'll help out when I can. You can also ask for assistance at the Help Desk and Village Pump, though expect editors to suggest you register an account with each request. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an account?[edit]

Dear 83.61.247.43, In January you said: "I never had an account here, but I'm considering create one soon". I hope your considerations will be fruitful. Vysotsky (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Second Lieutenant Armando Console WW1 war photographer after being wounded in 1918 Q 19801.jpg[edit]

Hi, I have partially reverted your changes to the licences on the above file. As far as I am aware we have no evidence of publication prior to 1929, so the US expired licence is invalid. The photographer was an official war photographer for the UK Government during WWI, so his related works are Crown Copyright. I have restored PD-UKGov as that allows retention on Commons regardless of publication date. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore: Thank you for that. In fact I presumed it was contemporary published, but I agree with you that the PD-UKGov appears to be more safer that PD-US-expired. I modified the tag for add both PD-old-auto and PD-UKGov tags inside the PD-scan-two tag. Please feel free to change another fail I could have made. 83.61.247.43 14:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Albatross from The King's Ships (1913).png[edit]

I have partially reverted you again on the file above as the licence you used is less informative for reusers.[1] While both the original version and your changed version are correct, I can't see the value in providing less information to resusers. I'll be happy to discuss if you think there is some benefit to the change that I haven't considered. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore: You're right in your reasoning. My mistake. Please fell free to inform me any other fail I could have made. 83.61.247.43 14:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "I noted that @Taivo blocked me with the argument of "Abusing multiple accounts". However, I never had an account here but, after suggestions by other editors, I was considering create one.

Because the admin who blocked me doesn't give any other information, I suppose the block was applied due to participate in a checkuser request (possibly this one or this, where in the first case named I reported recently some LTA abuse and, in the second case, I was trying to add some detail following a diligence I done about other possible socks of a blocked user, but that were disallowed by the abuse filter (report here)).

However, as I don't known the real reason for my block, I ask @Taivo for explain it and, if possible, unblock me soon, because I consider I have been a producitve contributor (reviewing licenses, added/correcting categories, adding Wikidata items for artworks or similar, etc.) instead of being a problematic one. All my contributions can be seen here. The Squirrel Conspiracy, Jeff G., and Yann are some of the users with whom I have previously collaborated, either directly or indirectly, especially in DRs and checkuser investigations."
Unblock reason: "I start to feel, that the block was incorrect. I apologize. Taivo (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)"[reply]
This template should be archived normally.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ suomi ∙ हिन्दी ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

83.61.247.43 12:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you per request. Abuse filter log is really suspicious. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo and @Leonidlednev: As I added before, the abuse filter disallowed me edit in this checkuser request while I was trying to add some details I considered relevant for the case. I suppose that filter was applied, in fact, for citing a LTA of which I suspect the user investigated is related to. My report to the abuse filter is here. 83.61.247.43 12:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Info: Note that also, in fact, I undid some of the cross-wiki contributions made by some socks investigated here. 83.61.247.43 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Commons:Blocking policy. "Requests made on user talk pages may only be declined by an uninvolved administrator," and, "Making repeated unblocking requests without appropriate reasons may be considered abusive. As noted above, users who have abused or are likely to abuse the ability to edit their own user talk page and/or send e-mail in this or any other way may have either or both of these privileges revoked, which also prevents these privileges from being used for unblocking requests."
Taivo will be unable to help as the block will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Frequently pinging administrators before anyone has reviewed the block is likely to annoy the reviewer more than it will help the situation. The best thing in this situation is to step away from the computer for a while and let things cool off.
As your block is only for 1 week, one option is to just wait it out. I have seen many times a panicking editor cause a block to be extended through aggressively trying to rush an unblock. Once your block is over, I'd again recommend setting up a user account. Having a recognisable account name instead of a string of digits will help you to build a reputation in the community. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: Thank you for your suggestions, I replaced some repeated pings I added previously. I agree with your reasoning. However, in fact, I'm some panicking for being falsely related to another user for triggering the abuse filter a dozen of times, only while I was treating to add constructive changes. Nevertheless, I'll wait what finally happens and, either when my block had expired or unblocked, I'll set up an account. My apologies for giving the impression of repetitive comments. 83.61.247.43 00:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo@Billinghurst I this IP blocked again (but he will be back on another IP/VPN). Clearly a well known LTA whose new socks have been recently identified by CUs. Ruthven (msg) 13:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An account will get you away from many AF hits[edit]

Hi. An IP address user has zero user_age, and user_age is one of the useful parameters within abusefilters. So, if you are wishing to lessen the number of abusefilter hits, I would recommend that you get and use an account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.61.247.43&oldid=858673401"