User talk:Adrignola

I watch talk pages where I have recently left manual (non-template) messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.
If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category

Would you move this back to where it was? I can't edit it anymore now. --  Docu  at 18:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The naming allows people to easily see what editnotices apply to any page throughout a namespace (Commons:Editnotice). And yes, I know that there is a title blacklist entry that prevents non-administrators from editing, but please feel free to ping me for changes or use {{Editprotected}}. It's quite the power to be able to edit a notice that will show up for every page in a namespace and it's a serious vandalism target to be able to allow anyone to do so. Frankly the previous page should have been fully protected. I did combine both your and Rd232's changes; yours shows up if the category doesn't exist; his shows up if it does. – Adrignola talk 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Adrignola, his edit notice for category namespace was previously discussed in the forum and not adopted, thus please don't implement it.

If your objective is consistency, you could still add a link at Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category to load the one from the place where we previously had it. Please apply semi-protection there if you think that is needed. We hadn't encountered any problems there yet except with Rd232. --  Docu  at 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. I have commented-out the if-exists editnotice; the if-doesn't-exist notice remains as it was. Commons:Protection policy says "pages may be full protected indefinitely if they are heavily used images or frequently transcluded templates to prevent vandalism". In this case with the page affecting the interface for any category namespace page I have to believe that full protection is the way to go. It is consistent as objectified above, in that both you and Rd232 have to discuss before changes are made. I understand that this isn't ideal from your perspective but you are both free to use {{Editprotected}} or point me to any consensus discussions and I will show no favoritism to either. As it is, despite the location change, nothing about the notice has changed now that the if-exists notice has been hidden. – Adrignola talk 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are using your admin tools to implement a solution that suits you, simply ignoring people who usually do things around here. --  Docu  at 19:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. – Adrignola talk 19:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the previous solution and seek consensus if you want to change it. --  Docu  at 19:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There were no objections at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Enable_Group_editnotices. – Adrignola talk 19:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposal itself didn't require or include moving existing notices. --  Docu  at 19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment about me "implementing a solution that suits" me, when I am seeking to improve operations at Commons, your allusion to abuse of admin tools, your allusion that I don't do anything with "people who usually do things around here", and your seeking to wear me down until I relent with constant messages leaves me with no desire to continue this conversation here. You may express concerns at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Enable_Group_editnotices, where others' opinions may be sought out. – Adrignola talk 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please attempt to communicate about your solutions. --  Docu  at 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Photos meaningless

I had sent a copy of the permission to upload photos of the sculptures Pelinor, Dácil and Ico Princess, to wikipedia commons, not to mention that, regarding the photos of Rudy Perez and Porfirio Toledo, had not only sent a copy of the author's permission that indicating that I had a license to upload the photo, as happened with the previous photos, but also the photo was filed in commons because permission had been found. Why do I have to send copies of permits to I have suggest that I have license to upload photos to wikipedia if even so, will they be removed? And by the way, another user found the permission to upload a photo of the sculpture Pelinor. The only thing I can think is that you are removing pictures simply to eliminate them. Nobody thinks to delete a photo that is on file at wikimedia commons because they found their permission to be uploaded to Wikimedia.--Isinbill (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

???

Hi, you delete all images from this user, and block him. You don't answer to his messages on your talk page, and on his talk page you don't explain your deletions, and you don't warn that he's blocked, why he's blocked and how he can appeal from that block.

I keep an eye on this user since his first uploads, and i would like to know what went wrong with the permission mail, please ? --Lilyu (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no fewer than 81 emails from this user into the OTRS system. Repeatedly insufficient emails are sent in claiming that people's work on other websites is his own. I have responded to an email for each image that has now been deleted, requesting permission to be submitted by the actual copyright owners. I've explained this in personal emails outside the system. All that's happened is another dozen emails sent in again, with the same assertion that photos on third-party websites are under a particular license, with no evidence to support that and no obvious connection between the user and all of the disparate sites. To top it off the user then slaps on a fake OTRS permission confirmed tag to one of the images tagged as lacking permission. And several of the images were reuploaded after they were deleted the first time, which is a serious violation. After all that I can only assume that they are seeking to have OTRS perform license laundering by repeatedly sending in emails until an OTRS agent that is not well versed in copyright law mistakenly approves the uploads without permission being received from the true copyright owner. You cannot simply take an image off the Internet and claim that it's under whatever license you wish; it's not yours to do with what you please. – Adrignola talk 13:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations : maybe you could add something on his talk page to warn other users/admins/OTRS of the problematic behavior of this user ?

Few days ago, I contacted a spanish speaking OTRS who said he would deal with the permission mails of this user, and he was unaware of the problems you mention--Lilyu (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll send an email to the OTRS mailing list regarding the issues I'm having so that others can look into it. If Spanish is the native language of the individual a native speaker may be able to explain the need of Commons to contact copyright holders. I'm not having much luck. – Adrignola talk 15:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok ! Lilyu (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Jayaraj.jpg

Pyngodan is the blogger name of Baiju T Balan and that's why I gave Baiju T Balan as the author for this image. I did not notice the metadata while uploading. Actually, he fails from a place called Pyngod in Kerala, India. Anyways, as asked, he has send permissions again and it is available as TT # 2011071310013286. Since you handled the first ticket, can you please check this ticket and close it out if the permissions are OK? --Sreejith K (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)  Done. – Adrignola talk 19:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This DR

If you have a view on this DR, it would be nice to hear it. This DR is also another interesting one...if you have a little time. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your assessments on both are spot-on. – Adrignola talk 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your assessments on the DRs. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete

This vandalism needs deleting. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 16:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can use {{reason here}} in the future. No need to nominate for a full discussion for vandalism. Thanks for pointing it out. – Adrignola talk 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted pictures which I uploaded

Hi. You deleted Zeitstudiengerät.jpg, Modern_Hanhart_Time_study_stopwatch.jpg, ORTIM_a5_Time_Study_System.png today. The three of them were pictures which I did not take myself but the owner of the rights send me and you emails to allow a publication in commons. The first is a picture which took a friend of mine himself - other are company owned ones. So please tell me, what was wrong with the license, and give me a chance to correct this. I worry about because the emails told me, that everything is okay? Last: What is the different between the three deleted ones and this: Drigus Multidata 6 Time Study System.jpg? Same circumstance, same email-license. Didn't you find the emails? Didn't you understand them because in german?-- Tasma3197 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A specific release under a free license was required and no response to the request for one was received for over a month. I was not the one handling the ticket since as you know I don't speak German. The particular individual who received the emails and sent back a response requesting the specific license was User:AFBorchert. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)