User talk:Camouflaged Mirage

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Camouflaged Mirage!

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.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Tengah Amenties Masterplan.pdf

And also:

• File:Tengah Residential Masterplan.pdf

Yours sincerely EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Commons:Rollback. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Jianhui67 ^T★C 03:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Help on zh.wiki

Hi Cohaf. I know that this isn't the right place to ask for help but could you check 112.119.248.250's edits on zh.wiki? He/She has been adding unnecessary spaces before commas on pages such as zh:聖保羅書院 and swapping the types of brackets ( to（. I don't know whether if the edits should be reverted. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 15:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史: If you need, you can ask me on zhwp. Here is fine as well as per meta. Good catch, not supposed as in zh we use the chinese style brackets and the spaces are unnecessary. I will revert all. In fact, I am suspecting this is a LTA. I will investigate, regards,--Cohaf (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

np.--Cohaf (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

QSS logo

Not sure if you are toxic or why you decide to ignore that the website http://www.qss.hr/ is using CC By Share-Alike 4.0 licence? Zblace (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zblace: I didn't say the file is copyrighted, see here. The basis is that it seems simple enough to meet COM:TOO. However, I cannot find a suitable source (google doesn't give me anything from the image). Please always COM:AGF and don't say someone is toxic when you aren't sure. Hope this explanation is valid. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It is exactly what I said - I am not sure (but I decided to share my doubt) as your comments and actions keep appearing all over in relation to very specific content suppression that I experience as homophobic and/or at least not welcoming to new contributors. Maybe you get a kick from policing and not from instructing and mentoring, but this is my impression and we do not know each other, so I leave it there. Zblace (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zblace: Hello, what I tagged is very clearly a soft-tag, which is no source. It allows user time to add a source to that as well as detailed instructions on how to avoid deletion. I had also left a message on the user talkpage on exactly what they had to do. Isn't this enough instructing and mentoring. In addition, this is purely administrative as I am a patroller on commons, not in any case related to you personally. Clearly I do not have the intentions to be homophobic / supressing any content. Please take note of the terms you used - they aren't very appropriate. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I am now left to speculate how someone who is patroler cannot click a link to source (website of organization that uses logo) and look up copyright confirmation (bottom of page - clearly CC). Maybe you are not doing it personally to me or some other LGBTIQ+ individual, but you had a problematic agenda of outreaching to HR and then spreading false information as an argument in Simple that article is obvious spam. For me it looks like content supression...and I am going to report that if needed (as you still did not retract that proven fals info and apologised). -- Zblace (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zblace: There is no source provided when I clicked it, when I googled similar images it only turn out vertical and I can't find any source for the image via google image search. I did my due diligence, at the point of upload there isn't any websites linked. Just a note, the way you added the license isn't correct, the permission should be just the template on the file and the source shouldn't be own work, just the website address. I had fixed for you, hope it's okay. Do I have an issue of overreaching to hr, I don't think so. And whatsoever happened in simple is in simple, not here. I am now just discussing about your edits here on commons. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File was linked to [entry] of QSS much before and there was info with URL. So when in doubt if I may I would advise you took within Wikimedia what links to it rather to depend og google search which displays results based on other parameters...thank you for fixing the form. It is not for me it is for Wikimedia Commons, which I hope does not end up being place everyone hates and avoids for over-policing traumas and deletion as a norm. Also whatever happens on Wikimedia is relevant and related, so I can not see you outside of your actions on other projects. You are obviously not discussing things only on per-project basis as you went to HR to get someone (got to pass wrong info instead!) against a queer page. I will no longer assume good faith or neutrality - even when technically your action can be of assistance, as previously they were explicitly not. -- Zblace (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zblace: Hey, I think I need to clear this up. I handled the file on 11:14 today, which is very unfortunate. The link to wikidata was removed on 19 Feb 21:01 by an user in this edit and was only restored on this edit on 16:18 on 20 Feb. Sadly these are the edits which caused me to not seen the wikidata link. Have I seen the wikidata link I would not have tagged it as such and investigated further. Yes, I will take your advice to check wikidata next time. Thanks for raising it up. Lastly, let me say that I did not go to hrwp, I only find someone I trusted who can read hr. Well have a nice day. :) Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: lets say there was oversight with logo and not the bad intention...but how do you see now your trusted-Croatian-reading friend's statement? You passed on negative voice to do discussion page based on that and page was always clear for notability on HR and is now also on SH Wikipedia? Are you changing your vote? Deleting that statement? Zblace (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zblace: I will not term it as oversight but unfortunate situations. Well I read that the RFD was closed and the article is kept. So I don't think I can change words in a closed discussion. I will prefer any discussions for simple on simple, per COM:MELLOW, but since you are blocked there that's why I am replying here. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: so you were spreading false information from other project *(which also infuriated me) and now say that you can not correct it or change your mind because process is over. That sounds like a excuse to me and like you were acting with other motivations. Nothing to thank me. Unfortunate is when you do not get fortunate in winning while gambling, but when someone like you spreads lies this is called something else *(will not say it to risk a ban here, but will make sure that people know about the case). Zblace (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Special:Diff/540248723

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Well received, I should had checked it properly. Indeed a mess. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I might deserve one, too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. :) @1234qwer1234qwer4: Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

File:Tagbombing.jpg

File:Tagbombing.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Enyavar (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Camouflaged Mirage. Check your email—you've got mail! You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Naleksuh (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Naleksuh Missed this one, my settings should only allow users to email me via meta, odd this is here. That's said, having reviewed the emails, it is really vauge what is alluded to. If you like to proceed, you need more details and what I can try is to get your email access re-instated on meta for the purpose of email appeal. Do let me know how you wish to proceed. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

​Thanks. I do have more information, yes, I just don't want to bombard everyone I talk to with a huge essay. If you could restore email access, that'd be great, as the blocking sysop didn't provide any reason why it was off in the first place. I would also appreciate if you could restore talk page access, as the sysop who revoked it is an m:Meta:Administrators#Involved_administrators and never should have revoked it in the first place (I can list other reasons too but that's all I need).

If you do reinstate email access on Meta, do you want me to email you or someone else? You said I need more details, but the good news is I have more details, I just didn't want to write a huge essay to you, just a quick note. If you're interested in hearing it, great. Naleksuh (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Naleksuh On second thought maybe email might not be the best. What I think will better suit you will be a further point on your talkpage on meta. However, you need to address the issues on multiple levels. 1. The Block. I don't think I need to tell you what is needed, but the general of why the block is in error / how you can give confidence that the block is not needed anymore - any assurance etc. Re-hashing existing arguments that had been given will not help, so this need to be something not listed on meta. 2. Your talkpage access revoked. Like the above on blocks, do you understand why the talkpage access is revoked etc. 3. Do you accept the solution proposed by Billinghurst - i.e. till end of SE next year, that we can try to negotiate. You may post your replies here I guess but keep it to one edit as I don't know enough of commons - how lenient commons will allow for such out of scope discussion. I think that will help, and I will for transparency post on your talk on meta to point them to your request and email here. I don't think I can overturn the block unilaterally, as there are so many admins reviewed that block (i.e. on RFH an admin decided to block, on talkpage I count more than 3 admins commenting) and there is so called community determination that the action is problematic (as I skim through the talkpage). So it will be, as per all my unblocks, community consensus or the blocking admin consent. So I hope you understand what I can do / cannot do, so not to give unreasonable expectations and then things can be ugly. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

​1. The Block. I don't think I need to tell you what is needed, but the general of why the block is in error / how you can give confidence that the block is not needed anymore - any assurance etc

I already wrote unblock information on my talk page, but it was removed so I wrote another one that I saved to a text file. Yes, I have that. I can post it on my Meta talk page if access is restored.

Re-hashing existing arguments that had been given will not help, so this need to be something not listed on meta

For a bit of background on the history of unblocks so far, I requested unblock once, an involved sysop declined it (and the decline did not address what was said in my request), so I started working another, longer, more indepth one, figuring, "the worst that can happen is another sysop declines it", but no, instead, the same sysop not only declines it but rollbacks it (not in compliance with the rollback policy, but that's a separate issue) and then pulls talk access. So, unfortunately, no uninvolved sysop has ever reviewed a request for unblock. And I think that if one did review it they would likely accept it. That said, I have created a new unblock request with new information which was not present in my previous one.

2. Your talkpage access revoked. Like the above on blocks, do you understand why the talkpage access is revoked etc.

They say they revoked it because I did not wait 13 months to request an unblock. There are a couple of problems with this:

They phrased the 13 month thing like just a friendly suggestion and not some formal demand, then suddenly removed it when I didn't do it. They claimed I cannot understand that they asked me to request unblock then--I understood what they said, I just didn't do it. If it was supposed to be some formal demand for me not to request unblock again, that could have been clearer.

They have contradicted themself several times, first they said that here the block should expire then, then they said here that it should remain indefinite but I request unblock on that date, then they said here that the block is currently expiring on that date - they've said three different things and contradicted themself multiple times. It seems like from this and several other interactions that their first language is not English, but even so it's not really my fault if I cannot understand what they are saying.

3. Do you accept the solution proposed by Billinghurst - i.e. till end of SE next year, that we can try to negotiate.

Unfortunately, I do not accept it for several reasons

1. Firstly, I did not make personal attacks/casting aspersions (I've explained why previously and nobody has addressed my argument, so that is the current standing) and in that case I should request unblock immediately. For a "change of heart" unblock, waiting a semi-long time is common, but when a block was incorrectly placed, waiting to request unblock would not make sense
2. Even if I had made personal attacks/casted aspersions, a 13 month block would be disproportional. Blocks are usually 31 hours to 1 week on the first offense. Even in very severe cases of repeated abuse and things worse like sockpuppetry, the standard offer period is 6 months, not a little over twice that time.
3. The alleged personal attack was made in the 2022 steward elections, which are now closed, so keeping it now would not be preventative. As explained there Blocks should be used to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption - any contemporary problems are now over, and it is not a "continued" problem as there are no prior blocks on record for it.

The suggestion was made by an involved user, who, in addition to having been highly incivil to me in the past(2, 3), has tried and failed to get me blocked in the past(1), which is likely where the suggestion that I wait 216% of the standard offer period came from.

talkpage I count more than 3 admins commenting

Two sysops commented, one of whom is involved. There are also editors supporting unblock on the talk page

there is so called community determination that the action is problematic

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. One user who has been following me around (the user who made the block request) says that, but the consensus from uninvolved editors is arguably the opposite, that the block was incorrect, or at the very least has problems. For example:

to merit not only a block but a non-expiring block, there should be a whole lot of diffs of Naleksuh doing that. Such proof may exist, but it is not shown in the block request thread.

It's seems weird that a block request based on making accusations without proof only shows two diffs as proof.

your "In my view ...2023" statement looks like you're only stating a preference.

...and more. Both by number and by Cluocracy (I made my case as to why I did not cast aspersions, and nobody has addressed that), as well as the fact that uninvolved editors find problem with the block, with little to no valid arguments for it, I'd actually argue that community consensus is against the block, and it should be removed as sysops are accountable to the community.

So it will be, as per all my unblocks, community consensus or the blocking admin consent.

Well, you said before you wouldn't unblock at all, but this is a bit contradictory here. Since consensus is against the block, would you be willing to remove it per that? Unfortunately in this case, blocking [sysop] consent is a bit difficult-- multiple users have pinged the blocking sysop asking for clarification, they have not replied one single time and seem to have ghosted the entire thing (another SYSOPACCT problem). So, since the blocking sysop is not around to defend their block, and uninvolved editors think there is a problem with the block, I think that constitutes enough for full removal per your guideline. After all, if there really is a problem it can always be reinstated.

However, if you are still not willing to unblock directly I understand, and would also appreciate simply restoring talk access if you aren't comfortable with anything more.

So I hope you understand what I can do / cannot do, so not to give unreasonable expectations and then things can be ugly.

There is a bit of conflicting information, but I will try to be as understanding as possible. Thank you for considering the block or TPA either way, thanks for your time. Naleksuh (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

​Update: another editor has posted to the talk page claiming that me politely emailing you is harassment. Obviously, if Camouflaged Mirage feels uncomfortable with something I am doing they are welcome to say so, but there's no need to assume bad faith. Let me know how you feel about the situation and we can go from there (I'm also not sure about whether or not Commons is allowed for this purpose-- normally I would have reached out via Meta, but in this case Meta is the wiki being referenced. Like I said before, you could simply add TPA so I can discuss the block there.)

Can you expand a bit more on On second thought maybe email might not be the best. What I think will better suit you will be a further point on your talkpage on meta. though? Any particular reason why talk page > email? (I personally also would use talk page if I had both, but interested in hearing the reason on both ends). Naleksuh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Naleksuh Hello, I had read the above extensively. I had also noted TNT's point on your meta talkpage. I am quite short of time IRL so sorry I cannot give the lengthy analysis reply that I usually can do. Given the RFH post by Operator873 and the block by Tks4Fish, and obviously the complain is about Vermont. The RFH was resolved by Martin Urbanec. This complain arises from the complain via this page's discussion which GeneralNotability, Djsasso, Giraffer, Blablubbs and to a degree Tamzin did suggest it is problematic. On your talkpage only Darkfrog24 seems to indicate a support for unblock, with Billinghurst declining and you know TNT stand. Counting this at least 6 meta sysops reviewed the matter (7 if you count the subject), and given our sysop size of 60+, that's almost 10% and significant. As I had work with most of them in various capacities, and you also, I cannot be deemed as neutral either. I note the close to 10000 bytes of commentary here and the large volume of text on your talkpage. They are extensive IMHO and adequate to cover the issues at hand, so I don't see any more access via email / talkpage will help the case. There are situations where we may think nothing is going our way, I personally don't think continue on the same path will change anything either. Maybe another direction might help, that's up to you to explore. Having said that, and noting TNT opinion who I respect, I think I cannot communicate with you about this issue any further. I also thank Commons community for the indulgence for this meta wiki related issue here. I won't go out of scope anymore. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe I will explore another direction someday. I also apologize for using the talk page for Meta concerns, I only meant to send mail but it somewhat happened on its own, I won't use it for Meta stuff anymore. So uh...how is uploading photos going? :/ Naleksuh (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)