Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The Case of the Indiana Archives

Hi, I just saw your notice about File:Standard advent calendar.jpg. I'm sorry, I didn't realize the problem at the time (photo of others' work).

I'm hoping I can catch you and see if you have advice over whether it's worth trying to find a solution aside from speedy deletion? Would I be able to change the licensing info on the file, such as acknowledging copyright and claiming fair use (if applicable!) ?

As for fair use, I hate to start making an argument because I know it's very overused and I still have more to learn about it. But in this case, isn't this akin to taking a photo of any other product, like a Tonka truck and uploading it? Uploading an image of the artwork on the product has no commercial effect on its use in the product, as people buy an advent calendar to use an advent calendar. Qwerty0 (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not allowed on Commons, so it must be deleted from there without question. And on English WP it's only allowed if it contributes something unique to the article that can't be replaced by a free image. If you think this is so, you can upload it here and add a fair use rationale explaining why a non-free image should be allowed in this instance. -- Zsero (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you so much for clarification. I'm not very familiar with either the Commons or file protocols. And actually, I think I like the first photo you replaced mine with better so I'm alright with not re-uploading mine.

But I think we need a photo in the article of a typical calendar (as described in the text of the intro and "Modern Calendars" section). And having read more about the non-free use policy, I'm pretty sure that as well as exemplifying the article topic, there is no free equivalent (this most common type is always a commercial product), it has zero effect on commercial opportunities, and at least File:Adventskalender_1.jpg is of quite low resolution. If I am able to get a version of either of the files with proper licensing and rationale given, would you object to me using it for the article? Qwerty0 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other pic also appears at first glance to be a copyvio, but I've asked the uploader to clarify its status. If it is deleted from the Commons, it could be uploaded to the individual WPs to be included in articles under fair use; then it would just need a rationale for why it needs to be in the article, i.e. the reader needs to be shown what a modern commercial calendar looks like, and by definition these are unlikely to be available with a free license. -- Zsero (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thanks a lot for being so helpful. Now I know where to go from here. I hope that guy with the first photo updates, since I like his better. But if not, maybe I'll resize mine and upload it again. Qwerty0 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the editor who kept adding poorly sourced negative material to the biography of Leib Tropper. However, please keep in mind that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is a reliable source that can be used in the article on Tropper. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a reliable source if it's reporting the results of its own research. In this case it's just parroting Rosenberg, which makes it no more reliable than him. -- Zsero (talk) 05:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not characterized by whether or not they do their own research, but rather based on whether the material they publish has reliable editorial oversight. This JTA article has no less editorial oversight than any other JTA article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the JTA piece. It says nothing in its own voice. It doesn't say the tapes exist, let alone what they say or whose voice is on them. All it says is "Rosenberg says all these things". So we have a RS that Rosenberg said them, but he is not reliable and his unsupported accusations aren't reportable by us, especially such serious ones about a BLP. Remember, RS is not a magic wand; it's a policy that exists for a defined reason. Also remember that there is no such thing as an absolutely reliable source; sources are reliable only to the extent that they do fact-checking and editorial oversight, both of which this piece clearly didn't have. -- Zsero (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool! I live not far away from you, geographically. Also, I'm not Orthodox. I was raised Conservative and am active in the Reform group at my University. I have a secular education and am trying to catch up on some of what I would have learned had I gone to Yeshiva. I'm also interested in Jewish outreach. By the way, are you Chabad? I notice that Chabad is one of the articles you're most active in editing. I've visited several Chabad houses in various parts of the U.S. and it's incredible what Chabad does for Jewish outreach. There was a real void in Jewish outreach and R. Schneerson Z"L had genius in entering it. Other movements are now learning from Chabad, and in my opinion, the non-Orthodox movements need to work on bringing their own distinctive approaches to the cause. I'm also interested in Karaite Judaism, which essentially sides with the Conservative on tzniut. I think the basic premises of Karaism are relatively easy to understand, and I don't fully understand the arguments for Rabbanism. --AFriedman (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not identify as a Chabadnik, or as much of anything beyond Orthodox. My email is zev@sero.name -- Zsero (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks again. I just wanted to let you know that I'm done with finals. My email is reseal05@gmail.com. --AFriedman (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left Truth transparancy a 3RR warning on his talk page, if he reverts one more time I will make a report about him. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to show a 20th-century illustration. Pepso2 (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be at least one free illustration from the 20th century! I could believe that there isn't one from some particular school, but from an entire century you can't find even one?! -- Zsero (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am still not happy about this content which is weakly cited and alleged and claimed....

In early December 2009, recordings were circulating on the internet of conversations between a man alleged to be Tropper and a woman whose conversion he is alleged to have been supervising, and which appear to show that the two were having a sexual affair. [1]

I have taken it out a couple of times but it has been replaced and still sits there now, do you support this content inclusion? Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be some mention of this, since it's a major story and it's in RS. I don't think there's any question that the Post is RS. I insist on keeping out links to the recordings, since they're not at an RS and they haven't been authenticated, but the fact that they're alleged to exist has to be mentioned. The juxtaposition to his resignation should also be kept, since every person with a brain in his head knows that they are linked and there's no reason to deliberately hide that; this is why I think it shouldn't have been moved to the generic "controversies" section but should stay in the EJF section. In general I think you've gone a bit overboard here; all I wanted was to keep out stuff that was sourced only to blogs, even if the blogs were quoted verbatim by so-called "RS", and to prevent allegations from being reported as established fact. -- Zsero (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move it, it is clearly weak and not being widely reported, it is all claimed and very weak..I would remove it, and have done twice..as far as anyone with a brain in their head can see..that 2 plus 2 equales 4 goes, I prefer citations.... I am happy to leave it with you as an experienced editor and you being knowledgeable in this field..One thing I would say..if the accusations are not confirmed somehow or at least strengthened by addition reliable citations in the near future that the content should be removed

Yes, I know you didn't move it; I was saying that I wish michab hadn't moved it. The thing is, there's almost certainly something going on, or he wouldn't have resigned so suddenly. Exactly what is another question, and the major source that everyone including the so-called "reliable sources" are quoting is blogger Scott Rosenberg, whom I wouldn't believe if he told me it was raining. It's rather like the situation last year with Sarah Palin, where all the "reliable sources" were getting their information from the blogger Andy Halcro, who was making up any old thing that fell into his head and feeding it to them, so Wikipedia had to report it all as if it were fact.-- Zsero (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats true when the comment was moved and stood alone it appeared all the more wrong, your of course correct that clearly something is going on... we don't have to report controversial weakely cited content as though fact, but...anyway..lets see how it develops, imo it will vanish. The wiki is full of such content, regards for the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, there is a new discussion regarding Trotter at the talkpage, I would appreciate it if you added your opinion on the matter. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that my additional section (on the Anglosism of British Jewry) was lacking in grammar and references, but you didn't need to delete the whols section, you could have just corrected it and kept it in. It's important and relevant information. Colt .55 (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its thesis is true. And as written it was not salvageable; the heading was a non-word! If you have actual facts to add, and can do so in the English language and can back them up with references, then do so; otherwise don't. -- Zsero (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not follow me around reverting everything, please I'm new but what you are doing is wrong!!--Mamalala (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's exactly right. Your edits that I've seen have generally not been improving the articles, so I'm checking up on the rest of your edits to see whether they follow the same pattern. -- Zsero (talk) 03:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert work of new users o.k.?? --Mamalala (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth not? If the article is not improved by their edits then they need to be reverted. And new users are more likely than old ones to make unproductive edits. -- Zsero (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why my edits are not improving the article? You are reverting everything without reason. What about talk page?--Mamalala (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mamalala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.64.215.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears that the user and the IP are acting in concert. If their edits are vandalistic, you could consider reporting them to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not vandalism, just not generally improvements to the articles. I've been explaining in edit summaries where I think the problem isn't obvious. -- Zsero (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO!! I'm just not welcome here! You are reverting everything! This is exactly what I read about in the press. New users are chased away by people like you!--Mamalala (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have I left any nasty messages at your talk page? No. So how are you being driven away? But the object here is to improve the encylopaedia, not to degrade it, even slightly. When you make a change that makes the article slightly worse, e.g. by substituting not quite the right word for exactly the right one, or by injecting Polish nationalism where it doesn't belong, an editor who disagrees with it has every right to fix it. -- Zsero (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'm sorry.--Mamalala (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but why you keep following me around reverting everything? Why do you think you know everything?--Mamalala (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following your edits because most of them are not improvements. They haven't yet reached the point of pure vandalism, but they're getting there. In some cases the problem should be obvious. Where it is not, I have indicated it in the edit summary. -- Zsero (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I you don't stop following me and reverting my edits I will report you.--Mamalala (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you think you can report me? -- Zsero (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is wrong what you were doing. You reverted all my edits leaving me no choice.[[2]]--Mamalala (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:COI complaint and discussion concerning your pro-Chabad POV editing and writing has started at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]]--Mamalala (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and no bad feelings okay? I'm going to bed now. Tomorrow may ask you for some assistance.--Mamalala (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... for handling the Mamalala incidents. Not yet convinced that this is a new user, but for now giving the benefit of doubt. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, just thought I would let you know why I labeled JTT as a former actor. I edited the article to state he is a former actor because he hasn't acted in three or four years. Since his occupation was actor, and he is no longer acting, i thought it was notable. Like if a firefighter or something is no longer fighting fires he's a former firefighter. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments here. Thanks, Tomer^talk 19:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. Skier Dude (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was not aware of WP:NFCC#9, which says that non-free content may not be used on talk pages. I will replace the image on Talk:Gaffer tape with an external link. As for this image, I think it might have a place in Spelling#Misspellings, if I can work up a lot of new text to add to that section, so that it has room for more pictures . I'm not sure if I can do that within a week, though, so if I haven't feel free to delete it, and I'll re-upload it when I'm ready. I might also find a way to work it in to Counterfeit consumer goods; that article really needs to actually mention that misspellings are a common sign of knock-offs, and this image might then be valuable as a counter-example, of a label that's misspelt because everyone at the manufacturer who could have caught the error is illiterate. -- Zsero (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. According to a message on my talk page left below your message, another user was just as guilty, perhaps more so and he's defending my block. I didn't mean to come off as "punishing" anyone, but a gross error like that which makes negative international press seemed to me to be a legit basis for a block. While I believe I was justified in blocking him, I'll unblock the account per your request. In retrospect, it was more negligence than outright vandalism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CHILD#Response: "Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." The standard operating procedure on the oversight list is to suppress these to protect the children and their families. You are more than welcome to contact the oversight list or the meta:Ombudsman commission if you believe I have used the tools improperly. -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This goes even doubled for pictures which:

1. The child has no legal right to upload an release copyright.
2. The child cannot be assumed to understand the ramifications of their actions even werethe to have the legal ability to release the copyright.
3. May quickly be spread throughout the internet and be used for disgusting, if not dangerous purposes.

-- Avi (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you were acting per a policy. I merely asked what policy that was. WP:CHILD is just an essay. As for the photo, why would he not have the right to release the copyright? And why would this picture be more likely to be misused than any other picture of a child, of which there are many on WP and the Commons, and which WP policy does not in any way discourage? I am making no allegations whatsoever, I am merely asking why you acted as you did, and specifically which policy you cited as your reason. -- Zsero (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images of children that are not associated with a name, username etc. wouldn't be as much of an issue; or old images of children who have since grown up, etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page and posted to the discussion of this page. In case you don't see it, here's what I wrote: Winchester and Zsero's edits to the footnotes have no business in an encyclopedia article about Rav Shach: they are nothing more than an attempt to repudiate the charges against their rebbe. If they would like to create a new Wiki page on "refutations to anti-Chabad charges of idolatry" I'm game. But Zsero's title "this is a footnote, not an essay" is as relevant to his edits as mine. I cut these two some slack by leaving their footnotes largely intact but adding some corrective information (to the effect that their sources neither corroborated their claim nor, in all but the Tanya instances, had anything to do with their rebbe's sicha). Therefore, I've largely removed both footnotes - leaving only direct links to the offending sicha so readers can draw their own conclusions (I believe in empowering people to make educated decisions...others seem to disagree). If Winchester and Zsero insist on turning this page into a platform for tangential (and incorrect) ideological rhetoric, I may launch a neutrality complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkunsofrim (talk • contribs) 22:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted that comment by Rush as meaning this was a major turning point in his life. Based on your action, I guess we should wait and see. It is a little hard to figure out what will look important five years from now. What stood out the most, though, was that the man had been out of the hospital 21 hours, and Wikipedia had NOTHING.

Oh, and the word got out that Wikipedia showed Rush had died. You're a hero.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Once he was out of hospital, the story of his having gone there in the first place needed to be made shorter, not longer. A brief hospitalisation that turned out to be nothing is worth one sentence, not a whole paragraph.

Oh, and the article had him as dead for a grand total of 6 minutes and 11 minutes; errors and vandalism are quickly corrected. But unless your intention was to congratulate me on having reverted the first of the two incidents, I don't understand why you bothered to mention it. -- Zsero (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the second incident but we appreciate your keeping watch.

You'll have to forgive me as I tend to err on the side of more information, not less, figuring over time some of the information will seem less important.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general warning to all users involved in recent COIN and ANI discussions. Please stop talking about other users mental status, mental health or their person. As the WP:CIVILITY policy says, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment" and WP:NPA which states: "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people". I am drawing a line under what has been said to this point so you all right now have a clean slate, but I intend to start blocking users on both sides of the dispute who continue engaging in violations of the behavioural policies so please accept this as a final warning. Thanks, Sarah 05:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these images have been undeleted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 30. I strongly urge you to go back to these articles and review them to ensure they are properly tagged and have a proper fair-use rationale per WP:NFC as soon as possible to prevent their possible deletion should it be proposed. Shereth 22:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination).Borock (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re a discussion we were having on Avi's talk page: Note that one of the five pillars of Wikipedia (WP:5P) is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". I think one reason there are some unwritten rules is that different rules have different levels of support; they might be supported by 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% or 99% of Wikipedians. Even if something is only supported by 30% of Wikipedians, that means there isn't a very strong consensus for the opposite, and going directly against it could annoy a large minority. There are some subtleties about how to get along within the consensus system. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and rewrite/reformat as appropriate your evidence to answer Fritzpoll? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zsero: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors are reminded to keep in mind Wikipedia policies, and seek content-dispute resolution if collaboration between editors breaks down. Editors are also reminded to continue editing in good faith. No enforcement motions are included in the final decision, but a request may be made to reopen the case should the situation deteriorate.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Zsero, if you continue to remove reliably sourced material from the article on Schneerson, that may well be an indication that the case needs to be re-opened. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The slanderous material that I removed should have been removed a long time ago. Your imagination that Erlich is a reliable source is the biggest joke. In the case of this statement, it is not true, and Olidort never told Erlich any such thing. Erlich made it up. Therefore it does not belong in the article. You forget that truth may not be sufficient for inclusion in WP, but it is necessary. -- Zsero (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made some (positive) edits to this article--please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Taylor (guitarist). Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for repeatedly removing no-license file deletion tags. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have chosen to disregard warnings and knowingly violate WP:NFCC#10b, I have temporarily revoked your editing privileges. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zsero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The images' copyright status is adequately explained on their information pages, and Fastily knows this very well, but persists in adding spurious deletion tags and falsely claiming that my removal is "unexplained". The deletion tags say explicitly that they may be removed when the copyright status has been added to the pages, which it had been. If Fastily believes that images may be deleted merely for lack of a fancy template, let him make that case, bearing in mind above all that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; but he has no right to block me for assuming the contrary. This block is capricious and should be overturned.

Decline reason:

You had me until the second half of the request. "Fancy template" or not, it's a requirement - no case needs to be made, 'nuf said. That's not bureaucracy, it's requirement. Therefore, it appears you continually removed maintenance tags before they should have been, contrary to warnings. Attacking the admin who is merely protecting the project - especially when it relates to the key issue of copyright - is inappropriate. Please read WP:GAB before considering an additional request (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zsero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I repeat, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You don't seem to have understood that. All rules are to be considered in terms of their substance and what they achieve, not as hoops to be jumped through for their own sake, or rituals to be followed precisely so as to placate demons. The requirement is to explain the copyright situation; these images' description pages do so. The fancy templates with pretty graphics are purely cosmetic, and it is completely contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia to delete an image merely for lack of one. Thus these images are not deletable, and Fastily knows this very well. If he wants them to have a template, he's free to pick one and insert it, or create a brand new one since none of the existing ones quite covers the situation, but he's not free to delete the images and thereby make the encyclopaedia worse rather than better. Remember that our mission is to build a better encyclopaedia, not to play a petty game. His insistance on repeatedly putting them up for deletion was disruptive, and his blocking me for removing the deletion tag, when the instruction in the tag explicitly permitted me to do so, was wrong and should be reversed.

Decline reason:

This is not a matter of process for the sake of the process, this is about protecting the project from unnecessary legal liability. The policy (#10b) is clear in it's requirement of an appropriate tag for the file. Now, please confine any further unblock requests to addressing the reason for your block rather than questioning the blocking admin. —DoRD (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zsero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

In what way does a fancy template "protect the project from unnecessary legal liability"? It's the explanation of the copyright status that protects the project. A template without that explanation does nothing, while the explanation without the template is perfectly adequate. The explanation is clearly there, and thus the spirit of 10b is satisfied. Insisting on a template, and deleting it for lack of one is as bureaucratic and paperwork-for-its-own-sake as it is possible to get! Please explain how deleting the images would improve the encyclopaedia. If you can't, then surely you see my point, and thus that my block is unjust.

Decline reason:

Policy (WP:NFCC#10b) mandates the presence of such tags. If you disagree, seek consensus to change policy instead of violating it, which is disruptive.  Sandstein  23:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

And how exactly is that not "process for the sake of process"? What would bureaucracy look like if it were not this? -- Zsero (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Two Weeks for removing no-license file deletion tags. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't learn do you? Immediately after release of your previous block, you return and violate the exact same policy, WP:NFCC#10b, that I blocked you for violating not but a few days ago. If I have to block you again, it will be indefinitely. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zsero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is ridiculous. The template I removed states a blatant falsehood, and says clearly to remove it if the information has been supplied, which Fastily knows very well has been. As far as I know there is no policy requiring the information to be supplied in the form of a template; if there is such a policy Fastily should a) point to it, and b) explain in simple English why enforcing it literally is not process for the sake of process. WP:NFCC#10b is not it, because the only image still in dispute is not non-free content. My block is arbitrary and an abuse of Fastily's admin powers, and should be removed. And should Fastily delete that image, he should be blocked for deliberately making WP a worse encyclopaedia.

Decline reason:

All you're doing is casting aspersions on others again, just as you have done in the past. It is also clear that you have some sort of refusal to understand our non-free content policy, as you have also demonstrated in the past. None of this addresses why you were blocked. If you continue down this path, your talk page editing privileges will be revoked. Regards, –MuZemike 04:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zsero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That is not a reason to decline the unblock. I cast aspersions on Fastily because his block was unjust and abusive. If you disagree explain why. If you expect me to simply accept and acknowledge that the block was justified, for no better reason than that Fastily is an admin and therefore must be right, then there is something seriously wrong. NFCC is irrelevant, since the image he put the template on is not non-free content. If there is a policy requiring a template on it, NFCC is not it. And even if it were non-free, neither he nor you have even attempted to explain why mere lack of a template makes a file deletable; simply pointing to the word "tag" in the policy is not enough. If you think it is, then you have some sort of refusal to understand that WP is not a bureaucracy. Nor has anyone even attempted to defend the insertion of a blatant falsehood into a page, or blocking someone for removing that falsehood. In any case, there is simply no reason for me to be blocked; if you think there is, explain it without reference to my disrespect for Fastily's awesum admin powerz.

Decline reason:

You can take your sarcasm to /dev/null with you for the remainder of your block; I'm revoking your talk page for repeated personal attacks. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Zsero. Please see Talk:Divine providence (Judaism). Thanks. Fintor (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free-unsure has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 06:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zsero: Because of your interest in this topic, you will hopefully be able to upgrade the Sholom Rubashkin article and add a balanced WP:NPOV to this important biography. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholom Rubashkin. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero, please refrain from using {{Non-free unsure}} on non-free files. The template is depreciated by consensus and {{Fair use in}} has been created to take its place. Simply removing the depreciation notice and slapping an egregious claim on the talk page of the template does not justify its use as a valid license tag mandated by Wikipedia's non-free content policy criterion 10b. In case you didn't know, your four images are the only images which bear transclusions of {{Non-free unsure}}. Now, please understand that I am not going to ask you to stop using an invalid and depreciated template as an accepted license tag again - consider yourself warned. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus are you talking about? Where is this consensus documented? I have initiated a discussion on the talk page asking for reasons why the template should be deprecated. If you have a reason why it should be, then make your case in that discussion. You are not entitled to simply revert my change because you don't like it, without discussing it and making a reasoned argument against it. And you are certainly not entitled to deliberately add lies to Wikipedia, by claiming that an image is copyright when you don't know that for a fact.

Nor are you entitled to block people for no reason, as you did me; your behaviour in that matter is outrageous and unforgivable. That I have not spent the time and energy it would take to pursue the sanctions you richly deserve does not vindicate you. You should be ashamed of yourself for what you did. You did not cite any relevant policy to back your position (NFCC, of course, does not apply to free content), nor did you address any point I raised. You simply used your power as an administrator and told me to obey you without explanation, or else. That is a clear abuse of the power with which you were entrusted. -- Zsero (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive Editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you, politely, many times to stop using a license tag depreciated by consensus (in case you did not know, license tags are depreciated only by consensus), but yet, you refuse to do just that. Understand that {{Non-free unsure}} is only retained for historical purposes and not day-to-day use. Despite knowing full well that {{Non-free unsure}} is now an outdated and unacceptable tag, you have continued to egregiously insist that the tag is still valid, going as far as creating a duplicate, Template:Non-free-unsure, to circumvent {{Non-free unsure}}'s depreciation. While I have attempted to correspond with you on this matter in a civil, collegial manner, you have responded with a slew of personal attacks, shouting, and unfounded accusations. Your talk page history and many of your recent edit summaries are simply testament to this fact. I'm sorry Zsero, but as an administrator, I am charged with the duty of protecting this project from legal threats/copyright issues. With that being said, you are blocked indefinitely until you agree to respect established media file policy, especially WP:NFCC#10b. Let me echo Sandstein up above, "If you disagree, seek consensus to change policy instead of violating it, which is disruptive". Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zsero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(See immediately below)

Decline reason:

You've been repeatedly notified, by multiple administrators (not just Fastily), that your edits don't comply with the NFCC (Section 10b). When multiple editors are telling you the same thing, your defense of "I can't find the consensus for that" is not a valid one. Your course of action, if you legitimately disagree, is to open discussion at the NFCC talk page, or the village pump, or some other appropriate place, and ask why, specifically, your templates do not comply. Instead, you insist upon repeatedly posting them despite all of the warnings and blocks evidenced on this page. Yes, he could explain it a little better - but other admins, above, have already done so. You chose to ignore their warnings. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have repeatedly asked Fastily to make his point, if he has one, in the appropriate place, i.e. in the talk page of the template. Fastily has refused to do so. Contrary to his claim, he has made no attempt to correspond with me "in a civil, collegial manner", or in any manner at all. He has simply given me orders and demanded that I obey.

He claims there is a consensus against my edit, but ignored my request to point to where this consensus is documented, or explain why it arose, or make any argument whatsoever for it. He simply asserts that it's so, and that I must accept that. Of course even if there was once a consensus, that would be no reason for me not to reopen the question, and no excuse for him not to engage in that discussion; past consensuses are not binding in any way. But I don't even know that there ever was one; he hasn't even documented that. And of course without knowing the arguments (if any) originally made for that (supposed) consensus I can't possibly be expected to address them.

All he does, all he has ever done throughout this dispute, is rest on his supposed authority as an admin to give orders, an authority that of course doesn't exist. He has never once deigned to explain what, if anything, I've been doing wrong, or addressed my arguments in any way at all. All I've done is made an edit, initiated a discussion in the talk page explaining why I did so, and waited for someone, anyone, to respond; the result has been a deafening silence, and Fastily reverting without explanation, and now a block. I really don't know what else I can be expected to have done.

I specifically deny ever knowingly violating a policy, or indeed ever violating one at all. If I have done so, it is up to Fastily to explain how my actions contradict the policy, and honestly address my explanations and questions. He was certainly not entitled to claim, as he did, that I violated the NFCC policy with my edit to File:Bluewaterarena.jpg, which is not non-free content! He was also not entitled to ignore my repeated explanation that the edit he keeps making to the Noronic files is inappropriate because it makes a factual claim which is simply false; if he thinks the claim he adds is true then he should explain why, not ignore it.

I don't know what personal attacks or unfounded accusations he's talking about above; if he means my claim that he is abusing his admin powers, I ask you: if this is not an abuse then what is?! -- Zsero (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I've declined this request. I also want to add that the talk page of a deprecated template is absolutely the wrong place to discuss these issues, for the very reason that no one really monitors deprecated templates - they're deprecated! As for the personal attacks, I'm pretty sure accusing other editors of lying (as with edit summaries such as this) is a personal attack. YMMV, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fastily was certainly aware of it; if he felt the discussion belonged in some other place he should have told me where to move it. And he certainly should have made some attempt to participate in it and explain why he thought my edit was wrong. Instead he ignored it and my constant requests to explain his position there. What else was I supposed to do?
2. I explained exactly why it was a lie. Do you disagree? Fastily made a factual claim (that the image is copyright) that he had no basis for believing to be true, and he knew this well because I'd already pointed it out to him several times. He has never once attempted to explain why he thinks his factual claim is true, or at least likely to be true; he just kept making it, and ignoring my pointing out that it's a falsehood. If that's not lying, what is? -- Zsero (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to figure this one out myself. I just spent a half hour looking for the discussion that resulted in the deprecation of this template, and so far have come up with nil. This edit, which put in the deprecation notice, doesn't have a helpful summary. Could someone please point me to where a consensus developed for this? The only references I've found to it include Carcharoth saying it was deprecated and he didn't know why. It looks to me like Poccil cut-and-pasted something from one template to another and just picked up the deprecated notice on the way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to have occured here in 2005 as best I could find; not sure why the tag was nto depiciated until early 2006. Kuru (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Doesn't seem to be a heck of a lot of discussion there, and nothing specific to this; indeed, it looks like Poccil cut-and-pasted the template without considering whether this particular one was actually deprecated. (Otherwise, one would think he would have said something somewhere like "oops, we forgot to put the deprecated language on the 'unsure' tag.") --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure; the sequence of events is quite a mess. As much as I detest process wankery, copyright problems are one of the "better safe than sorry" affairs and "seek consensus to change policy instead of violating it" would indeed be the preferred modality. It would seem like a simple thing to simply re-start a civil discussion at WP:NFCC and let it come to a consensus before utilizing the disputed tag again. Kuru (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, certainly. "Correct but not civil" just causes problems. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"seek consensus to change policy instead of violating it". But I'm not seeking to change policy, and I certainly didn't violate it. Every image that I uploaded was completely in accord with policy, and the way I presented them was completely in accord with policy. All I did was change a template in a way that seemed appropriate to me, and initiate a discussion in which people could make arguments against my edit, and explain why it was wrong. So far nobody has done so.

The fact is that this template or one like it is needed, for images like the ones I used it for. We can't say for a fact that they're copyright, because it's probably not true. But we can't say for a fact that they're not copyright, even though that's probably true, because it just might not be. So what can we do but lay out the reasons why they might be copyright as well as the reasons why we think they're probably not, and then play it safe and treat them as if they were copyright?

At any rate, since you agree that I didn't defy any consensus, let alone any policy, could you please unblock me? Especially since until you do so I can't participate in the discussion you started?

Also, if I've been "correct but not civil", please point out where. (I stand by my characterisation of the changes Fastily made as lies, because they were statements of fact that he knew to be without foundation. That's pretty much the definition of a lie.)

-- Zsero (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the words you were looking for are "I can see there is confusion in a topic of some import, and that my approach of boldly interpreting our copyright procedures has been met with significant concern from other good faith editors. I will avoid the previous actions I have taken and instead seek to participate in the discussion jpgordon has graciously initiated for me." That seems more civil, no? It seems unlikely that Fastily would review this block when you still intend to continue the problematic edits, and when you are still taking shots at him. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking for Fastily to review the block; I was under the impression that unblock requests were supposed to be reviewed by uninvolved admins, not by the one who, I believe, has been acting in bad faith all along. -- Zsero (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero, I'll unblock you iff you agree to not insert the template in question until the issue has been resolved. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree not to reinsert my template on these images, but I won't agree to leaving his template in place, because it tells a lie. If he'll agree not to reinsert his template, I'll remove mine and the images can remain without a template for the duration of the discussion. He's the one who insisted on having a template in the first place, and kept nominating the images for deletion because I couldn't find one that fit the facts. Then I found a template that, with some modification, would fit the facts; I thought he'd be happy, but no.

But more fundamentally, I ask you in the name of justice, why is it that I'm blocked and not him? How is my behaviour worse than his? Shouldn't he be blocked until he agrees to participate in discussion and not reinsert his template on the images? After all, I followed procedure and he did not. I made my change, started a discussion on the talk page, and waited for comment; he knew about the discussion but refused to participate and instead just kept reverting to his version. How is that not blockable behaviour?! Why must I be the one to make promises and let his version stay pending discussion, rather than the other way around? Just because he's an admin?!

My main concern is that Wikipedia should not be telling lies, even for a few weeks. Whatever defects my version may have (and I've yet to hear any but am open to the possibility that they may exist), it has the one big advantage of telling the truth, whereas his version makes a false statement of fact, and therefore shouldn't be left up even for a short while. I point out that his version is not the "stable" one. It's not as if I came along and disturbed a stable version, and he was just restoring it. Let's restore to the status quo ante, which is no template at all, but only a text explanation of the images' copyright status, and then have the discussion about the template. -- Zsero (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, never mind. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key misunderstanding here is with our Non-free content policy; If there is a chance that an image is copyrighted (as appears to be the case here), we assume it is indeed copyrighted and treat it accordingly. This isn't a case of lying, it's a case of playing it safe. Our policies mandate this approach, as you were informed repeatedly. Turn the question around - why is your interpretation enough to trump the analysis of multiple administrators and editors, all of whom disagree with your position? Consensus is against you on this point - which is fine, it happens, no problem. That's where discussion comes in. Once he reverted you again, that should have been the end of it - leave it alone until the discussion progresses. You continued to revert, and that generated the block. Even if he was wrong to revert you again, a point on which I make no judgement, your conduct is what is at issue here, and that conduct justified the block. Your refusal to compromise on your position, even if only to continue discussion, indicates that the disruption will continue, and so you remain blocked. If we had some assurance that you would comply with policy (even while disagreeing with it and discussing your interpretation of it), you might have a shot at an unblock, but we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience here, there is a fanatical paranoia about images. The wikipedia policy goes far beyond that which is mandated by law. For that reason, I don't bother even trying to upload images anymore unless I took the picture myself, and even then sometimes I get hassled for not having the i's dotted and the t's crossed precisely the way this week's rules have it. Don't bother fighting the deletionists. You will not win. It's a waste of your time and energy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing we want is to have the Wikimedia foundation sued to the ground - then there would be no Wikipedia for any of us to edit then would there? We already have enough legal trouble as it is ranging from "porn" on Commons to nut jobs who are disgruntled with system - why should we care to garner any more trouble? When we deal with non-free media files, we often deal with the property of large corporate businesses that possess infinitely more resources and lawyers than does the Wikimedia foundation. It is utterly fallacious to pick a legal fight we know we will lose. Fair use provides us with protection under US law; failure to utilize this shield opens windows for our enemies and offended copyright holders to attack. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't follow legalistic fair use guidelines. Wikipedia invented its own fair use definition which is much stricter than the law requires. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But I suppose it really comes down more to better safe than sorry. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also creates the paradox that the only fully acceptable photos violate the rules against original research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the photo perpetuates some novel theory. As long as it indisputably shows what it purports to show, there's no problem. Where original research moreso enters into it is with charts or maps. --B (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a picture an editor took, it inherently has no citations as to its validity. It's like a blog or any other unreliable source. If I were an expert at such things, I could create an amazingly-accurate model of the Great Pyramid out of beach sand, take a photo of it and pass it off as the real thing, and who is anyone to argue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not the reason for Wikipedia's fair use policy. It has nothing to do with "better safe than sorry". It's that we deliberately refuse to use all but the most limited set of images under a claim of fair use in order to facilitate the growth of free media. We could use a lot of things, but we'd prefer not to because we would rather someone create a free one and we'd rather remove potential encumbrances to reuse of Wikipedia content. --B (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember this discussion from a couple of years ago. In essence, it's "We look amateurish and we're proud of it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is one of the main reasons for the non-free policy. Both encouragement of the use of free content and protection against legal issues are used as rationale for the policy. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that trump the rule against original research? Any photo taken by an editor and posted here is inherently original research, because there is very unlikely to be a valid citation that it is what it claims to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Files by users are exempt. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shucky-darn. I didn't recall seeing that before, but it's been awhile. I reckon they wrote that specifically to address complaints like mine. I would read into that also, that if someone challenges the validity of a photo, the uploader had best be prepared to defend it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. It happens on a rather frequent basis too. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't involved in the blocking kerfuffle documented above. But maybe an update is in order.

The template that Zsero was asked to stop using was {{Non-free unsure}}. This template was deleted in August 2010 (i.e. subsequent to the Zsero blocking kerfuffle), because other editors besides Zsero were using it. The deletion discussion is here. So, this template is no longer subject to misuse by Zsero or anyone else.

During the Zsero blocking kerfuffle, User:jpgordon tried to find out whether Template:Non-free unsure had ever actually been legitimately deprecated. Accordingly, jpgordon submitted an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The null result of that inquiry is now archived here, indicating at least that there was valid reason to doubt that this template had ever been properly deprecated.

There were four images at issue during the blocking kerfuffle, including this photo  and this photo of a Canadian ship (the SS Noronic) that was destroyed by fire in 1949. The images had been uploaded by Zsero, and (whatever the details of the blocking kerfuffle may be) these images uploaded by Zsero continue to adorn the article SS Noronic, as of December 2010. I don't know what the other two images were.

The edit history for the Noronic images shows quite a bit of reverting. The talk pages for the images remain completely empty, which suggests a lack of communication from all sides.

The tags on the two Noronic images say: "This work is copyrighted and unlicensed." As I read the Zsero blocking kerfuffle, no one has any certainty that these two images are actually copyrighted. Zsero felt that it was therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia to assert that they're copyrighted when actually we don't know for sure. In contrast, the admins on the other side of the argument take the very reasonable position that Wikipedia should assume they're copyrighted if we don't know for sure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the facts I've described, the most sensible solution appears to be simply editing the template now on the images, so that it says, "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed.". Insertion of this parenthetical should address everyone's concerns.

I have submitted the edit request at Template_talk:Non-free_fair_use_in#Edit_request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template has now been made more accurate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very appropriate to unblock this user now. The relevant images he uploaded are still validly in use. No one ever established that the tag he wanted to use had been validly deprecated, but in any event that tag has now been deleted. Moreover, the current tag has now been corrected as he urged. Please unblock.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin (User:Fastily) is now retired, no longer has admin privileges, and says at his talk page: "I have no interest in debating a 6 month-old, resolved issue with you- particularly when I'm retired."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread about this at ANI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the archived ANI discussion. The consensus was that they would like to hear directly from the blockee.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see he is categorised with four nationalities. I saw you disscused similar with Redaktor at Akiva Eger. I am wondering if instead of having all countries as we know them nowadays, we can create new cats for the regions name at the time, eg. Category:Prussian rabbis or what have you. Agree? What region/s or countries did this rav live in? Chesdovi (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Zsero for helping to promote Dylan and Cole Sprouse to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Survivors of stabbing, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Deadly Serious Party has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable joke party

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deadly Serious Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Serious Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Verginia

Would it be possible to change the title of this article ? Verginia is a wrong denomination for Virginia, which is the correct form, historically attested and confirmed. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1278485 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q1278485

Thank you ! --Slojkine (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia article has now been changed from Verginia to Virginie. You should do the same, from Verginia to Virginia. I understand that pronunciation is the same, but think of some centuries of English literature and culture ! https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginie_(Rome_antique) --Slojkine (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slojkine (talk • contribs)