Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 4 April 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) from User talk:Damiens.rf.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Question

Hi, don't know if you saw it, I asked a question at one FFD you nominated, here . Am I missing something there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied. I had missed that, sorry. --Damiens.rf 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Lauren

It is not correct to removed fully cited and vaild information from an article. There are tons of articles that have controversy sections- is Mr. Lauren above the others that do. There is countless more sourcing that I could of used- and there is news all over major networks and major newspapers about his last caper with firing Hamilton. The page before was cherry-picked to be a completely sanitized version.Catal uber (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited back the section a bit into what is essentially crucial: 1) the controversial book of Michael Gross and 2) the firing of Hamilton. These are substantial controversial points. To exclude that would be simply an attempt to santize the page into some idealized version. Those controversial points should be there.Catal uber (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Authors

It's a subscription service that I can access through my public library's website. Here is a link, but most readers won't be able to access that. Zagalejo^^^ 02:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem that I can even use that link anymore. I'd have to start over from my library's website. So the link is pretty much useless to everyone.

But anyway, most libraries (in the US) subscribe to some form of Contemporary Authors, so it wouldn't require too much effort for someone to verify the information. Zagalejo^^^ 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Cuban dissidents

I hope this isn't your admission of some sort of bias or agenda in the deletion of these individuals? Grsz 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand you. --Damiens.rf 15:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

Couldn't you combine those AfDs into one entry?  Frank  |  talk  15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea. As it's already happening, editors may disagree on the level of notability of each one of these men, and new information may always arrive about them. We should respect the editors opinions in each of these cases. --Damiens.rf 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well...I suppose if you did them as a group, someone would be here on your talk page asking for the opposite. :-)  Frank  |  talk  15:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see them listed individually. The main AfD topic will be notability, and that's an individual matter.

As a general rule I wouldn't see "prisoners" as notable, nor even Black Spring prisoners as notable (a list on Black Spring (Cuba) is about the right level). However some of these individuals were notable beforehand, or have become notable as a response to their particular treatment afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid those whose article mentioned some minor credible level of independent notability, but of course, community review is welcome. Also, some nomination may trigger some article expansion that would uncover previously undocumented notability. --Damiens.rf 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking maybe five at a time might be better. It's hard to try to check out this many at once. I thought there was guidence somewhere on a policy or guideline page, but I haven't found it. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "It's hard to try to check out this many at once." - You don't have to. --Damiens.rf 21:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Diaz

I believe the other edits were fine. Adding any fact tags to a WP:BLP is highly problematic - but especially so when done on a wide scale. And yes, you're more than welcome to make improvements to the article, but please don't put the tags back. I totally agree that the article needs work, I'm slowly working on it, and would appreciate any help! Dreadstar ☥ 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So I will now produce a version identical to the one previous to your revert minus the fact tags ok? --Damiens.rf 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'll now try to -rework out some of your changes, like moving the signature image left-to-right. --Damiens.rf 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Alrighty, I'll leave it in your hands and check back later! Have fun! Dreadstar ☥ 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please check out. --Damiens.rf 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks much better! Thanks for making the improvements to the article and for finding some excellent new references! I'll probably do a bit more editing on it myself a little later on. Dreadstar ☥ 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2009_October_22#File:Law_Enactments.JPG

As for[REDACTED] policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY free images don't get deleted for simply being unused they get moved to commons, only un-free images get deleted but even then they get speedy deleted under CSD F5--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That was an unwise decision to move such trash image to Commons. --Damiens.rf 11:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Re:this, please review WP:BLP, Here's more information on that: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimmy Wales. This goes for all tags related to unsourced or poorly sourced content. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits such as this one made to WP:BLP articles need proper sourcing and attribution, we cannot use Misplaced Pages's editorial voice to say the person was imprisoned for betraying his country - that's the POV of the of the people who arrested him and as such needs to be sourced and properly attributed. As you can see, many sources say he was imprisoned "for leading demonstration...against a dicatorship", which is quite different. Both view need to be presented per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, which makes sourcing and content even more strict. Adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content to a WP:BLP may lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Armando Gutierrez

A tag has been placed on Armando Gutierrez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. SnottyWong talk 02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Armando Gutierrez, Jr.

A tag has been placed on Armando Gutierrez, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. SnottyWong talk 02:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Concern

Damiens. I have had concerns about your editing on Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso and on Black Spring (Cuba), and I see in the section above that the admin Dreadstar had concerns for which he gave you some excellent advice. You seem unwilling or unable in Ricardo Gonzalez Alfonso for example to support your position and edits with sources. I see also today that you are attacking the same admin who offered you advice. You might consider the advice given above and readjust your editing habits. Please find reliable sources for your edits or don't make the edits at all. On WP:BLP articles, edits made without reliable sources or poor sources must be removed immediately and all editors are not only within their rights to remove the edits but are negligent if they do not do so. A pattern of this kind of editing is a problem on Misplaced Pages. (olive (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Images

You messed it up with the Walter Benjamin image discussion. It links to the Lacan discussion. Evenfiel (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's possible to get images if the subject died recently - Though I was lucky to find the photographer's email - but the task becomes a lot harder for those who died decades ago. Evenfiel (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The picture you put up for deletion

This picture is NOT an "unnecessary decorative picture of tough guys showing tenderness". This is a fight that has been engulfed in debate for almost fifteen years, and a major question was which fighter would have won had there not been time limits, or had there been judges in place. This picture illustrates the type of damage inflicted during the fight, a visual picture of damage that cannot be expressed merely through text. It is extremely necessary to the article in order to provide a world class encyclopedia. Nyquistx3 (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

New Brunswick general election, 1987 picture deletions.

I somewhat understand your deletion of File:Richardhatfield.jpg from the page in question, as there are questions regarding its copyright status. However, I have trouble understanding why you deleted the picture of Frank McKenna, as the status of this photo is clearly defined, and it is used in a different article without any issue. Could you please explain the rationale behind the deletion of both photos?

I noticed the phrase at the top of your talk page, and I do not want to start a battle here. I hope that my concern is not misconstrued in a negative way. While I did not upload either photo to the site, I would greatly enjoy seeing them back on the page in question, and I thought I would discuss the situation further with you before making that decision on my own.

Bkissin (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought some users could see as bias to use a picture of one of the candidate but not the other. I actually have no problem with the free image being used there. --Damiens.rf 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Painter

The answer is no, just the owner of the photo taken. By the way, I realize that you are right about the "poster" image issue. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between owning a photograph and owning a photograph's copyrights? (Good to hear about the posters issue. Try to be less arrogant next time some inferior editor contest your work. Even the greatest user can commit mistakes.) --Damiens.rf 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I do own the copyright to the photo which I took. Hey, you are not an inferior editor, you are a damn good one, hell I remember having a fine level headed conversation with you once. I guess you hit me hard with the image things (some of wish I don't agree with), but we all can get a little out of hand sometimes. Listen there are a couple of images that I would like you to reconsider, Colberg and the Ponce Massacre, especially the latter which is a sensitive issue for the Puerto Rican community. I will fix the the source on the General's image. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taking a picture of a copyrighted painting does not transfers the copyright to you. There was no creative work in producing such a simple copy of the image. Please, consider deleting it to save us some time.

About the Ponce image, please understand that by being a picture of a sensitive issue for your people have no impact on our policies. We can't take copyrighted pictures and use as we wish. If that image is really famous (like in a award-winning picture), we could use it in an article section discussing the image itself. But if what you want is an impacting image o illustrate articles that deal with the Ponce Massacre, I'm afraid you'll have to find a free image. We don't keep non-free material just because it fits our convenience.

About the Colberg image, track down its copyright holder. By "source" you sometimes seems to understand "the website you happened to download the image". But this is not enough to determine the licensing status, or to ponder any possible WP:NFCC#2 concerns. I suggest you find some book that use this image and see who it credits. Usually, books behave better in regard to copyrights than websites. --Damiens.rf 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the More about Ponce, I'll see what I can find out about the image. I'll take care of the painting situation. It seems as if the website with the generals image isn't working as before, however I do have a book "Historia militar de Puerto Rico" with the same image and which I will site as a source. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

By now you probably noticed that I am not the only one reverting your edits. Be forewarned that I do not intend to continue doing so, one more revert and the issue goes to ANI. The fact that you are acting unilaterally is not a good sign, try establishing a consensus. Your constant "name calling" won't help you either. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the site-wide consensus: WP:NFCC. Really, you're no familiar with our non-free police and practices (you are the one repeating that bit about WP:NFCI#8 on all nominations, aren't you?). Don't try to learn that from the Marine's guy. He's a great article writer but have poor knowledge of our polices.

I would not object if you want to ask third part opinions on either WP:ANI or WT:NFC or somewhere else. That could come out to be enlightening for you. --Damiens.rf 12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Damiens: you are talking to editors who have been, in some cases, involved with[REDACTED] since 2001. None of us are newcomers. A significant number of those involved are also administrators in good standing. Perhaps going to WP:ANI or WT:NFC will be enlightening, but to you.

That said, in the interest of good faith, let me do an extensive commentary on the recent request for deletion you have made.

First, you are correct that none of the images are free. Second, you are mostly correct in treating them separately, as they are mostly distinct images (you could have treated the politician's as one, but thats a detail). Thirdly, you are also correct in invoking WP:NFCC, as this is entirely within its purpose. Fourthly, I will treat the images as one for the purpose of this commentary, but will point out the differences when applicable. Fifthly, I admit openly I have trouble assuming good faith in this case, however, trouble doesn't mean not assuming it - I wouldn't take this time to write this if I didn't think it was somehow worth it.

That said, lets see WP:NFCC's Ten Points of Inclusion, and how they apply:

1. No free equivalent. - An entire wikiproject in good standing is telling you: we looked, and no dice. This does count for something. Ask around.
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. - no of the images fail this criteria. In fact, all of the images have intrinsic historic value to illustrate either events or people.
3. Minimal usage. the images are low-res and they are for the most part cropped from the originals.
4. Previous publication. all of the images have been used by multiple authors and editors to illustrate similar topics in multiple publicly available websites and publications.
5. Content. all of the images are deeply encyclopedic and enrich our knowledge of the subject illustrated
6. Media-specific policy. all images meet this criteria.
7. One-article minimum. images are used in at least one article and not orphans.
8. Contextual significance. the images' presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Restrictions on location. images are only in articles
10. Image description page. there was one image incorrectly identified as PD (although being from 1924 it means it will shortly become PD, so this was probably a mistake in good faith) The editor fixed this when pointed out. You have described the alternative rationale as "imbecile" - them fightin' words! Without getting into how in-artful such language is in productive discussion, it is true that reasonable people can disagree on criteria. However, all of the criteria provided fits around the above nine points. I do not see how could it possibly be described as "imbecile", except by means of either lacking good faith, or a failure to assume good faith. Please ponder this.

I hope this serves to illustrate why your invocation of WP:NFCC in this case actually contradicts your charges. All of these images enhance the reader's understanding and knowledge of the topic discussed, and in particular, serve to give context. They are meet the legal criteria of fair-use, such as not limiting commercial exploitation on the part of copyright holders or being used for purposes other than those claimed for fair use.

Ultimately, I think that you need to be less arrogant in your approach, and assume that other editors, in particular editors with long-standing commitment to the encyclopedia, also know what they are talking about. Just because we are brown and speak English as a second language, doesn't mean we are stupid. --Cerejota (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to be short and concise:

• No free equivalent - I honestly doubted all the members of the project are searching for freely equivalents even after a non-free images is used in the article. In ffd discussion I've seen several cases of images deemed irreplaceable to have freely equivalents found, sometimes by the original uploader himself.
• 'Respect for commercial opportunities. - We can only assert an images passes this criteria once we know the images copyright holder (there's a lot of difference in a riot picture owned by my grandpa and by Reuters). Many of the images used in those articles are, for instance, "sourced" to latinamericanstudies.org, that's a website that will use any image it sees fit without ever crediting the copyright holder (it's otherwise a great site).
• Minimal usage. Using a headshout of a boxer is an article as broad as Sports in Puerto Rico is not minimal use, for instance
• Contextual significance. - This is the main problem. How, for instance, is the understanding of Grito de Lares compromised by the lack of a P&B picture of a house in the woods?
• Image description page. - Rationales are supposed to explain why the specific article would suffer (and be harder to grasp) without the visual aid of the specific picture. Marine's rationales mostly fall short of that. (And as a side note: no, Work published in 1924 will not be in the public domain anytime soon. See Copyright Term Extension Act).

I found it amusing to call my attitude arrogant while still asking for a special treatment for the elder editors of wikipedia. I don't care about the color of your skin or your ability with any language. Stop vitmizing yourself, or trying to find some hidden agenda. My agenda is WP:5P, and I'm sure its yours as well. See you. --Damiens.rf 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I only made the appeal based upon your implication that we are ignorant and hence needed "enlightenment" in WP:ANI. If your sole concern is WP:5P, you are making a very bad job in showing it; drive-by ethnic-targeting such as what you are doing is a sport of certain editors who certainly disdain 5P. Try to be more, you know, encyclopedic and helpful rather than destructive. For example, try to find free alternatives before claiming non-free images are replaceable. --Cerejota (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Per our own policy we don't have to find free alternatives to establish an image is replaceable. --Damiens.rf 10:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Our own policy also calls upon us to ignore all rules if they keep us from improving the encyclopedia. And this policy is the core policy of wikipedia. Your actions for the most part, do not improve the encyclopedia, but make it less. Consider that.

It does more to improve the encyclopedia to find a replacement free image to a non-free image than to delete the non-free image being used under fair-use. In particular, when speaking about documentary history and biographical subjects with limited potential for commercial exploitation - which is the basis of fair-use under copyright laws.

It is evident to me that you are not taking the time to actually understand why many of these images are to be included under fair use. For example, Manuel Rojas' house is not just some "house in the woods", but has the same historic value of say, Abraham Lincoln's log cabin. This doesn't mean some of the points you make are valid, for example some of the images (like the headshot you mention in Sports in Puerto Rico). It just means that you assumed some sort of bad faith and arrogance, and that is not productive.

What is really nasty and generates so much drama is that you completely ignored the existence of a Wikiproject for Puerto Rico, and instead of attempting to engage us, you started just requesting deletion. We could have worked out the issues like editors assuming good faith. Going directly to deletion smacks of dickery. If you are so worried about 5P, follow them by trusting your editors to do the right thing by engaging them.--Cerejota (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What was really nasty was that the Wikiproject for Puerto Rico completely ignored the existence of a policy restricting the use of non-free content. Now live through your own drama. I'm tired.--Damiens.rf 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

Damiens, listen I took care of the "painter" image per what you pointed out. I have a request and that is that you please withdrawal the nomination of File:Gilormini,Mihiel.jpg. The cited source belongs to the Puerto Rico Air Guard which in fact is under the jurisdiction of the United States Air Force. Puerto Rico being a U.S. territory among many other things cannot have an Armed Force per Federal Law. The Federal Government of the United States rules here and the Commander in Chief of Puerto Rico's Guard is the President of the U.S., that is why there are troops of the guard right now in Iraq. The governor of Puerto Rico only has the authority to use the guard in national emergencies. A lot of people do not understand the political relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico and do not realize that the island has little to say when it comes to military and commercial aspects which are governed by the U.S. I posted an explanation in the deletion page. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Which cited source are you referring to? The book or the Picasa Web Album? Which one you're saying belongs to the Puerto Rico Air Guard? And how can I verify this information? --Damiens.rf 15:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my god! I feel ashamed for you. When the Picasa photo page says (in the right) the image "Belongs to Guardia Nacional Aérea de P. R.", it's actually say the picture belongs to an album called "Guardia Nacional Aérea de P. R.". But that was funny, I have to admit. --Damiens.rf 15:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't notice the album thing, I feel ashamed . Even though after fully reviewing the album, it is obvious that album owner does not own the copyright to the majority of the photos which were taken while some of the subjects were in active military duty. However, it would be best just to delete it, which I will. Maybe, a less colorful replacement from the "Historia Militar de Puerto Rico" would do. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:PD or not PD

The book sites it as an Air Force image, but when I uploaded the picture under image from a "book" that format came-up and I thought that it was needed for where the image is going to be used. I do see your point as to the confussion created. I'll do what I hope to be the proper fix. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Your actions are being discussed here --NeilN 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

you are being discussed

at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_Admin_Requested:_User:Damiens.rf_multiple_JPG_deletions_and_related_matters Mercy11 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop spamming my talkpage with mass deletion messages

Dr.K._λogos 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. There are obligatory automatic messages. --Damiens.rf 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I reported you at ANI and you have no right to spam my talkpage if I told you to stop. Dr.K._λogos 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I use the Wikimedia script to report images for deletion, and it automatically puts the message on the user talk page. Do you know how do I disable it? --Damiens.rf 17:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As a user of this software artillery you should know how to use it before you unleash it on the unsuspecting public. I do not use this weapon so I don't know how to stop it either. Dr.K._λogos 17:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the warnings on the software left on your talk. --Damiens.rf 18:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dr.K._λogos 22:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The warnings also serve for you to state your case for why they should be kept. If you're not notified of them being up for deletion, you may not know until it's too late. Canterbury Tail talk 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Canterbury Tail but don't you think that after I got bombarded by five or six automated messages in a very short time I would somehow get the hint that something's up? Do I need wave after wave of robot notifications to go to the mass AFDs? Anyway I keep all my images on my watchlist. Dr.K._λogos 22:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Prats-de-Mollo Children's Home.jpg

Dear Damiens.rf You appear to have nominated the above image for deletion. Please note that this image belongs to my family (I am the grandson of Jose Brocca, the person featured in the image, who ran the children's refuge, and who had the photo taken), and I am able therefore grant permission for the image to remain. It is important to me and my family that this image should be in the public domain. You say that OTRS should be used. This seems to involve emailing the copyright holder for permission. Since I am the copyright holder could you please regard this as done, and please remove the deletion banner from the image. Many thanks. Locospotter (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Now it makes sense. Since you, as the uploader, is the one releasing the rights, there's really no need to use otrs. Thanks for contributing the image! --Damiens.rf 12:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Damiens.rf, for your help with this Locospotter (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request of re-consideration

Damiens, what a week. I would like for you to re-consider the nominations of File:Ponce Massacre.JPG since images published with notice but copyright was not renewed from 1923 through 1963 are public domain due to copyright expiration. "El Imparcial" which went out of service 35 years ago, could not have renewed it's copyright which expired, plus I have complied withyour request that the book sources be posted with a proper description in the article and File:Old Pr baseball game poster.gif due to due to lack of copyright notice, plus I added a description in the article as evidence to the importance that sports events such baseball has to the early Puerto Rican migrants to N.Y.. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Venegas

Seems as if ICPR source isn't working, therefore added alternate source with thier public domain claim. Please help with the PD tag. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why are images from that side in the public domain? What makes you believe so? --Damiens.rf 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Humm..., this is interesting, If you go to and then go to the botton left side and click on "Derechos Compartidos", you will find the PD claim, however what is interesting is that both sites use "http://www.salonhogar.net/" as thier websites. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do sometime today. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a question because you are the pro. in this. What would be the proper copyright tag. for image uploaded from a site whose owner has stated is Public domain? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's not actually PD. The website actually says: "Todas sus imágenes son obtenidas de varios proveedores de imágenes gratuitos que se encuentran en Internet para proyectos educativos no lucrativos". Do you agree with Google when it translates it to "All his images are obtained from several image providers who are free on the Internet for nonprofit educational projects."? That would mean that the images are not even free, since their use is not allowed for any purpose. --Damiens.rf 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Richardstewartlowres.jpg

Hi there. I missed your original warning (my fault) about this pending deletion, but I believe I'm right to put it back. I got the photo from the City of Coquitlam itself. I wrote them and asked for the photo and specifically mentioned that it was for posting on Misplaced Pages, and they replied with the photo and the confirmation that I could post it there:

As requested, attached is a photo of Mayor Richard Stewart. Thanks for you interest keeping the City of Coquitlam's[REDACTED] page up to date.

Therese Mickelson

Manager Corporate Communications

City of Coquitlam

3000 Guildford Way

Coquitlam, BC V3B 7N2

604-927-3019

TMickelson@coquitlam.ca

I did say this in the photo description as well. If there's something I neglected to put in the photo info when I posted it, please let me know so I don't run into the same problem again. Thanks! Greg Salter (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's a problem. As the content of Misplaced Pages is supposed to be freely reusable by anyone for any purpose, we don't accept pictures (or any other material) released with a Misplaced Pages-only permission. WP:PERMISSIONS explains that. You should get the image released under a free license an get an otrs confirmation of this release. --Damiens.rf 12:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Plakat Heine - Simplicissimus 1896.jpg

This image is public domain in the US. It may be kept even if orphaned. The discussion should be closed as a speedy Keep due to a procedural error, I believe. -- Avi (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did to User:Yzak Jule. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Yzak Jule (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not good

Please don't make comments like this. It isn't helpful. Yes, other peoples' comments have been equally unhelpful. But I'm telling you this because experience tells me that you're more likely to be the subject of scrutiny. The large numbers of editors who think that Misplaced Pages is a free-as-in-beer encyclopedia before it's a free-as-in-speech one have worn down quite a few editors over the years. "Gegen der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens." Please don't be their next victim. I'll post a reply on the Colonels trial image at my talk page, probably tomorrow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Devinn Lane

You're telling me this link is giving you a 404 error? I can see the article using that link. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I have a stupid Greasemonkey script that was bypassing the web archive. I apologize. --Damiens.rf 16:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I have replied noting that the admin has done everything ok. let me know if there are any questions you have. MWOAP (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to his preferred version before protecting and starting a talk page discussion was not "everything ok", regardless of the merits of his version. --Damiens.rf 18:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the admin could not avoid this because of new content between the stable and bad versions. He took a neutral stance. --MWOAP (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The admin did not take a neutral instance. He reverted to a version he authored and have been revert-warring to keep. --Damiens.rf 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak? You'll be back in some weeks and I'll welcome you back with a link to this very post. Misplaced Pages:Don't feed the divas. I wish you a Happy New Year. --Damiens.rf 05:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Newbie's involvement

Hello, Damiens.rf. I just wanted to ask you why are you being so rude to others on wikipedia? All users on[REDACTED] are to be polite and helpful to each other and you lack that. Like Tony Marine said, you are involved in a open case and we need your reply. Thanks,--GeneralCheese 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"All users on[REDACTED] are to be polite and helpful to each other and you lack that", sure. --Damiens.rf 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you do that?--GeneralCheese 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, be specific. You just popped up on my user page accusing me of rudeness following a complaint from someone that have called me a "Fascist" in one occasion. This is a project to make the bulk of human knowledge freely available. When you try to misuse it to promote Puerto_Rico's comrades you'll face some problems. Nothing new. --Damiens.rf 05:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Im not gonna overflow your talkpage so go here .--GeneralCheese 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

As you continue to be rude, insulting, hound people, and be unresponsive to the communitie's concerns, take this one week break to think about the issues. Hopefully you'll realize what caused this to pass and won't do it again. Just a few recent examples: , WQ thread, and driving away a longtime productive user. Wiki is a consensus based environment and your behavior is highly counterproductive to that. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time you do a punitive block to me. How will this week off resolve any of the problems you see? Also, don't worry about the "longtime productive user". He'll be back maybe before your block expires. That's just the usual drama. --Damiens.rf 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A few more recent examples: , , — Rlevse • Talk • 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not punitive. Myself and others have told you that you need to stop this behavior. Since you fail to heed that, this block is preventing such behavior for the near term and hopefully you'll use that time to realize you need to mend the ways you insult and hound other users. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If I promise I will hold my thong, avoid commenting about any editor (and just report - and never reply - whenever an editor comment on me), would you unblock me? If I fail, you can block me for, like, 12 days. Deal?

Of course, if unblocked, I will continue my image cleaning operations (just without saying nothing about no user!). If the problem is actually my nominations, and not my behavior, then this negotiation would no be interesting for you. --Damiens.rf 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)--Damiens.rf 20:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. I guess I understand what the problem actually is. --Damiens.rf 03:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

block

Damien,

I hope you take this time to reflect upon why it has happened. You work is vital to the project, as vital as that of any active editor. But even the best work can be undone by not understanding the need for civility. Also, try to understand that ultimately all policies are irrelevant: there is only building an encyclopedia. Protecting the project from legal action in terms of copyright cannot be done at the expense of building relevant content, however uninteresting it is to you personally.--24.47.111.41 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Damien, all you needed to do was just respond to the case that was open and behave, that's all i asked. But i got an update that you continued your rude behavior, so thats just to let you know, that you deserved to be blocked. Now like everyone else said, take these 7 days to think about what you did and how to react with other wikipedians. Cheers,--GeneralCheese 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hector Santiago Photo

Hi there. Basically I saw a source online (similar to this but not this actual one) that indicated its origin as stated on the image page. I considered the press angle but given that he was only a spec-4 and the shot's composition I didn't think that likely. I'll spend some time in the next days and find the online source with some provenance again - google images can be very frustrating. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your mass deleting files uploaded by User:Marine 69-71

I just thought you should know I added the folloing comment to the talk page of the file deletion workspace page. I work primarily on US military biographical articles, especially Medal of Honor recipients and I have noticed a huge number of files coming up recommended for deletion by a single user User:Damiensrf. Upon further review it appears that nearly all of the files that this user is focusiing their attention on belong to one user, User:Marine 69-71. Due to the sheer volume of files that this user has submitted for deletion many of them are being automatically deleted because knowone argues them and given that he is submitting dozens a day I simply don't have the time to go through each and every one of them to argue points for or against. Although there are some that I agree should probably be deleted there are many that I do not. Since it appears to me that this Damiens user is using this file deletion process as a means to attack the Marine 69-71 user I refuse to vote either way on any of them and I recommend that Damiens be limited to files not uploaded by Marine 69-71. --Kumioko (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of or opinion of interaction between Damiens.rf and Marine 69-71. However, if there is some history there, is that a reason not to submit articles and or files for deletion if they otherwise might meet deletion criteria? If someone is mass-deleting without checking individual files, wouldn't you want to check with that person? And, unless I'm reading the logs wrong, hasn't Marine 69-71 deleted a bunch of them in the past?  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm crossposting this from the Files for Deletion talk - I've skimmed through some of the images that User:Damiens.rf has put up for deletion, and the ones that I have looked at seem to be legitimate concerns about the copyright status of the images. I don't see that they are frivolous or abusive complaints. If I saw that most of the images reported by User:Damiens.rf were fraudulent or erroneous claims, then I could see your complaint. Which ones do you think should stay on[REDACTED] because their copyright status is properly documented? I could help out, but I didn't see anything blatant. I think a good use of your time would be, especially since you have an interest in US military articles, to defend those images that you believe to have a reasonable claim to staying on wikipedia, rather than just opting out of the process altogether and complaining here. The project page says this "To quote the non-free content criteria, 'it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof.' " - Chromatikoma (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Posting valid IFDs is not a pass to ignore legit community concerns and wikihound users by following them around. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up the mess on Porto Rico related articles. I'm sorry the guy uploaded 3 thousand problematic images there. Being a good contributor is not a pass to ignore our image use policy. --Damiens.rf 04:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are really interested in "clean up the mess ". How is it possible that you don't even know Puerto Rico's proper name? You haven't even bothered to actually read anything, all of your actions have gained a personalistic approach "Did upload this? Let's nominate!". - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor and award citations

Please do not delete the award citations from the articles, especially from the Medal of Honor recipient articles. Although I believe that your edits are well intentioned it is acceptable, appropriate and IMPORTANT to have the actual citation available on the article. I am going to go back through and revert any that I find but please stop doing it. Additionally, I noticed that you again are targetting only those articles that were relating to puerto rican recipients and have been worked on by User:Marine 69-71. Whatever problem you have with this user or with puerto ricans, I recommend you let it go or I will be forced to request that you be, at least temporarily, blocked from editing.--Kumioko (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, consider using Wikisource (or nothing at all). Encyclopedic articles are not supposed to be homages to the subjects covered, and those articles were turned into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs)

Wikisource is not the only valid reference. What makes MOH recipients notable is the MOH and reporting it's wording is homage, but legit article info. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, At first I considered that the edits you were making were well intentioned, but now I think you are being argumentative. I asked you not to remove teh citations and yet you did it anyway. I have again reverted those articles back to their previous state before you vandalized them. Please stop doing this because you are distracting me from real edits. I will be asking for you to be blocked from editing for a period of a week. Maybe they will and maybe they won't but that is what I am going to request. --Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of asking for the blocking of those who don't agree wit you, why don't you ask for more opinions about the matter being discussed? --Damiens.rf 04:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of MOH citations is valid and their wording is all available on official very reliable sources. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the reliability of the information. I'm discussing how appropriate it is for Misplaced Pages to have article (lists) with so much quoted mremoved aterial. The article page looks like a homage to the people mentioned.

By the way, where would be a good place to ask for more opinions on the matter? The articles' talk pages are not much visited. Is there something like a Article Style Noticeboard? Thanks, --Damiens.rf 11:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Note: Some comments on this section were edited after request.

I've been watching your editing for some time. You've been given good advice above by two qualified editors, and you are stubbornly refusing to listen. I am now convinced that you are a disruptive force, a net harm to the encyclopedia, and therefore I am blocking your account indefinitely, that is, until you convince me or a consensus of administrators at WP:AN that you will edit properly, specifically:

1. Avoid further actions that appear to be racist, or that bait editors of a particular race. (Questionable image deletion nominations of famous Puertorriquenos )
2. Avoid violating WP:POINT. (Above diffs, pointy deletion nominations.) Another:
3. Avoid hounding editors such as User:Rlevse or User:Marine 69-71. (last link, read whole page)
4. Refrain from vandalism. (Removing MoH and Navy Cross citations, needlessly, when these are very easily source-able. )
5. Observe the requirement to relate civilly and collegially with other editors. (Not nice at all. )

Jehochman 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC), 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I am far from persuaded that there is a consensus for an indefinite block and the reasons given for this block are tainted by lack of evidence. Especially the suggestion that you have edited in a racist was that requires far more evidence them pointing to some tags you have put on some images. This unblock does not mean that I am endorsing your behaviour - there are clearly serious concerns about your editing that need to be talked through and addressed in very short order. My advice is that you should do absolutely nothing controversial for the moment. You need to start talking through the issues with your edits with your opponents and finding a way to edit that does not cause further problems. I suggest you open a fresh section on your talk page or an editor review for this and show your commitment to editing collaboratively by starting this before you do anything else. Remember, if the problems continue you will be blocked again and the next time a clear consensus to make it permanent may well exist so please take this as a meaningful warning and learn to avoid the issues that are causing friction. Request handled by: Spartaz Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Read the above discussion and address the concerns. Removing valid citations is a form of vandalism. If you continue to remove them, or express the intention to do so, even after being told to stop by two different, knowledgeable editors, that's a problem. There's also a concern that you've taken an unhealthy interest in the work of User:Marine 69-71. What is your explanation? Jehochman 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of huge blocks of quoted text from three similar articles was an editorial decision, and I just reverted them one time, once they have been silently reverted (no edit-comment). No edit war, no vandalism. When the user discussing the matter decided to ask someone to block me instead of discussing the matter, I went after to third part opinions.

I do have currently an interest in cleaning up some mess existing in Porto Rico related articles, that's mostly due to poor sources, overly positive POV in some biographies and a high number of violations of our polices over non-free content. It's a fact that that Marine guy wrote most of the articles related to Porto Rico, and have uploaded some hundred images, mostly violating our police (what can be noticed by the huge number of them that are deleted or have to be fixed when I raise concerns). Unfortunately, Marine took that personally.

Before Porto Rico, I have made image clean-ups on articles related to Australia, Canada, Greece... users always think it's personal, or some vendetta against some country, but my real overall area of interest is non-free content usage on Misplaced Pages and the use of articles as a promotional venue.

If this is what you mean by "actions that appear to be racist", I can't promise I'll "avoid them". I believe the users (me and you included) are supposed to assume good faith and judge any of my deletion nominations at the value of it's argument. --Damiens.rf 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, consider posting your actions on WP:ANI for review by fellow admins. --Damiens.rf 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider organizing your work in a way that does not excessively target the work of particular users? It can be very demoralizing for a user when somebody goes around deleting all of their work. It would be far better to talk to the user about problems and enlist their help in cleaning up. Should that fail, you could then contact a third party or start a community discussion. The way you've been going about things creates a bad appearance and is frankly destructive. As it happens, you were quite wrong about removing citations and quotations from Medal of Honor biographies, and I can certainly underrstand why users thought this was vandalism. We have to judge people by the appearance of their actions; we can never know exactly what a user has been thinking. Jehochman 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"we can never know exactly what a user has been thinking" - That's why we're supposed to assume good faith.

I'm afraid it would be hard to work on articles related to Porto Rico without stumbling on Marine's shoes, since the guy touched every article on the matter. I have no intentions of offending him, or even of interacting with him any more than the necessary. Most of the times, users react personally to unpersonal deletion-nominations. Although I have failed in the past, I'm doing my best to avoid joining such discussions when they appear. --Damiens.rf 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It goes beyond nominating images for deletion . Damiens has been hounding Marine with his disruptive editing and ignoring other editors concerns. BTW, are you deliberately misspelling Puerto Rico for Porto Rico? --Jmundo (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the misspelling. --Damiens.rf 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens, please take a little time to think about both the proximate issue, and the broader issues. If you can show an understanding of why you're having problems with other editors, and what you'd do differently, I will unblock you. After 24 hours I will come back and review matters and consider setting a definite block length in any case. Jehochman 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming from a recent 10 days block (1 day ago) due to the issues you mention. It's not justifiable to indef block me at this time. I have not being engaged in "problems" since them. Calling me a racist is offensive. Accusing me of hounding Rsleve is baseless (he is the one's that pop-ups out of nothing into my talk page and on articles I touch). User:Jehochman, unblock me now or submit you actions for review at WP:ANI (as you have suggested yourself on your block message). That would be the honest thing to do at this point. --Damiens.rf 16:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an outrageous block. Rlevse and Jehochman come and bully someone they disagree with on content issues, blocking them indefinitely without attempting any dispute resolution. And Jehochman goes so far as to make unsupported accusations of racism. The thugs who engage in this kind of behavior should be banned post haste. I'm disgusted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please, User:ChildofMidnight, would you raise this issue on a broader forum (like WP:ANI or something appropriate) for others to review? Jehochman have suggested a ANI discussion on his block message, but I got no success in convincing him to post his actions for review. Would you do that? --Damiens.rf 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It won't do you any good because Jehochman and Rlevse have stood by silently and encouraged users like Tarc and Mathsci to stalk my contributions at the noticeboards (while accusing me of disruption), so it will just turn into another attack on me by political POV pushers.

Hopefully Jehochman and Rlevse will come to their senses and attempt to work through their dispute with you out appropriately.

I'm horrified that Jehochman and Rlevse continue to abusively use their positions of authority to impose their will and to violate so many of our core policies regarding assume good faith, dispute resolution protocols, civility, stalking and harassment. They are guilty of everything they accuse you of doing, and frankly if I were to post something at ANI I fear my comments might be intermperate given how outrageous their words and actions here and in other circumstances are. Let's give them time to course correct and hope for the best. It's probably best not to sink to their level. I don't want to be covered in sludge.

Damiens would you be willing to hold off on further image nominations and MOH citation quote trimming until the issues raised can be sorted out?ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I had already stopped the "quotes trimming" and looked for third party opinions by the time Jehochman indef blocked-me.

As for image nominations, I had never been blocked due to image nominations. My understanding of the image policies is solid and even users that dislike me agree with that. --Damiens.rf 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A neutral message at ANI just to raise attention would do the job. But I understand you if you prefer to stay out. In any case, what follows is what Jehochman sent me on a private message:

I really wish someone to review this block--Damiens.rf 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we can avoid the drama boards. I see Frank has asked for clarification on Jehochman's talk page. Hopefully he and Rlevse will back off the block and discuss their concerns like civilized adults so their disruption and abusive behavior won't require further discussion and attention from the community. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a block review at WP:AN. Good luck. I'm going outside. This kind of admin abuse makes me nauseous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Damiens.rf 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am reviewing this block and will post a comment here shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented at User talk:Jehochman and WP:AN now, tending towards overturning the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FPAS, you are way too involved in the image issue to be doing an unblock here. I saw your post on J's page and there's way more than occassional incivility at issue here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not entertaining brawls at my talk page. Take the discussions to WP:AN please, or keep them here. Spreading conflict to multiple venues, such as my talk page is disruptive. Jehochman 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that one venue is best. I was trying to avoid ANI by engaging at User talk:Jehochman. That's how I understand the "best practice" policy to be around here - engage the blocking admin first. Unfortunately the drama-fest has begun, but in the meantime I am looking at specific diffs here - thanks for providing them and thanks for mentioning them in the ANI thread. My opinion is but one of many, but I appreciate the opportunity to judge on the merits of what's going on, not the drama that surrounds the block.  Frank  |  talk  21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Frank. My talk page was a fine venue, and I regret the matter was sent to dramaboards before we even had a chance to discuss this. Now that it's going full swing, let's keep the discussion at WP:AN. I seem to have stumbled into a wikiphilosophical dispute about how image deletions should be handled. Perhaps the larger issue needs to be discussed. There are problems with (1) mass nominations related to a single uploading editor; how can they be expected to respond to so many nominations at once, and (2) working by topic area can really upset some people (e.g. Puertorriquenos). Working alphabetically might be a much better way to go as this would avoid inflamming conflicts with individual editors or groups of editors. Also, prior to nominating, wouldn't it be better to contact the editor and tell them what's wrong and see if the problem could be fixed? Then if not fixed within a reasonable time, nominate for deletion. These are the issues I was hoping to clarify with Damiens.rf. If he'd agree to work in a less inflammatory manner, I was willing to unblock. Instead this has turned into just another useless battle. Perhaps cooler heads can prevail. Jehochman 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your block is under review, but most everyone agrees that you need to change your problematic behavior. Would you be willing to return to editing with some restrictions in place? The situation with the Marine was unfortunate, and likely could have been avoided if you hadn't thrown all of those image deletions at him at one time. I think agree to limit the number of images you nominate for deletion at one time would go a long way in getting this block overturned. Also, if you pledged to engage users in a discussion before deleting large chunks of text or mass tagging would, this can all likely be finished. Would you be agreeable to those kinds of terms? AniMate 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The most ironic thing about the deletion of the images is that no one defends them, primarily because they are indefensible. The burden of proof remains on those wishing to keep them, not delete them. This is simply policy. It says right on the Images_for_deletion page "To quote the non-free content criteria, 'it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof.' " If you guys are in such a huff to keep the images, which clearly are poorly documented, why not spend time trying to document their free/PD status rather than fighting people trying to improve wikipedia? - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about keeping images, its about how he interacts with other users. AniMate 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About the diffs provided

1. Cleaning up images related to Australian, Puerto Ricans or Greeks is not racism. Your accusation is far fetched.
2. This is not WP:POINT at all. I was just tagging self-published blog as an unreliable source. I guess other users agreed with that .
3. I've explained that most images of PR where uploaded by Marine, and most of his uploads are problematic. They need cleanup. Also, I have seen no diff of your accusation of hounding RSleeve
4. Not vandalism, as I explained you above, that had nothing to do with sourcing. That was an editorial decision that I was politely discussing the issue with the community when you indef blocked me.
5. This is not uncivil at all! On the contrary, it is the polite way of warning a user about many problems, instead of using automatic tags.

Is it why you blocked be indefinitely? --Damiens.rf 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you plan to address issues raised here? Do you think this response is sort of personal 1? Do you plan to continue using policy to target Marines work and Puerto Rican related articles and editors if you get unbloqued? Do you plan to move to Commons and continue your deletions nominations of Puerto Rican related topics like you did when you where blocked here? --Jmundo (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Next time you mass tag images by a particular user for deletion, you will be blocked again. Such actions are effectively a form of hounding and harassment. A user cannot respond properly to dozens of image challenges at the same time. Instead, if you find that a user has been making bad uploads, you are invited to file a report at WP:ANI (or WT:NFC), and the community will decide what to do about it. Jehochman 10:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, "mass tag images" means tagging more than five images per seven day period per uploading user. Should you find a problem that requires an exception to that rule, please start a discussion at WT:NFC or WP:ANI, invite the uploading user to comment, and get some outside opinions to confirm that the tagging is necessary. Somebody should counsel the uploading user so they understand what's happening and have a chance to fix any problems before their uploads are deleted. We don't want people to feel bitten or demoralized by rules that they may not fully understand. Thank you. Jehochman 14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Various views

• Do you have a consensus for that threat? There has already been discussion at AN suggesting that it is not necessarily an issue. It woudl be really helpful if you didn't block this user again without actually getting a consensus to support it first. Spartaz 10:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. If you'd actual read the thread, you'll see more than half a dozen administrators supporting my position. Jehochman 10:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And about as many are currently disputing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Could you list the administrators disputing, and those who support? Let's compare lists and have a discussion based on facts. But let's do it over at WP:AN so we don't turn this user's comment notification on again and again. Jehochman 11:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  Let's not turn WP:CONSENSUS into a WP:VOTE. The discussion is there to see, and it's continuing.  Frank  |  talk  15:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK

From now on, on all my edits, I'll avoid commenting about other users when doing my job. Thanks for all who stepped in to help me with this issue (either by defending me or by pointing my problems). Please, I don't want to be blocked for actions I have already been blocked before (that would undermine the point of becoming a better editor after each block).

The editions at the Medal of Honors articles were not vandalism, but defensible editorial decisions, as shown by different opinions expressed about the matter when the topic was raised in a wider board: (favoring the use of large quotes: ; against the use: ).

I am not a racist.

I'll wait for the outcome of the discussions about "mass nominations". I do have some opinions, though. --Damiens.rf 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not-OK

"From now on, on all my edits, I'll avoid commenting about other users when doing my job..."

>>> That's what you said just 10 days ago when you were blocked for 1 week , and didn't do it - or you wouldn't be blocked and back here again after just 2 days on the loose.

"The editions at the Medal of Honors articles were not vandalism, but defensible editorial decisions"

>>> Don't confuse defensible with argumentative.

"I am not a racist."

>>> Well, but that's exactly a racist would say, isn't it?

"I'll wait for the outcome of the discussions about "mass nominations". I do have some opinions, though."

>>> "Sure"

And for those missing the background info here are two good summaries: and . Elephants have better memories than zebras.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1. "That's what you said just 10 days ago when you were blocked for 1 week" - And I kept my word. The admin that blocked once more was based on previous behavior.
2. "Don't confuse defensible with argumentative" - I sincerely do not get the point of your link/diff.
3. I still refuse your accusation of racism, regardless of your empty argument.
4. "Sure" - I didn't get the point of that link.

From now on, I'll be ignoring any personal accusations I can't learn anything from. --Damiens.rf 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have warned Mercy11 against making personal attacks and contributing to wiki-hounding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfect: Maybe I assumed too much before, which may have gotten you confused, so I will expand some this time.

You obviously you did not understand my post. In your haste to piggy-back on Damiens' baseless don't-accuse-me-of-racism reaction, you failed to properly process, digest, and understand what I was really saying.

I wasn't making an accussation of racism at all, and challenge you or anyone to revisit what I wrote "Well, but that's exactly a racist would say, isn't it?" What I was stating is that "I am not a racist" will be said equally by those who are not as well as as those who are. Thus Damiens statement "I am not a racist" is useless - it is both unhelpful and unhurtful; namely, it is neutral. It adds nothing, and it takes away nothing. In effect it does nothing. That's what I was saying. Thus, I clarify that no one should had taken offense to my post as the post is not making an accussation of racism but debunking that Damiens' statement was one that was a fallacy.

With that said, as for your threat, if blocking me makes you happy, go ahead and relief yourself. But I think you are making a mistake, not only do you not have a basis for that (as I explained above) but, in addition, in your haste to produce quick results, you are using your authority to force your POV on me via your block threat.

I understand you may be looking to resolve an issue (which in my view has only one long overdue solution anyway). But for your own sake please don't be so overly sensitive to comments about race relations that you fail to see the difference between statements that are race-bearing and those that are race accusations per se.

In your position of authority you ought to know better than to go around overeacting with heavy-handed threats. The fact that you are isolated in your view, as demonstrated by the fact that yours is the one lone post taking offense to my posting, ought to have given you a clue that maybe you were misreading my post.

In your accussing me you went as far as twisting the meaning of wikihounding to fit your peculiar present needs, and now, according to you, I too am wikihounding. Boy slow down, don't be so quick at throwing the assume-good-faith principle out the window!

So no, Perfect, I am not guity at all of wiki-hounding, of making a false accusation, or of perpetuating a personal attack. Nor am I guilty of stubbornly re-stating old complaints/accusations either: the 2 links to old material were needed as background summaries so the reader could understand my post, and I stated that clearly. Please do everyone a favor and don't read between the lines for non-existing statements. You need to assume good faith and go by what I write, instead of going off by what you decide to put in your head at the moment.

Do not attempt to shift the focus of the discussion from Damiens to me. This talk is not about me, but about Damiens and what s/he has brought upon him/herself. If you want to elevate Damiens to become part of the holy trinity, please do not attempt to force that POV on me. You have a right to be wrong.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeating a charge without substantiating it is completely unhelpful. Defending oneself by saying "it's not true" is one method of defense; there are any number of reactions that could have occurred that did not occur, which at the very least speaks to Damiens.rf's realization that there is more than a little animosity around here, and toning things down is the right way to go. But saying "well of course you'd say that in response to the accusation" (paraphrase, not a quote) certainly doesn't address the issue, which I have yet to see specifically articulated. Damiens.rf has had a very serious charge of racism leveled, and not one single diff has been provided to support it, yet there are still calls for that behavior to stop. Whatever other problems may or may not exist, it is borderline pointy for other editors to accuse Damiens.rf of racism at the same time as they are calling for Damiens.rf to be more civil. I'm not saying Damiens.rf should or should not be labeled with this particular slur; what I'm saying is that the accusation should most definitely not be leveled without diffs to demonstrate it. I'm entirely unconvinced by the accusation when a list of image deletion nominations of a bunch of people of a particular ethnic group is the only evidence; what about the possibility that most of the nominated images actually don't meet licensing policy? That's not racism anywhere that I know of, and Damiens.rf is fully justified in saying so. If there are legitimate diffs to support making such a claim, I remain willing to examine them...but I've yet to see anything that comes close.

I'm not suggesting you (Mercy11) are leveling the charge, but your rhetorical device above perpetuates it. If you want to see Damiens.rf indef blocked (my interpretation of "only one long overdue solution anyway"), that's your right to pursue...but RfC or ArbComm are the venues of choice for such action. Repeating charges that are unsupported or speciously argued isn't the way to go...that looks largely like kicking an editor when he's down.  Frank  |  talk  16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Various

No, I wasn't rushing to nominate the Gillham sketch. It probably is PD but that may not be easy to determine. What about File:HenriLachambre 800.jpg? Surely this is public domain as Nadar died in 1910. Or am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no source and this is not acceptable. Remember that what determines the PD status is the date of publication, not the date of creation. While I would agree that this images is most-obviously-indisputable-likely PD, I would object using a non-sourced image of a famous man whose all pictures that have been published in life are freely usable. A little more of research work is what we need on such cases. --Damiens.rf 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't strictly true for a reproduction of a public domain artwork. We know the creator - "Nadar, Paris" - and this is the key fact. The WMF position on reproductions of a public domain original is set out at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. So long as the original is in the public domain, and given the dates of Nadar's life this is certainly the case, there is no additional copyright in a true copy. It would certainly be useful to know the year but not essential. So long as the image is not cropped it may be possible for an expert to determine the date. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's no additional copyrights over a copy of a public domain work, but I don't think this is related to what I have said (or tried to). From the file description page, I could not know this picture was created by "Nadar, Paris". And even if this can be fixed, my point is still that we should a minimum of certainty that "Nadar, Paris" published this picture before 1923. Although, it's common practice here on Wiki to assume every picture is published withing the subject's lifetime. --Damiens.rf 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the description page on Commons look any better? My ability to read fin de siècle French handwriting is limited, so I have no idea what the writing at the bottom of the photo says. Any ideas? If it's of interest or value it could be added to the description page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons says the image is PD due to the rule of "durée de vie de 70 ans ou moins après la mort de l’auteur.". That would be truth if the author died no later than 1939, that is, no more than 35 five years after the subject. According to Wiki, Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (said to be the author in the commons page) died in 1910.

So, although a verifiable source would help to determine this picture was really taken by Gaspard-Félix Tournachon, I believe there's already an acceptable level of certainty about the copyright status. --Damiens.rf 18:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Medal of Honor and award citations

Please do not delete the award citations from the articles, especially from the Medal of Honor recipient articles. Although I believe that your edits are well intentioned it is acceptable, appropriate and IMPORTANT to have the actual citation available on the article. I am going to go back through and revert any that I find but please stop doing it. Additionally, I noticed that you again are targetting only those articles that were relating to puerto rican recipients and have been worked on by User:Marine 69-71. Whatever problem you have with this user or with puerto ricans, I recommend you let it go or I will be forced to request that you be, at least temporarily, blocked from editing.--Kumioko (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, consider using Wikisource (or nothing at all). Encyclopedic articles are not supposed to be homages to the subjects covered, and those articles were turned into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiens.rf (talk • contribs)

Wikisource is not the only valid reference. What makes MOH recipients notable is the MOH and reporting it's wording is homage, but legit article info. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, At first I considered that the edits you were making were well intentioned, but now I think you are being argumentative. I asked you not to remove teh citations and yet you did it anyway. I have again reverted those articles back to their previous state before you vandalized them. Please stop doing this because you are distracting me from real edits. I will be asking for you to be blocked from editing for a period of a week. Maybe they will and maybe they won't but that is what I am going to request. --Kumioko (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of asking for the blocking of those who don't agree wit you, why don't you ask for more opinions about the matter being discussed? --Damiens.rf 04:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of MOH citations is valid and their wording is all available on official very reliable sources. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the reliability of the information. I'm discussing how appropriate it is for Misplaced Pages to have article (lists) with so much quoted mremoved aterial. The article page looks like a homage to the people mentioned.

By the way, where would be a good place to ask for more opinions on the matter? The articles' talk pages are not much visited. Is there something like a Article Style Noticeboard? Thanks, --Damiens.rf 11:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Note: Some comments on this section were edited after request.

I've been watching your editing for some time. You've been given good advice above by two qualified editors, and you are stubbornly refusing to listen. I am now convinced that you are a disruptive force, a net harm to the encyclopedia, and therefore I am blocking your account indefinitely, that is, until you convince me or a consensus of administrators at WP:AN that you will edit properly, specifically:

1. Avoid further actions that appear to be racist, or that bait editors of a particular race. (Questionable image deletion nominations of famous Puertorriquenos )
2. Avoid violating WP:POINT. (Above diffs, pointy deletion nominations.) Another:
3. Avoid hounding editors such as User:Rlevse or User:Marine 69-71. (last link, read whole page)
4. Refrain from vandalism. (Removing MoH and Navy Cross citations, needlessly, when these are very easily source-able. )
5. Observe the requirement to relate civilly and collegially with other editors. (Not nice at all. )

Jehochman 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC), 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I am far from persuaded that there is a consensus for an indefinite block and the reasons given for this block are tainted by lack of evidence. Especially the suggestion that you have edited in a racist was that requires far more evidence them pointing to some tags you have put on some images. This unblock does not mean that I am endorsing your behaviour - there are clearly serious concerns about your editing that need to be talked through and addressed in very short order. My advice is that you should do absolutely nothing controversial for the moment. You need to start talking through the issues with your edits with your opponents and finding a way to edit that does not cause further problems. I suggest you open a fresh section on your talk page or an editor review for this and show your commitment to editing collaboratively by starting this before you do anything else. Remember, if the problems continue you will be blocked again and the next time a clear consensus to make it permanent may well exist so please take this as a meaningful warning and learn to avoid the issues that are causing friction. Request handled by: Spartaz Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Read the above discussion and address the concerns. Removing valid citations is a form of vandalism. If you continue to remove them, or express the intention to do so, even after being told to stop by two different, knowledgeable editors, that's a problem. There's also a concern that you've taken an unhealthy interest in the work of User:Marine 69-71. What is your explanation? Jehochman 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The removal of huge blocks of quoted text from three similar articles was an editorial decision, and I just reverted them one time, once they have been silently reverted (no edit-comment). No edit war, no vandalism. When the user discussing the matter decided to ask someone to block me instead of discussing the matter, I went after to third part opinions.

I do have currently an interest in cleaning up some mess existing in Porto Rico related articles, that's mostly due to poor sources, overly positive POV in some biographies and a high number of violations of our polices over non-free content. It's a fact that that Marine guy wrote most of the articles related to Porto Rico, and have uploaded some hundred images, mostly violating our police (what can be noticed by the huge number of them that are deleted or have to be fixed when I raise concerns). Unfortunately, Marine took that personally.

Before Porto Rico, I have made image clean-ups on articles related to Australia, Canada, Greece... users always think it's personal, or some vendetta against some country, but my real overall area of interest is non-free content usage on Misplaced Pages and the use of articles as a promotional venue.

If this is what you mean by "actions that appear to be racist", I can't promise I'll "avoid them". I believe the users (me and you included) are supposed to assume good faith and judge any of my deletion nominations at the value of it's argument. --Damiens.rf 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, consider posting your actions on WP:ANI for review by fellow admins. --Damiens.rf 16:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you consider organizing your work in a way that does not excessively target the work of particular users? It can be very demoralizing for a user when somebody goes around deleting all of their work. It would be far better to talk to the user about problems and enlist their help in cleaning up. Should that fail, you could then contact a third party or start a community discussion. The way you've been going about things creates a bad appearance and is frankly destructive. As it happens, you were quite wrong about removing citations and quotations from Medal of Honor biographies, and I can certainly underrstand why users thought this was vandalism. We have to judge people by the appearance of their actions; we can never know exactly what a user has been thinking. Jehochman 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"we can never know exactly what a user has been thinking" - That's why we're supposed to assume good faith.

I'm afraid it would be hard to work on articles related to Porto Rico without stumbling on Marine's shoes, since the guy touched every article on the matter. I have no intentions of offending him, or even of interacting with him any more than the necessary. Most of the times, users react personally to unpersonal deletion-nominations. Although I have failed in the past, I'm doing my best to avoid joining such discussions when they appear. --Damiens.rf 16:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It goes beyond nominating images for deletion . Damiens has been hounding Marine with his disruptive editing and ignoring other editors concerns. BTW, are you deliberately misspelling Puerto Rico for Porto Rico? --Jmundo (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the misspelling. --Damiens.rf 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens, please take a little time to think about both the proximate issue, and the broader issues. If you can show an understanding of why you're having problems with other editors, and what you'd do differently, I will unblock you. After 24 hours I will come back and review matters and consider setting a definite block length in any case. Jehochman 16:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm coming from a recent 10 days block (1 day ago) due to the issues you mention. It's not justifiable to indef block me at this time. I have not being engaged in "problems" since them. Calling me a racist is offensive. Accusing me of hounding Rsleve is baseless (he is the one's that pop-ups out of nothing into my talk page and on articles I touch). User:Jehochman, unblock me now or submit you actions for review at WP:ANI (as you have suggested yourself on your block message). That would be the honest thing to do at this point. --Damiens.rf 16:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an outrageous block. Rlevse and Jehochman come and bully someone they disagree with on content issues, blocking them indefinitely without attempting any dispute resolution. And Jehochman goes so far as to make unsupported accusations of racism. The thugs who engage in this kind of behavior should be banned post haste. I'm disgusted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Please, User:ChildofMidnight, would you raise this issue on a broader forum (like WP:ANI or something appropriate) for others to review? Jehochman have suggested a ANI discussion on his block message, but I got no success in convincing him to post his actions for review. Would you do that? --Damiens.rf 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It won't do you any good because Jehochman and Rlevse have stood by silently and encouraged users like Tarc and Mathsci to stalk my contributions at the noticeboards (while accusing me of disruption), so it will just turn into another attack on me by political POV pushers.

Hopefully Jehochman and Rlevse will come to their senses and attempt to work through their dispute with you out appropriately.

I'm horrified that Jehochman and Rlevse continue to abusively use their positions of authority to impose their will and to violate so many of our core policies regarding assume good faith, dispute resolution protocols, civility, stalking and harassment. They are guilty of everything they accuse you of doing, and frankly if I were to post something at ANI I fear my comments might be intermperate given how outrageous their words and actions here and in other circumstances are. Let's give them time to course correct and hope for the best. It's probably best not to sink to their level. I don't want to be covered in sludge.

Damiens would you be willing to hold off on further image nominations and MOH citation quote trimming until the issues raised can be sorted out?ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I had already stopped the "quotes trimming" and looked for third party opinions by the time Jehochman indef blocked-me.

As for image nominations, I had never been blocked due to image nominations. My understanding of the image policies is solid and even users that dislike me agree with that. --Damiens.rf 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A neutral message at ANI just to raise attention would do the job. But I understand you if you prefer to stay out. In any case, what follows is what Jehochman sent me on a private message:

I really wish someone to review this block--Damiens.rf 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we can avoid the drama boards. I see Frank has asked for clarification on Jehochman's talk page. Hopefully he and Rlevse will back off the block and discuss their concerns like civilized adults so their disruption and abusive behavior won't require further discussion and attention from the community. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a block review at WP:AN. Good luck. I'm going outside. This kind of admin abuse makes me nauseous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Damiens.rf 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I am reviewing this block and will post a comment here shortly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented at User talk:Jehochman and WP:AN now, tending towards overturning the block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FPAS, you are way too involved in the image issue to be doing an unblock here. I saw your post on J's page and there's way more than occassional incivility at issue here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not entertaining brawls at my talk page. Take the discussions to WP:AN please, or keep them here. Spreading conflict to multiple venues, such as my talk page is disruptive. Jehochman 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that one venue is best. I was trying to avoid ANI by engaging at User talk:Jehochman. That's how I understand the "best practice" policy to be around here - engage the blocking admin first. Unfortunately the drama-fest has begun, but in the meantime I am looking at specific diffs here - thanks for providing them and thanks for mentioning them in the ANI thread. My opinion is but one of many, but I appreciate the opportunity to judge on the merits of what's going on, not the drama that surrounds the block.  Frank  |  talk  21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, Frank. My talk page was a fine venue, and I regret the matter was sent to dramaboards before we even had a chance to discuss this. Now that it's going full swing, let's keep the discussion at WP:AN. I seem to have stumbled into a wikiphilosophical dispute about how image deletions should be handled. Perhaps the larger issue needs to be discussed. There are problems with (1) mass nominations related to a single uploading editor; how can they be expected to respond to so many nominations at once, and (2) working by topic area can really upset some people (e.g. Puertorriquenos). Working alphabetically might be a much better way to go as this would avoid inflamming conflicts with individual editors or groups of editors. Also, prior to nominating, wouldn't it be better to contact the editor and tell them what's wrong and see if the problem could be fixed? Then if not fixed within a reasonable time, nominate for deletion. These are the issues I was hoping to clarify with Damiens.rf. If he'd agree to work in a less inflammatory manner, I was willing to unblock. Instead this has turned into just another useless battle. Perhaps cooler heads can prevail. Jehochman 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your block is under review, but most everyone agrees that you need to change your problematic behavior. Would you be willing to return to editing with some restrictions in place? The situation with the Marine was unfortunate, and likely could have been avoided if you hadn't thrown all of those image deletions at him at one time. I think agree to limit the number of images you nominate for deletion at one time would go a long way in getting this block overturned. Also, if you pledged to engage users in a discussion before deleting large chunks of text or mass tagging would, this can all likely be finished. Would you be agreeable to those kinds of terms? AniMate 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The most ironic thing about the deletion of the images is that no one defends them, primarily because they are indefensible. The burden of proof remains on those wishing to keep them, not delete them. This is simply policy. It says right on the Images_for_deletion page "To quote the non-free content criteria, 'it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof.' " If you guys are in such a huff to keep the images, which clearly are poorly documented, why not spend time trying to document their free/PD status rather than fighting people trying to improve wikipedia? - Chromatikoma (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about keeping images, its about how he interacts with other users. AniMate 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

About the diffs provided

1. Cleaning up images related to Australian, Puerto Ricans or Greeks is not racism. Your accusation is far fetched.
2. This is not WP:POINT at all. I was just tagging self-published blog as an unreliable source. I guess other users agreed with that .
3. I've explained that most images of PR where uploaded by Marine, and most of his uploads are problematic. They need cleanup. Also, I have seen no diff of your accusation of hounding RSleeve
4. Not vandalism, as I explained you above, that had nothing to do with sourcing. That was an editorial decision that I was politely discussing the issue with the community when you indef blocked me.
5. This is not uncivil at all! On the contrary, it is the polite way of warning a user about many problems, instead of using automatic tags.

Is it why you blocked be indefinitely? --Damiens.rf 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you plan to address issues raised here? Do you think this response is sort of personal 1? Do you plan to continue using policy to target Marines work and Puerto Rican related articles and editors if you get unbloqued? Do you plan to move to Commons and continue your deletions nominations of Puerto Rican related topics like you did when you where blocked here? --Jmundo (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Next time you mass tag images by a particular user for deletion, you will be blocked again. Such actions are effectively a form of hounding and harassment. A user cannot respond properly to dozens of image challenges at the same time. Instead, if you find that a user has been making bad uploads, you are invited to file a report at WP:ANI (or WT:NFC), and the community will decide what to do about it. Jehochman 10:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, "mass tag images" means tagging more than five images per seven day period per uploading user. Should you find a problem that requires an exception to that rule, please start a discussion at WT:NFC or WP:ANI, invite the uploading user to comment, and get some outside opinions to confirm that the tagging is necessary. Somebody should counsel the uploading user so they understand what's happening and have a chance to fix any problems before their uploads are deleted. We don't want people to feel bitten or demoralized by rules that they may not fully understand. Thank you. Jehochman 14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Various views

• Do you have a consensus for that threat? There has already been discussion at AN suggesting that it is not necessarily an issue. It woudl be really helpful if you didn't block this user again without actually getting a consensus to support it first. Spartaz 10:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. If you'd actual read the thread, you'll see more than half a dozen administrators supporting my position. Jehochman 10:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • And about as many are currently disputing it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Could you list the administrators disputing, and those who support? Let's compare lists and have a discussion based on facts. But let's do it over at WP:AN so we don't turn this user's comment notification on again and again. Jehochman 11:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

  Let's not turn WP:CONSENSUS into a WP:VOTE. The discussion is there to see, and it's continuing.  Frank  |  talk  15:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK

From now on, on all my edits, I'll avoid commenting about other users when doing my job. Thanks for all who stepped in to help me with this issue (either by defending me or by pointing my problems). Please, I don't want to be blocked for actions I have already been blocked before (that would undermine the point of becoming a better editor after each block).

The editions at the Medal of Honors articles were not vandalism, but defensible editorial decisions, as shown by different opinions expressed about the matter when the topic was raised in a wider board: (favoring the use of large quotes: ; against the use: ).

I am not a racist.

I'll wait for the outcome of the discussions about "mass nominations". I do have some opinions, though. --Damiens.rf 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not-OK

"From now on, on all my edits, I'll avoid commenting about other users when doing my job..."

>>> That's what you said just 10 days ago when you were blocked for 1 week , and didn't do it - or you wouldn't be blocked and back here again after just 2 days on the loose.

"The editions at the Medal of Honors articles were not vandalism, but defensible editorial decisions"

>>> Don't confuse defensible with argumentative.

"I am not a racist."

>>> Well, but that's exactly a racist would say, isn't it?

"I'll wait for the outcome of the discussions about "mass nominations". I do have some opinions, though."

>>> "Sure"

And for those missing the background info here are two good summaries: and . Elephants have better memories than zebras.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1. "That's what you said just 10 days ago when you were blocked for 1 week" - And I kept my word. The admin that blocked once more was based on previous behavior.
2. "Don't confuse defensible with argumentative" - I sincerely do not get the point of your link/diff.
3. I still refuse your accusation of racism, regardless of your empty argument.
4. "Sure" - I didn't get the point of that link.

From now on, I'll be ignoring any personal accusations I can't learn anything from. --Damiens.rf 07:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have warned Mercy11 against making personal attacks and contributing to wiki-hounding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Perfect: Maybe I assumed too much before, which may have gotten you confused, so I will expand some this time.

You obviously you did not understand my post. In your haste to piggy-back on Damiens' baseless don't-accuse-me-of-racism reaction, you failed to properly process, digest, and understand what I was really saying.

I wasn't making an accussation of racism at all, and challenge you or anyone to revisit what I wrote "Well, but that's exactly a racist would say, isn't it?" What I was stating is that "I am not a racist" will be said equally by those who are not as well as as those who are. Thus Damiens statement "I am not a racist" is useless - it is both unhelpful and unhurtful; namely, it is neutral. It adds nothing, and it takes away nothing. In effect it does nothing. That's what I was saying. Thus, I clarify that no one should had taken offense to my post as the post is not making an accussation of racism but debunking that Damiens' statement was one that was a fallacy.

With that said, as for your threat, if blocking me makes you happy, go ahead and relief yourself. But I think you are making a mistake, not only do you not have a basis for that (as I explained above) but, in addition, in your haste to produce quick results, you are using your authority to force your POV on me via your block threat.

I understand you may be looking to resolve an issue (which in my view has only one long overdue solution anyway). But for your own sake please don't be so overly sensitive to comments about race relations that you fail to see the difference between statements that are race-bearing and those that are race accusations per se.

In your position of authority you ought to know better than to go around overeacting with heavy-handed threats. The fact that you are isolated in your view, as demonstrated by the fact that yours is the one lone post taking offense to my posting, ought to have given you a clue that maybe you were misreading my post.

In your accussing me you went as far as twisting the meaning of wikihounding to fit your peculiar present needs, and now, according to you, I too am wikihounding. Boy slow down, don't be so quick at throwing the assume-good-faith principle out the window!

So no, Perfect, I am not guity at all of wiki-hounding, of making a false accusation, or of perpetuating a personal attack. Nor am I guilty of stubbornly re-stating old complaints/accusations either: the 2 links to old material were needed as background summaries so the reader could understand my post, and I stated that clearly. Please do everyone a favor and don't read between the lines for non-existing statements. You need to assume good faith and go by what I write, instead of going off by what you decide to put in your head at the moment.

Do not attempt to shift the focus of the discussion from Damiens to me. This talk is not about me, but about Damiens and what s/he has brought upon him/herself. If you want to elevate Damiens to become part of the holy trinity, please do not attempt to force that POV on me. You have a right to be wrong.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeating a charge without substantiating it is completely unhelpful. Defending oneself by saying "it's not true" is one method of defense; there are any number of reactions that could have occurred that did not occur, which at the very least speaks to Damiens.rf's realization that there is more than a little animosity around here, and toning things down is the right way to go. But saying "well of course you'd say that in response to the accusation" (paraphrase, not a quote) certainly doesn't address the issue, which I have yet to see specifically articulated. Damiens.rf has had a very serious charge of racism leveled, and not one single diff has been provided to support it, yet there are still calls for that behavior to stop. Whatever other problems may or may not exist, it is borderline pointy for other editors to accuse Damiens.rf of racism at the same time as they are calling for Damiens.rf to be more civil. I'm not saying Damiens.rf should or should not be labeled with this particular slur; what I'm saying is that the accusation should most definitely not be leveled without diffs to demonstrate it. I'm entirely unconvinced by the accusation when a list of image deletion nominations of a bunch of people of a particular ethnic group is the only evidence; what about the possibility that most of the nominated images actually don't meet licensing policy? That's not racism anywhere that I know of, and Damiens.rf is fully justified in saying so. If there are legitimate diffs to support making such a claim, I remain willing to examine them...but I've yet to see anything that comes close.

I'm not suggesting you (Mercy11) are leveling the charge, but your rhetorical device above perpetuates it. If you want to see Damiens.rf indef blocked (my interpretation of "only one long overdue solution anyway"), that's your right to pursue...but RfC or ArbComm are the venues of choice for such action. Repeating charges that are unsupported or speciously argued isn't the way to go...that looks largely like kicking an editor when he's down.  Frank  |  talk  16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Various

No, I wasn't rushing to nominate the Gillham sketch. It probably is PD but that may not be easy to determine. What about File:HenriLachambre 800.jpg? Surely this is public domain as Nadar died in 1910. Or am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no source and this is not acceptable. Remember that what determines the PD status is the date of publication, not the date of creation. While I would agree that this images is most-obviously-indisputable-likely PD, I would object using a non-sourced image of a famous man whose all pictures that have been published in life are freely usable. A little more of research work is what we need on such cases. --Damiens.rf 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't strictly true for a reproduction of a public domain artwork. We know the creator - "Nadar, Paris" - and this is the key fact. The WMF position on reproductions of a public domain original is set out at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. So long as the original is in the public domain, and given the dates of Nadar's life this is certainly the case, there is no additional copyright in a true copy. It would certainly be useful to know the year but not essential. So long as the image is not cropped it may be possible for an expert to determine the date. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's no additional copyrights over a copy of a public domain work, but I don't think this is related to what I have said (or tried to). From the file description page, I could not know this picture was created by "Nadar, Paris". And even if this can be fixed, my point is still that we should a minimum of certainty that "Nadar, Paris" published this picture before 1923. Although, it's common practice here on Wiki to assume every picture is published withing the subject's lifetime. --Damiens.rf 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the description page on Commons look any better? My ability to read fin de siècle French handwriting is limited, so I have no idea what the writing at the bottom of the photo says. Any ideas? If it's of interest or value it could be added to the description page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Commons says the image is PD due to the rule of "durée de vie de 70 ans ou moins après la mort de l’auteur.". That would be truth if the author died no later than 1939, that is, no more than 35 five years after the subject. According to Wiki, Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (said to be the author in the commons page) died in 1910.

So, although a verifiable source would help to determine this picture was really taken by Gaspard-Félix Tournachon, I believe there's already an acceptable level of certainty about the copyright status. --Damiens.rf 18:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter B. Wight

Hey Damiens. I fold some old photos here (two pages) of some buildings including ones by architects whose articles I'm working on. How do I Determine if they are in the public domain? Is there someone here who's an expert that I can ask? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Although that page has a firm claim of copyrights and rights reserved, many of the images are actually in the public domain. For what I understood, the "Date of View" field on each image individual page determines when was the picture taken, and any pre-1923 images would be public domain (be careful not to mistake it with the "Date Designed or Built").

But I suggest you to ask some more opinions on the matter, as I may have missed something. I believe Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions is a good forum for that. --Damiens.rf 17:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Project page moved

Howdy. Just a note to let you know I've moved WikiProject:Puerto Rico/Images with problems to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Images with problems - I beleive this was your intention. - TB (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom and Honour

Angus doesn't seem to be interested in mediation and in this case it may not be necesary after all. I thought about it and I decided that it is a matter of freedom as well as honour. I will not bother you with too many philosophical arguments but I think you are free to review any image you like on any grounds you like so I will not, and indeed I cannot, restrict your freedom. Targeting an individual editor on subjective grounds may not be the most honourable way of doing business, but those few willing to proceed auditing a single editor don't break written policy because unfortunately honour is not enshrined in policy. Therefore you are free to proceed. Please do not use my talkpage for any messages. Use User talk:Dr.K./Automated Bot Messages and Image Problems instead. Dr.K.  04:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Kimberly McArthur

Regarding your edits to the Kimberly McArthur article, please see WP:SURNAME. Thanks, Dismas| 20:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 January 13#File:1871sujagi.jpg

Um, author died c. 1909. Picture made in 1871, and can reasonably assumed for this photographic author to be published during their lifetime given the vast number of published images by them from the same time, if not proximate to the creation date. We seem to have enough information to verify that this is PD. I can't see any way that it is not PD. Note that the local copy has gone as the image is on commons - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:1871sujagi.jpg - Peripitus (Talk) 02:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Freedom and Honour part II: an invitation

Hi (again) Damiens.rf. Re-evaluating your reaction (or lack of it) after my last message to you I was impressed that you did not jump at the chance to send me all kinds of deletion messages at the page I indicated to you. This is, in itself, an honourable reaction on your part. Looking even further back at our past communications, it has become evident to me that, after a rough start, your overall approach toward me has been civil and respectful. Of course, I respect that and I reciprocate. Therefore, now I invite you to review my images and send any deletion messages to my image problems page as I indicated in my earlier message above. Of course, if you think any are salvageable, please indicate what can be done to fix any FUR deficiencies. Take care. Dr.K.  01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do that in a day or two. I have to contact a nerd to modify my nomination-script to use your special page. --Damiens.rf 02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Dr.K.  04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

David Carradine

hi, I have put a great deal of work into the David Carradine article with the intent of having it elevated to GA status. I guess I took a chance in uncharted territory (for me) with the images. I won't make that mistake again. But when it comes to the actual writing, I have not intentionally "weaseled" or committed any other wiki-faux pas. If you feel that there is something that does not pass muster, could you please just communicate it to me? If it is something I can fix I would rather do that than to have you delete it. I check the article daily for messages and I am pretty good an immediate responses. Take Care--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

File:JD Salinger.jpg IFD

I would appreciate it if you could explain why you believe my comment on this IFD is "immaterial to the discussion" - I gave an explanation for why it is relevant, and if you still have any objections, please do leave a note on the IFD page so I can alleviate them. Prodego 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, telling people who don't agree with you "Try to understand what's the issue at hand before voting" is rather rude.--Blargh29 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I was just trying to point out how offtopic the votes about replecabilty were, since the image was not nominated on that grounds. I didn't realize it could sound rude, but now that you point it, I kinda get the point. --Damiens.rf 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And your comment was also not that polite anyway. --Damiens.rf 08:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I really am seeking to understand where you are coming from. I have taken an interest in the Salinger case for a couple reasons, one being that you have also slated files that I uploaded for deletions and I find the Salinger case to be a stronger case than mine (in favor of fair use). In any case, I made a comment on the files for deletion:Salinger page that said "'Fair use' was designed to allow the public access to publication/images etc. that would otherwise be kept private by those seeking a profit." And you said, "No it wasn't", but you did not explain and therefore I could not learn. As I have been reading up of the subject as it pertains to my files as well as the Salinger file, I keep coming across stuff that says things like "the rewards to copyright owners should be carefully balanced against the public benefits of fair use: access to works, dissemination of information, and the promotion of learning through a variety of uses." Which I read as that "fair use" allows the public access to works that would otherwise be kept for private profit. Tell me where I am wrong in my interpretation. I would also like you to point to an example, if there is one, of a photograph of a person, living or dead, that you think is justly used on Misplaced Pages under the fair use doctrine.

I do get the fact that the reason you put forth for deletion of Salinger was inadequate copyright information given and not its irreplaceablity. I think that people, including myself, argue the irreplaceability because we feel strongly that it trumps any argument for deletion. Thanks in advance.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Every day many images are produced and kept for the private profit of Associated Press. While the fair use doctrine allow us to use, without authorization from AP, one of this images in a commentary about the photo itself, or in a text about photo-journalist, or in a text about photograph techniques, it does not allows us to use the image in a text reporting the news event the image captures. In one can't understand this, one does not understand what fair use is all about.

That picture was privately produced to show what that man looked like. We can't freely use it to show what that man looked like. Period. Simple as this. Being non-profit, educational, low-resolution, irreplaceable... nothing of this changes anything.

About irreplaceability "trumping any argument for deletion", please understand that WP:NFCC is not multiple choice. Passing one criterion (no matter how 'good' you do it) does not diminish your obligations with the other criteria. --Damiens.rf 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for the example you ask, there are many. For instance, promotional images of long death people. Images of dead Canadian judges and politicians that are produced by the government (not free, but also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns). The basic rule is that the person should be dead (or somehow permanently out of public eye) and the copyright holder should have no interest in capitalizing on the use of the image. --Damiens.rf 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're right. I don't understand. Which is why I asked, politely, I thought. I don't know if you checked my user page. I have been doing this for 1 month and something like 9 days. I feel like I have read volumes of stuff on free use and some of what you are telling me does not jibe with what I read. And, for the record, I know that the criteria is not "multiple choice". I guess I was trying to explain to you why people kept pushing that point-on an emotional level. Sorry to have bothered you.--DorothyBrousseau (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Casa de Manuel Rojas

Absolutely, it is the same. When I was 15 years old I visit my father in Puerto Rico. He in turn took me to meet my Grandfather (his dad) for the first time who so happened to reside in El Barrio Barstolo in the town of Lares which is close to where Manuel Rotas resided. I have always been a history nut and I always have the habit of taking a camera, even a cheap one where ever I go. Now, when I first uploaded the image I just about did everything wrong with it because of my lack of knowledge and at the end I just said the hell with it, but I have admit that despite our arguments in our interactions, I have learned a lot from you (who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks). I believe that I have it right now. Did you read my statement in regard to the Ramiro Colon image? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You could have saved us all a lot of drama and confrontation by disclosing this earlier. Anyway, I'm happy that we are being able to handle the image issues like grown up people now. --Damiens.rf 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't think that we could have avoided the drama and confrontation with the other images, I think that it comes with the passion of one's work, plus there were other issues involved. The mass nomination caught me by surprise altogether and I have to admit at first I didn't know where you were coming from, however I am also happy in the sense that we are now working together at a better pace. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Damiens, I have Tony's talk page in my watchlist and happened to come across the remark you made above which, as I see, is also all repeated here.

I would like your clarification on your remark above that "we are being able to handle the image issues like grown up people now." My question to you is, What exactly does that remark mean, and more precisely, Exactly WHO are the ones who BEFORE (by inference) were NOT (by inference) able to handle the image issues like grown up people but who now (by reference) are able to? Mercy11 (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are your parents? --Damiens.rf 10:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

None of your business, now go answer the question. Mercy11 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as I had fugured: plenty of courage for sarcasm but none to defend the dubious remark. Mercy11 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And do you fugure your baiting is somehow more defensible? I think not; please refrain in the future (per WP:NPA, among other policies).  Frank  |  talk  00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My question was directed to Damiens, not you. I notice, however, you can't even tolerate a single typo, so you can argue your case here WP:ANB. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talent

Thanks, that was during my college days (long time ago). I think that I have four or five drawings that survived. I can't draw worth a crap now (hands are not stable anymore) as you can see in my terrible Juan de Amezquita sketch: File:Amezquita.jpg. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's normal for great artists to change their "style" over the years. :) --Damiens.rf 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg

I understand where you are coming from, but I suggest that you scale back your tone. The end result is likely already determined due to present opinion and the inking from OTRS, so there is no need to make your point anymore. ÷seresin 08:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow your wise advice. --Damiens.rf 17:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Footvolley

<copy from here>

Hi. First of all, thanks and congratulations for your efforts in improving the article on Footvolley. You are doing what no one (including me, of course) was capable (or worried enough) to do in like four years.

I come here to point what I perceive as localized problems in some of your edits in that articles, but in no way this criticism should be views as referring to the essence, rather than to the exception of your voluntary work there.

I believe your tendency for mass reverts is detrimental. I have been removing from the current article's version content that has been gone unsourced for more than one year. It's bad for our readers, as well as for our reputation to be publishing such material. Not to mention this goes against our polices. While working to find sources for material currently hiddeen in the article's history is a commendable action, reverting the removal of unsourced material from the current version is not a wise thing to do.

One can always use this history to save previously unsourced material one finds source for. There's no reason for us to be publishing usourced material this long.

I'm sure you understand the revert of removal of unsourced material may be seen as a bad decision under the eyes our policy. I hope you will be able to continue your great work without resorting to such acts.

Yours --Damiens.rf 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOP recommends that editors be given "time to provide references," even if not putting forth the extra effort to "make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them". Since I was obviously working on the article, actively engaged in finding sources and copyediting, these BOP recommendations should have been followed. And no, I disagree with your assertion that the reversion of the material in this particular circumstance was bad. Dreadstar ☥ 20:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please respond here to keep the thread in one place, I've got this page watchlisted. Dreadstar ☥ 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors have been given time to provide references. The article has been tagged as lacking sources since November 2006. --Damiens.rf 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't given any time at all. And I recommend that editors find sources before completely removing all article content as was done in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we have to give time to all editors to try, one by one, we will never remove unsourced content. I don't know why do you object the removal of old content tagged as son since 2006. The content is available at the article's history for you to work on. The content does not need to be on the current version of the article for you to fix it. --Damiens.rf 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it troubling to see a relatively harmless article completely stripped of all content without any hint that the editor who accomplished this feat did any research at all to try and find sources, then that same editor edit wars to keep the material out after another editor comes in, restores the material, and is actively and obviously finding a large number of sources. And what exactly was the great rush to keep the content out of the article at the exact moment I was sourcing and copyediting, especially considering that it had been sitting there for four years? If it had been a WP:BLP, I would have pulled the unsourced content into a sandbox, but in this case there was no reason not to edit the material in place - it was easy to find plenty of sources connecting Footvolley to the people mentioned in the article. That's the core of my objection. Dreadstar ☥ 17:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While important, WP:BLP is not the only valid reason to remove unsourced content. As an example (and I'm not necessarily saying this is the case here), Misplaced Pages is often used to promote subjects or companies and people related to a given subject. Just as you are troubled with the way I work, I also had a hard time to understand your mass reverts, that readded unsourced content and undid other cosmetic edits. But I understand there are a lot of people working on this project and we can't simply expect them all to work the way we would. --Damiens.rf 17:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely better!, I missed that one, thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great. --Damiens.rf 17:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_27#File:Oliver_.28chimpanzee.29.jpg

I'm confused, why wouldn't this image be eligible under the fair use doctrine? --Beao 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We failed to properly attribute the rights holders. --Damiens.rf 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Melody maker-cover-april-8th-1995.jpg

You previously nominated File:Melody maker-cover-april-8th-1995.jpg for deletion at WP:FFD. This image was deleted, but that deletion was challenged at a deletion review. The deletion review resulted in a consensus that the deletion be overturned and relisted. Accordingly the image has now been renominated at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 March 2#File:Melody maker-cover-april-8th-1995.jpg where you may wish to comment. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

You won. Right now your minions are prodding every possible article to wipe them out. Well played. Dismas| 22:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Euler Diagram.JPG

I have removed the Files for Deletion tag you put on File:Euler Diagram.JPG. This is because you didn't state why you want this image deleted, and didn't create a nomination at WP:FFD, If you still want the image deleted, feel free to re-add the tag, and add a nomination at today's Files for Deletion page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

As I mentioned an edit of yours today here, I thought as a courtesy I should mention it to you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Body of Peter Fechter lying next to Berlin Wall.jpg

You seriously need to check "what links here" before you nom images for deletion. This had simply been renamed-the image was still on three articles. Go back and check the links for your deletion noms.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Helpful

Your edits at File:E-tripartite-pact.jpg were helpful to me -- not that I understand yet, but because it helped to better focus the issues. I have an odd request. Can you compose a question which would have elicited these edits as a response? In other words, how could I draft a question in the future which asks for the kind of clarification your edit provides? --Tenmei (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please re-state what you mean here in different words:

"... this is a historic event, but not an historic image."

The Imperial War Museum identifies this as an "official photograph" which I construe as equivalent to "historic image." If there is a distinction, please help clarify by explaining in different words. --Tenmei (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

An "historic image" is an image that is famous by itself. It won some prizes or have books and articles written about it etc.. Examples are the photo famous called "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" or Diane Arbu's "Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park".

A photo doesn't necessarily become an historic image just because it portraits an historic event. In a more general phrasing, A photo doesn't necessarily become famous just because it portraits a famous event.

I hope this helps. --Damiens.rf 16:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD for Mohamed Bouazizi

Hi Damiens -- I've proposed to close the AfD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Mohamed_Bouazizi that you started -- I'd appreciate if you'd consider retracting the proposal in light of the strong consensus against it so the notice can be removed from the article as soon as possible. Joriki (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Jonestown image

Please see Talk:Criticism of religion#Jonestown image. In my opinion, your recent edits attempting to remove the image have become disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Criticism of religion. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Croatia image

Hi- you removed thumb|Nudist couple in a nudist camp Baldarin, Punta Kriza from Naturism page. What was your logic? I regularly delete images from this page as it does become overloaded- but this seems innocuous. The license is OK. It is in the right section and does demonstrate the beauty of the Croatian sites- and clambering on rocks is a normal activity there- what have I missed? --ClemRutter (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Russ Nelson

Your previous discussion has resurfaced anew in a new section on the same page. I thought you would want to know. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --RussNelson (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've reported you here for edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 19:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF? --Damiens.rf 19:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. It's happening again. A small group of article owners alternate themselves in reverting my edits without much discussion, pushing me into the 3RR trap. Counting down to be blocked. 3 months this time? --Damiens.rf 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Template:Z10

I did discussed the changes. See the talk page. Dreadstar is the one that just communicated by edit summaries and warnings. --Damiens.rf 20:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the "first" in that sentence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been reverted without discussion and discussed before further reverting. Get your facts straight.

Also, you said "#5 is bogus, but the first 4 are a clear violation. ", which is also invalid, since the first one is a revert of vandalism. You know what? Fuck off. I recommend you that you sodomize yourself with a retractable baton. --Damiens.rf 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. Piledriver and wrought-iron fence work much better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Damiens.rf, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Specifically, the above refers to this edit. Also, why did you nominate so many files I have been involved with in one day?   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Damiens,

It is good to see that you are back. I noticed that you were absent from Wiki for sometime, hope it wasn't because of anything bad. Right now I'm having trouble with my computer and therefore my time is limited to 15 minutes a day whenever I get a chance to use a community computer. Just wanted you to know that what went on with us in the past is water under the bridge and that I don't mind the article being deleted as long as everything has been done within Misplaced Pages policy. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel bad about your computer. Yes, I'm back from Léogâne. Won't be doing any voluntary work but Misplaced Pages in the near future. --Damiens.rf 00:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Rationales for deletion of files

Yesterday, you nominated for deletion four files which I had uploaded to en-Wiki. On two of them, part of your rationale was that the source was infringing on the holder's copyright by hosting the images. I fail to see what bearing that has on the files being hosted on en-Wiki, correctly identified as being in copyright and with valid NFURs. If another website is hosting photographs in breach of copyright, that is their business, and ultimately their problem should the copyright holder decide to take action. I do agree that one of the files can be deleted. If you close that discussion, I will delete the file. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to know who the copyright holder is to be sure our use is in accordance with NFCC (how would we claim criterion #2 compliance otherwise?). That's why copying files from random websites is not allowable. --Damiens.rf 15:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I read somewhere that I could delete files that I had uploaded and for which I am copyright owner. Seems that this is not the case? I'd like to remove my photo because I no longer wish for it to be associated with the Misplaced Pages article about Francine Reed. I can't find the[REDACTED] article that said that, but I've been a loyal editor for several year and tried to observe all your rules. However, that said, I am up in arms that other editors persist in not allowing me to orphan my own photo and delete it from Misplaced Pages.Jazzilady (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Jazzilady

I'm sorry, but I read somewhere that I could delete files that I had uploaded and for which I am copyright owner. Seems that this is not the case? I'd like to remove my photo because I no longer wish for it to be associated with the Misplaced Pages article about Francine Reed. I can't find the[REDACTED] article that said that, but I've been a loyal editor for several year and tried to observe all your rules. However, that said, I am up in arms that other editors persist in not allowing me to orphan my own photo and delete it from Misplaced Pages.Jazzilady (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you add an {{db-author}} tag to your file, it means you want it deleted. But you should understand that this does not revokes your previous licensing, and anyone who has downloaded the image would be able to use it for any purpose (in or out of Misplaced Pages). All she'll have to do will be to attribute the photo's authorship to you. --Damiens.rf 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, thanks for the clarification. What upset me was Facebook taking it from Misplaced Pages and using it to sell ads. I understand I can't do anything now, because at the time I had never even considered that possibility. I licensed it to Misplaced Pages because I wanted to help the artist, not to help Facebook generate advertising revenues. No good deed goes unpunished on the Internet.Jazzilady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry about that. Next time, consider the license Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike, (instead of just "Attribution"), because it will only allow the image to be used in works that are also distributed under a permissive license. This is my license of choice, and it's accepted on Misplaced Pages. --Damiens.rf 21:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption on Association of Naval Service Officers

I've reverted your disruptive edits to Association of Naval Service Officers. Feel free to use the talk page to discuss your propose edits. Your changes and addition of maintenance tags tells me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how we edit Misplaced Pages and use tags. I would like to be given the opportunity to correct your misunderstanding on the article talk page, so please feel free to discuss your proposed changes on that page. Viriditas (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The tags were fine and actually helpful for your quest to save the article from deletion. Removing them does not solves any problem. Take a look at the article's talk page (if it's not deleted yet) for a layman's explanation of what they mean. --Damiens.rf 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The tags were not helpful nor needed, and I'm detecting a serious COMPETENCY issue that needs attention. Your latest wikistalking of my contribution history and following me to Rosalind Rajagopal to further disrupt another article with a drive-by tagging based on your misreading of the source in use, tells me that you will require strict disciplinary action by the community. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've once again reverted your disruptive tagging of the Rajagopal article, which you deliberately followed me to after our dispute on ANSO. You are welcome to use the article talk page to explain why you think the article relies on one source when in fact it relies on seven. I should warn you however, that your continued disruption and stalking will be met with a request for administrative action. Therefore, I will warn you again for the last time: do not follow me or any other editor to pages where your sole purpose is to disrupt and hound. Viriditas (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting single words

As always, I find it curious that you have time to worry about single words in the wiki page about me, when there are whole pages which have no citations at all. See, for example, Phil Karn. Now, the reason I reverted Ganzopancho's edit is because he is not a disinterested party. He has criticized me on his blog; he should not be editing the wiki page about me. You also seem to have some kind of fascination with me, because you seem unable to leave my article alone. As I've asked in the past, please don't edit the wiki page about me anonymously. Otherwise we must assume that you are someone whom I have offended, and are editing anonymously to avoid being dinged for WP:COI. That's the risk of being a notable person; that people with a COI will edit your page. Please, go away and edit elsewhere. It's a big wikipedia; plenty of room for other people to edit the page about me. Thanks for your cooperation in advance. --RussNelson (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I believe Misplaced Pages should have an article for your ego. --Damiens.rf 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am confused by the logic here. Surely this would mean that we should prevent anyone from ever editing a BLP article without disclosing their identity, since any such edit could be just as likely to be by someone the article subject has offended? I don't see why this one particular BLP should get special treatment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)