User talk:Rosenborg BK Fan

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

File:Cisnădioara.jpg[edit]

These files are licened under Unsplash license ranther than cc0 license. They are not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons.
And also:

Yours sincerely, Larryasou (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was an Unsplash photograph if I'm not mistaken. The very same goes for two other two photographs enlisted here. The sources for them were given as well and they were CC0 (i.e. available in the public domain). Your overzealous deletions are quite questionable but this will ensure my withdrawal from the Commons Wikimedia project for certain, as these edits were:
a) done in good faith;
b) sourced with the proper source each and every time;
c) not a secret that they were taken from Unsplash and certified correspondingly.
But rest assured that because of you or other similar users I will not upload any more works here on Commons Wikimedia so as not to be judged unfairly (either my works which are always CC0/public domain-marked or other well sourced and none copyright violation images). It is very sad to see where both Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia have gotten and what they became, with either missing content or continuously deleted content (which was uploaded in good faith, well sourced, and well credited with proper licensing by me...). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did't explain it in detail and didn't see you reply till now. The truth is that uplsplash.com had switched its license from cc0 to a custom unsplash license on 5 July 2017. The new Unsplash license has a term that Photos cannot be sold without significant modification, that is, if you upload photos from Unsplash as is, commercial use of them are not allowed. And the community has reached a consensus that media published on Unsplash from 5 June 2017 onwards is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons. Please see {{Unsplash}} for details. Regards. Larryasou (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see then. I did not know that. Thank you for these clarifications. I must mention once again that I truly uploaded those photographs in good faith and that I was unaware at that time of this licensing issue. All the best and plenty of success here on Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia in general! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright status[edit]

Those were not false informations that I typed regarding those works and I take this as an insult. I've been here on Wikipedia for quite a while and my works are well known to either be CC0/public domain-marked or proper licensed with true and accurate sources (also available in the public domain). I perceive this as an overzealous and erroneous deletion of CC0/public domain works (especially from Unsplash). Next time you'll probably delete my own works claiming rather erroneous remarks. But, rest assured, because of users like you I won't upload anything here in order to be subsequently accused of something I did not do. Never contact me on this page and proceed to your deletion if that is what you wish... A cynical message sent like this after you delete CC0 content (licensed correctly) is an insult, so don't bother doing this again with me (or any other user for that matter). Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenborg BK Fan Please see the reply above. Larryasou (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Roman Catholic church in Stulpicani.jpg[edit]

The user attempted to toss all their toys out the pram and have all of their images removed because of their en.wiki block; nearly all were kept because a public domain declaration is irrevocable. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

File:The Roman Catholic church in Stulpicani.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: CSD G7 (Author or uploader request deletion))

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Johnj1995.

And also:

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for deleting several of them already (if that was the case). If not, hopefully, more and more if not all, ideally, should be deleted as soon as possible (thereby respecting the constituent rules and regulations of Wikipedia and adhering to ethics as well). Many thanks in advance! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ștefan cel Mare National College.jpg[edit]


 File:Ștefan cel Mare National College.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: CSD G7 (Author or uploader request deletion))

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Johnj1995.

And also:

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super! Thank you so much for marking them for speedy deletion! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Yann (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking me! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, nice icon/visual appearance for the block. I really like it! It's very interesting! Tellement intéressant! I also don't believe it was unjustified at all (as I am a very poor fit user, naturally), but, nonetheless, I think you did perhaps an unwanted mistake in terms of the time (only three days?; I know you admins here on Wikipedia can do so much better, please), n'est-ce pas? Kindly reconsider this. Thank you very much in advance! Merci beaucoup d'avance! Je peut aussi parler en français couramment. I can write fluently in both English, French, and German by the way (among others, not that it would matter that much for the purpose of either Commons Wikimedia or Wikipedia or any of its constituent projects as it might be frowned upon as vandalism, which I wholeheartedly agree in personal regards), but as you and other admins can see, unfortunately, quite terribly and catastrophically in encyclopaedic regards, please trust me. :) Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why only three days, if I may ask please? Thank you very much in advance for your response! All the best once again! P.S.: Frankly speaking, I was expecting a little bit more considering the 'retirement policy' here, that's why I am a bit surprised, disappointed, and sad at the same time (not on the grounds that I have been blocked per se, but the time for which I am blocked)... Also, I am a very poor fit user for this collaborative project and my work is of very poor quality, and so as admins of Wikipedia (including Wikimedia Commons) you have the utmost responsibility to permanently delete such contributions (none of them are suitable for this project, trust me). If you could please do that, I would be tremendously grateful to you (and by that, I mean all, including the pages I created on any Wikipedia, because they are also my very poor work which is totally unsuitable for this collaborative free project and should not even be considered a mere hypothetical improvement; I don't even know why they were approved in the first place, paradoxically as it might be)! Have an excellent day and plenty of success on all Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects!

You have the following major reasons for which all my past contributions (including all of my Wikimedia uploads and Wikipedia pages on all projects) should be permanently deleted:

1) They are unencyclopedic;
2) They are not to be trusted;
3) They are of very poor (not only poor) quality and they should not, under any normal circumstance, be considered an improvement;
4) They might not be informative at all (the 'might' can be completely disregarded here, if you will, but only if you will);
5) They are not properly referenced (unfortunately, I am way too incompetent for that);
6) In general, they did not adhere to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia so still keeping them means that some admins (I am not saying you or naming someone or reporting someone, as this is definitely not my speciality, nor do I know how to do it, regardless if you believe me or not, or live for the sheer pleasure of it for that matter) are not competent enough in dealing with something which should definitely not be on a free encyclopedia.
7) They are not fit for being released in the public domain because I was a highly incompetent user who did not even know the licenses here. I don't even know what public domain or a CC0 license is for that matter. I am very sorry for my tremendous lack of professionalism. Furthermore, and this is very important, they can even be regarded as potentially disruptive and vandalic (not in the historical sense, that is).
8) They are spammy, very, very, very spammy. Ask @TylerBurden if you don't trust me (he knows very well that my edits are all meaningless spam which shouldn't even be taken in consideration; he is a mighty anti-spam hero). Don't keep spam on Wikipedia! It's a highly-functional, respectable, reliable, complex, free, collaborative, and trustworthy source of information! Those files are meaningless spam by a tremendously incompetent user, please trust me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenborg BK Fan (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9) They are completely unsuitable for this project (if you don't trust me, ask reputed and trustworthy expert admin @Deepfriedokra or other good natured and hard working admins who will claim the same or even come up with more reliable arguments for which I will be very grateful indeed).
10) They were all made just for the sake of changing things (if you don't trust me, you should always, absolutely always, without any exception, trust highly reputed, impartial, non-self-contradictory, and non-reporting constant meaningful errorless content creator user @Rsk6400 (a champion of democracy and free speech here, just like other admins with plenty of good faith), though his last thank you note between quotation marks should have been a bit more revering and genuine before his masters, doing without the quotation marks would have thereby expressed a more authentic grateful message and not raise my eyebrows a bit, not that it would matter to even the tiniest extent possible to any of you of course). He is one of the many editing heroes which Wikipedia will (and should) be very proud of tomorrow (and tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow to quote a great classic).

Therefore, if you can please consider the aforementioned, I would be very grateful to you and you would definitely make both Wikipedia and Wikimedia a far better project! Also, I expect a lengthier block even here, so please do not disappoint me (or others, who knows?) and adhere to the proper rules and regulations of Wikipedia (please do not breach them by ignoring such a message by an incompetent, poor fit user like me). Thank you very much in advance! Merci beaucoup d'avance! Tout le meilleur! All the best once again (and I really mean all of these in positive regards)! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see by now, I was (almost) right (blame it on my poor editing skills and their excruciating quality (douloureux, s'il vous plaît), vandalism, disruptive editing, and incompetence, I apologise - I truly hope I haven't missed anything but just in case I did, then please add it to the list so that it would adhere to everything here which does not adhere to the rules and regulations, albeit in good faith, but that of course does not matter, did not matter at all in the past, and will very likely, meaning certainly, not matter in the future strictly in what does concern my 'contributions').

Some of those files were completely removed which is a big relief. But I only want to add the fact that I was a bit wrong above: not only are they very poor in terms of quality, they are in fact of very, very poor quality (and many other reasons which are superfluous to enlist at this point), therefore it was absolutely the right and only decision to delete them permanently. I truly hope the rest of them will follow as soon and as quick as possible, as they should. Thank you very much for deleting some of them as well, if you want. :)
A number of vile personal attacks against Commons and en.wiki editors Nate • (chatter) 23:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

P.S.: I just read somewhere that this is seemingly a manifesto. While I respect the respective point of view of that particular user, I do not share it because I am, frankly speaking, not familiar with any sort of manifestos, haven't read any from start to end in my life (nor do I intend to, for that matter), nor am I that old, biologically, that is to have further researched any in-depth (regardless if you believe me or not). Last but not least, I am not a user who had a socialist userbox on his main page (that user might have mistaken for another one, though I really don't think it's the case, as an admin can't possibly be wrong here). My essential point though is that this is just a well-argued response on why my very poor work shouldn't even be here at all (there are by no means 'more than O.K.' as it was falsely claimed and that's crystal clear even for a poor fit user like me). It's dragging the whole project down and it's an utter disgrace! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! This message is not necessarily sent to you as a response, but I felt another right of reply on this unfree, lost world here, if you don't mind. Next time when an admin decides to block me, hopefully being the last (believe me I really want that as well; I am expecting an indefinite one, while we are at it, their most favourite speciality with or without any good reasons or wrong, arbitrary, and subjective interpretations on top as well), I would like that my great expectations (or shall I better say high hopes) be met realistically. I've been firstly blocked by a genderqueer feminist (what?!), subsequently by a socialist (that's very normal and quite predictable here, naturally, OK), in between (mostly) by other authoritarians (after nearly 10 years of activity which of course do not matter to them at all), but next time please, surprise me in the 'kindest' authoritarian way possible, Tinker Bell style if you can. That or teaming up with the Tooth Fairy (in order to further demonstrate that blocking is not truly intended by any means as a punishment, not all, it's a beautiful reward and can even be considered an editorial Swedish massage by former users) for an indefinite block might be very realistic, just, official, and democratic (and not disappointing for anyone), that is after you have erased all of my very poor, spammy contributions from all constituent Wikipedia projects and all my uploads from Wikimedia Commons because I really am a very poor fit for this project (another aspect on which one of the admin was plain wrong but won't admit; not only a poor fit, but very, very poor fit, with excruciating and non-neutral, non-objective, non-well-referenced informative quality; not that that would even slightly matter to him or someone else operating like him, naturally) for that matter). Last but not least, this is not a rant, far from it: please consider it pamphlet if you don't have bad will (which shouldn't be the case, naturally). All the best, happy blocking, happy deleting, and joyous reverting! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosenborg BK Fan (talk • contribs) 07:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, during my first fake-orchestrated and manipulated ban here (only for two days; such a lack of professionalism on the behalf of that so-called admin, so sad...), after I was blocked without the right to reply (typical for Wikipedia, naturally, not only in my case - otherwise it wouldn't be Wikipedia anymore, now would it?), one of the 'golden-leading' so-called justice figures there (with a hidden shiny editorial hero cape somewhere) called me 'demented' afterwards, without any medical proof whatsoever (not even knowing who I am nor my psychological medical record for that matter, which is inexistent where I live because I don't suffer from such an illness - also, very importantly, yes, it is an illness, and a very sad one at the same time (if you have the needed emotional intelligence to understand what it entails, that is); you would not normally laugh about it or point fingers even at someone you hate or unjustifiably punish using such an inappropriate, unsuitable term unless you are diabolical and authoritarian in this case - in other words, by no means a proper and accurate authority figure here (or elsewhere for that matter, in a normal world); he also subsequently contradicted himself regarding the block, after satisfyingly and overzealously applying the decision, how could one trust such a 'fair judgement'?... but he did it anyway, because he could and that was the only thing he seemingly did 'right' with respect to my account). Furthermore, dementia is a severe illness, one which shouldn't ever be used to point fingers all the more at someone who:

a) doesn't have (or, shall I better put in a democratic manner, albeit very foreign or poorly understood by some 'admins' here) or is not allowed to have the bare minimum right anymore to defend himself against such a false claim or assertion (not that several admins here would even slightly care about it, I know very well);
b) is not pathologically ill (the respective illness, just for your information, whoever you are here with illusory almighty blocking powers, very sadly entails loss of memory and severely impaired thinking, by extension a loss of the ability to properly communicate either verbally or in written format; both which still function very well here as you can see);

This is just to show how one so-called admin behaved here (and he is not a separate, singular case, far from it) and how several admins are for certain (who knows, even worse, but fortunately I don't want to find out and I won't, possibly the best thing which ever happened to me in these 10 years of regretted commitment to a fake free, collaborative encyclopaedic project), whether they like to admit or not. And, to conclude if I may, for each and every action there is a reaction and for each and every blocked user, the world will known what this hoax (not free encyclopedia by any means) is all about (including some of the so-called admins here, proudly boasting of their authoritarianism). But, whatever happens, happens for good, eventually.
P.S.: I really felt the need to respond that low insult, even for an authoritarian admin here. And, unlike him, I won't even name him. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also want my previously earned editing right here as extended user permanently revoked, which should give you tremendous satisfaction, whoever 'admin' will impose that ban as well (hopefully as quick as possible and without any time-based errors). Doing so, you will make this whatever it is better, or, anyway, more in your image, as it should be, of course. :) Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Mircea Ionescu-Quintus.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Mircea Ionescu-Quintus.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Mircea Ionescu-Quintus.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Krd 12:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor begging for file deletion before TPA was revoked; it'll be deleted naturally. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, thank you very, very much for your message! You can delete it today, please. And please delete each and every other upload I made as this is the only very good choice you should consider. If you'll do this, you'll both adhere to the rules and regulations here and make me very happy and grateful to you as well. P.S.: This particular message may as well be replaced with 'This media should be deleted' (as it is the case of each and every work I published so far on Wikimedia Commons as well as on all Wikipedia projects, please/bitte sehr). Happy deleting this (today or as soon as possible)! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: The other photographs I have uploaded also miss the permission information of the author (which is me, in the vast majority of the cases, as you can clearly see). And that is not OK, that is not legal by any means (not anymore at least, as I changed my mind in the meantime because of a long series of factors). That is one of the main reasons why they should be deleted. The more, the better (if not all, ideally, please). Alles Gute! Danke sehr! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thank you for your recent reverts on some of the files previously uploaded by me, but perhaps you should please reconsider them. Deleting those files (which shouldn't have been approved in the first place, come to really think of it) as well is a very, very good choice (along with what I previously mentioned), adhering to absolutely all (or almost all, anyway) the required constituent rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your understanding! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates please? Thank you very much in advance! In addition, I don't mind being wrong as long as I can correct my mistakes and certainly not repeat them at all in the future as well. Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please proceed to a very rapid deletion of this file, forever. Thank you very much in advance! All the best and have an excellent day! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good day! Can you please delete the respective file now? Thank you very much in advance! All the best! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

As you've asked for a block here, it has been done, but I've collapsed your unacceptable personal attacks here against editors on en.wiki, along with much of your pointless whinging here; you were appealing to bots who can't acknowledge your textwalls. Those personal attacks were far beyond the pale and appalling. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosenborg_BK_Fan&oldid=819152614"