User talk:Drork

File:HolonEmblem.png

File:HolonEmblem.png 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!

--Túrelio (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Drork!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 11:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Image:Wm-il exhibition 02.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Israel dispute

Hi Drork,

I'm aware that there is a long-running dispute regarding Israeli copyright in which you appear to be involved. The dispute appears to be scattered over dozens of pages and as a result an uninvolved user cannot readily follow it. I personally consider myself uninvolved in this, and would like to help all people involved in this reach a resolution. I have no desire to act as an arbitrator or mediator, but I am attempting to help the broader community understand the dispute.

I have created a page in my user space in an attempt to list any discussions relevant to the dispute. I'd appreciate it if you would help by adding discussions that you consider relevant to that page. I'd also be grateful if you could notify other people involved if I have not done so already. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't just stop discussion by edict, though it does look like it is running out. The past few days I've tried to stimulate discussion to gain additional facts about the situation, which has worked to a point. My intent here is to attempt to give a reasoned (and detailed) argument when I actually express an opinion, which the community can then choose to endorse (or not). I haven't got to the point where I can do that just yet.

One thing I will point out though. You have misread Pieter's last comments from User talk:Nilfanion/Israel. He is not discussing the Israeli national flag, but the flag of Jerusalem (which is the example I gave on the user page). If he was seriously questioning the copyright of the Israeli national flag I'd block him instantly.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly appreciate seeing such images. You could either upload the files to another image hosting site (admittedly it would still be copyvio, but its not on Commons) or alternatively email them to me (use my user name at gmail . com)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got the email. Don't have time to really look at it right now, but will do later thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the licence tag of COAs, flags etc.

Hi Drork, does the proposal made by Pieter here: Template talk:PD-IL-exempt makes sense to you? to me it does. Currently this tag is used for Israeli stamps. Their status here is unclear as well, i posted a question on the Hebrew Wiki on the stamps issue and i still remember you had some concerns regarding this as well. It would be nice if we could, for a start, conclude the issue of COA's, flags and Insignia. Let me know if you prefer reachnig me by Email. Best Regards --kippi70 (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2009 (UtC)

Advice

Your response to my query on COM:UNDEL is helpful, thanks.

I think the general problem here is that there is a tendency on your part to just state the bottom line, without giving any attribution to that info. For example consider the following statements:

1. In Israel, ice sculptures are permanently displayed because they have no other purpose.
2. According to Dr Presenti, in Israel, ice sculptures are permanently displayed because they have no other purpose.

Both statements are equally valid. However, if you say the first on-wiki all the rest of us have to go on is that it is your opinion and we don't know how you came to that conclusion. This means we cannot evaluate your position effectively and judge if you are correct or not. The second provides us with that indication, as when we evaluate it we know it is the opinion of one of the foremost experts in the field.

The problems arise when people question your view. Instead of providing that little bit of information (in this case that you are basing your view on Presenti) you have a tendency to go on the defensive. The fact you are from Israel does not mean you are right on matters regarding Israeli images, the fact Pieter is from the Netherlands doesn't make him wrong on matters regarding Israeli images. What matters is what the letter of the law says, what the courts say and what the actual experts in the field say.

Bear in mind with the 2D FOP situation I personally think your position is the correct one, the vote is running as its up to the community to decide not just a single administrator. The reason I agree is primarily because the quote from Presenti's book is unambiguous. I can say with a degree of certainty that she would have written supporting evidence for that opinion in her book, and that supporting evidence is what would give her opinion the ability to stand up in court. Obviously I'd like to see that info for myself, but that's more out of curiosity than a belief that I'm being misled.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Volume of Latuff images

Your comments are requested at Commons:Village pump#Latuff repository. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation of Latuff related images

This is a request to those who, looking at page histories, seem most active in changing the categories of Latuff related images. As per my comments here, I must encourage you all to participate in discussions to arrive at a consensus as to appropriate categorisation instead of changing the categories without consensus.

The constant changing of the categorisation of File:Latuff nazi camp 2.png has necessitated its protection from editing. This is an invitation to properly discuss this on the talk page, not to find another Latuff related image and continue to edit war regarding that image's categories.

If the constant changing of categories continues then I will be compelled to take further action to reduce the disruptive nature of this by considering the protection of further pages or blocking of users involved, all of whom are experienced enough to understand why edit warring isn't constructive.

Please try, however difficult it may be, to engage in proper discussions with other members of the Commons community to find an acceptable categorisation to all. Adambro (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please consider this a final warning about changing controversial categorisation without discussion as you did again here and here. Adambro (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#user:Drork. // Liftarn (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

my unsolicited opinion

The problem is fighting back the rising tide of antisemitism. It becomes so time consuming that the effort can come to dominate one's life. If you can step back for a while, it might help, but when you return nothing will have gotten better and all the same problems are there to greet you.

I fought over these issues on WP until I was sent int wiki-exile, even though antisemitism is far from my real areas of interest. I never intended to get involved in fights over antisemitism here on Commons either. Probably, close up, it all seems more important than it really is. Neither WP nor Commons are particularly important. I know for a fact that, librarians, school teachers, and experts in the various fields of human knowledge warn that WP is unreliable. That unreliability is particularly obvious in areas like the Israel/Palestine conflict where so many fools think they know the answers, and (since many of those fools have no job) they have plenty of time to work their mischief.

In my view there is, at the foundation of this problem, the unfortunate fact that in WP and Commons there are two incompatible goals:

1. The failed experiment in social engineering
2. The creation of reliable information

The experiment in social engineering takes precedence over the production of reliable information. As a result of that emphasis, actual experts in the various fields of knowledge are usually expelled from the project, while fools continue to fill the project with nonsense. I think WP rules such as WP:NPOV, WP:Verify, WP:NOR, which attempt to guide volunteer editors toward writing a good articles for a good on-line encyclopedia, have real value. On the other hand, the set of rules that involves WP's failed experiment in social engineering are highly problematic; and rules such as WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:BATTLE, etc, have become the means used by editors who are often lacking intellectually, but are expert at using whining, squealing, and wiki-lawering to achieve editing goals by having their editorial opponents blocked. I have in two years seen many expert editors bounced out because of "lack of collegiality", although genuine collegiality is more difficult to find in Wikimedia projects than among pro-wrestlers.

Savlanoot. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Liftarn

Drork, please don't allow yourself to be drawn into pointless conflicts with Liftarn and try to focus on the issues that need to be discussed. This, this, and this are all examples of comments which may or may not be valid but only prolong the time it will take to reach a resolution of the issues being discussed.

Also, I have asked that both of you stick to discussing categorisation issues rather than simply enforcing your own opinion. The edit history of Category:Lehi (group) suggests this behaviour has resumed. My request, whilst primarily in reference to the Latuff images, shouldn't be seen as a green light for similar behaviour regarding other related issues. Therefore, I must warn you both that if this continues blocks may have to be considered. Adambro (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How to fight cartoonists we do not like

Here's how , but seriously, Drork, I believe you are not exactly fair to Adambro. IMO the administrator tries to do his best to be impartial. He warned you and the other party at the same time, and IMO should be given credit for that. Of course I wish Multichill was warned too, but I guess it is too much to ask for . You know quite well what I am thinking about latuff, but I honestly believe our fight here is not winnable. While we fight over categories of old garbage, the new one is uploaded, and new invalid categories are added. I am glad you are optimistic about antisemitism issues, but I believe it is because you were lucky to be born and to live in Israel. If you lived in Europe, as I did, I assure you, you would have had a very different opinion on the issue. I wish you all the best, and please feel absolutely free to delete the message, if you do not like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue went well beyond Latuff. Liftarn constantly tries to introduce his political opinions by categorizing certain organizations under "Terrorism". He has been told why this is wrong, and yet he insists, and uses illegitimate manipulations to force his view. Pieter Kuiper is keep questioning the good faith of Israeli users who work hard to enrich this project. Instead of asking how this project can benefit from the experience we have in outreaching to the public, he keeps suggesting that we are lawbreakers and unfortunately he gets too much support. As for Latuff's catoons - putting a caricatures portraying a Der Stuermer-like figure next to portraits of Jewish scholar who fled the Nazis in WW2 is an obnoxious political statement. It is certainly not in line with the categorization system, and yet Liftarn is given free hand here. I said before I felt some people here are testing my patience. They should not be too surprise when I lose it. Drork (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit to FOP

Please do not blank information on pages like you did here, that is a form of vandalism and could result in you being blocked. If you are angry with Pieter, I suggest you try to calm down before engaging in any discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not participating in Commons is your choice, and you can try to arrange a boycott if you wish. If you choose to disrupt Commons to prove your point, that is a matter of concern however. Just remember you may not always be right on Israeli law, and Pieter may not always be wrong. You might be able to give a better legal opinion on a certain matter in the UK than I could, the fact I'm a British citizen is irrelevant to that ultimately.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Boycott

Drork wrote on his user page: "I CALL UPON ALL ISRAELI USERS TO BOYCOTT THE COMMONS NOW, DUE TO HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT TOWARDS ISRAELI CONTRIBUTORS."

Hi Drork, I would suggest expanding your boycott call a little by requesting that all conscientious users join the boycott, not just Israelis. I am not sure any such call for boycott will be effective here, because Commons is such a central component of the internet addiction that controls the lives of so many users, but a call for principled action is certainly justified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone could create a boycott template that users could put on their user pages, that would help. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Block

Hi Drork, I admire the work you have done for the PikiWiki project. I am also well aware of occasions of hostilities towards Israel users which I very much regret and for which a block was recently issued. While I understand that you are behind the PikiWiki project with all your heart, you must also accept that Commons is a collegial consensus based project where not every doubt in regard to the interpretation of Israel law is to be seen as an attack against Israel users. It is far more helpful to your cause to contribute facts and insights then to attack those who happen to have a different opinion. You have been multiply warned during the previous discussions (see Lar's comment, for example) and just recently by Nilfanion. Nevertheless, you continued edit-warring at COM:FOP and you submitted an uncivil comment. Because of this disruption I've blocked you for three days. I would be more than happy to unblock you if you could promise me not to continue edit-warring and not to continue incivilities. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Call for Boycott"

Your "call for boycott" is counter-productive and damaging. It renders useless all the good work that's been done by the great amount of contributors who have been working toward a resolution. Bastique ^demandez 19:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just delete it from my page (I'm currently block) and forget about me as far as this project is concerned. I am not involved anymore. Drork (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand how you feel Drork, please believe me I do, yet I have to agree with Bastique on that one. Just imagine what would happened to Commons, if all good images are gone and only latuff is to stay. I know we're loosing the battle, maybe few battles now, but I am very sure that eventually the History will put everything to the right places. She always does. Maybe we will not live long enough to see it, but IMO it does not really matter. I said it before, and I would like to repeat it one more time that sometimes, me and you were not exactly fair to others. It is not good. Let's, for example, talk about kuiper. You know what I am thinking about the man, but to be fair, I would like to point this thing out to you, for what I believe kuiper should be given at least some credit of impartiality. I believe after your block ends you should come back and try to stay cool :) Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Latuff nazi camp 2.gif

I note this recent edit. I have asked you on a number of occasions to refrain from changing the categorisation of Latuff related images because you should be well aware that it is controversial. On a number of occasions you've disregarded this request and changed the categories. As has been explained, this is unhelpful and disruptive.

You said in your edit summary that, "There is no consensus that thee image fits the category", but that isn't quite how things work. If something is controversial, then you should look for consensus to make a change. If there isn't consensus to make a change then things should remain as they were. In this case, that would mean leaving the category unless consensus emerges in support of its removal. Also, I note that this issue has been discussed on the talk page. There I see two people expressing their support of the category and one, you, expressing opposition to the category. In that context, it is difficult to conclude that removing the category is appropriate.

This is the last warning you will get about this. If you change the categorisation of any other related images in similar circumstances you will be blocked to prevent the disruption that such actions cause. Adambro (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My edit regarding Latuff was perfectly legitimate. There is no indication that the image fit the category, and the person who assigned the category failed to prove relevancy. In such case, the burden of proof is on him, not on me. The caricature is slanderous in nature, and assigning it to that certain category suggests the Commons support a controversial political opinion. It is sad that you haste to defend people who act by illegitimate political motives rather than defend the reputation of this site. Drork (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved your comment back here since I put this page on my watchlist to monitor for any replies and it makes sense to try to keep discussions in one place as much as possible. I would still maintain though that, even regardless of my previous request for all involved to refrain from changing the categorisation without discussion, your edit was still inappropriate. Both Pieter Kuiper and Liftarn express their support for the category and explained their reasoning. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with their reasoning, you cannot simply dismiss their views because it is convenient to do so. If a proposed change is controversial, removing the category in this case, the burden of proof is always on whoever is proposing that change to explain their reasoning and convince others to agree so that consensus forms in support of the change. In this case, you may have explained in the discussion why you propose the category is removed but you didn't manage to convince the others who participated in that discussion to support your proposal. The discussion clearly indicates that there was no consensus to remove the category. I fully support any attempts to "defend the reputation of this site" but those attempts have to be done in accordance with established principles. That means not ignoring those who disagree with your proposals and going ahead anyway. Adambro (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bro Abambro, it is not proper you to act as an administrator and at the same time participate in the argument on the behalf of one side. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I trust you will bring my actions to the attention of the rest of the community if you feel I ever act inappropriately due to my own personal opinions on issues. Adambro (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bro Abambro, thank you for your non-reply to my comment. But it is, nevertheless, always a pleasure to read your thoughtful ideas. Salve. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Malcolm. Those rules are written nowhere, but it is a common seance, exactly as never block an editor you involved with. I've also removed the link from the title. Everybody knows what it is about. There's no need for that link, not at this talk page anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I linked the section title because I felt, and still feel, it is helpful to do so and is something I do routinely. It means anyone can just click on the link to find the relevant image which is the subject of the discussion. I would rather you didn't turn up and start removing such links, particularly since you didn't actually explain what the problem with linking to the page is. Adambro (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 days

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 days for the following reason: edit warring at File:BlueLine.jpg. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

--Jarekt (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

final warning (edit war)

Drork, I told it to Kàkhvelokákh, now I tell it to you: please stop your conflict with Supreme Deliciousness immediately! As far as I know and in the eyes of the international community the en:Golan Heights belong to Syria and are occupied by Israel. That's a fact! And of course as a result of this conflict people died and buildings are devasted, but we actually don't know who did what. As in every other conflict humanity dies first, so please show respect to all people killed or wounded in this ongoing war and stop your (edit) war! axp_de^Hello! 11:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait please Axpde... I believe both Drork and Supreme Deliciousness are making good faith attempts to implement my suggestions in Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Stop_the_war. I have reviewed all of Drork's recent edits. Most were good, and SD has already picked up most of those that weren't. I think things are going forward. Please take a look at the proposal and let me know if you're not happy with it - it seems that Drork/SD/Geagea are all ok with it, and they are the primary parties involved. --99of9 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, most of his recent edits were just commented "Undo revision ### by Supreme Deliciousness" ... doesn't sound very constructive to me :(

If both sides are pleased and the edit wars are over this warning is void, but else I'll block both sides to bring them to terms. I called for sanity frequently enough, didn't I? axp_de^Hello! 12:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:BlueLine.jpg

Edit warring in terms of image versions is particularly disruptive. As has been noted, the original version of this map seemed to refer to Golan Heights as part of Syria occupied by Israel. If you are going to make significant changes which you should be able to realise will be controversial then please just upload a new copy under a different name. Adambro (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 mon

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 mon for the following reason: Continued edit warring at File:BlueLine.jpg. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

You've been blocked before by User:Jarekt, and I have warned you finally above! axp_de^Hello! 14:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Further explanation: If you think someone else is acting wrong, you are ...

• ... allowed to talk to this user, tell him what's wrong,
• ... allowed to notify the admins, what's going on,
• ... not allowed to participate in the edit war, no matter who did what.

You have been warned, you did not learn, that's why I blocked you. axp_de^Hello! 22:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your email

Hi Drork, You still have access to editing your own talkpage, so you are better off explaining yourself here than in private emails. You may even be able to convince your blocking admin. 99of9 (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is the story -

1. In 17 Aug 2006 a user called Thomas Blomberg uploaded a map of the "Blue Line" between Israel and Lebanon onto the Commons. The map is said to be based upon this UN map: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/unifil.pdf
2. When I came across this map, I noticed it includes many errors. I listed the errors on the English Wikipedia (where a copy of the file existed before a redirection to the Commons was established). When other users posted messages of agreement (unfortunately deleted from the English Wikipedia see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:BlueLine2.jpg), I took the time and effort to correct the map. That was on 10 August 2008.
3. On 15 February 2010, I found out that User:Nableezy reverted the map to its previous erroneous version. I re-reverted him, while explaining why he was wrong and bringing sources to support my corrections on the file's talk page. Nableezy was not happy with my explanations. He made false claims, e.g. that the UN map makes reference to the Golan Heights as an occupied territory, which is not the case (see link above). Then he initiated an edit war.
4. Eventually, my version of the file was acknowledged as an accurate one, even by Nableezy, however, a copy of the erroneous version was still uploaded and made available here: File:BlueLine ver2.jpg, so basically, if someone insists on having this inaccurate map, he can still have it.
5. Both User:Nableezy and User:Supreme Deliciousness have been making highly controversial edits, especially with regard to the Golan Heights and the Middle East conflict. The edit wars they initiated resulted in an administrator-brokered agreement that files won't be changed, but rather a new version would be uploaded, and that the Golan Heights would not be presented as pertaining to one country or another. I had some reservations about this decision, but I accepted it as reasonable workaround and acted accordingly.
6. Nableezy violated the agreement shortly after it was enacted, and uploaded a new version to BlueLine.jpg His version suggest that the Golan Heights is a Syrian Territory. This was on 21 October 2010.
7. I have noticed Nableezy's misconduct and reverted the map on 13 November 2010. Note that the agreed version does not suggest the Golan Heights are an Israeli territory, but rather try to reflect the situation and the various opinions about it as accurately as possible. It is also more in line with the map that was brought as a source.
8. On the same day User:Supreme Deliciousness re-reverted making false claims as if the original map puts the GH in Syria. In fact, the source map makes no such claim (see link above). He also ignored the fact that the erroneous version was still available to any user who insists on using it. Also, SD is hardly an impartial editor for this issue considering his edits in the past.
9. Claiming I was edit warring, Adambro warned me on my talk page. I offered him a detailed explanation why his claim was wrong, and yet, to avoid any further edit wars, I asked him to take action, while I took none.
10. I was further blocked by two different users, claiming I was edit warring. Both administrators ignored my explanations and the fact that Adambro already warned me and received a detailed reply from me. User:Nableezy and User:Supreme Deliciousness were not even warned despite continuous tendentious edits and edit wars. Drork (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Some things are definetely wrong: You were blocked only by me, there was no other admin, so I really don't know, what you're talking about. Despite the fact that Adambro gave you a warning, there was still my "final warning" four weeks ago plus the three-day-block on Feb 16th because of edit warring one the very same file.

On the other hand, I warned SD too. So to be fair I blocked SD too, one week (because it's the first block for edit warring). I didn't warn Nableezy, it's the first time I read this name.

Finally: Please consider other ways to solve your problems. War is not the answer. War is the question and the answer is NO! axp_de^Hello! 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

your behaviour

Please stop to bother me via email insulting me! I wasn't rude, didn't neither lie nor defame you nor am I making false remarks, accusations, defamations. I just listed facts and told you to stop your edit wars!

Your way of addressing me is inappropriate and inacceptable, stop this behaviour immediately! axp_de^Hello! 12:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First learn some manners and do not treat people you don't know as if they were toddlers that you need to educate. If you want respect, start behaving like a decent person and not like someone who is intoxicated with power. I sent you the letter privately because I respect your dignity despite your outrageous behavior and language. Since you decided to answer me on this page, you leave me no choice but to respond to your shameful words publicly. Your claims against me are indeed lies, there is no other way to describe them. You should be ashamed of yourself! Drork (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't give any proof for your derogative accusations. I didn't claim anything, just stating facts. axp_de^Hello! 08:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The person who violated your warning from February is Nableezy. Nableezy is also the person who started this whole mess when he reverted longstanding changes I had made based on the map's source, other reliable sources and approval from other users. All you have to do is check the history of the file and the link to the map upon which it was based. Supreme Deliciousness regularly backs Nableezy both on Commons and on en-wp, and so he did this time, when I tried to restore the consensual version of the file. You also ignored the fact that Nableezy uploaded the original file, with the error it included, as an alternative version, so anyone who insists on using that map, can still do so (I am against this solution, because it is not our job to spread errors, but so be it). What Nableezy and SD did was trying to forcefully impose their views, and this is not the first time they do it - check their contributions! All this information is available to you, especially as you are an administrator. Furthermore, once you saw the dialog between me and Adambro you should have waited for further details, rather than resort to blocking. I'm sorry but this behavior is highly unacceptable, and it is not the first time such things happen on Commons. Drork (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

response

Im sorry Drork, I wasnt aware of any "administrator brokered agreement". In fact I was not even aware this had happened, I dont really check commons all that often. The reason I modified this map was the map was being used in Ghajar article, a village on the Lebanese-Syrian border. I didnt feel it was acceptable to have a map of a village that straddles a Syrian border not have the word Syria, but no matter as a separate map was made for that. I would restore "your" version of the Blue Line map but it seems as though that version has been deleted. I dont object to having that map restored. Id like to discuss a few other things with you, but I leave it to you whether and how that will happen. Nableezy (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Had you checked the fact, you would have found out that all Ghajar residents are Israeli citizens (not "permanent residents" but full citizens). Here is a report from a Lebanese website [1] and notice it does not refer to the Golan Heights as "occupied". As you can see, your view of the situation in the Golan Heights is far from being in consensus, and even citizens of Arab countries dispute it occasionally. The problem is that you forcefully deprive users of Wikipedia from having a full genuine picture of the situation. Your claim that the village straddles between Lebanon and Syria is merely an opinion about what SHOULD be. It is not a matter of fact, and it is not supported by objective sources. I am not too sure what a conversation between us would result in, but if you do want to talk, I'm available through Skype - dror.kamir Drork (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can be condescending too. If you had checked you would have seen that while the residents of Ghajar accepted Israeli citizenship they retained their Syrian citizenship and currently hold both. Here is a report from an Israeli website [2]. Notice how it says the residents are dual citizens? But to the more substantive point on where Ghajar is, see for example Kaufman, Asher. "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie:" On Ghajar and Other Anomalies in the Syria-Lebanon-Israel Tri-Border Region. Middle East Journal. Volume 63, no. 4. (Autumn 2009) p. 558.

Ghajar is no different from other contested sections of the Syria-Lebanon border. With the absence of a border treaty and with so many maps showing alternative routes, any border would be arbitrary so long as Syria and Lebanon fail to conclude a comprehensive boundary demarcation venture finalized by a formal treaty.

You appear to think that because Israel says that the Golan is not occupied Syrian territory (and I have yet to see an actual denial by the Israeli government of this) that Wikipedia cannot say that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory, that the encyclopedia must accept Israel's determinations above any others, regardless of whether or not there is near unanimity among sources, states, and international organizations about this. I think that is a plainly ludicrous position to hold and one that has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Nableezy (talk)

Nableezy, just as you said in your English-wikipedia userpage - Give me a rifle and let me go to Palestine. You have certain beliefs and you think all people in the world should share your belief. You would even make Ghajar a Syrian village, even though its residents willingly accepted Israeli citizenship and are under full normal civilian Israeli rule (according to all the sources you could find). There are plenty of sources that say Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China, and yet Wikipedia treat it as the independent Republic of China, because this is what it is in practice. I can give you all the sources and all the logics in the world why your views are hardly a consensus and often simply wrong, but you don't care, and if it takes a virtual rifle to impose your views, you don't hesitate to use one. I saw your messages to other users on the English-Wikipedia talk pages. These are "friendly threats" that they should align with your views, otherwise you would "shoot" them (in the virtual sense). What you did here with that map is similar. Unfortunately, certain administrators chose to support you, probably because they share your political views (one of them is an admin who strongly supported the introduction of the sickening cartoons by Latuff), or because you and your friends (SD for example) made them too tired to check your actions. I cannot handle your violence, especially when it is supported by admins. You have found a way to game with the system and get away with violent acts and introduction of strong political propaganda, and it is very hard to compete with the way you, and SD, master this method. The fact that both of you hide behind aliases and refuse to submit any information about your political affiliation and who you work for, the fact that you constantly delete information that might reveal something about your identity, the fact that all your edits were in one single subject and all of them were attempts to force political opinions, all that indicate that your are not here to do good. Drork (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Things like the above make me question whether or not a rational conversation can be had with you. Drork, Im an engineer. I work for a private company in a field completely removed from any political considerations or Israel or Palestine. My political affiliation? Thats difficult, I dont vote in US elections, I wouldnt vote in "elections" in the other country that I hold citizenship in (Egypt). Id say Im a rare breed of libertarian and socialist, if the two could co-exist. The fact is that despite your claim that you can give [me] all the sources and all the logics in the world why [my] views are hardly a consensus, you never do so. When I give you peer-reviewed journal articles, you give me CAMERA (as you did in one of the disputes we had at en.wp on the Golan article, I think about Quneitra). You refuse to accept simply facts, often distorting your own sources in the process. For example, you say the residents of Ghajar are Israeli citizens, yet you refuse to acknowledge they are Syrian citizens. You claim that the Golan is not occupied territory, but when confronted with 20 sources published in peer-reviewed journals or in books published by university presses that explicitly say that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel you just shrug and continue insisting that your unsourced views be inserted as absolute and unequivocal truth. You want to talk about "virtual rifles"? How many sockpuppets have you created on en.wp? How many of them were used for the sole purpose to attack me or other editors you dislike? How many times have you socked around your ban? You either have an incredible ability to rationalize actions that any sane person can see are irrational, or you just have made cognitive dissonance into a virtue. Nableezy (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for suggesting Arabic Description for a file

Hi Dror, I request you to kindly provide me with an appropriate Arabic description for this File based on the English description already present there. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

File:IDF_insignia.png

File:IDF_insignia.png 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!

User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 04:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Israeli laissez-passer.jpg

File:Israeli laissez-passer.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!

Spartaz (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:IDF insignia.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:IDF insignia.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 10:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:TelAvivEmblem.svg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:TelAvivEmblem.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 20:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Are you still active? It appears there are misunderstanding issues with FoP-Israel and I see you were very active in promoting/explaining it. -- SafwatHalaby (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your message reached my mail, which is good, because I'm not active anymore. But if you have any question, I might have the answer. -Dror

Coat of Arms issue

Thank you for your reply! The problem is yet again with the definition of FoP. There's a deletion request for all Israeli coat of arms.

It started when I tried updating the coat of arms of Daliyat el Carmel (it was remade in 2013). I uploaded it under the FoP-Israel template. The file was marked for deletion. I then argued the file should be fine because other coats of arms were accepted in Wikimedia under similar permissions, but it's been claimed that potentially all Israeli coats of arms are not acceptable here and a deletion request is currently open. This may eventually cascade to other files uploaded under FoP.

I am not familiar with IL law but I suspect this might be absurd. I need people who have dealt with this before and who are familiar with IL law to clarify this matter. I've contacted you and User:Deror_avi.

Here are the links.

1. 1 - the initial village pump discussion which spawned the deletion request: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#People_and_bots_trying_to_delete_my_uploaded_Coats_of_Arms

1. 2 - The current discussion in the page deletion request: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Coats_of_arms_of_local_councils_in_Israel#Locating_people_experienced_with_IL_law

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SafwatHalaby (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here goes - There are two types of emblems - official ones and non-official ones. An official emblem/coat-of-arm must be approved by the Israeli government and published in the official gazette ("reshumot"). Anything published in the official gazette is in the public domain. The local copyright law says that explicitly. Once approved by the government, these emblems are considered protected, like the national flag, i.e. you cannot use them improperly (though this rule is never enforced). However, this limitation is not considered a copyright limitation (most national flags are protected but not copyrighted).

Now, many municipalities and some ministries also adopt a logo for PR purposes. These are approved by the local council, but not necessarily by the government. Practically, any use of these logos would fall under "fair use" (either you serve the municipality's interest by publishing its logo, or you use it for fair criticism of its activities - either way, it's fair use). However, I can't say these logos are copyright-free.

My understanding is that the files in question show official coat-of-arms, so there is no question of copyrights whatsoever.

References - Law of Local Authorities (Emblems), 5718/1958, par. 2, 3(a); Law of Copyrights 5768/2007, par. 6

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:BostonColoredCows.JPG

Yours sincerely, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)