User talk:Damiens.rf/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Damiens.rf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Civility
Please consider this a final warning - continue to be uncivil as detailed in the ANI thread and I or another admin will block you. Being in a dispute is not an excuse to insult and abuse another editor. Fences&Windows 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Foolishly unfriendly behavior
Nominating multiple images for deletion very unfriendly editing behavior, especially when you aren't even sure if you are correct, based on "I believe we can't use those non-free images of mobiles." If you aren't sure, nominate ONE image, allow me to defend it and then make a decision to nominate the others only if I am not successful. If you didn't intend to be unfriendly and actually meant it when you wrote, "Let me know if you need some help." then go back and remove those deletion notices from all but one image, allow me to defend the one image of your choosing and wait for the results. I'm aware of WP:NFCC. You are aware that there is a page specifically devoted to uploading these images, right? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=en-nonfree&wpUploadDescription={{Non-free%20use%20rationale%0A+%7CArticle+++++++++++=+%0A+%7CDescription+++++++=+%0A+%7CSource++++++++++++=+%0A+%7CPortion+++++++++++=+%0A+%7CLow_resolution++++=+%0A+%7CPurpose+++++++++++=+%0A+%7CReplaceability++++=+%0A+%7Cother_information+=+%0A}} . Ch Th Jo (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm actually pretty damm fucking sure we can't use those images at all, but I tried to sound polite. I won't be reverting the nominations, but feel free to add a defense just to the first one and explain it's supposed to work for all others. I'm sure the closing admin will take it into account. --Damiens.rf 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
photo
an original photo taken by me in Bangalore several years ago. read the meta data. may i ask why?
no scan nor scam.
J929 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The description use to say "original photo (scanned version of print)", so I was worried it could have been a scan of a copyrighted work. My fault I didn't noticed the presence of metadata. And the scam in the title was not intentional.
Nice shot! --Damiens.rf 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Re:Canvassing
Regarding your comment about my alleged "canvassing", for the sake of keeping the conversation all in one place, I responded here. In any event, it wasn't my intention to canvass, so for now I've removed the talk page images, to be better safe than sorry. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Message to self
Enjoying a wonderful beer right now. Won't tell its name. Won't tell its name again. I've put it on my refrigerator some days ago and now it just called me. I knew it would happen. Enjoying the fun. --Damiens.rf 04:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Image nominations
Hi Damiens. I know we had issues long ago in the past, but I have since believed that they were resolved. With that said, it sort of feels like your listing of five straight images uploaded by myself long ago --> starting here might be a borderline issue of WP:HOUND, as it is clear that you couldn't have coincidentally came across them in such a short period of time, but would have had to have looked up all the images I have ever uploaded and went through them. When you factor in that all of these images have gone unnominated for so long - I believe it becomes more problematic. I hope this isn't the case, but I can't help but notice that it could be. Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. It was no coincidence but also no harm was intended. I spotted a recent nomination of a file you uploaded and as it was a clear violation case, and you even defended it on the discussion (it's your right to do so), I though there could be more problematic images on your log. I looked into it and found those. Nothing personal beyond that. --Damiens.rf 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- I believe you that “no harm was intended”, but would also hope that you realize that sometimes your actions both do harm people or at the very least give the impression that it is your intention. On your talk page presently there are several threads of users asking that you temper your mass image deletion nominations somewhat, under the pretext that they clash with the collaborative spirit of the overall project and might discourage users from even attempting to devote the time to uploading the images that are critical to the site’s effectiveness as an educational tool. I feel like you may view yourself as the “last line of defense” when it comes to image fair use on Wikipedia, which is not so. If many of these cases are so blatantly obvious – then most likely someone else will also catch them as you do and nominate them. However, when you go through the listings of every image someone has ever uploaded and nominate scores of them at a time; it gives off an aggressive and confrontational vibe (whether you intend it to or not). I believe that you probably mean well in these instances, but I can assure you that if you keep following this path it will only lead to frustration from all parties and probably further restrictions on your editing abilities. My unsolicited advice would be to temper your deletion enthusiasm somewhat (especially when dealing with the same user in multiple noms). Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For successfully deleting the public domain image to Tomio Aoki. Wikipedia is no place for such content. Keep up the great work! We need more Admins like you! Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
Spread things out
Damiens, I'd like to try to convince you to quit carpet bombing people with FFD's. I'm not even really looking at your contributions, but I've just happened to come across several user pages over the past few weeks where you've plastered a handfull to dozens of FFD consecutive notices on a users talk page. That sort of thing can easily be seen as being disruptive, and being on the receiving end of it has got to be demotivating, at least. I'd recommend self limiting your FFD activity in such a way that you're ot nominating more than 2 files from an individual user at a time. That sort of self-limitation doesn't mean that you have to slow down (although, to be honest here I have to admit that I hope that you do slow down), it simply means that your efforts will be spread out somewhat.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ohms, I think there is a real problem here, and it needs to be addressed at WP:ANI with some sort of community restriction. Jehochman Talk 12:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please, either make a policy/guideline restricting the number of FfD nomination someone can take a day or do not ask me to restrict myself. A community restriction just for me would be arbitrary.
- And since you're at it, why not create a limit for the number of non-free files someone can upload? --Damiens.rf 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well then, I guess that Jehochman is correct. I don't understand how you could fail to see the way that carpet bombing people with multiple FFD nominations is perceived as being at least mildly disruptive, but since you can't I guess we don't have a choice but to pursue a community based restriction as some sort of remedy. I'm not sure what to say regarding the comparison to people uploading content... I suppose that could be seen as the inverse, if you look at things from a specific viewpoint, but... I mean, people are supposed to upload content. Granted, it should be free content, but still. I don't really know how to explain it, since it's a viewpoint really. Ah well. Oh, incidentally, you're garish signature doesn't really help your cause. There's nothing really wrong with it, other then that it's designed to be noticed. I don't know, that's just a thought. I guess that I'll start a discussion on AN/I later tonight or tomorrow (maybe having it run over the weekend will limit "teh dramaz" slightly), if someone else doesn't start one first.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)- My signature is not supposed to help my cause. It's supposed to make it easy for me to find the FfD discussions I'm involved when scrolling through an FfD daily page. Is that also a problem? --Damiens.rf 17:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well then, I guess that Jehochman is correct. I don't understand how you could fail to see the way that carpet bombing people with multiple FFD nominations is perceived as being at least mildly disruptive, but since you can't I guess we don't have a choice but to pursue a community based restriction as some sort of remedy. I'm not sure what to say regarding the comparison to people uploading content... I suppose that could be seen as the inverse, if you look at things from a specific viewpoint, but... I mean, people are supposed to upload content. Granted, it should be free content, but still. I don't really know how to explain it, since it's a viewpoint really. Ah well. Oh, incidentally, you're garish signature doesn't really help your cause. There's nothing really wrong with it, other then that it's designed to be noticed. I don't know, that's just a thought. I guess that I'll start a discussion on AN/I later tonight or tomorrow (maybe having it run over the weekend will limit "teh dramaz" slightly), if someone else doesn't start one first.
- Oh, and are you sure this is meant for ANI? I don't like those threads because there are some admins that will automatically post a LAST WARNING message to my talk whenever anyone mentions anything about me there. What you want is more like a new guideline, isn't it? --Damiens.rf 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some of these nominations are crap. Furthermore, if you think being a copyright hound for huge corporations is something corporations actually want you to do, guess again. Notwithstanding cases like getty images and such which are made to be sold (by all means look for those if you like this work), most of what you are challenging is stuff that no company or individual anywhere will ever care about and things they likely are happy to see on wikipedia. E.g., do Linzi Drew or her publisher bemoan the existence of File:Try Everything Once Except Incest and Morris Dancing.jpeg on her BLP because the commentary about the book is trivial in your opinion? Of course not!! This sort of mindless application of the art of copyright law came up last year with people nominating wine labels for deletion, and even wiki-attorney Mike Godwin said not to worry because no winery would complain about a theoretical copyright violation, they want their labels used as examples. Perhaps my viewpoint seems a bit radical by some if you think I'm endorsing copyright infringement, but I am not. My point is that some non-lawyer wiki editors enforce copyright law with such strict interpretations and construe fair use so narrowly that they are harming the free exchange of ideas which wikipedia stands for. Getting images deleted based on technicalities that you can help fix is not helping humankind or the project.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You misguessed my motivations. --Damiens.rf 17:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I know your real motivation is to be a troll, but I know you have a heart too.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't come back to my page to drop rudenesses. --Damiens.rf 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I certainly don't condone the incivilty, Damiens, the impression I'm getting is that you can be a pretty frustrating guy. I also get the impression that you don't see that as a bad thing, but frustrating people into submission or Godwin's law isn't the way to win an individual argument or your NFC crusade. You're nominating images for deletion left, right and centre based on technicalities in the NFCC policy and NFC guideline without regard for their encyclopaedic benefit or the spirit of those rules and you're weathering editors down to the extent that you're driving them away from uploading images or even from contributing by tagging their images at a near-robotic speed and frequency. That's not what the rules are for, that's not what Twinkle is for (as your previous trips to ANI should have made you aware) and if that's what was in the best interests of the project, we'd have a bot doing it. You've been offered a perfectly dignified solution that would allow you to continue the good that you do while mitigating the negative effects in the form of a voluntary undertaking not to nominate more than two images per uploader per day. My advice to you would be to take the offer and save us all some time—the laternative is that somebody will take this to ANI or ArbCom and we all waste a lot of time with the result that you're formally restricted from doing what you could restrict yourself from voluntarily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 is not a technicality. --Damiens.rf 21:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you've completely missed the point, but you already knew that. I give up. I tried to be nice, but you just won't take the help people are offering you, I tried to be frim but fair and you greeted it with hostility. So, the next time you carpet-bomb someone with file deletion notices, I will block you and/or go to AN and request community restrictions against you because you are disrupting the project and it's clear that you won't stop unless you're made to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I greeted it with hostility?????. Also, you can't make policy of your own. Looking through someone's upload log and nominating problematic images is not a blockable offense. It's not an offense at all. If you plan to block anyone based on that make sure to have a policy to back you up. --Damiens.rf 21:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you've completely missed the point, but you already knew that. I give up. I tried to be nice, but you just won't take the help people are offering you, I tried to be frim but fair and you greeted it with hostility. So, the next time you carpet-bomb someone with file deletion notices, I will block you and/or go to AN and request community restrictions against you because you are disrupting the project and it's clear that you won't stop unless you're made to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 is not a technicality. --Damiens.rf 21:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- While I certainly don't condone the incivilty, Damiens, the impression I'm getting is that you can be a pretty frustrating guy. I also get the impression that you don't see that as a bad thing, but frustrating people into submission or Godwin's law isn't the way to win an individual argument or your NFC crusade. You're nominating images for deletion left, right and centre based on technicalities in the NFCC policy and NFC guideline without regard for their encyclopaedic benefit or the spirit of those rules and you're weathering editors down to the extent that you're driving them away from uploading images or even from contributing by tagging their images at a near-robotic speed and frequency. That's not what the rules are for, that's not what Twinkle is for (as your previous trips to ANI should have made you aware) and if that's what was in the best interests of the project, we'd have a bot doing it. You've been offered a perfectly dignified solution that would allow you to continue the good that you do while mitigating the negative effects in the form of a voluntary undertaking not to nominate more than two images per uploader per day. My advice to you would be to take the offer and save us all some time—the laternative is that somebody will take this to ANI or ArbCom and we all waste a lot of time with the result that you're formally restricted from doing what you could restrict yourself from voluntarily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't come back to my page to drop rudenesses. --Damiens.rf 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I know your real motivation is to be a troll, but I know you have a heart too.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You misguessed my motivations. --Damiens.rf 17:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Some of these nominations are crap. Furthermore, if you think being a copyright hound for huge corporations is something corporations actually want you to do, guess again. Notwithstanding cases like getty images and such which are made to be sold (by all means look for those if you like this work), most of what you are challenging is stuff that no company or individual anywhere will ever care about and things they likely are happy to see on wikipedia. E.g., do Linzi Drew or her publisher bemoan the existence of File:Try Everything Once Except Incest and Morris Dancing.jpeg on her BLP because the commentary about the book is trivial in your opinion? Of course not!! This sort of mindless application of the art of copyright law came up last year with people nominating wine labels for deletion, and even wiki-attorney Mike Godwin said not to worry because no winery would complain about a theoretical copyright violation, they want their labels used as examples. Perhaps my viewpoint seems a bit radical by some if you think I'm endorsing copyright infringement, but I am not. My point is that some non-lawyer wiki editors enforce copyright law with such strict interpretations and construe fair use so narrowly that they are harming the free exchange of ideas which wikipedia stands for. Getting images deleted based on technicalities that you can help fix is not helping humankind or the project.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and are you sure this is meant for ANI? I don't like those threads because there are some admins that will automatically post a LAST WARNING message to my talk whenever anyone mentions anything about me there. What you want is more like a new guideline, isn't it? --Damiens.rf 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Damiens, we all realize how this is going to end if nothing changes. I'd appreciate it if you would at least take my second post in --> this thread above to heart and consider it. Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would haply comply with a site wide policy that would limit the number of nominations for the same offending uploader, because such policy would have been discussed by the wide community. This is a whole different thing to hear directions from a local minority. Please, start a policy proposal or policy change proposal. I just can't accept such a Damiens-specific limitation.
- Based on past complaints, I'm inclined to believe such a policy/guideline would not be approved because it's just a Bad Idea when one can see the big picture.
- The real problem is the uploaders getting sentimental about their files. Taking deletion nominations as an affront, which it isn't. --Damiens.rf 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)- And this is being sent to inform you that the discussion was just archived and, as far as I can tell, I'm not blocked neither forbidden to go on with nominations my way. Thanks for caring, but consider saving this link for future reference. --damiens.rf 19:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Poker template
I have had this debate before. Basically, userfied my bio several years ago. Recently, I began detailing my online poker experience in a highly detailed manner that might not be inappropriate on WP if I was notable. I am going to trim it down some because it has gotten too long.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- You also had a bio? What's with you guys! I want one for me too! --Damiens.rf 15:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it's this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antonio_Vernon. Best notability claim ever: "Chicago's most prominent beach personality". Long ago, funny reading. :) --Damiens.rf 15:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- If statistics and results about poker are things notable people have in their bios and things can be sourced, then it's would not be too much for a notable person. I don't know if you have ever seen any of my content creation, but I often produce vast amounts of content with far greater detail than anyone would have believed was worth producing. See people like Rob Pelinka and Tai Streets who have extensive details of high school careers that many might be surprised to find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I know the rules about userspace are lax and rarely enforced, but I would feel bad if I didn't try. I'm posting it to MfD. I hope you don't take it personally. --Damiens.rf 23:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- If statistics and results about poker are things notable people have in their bios and things can be sourced, then it's would not be too much for a notable person. I don't know if you have ever seen any of my content creation, but I often produce vast amounts of content with far greater detail than anyone would have believed was worth producing. See people like Rob Pelinka and Tai Streets who have extensive details of high school careers that many might be surprised to find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem
I must also praise you on your admirable coolness in the face of some really dreadful and ill-informed criticism. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
hi Damiens.rf, the source of File:F. L. Roffey - Wigan.jpg is a scan of the circa-1922 cigarette card produced by Godfrey Phillips, who I asssume are asociated with Godfrey Phillips India. Could you please tell me what I need to type in, and where, to meet the copyright status requirements. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I just posted this info on the image. These good news is that the indicates the image is almost certainly in the public domain, and we no longer need to claim fair use. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 12:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Staying cool in the face of your tagging
I can only imagine you get folks on your talk page with their panties in a bunch about you deleting their images, but you need to take further consideration the images you just tagged. (File:Mose Wright pointing to J W Milam in the murder trial of Emmett Till.jpg, File:Cover of San Francisco Examiner November 28 1978.jpg, File:Stonewall riots.jpg) I think you used poor judgment for all of them, and it does not appear that you took source material that put emphasis on their importance in your determination that they are unnecessary. You will not find a more conscientious editor regarding nonfree images than I. The justifications for these images are written as strongly as I can make them, but the only reason these images are included in these articles is because the sources make points that they are important images.
I'm honestly at a loss why you don't think these are necessary. Full fair use rationales written far more detailed than required, and all three are referenced by sources in the prose in the section where the images are placed. Is there something else I need to do for these images?
I'm going to attempt to answer these here because otherwise you would have me justifying the inclusion of these images in three threads which would be a huge time sink, and which invites the !votes of editors who have never read the articles nor the sources. Why their opinions matter I have no idea. Why yours matters for this I don't know either.
These files passed scrutiny during the very rigorous FAC process and in the case of the image in Emmett Till, GA scrutiny by reviewer User:Iridescent, an ArbCom member. Why does your judgment trump that of the reviewers? Or of the sources? Is this not a case of WP:OR? That you get to decide what's necessary more than the sources do?
Feel free to make a better decision and remove the FfD tags. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Re-reading the issue, I notice there may be a case of the trial photo being notable by itself, since it was taken against a prohibition. About the newspaper cover, I still think it's an unnecessary illustration. The same for the riot image. The of information it's supposed to pass (according to the rationale) is the kind of information that we can pass with text alone. --Damiens.rf 20:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Moni3. Could you please stop nominating files for deletion for the time being so we can discuss these matters properly? NW (Talk) 20:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree too. This needs to be discussed. Graham Colm (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- FdD is a forum for discussion. --Damiens.rf 20:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree too. This needs to be discussed. Graham Colm (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Check it out. Now your talk page is the forum for discussion. It defies comprehension that the only image taken of the Stonewall riots is deemed unnecessary by you. Who are you? What expertise do you have in this area? What gives you the authority to designate these images as unnecessary? --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have no special authority and I'm not "designating the image as unnecessary". I'm just expressing my opinion it is and inviting others to debate.
- You don't seem very familiarized with our polices about non-free content, and maybe that's why it's so hard for you to understand the issue. It shouldn't be a surprise that
- Even if there's only one image of an important event, and the image is non-free, we won't use the image unless the event is somehow difficult to be explained to someone that is not seeing the image.
- If a non-free photo of a notable event comes from a news source, news agency or photo agency and is the perfect illustration for our text about the event, we don't use it period.
- You'd be surprised as how ofter we delete images just like those. --Damiens.rf 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Check it out. Now your talk page is the forum for discussion. It defies comprehension that the only image taken of the Stonewall riots is deemed unnecessary by you. Who are you? What expertise do you have in this area? What gives you the authority to designate these images as unnecessary? --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm not surprised and whyever I come off as someone needing to be schooled I don't know. Address your fans at AN. They have a hard time understanding stuff too. School them. School them all. I will wait for you here. --Moni3 (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
.
|
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
| Keep up the good work with regards to NFCC ΔT The only constant 15:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC) |
Re the current WP:AN discussion - perhaps you could comment on whether you would be willing to agree to the proposed speed limit in principle (you can suggest some numbers for the limits). That ought to allow this issue to be brought under control. Otherwise, I foresee further escalation to Arbcom and/or bans; and certainly much aggravation, and distraction both from NFCC cleanup and from other useful work. Thanks. Rd232 talk 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I dot agree with your proposal. I see no valid reason for imposing a speed limit on FfD my nominations. I do not share your view that an arbcom case would agree with such an idea.--Damiens.rf 18:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Post "Find A Grave" photos here so he can get them deleted
Post" Find A Grave" photos here so he can get them deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlrtrolle (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BoWeinberg.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IrvingShapiro.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JacobOrgen.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LouisCohen.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MeyerShapiro.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MoeSedway.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Telvi.jpg
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WaxeyGordon.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlrtrolle (talk • contribs) 20:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
RAF Eastcote 1945.png
Thank you for letting me know. I've commented on the files for deletion page. Harrison49 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'll take a look. --Damiens.rf 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've given more information on the source for you to review. Harrison49 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Earl Riley, Mayor of Portland, Oregon (1941-49).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Orygun (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
.jpg&action=delete&wpReason=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AFiles+for+deletion%2F2011+May+29%23File%3AEarl+Riley%2C+Mayor+of+Portland%2C+Oregon+%281941-49%29.jpg%5D%5D){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-free photo from Getty Images showing a man, being used just to identify the man in his bio. Damiens.rf 16:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- A clear and appropriate Fair Use rationale for using this photograph in a biographical article specifically about Earl Riley is provided on the image page. Its use is covered by the U.S. Fair Use laws and the Wikipedia non-free content policies, because: 1) it is a photograph of a prominent individual who was mayor of Portland, Oregon; 2) the photo is necessary to identify the subject of a biographical article specifically about Earl Riley and is used in no other article; 3) its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the educational value of the article because the photograph visually identifies the individual featured in the article; 4) the photograph has been cropped approximately 80% from the original version so the copy only shows a small portion of the original photograph; 5) the image resolution has been reduced so copies will be of less quality; and 6) no other photograph is available and new photographs cannot be made since the individual shown in the photograph died in 1965. Bottomline--use of this photograph is an appropriate under Fair Use rules and should not be deleted!--Orygun (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- From what I understand about Fair use, nothing of that would justify we not paying for our current use of this piece of work by 'Getty Images.
- And if you allow me a personal opinion, you should learn more about that. You seem fail to notice the differences among fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content police, as some of your numbered arguments above (like 1, 2, 3, and 6), although textually equal to some valid NFCC valid arguments, are in this case more arguments against the fair use case than a support for it. --Damiens.rf 00:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Am not aware of a Wikipedia policy that contradicts the Fair Use law that allow the use cropped/low resolution copies of photos of dead people for educational purposes. The copyright statute specifically says that reproduction of images for purposes such as news, criticism, comment, and education are not an infringement of copyright. It goes on to lays out several factor to be considered such as the purpose and character of the use (in this case, Wikipedia provides public education) and the effect of the use upon the potential market (this should be nil for a low resolution photo that is cropped by 80%). In this case, an image of a dead person is being used for an educational purpose; and it’s unreasonable to believe that a low resolution photo that is cropped by 80% reduces the market value of the original photograph. Unless Wikipedia is caving in to pressure from Getty and Corbis to stop posting legitimate Fair Use images, this image should be kept on-line. If there is a formal policy that prevents the use of Fair Use images I'd like to see it. Is there such a policy statement? If so, hopefully it will be clear/concise and authoritative, so we can all fall in line.--Orygun (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Refactoring
I just want to make sure that you are aware that some comments on current discussions involving you, are being removed and/or refactored by another user: BQZip01. I am not sure why. His page is blocked and I cannot ask him directly. 68.68.99.143 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed that, thanks. --Damiens.rf 23:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Your signature is really big
Can you make it a bit smaller? It's kind of distracting when I see multiple blue blocks sticking out of some paragraphs. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. A nerd friend is making it so that I'm the only one to see it big (don't ask!). Thanks for the polite request. Nowadays, we have barnstars for people that don't call us names. --damiens.rf 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ta. Nice touch with using "I_STALK_DAMIENS" as the rule name :) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
File:RAF MAAF June 1944.jpg
Hi, This image which you've nominated for deletion is actually now in the public domain (as it's part of a book published by the British government in 1954). I've updated the image's licensing tag to reflect this - could you please withdraw the nomination? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the work! It's done. --damiens.rf 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Image files
I notice you are FFDing a bunch of images. Don't do the ones on my user page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll be extra cautious. --damiens.rf 20:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of the 7 files on my bio page, you nominated two and tagged two (File:Personal profit graph.png, File:FT cumulative profit graph.jpg) others as if you they were nominated (File:Cumulative 20andup Allin BB Won over Hands Played for ElT007 no watermark.jpg, File:201005 BB Won over Hands Played for ElT007 (Allin showdowns) no watermark.jpg). Can you clarify your intentions. Note that I have removed watermarks from 3 of these 4.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't understood that by your "user page" you meant the ones at your "bio page". By the way, don't you think it's a good opportunity to delete that bio altogether? --damiens.rf 14:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- The bio page is what I was told to create (via userfication) in the previously discussed AFD. Did you clarify what is going on with these four images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to keep the bio, you can keep a small number of such images. Four sounds good. --damiens.rf 15:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can you untag these. P.S. I don't think bios and user pages go by image limits, but more by what fits and looks good. Lots of people have galleries that seem O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to keep the bio, you can keep a small number of such images. Four sounds good. --damiens.rf 15:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- The bio page is what I was told to create (via userfication) in the previously discussed AFD. Did you clarify what is going on with these four images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't understood that by your "user page" you meant the ones at your "bio page". By the way, don't you think it's a good opportunity to delete that bio altogether? --damiens.rf 14:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of the 7 files on my bio page, you nominated two and tagged two (File:Personal profit graph.png, File:FT cumulative profit graph.jpg) others as if you they were nominated (File:Cumulative 20andup Allin BB Won over Hands Played for ElT007 no watermark.jpg, File:201005 BB Won over Hands Played for ElT007 (Allin showdowns) no watermark.jpg). Can you clarify your intentions. Note that I have removed watermarks from 3 of these 4.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
_no_watermark.jpg){kind=link}
In the future, please consider combining all of the nominations (there were over 50) in a set into one thread, as you did with the accompanying AfD nomination. While TW dosen't do this, the effort would still be appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- Given File:Cumulative 20andup Allin BB Won over Hands Played for ElT007 no watermark.jpg & File:201005 BB Won over Hands Played for ElT007 (Allin showdowns) no watermark.jpg were never nominated, they are now untagged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and Damiens, thank you for nominating all that. I know people like us rarely get thanked for putting files up for deletion, but you found a massive mound of junk and did the right thing to it, so thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Image deletion discussion
Some more information has come to light at that image deletion discussion about an Ernest Withers image. Dropping off a note in case you missed that. Do you think that has made things any clearer? Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Understatement
Hi, I know it would be a controversial close to do in any case, but what is the rationale for ignoring the fact that all keep voters ignored the WP:NFCC#2 concern involved in using the unique journalistic photo of a given event to illustrate the event itself, when the photo is not otherwise notable? Thanks, --damiens.rf 15:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- File:Stonewall riots.jpg - would have been a controversial close is a masterful understatement. The inimitable Damiens.rf fights against eight with a signpost article on the opposition side, loses the decision and still fights on. Any other close would have gone straight to DRV and been overturned. I would be, perhaps rightly, accused of using my close as a supervote. Peripitus (Talk) 21:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- And what is the rationale for ignoring the fact that all keep voters (and the signpost article) ignored the WP:NFCC#2 concern? --damiens.rf 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Difficult question? --damiens.rf 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Life is more important and often more interesting than Wikipedia, and it took precedence. I judged that there was consensus in the debate that the image passed item 8 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images while not failing item 7 of Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 and there were enough who responded after your repeated NFCC#2 interjections that wrote in a way that showed they'd thought about it. Peripitus (Talk) 08:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
user talk:dreadstar
You are reminded that users may blank their own talkpage, as blanked warnings still exist in the page history. Do not edit war to restore comments as that behavior is not exempt from 3RR and may be considered harassment. Syrthiss (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. I'm taking your advice. But keep consider keeping an eye in dreadstar's behavior towards me, that is itself something not very far away from harassment, so say the least. --damiens.rf 13:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Mass deletion nominations
I noticed at FfD today that you're using Twinkle to nominate quite a few images by the smae uploader. I'm aware that this has got you into hot water in the past, so it might n ot be a bad idea to try to refrain from nominating more than two a day by the same uploader. Remember that it takes an editor (thankfully not me, because I don't upload many non-free images) a lot longer to write a defence of "their" image than it takes you to nominate it. Just something to bear in mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but past discussions had shown these complaints are not defensible. If you (anyone) believe you have a case for the image not be deleted, you have 7 days to post this on the image's deletion discussion page. Hardly a relevant post in a deletion discussion will have more than a few lines. There's plenty of time to defend any image you want. Not including the fact that the uploader is not the only one in the position of defending the image.
- We have a huge backlog of unusable non-free images as we can't slow down the clean up even more. We're already loosing this race. --Damiens.rf 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think the uploaders whose iamges you're nominating en-masse might disagree with you on that. Regardless, I think you're going at this with the wrong mentality. It's not a "battle" and nobody 'wins' by removing an image from Wikipedia, whether its use is justified according to the NFCC or not. I think you;re giving too much weight to the letter of the policy and not enough to the spirit, ie why we have the policy in the first place. The reason it's so restrictive is to encourage the use of free content, not to meet some technicality in a document most editors won't read until well into their editing careers. That aim isn't furthered by deleting images (like most of those you've nominated today) that have no realistic prospect of ever being replaced. Whether the loss of those images ia detriment to the project is a matter of opinion, but, at best, there is no net gain in removing them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You misunderstood my use of win above and you're mistaken in believing the main purpose of the policy to be encouraging the use of free content images. --Damiens.rf 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- "There's plenty of time to defend any image you want. Not including the fact that the uploader is not the only one in the position of defending the image" -- How can anyone other than the uploader "defend the image" when you don't bother to give warning in the associated articles' talk pages that you have FFDed them, or don't bother to add an {ifdc} notation in the image's caption, as is suggested here? If you were indeed acting in good faith, you wouldn't be doing this type of "stealth FFDing" would you? Shirtwaist chat 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, you do not believe I'm acting in good faith? --damiens.rf 13:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Judging by your block record, your 3 month BLP ban, and the number of complaints about you from other editors over time...no. You have a lot of work to do to restore your AGF status in WP, IMO. Shirtwaist chat 06:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you're understand you're in violation of a policy now. --damiens.rf 14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that offering constructive advice to an editor with a problematic record violates policy. Is USER:HJ Mitchell also "violating policy"? Shirtwaist chat 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not assuming good faith violates a policy. Contrary to my hope, you don't understand that simple fact. --damiens.rf 15:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy. And in it you will find this: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence". Shirtwaist chat 11:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- And you make your own evidences, I guess. If if honestly believe there's actual evidence I'm acting in bad faith, for god's sake get an Admin to ban me from this website. But if you're just interested in throwing futile accusations like a childish little boy, please find some other target as my patience for puerile behavior is gone by now. See you, --damiens.rf 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:AGF is a guideline, not a policy. And in it you will find this: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence". Shirtwaist chat 11:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not assuming good faith violates a policy. Contrary to my hope, you don't understand that simple fact. --damiens.rf 15:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware that offering constructive advice to an editor with a problematic record violates policy. Is USER:HJ Mitchell also "violating policy"? Shirtwaist chat 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you're understand you're in violation of a policy now. --damiens.rf 14:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Judging by your block record, your 3 month BLP ban, and the number of complaints about you from other editors over time...no. You have a lot of work to do to restore your AGF status in WP, IMO. Shirtwaist chat 06:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, you do not believe I'm acting in good faith? --damiens.rf 13:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think the uploaders whose iamges you're nominating en-masse might disagree with you on that. Regardless, I think you're going at this with the wrong mentality. It's not a "battle" and nobody 'wins' by removing an image from Wikipedia, whether its use is justified according to the NFCC or not. I think you;re giving too much weight to the letter of the policy and not enough to the spirit, ie why we have the policy in the first place. The reason it's so restrictive is to encourage the use of free content, not to meet some technicality in a document most editors won't read until well into their editing careers. That aim isn't furthered by deleting images (like most of those you've nominated today) that have no realistic prospect of ever being replaced. Whether the loss of those images ia detriment to the project is a matter of opinion, but, at best, there is no net gain in removing them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sig CSS
Thanks for making your sig much less obtrusive. I've added a class to my own so I can spot my sig more easily. Thanks for the pointer!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --damiens.rf 15:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Find A Grave is not a reliable source for photos since anyone can add them with no verification
Find A Grave is not a reliable source for photos since anyone can add them with no verification. Anyone can add photos and claim they are "free use", "copyright expired", "It's a mugshot", etc even though there is no way to verify this at all and may not have any source. Also, it is open for vandals and practical jokers to post the incorrect photo and upload a picture of someone else. Errors could be common as well. You should bring it to the attention of Wikipedia not to use Find A Grave as a reliable source. You should also keep posting them for files for deletion. Other editors should post find a grave photos on you page so you can do your thing with them to get them deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlrtrolle (talk • contribs)
Mr. Bot, please archive this. --damiens.rf 20:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Query
I don't know what you mean by embarrassing and aren't you suppose to be uninvolved in biographies of living people. I would consider merging User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio_Vernon and User:TonyTheTiger if you like, but it would get a bit long.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you still don't think that's embarrassing, just forget about it. My ban forbids me to "may make no edits that add, change or remove any information about a living person on any page.". That's why I asked for you to delete it. --damiens.rf 16:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Re:Congrats
Thank you. Thirty-something years ago I was much younger and had a steady hand, but drawing wasn't my thing, I got involved in business instead. In my opinion Hitler was a pretty good artist and look how he ended up. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Good call on removal of posters from Lolita
While you strike me as often over-zealous in removing images, since the article on the novel Lolita has no critical commentary on the two film versions, it was perfectly appropriate to remove them from the article about the novel.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Since you're here, please take a closer look at the FfD on Kubrick's statuette. Your comment there seems to miss some important facts. --damiens.rf 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Just noticed you've been there already. --damiens.rf 22:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Revert
Explain yourself CTJF83 19:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Template deletion
Hi, I appreciate being informed if you nom any templates I have been working on, such as {{Verbose}}. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC).
Re:Tag team revert-and-protect
You seem to have misunderstood my intentions, of which I do not blame you. There was not nor there is any "tag team" attempt here. What happened was that he (my son) messed up in his "protection" attempt and what I tried to do is fix it right, that is all. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the background of this, but if an administrator used his tools to protect a page in a content dispute in which he/she is involved, then it is prohibited under WP:PROTECT and should be reported to the administrators noticeboard. I went to the page and I see no vandalism mandating full protection for three months.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Question
Friendly question. Damian, in your edit summary on the "List of Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War" [1] you wrote the following: "please stop promoting stuff about yourself. that article is not directly related to this". You really lost me here. What do you mean "Promoting stuff about yourself?" Who is promoting what? The 65th Infantry Regiment is related to the list since, it was that unit who suffered the majority of the Puerto Rican MIA's in the Korean War. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems it was a mistake. For some reason, I believed you were somehow connected to that infantry, and was duplicating its link just in an effort to pull eyes to things peripherally related to you. I'm sorry for that. In any case, that link should be not in the See Also section since it's already in the article's prose (actually, in more than one place. Will fix it). --damiens.rf 13:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I understand and it is a justifiable mistake. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review for File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg
An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 14:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Your reversion is out of line. Contrary to your claim ("This file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status") the file is PD and the Puerto Rico Secretary of State concurs (OTRS verification included). You are out of line to revert the change without an edit summary or discussion; this is edit warring. Buffs (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Licensing tags are obligatory ;If I remember correctly that ticket is broken and the (obligatory) licensing tag associated with it was deleted. --damiens.rf 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is not edit warring. This is correction of clueless mistakes. By the way, why the new username? --damiens.rf 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have no way to tell if the ticket is broken or not. If the ticket is invalid, then I would support deletion, but to claim it doesn't "have information on its copyright and licensing status" is clearly faulty as evidence is clearly presented below. Wikipedia:IMAGE#Uploading_images does not require image copyright tags, it only states that the should be used. A lack of a tag certainly isn't reason for deletion (especially when you can fix it). Additionally, you need to state your reasons for reversion in the edit summary (you know this). Buffs (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I added a copyright template to the image. It doesn't change the information though. Buffs (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have no way to tell if the ticket is broken or not. If the ticket is invalid, then I would support deletion, but to claim it doesn't "have information on its copyright and licensing status" is clearly faulty as evidence is clearly presented below. Wikipedia:IMAGE#Uploading_images does not require image copyright tags, it only states that the should be used. A lack of a tag certainly isn't reason for deletion (especially when you can fix it). Additionally, you need to state your reasons for reversion in the edit summary (you know this). Buffs (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Three things in response to your edit summary "verifying the copyright status is not the only thing a source is for. stop removing these. get yourself an RFA":
- What RFA are you talking about? Request for Adminship? Recently featured articles? requests for arbitration? I don't see how any of these apply.
- I'll bite. For what other purpose is a source required? I don't see one in this case. Certainly, the use of the images in the article must be substantiated, but they are clearly PD logos ineligible for copyright as they are simply text. You don't need a source to validate that.
- WP:IUP indeed states "Always specify on the description page where the image came from...and information on how this could be verified." (emphasis in original). It does not specify the depth of detail required and only cites examples.
Lastly, as the person who added the {{di-no source}} template, you need to be specific about what you want. No one can correct a vague request. If the template doesn't express the information you want, don't use it. Buffs (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:RFA. Pass that before playing admin. But actually, passing an RFA is no guarantee of competence in dealing with image policies, so I retract that.
- To verify the image is actually what it claims to be.
- It must be at least enough detail to allow we verify its origin.
- I used the template as it's intended to be use, and how it's always used. This talk page is not the place to voice your (valid) criticism about the tag. --damiens.rf 16:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- What the heck does whether I'm an admin or not have to do with anything?
- That it's a logo? Really? What else do you need
- The source is readily verifiable. Go to the source and do a search for "Simple Market". Th image is right there. There's no need to overcomplicate the process.
- Lastly, you need to use templates, not as they are designed, but as you intend them to be used. You can just as easily write a nice message as use a template like this. Don't blame the template for your poor choice of phrasing. You could also add a note afterward clarifying any abiguities. There's lots of options and you are choosing none of them. Buffs (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Ban notice
You put it on my page and I thought it was a joke. I did not know it was an official thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
A beer for me!
|
Testing this heart icon. We're do I type the delivery address for the beer? damiens.rf 01:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Fucking lame.--damiens.rf 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Overwritten FfD's
For some bizarre reason, the entries on the discussion page for these 2 files was overwrited by your next nomination. I've removed the tag, feel free to renominate.
— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 13:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
An Alberta for you!
|
Wow! |
| Why not! —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
- Thanks, but what's an Alberta? --damiens.rf 16:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- A province of Canada. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do they speak French or English there? --damiens.rf 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great. I speak English or Dutch and German or French. And I can read Spanish or Afrikaans. --damiens.rf 17:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Do they speak French or English there? --damiens.rf 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- A province of Canada. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Sharpeville massacre image
I've done a bit more digging to try to find out more about the origin of this image. Unfortunately, at first sight it doesn't look very good for our use of it here. Details on the file talk page. Jheald (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- What image? --damiens.rf 22:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- File talk:Sharpville-massacre.jpg. You had CSD'd it F4, but were reverted Jheald (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely the copyright is owned by Keystone (or the original stringer who took it), and the agencies are authorised to sell it on the copyright-owner's behalf. I would have thought that was the implication of those listings? But it's not an area I know, so maybe this isn't how they work? Jheald (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest we take it to WP:MCQ. --damiens.rf 11:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch, that it's PD in ZA. But unfortunately not PD in the U.S., so we probably still have to treat it as NFC... Jheald (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Some dude at WP:MCQ suggested that. --damiens.rf 00:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch, that it's PD in ZA. But unfortunately not PD in the U.S., so we probably still have to treat it as NFC... Jheald (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suggest we take it to WP:MCQ. --damiens.rf 11:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Most likely the copyright is owned by Keystone (or the original stringer who took it), and the agencies are authorised to sell it on the copyright-owner's behalf. I would have thought that was the implication of those listings? But it's not an area I know, so maybe this isn't how they work? Jheald (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- File talk:Sharpville-massacre.jpg. You had CSD'd it F4, but were reverted Jheald (talk) 08:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Request for feedback
As one of the more thoughtful reviewers of NFCC and image usage, I was wondering if you would take a look at both my uploading and linking [2] to the article in question. I am asking as this is my first time at uploading a file and am very nervous at having potentially violated a policy. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize for spamming your page with so many revisions. Hasteur (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- You took the picture yourself, right? So everything is alright. Very good for a first upload. Keep on the good work. --damiens.rf 00:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
July 2011
This is the last warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
Your continued joking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 30 is disruptive and considered vandalism. You may be blocked from editing Wikipedia the next time you do so. Stop the snide remarks and taunting; last warning Buffs (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, I may not. --damiens.rf 17:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- Banned user's posting removed. Please help keep these harassment socks out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Best remedy is Just to ignore them. --damiens.rf 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Kinda hard to do that when they stalk you for 3+ years... Buffs (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Would it still be funny if you where ignoring all along? --damiens.rf 14:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Kinda hard to do that when they stalk you for 3+ years... Buffs (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Best remedy is Just to ignore them. --damiens.rf 00:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Banned user's posting removed. Please help keep these harassment socks out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe these comments were added by a banned user who has been stalking me for 3 years. I've tried to remove these snide remarks as banned users are not allowed to circumvent blocks, but damiens insists on keeping it. As such, he is taking responsibility for these comments. Buffs (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Dude, we butt heads...
...but I'd also like to compliment you on your edits to this image. Nice work (credit should be noted where credit is due, even if we disagree on other topics; WP:AGF). Buffs (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but that was nothing special. I've being doing that a lot since I learned about pd-textlogos. There are other works that I'm most proud of. --damiens.rf 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
For your attention
File:Tevez_dance.jpg doesn't look public domain to me. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Second opinion on some recent calls by Fastily
Hi. I wondered if I could seek a quiet second opinion from you -- as a Wikipedian with sometimes different perspectives from my own, just to calibrate whether my instincts are reasonable -- on some recent image closings by Fastily. (See FFD for 29 June and this discussion on his talk page).
Unlike most FFDs, these were all for apparently free images, though mostly not well labelled.
- The two images he did keep and send to Commons, he didn't add any of the identifying information to that had been uncovered, nor did he make the file names any more meaningful, so effectively he just re-created the same problem that we'd just had to deal with at en-wiki all over again.
- Several images he just deleted, even though places where they could be usefully filed on Commons had been identified. (He says that in the case of [:File:200 from 84.jpg] this was because it had no source information; of course, I can't see the file page any more to check this).
- In no case did he give a word to explain what he had done, or why, even for ffd's that had attracted a couple of comments. On his talk page, after a while he simply stops responding, no matter what points may still be hanging.
- For at least a couple of images on that day, eg File:EXAMPLE.jpg, File:Building.jpg and File:Testing.jpg it was specifically requested that the file name be salted. As far as I can tell, this has not been done. (The last file was another example where someone had requested it be transferred to Commons).
- He seems to close entirely according to his own whim, rather than standing back and assessing the points made by others in accordance with policy. He evidently sees nothing wrong with this, but if he has views or points of his own he should be adding them to the discussion, rather than closing on the basis of them.
To me, this seems to fall short of the carefulness and consideration one would expect from a closing admin. But I may be too close to this, having put in time to track down what some of these images actually were, only to see them summarily binned without apparent rationale or explanation. Which is why I thought I should come here, to try to get a quiet reality check first, before thinking whether (and how) it might be worth taking anything further. Hope that's okay. Cheers, Jheald (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- More than once Fastly accused me of careless image deletion nomination, but his works on closing nominations (and in salting, or moving to commons) is poor to say the least. For discussion of free images with just one comment, a relist to achieve more discussion is obviously the preferred solution. There's really no rush in these case.
- This is my opinion, but I don't know how I can help. He is the "respectful long time admins" and I'm the juvenile vandal with a huge block log. His opinions prevail over mine, and even my brief support to your views here can ruin your case.
- I would watch carefully and movement where the community would as more attention to this admin's work regarding images. --damiens.rf 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Sharing
Damiens, I want to share the following with you because a lot of people who do not reside in the US are not aware of the Puerto Rican political situation in that country. As you know in most of the people who are born in other countries, such as France. are proud of being French regardless of where thier ancestors came from. For some unknown reason in the US people are divided by ethncity, that is why you have the Irish-American thing instead them just considering themselves as plain Americans.
Rascism has a lot to do with it. The situation that Puerto Ricans face in the US is the same. Regardless of the fact that we are born in the US and that we are rightfully American citizens, we are subject to rascism just because our parents come from Puerto Rico and instead of being identified as Americans, we are labeled as "Puerto Ricans". What has resulted is that the people of Puerto Rican descent have embraced their heritage and even if they are born in the US they proudly (ex. Jennifer Lopez, Steven McCreey) indentify their nationality as Puerto Rican and the people of Pueto Rico proudly accept them (ex. Wilfred Benitez) as such.
My friend, the United States has a lot of faults, it is not the perfect place that it pretends to be, and by dividing it's people by clasifing them instead of uniting them I believe is one of them. I just wanted to share the thoughts from the perspective of a person who was born in the US and regardless of the fact that he is an American citizen he proudly states that he is a "Puerto Rican". Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- That are all relevant points. To what directly affects our edits on Wikipedia, I raise one philosophical and one technical question: (1) Should Wikipedia reflect and perpetrate the aforementioned racism? And (2) Do we have a policy or guideline regarding people who openly and proudly identify their nationality as something different of what we would "expect"?. --damiens.rf 15:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about Wikipedia, but I will tell you this, You and I have interacted quite a lot and I have come to admire your work here because I have learned from you and I know that you have learned something’s about Puerto Rico from me. Since you have become somewhat interested in Puerto Rico related subjects, I felt that as a friend (I hope you don't mind my using that term) I should share the Puerto Rican situation with you.
The situation of Puerto Rico is quite unique. It is the oldest colony in the Western hemisphere, despite the fact that it has every right to be a free nation. The United States, regardless of what people may believe, has often violated the things that it is supposed to support. Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States and was promised its freedom. Yet, the US criticizes any country that invades another. The US destroyed Puerto Rico's agricultural industry and converted the islands economy into a monoculture sugar economy. It devaluated the islands currency thereby causing most of its land owners to loss their properties and to sell out to the large American company's. The US has tried to destroy the Puerto Rican identity by implementing in Puerto Rican schools history texts written in accordance to the US POV and so on. In 1917, they imposed US citizenship on Puerto Ricans, a second class citizenship which did not allow Puerto Ricans to vote in national elections, but which would require for Puerto Ricans to shed their blood in wars for the US.
When Puerto Ricans, who had no fault in their political situation and whose independence leaders have been punished and decimated by the US and US backed Puerto Rican government, move to the US, they have to face and put up with the discriminatory practices of the people in the mainland. That is why you have those who are born in the mainland identify with their Puerto Rican nationality and the Puerto Ricans in the island embrace them as their own. It is unique, but that is the way it is. I think that it may explain why Puerto Ricans both those born in the US and in PR are very sensitive when it comes to their nationality.
See Damians, I just wanted to share this with you. The contributions which Puerto Ricans have made have been omitted from the history books and therefore they feel that they are as worthless as the media always makes them out to be. That is the reason that I written so much about Puerto Rican related articles, because I want Puerto Ricans and the world to know the truth and that they, if they choose, have the right, the ability and the grey matter to be free from the US and could be an independent nation. You are a person of great intellect and I wanted to share what I conceive to be the Puerto Rican experience with you. Sorry for taking up so much space. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking up so much space, effort and time to educated me about this fascinating state of affairs. --damiens.rf 01:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, I did take up too much space, go ahead and delete it and regain the space lost, what does it matter, right? Tony the Marine (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I meant to say the space was well taken. I really appreciated reading that. --damiens.rf 14:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it is weird. It may be a different edition and 1922 may have been omitted or removed. As you may have noticed, there are four different images with different dates (page 58 and 59) as I told you before. Since the date does not appear on google books, then let's revert the information as you had it, before I made the edit. I would be fine either way. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Big blu sig
Have you been approached before with requests to turn down the volume on your signature, or am I the first one? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been approached before and I though I had it fixed. What does my sig looks like to you? --damiens.rf 19:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Aye aye aye...it looks like the past. (Wow, discussions at Wikipedia:Non-free content review don't exactly move fast do they?) I am terribly embarrassed, please pretend this never happened. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| Thanks for cleaning up the Rebecca Watson elevator incident section! It was very much needed. InverseHypercube 23:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC) |
Personal comments are not acceptable on WP and you know it
discussion awaiting your input. Buffs (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- My take on it is that this edit was uncivil; you should try to comment on the edit, not the editor. I don't think it is blockworthy, by a long way, but you two should avoid each other for the next while. I will be happy to mediate or give further advice if that is helpful. --John (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of List of Puerto Ricans/Editnotice
A tag has been placed on List of Puerto Ricans/Editnotice, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. andy (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Your beef with the marine
Why don't you drop it? Its boring and nothing positive comes out of it. You a good editor, but having such a vendetta is not pretty. Bury the hatchet and move along... --Cerejota (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- You have a wrong interpretation of the events. It's hard to work on Puerto Rico related articles without stepping on his toes, but I would say we're getting along smoothly lately. --damiens.rf 14:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, he is a well respected founding member of WikiProject Puerto Rico, so it is understandable for you to run into him. If you want things to go "smoother" engage the community, like joining the project or at the very least seek our opinions. I will say that more often than not, he reflects the consensus of the project, and has our support. This doesn't mean that WP:CCC, but it can hardly be considered changed solely on your views.--Cerejota (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have a hard time understanding your messages. I did not say I wanted "things to go "smoother"", I said things ARE going smoothly. More than often, he reflects the consensus of the project, but more than often, he fails to follow site wide consensus (called polices). When he does that he's usually acting in good faith, and he wouldn't deny you that even his work is not perfect. I don't get why you doing such a drama out of this. As I said, we're getting along. --damiens.rf 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Just try not to got forum shopping in the future... nothing is lost by asking directly. --Cerejota (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any forum shopping. What I saw was Damiens raising a valid issue, and two editors rushing in to attack him. It's getting old, as are Marine's serial errors in judgment. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Just try not to got forum shopping in the future... nothing is lost by asking directly. --Cerejota (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have a hard time understanding your messages. I did not say I wanted "things to go "smoother"", I said things ARE going smoothly. More than often, he reflects the consensus of the project, but more than often, he fails to follow site wide consensus (called polices). When he does that he's usually acting in good faith, and he wouldn't deny you that even his work is not perfect. I don't get why you doing such a drama out of this. As I said, we're getting along. --damiens.rf 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, he is a well respected founding member of WikiProject Puerto Rico, so it is understandable for you to run into him. If you want things to go "smoother" engage the community, like joining the project or at the very least seek our opinions. I will say that more often than not, he reflects the consensus of the project, and has our support. This doesn't mean that WP:CCC, but it can hardly be considered changed solely on your views.--Cerejota (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
If it was not clear.--Cerejota (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
List of ...
I like your suggestion on modeling the "List of PR scientists" on the "List of Russian Scientists. I think that I can work with that this weekend once the deletion nom. is closed. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- That would work great. --damiens.rf 20:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing at User:Cerejota/List_of_Puerto_Rican_scientists_and_inventors-newversion, feel free do work there. I began with the bottom of the "scientists" part, eliminated those names without bios at this point (we can later add as red links if needed, and making choices about what images to leave or take out based on relative notability. Please leave the prose parts so I can copy that as a basis for a future article. --Cerejota (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you please tell me why you keep eliminating a fact from the Steve Reeves entry? I conducted an interview with Reeves that is in the current issue of Films of the Golden Age magazine. I posted this information, and you've consistently removed it. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
reverted change in ER
I reverted your question in the edit review, because quite frankly this is not how edit reviews are done. If you wish to participate, please look down the list of open reviews and get a feel of how the process works. If you have a question for me, feel free to ask anything in my talk page, and if you want to add a review, feel free to do so - although given our history I am not completely sure I might not be skeptical of what you have to say. --Cerejota (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just noticed the review and believed it was ok to post questions. I confess I'm not familiar with the process at all. I'll take some time to learn about it. With some embarrassment, I apologize for the unintended disruption. --damiens.rf 18:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Jessica Valenti lunch with Bill Clinton.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Jessica Valenti lunch with Bill Clinton.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for not objecting re: the image. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. My general view is still that, as long as the article directly mentions the photo (i.e., the photo is subject of commentary), the image should be used. But of course I have doubts of either or not the article should cover what seems like a blogospher-only skirmish.--damiens.rf 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Puerto Rican-American versus of Puerto Rican descent
Hello Damiens. I see you corrected my wording in the page Rico Ramos from Puerto Rican-American to "of Puerto Rican descent' which I really have no beef about. But I wanted to ask you, since generally all pages I see here are written in this manner: "Mexican-American" or "Cuban-American" for example, then what is really the difference between "Puerto Rican-American" and "American of Puerto Rican descent?"...I mean, based on what at least we Independentistas believe that Puerto Rican is a nationality, then there really is no difference between the two wordings, when you also consider the way other groups are worded...
Just asking....Antonio Siganme los Locos Martin (talk) 03:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if there's a way this is usually done around here, so my bad. I'm all for consistency. --damiens.rf 02:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry too much about it, like I said I have no beef about that...it's just something to think about...Antonio The Master of Disguise Martin (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Kellie Lightbourn Changes
Hi Damiens,
I noticed you made changes to Kellie Lightbourn's information. I'm not sure why? It is my understanding all of the information posted has verification available. I assume I did not correctly verifying the additional information. You seem to be very proficient at this. Any suggestions? I took her photo and was asked to load it again. I made a few minor changes that resulted in your corrections. Opps... Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick833 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- First, did you really took that photo yourself? Do you own the photo's copyright?
- About the references, we need links, books or otherwise reliable published material that supports the claims that Ms. Lightbourn is (1) " the host of ABC Action News’ Consumer Update", (2) Worked as a legal correspondent, anchor, and reporter for WFTS-TV, (3) has been featured on E! Entertainment, Designing Spaces, Maury and Extra. By the way, what's Designing Spaces?
- Note that links to web foruns, blogs and the like are not helpful. The most easily providable kind of reliable references are links to news pieces available online - that is, news stories talking about her.
- Let me know if I can still be of any help. --damiens.rf 20:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Need help
If you have the time... how would I go about adding free and available at commons to this article MTV_Networks? I've been trying to get the correct logo on this page for weeks and am just too much of a newbie to figure it out. Dogtownclown (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Damiens.rf. A user has contested the deletion of File:Hey Dude.jpg on my talk page at User_talk:Fastily#File:Hey_Dude.jpg. As an editor who participated in this discussion, your input would be appreciated. -FASTILY (TALK) 21:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: Steve Jobs
You've been here long enough to know that this is not how we edit Wikipedia. This information is all common knowledge and attributed to fully sourced parent articles. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. What the fuck are you talking about? --damiens.rf 13:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, he's just calling out some of your usual nonsense.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which one? The link is not working. --damiens.rf 20:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the link. It shows your incorrect use of the {{citation needed}} template which I believe has been brought to your attention before. To refresh your memory, please pay close attention to the section named "When not to use this template" in the template documentation. Why you refuse to abide by best practice is the problem. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which one? The link is not working. --damiens.rf 20:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, he's just calling out some of your usual nonsense.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Quotations
If there's an unsource quote, like the one you removed from Robert S. Barton, it's OK to remove it. But it would be so much more constructive to take a quick look and see if there are reliable sources, e.g. in Google Books or Scholar, as there are many of for this one. Quotes are the easiest thing to look up. Just removing them without looking is harmful. You could also consider a cn tag if you don't want to bother looking. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Huh?
I really don't understand this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Care to respond? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Care to be more clear? I cared to elaborate a very explanatory deletion nomination. What are your specific questions? --damiens.rf 13:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for responding. I'm not sure that I agree that your nomination was "very explanatory." It seems to me that this is a historic image, one of the few that document this particular event in Venezuelan history. To call it "a trivial image of two men meeting" is very strange indeed. It would be like calling this a trivial image of three men meeting. Nope: it documents a historical event of some importance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ITSHISTORIC puts it better than I could ever do: "It is important to distinguish between an image that is, itself, historic and notable in its own right (such as the photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), and a non-notable image that illustrates an historic event". --damiens.rf 16:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep reading to the end of the sentence, eh? "in which case passage of criterion 8 is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're showing you're still not aware of your mistake. --damiens.rf 16:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- We will have to agree to differ about which of us is unaware of their mistake. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're showing you're still not aware of your mistake. --damiens.rf 16:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep reading to the end of the sentence, eh? "in which case passage of criterion 8 is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:ITSHISTORIC puts it better than I could ever do: "It is important to distinguish between an image that is, itself, historic and notable in its own right (such as the photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), and a non-notable image that illustrates an historic event". --damiens.rf 16:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for responding. I'm not sure that I agree that your nomination was "very explanatory." It seems to me that this is a historic image, one of the few that document this particular event in Venezuelan history. To call it "a trivial image of two men meeting" is very strange indeed. It would be like calling this a trivial image of three men meeting. Nope: it documents a historical event of some importance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Care to be more clear? I cared to elaborate a very explanatory deletion nomination. What are your specific questions? --damiens.rf 13:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
_(B%26W).jpg){kind=link}
Meanwhile, I've opened a deletion review on the other key image of the coup, which I see you proposed for deletion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Tribal Leadership, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Might you be able to shed some light ?
On [3] [4] knowing that the user in question is suspected to be former Arb Rlevse. See Wikipedia:AN#User:BarkingMoon sock tagging. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Reverting my contribution to Simon Peyton Jones
Hi, not sure why you reverted my contribution? I'll revert it again. If you think there is something wrong with it, please give an explanation. --217.81.164.219 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please help improve things, rather than reverting them. Regarding your revert comment "A Google Search Result page is not a valid reference" I'm not sure how to interpret that. The given reference is not a Google web search. Google provides a patent listing service, and I just used that (BTW: that is used on e.g. Erik Meijer (computer scientist), too). If you still think that this is not appropriate, then what should we use? Link to the individual patents at the USPTO, or use some other patent listing service (e.g. patents.com)? --217.81.180.165 (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Damiens.rf. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Tila
I know she starred in a new TV series, but you put it was a porno movie. Also, IMDB is not a reliable source. I've since removed your edits. ★Dasani★ 16:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a tv series. It's a porn movie from Vivid. It's on imdb, it's for sale on the Internet, she has been promoting on some male oriented tv programas, like Howard Stern and others. It's called Tila Tequila Uncorked. It's exists! I know it because I fapped to it. --damiens.rf 17:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 18:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
hi, i'm in need of your assistance over at the yoanni sanchez page if you're still around.--Huysmanii (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:CouchSurfing logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:CouchSurfing logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
A cookie for you!
|
Wow! Great start at List of friendly fire incidents. The article looks pretty thoroughly sourced. Keep it up! Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC) |
The content has actually been moved from Friendly fire. --damiens.rf 18:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Duh! Thanks for the clarification. You still deserve the cookie. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI
You are being discussed here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
You are under discussion
You are under discussion at HERE. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
List of People from Ponce, Puerto Rico
Damiens, Would you hold your edits to this article for a little while? I have been editing it and there is still a large number of things missing still before it is "official". I could not find the "Please Hold Off your Edits - Article Under Construction" banner that Wikipedia used to have. Perhaps you can even help me locate it. Thanks Mercy11 (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem. Maybe the tag you want is {{in use}} or {{under construction}}. --damiens.rf 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
SSAntonioLopez.jpg
You obviously did not read the description. If you read the description on the image page, it clearly states the photo was taken by the US Navy. As such the copywrite is in the public domain, it would be so regardless because it was taken in 1898 and therefore is public domain in the US even if it were not taken by a government agency.XavierGreen (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- We need more information than just "US Navy". The source must be verifiable. --damiens.rf 18:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- As i stated before, regardless of who made this image it is till pd since it was taken in 1898.XavierGreen (talk)
- Without verifiable source information, how can we know it was taken in 1898? --damiens.rf 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because the event depicted in the photograph happened in 1898.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Without verifiable source information, how can we know which event the image depicts? --damiens.rf 19:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is a picture of the Spanish transport Antonio Lopez burning out after it was destroyed during the spanish american war. Given that the spanish American war was in 1898, the photo dates from 1898.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Without verifiable source information, how can we know this is a picture of the Spanish transport Antonio Lopez burning out after it was destroyed during the spanish american war? --damiens.rf 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is a picture of the Spanish transport Antonio Lopez burning out after it was destroyed during the spanish american war. Given that the spanish American war was in 1898, the photo dates from 1898.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Without verifiable source information, how can we know which event the image depicts? --damiens.rf 19:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because the event depicted in the photograph happened in 1898.XavierGreen (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Without verifiable source information, how can we know it was taken in 1898? --damiens.rf 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- As i stated before, regardless of who made this image it is till pd since it was taken in 1898.XavierGreen (talk)
(←)You can know this is a picture of the Spanish transport Antonio Lopez burning out after it was destroyed during the spanish american war because it says so HERE. Now, if Mr. Damiens simply did his HOMEWORK, as directed by the WP:AFD policy, it would not be necessary for Mr. XavierGreen to become a victim of this web. You are welcome. Mercy11 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is the Antonio Lopez, you can go to San Juan Harbor and see the now sunken wreck yourself. [[5]], [[6]], ectXavierGreen (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noel Estrada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puerto Rican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Need help with BLP
Damiens, I need help with El Boricuazo. I don't specialize on polishing content nor on BLPs. I'm more of a content creator and tend to focus on organizations/institutions. I need this BLP to remain and to be as referenced and neutral as possible. This person is very important to WP:PUR. Could you please lend a hand? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll take a look. --damiens.rf 12:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Some Historical Background
Damiens, I'm writing this to you in a truly positive spirit, so please do not feel that I am criticizing you, because that is not my intent. I noticed that in the discussions for the deletions of photos regarding Albizu Campos and Lolita Lebron, you referred to Campos as "this guy" and Lebron as "this lady."
But it turns out that Albizu Campos is a highly regarded figure (controversial, but passionately regarded by many) in Puerto Rican history. To Puerto Ricans he is analogous to Eamon de Valera, Jose Marti, Simon Bolivar, Nelson Mandela, and other revolutionary liberators. Lolita Lebron (also controversial) has a passionate following amongst Independence and Nationalist parties and sympathizers in Puerto Rico. So I'm writing to provide you a heads-up -- when you refer to them as "this guy" and "this lady," it appears callous even though I don't think you intend it that way. How you proceed with this information is up to you, but I thought it might be helpful for you to know this.
Again, no offense intended. I'm only trying to provide you a little background. I hope it helps. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Damiens, I too found the "this guy" categorization as callous when you referred to Luis Muñoz Marín. I had already made a similar observation HERE and, with all respect to Damiens, I too provided him with a bit of information of how such wording ("this guy") is offensive to others. Insensitive at least. Ignorance of other cultures and/or other people's history at the very least. As for Albizu Campos, he is the Paul Revere of USA. Just some insight. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll be more careful. No offense was intended. I use "this guy/that lady" because, for what's relevant for the deletion discussion, is that we already have images of those people, regardless of how historically important they were (the people). And thanks for such a polite notice! --damiens.rf 11:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't mention it. Thank you for receiving it, in the same spirit that I wrote it. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, "the discussions for the deletions of photos regarding Albizu Campos and Lolita Lebron, you referred to Campos as 'this guy' and Lebron as 'this lady'" that Nelson is referring to above are THIS (Pedro Albizu in prison) and THIS (Lolita Lebron being arrested). However, what makes this doubly interesting is that it wasn't until, in a spirit of colaboration, Nelson mentioned above that "But it turns out that Albizu Campos is a highly regarded figure (controversial, but passionately regarded by many) in Puerto Rican history...he is analogous to Eamon de Valera, Jose Marti, Simon Bolivar, Nelson Mandela, and other revolutionary liberators", that Damiens then went back into the Pedro Albizu Campos and started turning over every other image there, at which point he stumbled upon the image of "Clemente Soto Velez, Juan Antonio Corretjer and Pedro Albizu Campos prior to their trial" and found it was being licensed under fair use. He went into trigger-happy mode and upped the ante and didn't just nominate the image for deletion but outright removed it from the article as "decorative" (no talk page discussion). After I reverted his removal with an invitation to the TP and/or WP:NFR, he entered into an edit war with me and reverted me going back to his preferred version of the article (the version w/o the PAC trial image). And this was all happening while he was also edit-warring with me at Noel Estrada. Then, fortunately for everyone, along comes Nelson and puts more text into the Pedro Albizu Campos at trial image's caption, returns the image to the article and civilly starts discussion in the PAC talk page. Unhappy with the direction of the discussion, and without allowing others to chime in, Damiens then quickly jumps the gun and aborts to discussion, premptying Nelson's goodwill and nominates the image for deletion. Damiens, in effect, within 24 hrsclosed a discussion that he himself was a part of while critizing others for doing the same thing after days of inactivity. Does this show Damines wants discussion? No. But it does show Damiens wanted to unilaterally terminate the discussion once he realized that there were more editors that differed with his opinion. This is called WP:OWN. With that said, I will AGF, Damiens, and assume that you are not targeting PR images. Mercy11 (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Steak Escape
Hello, In an effort to change content the correct way, could you give me a few pointers on my next steps. I did create a standard account, however this will be used by one person (myself). The Steak Escape page has not been updated in forever and since taking over in my position, I wanted to bring things up to date. Let me know and I will take the proper steps in doing so. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteakEscape (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should really read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. It may be the case that it's not a good idea that you edit that article at all. --damiens.rf 19:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting, I would think wiki would want current and correct information to be posted on their pages. Is the purpose of the wiki to have user driven content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteakEscape (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Should I send information to you to post or is this something that should be generated by random users? Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteakEscape (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- You can add information by yourself, and "random users" are just as entitled to do so.
- Some information, even if real and uptodate, may be unwelcome in Wikipedia. Item #5 of WP:NOTPROMOTION says "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.". Keep that in mind when editing the article about your company. --damiens.rf 14:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Will Do, thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.240.199 (talk) 1:01 pm, Today (UTC−2)
- You forgot to log in. You're exposing your mail.steakescape.com ip. --damiens.rf 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nice catch, thank you again!
- You forgot to log in. You're exposing your mail.steakescape.com ip. --damiens.rf 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- Will Do, thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.240.199 (talk) 1:01 pm, Today (UTC−2)
Check out Rosario Ferré
Mercy11 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Photo on Yara Arts Group page
HI Damiens We actually have the right from all of our photographers to use the photos they take of our shows on our wiki, website, and all printed and digital marketing material. Most of them are actually members of our company and several are even on our board. Please do not delete the material but rather let us know what to do step by step.
Virlana Tkacz
Yara Arts Group
yara@prodigy.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virlana (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Damiens
I saw that you had contributed to the discussion on this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNESCO_IJD_TMIJ.jpg
Thanks for your input! I am still new to this site, so I apologize in advance for my ignorance on the whole process. When I uploaded this image, I had originally thought that it would be appropriate because it showed which organizations partnered to create the celebrated date. I did not mean for it to be decorative and promotional as much as I meant it to be informative in a visual way.
Perhaps you think that I should try to remove this image and move it onto the International Jazz Day page? (Found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Jazz_Day) So it is more relevant to the article it appears in?
Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as this whole process is still relatively new to me and is a bit overwhelming at times.
Thanks
Barrett — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett Kinsella (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, what do you think of the permissions that I put up on this image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saxophone_Man_by_Billy_Dee_Williams.jpg
Is this the right way to display (C) info or am I still missing something? Barrett Kinsella (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Javy Lopez 3x4.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Javy Lopez 3x4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overlock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stitch and Seaming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
March 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christ the Redeemer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- ''[[Christ the Redeemer (icon)|Christ the Redeemer]]''' 9or '''Cristo Redentor''') is a Christian icon. It may also refer to:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Juan Bobo photo
Damiens, I noticed another photo deletion nomination for a Juan Bobo photo. You made a suggestion regarding the uploading of this photo [7]. In the interest of collaboration, would you consider uploading that photo and placing it into the article? That way we could all move forward...together. Please consider it and thank you. Sarason (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- That specific flickr picture is tagged as "all rights reserved". We can't upload it. What I actually suggested was to someone to take a picture of that statue and release it under a free license. It's also possible to try to contact the flickr user and ask him to release his image under a free license.
- But notice I'm assuming statues on Porto Rico are in public domain. I'm not completely sure this is truth. --damiens.rf 14:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sock complaint
Hello Damiens.rf. You made a comment about socks here at Mercy11's talk. Can you clarify who you think is a sock? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mercy11 has used a couple of socks some years ago. A lot of them were blocked. Unfortunately, it seems he engaged in copyright violations (claiming authorship of text copied from websites) not only with his main account, but also with some of the socks. I believe he will cooperate in the cleaning, though. I hope he will. There's a lot of work to do...--damiens.rf 20:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I regularly monitor articles tagged as possible hoaxes and noticed that despite your best efforts to improve the article Joaquín Santiago, you still suspect that it could be a hoax, or at best it is chock full of factual inaccuracies. Would you care to nominate it at AfD? Ordinarily I would do so as a procedural nomination, but judging from the edit history it appears you have done a lot of research on this subject, at least a lot more than I have. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've asked for help to another user that has contributed recently to the article. I'll wait to listen from him before doing anything more drastic. But your input was really welcome. I'll let you know if it ever gets nominated. Thanks! --damiens.rf 12:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Associated British Corporation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- When ABC first went on the air, they utilised the successful{{pov-inline|date=May 2014}}}} branding of their sister company ''ABC Cinemas''. This featured a triangular shield with the
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Military history of Puerto Rico may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Lists of artists by nationality
Hi Damiens.rf, I've reverted your page moves of List of American artists 1900 and after and List of Latin American artists to their original page names. In all list articles on Wikipedia about visual artists they are simply referred to as 'artists'. There's little point in moving just two of the dozens of artist lists and, to move them all, you'd need to get consensus first. Hope you understand! Sionk (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. Consistency is good. --damiens.rf 15:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Serendipity?
Find it peculiar that you nominate for deletion an article I created, just after engaging in a AFD discussion in which we disagree. Hope it was serendipity... Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't. I did found about that article when reading you user contributions page, after seeing you engaged in articles and discussions I was interested. But I'm sure you understand our previous disagreement had no influence on the decision to nominate this article for deletion. --damiens.rf 19:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: Notability of Fatimah Busu
Thank you for your interest in the article on Fatimah Busu. By re-reverting you are engaging in an edit war, and could be temporarily blocked from editing by continuing to do so.
An article's talk page is the appropriate place to air concerns about the article. This article meets the basic notability guidelines as well as additional ones for authors and academics — there are two major references, independently published by academic publishers. She is the most prominent author in the Malay language, and I shall add that cited information to the lead of the article for clarity. Please, in future, engage in conversation with other users instead of reverting their work. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Garzo:, I guess you were the one to revert the tag-addition (while failing to address the problems raised by the tag). Please, consider removing the tag only when you add to the lead of the article that the she is "the most prominent author in the Malay language". But please, use reliable references or you'll be reverted. That's a BLP and you don't have a choice.--damiens.rf 17:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The tag was reverted because the author is notable and the article meets those guidelines. Re-reverting is engaging in an edit war, and is not acceptable. I have added another major source to the article, and filled out the lead paragraph. If you feel there are further problems, you should use the article's talk page to air them. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Asimov short story "Reason" Revertion, Why?
Hello there. I'm new to Wikipedia, but feel the Article could be improved by providing some ideas regarding interpretation. can you please explain why you reverted my contribution. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maninspired (talk • contribs)
- @Maninspired:, please just read Wikipedia:No original research. --damiens.rf 19:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
SimilarWeb improvements
Hello, please let me know why did you put the tags again? I made changes according to your requirements. Is there anything else I can do to bring the page in accordance with the Wikipedia requirements, so that you could remove the tags?
Thanks Cohentom (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Cohentom:, the article is currently completely based on primary sources (like crunchbase, alexa and venturedeal) or unreliable promotion-disguised-as-news sites like smartinsights, 3scale and startupcamel.com.
- The text of the article reads as a press-release. What's the point of that "Technology" section?
- You're free to promote your projects around the Web, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that. --damiens.rf 16:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
RE: Reverting List of Puerto Rican slang words and phrases
I'm trying to say this in the nicest way possible. However, the article already has way more than three words referenced, however, why do you only allow three of these to pass by, huh? Liston, the article already states so at the top of it having multiple issues, if you know how to read, douchebag. So just let it be, as there's already a statement claiming it having multiple issues at the top than just leaving the damn article close to being scarce of three referenced words of crap, thanks to you. So please just stop angering everyone, including me, and contribute your positiveness on Wikipedia and stop vandalizing every article that you can by being a references police, if you kindly could now? Marioluigi98 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Was that really the "nicest way possible" to you? --damiens.rf 13:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey there!
Thanks for thanking me about that edit :)--QualityEncyclopedia (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikistalking
Hi Damiens: Can you please stay away from articles I create? It seems you dedicate a large amount of time to reverting my edits, and that you are making a concerted effort to disrupt my work here. I'd appreciate if you stopped. User:AntonioMartin (dimelo aqui) 01:45, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, @AntonioMartin:. I'm afraid you can't keep editors "away from the articles" you create, as they are not yours. Is there some specific edit of mine that you consider detrimental to some of those articles? Please, let me know. --damiens.rf 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Description
The descriptions are precise and proper. These are not just any ordinary children unknown to the up loader. They are my grand children. It is against the law in some states to take pictures of children not related to me. I have given others through Wikipedia the right to use my photos, however I have not given anyone in Wikipedia the right to alter the true and rightful description of the same. For years I have been the subject of your harassment and hounding but please keep my grand children out of it. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Marine 69-71: Sorry about that. I was seeing this (hiding their identity) as a way to protect them. --damiens.rf 17:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year
I heard what happened to your fireworks last night.
I wish you better luck this New Year. 
Caballero//Historiador ☊ 16:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
You might wish to comment here
I started a discussion at Talk:Timeline_of_popular_Internet_services#Inclusion_criteria. It would be helpful if you comment and help reach a consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Jessica Valenti POV banner
Hi. Have been looking for your concerns that prompted addition of the POV banner to the Jessica Valenti article earlier this month. Don't see them on the talk page, but I'm new to Wikipedia and could be screwing up in my search. Can you point me to the elements of the page you think are problematic? Thanks. Jagrif02 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Damiens.rf. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Damiens.rf. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
15 May 2018
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Damiens.rf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Damiens.rf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SCO–Linux disputes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Legal interest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Xavier Serbia 3x4.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Low-quality image with no context or other details to suggest why it should be useful, the article has a much better photo already so this is unnecessary
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
The file File:Javy Lopez 3x4.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Happy New Year
|
Happy New Year! |
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |