Archives

2019, 2020, 2023, 2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

I know this account is blocked for one week by Star Mississippi, but when they return, I feel the need to ask why they're spending such an enormous amount of time nominating images for deletion (especially when many of these seem so flimsy and when they seem to do barely anything else here). Moreover, I feel the need to ask how this is even permissible behavior; it feels like a variant of Brandolini's law, where the amount of time required to refute a nomination is exponentially greater than the time required to make one. That is, it genuinely feels like the amount of deletion nominations being created about unrelated topics ought to be impermissible without prior administrator approval, because it takes up so much editor time to review each of these. I would almost think in light of this behavior that it'd be valid to hold an RfC about expressly limiting the amount of pages a single editor can nominate in a given time period without prior administrative approval – although I've genuinely never seen anyone do something like this before now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur something seems "off". Netherzone (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im still assessing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 28#File:Backboard shattering.jpeg, where they are involved. —Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not well versed in photo licensing and my on wiki time is limited. If the block needs adjusting please feel free to do it or have someone implement. This was meant as a last chance, not a lenient block @Bagumba @Netherzone @TheTechnician27 Star Mississippi 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see File talk:Diab al-Mashi.png ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brought to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this thread, they honestly seem to be behaving – I know it's bad conduct to say this – like a colossal jackass. Even I'm not that bitterly confrontational at my absolute pettiest. That said, "wrapping a rock in a basketball"(TM) and throwing it at a backboard to recreate a backboard smash is priceless and will live rent-free in my head for the rest of time. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, they're not even familiar with file deletion rationale. They nominated for deletion a file I uploaded with the one-line nom "is CC-BY-ND". I don't know where they got that from, since it's not at the file nor the source, and they seem to refuse to accept that they either read it wrong or made it up. There may be a file problem in that it needs a different tag elsewhere, but this is not something they mention. It's giving if you're gonna be SPA, at least be CIR. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against being a single-purpose account focused on one specific topic area, especially one like file deletion which is neglected by most of the editorship. There is no rule against being a free-content maximalist, and Iruka13 is not the first person to hold that opinion, and they won't be the last. I'm not even convinced this block was justified (but I won't be using my own admin tools to push the unblock button).

Iruka13 has 3000 deleted edits, mainly in the file namespace, so they clearly are nominating things for deletion that the admin corps agrees should be deleted as well, which is generally thankless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13 has 3000 deleted edits [...] so they clearly are nominating things for deletion that the admin corps agrees should be deleted – aren't deleted edits, edits that Iruka13 has made and which have been reverted? Isn't that suggesting they've messed up in file namespace 3000 times or have I got that wrong? Kingsif (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A deleted edit in this context is an edit to a page that has since been deleted. So that means they've made 3000 edits to pages which were later deleted, mostly files, which is (IMO) a good thing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I think where they are facing resistance are cases where they say animation or a 3D editor should be used as a replacement, or they tell other editors to buy the license to the image and then donate it for free. Are there any guidelines or precedents on these specific topics?—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my impression. I think Iruka13's position on non-free content is within the Overton window, and they're getting into trouble because they're being very active in that area, very argumentative, and not very good at communicating their point to others (possibly due to lack of English skills). or they tell other editors to buy the license to the image and then donate it for free - This seems like a misinterpretation - the idea of asking photo authors to consider releasing their photos under a free license is supported by policy before resorting to a non-free image is reasonable and supported by policy where it makes sense (i.e. see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission) (but money usually isn't involved in that process).

Finally, some closing advice - if you return to editing, it would be wise to accept that your standards for when a non-free image is warranted are much higher than consensus, and thus not push so hard to enforce them over others' objections, and not bludgeon the process with multiple comments when you are disagreed with.

Holding counter-consensus positions isn't a bad thing - I have several myself but I know they're counter-consensus and don't try so hard to push for them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery They're getting into trouble because they're being very active in that area, very argumentative, and not very good at communicating their point to others: I'm not active at FFD. So I'm willing to consider aninmation and 3D editors if that's an established practice, but those specifics were never forthcoming. Regarding "misinterpretation" over donations, their comment was:

And of course, anyone can buy the rights to one of these photos and relicense it as free.

Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one quoted comment is downright bizarre. Even the most stringent non-free image people I've come across have never expected any such thing.

I'm not particularly active at FfD either - I just noticed a backlog had accumulated so cleared it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 07:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to you lifting the block if you think it was incorrect @Pppery. Mine was less for the file disruption and more for wikilawyering around their incivility which has been a cross project issue so I unfortunately think we may be back here again. Star Mississippi 02:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not going to lift the block, although it's not one I would have issued. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13, this edit [1] seems like targeted retaliation. It also does not make any sense whatsoever, and I will be reverting your edit. Why did you add it when the article, Zuni fetishes does indeed include free images, and it also has the fair-use image which I added. The Fair-use photograph provides important visual/aesthetic details that cannot be seen whatsoever in the free images. These small details are culturally important to the Zuni people.

I as the the uploader released my rights to the photograph which I took, and although the object itself might be subject to copyright (although no evidence of copyright can be found), its use for educational/encyclopedic purposes is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because: 1. This is a historically significant work containing specific visual and material qualities that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows a major type of work produced by a specific tribal culture. 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop. The image has no commercial value whatsoever. 5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Please leave me alone, and stop following me around, it is really disturbing and makes me feel unsafe here. Netherzone (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13, would you please stop stalking me in your "laboratory" as seen in this diff: [2]. It is weird that you are using "invisible text" for part of the text in your "laboratory". You are frightening me as I have said above and making me feel very unsafe here. Why are you targeting me? It's creepy. PLEASE STOP as I have previously asked you to do. Pinging @Star Mississippi for advise. Netherzone (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 20:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your message on my talk page here — regarding deletion of a non-free usage file. I notice it has been replaced by an image that is in the public domain in this article. So, I don't have a problem with deleting the non-free file as an orphan. And keep up the good work. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the URLs of the pages I've sourced them from. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add myself to this, @Star Mississippi & * Pppery * - because this named user - @Iruka13 - has similarly been stalking me around this site.

As an example, one of my photos was tagged by them for deletion around 4 months ago. So fine. Except when asking why, or if the user had read any of the supporting material, I was met by threats to delete work I'd done on the site - plus varying degrees of condescension and bullying. This was largely on the talk page of a now deleted file.

Since then, the same user has tagged files from me at regular intervals - many of which are for - at best - spurious reasons.

The reason I say this is stalking is that these images aren't new. If there was a genuine issue, they could have *all* been tagged four months ago. Instead, @Iruka13 has chosen to deliberately stalk me around this site over many months.

I wondered if it was just me - but now I see from this talk page that, among other people, @Netherzone has experienced the same behaviour.

There's no way it'll only be the two of us. We each make edits in different fields and have no connection apart from what's on the page. There are users such as @Kingsif expressing concern too. Plus @TheTechnician27. That's all on this *one* talk page that only goes back six weeks. How can one person cause so much drama?

I don't understand how this is allowed to continue, given the user has already - apparently - been banned from Creative Commons.

Ultimately, I just want this person to leave me alone. It's unsettling to receive constant harassment from this person - and it clearly isn't only me. Peterspeterson (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about this editor @Peterspeterson, but as I mentioned to @Netherzone, my on wiki time is limited. I do think you or NZ have a valid case to bring to ANI. You're free to mention my block. I have not revisited it as at least one admin saw it differently, but I do believe their conduct is not becoming of a collaborative editing environment. Courtesy cc @Pppery Star Mississippi 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to ANI if you wish, and we'll see what the regulars there think - my position on blocks, especially of long-term editors, is notably out of touch with the community so I don't think anything I can say will be useful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. I just want this user to leave me alone - and I'm not the only one. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have pretty much stopped editing since the stalking began, I'm deeply freaked out about this. The last time someone wiki-stalked me online and it was brought to ANI, the disgruntled editor and their partner then started stalking me in real life, found out where I lived and worked. I would rather not participate in WP at all if the personal safety of volunteers is not respected nor valued. It seems wiser to simply find a new hobby than be pushed around and followed around by an editor with a known history for this type of conduct. Netherzone (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely with you here. What Iruka13 is doing is absolutely abnormal, obviously unhealthy, and total jackassery, creating a truckload of work for experienced editors to counter their spurious, birdshot approach to copyright noms. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)"[reply]

Discussion on the Admin Notice Board is here - cc: @Netherzone - @Kingsif - @TheTechnician27

Feel free to add your experiences. It won't only be us. I'm so sick of it. Peterspeterson (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User talk:Stefan2#Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 18, using the syntax < br /> in posts to create paragraphs can sometimes lead others to mistakenly assume that it's OK to insert a response in the paragraph break because this is how things work on many online forums which have A "quote" feature; the other person sees a gap so that's where they respond. Using {{pb}} can sometimes reduce the chance of this happening because there are no visual breaks in the source version of the post. I can't say it would've made a difference in this case, but it might be something worth considering in the future. Anyway, this is just a suggestion. If this happens to one of your posts again, you can use {{Interrupted}} to help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BD1 Gallery logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you tell me how you made this SVG just getting this image from the website? OWaunTon (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Open the website.

Right-click on the logo - I don't know what exactly this button is called in English Google Chrome, but it's the very bottom one - "view code".

The code that opens will immediately contain a link to the logo.

More often it is not there, then you need to look in the “Sources” submenu.

Save the file to your computer.

Open in a text editor.

Find the field "fill".

Change the contents of one of these fields to what you need. — Ирука¹³ 23:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of text editor exactly? OWaunTon (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use Windows 10 Notepad. But there are probably others that display the code correctly. And of course there are programs for editing .svg files. — Ирука¹³ 23:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Chromebook, not know the text editors are on there. OWaunTon (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. JayCubby 01:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]