User talk:Walter Görlitz

I don't frequent the commons so please leave talk for me on the English Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Walter Görlitz!

First steps tutorial Our 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 help More 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 Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Kits

Did you now what's that: [1]. --Gustavo neto (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. One kit at a time, unless you'd like to assist. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Our the kits in the portuguese Wikipedia has logos, if you don't now, i'm brazilian, so had logos in the kits. Please don't reverse the kits. --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons does not permit copyrighted logos or crests. I do know that you're Brazilian. We have been talking about you on the English football project page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rapaz deixe os logos, você trabalha na Nike, Adidas, Puma. Que negócio é esse. Defedendo um logo de mentira. --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC) (translated as: Boy keep the logos, you work on Nike, Adidas, Puma? What is this? Defedendo just a lie.)

No I don't work for any of those companies, but I think that understand copyright law and how it applies to the commons, which is why I'm removing them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can to reverse the kits, but, later talk with: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bruno-ban, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Principal_adjoint, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abdul_Qayyum_Ahmad, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ricky_Sen, and other, tip: don't reverse, leave with logos. Thanks --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No don't revert. Leave without logos. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems

[2] --Gustavo neto (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I responded before you posted, but thanks. Copyrighted material is not permitted on the commons. And you know that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User conduct thread resolved

I have recently closed the thread at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems involving you. Please be aware of the following three things:

• Edit warring (revert warring) is unacceptable. Commons does not have a 3RR policy, however the same rationale for 3RR exists on all other WMF projects. Edit warring is still disruptive, and still blockable, on Commons.
• You are correct in that the logos have to be removed.
• Your communication during this incident leaves much to be desired. This ties in with the edit warring, but even when you two finally did stop and discuss the issues, you were curt, condescending, and did not make any real effort to explain your position. In the future, you need to do a better job of explaining your positions.

Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I trust that the images with copyright vios have been removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, with that in mind, it would be reverting vandalism and not a3RR at any rate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be. Don't fall into that trap. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So repeatedly adding images that break copyright laws is fine and can't get you blocked? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, the other three editors in the cabal have not been informed and should be. They were involved in the edit war.

Also, who is going to delete the copyrighted images: the ones with the logos. It's not appropriate for me to revert them, based on the discussion above. Ideally, deleting the revisions with the logos is the best solution. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: File:Kit body arsenal1213a(2).png has 21 uploads in the span of a few hours. The other Arsenal shirt has 23. If I had seen those instead of the one that only had eight or so, I would have blocked you both immediately. It dosen't matter if you're utterly convinced that you're right, you don't just keep clicking revert, you go and talk to the person. If that fails, you go to the user conduct board. Do not revert war.

On a related note, the Nike swoosh is in the public domain (it's too simple), so if that's all you're removing, you're not actually removing a copyright violation. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Final warning for edit warring in football kit images

Hello there.

This is a final warning to all editors involved in the upload war over football kits. Pages like File:Kit body rmcf1213a.png, with over a dozen back and forth uploads, are disruptive.I have seen this same type of edit war on several pages, and going back several months. It does not matter if you think you're right or not, it has to end. If you are on the side advocating for logos, and the image has no logos, upload the version with logos as a separate image, and add the version with no logos to the other versions section of the file description page. The same goes for if you are on the side advocating for no logos and the current version has logos already. It is better to have two stable versions than to have one very unstable one.

Also, since at least one party has already started this, I am explicity forbidding you from putting each other's versions up for deletion at DR. This is an extension of the edit warring, and is, like the edit warring, highly disruptive.

Because of the length and severity of this mess, the minimum block length I would consider for continued violations after a final warning is one month. Repeated infractions will quickly scale up in block length. I do not consider myself too involved to take admin action here. It has to end, and repeated pleas for you all to talk it out have fallen on deaf ears.

Sven Manguard Wha? 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you assume that I am edit warring. It is a simple matter of being responsible to Template:Football_kit#Creating_and_naming_a_new_pattern on English WIkipedia: "Club badges, sponsor logos, and manufacturer logos should never be included." You know that this is a case yet have argued against it. You seem to think that you are above that RULE. Please explain your refusal to comply with it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just red your ridiculous restriction of putting up a version for deletion. You can't forbid that and if you do, you're being a dictator since you are heavily involved in the "logos are permitted" side of the discussion. You should recuse yourself and find a neutral admin to administer any disciple. You are not only acting as judge and jury, your the complainant and the prosecuting attorney. What you're asking for is a separate version of every football kit for English wikipedia and those who believe that copyright of small images such as this does violate copyright law in the English-speaking world and another for the rest which is a waste. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore it. I would be more than happy to block you for doing so. Whether you think that they matter or not, a large number of other projects also use Commons files. Those projects do not necessarily have the same rules that English Wikipedia does. The fact that multiple other users are reverting you indicates that a significant enough group of people have a differing opinion, or that there are other projects that have other rules. That your group and their group continue to revert each other does mean that it's an edit war. You might be utterly convinced that you're right, but that doesn't change that, by definition, what you're doing is edit warring, and that edit warring is a blockable offense. I am really rather tired of going back and forth with you on this. You can either accept that you're not going to get what you want, and then shoot for a very reasonable 'second best' option, or you can get blocked. There are no other options at this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that admins were allowed to lie on Wikipedia. Only two editors, User:Principal adjoint and User:Gustavo neto, have been consistently reverting not "multiple other users". Then there's you, who have been kind enough to warn the other primary editors involved as well.

I'm sorry you're tired of explaining why you have have chosen to ignore one Wikipedia's policies in favour of others. If you'd rather, you could point me to a better place to discuss this. In short, all I'm asking is how should the divergent needs to the various wiki projects be handled. Obviously, those of us removing the logos assume that it should be the lowest common denominator but it seems that others favour having project specific versions of files, which in essence negates the need for the commons. Feel free to advise, or direct me to, what the official policy on the commons is, or ask someone else to.

And perhaps the commons has a different policy on what constitutes edit warring, but reverting several days apart, and attempting to engage the other editors in discussion, isn't an edit war on English Wikipedia. I am simply attempting to offer additional information as to the problem the image gives our project.

Finally, you'll notice that I uploaded a neutral image only to discover that another editor had already done so and so the need to remove the logo on File:Kit body bayern1112h.png is no longer necessary.

So to summarize, you're not a particularly adroit admin, who seems to like to throw his weight around instead of engaging others in discussion and to explain things to them. I fully understand that you may get tired of doing this day in and day out. If I have offended you during the process of trying to learn the way things work here, I apologize now. You, on the other hand, might want to step back if you're finding this admin thing too taxing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It is de facto policy on Commons to Avoid overwriting existing files. If two or more versions are both considered useful by different users, we keep both; you can discuss on Wikipedia which one you want to use. If one of the versions is illegal, the solution is not to overwrite it with a different image (which preserves the illegal version in the file history) but to upload the new version under a different name, and nominate the old version for deletion. You are free to contest Sven's particular claims or assertions, but please refrain from personally attacking him - if you continue to do so you will be blocked. This is also not the venue to discuss his suitability for adminship - if a request for de-adminship is later made, you can discuss your opinions regarding his suitability on that page. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible abuse of administership and Theo Schoon

Hey Walter Görlitz, it's Wallace-it-up here. I'm sorry for not contacting you on Wikipedia, as I have had all editing privileges suspended (and I've looked around and contacting you via the commons doesn't seem to be problematic or against the rules) but I think I need to let you know about something concerning a possible abuse of administer privalegdes. Before I do, however, I'd like to say thank you for giving me the time of day. I remember the smile on my face when I first joined Wikipedia when you sent me a note welcoming me. That was so kind of you to do that, and it got me off on the best foot. Your message is here- [[3]], but you might have to look back a bit further in the history as this link may not work. Since I was blocked, which I unilaterally accept to be my fault and cannot apologise to Wikimedia more for, a user and administrator called Yamla on the English Wikipedia (his page is here-[4]) has possibly decided to be unnecessarily vindictive by doing the following (this especially applies to the latter)-

1. Removing the access for me to edit my talk page, on the basis of the Wikipedia soapbox policy, despite the fact on my user page I wrote a truthful message where apologised for any inconveniences I have made, explained everything I ever done on Wikipedia, and announced that I would not request re-access to Wikipedia until I'd grown up (I'm 14; at least two years' wait). This message was entirely in good faith, just like I have been 90% of the time I have used Wikimedia. You can read my explanation and apology here- [[5]], in which I outline the mistakes I have made and bad faith I had towards the project in a way I never intended to be considered a "soapbox" message. I hope you understand I meant what I said. However, Yamla dismissed my truthful apology as bad faith "ludicrous rantings". I hope you won't, as not a single lie has been told in that message, and to say that by apologising and recognising your own faults .

2. He then went on to revert back to the Theo Schoon (a famous New Zealand artist whose page I had heavily contributed to) page to the borderline stub it used to be (before I helped contribute to it in good faith). The only reason he did this is, and I quote, because he wanted to "Roll back to last version before block-evading sockpuppet got their mits in".

Personally, I find the latter very demeaning, condescending and vindictive. I've looked all over Wikipedia, and as far as I can see, there is no regulation allowing users to revert good faith edits on pages that needed them because the contributor broke the rules. You can see the final version of what I wrote here- [[6]], but you might have to look back a bit further in the history as this link may not work. I know that you may feel I am not the best person to feel picked on by this. I take full ownership of the fact I broke the rules last year, continued to make good faith edits despite having been blocked, got my original account unblocked without properly thinking about it, and vandalised yet again during a time my devotion was seriously taking a toll on my wellbeing, without stopping and thinking. This was mainly to calm myself down, and to remind myself that Wikipedia wasn't the most important thing in the whole world for a 14 year old boy. As for my bad-faith actions I regret that so, so much, and I'm rightfully wracked with guilt and remorse about these appalling actions. I take full and irreversible ownership of every single bad-faith abhorrent action that I have made on this Wiki and its sister project Wikimedia Commons, and I full accept and respect the consequences of my actions undoubtedly.

Now I see things in perspective, I know that deep down before now I was not taking Wikipedia seriously, but I feel that now, after I was first blocked on one of my (used for good faith editing) sock puppets a few days ago, I understand fully that Wikipedia is not a joke or anything we should take for granted. I was literally so scared about vandalising I genuinely would never have done it again ever, and it is with sincere disappointment this epiphany came a year too late. With Wikipedia, I should've taken part in it responsibly or not at all. And now I'm out, I need to find ways to make up for that. That's why I thought I'd come here and contact you today. As Wikipedia is a de facto public service, Yamla shouldn't have the right to undo all these good faith edits I spent hours on innocently, and deprive those who would like to learn more about Theo Schoon. I know I should never have broken the rules like that and used this other account. I think took the [all rules clause] too literally. I felt that I had grown up and that I shouldn't let my past mistakes get in the way of knowledge, but I went about it the wrong way. You may feel like you shouldn't believe or trust me, and you may revoke my access to use Wikimedia Commons. But I trust you won't, as I have only the desire of getting the fully-equipped article on Theo Schoon back up there indirectly so others can enjoy it.

If you could please intervene here and get my work back up, or contact another administrator about what Yamla has done if you feel he has broken protocol in his actions, I will be heavily in debt to you. If I ever am able to return to Wikipedia in the future, I'll always be grateful of you.

Thanks again,--Wallace-it-up (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)