User talk:Damiens.rf/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Damiens.rf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Question

Hi, don't know if you saw it, I asked a question at one FFD you nominated, here [1]. 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? Grsz¹¹ 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)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_October_22#File:Law_Enactments.JPG

As for wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. (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 wikipedia 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:

No free equivalent. - An entire wikiproject in good standing is telling you: we looked, and no dice. This does count for something. Ask around.
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.
Minimal usage. the images are low-res and they are for the most part cropped from the originals.
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.
Content. all of the images are deeply encyclopedic and enrich our knowledge of the subject illustrated
Media-specific policy. all images meet this criteria.
One-article minimum. images are used in at least one article and not orphans.
Contextual significance. the images' presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Restrictions on location. images are only in articles
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 ^{talk to me} 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

you are being discussed

at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/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.^πraxis_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.^πraxis_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.^πraxis_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.^πraxis_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.^πraxis_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 [2] 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"[3]. 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 Wikipedia, 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is supposed to be freely reusable by anyone for any purpose, we don't accept pictures (or any other material) released with a Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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

Hello, Damiens.rf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Hello, Damiens.rf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 23:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Message

Hello, Damiens.rf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 [4].--GeneralCheese 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia 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: [5], 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: [6], [7], [8] — 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 wikipedia 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[ing] up the mess [in everything within our project's scope]". 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 [Tony] 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 Wikipedia 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:

Avoid further actions that appear to be racist, or that bait editors of a particular race. (Questionable image deletion nominations of famous Puertorriquenos [9][10][11])
Avoid violating WP:POINT. (Above diffs, pointy deletion nominations.) Another: [12]
Avoid hounding editors such as User:Rlevse or User:Marine 69-71. [13][14][15] (last link, read whole page)
Refrain from vandalism. (Removing MoH and Navy Cross citations, needlessly, when these are very easily source-able. [16][17][18])
Observe the requirement to relate civilly and collegially with other editors. (Not nice at all. [19])

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Jehochman ^Brrr 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 ^Humbug!

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 ^Brrr 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 Wikipedia 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 ^Brrr 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 ^Brrr 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 am quite comfortable with my block. I don't block and then request a review. That's for the administrator who reviews your request to decide, not me.

”

— User:Jehochman, e-mail 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 ^Brrr 21:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that one venue is best. I was trying to avoid ANI by engaging [you] 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 ^Brrr 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

Cleaning up images related to Australian, Puerto Ricans or Greeks is not racism. Your accusation is far fetched.
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 [20] [21].
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
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.
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 ^Brrr 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 ^Brrr 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 ^Humbug! 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 ^Brrr 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 ^Brrr 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: [22] [23]; against the use: [24] [25]).

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 [26], 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. [27]

"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" [28]

And for those missing the background info here are two good summaries: [29] and [30]. Elephants have better memories than zebras.

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

"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.
"Don't confuse defensible with argumentative" - I sincerely do not get the point of your link/diff.
I still refuse your accusation of racism, regardless of your empty argument.
"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 [what] 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)