User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2008/August

Ping

I'm an open proxy. 58.145.192.75 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done 1 year should do! --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Block for fun

Hi ShakataGaNai, I noticed that your blocked Kanonkas for two minutes, apparently for fun? Some users, like CarolSpears, has, at times, called me overly sensitive, but I must admit, that if it were me, who had been blocked for fun, I would be pretty annoyed about. Persoanlly, I value and appreciate to have a clean block record here, and I think I am not alone with that view.

I have have misunderstood something, though and missed some communications leading to the block-for-fun. If that is the case, I apologize for this message. From looking at Kanonkas talk page though it appears to me, that the user did not find it particularly funny. Cheers, -- Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, what I saw was a bot block which is different, I think. -- carol (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, "overly sensitive for others" more, I think. I am in an odd position where I am watching a bot work and the only thing I can think of to call the activity is "gay". To me the definition of "gay" as I am using it here is to persist in passive aggressive behavior instead of accomplishing anything. In the film bot world --C3PO would be the most gaybot I know of. So, as long as we are having fun blocks and discussing sensitivity -- perhaps some different words to express this behavior can be decided.

In my experience with hackers, calling a software gay is usually a good way to get the software to stop, but I had success with this in what might be a completely different environment. The tagging of this behavior has absolutely nothing to do with gender choices, btw. It has more to do with behavior. Honest. -- carol (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(E/C'd with Carol) Actually there was no communication on wiki about it, so I'm not sure where on his talk page you would have gotten that idea. He and I were harassing each other over IRC while he was hunting for open proxies (See the above "Anonymous" post with his response minutes later - both of those were him). I threatened to block him for socking (in jest). He said "I dare you" thinking that I wouldn't do it. I did. He knew about it and knew it was in jest.

User_talk:Rocket000#KanonBot <-- probably the same place I saw it; I am actually watching this and other pages for signs of productivity and not so much for spying (as admittedly it must appear). -- carol (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nah, after some investigations, it was really the comment here on Herbys talk, which triggered my comment. From that it appeared not be have been for fun. Since I'm not on IRC I did not get that side of the discussion merely by seeing the discussions here. But nvm, if there is nothing to make a fuzz out of, then I will not do it. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I appreciate the link. I did respond to your email also. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not running around blocking random people for fun, so you are safe too. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No help with the terminology, eh? -- carol (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can always block me for fun. Just don't do it longer than a minute or more than once a month. Rocket000 (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would do it if there was instigation. Truly random blocking of people would just be A) Annoying and B) A very swift way to get kicked in the nuts. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Slaunger: Can I PLEASE call passive aggressive behavior Too Gay? -- (she asked gaily) carol (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just saying I didn't see it as fun at all, please don't ever do it again. Some people like it, but I don't. --Kanonkas_(talk) 08:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

RE Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gyanendra drawing.JPG

I just wanted to let you know. You have two options, nominating an image for deletion (used if you are unsure if it should be deleted or not) or speedy delete (if you are sure it is a copyvio). In this case you speedied it and I (As the deleting admin) wasn't sure, so I converted it over the a DR. So, you did everything correctly. Thanks! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 01:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, i'm still confused with commons templates. Usually, i just make the cash transfert to the bahamas banks, and an admin delete the stuff :s

It's just that for once, my usual partners were not online. So i understand that you had to transfer it to Deletion review. Just send me yur Switzerland bank account, so that next time we can do the things properly. Lilyu (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if in doubt, just click the little "Nominate For Deletion" button on the left under "Toolbox", that makes it fairly foolproof (Though Brynn somehow manages to keep screwing it up ^_^ ). For the Swiss bank account, that would be: 214-748-3647 . Good luck --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack!!! I demand a block. Brynn (talk!) 03:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

....errrr..for you that is. kthxbai Brynn (talk!) 04:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Lilies Amaryllis maybe.jpg

(which you restored for me per Spacebirdy's request)

Hi, ShakataGaNai,

Thank You! :-)

Snakesteuben (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. It's early here and I must be punchy, because this typo struck me unreasonably funny:

The community decided to reward all my hard on June 4th, 2008 by promoting me to Administrator.

Kind regards, Snakesteuben (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo Fixed. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. Hello again, long-haired cutie (hey, you posted your picture... ;-) )

Guess what, now I have a real question! I've decided to get off Spacebirdy's back and ride yours for a while. ;-) Photo. Not my own work, but I'm the model and I own the copyright. I'm happy to release it into the public domain. Photog has no interest, and wants no mention and nothing to do with all this. Which of those bloody templates am I supposed to use?

Thanks much, Snakesteuben (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have long hair... not sure how you get that... Anyways, you can use the "own work" upload/licenses. Just make sure to note that the pictures were taken by a pro-photog as "Work for hire". If anyone questions it, just submit an OTRS ticket. It is a very simple process. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Message from IRC User drivamgr2008Spri (wikinews:User:Tmalmjursson)

Hi. This is a mass message to those I know on IRC from Wikinews and Wikinews EN. Please refer to my userpage for an important message concerning my IRC Presence. Thanks! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Maplebrook School.jpeg

The copyright holder sent this e-mail to wikimedia last week:

"Dear permissions-commons,

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK "image:Maplebrook School.jpeg"( which was deleted from Wikimedia on June 14,2008). I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE FULL Text. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product,and to modify it according to their needs,as long as they abide the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work,and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen .Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright,and I reserve the option to take action who uses this work in a libelous way,or in violation of personal rights,trademark restrictions,etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement,and the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

July 1.2008 Roger Fazzone Copyright holder"

Could you please put the image back up now? Thanks in advance...LedRush (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's back...thanks!LedRush (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikinews

Hello, thanks for your contributions to Wikinews. While I realize Wikinews is not your home-wiki, I find it annoying that your signature links to Commons. I don't object to the redirects at your user and talk pages, however. It makes it a chore to see, what contributions you have made here. I wouldn't have said anything if you were just editing/correcting articles here-and-there, but you are voting on deletions, checkuser requests, and more; thus involving yourself in the project more deeply. Therefore, I ask you to change your sig. Thanks, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As per WN talk page. I haz turned it off. Sorry about that. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 05:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up

Hello, ShakataGaNai. Thank you for your answer to my question a couple days ago. You certainly are a diligent and aggressive archivist. ;-)

I. The template you pointed me to

Though you believe this "really is a simple process," mine was not a stupid question--this time.

1. Here's the deal. Not everyone sets hir language to English. I do not. And not everybody looks at the English text all the time when selecting templates.

2. I see a template created before April 2006, with no substantive change since then.

3. The some time after April 2006, the text of the English message was changed from "author" to "copyright holder" See: [1].

4. With your ambiguous title, I had no possible way to know that I needed to recheck the text of the English message. And that "maker" (direct English cognate) wasn't the "maker" any more. Your message prompted me to do so, because, based on what I had seen, your statement seemed illogical, because I didn't take the picture.

4.1. To explain 4 more fully: In English, "own work" can mean (1) the original text of the template, as in, "my own labour went into creating this work." To me, that sounds like the more likely meaning, in fact.

But, I guess here, "own work" is supposed to mean (2) the text of the revision, "an intellectual or artistic 'work,' which I happen to 'own.'" E.g., if I own a painting by Picasso hanging on my wall, the painting is my "own work," as in it's a "work" and I somehow have ownership rights to it, so it's my "own."

Actually, that sounds like an astonishingly stupid way to say the latter. I may be wrong. Would you say that in real life, unless you were trying to impress/mislead a date or something? Seems like a better name for the template would be owner of work.

5. Ergo, since I didn't take the picture, the version of the template I saw was wholly inappropriate. And I saw no version that was appropriate. Hence, my question.

Just a rant. No response required. Relevant question below.

---

II. The question -- where do language maintainers get notice?

How do you notify the maintainers of a language that template text needs to be updated? I don't remember seeing any commons templates fuzzied on beta translate wiki, where I'm quite active. (But I wasn't before this year, so there just might not be any.)

Do you have a separate fuzzy procedure here? If so, I need to know about it. Otherwise, if you actually do fuzzy on beta, I need to track down whoever improperly dismissed the fuzzy and rant at hir instead of at you. ;-)

---

III. That still looks like a ponytail to me. :-)

Thanks again. Kindest regards, Snakesteuben (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Oeps, looks like you didn't know the answer to that question off the top of your head, huh? (But... don't you know everything? :-D)

So I asked here.

Many thanks again, ShakataGaNai, Snakesteuben (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

semen2.jpg

Thanks for returning the image to the Masturbation article on the en.wikipedia.

Apparently someone deleted the semen2.jpg image from the semen article on the en.wikipdia as well. No notificaton of a deletion discussion was given. It survived a deletion request on November of 2006. Thanks, Atomaton (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Semen2.jpg. It wasn't "Deleted" from the article. The image was deleted here and CommonsDelinker then runs around and removes it from all articles. Consider that your "notification". If you would like the image back, make a case for it on COM:UNDEL. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I am doing that. If someone had notified on the article, we could have responded and cleared up the confusion about it. It has been on the article for two years, and is not a new article as it appears was thought. I was not aware that it was commons practice to just delete whatever the admins felt like regardless of the opinions of the editors on whatever articles were using the images. Thanks for you assistance Atomaton (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We don't just "delete whatever the admins felt like". In the case of this image, there was a deletion request filed - which is proper procedure. I personally believe the closure (and deletion of this image) was a bit premature - but it was done within our rules and regulations. As for your request of notification, We do generally try to notify the uploader of deletion nominations - but thats it. I'm sorry - but notifying other projects about deletions simply isn't possible at the current time. Most images are used in tons of locations. For example: "691 wikis searched. Image:Red-eyed_Tree_Frog_-_Litoria_chloris_edit1.jpg is used on 226 pages in 26 projects.". Would you really ask us to notify 226 pages on 26 different projects and only one of those projects are in a language I understand? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I can understand that the task of trying to notify in many locations may be daughtining. I still think that a procedure change of some kind would be in order. The use of that image had been heavily debated in the past, and a great deal of dicussion before a consensus was formed. It survived a previous deletion request. Now, it just vanished because a set of people on the commons site, despite all of the previous discussion, someone else in commons decided that image was not useful. In my opinion, if an image is used in numerous other places, that should be an indication that it should not be deleted -- that other people (for instance editors on 26 different projects) think that the image has value, and none of them will be consulted about why they decided to use the image. The image would be deleted based on the opinions of six or seven commons participants who have nothing to do with the local articles, countervening, possibly hundreds of editors who have already decided to keep an image for other reasons of their own. I know the image creator may be notified, but in this case the image was brought into the article more than two years ago, and the creator may not even be actively participating at this time. Thanks again, I know it is not your policy, or your doing. Atomaton (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you voted to restore. Thanks again for your assistance on the matter. Atomaton (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Why are images of Cappadocia speedy kept? [2] I think that they are out of scope.--Ahonc (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Because some of them were kept as being useful and frankly they should have been a mass DR instead of two hundred and fifty small DR's. Feel free to delete the image though. I don't much care, I was just closing them since it was asinine to have so many open. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bowl of Strawberries.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

—Preceding unsigned comment added by QICbot (talk • contribs) 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A block on User:Szwedzki

I would like to represent Szwedzki's opinion on the block.

Semen2.jpg file was deleted by Szczepan1990 after a community vote here, initiated on June 23rd. In a few hours' after the deletion, a user initiated an undeletion request and despite heavy opposition (and not even a word of comment to add to that) the file was undeleted after 20h. Szwedzki brought the vote back to the prevvious status because of his doubts over the process. He didn't block the opponents, so absolutely nothing can be related to as a "wheel war".

Such files are very delicate in terms of building a (preferably positive!) image of the project. If a user converts Commons into a pseudo-pornographic picture gallery, this calls for immediate reaction. Additionally, files that have their equivalents of a better quality ought to be removed.

If you are of a different opinion than Szwedzki - take a position in the Bar, instead of fooling around with the admin buttons that were granted to you, please. Szwedzki does not wish to unblock himself, although the whole situation smells of scandal.

Please provide your insight into the situation. Wpedzich (talk) 11:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[3] —Giggy 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

@Wpedzich, by saying I'm "fooling around with the admin buttons" now you are just being insulting. Also, I think Szwedzki is fully capable of representing himself, he doesn't need a lawyer. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

@Giggy - yea, I saw the thread. Since you've made mention of it I will respond to it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To clear up that confusion: a deletion discussion is not a vote. --Dschwen (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things. Since an admin can unblock himself (physically) - why block him for a week? Seems to me like you actually expected Szwedzki to remove that block which IMO is a total misunderstanding. A normal user cannot remove his block, so an admin unblocking himself is like elevating an admin over others - look how powerful I am - morally unfair. I didn't mean to be insulting, but I have a strong feeling that not only Szwedzki had "a bad day" as you worded it in your post to the commons-l list... I hold my objections as to how artistically low and functionally equally low graphic have been treated on Commons. If they are used - then how? And how they can be replaced with files which do not present themselves so nastily? I believe that Commons could collect graphic files of some kind of value, not just - pardon my French - cumshots that just happened to be laying around when someone had a camera in their hand and wished for them to be photographed and actually didn't mind releasing the file under a free license.

I hope you can reconsider Szwedzki's block and the rationale behind his thinking (as well as mine - I'm not trying to conceal the fact I don't support the block). Wpedzich (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Note: This next post is filled with explicative. By reading past this point you agree to my language and won't complain about it)

No, I did not expect him to unblock himself. By passing a block, even a blocked admin unblocking himself is still a major no no. In fact I hoped he wouldn't unblock himself and take some time time to think and talk things over. That being said there are two different arguments going on here. The block and the images. As for the block, a week might be long... but if I ran around tomorrow and started deleting Featured Pictures... would you be willing to block me for just 24 hours in the hopes that I didn't come back and cause damage again? Heheheh, in 24 hours I might be _more_ willing to do damage.

For the images. I'm really tired of arguing about this crap so let me give you the simplified image check list for commons:

• Step 1 - Is the image Legal? Does it have proper licenses? (If yes, goto step 2)
• Step 2 - Is there any personality rights issues? (If no, goto step 3)
• Step 3 - Is it in Scope? (If yes, goto End)
• End CONGRATS - THE IMAGE PASSES - WE KEEP IT. The end.

If an image is in scope, there is no fucking argument over the 'scope' of the image, if it is useful, if it is just a "cumshots that just happened to be laying around". I don't give a flying fuck if it is the worst picture of semen in the entire world. Commons is here to support the rest of the projects - THAT IS OUR JOB. We don't get to dictate what pictures they can and can't have - because WE DON'T LIKE THEM. If you don't like the picture, don't fucking look at it. If the image gets replaced in all of it's usages by a better image - then it can be looked at and even deleted for possibly being out of scope. I don't like some of the images we have... but I put my personal feelings aside because that is what the job calls for.

Now... pick a freaking topic to complain about and stick to it. The topic at hand here is Szwedzki bypassing our entire system and deleting images on his whim. The image was DR'd - Fine. The image was UDEL'd - Fine. Then Szwedzki deleted it again - NOT FINE. You see the problem here? This image could have been a picture of Cary, my mother or a dog. I really don't give 2 cents what the content is.

Also - I'm not going to reevaluate the block as the user hasn't asked for it. There is no {{Unblock}} tag on his user page, not even a request on the mailing list.

Sorry about my language... But I'm a bit tired of this. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As you wish. I would like to end this discussion, leaving just my impressions. I can't help the feeling someone is losing control here, contradicting himself in the exchange here as well as on the commons-l list. But there are things I cannot help and things I cannot fix. Wpedzich (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user, the admin promised not to do this again. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I know how you feel ShakataGaNai. I've been there before. Users thinking they have the right to decide what all the other projects get to use and then they try and tell you that the opinions of two or three individuals, who are already involved, should take precedence over the whole purpose of Commons. See, the problem is you're seeing principles while they're seeing cumshots. It ain't gonna work. Don't waste your time. Rocket000(talk) 22:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Beta-caryophyllen.png

Hi ShakataGaNai. Please delete that incorrect chemical structure. It is true that the nominator was in error concerning the time between tagging and nominating. However, images in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams can also be deleted with “speedy”, as there is no more discussion necessary after one month. As it was nominated with a normal deletion request, there is no need to wait for a month. The uploader has quit his work on Commons and on de-WP a long time ago. --Leyo 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It might be good to change to “kept” to “deleted” on the page linked above. --Leyo 22:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for acting angrily on IRC. You made a valid point and I should have accepted that immediately. Anonymous101 ^talk 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I wasn't communicating clearly either. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could I get your input on an en-wiki matter?

Hi Shakata,

I don't know if you're aware, but there's a discussion on en-wiki about the possibility of adding something equivalent to Commons' {{Npd}} to the speedy deletion criteria. Since I know you deal with this a lot, I was wondering if you would mind providing some input at en:WT:CSD#Proposal - new Image criterion: no permission? I've put in my two cents, but since I'm still fairly inexperienced as an admin I thought a few words from an old pro like yourself might be helpful. Thanks! --jonny-mt 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Hopefully that helps. Feel free to poke me again if you need anything else. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 02:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It helps immensely. Thank you as always! --jonny-mt 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Western Digital VelociRaptor.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice image. Leo Johannes 15:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit of help.

Could you please verify that everything with this image is on the level. Image:Shawn Johnson Olympics Vault.jpg. Someone left a note on my talk page (User_talk:Calebrw#Image:Shawn_Johnson_Olympics_Vault.jpg). Everything should be fine, but let me know. I have the picture taker's permission in the OTRS. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC) (PS: Please reply on my talk page.)

Brynn was just doing her job. Otherwise, Everything is OK. I even took a peek at the OTRS ticket. You're safe. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks. Calebrw (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images not found cat - FYI

Your brain may be helpful here. :) rootology (T) 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio

Image:Nastia Liukin.jpg Possible copyvio from [4] although there is no source there either. FYI: Please reply at my user page. Thanks Calebrw (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Both images from that user deleted as Flickrwashing & user indef banned. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy action. Appreciated. Calebrw (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

More copyvio at: [5]. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Late afternoon shadow.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Q. Crapload 01:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS

ShakataGaNai, the OTRS data I requested has not come through on 1 and 2. Please delete per copyvio and conversation between me and User:Martin H.. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OTRS query

Hi ShakataGaNai, I declined a speedy for Image:NGC3953.jpg, as an OTRS ticket is on a related image's talk page. Would you mind checking ticket 2007052310014303 and delete/tag as necessary? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Ticket releases a number of images from that site. Looks good nuff for me. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)