User talk:DavidHarrell
 First steps tutorialOur first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.  Getting helpMore information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump. |
 Goodies, tips, and tricks
 Made a mistake?
|
-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
|
File:See More Saturn.. as the gods painted it.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. |
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
All six files appear available in multiple locations on the net, and are in public domain according to all accompanying notices.
DavidHarrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHarrell (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
17 November 2017
Since the original upload I have cut four images and added one, file sources below.
(1) Saturn, A Spender Seldom Seen https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/hall-of-fame/
(2) Swirls on Saturn https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/jpl/pia21888/dreamy-swirls-on-saturn
(3) Saturn Eclipse https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saturn_eclipse.jpg
DavidHarrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHarrell (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
adding signature to the above 17 November 2017 entry: DavidHarrell DavidHarrell (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
DavidHarrell (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Please sign your postings[edit]
--SignBot (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This file is not going to be restored by being disruptive and writing reams and reams. You have had more than six weeks to give a policy-based explanation for why it should be kept/restored. The file is outside of the Commons Project Scope. The onus is on you to provide the reasons for keeping the file per Commons:EVID. Please read through the pages that have been linked, and try to understand that when five separate administrators have disagreed with keeping the file at both the deletion request and Commons:Undeletion requests, there is little left to discuss. In particular, repeatedly attacking users as you have been doing with Jameslwoodward is now verging on harassment and will not be tolerated. One more comment like this is going to result in an editing block. Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) ---
Notice of Two: (1) Administrative collaboration to delete a properly submitted file on the publicly declared unlawful grounds of administrative religious prejudice. (2) Gross administrative incompetence. ---
Regarding the Wiki-documented religious based prejudicial deletion of: 'File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg'
On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)” ---end quote---
Be aware, this 'deletion event' is now an matter of religious persecution, i.e. multiple inquiries are being lodged outside of this domain; Administrators et al are hereby so informed of these notifications, on this signature date.
As of 8 January 2018, anyone, regardless of their Wiki authority, attempting to silence me would be going on record as suppressing evidence and testimony, which may as of 8 January 2018 be considered by third parties as obstructing justice, a completely separate and felonious act, which I would (in the event I am 'edit blocked') petition be fully pursued regardless of the final disposition of this case.
First, in total disregard of both the Summary and my comments Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) erroneously declared my work to be “a useless montage” which represents two false statements in as many words, both issues being well refuted in the Summary, DR, and unDR dialog, these refutations being a matter of record.
Moreover during the unDR dialog Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) declared my entry was unacceptable because it did not adhere to the 'monotheistic beliefs' of three popular religions which he apparently approves of, and then actually goes on to name, finally declaring multi-theistic religious belief to be “offensive”.
My subsequent offer to remove the 'poetic gods reference' was completely ignored (copied and linked below from Wiki transcript).
Furthermore I contest every word of the most recent administrative comment written by Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) appearing on my talk page. This comment is an obfuscating misrepresentation of the Wiki recorded facts. The onus is not on me to endow literacy, competence, or integrity on this forum. I further acknowledge the authoritative abusive of unwarranted threats within said comment, attempting to intimidate me, and also to deny my Wiki Commons provided recourse to state a grievance.
So far this blatant injustice is receiving single digit exposure, a half dozen or so of the very administrators in question. If unable to be heard on this low traffic platform, I will simply add this 'edit blocking' threat and subsequent 'edit block' to the ongoing string of cover-up comments, deletions, acts, and procedural omissions; and I will continue alerting the community to this prejudicial affront to religious freedom, well promoted on major social networks reaching thousands, comprehensively with names, dates, links, and details, i.e. a summarizing laymen friendly version of this current document.
So Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC you don't actually have the ability to delete my www voice, conversely I suspect you'll force me to greatly amplify my noble quest for truth, justice, and equitable religious tolerance on this Wikimedia platform.
Comradery and self-righteous religious prejudice are not valid reasons for deleting submissions. There are many non sequitur moments in the administrative dialog of this case, obscurations in support of a comrade's serious blunder; however the isolable administrative edict “there is one god” pasted above is a standalone declaration of unlawful religious prejudice.
The absurd administrative position here is hopeless. Nevertheless I will afford you one last opportunity to restore integrity to these proceedings.
I suggest at his point that any competent administrator who wishes to correct this Wikimedia error and avoid a hurricane of litigation, reopen the unDR and encourage me to upload a revised version of my file, within which I will correct all legitimate stated concerns, you may of course nominate the file for deletion with valid grounds, this time however the process hopefully will continue without declared administrative religious prejudice.
If you don't invite this resubmission, then do us all a favor and at least get some legal assistance before you dig yourself and Wikimedia in deeper, show a Wiki (or any) attorney the astonishing 'monotheistic proclamation', the opening paragraph (pasted above and linked below) that was written into the dialog by Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) and cited as a reason for deleting my file. This one consultation will end the confusion here, and avoid wasting more of everyone's time.
Wiki's legal personnel will gladly advise you, they certainly would not wish to condone such an articulately defined and well documented ongoing assault on religious freedom, being to some degree culpable for the unlawful acts of entities they empower.
Notice that this prejudicial comment is not going to disappear from the record, regardless of how many administrators currently wish to pretend it does not exist.
Any administrator who wants to publicly condemn or condone the actions and comments of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) which resulted in 'the deletion event' of DavidHarrell's entry into the Wiki Science Competition 2017, i.e. 'File:See More Saturn.. as the gods painted it.jpg', I encourage them to do so on this page and/or what ever pages are deemed appropriate.
One may consider this a generous but time-sensitive opportunity to disassociate themselves from an administrator who has publicly proclaimed and applied his own religious bias to his Wiki Commons authority and decision making process, verbally citing his stated 'religious prejudice' as justification for a given 'file deletion'.
Moreover, the silence of a given participating Administrator regarding this opportunity may be construed as an affirmation of direct involvement, to wit, having begun testimony in recorded dialog, including self-implicating comments and signature support. Ergo 'no reply' may be considered 'complicity and consent' by third parties.
Unfortunately, since I suspect my resubmitting plan above will be declined, and because my voice on this media has been unjustly threatened by the very administrators involved, and yet further considering the well documented rush to bury the DR and unDR pages in archives, I am forced to continue my case in detail below, here and now. I apologize for the length of this document, and any unavoidable information redundancies.
Below is a more detailed explanation of this deletion proceedings, including a compilation of Wiki transcripts which depict and verify this transparent act of deliberate and ongoing religious persecution.
---
This document details gross administrative incompetence and unlawful religious prejudice pertaining to the disposition of both the DR and unDR representing 'File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg', a file I uploaded for the 'Wiki Science Competition 2017'.
Looking into Wiki policy I discovered that if I am opposed to a given administrative decision, I can open a dialog expressing my grievance on 'Editing Commons:Administrators' noticeboard'.
But within hours of the unDR closing I was threatened with 'edit blocking' on my talk page by Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) who also falsely accused me of disruption and harassment, which the record clearly shows is not true; these false charges being a transparent excuse to threaten me and my right of grievance through legitimate Wiki-provided channels, i.e. my option to protest a decision and illuminate the details for consideration by third unbiased parties.
Such intimidation of course is intended to remove all 'administrative accountability', precisely the media quality that Wiki policy is trying to preserve with the 'Editing Commons:Administrators' noticeboard'. Final disposition is up to third parties to decide, entities outside of this mutually unaccountable administrator's group, and if necessary outside of Wiki domain.
I am willing to sacrifice my Wiki account to (with this single document) finally consolidate the Wiki Commons records providing evidence of this ongoing religious persecution. So for the record, Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)'s threats to permanently silence my voice have only added to this document, which continues below in its entirety. Such unjustified threats only further highlight administrative concerns over additional dialog exchange on this subject.
The aforementioned deleted file/entry 'File:Saturn - 4 photo enhancements by David Albert Harrell.jpg' was intended to widely introduce a new imaging technique which has already been used in medical diagnosis, also having applications in many other fields. I mentioned this medical application in my last comment, which was completely ignored, merely answered with a threat to 'edit block' my account.
The record shows that my upload and entry to 'Wiki Science Competition 2017' was deleted and then denied unDR principally by administrator Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward).
I filed an unDR.
During the brief course of this unDR dialog (closed after only two days) I fully complied with all “four reasons”given by Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s for deleting this file (see the Commons link or the last paste, both provided below). Yet my solutions went unanswered or even addressed. Hours later, and within two days of my opening the unDR, it was denied and closed.
As the Commons record shows, the moment I clearly satisfied all four of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s stated objections, he broke off dialog and closed my unDR. I note that the majority of the unDRs currently on the unDR page have been there for weeks. Reading the dialog below reveals exactly what the big hurry was about.
The unDR is locatetd here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=276089060&oldid=276073744
The DR is locatetd here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:See_More_Saturn.._as_the_gods_painted_it.jpg
I have pasted below a copy of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s stated “four reasons”from the log of the unDR, along with my fully compliant and totally ignored replies. None of these “four reasons” Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) declared for deleting the file, were even mentioned in the DR before the deletion. All 'four objections' were definitively answered in the unDR, before the unDR was denied and closed.
begin paste of Wiki record, unavoidably containing some redundancy, see link above------
On 1 January 2018 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: Above, I gave four reasons for not restoring the image,"
Readdressing these four in order.
On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*First, to the extent (which is unclear) that you have modified these images, they are personal art and out of the scope of Commons.”
These enhancement are by no stretch of any definition either a “montage” or some kind of “art”, personal or otherwise.
One cannot add to an image with a global enhancement, one can only discover discrepancies in the way given fields reflect light, the cause of the discrepancy being the implied question of great interest in many venues.
A global enhancements can greatly expand the definition of a given image, with applications to a wide variety of fields. Non global changes are of course useless, but none have been made in my work, another fact which I am prepared to prove.
At this stage if you still cannot appreciate the value of these global enhancements, I would suggest you consult with persons trained in an imaging related science. My point being you should at least somehow become aware at this point, that you are not dealing with some frivolous art form here, but a new enhancement technology with far reaching applications.
On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*Second the two JPL images require credit, which you did not give. Third, the JPL copyright page says, ::"JPL/Caltech contractors and vendors who wish to use JPL images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to the Institutional Communications Office, email instcomm@jpl.nasa.gov." :That means that the images are not free for any use by anyone anywhere, which is a requirement of Commons.”
(same as above) Without endorsing the validity of your interpretations of the licensing language, I can delete the two JPL files and, with the remaining two Commons sourced images, still introduce a revelation in image enhancement.
On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “*Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive.”
My cosmic comments in the summary are irrelevant to scientific applications of this discovery and obviously could have been removed, had they actually been discussed on the deletion page, which the page clearly shows they were not, nor were any of your final reasons for removing my entry. Without agreeing with your personal analysis and objections to my poetic references to ancient non-monotheism, I am willing to either rewrite the phraseologies in question, or if necessary delete them altogether.
I believe this edit answers all of your concerns and warrants the restoration of my file in a revised fashion, which I am prepared to produce upon your agreement to restore said corrected file.
If you still have questions or concerns regarding my entry I am prepared to address them.
DavidHarrell 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC) ---end paste---
My objective here is to have this bias decision overturned, produce a revised file, and have it reinstated. This after meeting the final revision requirements that I listed in the undR dialog, which were based on the presumably valid copyright stipulations of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward).
Moreover it is my considered opinion that this case clearly demonstrates that Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) is not qualified to hold administrative authority in Commons, or any platform hosting persons who may not agree with his publicly posted personal religious standards. This also calls into doubt the suitability of any administrator who rubber stamped this tag-team unlawful assault on common sense and religious freedom, particularly in cases where alignment continues in the face of this body of transcript supported facts.
This notice therefore is also a nomination for the De-adminship of Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) due to well documented administrative incompetence, and unlawful and blatant attempts to impose on me admitted personal religious prejudices, resulting in the unjustified deletion of my entry into the Wiki Science Competition 2017.
Notice that not a single critical point I made during the entire supposed 'discussion/debate' is refuted, addressed, or even acknowledged by any of the five 'administrators' that chimed in to support this premeditated attack on 'common sense' and Freedom of Speech. None of my responses to Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward)'s “four reasons” were even acknowledge, let alone discussed or debated.
Realistically I have no delusions concerning the 'Mutually Assured Protection' policies of this tiny clique of petty authority, which has already combined to delete my entry without just cause or due process. I don't expect any cooperation at this stage of compiling the well documented evidence of this prejudicial debauchery, and prematurely closed compilation of administrative blunders.
This 'notice page' will of course be archived with great haste (my unDR lasted about 48 hours); it will however serve as a summary of this gross bastardization of Wiki Commons policies and Free Speech, to which I can refer third parties such as Federal and international authorities concerned with violations of civil and human rights.
As stated above, even before I began writing this comment, on my talk page Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) threatened to end my Freedom of Speech and testimony in this case (remove my Commons tongue) by 'edit blocking'; this being a failed attempt to stop me from publishing this current document disclosing the details of these felonious and easily verifiable administrative abuses of authority, as I clearly revealed my intent to so expose this injustice in my last unDR comment before the closing of my unDR only hours later, DavidHarrell (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC).
Poor administrative judgment continues if Green Giant (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC) believes this threat or 'edit blocking' will silence me. This pathetic sandbagging only reiterates 'the default position all along' of covering up this matter of blatant authoritative abuse.
So assuming the cover-up continues, this will probably be my last comment on Commons until this maters has been equitably resolved and my rights restored.
DavidHarrell (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi DavidHarrell, you had posted your complaint already at COM:AN:[1],[2]. Posting the identical message also to the sub-board COM:ANU is not only unnecessary, but considered spamming, and will not help your cause. --Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You have been blocked for a duration of one month[edit]
 |
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of one month for the following reason: unconstructive editing, hostility, lack of intent to make positive contributions, re-uploading out of scope files against consensus.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
|
Guanaco (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC) ---
On 31 December 2017 ... Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) wrote: “Finally, your work is a useless montage. While the images are beautiful, your editorial comments about "the gods" make it impossible for it to be used on Commons or almost anywhere else. One of the many points of agreement among Christians, Jews, and Muslims is that there is one God and your assertion that "gods" have created this beauty is offensive. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)” ---end quote---
I find the intimate authoritative comradery in this case of publicly denied religious freedom to be a nauseating conspiracy against my human, international, and Constitutional Rights.
While I am investing my time and resources into exposing this gross and blatant injustice, on the seven major medias, I petition for someone of intelligence and higher authority to reinstate all of my rights, including the right to have my submission reviewed by competent representatives of Wikimedia without declared religious prejudice, and furthermore including a reasonable opportunity to resolve any legitimate problems with the file.
As to the 'value, scope, and purpose' of the 'innovative level of enhancement' demonstrated by this file, I can explain no further than I already have, in the Summary and dialog; neither would I be able to explain the value of medical xrays to someone unable to grasp the simple concept of additional information which cannot be seen with the naked eye.
The onus is not on me to endow literacy, competence, or integrity on this Wikimedia forum.
DavidHarrell (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I have blocked DavidHarrell for a month. Nothing about this is necessary or productive. Regarding the claim of religious persecution, we would not want such an image if it referenced a singular God. "See more Saturn as the [insert deity(s) here] paint(s)." Fill in the blank however you want, this content will be contrary to someone's beliefs. More importantly, this type of in-image caption is not something we want. Overall the file simply doesn't meet our project scope. Guanaco (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
---
If you bothered to read my comments you would have discovered that I have stated already that my poetic references to deities in the summary are irrelevant to scientific applications of this discovery and obviously can be removed. My multiple offers to remove them were ignore as this one will be.
Unfortunately gentlemen I have no more time to waste trying to educate a tiny bias clique engaged in a desperate cover-up. I will concentrate on official notifications and publications of this grotesque event. So your next absurd comment will probably be ignored by me on this relatively insignificant forum.
So in closing I would like to add that I have no personal animosity toward the administrators in this apparent conspiracy against my freedom, believing them to be a challenged but possibly 'well meaning' ordinary group of 'rule pushers' simply dealing with the totally unfamiliar concept of innovation.