User talk:Lar/Archive 7

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


I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from about 1 November 2008 through about 1 January 2009. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.
My archived talk        [+/−]
Archive 1 — start through about 1 Nov 2006
Archive 2 — about 1 Nov 2006 through about 1 Mar 2007
Archive 3 — about 1 Mar 2007 through about 1 Aug 2007
Archive 4 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Jan 2008
Archive 5 — about 1 Jan 2008 through about 1 Sep 2008
Archive 6 — about 1 Sep 2008 through about 1 Nov 2008
Archive 7 — about 1 Nov 2008 through about 1 Jan 2009
Archive 8 — about 1 Jan 2009 through about 1 Mar 2009
Archive 9 — about 1 Mar 2009 through about 1 Jun 2009
Archive 10 — about 1 Jun 2009 through about 1 Sep 2009
Archive 11 — about 1 Sep 2009 through about 1 Jan 2010
Archive 12 — about 1 Jan 2010 through about 1 May 2010
Archive 13 — about 1 May 2010 through about 1 September 2010


PD-Old license[edit]

Dear Lar, (not Lars sorry) Does the Pd-Old tag apply to all works of art--not just paintings. For instance, I was looking at this Neo-Assyrian plaque at the Met from the 8-7th century BC: [1] and there is no mention of copyright or the 'c' logo. I just on the 'Note to Reader' link and the Met says: "Some works of art from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries may have a copyright line beginning with the copyright symbol [©]. For example:

  • Penny Picture Display, Savannah, 1936
  • Walker Evans (American, 1903–1975)
  • © Walker Evans Archive, The Metropolitan Museum of Art"

Since there is no such tag here, is it safe to say that the PD-old tag can be used for this image. --Leoboudv (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so, yes, but of course I'm no expert. Further, even if the museum asserts copyright, that may be a faulty assertion... if they asserted copyright on that example plaque, it would be invalid, it's not their work, and the tag would still be appropriate. Museums sometimes do that.
Noooo! It's a photo of a 3D original, and the Met quite clearly says "Copyright © 2000–2008 The Metropolitan Museum of Art. All rights reserved." at the bottom of the page. And their Terms & Condition are, of course, anything but free. Lupo 12:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it was 3D. (This is why asking me questions instead of taking them to more common places may not be the best approach.) so yes, the copyright is no doubt likely valid. Now, you yourself could go to the Met and sneak a picture, and that would be fine. (we don't hold bans on photography of otherwise free items to invalidate licenses) I think. but see above... don't ask me, ask at a more central place. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always respect people's copyright and have informed people by flickr mail if I use their images for Wikipedia articles. One final note: I had actually asked Lupo my first question on Pd-Art (Kanonkas had recommended I contact him since he was an expert here) but after Lupo didn't respond for 6 days (because he was away), I decided to contact you instead. I didn't know who else to turn to on such matters and Nilsfanion was also away. Thank You for your help and your patience. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In part I'm teasing you ... And Mbisanz too! No worries, ok? Just don't count on me as being the "definitive answer". I do my best but I have a lot of demands on my time. Your understanding of 2D and 3D matches mine... The images you reference are good finds, it's a good thing that folk like you watch Flickr for important images. Thanks for your efforts. ++Lar: t/c 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Please note that 3 of the 4 images displayed above were not originally licensed freely but the copyright holders agreed to license it as copyright free for a WP article or two. I estimate that 60% of the people I contact on flickr don't even bother to respond to my messages. Only 1 lady kindly replied to say that she would not change the licensing of her images for certain understandable reasons. The pictures I upload are from the 40% of cases where the flickr owners had a more open attitude. One person even told me he was more than happy to license any image freely for Wikipedia and I uploaded these timeless images from him:
With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're getting 40% response you're doing great, I'd say. I've gotten some very nice pictures made free by asking, though:
So keep asking, it's worth it! Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canoes at a livery
    Canoes at a livery
  • Croton Dam in Michigan
    Croton Dam in Michigan
  • Jumbo Kingdom, Hong Kong
    Jumbo Kingdom, Hong Kong

E-mail[edit]

(refactored to user_talk:Adam Cuerden per my policy ) ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Legs Rag[edit]

That was done on a sequencer. It's actually a converted MIDI.

Mind, I didn't use all the tricks on that one, this one is probably better.

Grace and Beauty
By James Scott
help | file info or download
Nice.. that's also a goodie. I like rags but don't know much about them. Is it me or does the cover to the sheet music of Frog Legs look like a skull if you squint? ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Lar, you promoted User:Mbisanz to sysop, but I'm User:MBisanz. I had Rdsmith deflag Mbisanz, but I need a local crat to sysop MBisanz. Sorry for the confusion. MBisanz talk 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bother. I even left you the note at the right place and everything. Wish I'd been on IRC at the time. I'm wondering why you didn't ask me to undo my mistake though? Why drag someone else into it? ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My alt account's password isn't as strong as this one and I did not want to change it. :) MBisanz talk 23:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, that looks right now, I even have this neat Special:CheckUser button. jk :) MBisanz talk 23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK ++Lar: t/c 01:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

float
float
Thank you

Thank you for voting on my request for adminship. The result was unanimously in support, which really surprised and overwhelmed me. I'll do everything I can to make sure that it was justified.

-Adam Cuerden          

Access to my old account is gone since renaming[edit]

Hello Lar, In an answer to my question on the Administrators'_noticeboard I got the tip to contact you. Maybe you can help me in getting back the access to my old account since a succesful renaming. Details you can read here: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Attention#Problems_with_access_to_my_old_account_after_renaming_to_new_account.

If you want more details, I will of course give them to you. Miho (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "access"? Accounts cannot be merged. Typically when an account is renamed, we then recreate the old one and offer to send the password to the renamee. Who renamed your old account? That is probably who you should talk to. (Was it me?) Did they send you a password? ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, indeed I mean that I cannot log in to the account Miho_NL. The renaming was done by User:Giggy. In an email he wrote me this:

My understanding is that as part of a new feature of the renaming system, the Miho_NL account has been locked out. Nobody can access it, nobody can create it, or anything like that. It's blocked by the system. I don't know of any way you can get access back. You might want to ask on the village pump or on some bureaucrats' talk pages to see if they

do. Sorry...

So I asked for help at the village pump, and today at the administrators page. User:Sterkebak managed to undo the block. But still I don't have a password and the function 'email password' results in the message that no email account is linked to this miho_NL account. Miho (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that account have contributions you want to retain? If not, we can move it aside and create a new Miho_NL account for you to unify to your other ones. If it does, we have to ask BRION to force an email association or something. I'll ask Giggy what went awry. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, this Miho_NL has no edits. So it can be set aside. Miho (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try unifying again... that account was moved to "Miho NL usurped" ++Lar: t/c 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It works. Thank you very much. Miho NL (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost images, restore local copies[edit]

This might have been discussed somewhere, I haven't (alas) been paying too much attention lately. But i happened to notice that one of the lost images Image:Atlas moon.jpg originally came from en:wikipedia [2], isn't it possible to restore the deleted version there (and then transfer it back here again)?? I see that for instance Image:Akamaru1.jpg while corrupted here still excist at Frech wikipedia. (Posting here since you're en:wiki admin and can check it out). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version at en of Image:Atlas moon.jpg appears to be the same 78 pixel square thumbnail that we have here, unfortunately. But this is always a good thing to check. In this case I am hoping maybe whereever the image was obtained from may still have it. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recovered the file. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? It still appears to be the same 78x78 pixel image it was before. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this image has never been more than 78x78 at Commons, and it was that version that was lost (and now has been recovered). Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you tell how big something was in the past? 78x78 seems awfully small for an original. I was searching on the NASA site last nite trying to find the original and was not successful. Most images I found also included part of Saturn's rings. Maybe this was someone's crop? There are far better images of Atlas on the NASA site anyway. ++Lar: t/c 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the File history section where it says that the original upload at commons by kristaga was a 78x78 image. In addition there's a copy of the original upload info from en.wiki at Image_talk:Atlas_moon.jpg. It's a small image all right, and if it had been a wikimedia generated thumbnail (of a large image) it certainly would have been bigger. How tha image came to be (if it's a crop or what) I have no idea, and a better image woudl have been preferrable. But, someone uploaded and used this one, and appears to have missed it when it was lost by accident. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. If you look at the file history of Image:Akamaru1.jpg you'll see what it looks like when a larger image replaces a previous thumb. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata[edit]

Is the camera metadata really needed in this image: Image:The KV55 Pharaoh's Vulture by Ulises Muñiz.jpg? As you can see, the image needs to be improved (there is a shimmer along its right talon and above its upper right wing and the exposure on the right wing must be reduced--its intolerable) If these deficiencies are fixed and I upload a new (better) image over the existing image, won't the current camera metadata be lost and the image software metadata appear instead. Is that a problem? Or is there a way to keep the existing camera metadata? The image is used here and is a treasure of Ancient Egypt: [3] I was just curious since this particular Commons image was brightened by some image software but still retains the original metadata: Image:Winton Nicholas 4647.jpg However, the vulture needs a major clean up. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid this because I think it's an interesting question. I don't know the answer, not my area of expertise, but if one of my talk page watchers does, or if someone wants to point to where this is being discussed, that would be swell. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 00:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Multichill[edit]

Hey Lar,

I was wondering if you could help guide me on a community issue. User:Multichill runs a couple of bots that do work with categorisation. One of these labels uncategorises, but at times does truckloads of mistakes where images have been mass-categorised using templates (on my project, there are now a thousand images icorrectly categorised). Several users have brought this up on his talk page, but he's uncooperative. I raised it on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, but got only one reply which didn't really address the issue.

The damage is done to my part of Commons and I will probably not be bothered by this again, but others are getting burned by the bot's false-positives. Is there anywhere I can go to have this reviewed. Personally, I think he needs to fix his attitude, but saying that to his face is unlikely to help. Also, I am quite new to this place and still don't know the culture. Perhaps this sort of attitude is just the way things are done (a good reason to just stay away, I guess).

Below is a little blurb that I was going to post somewhere public to get more attention, but figured that while I'd rather not delay the discussion any further, choosing the venue and aim might be essential. Please comment on this as you see fit. --Swift (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a note on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems which got only minimal replies. The problem persists and I'm hoping it will get more attention here.

Multichill is an administrator with two very active bots, User:BotMultichill and User:BotMultichillT. The problem stems from the bots' work on categories. User:BotMultichill scans for images that aren't categorised using a normal [[Category:<cat>]] link. In a number of cases, images have been categorised by way of templates, resulting in thousands of images being tagged and recategorised (sometimes incorrectly and/or ineptly). Multichill seems to do little to address this before the fact and while he maintains a templates to ignore page, these only prevent mistakes a second time around — and only after they have been brought to the attention of Multichill.

Several users have requested Multichill to fix his bot but each time he snaps back users saying that the bot is running fine. He seems to think that Commons should adjust to his bot, rather than fix the bot. I can understand that it can be frustrating to have the same issues raised time and again. While a reason it's not an excuse for such poor communication. In that aim I'd like to ask the community to review his actions and his stance, and concider blocking the bot until it has been fixed and the damage, where identified, undone.

I think this is a serious issue... I can't speak clearly to whether the bot is doing good things or bad, haven't investigated, but bot operators need to be responsive to concerns. My suggestion is to first raise this again on his talk page. Perhaps line up a few other concerned individuals to also state that this is a serious issue that Multichill needs to take seriously. If that does not work, then I suggest taking this to the VP... if that does not work, (again, work to make sure you have some other folk involved... perhaps talk to other people who have had categories changed...), the next step would be to ask that the bot flag (and the sanction to operate the bots) be taken away... that would be done on the same page where bot approvals are asked for now (it's transcluded on COM:A so will be easy to spot... see COM:BOT ) I hope that helps. Don't despair of Commons, this sort of thing is not routine, but rather is an aberration. I welcome comment from my talk page watchers. Also do you have a better link to COM:AN/U where you raised it? I don't see it in the current thread, if it got archived it may need to be brought back again. (you can manually "unarchive it" by bringing the entire thread back and raising a new point, or just reference it in a new discussion on the current page) ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the responce, Lar! I've been putting it off to follow up on this to when I have some free time. Right now that might not be in sight, so I may have to let this slide and hope someone else brings the issue up. I'll be able to live with that extra category for a while. I hope others don't get burnt too badly and the extra work that the bot puts on contributors will not hurt the project. Again, many thanks. --Swift (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bots speaking with each other[edit]

Uhm, if there are some mass uploading bots that may upload images without licenses my bot will report the problem to them as humans.. I don't think it's a big deal also because most of the time their talk page is automatically archived by Misza's bots :-) Thanks for the note btw, regards, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 14:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good not to report issues to bots... rather, report them to the owner. Perhaps a standard way of saying "this is not the place for you to post notices" to bots??? ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Did you....[edit]

Hi,

Did you recieve the email this time? Don't know what went wrong the first time...

Groetjes, Sterkebaktalk 09:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Thanks! I will be replying shortly. ++Lar: t/c 13:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin abuse over a topic[edit]

Hi - I came to you because I think you might be able to do something about a problem - an administrator for commons by the username of mattbuck is closing a hot issue, even though those who are voting on the issue are voting overwhelmingly against him. The video refers to the Masturbation article on Wikipedia, and whether it should or should not include a video of a middle aged man ejaculating all over himself. mattbuck continually reverts edits because he says it is "closed" and I hope you can do something about it. I am creating a commons account now, my username will be megastealer and then I will sign this again. Also, here is the link to the topic Megastealer (talk)

Deletion discussions are decided on consensus, not vote... if the arguments for keep are well founded and the arguments for delete are essentially w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or conversely the arguments for delete are well founded and the arguments for keep are essentially w:WP:ILIKEIT) we tend not to go on numbers. Where have you raised this besides my talk? ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried in the topic I linked to, but mattbuck closed the topic and reverted it, after only a month of being up and the general consensus being to take it down - the consensus was something like 9-2 in favor of taking it down when he closed it and said "no". Other than that, nowhere. edit: also, those giving their input on the issue from what I glance at were quite descriptive, and were not ILIKEIT/not answers.Megastealer (talk)
Again 9-2 means you're thinking about it like a vote. It is not a vote. Also, Commons is not censored. Did you try opening a discussion with Mattbuck on his user talk page? If that doesn't help, you can take the matter to Commons:Undeletion requests... (PS- don't forget to use 4 ~s so you get your userid AND date in the signature) ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what it looks like to me, commons is indeed censored since my post on the topic along with many others was quietly removed. I was afraid to post on mattbuck's page because he might ban me or something, but I don't know him so I guess I'll bring it up with him. You said it goes by consensus, not vote, and the general consensus was that a picture of a man ejaculating was completely unnecessary in a video describing about masturbation. This isn't the How-to wiki, and you don't generally see videos of people doing common tasks on Wikipedia, either. The video is about pushing the envelope and testing how much unnecessary pornographic information they can cram in one little article, not censorship. Megastealer (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not the right person to debate this with... I'd suggest you review COM:SCOPE. As to your comments being removed, I can't speak to that either, except that if there appears to be a pattern of IP activity, all saying the same thing, we may assume it's not different people. Also, if you were commenting after the discussion was closed, those get removed too. I'll put a pointer on Mattbuck's talk to here. ++Lar: t/c 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not link to this page because Mattbuck might not like that I was accusing him of admin abuse if he didn't feel he was, but then again I don't know him and I have nothing to hide. I am new to the commons and looked up the administrator page, found a neutral administrator, and posted it here so that I would know I was safe from not getting banned for expressing my opinion. Megastealer (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would say that maybe the best way to avoid people getting concerned about what you say is to try to word things neutrally... instead of leading off with "Admin Abuse over a topic" try "A question about a deletion", or similar... much more neutral. Take a look at COM:MELLOW for some thoughts. Hope that helps. I've already crosslinked things from here to his talk. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Since there seems to be a discussion here already, I'll talk here. Thanks for the heads up Lar.
First off, I would at least like to think I'm not being abusive. The deletion request was closed, and, as it states at the top, Please do not make any edits to this archive. If you feel my decision was in error, you have a few options open to you. First off, talk to me. Admins don't ban people for disagreeing with them, this isn't Conservapedia. We, as Lar mentioned, try to be mellow here, and discuss things. Your second option is to say on the discussion talk page that you don't agree with my decision. Third option would be to renominate it for deletion.
As for why I closed it when I did, it had been open a month, which means it's part of a backlog. The arguments against it were, "very ugly", "no more educational than other media", "tasteless", "conflict of interest", "pornographic... available to kids", "we know it already", and "oh my god my eyes". Of these, the only one which carries any weight on commons is "no more educational than other media". We don't care about conflict of interest - and taking a photo of yourself maturbating is hardly COI anyway - that it is pornographic is dealt with by the fact that commons is not censored. That it's available to kids is covered in the disclaimer (if you are worried about these things, buy a content filter). That people know how to masturbate... well, women might not know how a man masturbates. Oh, and as for the "my eyes" thing, if you don't like it, don't look at it.
So, no more educational than other media is the issue. Could masturbation really be covered adequately in cartoon form? Maybe an animated cartoon, but no still images can really give the idea of it. You'd need a series of stills, which would then run together, ie a movie. Which is what we have here. Is it more educational than other masturbation videos? Maybe not. But we have plenty of other things with more than one image - just consider how many images there must be of something like Tower Bridge. Or cats.
Put simply, if this were a video of anything BUT something involving a penis, there would be no debate at all - speedy keep. The fact that it does have a penis makes people uncomfortable. But that does not justify deleting it. -mattbuck (Talk) 04:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I am sure you and I and everyone else is well aware that the only reason that the video is allowed to exist and be linked to the page is because it involves a penis. Anyone uploading a video doing another random task that Wikipedia covers (and we all know that there are many) would be removed by admins because it is pointless. The article doesn't need a video of a man ejaculating to prove its point, it is quite clear without it. Megastealer (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not just wikipedia's image host - we host lots of things which people might consider pointless. As long as it has some sort of educational content (not just a random video of a party, etc), it's within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Megastealer: I agree with Mattbuck. Also, we actually have enough still images of penises to last us for quite a while already. Your argument against the image seems to be a variant on IDONTLIKEIT. I'm sorry but that's how it appears to me. If you want to contest the deletion take it to the undeletion page I referred you to already, COM:UNDEL ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress[edit]

I just want to thank you for your answer to my question about the Library of Congress. I think I have all ready the definitive answer of the Wiki administrator that deleted the two files because Commons doesn't accept Fair Use. Thank you very much and good luck.--eliasjorge4 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for letting me know and glad that I was able to be of some small help. ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUL[edit]

Hi Larry, I noticed you were a steward on Commons. I've done the SUL and I'm trying to unify my accounts by usurpating accounts bearing my name with no contributions. Birdie has no contribution but I couldn't find the page to do the request. Could you tell me where it is? Thank you. Have a nice day. Gato76680 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. (Actually I'm a steward. (full stop) I am also a 'crat on commons and 'meta. Try COM:CHU. Or do you mean on Meta? In that case try m:Meta:CHU or for wikis without 'crats, try m:SRUC Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Lar[edit]

I don't want to heighten any tensions by reverting, but thought I'd drop you a line to let you know the 'rejected' template seems to be an en thing, not a commons one, so there's a redlink there at the mo. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm having connectivity problems, I'll sort it out. Thanks for letting me know. But really, PM... What were you thinking??? ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Hi Lar! Please check your E-Mail inbox ;) Thank you very much, abf /talk to me/ 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did, thanks for the double ping ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been mailed again ;) Regards, Merry Christmas! abf /talk to me/ 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I check my mail (almost pathologically) frequently... Fröliche Weinnacht! ++Lar: t/c 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe[edit]

[4] Fine, fine, next time I'll say "Commons makes all other wikis its bitches." That work better for you? ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR closer to my view :) --Herby talk thyme 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Word up, homies. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mutter erde[edit]

I know this is probably canvassing, but I wanted to relate my feelings on this matter, and why he should be banned for the year at least, if not longer.

First off, as we know, ME is banned indefinitely from both the English and the German wikipedias for his incivility. Now, I know we don't usually care what en does, and we try not to judge people by their actions away from Commons, but when not one but TWO projects ban him for the same thing, that is something we should take notice of. I am in no doubt that both en and de instituted RfCs, numerous discussions and the like, and at the end of it all, ME is here and doing the same thing he was doing there. He has been warned about his behaviour multiple times before, and has shown no willingness to change. Even through this whole process he has been utterly unrepentant and hostile to everyone who disagrees with him. It wouldn't matter if we banned him for five minutes or five months, he doesn't understand that his threatening behaviour is not acceptable here, nor any other project, and he never will. If we ban him for any length of time short of indefinitely, he will come back with the same attitude, and we will have the same discussions AGAIN, with the same people saying that the good outweighs the bad.

I believe in second chances. But I don't believe we should just give chance after chance. ME has had numerous chances over several projects to change his behaviour, and it has come to nought. It's time we finally just banned him for good.

Thanks for listening. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are yet at the "exhausted all chances" stage with ME. But I'm a softie, really, and I'm hoping some tough love will bring him round. ++Lar: t/c 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_7&oldid=26513770"