User talk:MjolnirPants

If you want to leave me a comment, please visit my English Wikipedia User talk page.

File tagging File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg

File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Own work?

There is a discussion up here about this file File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg. Your claim to authorship is under question. Just FYI. --Gaff (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your views are welcome at the discussion, MjolnirPants, but I just want to clarify that your upload or authorship is not the subject of the discussion, I merely used it as an example to facilitate a broader discussion. Cheers, -Animalparty (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inchon mh3.jpg

File:Inchon mh3.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gunnex (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chavchavadze 31-155 s.jpg

File:Chavchavadze 31-155 s.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ghirlandajo (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:The Dome (Rust).png

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:The Dome (Rust).png. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:The Dome (Rust).png]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Secondarywaltz: I forwarded the emails in which I received the images (this one and 5 others) in response to a clearly worded request for images to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license to the Volunteer Response Team. MjolnirPants (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should tag them as OTRS pending to clarify the situation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. MjolnirPants (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peace Palace Fairfield, IA.JPG

Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ 日本語 ∙ македонски ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

Thank you for uploading images from Wikipedia to Commons. However, the file you uploaded, File:Peace Palace Fairfield, IA.JPG appears to be a scaled down version of the version on Wikipedia. Please reupload the full version of the image. You can then tag the scaled down version with {{duplicate}} to have it deleted. Consider using CommonsHelper to provide the correct image description and licensing tags. Thank you,

Stefan2 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: This was the result of a request at the wikipedia graphics lab, added to the "eight requests' template here. If anything, it's the file at en.wikipedia that should be deleted. Do you know if there's a "this file exists on commons" delete template I could add to it? MjolnirPants (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's w:Template:Now Commons, which is already used on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The en.w version is tagged now (it was tagged before, but at the bottom of the page). It should get deleted eventually. MjolnirPants (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Crafting 1 (Rust).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Crafting 1 (Rust).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Coltsfan (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Rust e o purificador de água.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Rust e o purificador de água.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Coltsfan (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiec warszawskich volksdeutschów w sali Roma.jpg

File:Wiec warszawskich volksdeutschów w sali Roma.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dd1495 (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tasmania (Scouts Australia).svg

File:Tasmania (Scouts Australia).svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fma12 (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Suica Train Card.JPG

Yours sincerely, G I Chandor (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christmas in Aleppo.png

File:Christmas in Aleppo.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:KCCS Cookie.JPG

File:KCCS Cookie.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Subvertc (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Message regarding my editing

Hi,

I received the message from you

" Hello, I'm MPants at work. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Durga have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

I see a clear ill-intention edit by Ms Sarah. I am editing to put the original verse in the original language (transliterated) in the article. What is referred by Ms Sarah is a completely wrong (in fact, totally unrelated) translation. A simple search on google will let you know the original text and even the transliterated text. When I edited her text, she has retorted to threatening to get me blocked.

I simply cannot understand this. I am putting in the original text (transliterated) and she has some serious problems with it. Why should anyone has problems with the original text in place of completely irrelevant translation. I have observed she has indulged in such acts in many articles. I hope Wikipedia remains a source of truth and not a place for motivated individuals spreading falsehoods.

If you need additional info in judging this, please let me know. I'd be happy to provide that to you. I also hope motivated individuals with spreading falsehoods are blocked instead of folks like me who are spending time to correct it.

Thanks.

File:JPAgagianian GPetrowicz.jpg

File:JPAgagianian GPetrowicz.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

—David Levy 02:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ömer Halisdemir.png

File:Ömer Halisdemir.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:KCCS Cookie.JPG

File:KCCS Cookie.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg

Breaking page formatting

File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.novinite.com/media/images/2018-04/photo_verybig_189647.jpg&imgrefurl=https://www.novinite.com/articles/189647/Kate+Middleton+Gives+Birth+to+3rd+Baby&h=802&w=640&tbnid=bcQBQScHGwdRhM&tbnh=251&tbnw=200&usg=K_rmM_F5sk4iFR8OkkLF0hAOaOoYw=&docid=Xv_Yryjnrf4CSM

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

FitIndia ^Talk 00:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitindia: Do you have any idea how ridiculous this nom was? The source is dated April 23rd 2018, whereas the latest revision to that file is dated January 8, 2015. And if that's not enough, the source of that image credits wikipedia for the image for fuck's sake! Jesus, do some goddamn research once in a while. It took me less than 1 second to find that out. MjolnirPants (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg

File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

FitIndia ^Talk 06:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite deity..

After applying for a self-requested block on enwiki, you decided to step right into an even bigger hellhole?

You are a brave man. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, a stupid one. Don't expect me to suck around this dumpster fire for long. MjolnirPants (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being brave and being stupid are closely related. The plan (there is a plan!) is to dump a pile of fireworks in the dumpster in December. Sure you won't stick around? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Вікі любить Землю 2019 в Україні триває до 31 травня!

Вітаємо!

З 1 по 31 травня триває сьомий конкурс «Вікі любить Землю» (Wiki Loves Earth), метою якого є фотографування пам'яток природи. Протягом травня ви можете завантажувати власні фото природно-заповідного фонду України та змагатися за призи. Зі списками пам'яток природи України можна ознайомитися тут. Приєднуйтеся!

Цього року є деякі зміни в правилах, зокрема:

фотографії пам'яток, які на момент початку конкурсу не мали жодної ілюстрації на Вікісховищі або у Вікіпедії, отримують коефіцієнт 10 в кількісній номінації. Якщо ви маєте фото ще не проілюстрованих пам'яток — це збільшить ваші шанси на перемогу;
окрема спецномінація для аерофотозйомки (фото з дронів тощо).

Більше інформації про конкурс читайте на сайті конкурсу. Якщо у Вас є запитання, можете звертатися wlewikimedia.org.ua – Оргкомітет «Вікі любить Землю» (in English). 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2021 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in Ukraine

Привіт!

З 1 по 30 вересня вже традиційно пройде українська частина міжнародного фотоконкурсу «Вікі любить пам'ятки»! В Україні цей конкурс пройде вже вдесяте. На конкурс можна подавати власні фото пам'яток історико-культурної спадщини України — і змагатися за призи. Більше можна прочитати за посиланням.

Радимо ознайомитися із детальними правилами, а також із відповідями на часті питання. Як і того року — у номінації «За найбільшу кількість сфотографованих пам’яток» можна отримати 21 бал за фотографії об'єктів, якщо світлин цієї пам'ятки раніше не було завантажено.

Нагадаємо, що всі фотографії автоматично беруть участь у номінації «За найбільшу кількість сфотографованих пам’яток»; однак для того, щоб фото позмагалося у номінації «Найкраще фото», потрібно підтвердити це при завантаженні.

Цього року вперше будуть окремо виділені фото з повітря (дронами, квадрокоптерами тощо) — у спеціальній номінації «Аерофото». Для того, щоб робота потрапила на спецномінацію потрібно вибрати її у Завантажувачі.

Також вперше проводиться спеціальна номінація «Пам'ятки Подесення», знову пройдуть спецномінації «Відео», «Єврейська спадщина», «Млини», «Пам'ятки національно-визвольної боротьби» та «Via Regia Ukraine». Для участі світлин у цих спецномінаціях не потрібно обирати нічого у Завантажувачі — світлини зараховуватимуться автоматично з відповідних списків.

Усі номінації та спецномінації конкурсу описані тут.

Приєднуйтеся!

Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться за посиланням. Щоб отримувати інформацію про новинки у конкурсі — підпишіться на наші блог та сторінку у фейсбук.

Важливо! Цього року відбулася адміністративно-територіальна реформа. Однак, ми проводимо конкурс ще за попереднім адміністративно-територіальним устроєм. Ми почали роботу над створенням списків з новим поділом, але вона ще не є завершена. Ви можете користуватися тими новими списками, що вже є, якщо потрібно відшукати пам'ятку за новим поділом (деякі ОДА вже почали присилати у такому форматі), але пам'ятайте, що нові списки ще не є повними.

Якщо у Вас є запитання, можете звертатися wlmwikimedia.org.ua чи у фейсбук – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки».17:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ви отримали це повідомлення, оскільки Ви брали участь в одному із фотоконкурсів «Вікімедіа Україна» чи допомагали (наприклад, редагували файли з цих конкурсів).

If you do not speak Ukrainian, but you are interested in a contest, you can check out our page in English here.

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2021 в Україні триває до 30 вересня / Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in Ukraine is on till September 30

Автор фото Aeou, інфографіка AnastasiaPetrova (WMUA), CC BY-SA 4.0

Переможці спеціальної номінації «Відео» 2020. Автори роликів: Ігор Мартинів, Кирило Венцеславський; Музика: Erik Satie: Gymnopedie No 2 by Kevin MacLeod. Монтаж: Atoly. Ліцензія CC BY-SA 4.0

Привіт!

Нагадуємо, що до 30 вересня включно можна вантажити світлини та відео культурної спадщини України до національного етапу міжнародного фотоконкурсу «Вікі любить пам'ятки»!

Зараз Україна посідає 3-є місце за кількістю завантажених світлин, поступаючись Російській Федерації та Німеччині. За першу половину місяця було завантажено світлини пам'яток із усіх регіонів України, але частина із них є дуже погано представлена. Севастополь зараз представлений тільки однією пам'яткою і одним фото, Крим — 12 пам'яток і 51 фото. Детальніше — у таблиці:

Проміжна статистика
Регіон	К-ть пам'яток	К-ть фото
Севастополь	1	1
АР Крим	12	51
Закарпаття	26	96
Миколаївщина	29	81
Рівненщина	36	186
Херсонщина	36	83
Житомирщина	55	324
Донеччина	57	153
Тернопільщина	62	234
Буковина	75	220
Луганщина	82	90
Львівщина	82	351
Кіровоградщина	88	181
Волинь	98	270
Одещина	115	383
Сумщина	129	414
Дніпропетровщина	139	278
Київ	159	248
Хмельниччина	166	538
Полтавщина	171	594
Харківщина	175	625
Київщина	181	651
Черкащина	186	455
Прикарпаття	240	305
Вінничина	242	775
Запоріжжя	253	317
Чернігівщина	305	519

Зі списками пам'яток можна ознайомитися тут. Усі номінації та спецномінації конкурсу описані тут.

Цього року у конкурсі є вісім спеціальних номінацій:

«Аерофото» — для фото з повітря (зроблені дронами, квадрокоптерами тощо). Для того, щоб робота потрапила на спецномінацію потрібно вибрати її у Завантажувачі;
«Відео» — для відеосюжетів з пам'ятками;
«Єврейська спадщина» — для об'єктів із охоронним статусом, і без нього;
«Млини» — для об'єктів із охоронним статусом, і без нього;
«Пам'ятки національно-визвольної боротьби» — для об'єктів із охоронним статусом, і без нього;
«Пам'ятки Подесення» — для об'єктів із охоронним статусом, і без нього;
«Via Regia Ukraine» — для об'єктів із охоронним статусом 15 населених пунктів, що за цим маршрутом є.

Більше інформації про конкурс дивіться за посиланням. Щоб отримувати інформацію про новинки у конкурсі — підпишіться на наші блог та сторінку у фейсбук.

Приєднуйтеся!

Якщо у Вас є запитання, можете звертатися wlmwikimedia.org.ua чи у фейсбук – З повагою, Оргкомітет «Вікі любить пам'ятки». 18:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Ви отримали це повідомлення, оскільки Ви брали участь в одному із фотоконкурсів «Вікімедіа Україна» чи допомагали (наприклад, редагували файли з цих конкурсів).

If you do not speak Ukrainian, but you are interested in a contest, you can check out our page in English here.

Thanks a lot!

Just coincidentally I reloaded the RD page, and much to my surprise the watermark is gone now! Wow! You're quick – especially for someone wo retired. ;-)

So I noticed the busy activity on your user page and thought I should protect it again. I haven't read it, though. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, how did you do that? I installed Gimp, thinking that the Healing Tool would do what I described in my first guess at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Removing a destructive watermark: Its icon is a band-aid, which fits so well to the idea of letting the colors grow into the wound from the side, but that's not how it works. So, which program did you use? ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here's a before and an after of the image in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPants at work (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian. I am retired, at least from editing/interacting on en.wp. I still use the site, however, just not as an editor. I went to the refdesk to look up an old topic I saw there some months back that was of interest, and saw your question about the watermark. I actually enjoy removing watermarks, so I did it.

To answer your question here; it's pretty straightforward. I did, in fact, use GIMP. A lot of people go for the healing brush first, but that's not the best way for high contrast watermarks like this. The healing brush recreates fine texture (high-frequency noise) while maintaining the underlying colors by averaging all the pixels under the brush, so when you use it on white text against a green background, it produces a light green mess that clashes with both the foreground and background, as from it's perspective, the average of the white and green is what it thinks you want.

I first copied a few small areas of the spot where the veins meet in the center of the leaf, and made new layers from them, which I moved and rotated to rebuild it slightly.
I then used the clone stamp tool, with the alignment set to "none", and the brush set to a hard round to make dots and small scribbles to erase the rest of the test. You have to pay attention to seams that pass underneath the text, and be careful to clone similar seams at the same angle to recreate them. You'll have to ctrl+click multiple times to pick a new reference point, to make sure you're getting the right shade. It's okay at this point to leave sharp edges between lighter and darker areas, as you'll be fixing those in the next step. For larger gradients, you can set the opacity down some and do a little manual blending.
When I had the white of the text completely gone, then I used the healing brush to recreate the texture and erase the pointilistic texture caused by the clone tool. It works just like the clone tool.
Finally, I returned to the clone tool and cloned a few of the bright, yellow spots, just to give it that extra there-was-never-anything-else-here look.

The trick is to focus on maintaining seams and shapes. Think of it not as erasing a watermark, but as re-building the parts of the image that were lost to the watermark.

For the record: content-aware fill would, indeed, be a good tool to do most of the work. If I had easy access to photoshop while at work, I'd have made a selection that was about 1-2 pixels bigger than the watermark and which followed its outline, content-aware filled it, then used the clone stamp->healing brush tools to tweak it into a final shape.

To be honest, I didn't even realize I was still logged in, because I had scrambled my passwords on en.wp and logged out there, and I assumed that would log me out, here, with the unified login and everything. Apparently, my login cookie(s) from commons still work, after logging out from en.wp. Not surprising, really. I've got my browsers so heavily modded with downloaded OC plugins and daemons that fiddle with all kinds of data that the unexpected is to be expected. I suppose I should have known, as I don't think unregistered users can overwrite files here (or at least I couldn't do it once, some time back), but I wasn't really thinking about it. My password is scrambled, so I won't be able to change it, so it's just a matter of time before I'm logged out here. I've been considering sticking around on commons because my problem with en.wp doesn't extend here (it probably does, but it just doesn't affect me here). If so, I'll make a new account here, and then request an indef block for it at en.wp.

Finally, I have a quick favor to ask. Could you link to this discussion on my talk page at en.wp? I've checked and somebody's posted there, and I don't want to write a message from my IP, nor make a throwaway account. I'd appreciate it if you could. MjolnirPants (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comprehensive description of the process. We will try that! In the mean time, my wife and I tried Photopea.com; their spot healing brush seems to be something like content-aware fill. In one case, we got something we were happy with, but it took us several hours. (It doesn't look as good as your edit, though: One can still see that the image has been tampered with. We only used that one tool; combining several, as you did, might also lead to better results.) In either case, I agree that thinking of the work as re-building rather than erasing is a good mindset. (That might be applicable to other walks of life, too!)

BTW, I, too have dramatically reduced my participation on en.WP. It's not what it used to be, anymore.

With your quick favor, I presume you meant this. Let me know if that isn't what you wanted. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty much, though you got the wrong WMF project in the link. As it turns out, my ability to login here was not a cookie problem, but an overly clever password manager that stored my scrambled password, so I've gone ahead and added the right link. I've decided to ask for that block over at en.wp, so I can continue to work at commons from time to time. If it gets bad here, well, I can burn that bridge when I get to it (I do love how that particular mixed metaphor works in this case, lol).

If you have any other images with similar watermarks to remove, or older photos that need a touch-up, feel free to let me know. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry! In this case, you could have corrected my link; you have my permission in such obvious cases if you notify me as you did here or some other way. We could still do that, which would also allow deletion of your message there, if you so prefer.

Thank you also for your very kind offer. Before taking you up on it, the least I can do is to read your TLDR post so as to better understand you. Maybe I'll get around to it tomorrow, so please stay tuned. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bear that in mind, in the future. I just don't like the presumption of editing someone else's comments without explicit leave to do so.

Eh, if you want to get a handle on me, that essay isn't going to do it. The real tl;dr of it is just that en.wp handles conflict with all the grace and maturity of a gaggle of drunk, spoiled teenagers whose usual tact with respect to facing consequences is to ask "Do you know who my dad is?" and I'm too old to play that game any more.

If you really do want to get a feel for me, just picture a goofy nerd who gets too enthusiastic about everything, send him off to Iraq in the aughts for a little cynicism, give him a couple of kids for a little extra patience, an Irish wife for some extra humility, age him up to his 40's so that he's sick of everyone's shit, and that's pretty much me. Oh, and and make him just devastatingly handsome.

(Disclaimer: I'm not really all that handsome, but feel free to picture me that way, anyways.) MjolnirPants (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wonderful description! How much more colorful your WP user page would look with it than with the black and gray boxes! 😉 Apart from the handsomeness, it sounds like the description of a great wikipedian. In your previous message, you neatly bridged two idioms with the word “bridge”. But you also bring up the word “water”, which brings to mind yet another idiom which uses both words. How about that one? Yes, I can sympathize with your feelings about the games played on Wikipedia, and I, too, decided to reduce the time I'm spending there. But what's the point of being so drastic and permanent about it? ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm all on board with letting bygones be bygones. If you wanted to dig through my editing over there, you could see that. I'm an atheist and a hardline skeptic with very liberal politics, but you'll find plenty of examples of me joking around, chatting amicably and working collaboratively with highly religious or conservative editors and editors who are devout defenders of pseudoscience. In fact, one of the instances of the situation I describe in that essay happened to a creationist I used to work with, 1990'sguy, when they were blocked over edit warring (a one-off occurrence that was way out of character for them, and in which the block happened after the warring ended). I'm sorry to say that at the time I supported the block, being caught up in my own definition of etiquette-as-civility, but in retrospect, I feel like that response was exactly the wrong thing to do. The guy ended up being blocked twice over the incident, and unblocked twice, only after being forced to appeal twice.

Another example: The very last friendly message on my talk page over there is from a lovely woman whom I just adore, and who has been a long-time supporter of right-wing politics here on WP.

My major complaint is that the issues I highlighted were the same issues that caused me to decide to do something (outing a literal neo-Nazi pedophile who was steadily re-writing a couple of our race-related articles) to get myself oversight-blocked a few years ago. And that was the culmination of several years of disgust at the degree of politicking involved in WP, especially in topics of interest to me. It's not so much that I couldn't let the stuff go as it was that it just kept happening. I once heard a wise man say "Never think that you can't change the world, but never forget that you can always change yourself, too." I can't personally stop the pettiness, politicking and popularity contests of WP on my own, but I can make a statement in opposition to it, which might help change it. And I can certainly stop dealing with it, myself. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a hardline Communist, atheist (who believes in miracles/ coincidences/ serendipity) and a charter member of Michael Shermer’s Skeptic magazine (I met him several times, once at a psychedelic drug conference he ate lunch with me); a year ago I commented on Jimbo’s talk page about your NoNazis essay, went to work and when I got home, discovered I was indef-blocked! It made me so sad, I haven’t wanted to edit WP but two articles on US immigration and demographics are so bad I want to add a US Census graph I found to both articles. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Good – so it seems the difference between us is merely a difference in style. Technically, the difference isn't as big, because at the end of the day you can undo your leave by starting a new account. I see nothing wrong with your approach since you don't seem to be under a cloud. If you still want to be blocked, I could do so, but there's also a DIY alternative.

Regarding civility, I see no difference between Wikipedia and the world at large. Example: Last weekend, my wife and I went to the local zoo. It is still under COVID-19 regulations, one of which is that they have a person standing at the entrance of a popular building who times the admissions. At the first exhibit I read the sign to my wife, and before I could finish, the guard stood next to me and asked me to move on. I wrote to the zoo, complaining that I couldn't even finish the sign, let alone watch the animals, further explaining that we had left enough room for others to stand in safe distance and watch the animals. They replied that they take civility very serious and will complain about the guard with his employer. I replied that there was no problem with civility, but that we'd like to know if they gave the security company the instruction to be so strict about the time. I haven't heard back since. Maybe that's the problem with civility: Among those who follow it religiously seem to be too many who think that they have all under control if they boil everything down to just this one rule.

As for making a difference at Wikipedia: Whatever you do, it's not effective if it ends in you being blocked. In this case, I see a difference from the real world: I just heard the news about Aristides de Sousa Mendes. He made a huge difference – but also at a much greater risk to his own well-being. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked for and got an indef block there, so I'm good on that front. I do appreciate the offer, though.

Regarding civility, I see no difference between Wikipedia and the world at large. I do see a small difference, but it's entirely in how polite the average person is (I'm a harmless goofball in real life, but I'm big, bearded, fairly muscular and have a particular bad case of en:resting bitch face, so it could very well be just me). But I completely agree that there are plenty of people in real life who treat civility the same way, and my complaints about people substituting etiquette for actual civility definitely applies to the world at large (or at least my part of it). — MjolnirPants 23:33, 22 October — continues after insertion below

Oh, of course, when I wrote “civility” above, I was thinking of what you call “etiquette”. The term they actually used was “unhöflich”, which can be translated as “rude” or “impolite”. So many words (or word pairs, if you count opposites) in that semantic field! In your lament, you also used the term “maturity”, another related term. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's the problem with civility: Among those who follow it religiously seem to be too many who think that they have all under control if they boil everything down to just this one rule. Oh boy, is that an amazingly good point. I've heard people express that exact sentiment, multiple times, under many circumstances. And it's a silly, shortsighted notion, because a bad-faith actor is every bit as capable of being polite as a good-faith actor. MjolnirPants (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... or vice versa. I agree with you, that seems to be what some call “Manichaeism”. Regardless how appropriate that choice of word is; it does illustrate the the desire of some to divide everything into good and evil. That's understandable since we have built-in reflexes for that in our cerebellum. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more thought: Isn't the situation that bothered you in a way like the water mark that started our conversation? Boy, were my wife and I annoyed at that stupid big white propaganda blurb – prominent like the mark of Cain! Even the employee we got when we called user assistance about it diplomatically agreed with us. When he said that he was sorry there was no way to get rid of it, we thought of tossing those pictures. But then, thanks to your skills, we got at least one picture healed. Similarly, I am confident there's a way to heal the wounds you incurred. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly lovely analogy. And I agree with you that WP can change, it's just that it seems likely to be a generational change, needing new editors who prize results over processes to join, become a majority and take over positions of influence. At least one new user-space essay has been written with my situation in mind, and I know my situation has been pointed to by other editors who share my distaste for the level of drama there, so that's progress, at least. MjolnirPants (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. I'd be curious to see the essay. And I'm curious to see WP's future development. What you write does sound somewhat promising, although what I'm missing is a shift away from the editor focus towards the reader's needs. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

en:User:MjolnirPants is where it's at. — MjolnirPants 23:33, 22 October — continues after insertion below

Hmm, en:User:MjolnirPants is what I already mentioned above. But that's written by you. I understood your previous remark “At least one new user-space essay has been written with my situation in mind” to refer to something someone else wrote. Did I misunderstand you there? ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that the readers should be the focus of the project. It takes a lot to get me to drag someone to ANI, because I'd always preferred to just point out their nonsense and attempt to move ahead with improvements without their input. But as it turns out, that was a horrifically bad idea. I'd have had a much smoother time if I was as petty as some other editors, and just ran to the mods every time someone did something I didn't like. MjolnirPants (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think reality is more complex. For one, ANI often ends disastrously for the person complaining there; it often backfires. But even if that weren't the case: We need to resist the temptation of thinking that others have it easier: They often have problems we're not aware of. Self-victimization is a case in point; the mindset to see oneself as a victim does give one some benefits, such as pity and support from others, but it comes at an emotional cost which – depending on your emotional makeup – may be much higher. I think people's mileage differs immensely in this regard. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me preface by apologizing for the giant wall of text. It's hard to make myself clear succinctly on this issue, as it's chock full of subtle distinctions and needs multiple examples.

For one, ANI often ends disastrously for the person complaining there; it often backfires. That's certainly true, but there's a level of predictability to that, if one is familiar with the circumstances. The popularity of the filer is inversely proportional to the odds of a boomerang, the popularity of the subject is directly proportional and the leanings of the first admin to get involved on the content in question matter quite a bit: A new, conservative editor filing an ANI thread against an established liberal editor, in which the first admin to comment is a liberal admin will almost certainly face a boomerang, regardless of the merits of the filing. — MjolnirPants 15:24, 25 October — continues after insertion below

I agree with your premise (although, for the record, I have to disagree with your unnecessary and probably incorrect use of mathematical terminology): (1) Boomerangs are less likely when the plaintiff is popular. No surprise here, that's no different from the world at large. (2) Boomerangs are more likely when the first admin opposes the complaint. That's even less surprising; it's the basis of all opinion polls that the answers from a small fraction of the electorate have a high probability of foretelling the end result. (That's so even in the statistically ideal case that the sampling does not influence the rest of the population.) So, while I agree with these two statements, I don't see how they support your statement that “[not going to ANI] was a horrifically bad idea [and you]'d have had a much smoother time if [you were] as petty as some other editors, and just ran to the mods every time someone did something [you] didn't like”. Actually, I agree even with that statement to some extent, but for a different reason: It's simply more promising to seek resolution via the intended path. What I reacted to earlier was your beating yourself up in – please forgive me for being frank – what I perceived as excessive self-pity. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My own personal take on a possible solution is to do away with the rule that admins do not weigh in on content matters, and replace it with a rule by which admins only weigh in on matters which are disrupting the process, regardless of whether they're content disputes or not.

Although I have a lot of criticisms of many admins, one thing remains true is that most are very intelligent and perceptive individuals. When they act, they usually do so smartly and with the encyclopedia's best interests in mind. When they misstep, their mistakes are usually corrected quickly by another admin. And the vast majority of egregious misconduct on the part of admins results in the bit being taken away, or at the least, the misconduct being corrected and the admin being warned that they will lose the bit the next time. So the additional safeguard of "admins can't involve themselves in content disputes" doesn't really help much. — MjolnirPants 15:24, 25 October — continues after insertion below

You might be surprised, but I agree with you that the current instruction creep of WP:INVOLVED is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. About a year ago, I ran afoul of it myself on ANI. Wikipedia got along fine without such a rule for many hears. The first time the term “involved” appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators was only in 2008. Sure, even before that it was not uncommon for admins to stay clear of any content debates, which is why in 2004 already the essay meta:The Wrong Version was written. But then it was still at least OK for an admin to use good judgment in such cases. When I asked for the bits, so that “I could make sure that it’s really The Wrong Version that gets protected ;-)”, it caused no opposition. I then solved many problems like the one you portray in the gray box below by selective protection, which would probably not be as generally accepted anymore nowadays. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I know by now what I've said must be raising some red flags for you, especially if you've dealt with a lot of user problems, so let me give you an example.

Not too long ago, an editor removed a sourced statement on an article I watched, claiming that the source didn't support the statement. I checked, and though the source very clearly implicitly supported the statement (which contained two claims I'll call X and Y), it was not explicit about it. Fair enough. So I did some quick googling and easily found a source which explicitly supported both claims, and also explicitly supported a new claim, Z.

I restored the original text with the original citation and added the new citation, as well. I explained myself on the talk page.

The original editor then reverted and responded at talk that the new source did not support the claim Z. You might recognize this as an abject lie, as the only way they would even be aware of the claim Z was if they read it in the new source.

I complained about this to an admin, who told me that interpretation of sources is a content issue. So, without recourse for the obvious bad-faith editing, I responded at talk that the bald-faced lie was obvious, and that I wouldn't discuss the issue with them further, and I reverted.

They reverted again (of course) and complained to several admins about me accusing them of lying, then started an ANI after I responded forcefully at an admin's talk page that they should not tell obvious lies if they don't like their statements being called lies.

In that ANI, no fewer than 8 other editors (including an admin who declined to take action) chimed in to say "Yes, this was an obvious lie, and they should be topic banned, as this is merely the latest in a long series of issues this editor has caused."

About 4 other editors took the other party's side, claiming that they are unfailingly polite and pointing to several baseless complaints (and one semi-legitimate one) about my civility at ANI. The admin who finally decided to weigh in in an official capacity warned me to be polite and then rudely refused to answer any of my questions.

When I pressed other admins to take action based on the lie, I was repeatedly told that it was a content dispute, and they could not weigh in on it.

Meanwhile, the editors supporting the liar were pointing to that editor's current behavior in the same thread, which now had a rather strong consensus to keep the original statement in for obvious reasons, and in which they'd engaged with another editor who was possessed of an excessive amount of good faith. With no indication of having made a mistake or changing their mind, they were now claiming that it was "important that we also say Z in whatever new text we replace this with."

I have searched my heart and soul for any possible explanation for this behavior which was not "POV push, including lying about content to get my way, abuse the processes to punish the editor who opposed me, then pretend to care about the accuracy of the article when it becomes clear that I cannot win this battle." I have, so far, found nothing. — MjolnirPants 15:24, 25 October — continues after insertion below

Curious，indeed. I would have liked the opportunity to talk as a mediator with that other editor; I find it often very interesting what motivates people in such cases. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the sort of situation I have in mind. There are countless others like this, where the approach editors take to the content is, itself, an issue. Indeed, it is pretty much the definition of POV pushing. And right now, the admins are effectively prohibited from dealing with such situations unless and until the POV pusher violates some other rule of the project.

My primary topic areas of interest are conspiracy theories and pseudoscience (also American politics, but I long ago excluded myself from that particular cesspit, except where it overlaps with the former two). In those topics (as well as several others), POV pushing is the single biggest hurdle to improving our articles. So I saw a whole lot of this. For a while there, there were a handful of admin regulars in that topic, who worked hard to keep the project from going off the rails, but in the last few years -ironically, owing to a handful of admins who were, themselves engaged in POV pushing and bullying behavior- the definition of WP:INVOLVED has been expanded to the point that an admin dare not impose sanctions over edits from any editor they've come into conflict with, regardless of their participation or lack thereof in the issue at hand.

Futhermore, the POV pushing in my topics and others (specifically, American politics, though I'm sure it applies to countless others with which I'm simply not as familiar) has become more sophisticated as the trolls and idiot ideologues of the gamergate and 2016-US-General-Election eras have given way to more skilled and experienced bad-faith actors.

This can be best seen on the issue of race and intelligence.

That article was the primary article being corrupted by the neo-nazi I mentioned earlier, whom I outed as a "nuclear option" several years ago. The state of the article at that time claimed that there is a measurable, consistent and well-accepted difference in IQ between races, specifically, a 15-point difference between people of African and European ancestry. At the time I first got involved at that article, I believed that much to be true, because the sources seemed to support it, and much of the accessible literature about psychometry swings that way.

The article also went on to claim that this difference was entirely genetic in nature, and all attempts to find an environmental explanation had failed. This was the first thing that raised a red flag for me, as I have access to several scientific journals through my former school and work, and I was aware of at least one study whose results had found quite the opposite (what's known as an "adoption study" in the field).

So I started researching the field. Initially, my efforts uncovered what seemed to be a great disagreement among the primary sources and a wide disparity in the results of studies, but also that many surveys of psychometricians (the specific discipline of psychology which studies intelligence) showed a solid consensus that the article was correct.

As I dived further into the issue, I learned the truth: The broad consensus in the field is that the observed differences in IQ between racial groups is entirely environmental in nature, once you take the culture into account as part of the environment. I further discovered that geneticists have actually been working in that field, and that among them, there is a near-universal consensus that there is no possible way for these sorts of IQ differences to even have a genetic basis. To explain my earliest beliefs and earlier findings, I found out about the Pioneer Fund, an almost-explicitly white supremacist group encouraging psychometricians to do work and make public claims that there are meaningful genetic differences between races. I found that the surveys of expert opinions which I'd earlier seen, showing that many experts believed in an inherent difference in intelligence between races were invariably done for the purpose of laying claim to the scientific consensus. I further discovered that there was a very broad base of psychometricians and geneticists unaffiliated with the PF who vehemently opposed it's goals, based not on ideological differences, but rather a bird's-eye view of the research, both independent of and funded by the PF, which showed that the purported "IQ gap" was almost entirely fictitious. Finally, I discovered that there existed evidence of the actual consensus of experts on the subject, and that the consensus among the vast majority of experts was that there was no meaningful genetic component.

During this time, I also discovered that the editor with the most edits to the page was a pseudo-intellectual, self-styled researcher who was known in internet circles for his close ties to explicitly Neo-Nazi organizations, a series of blog articles he'd written defending pedophilia and the shoddy and incompetent nature of his "research", which once resulted in the third-largest ever leak of personal information from a dating website, surpassed only by the 2015 Ashley Madison and the January 2021 MeetMindful dumps.

About the same time I was reaching these conclusions, the Southern Poverty Law Center published an article detailing much the same as I'd discovered.

After alerting several admins to my concerns about this editor, I was explicitly told multiple times that they were powerless to do anything, as the editor was not violating any policies, only engaged in blatant POV-pushing while remaining unflappably polite.

That's why I chose to out this editor: the potential for fallout from the mainstream media for allowing this person to continue to edit one of the project's more racially-sensitive topics would not allow the project to sit idly by if the threat of exposure were out there. The damage that could do to WP's reputation is incalculable, not just in terms of public trust, but also by demonstrating to other fringe actors how they, too, can get WP to reflect their biases.

So when I outed that guy, my talk page briefly got over 8 times as many views as Jimbo's own talk page (normally the single most popular talk page on the project). That was exactly in line with my hopes. The more attention my actions got, the better.

And it worked out. Over the two years or so that I remained retired from editing, the page in question was improved markedly. Many editors made themselves familiar with the subject and improved the page significantly, including holding a broadly-attended RfC in which WP re-affirmed the broad consensus and rejected the claims of consensus funded by the PF.

That would seem to be a win. In many ways, it was. But the editors who'd opposed the improvement of that article -excepting the one whom I'd outed- were allowed to continue to push their fringe POV onto that page, and to push other right-wing and/or racist fringe POVs on other pages around the project. Many editors had opposed the RfC based on their misunderstandings, led astray by the advocates for racism. But there were several ring-leaders, who very clearly knew exactly what they were arguing about. We were at a point where we knew for a fact that we had several editors on the project who were there for no purpose other than to push fringe right-wing/racist views onto it. And we did nothing about it, because those editors were polite.

After I returned, my notoriety among the racists editing WP (I wrote the vast majority of WP:NOFUCKINGNAZIS and had a reputation for vociferous opposition to racism) cause a resurgence in combativeness at that article. The result was enough disruption that the article's talk page was subjected to semi-permanent Extended-Confirmed protection and the RfC had to be re-affirmed by the community. The result was a SNOW keep: the attempt to overturn the consensus lacked a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.

And yet the architects of this drama (much the same ones from the last RfC, with the addition of an actual researcher associated with the PF who'd earlier been topic banned from the issue due to her aggressively racist POV pushing, and had somehow successfully appealed that topic ban for the express purpose of continuing) escaped scrutiny yet again.

After their second failure, they took to plotting on one of the ringleaders' talk pages ways of getting their opposition sanctioned and undermining WP's processes, with the help of an admin with a history of making alarmingly partisan statements about political hot-button issues.

And still, nothing was done. Even when a topic-banned IP editor made ridiculously false assertions to egg them on in that discussion, nothing was done about it. And when I asked why?

Because admins can't involve themselves in content disputes.

So while I understand the initial reason for that rule, it seems to me that in many ways, the rule that admins can't involve themselves in topic disputes is doing far more harm that good. And eliminating that rule would not be the hellish nightmare of partisanship that many think it would, because the vast majority of abuses that fall under it also fall under other rules of admin conduct. WP:INVOLVED, primary among them.

Let me apologize again for the incredible length of this response. If you haven't read it all, I don't really blame you. It's huge. And I've already trimmed it down some before submitting it. But I just couldn't air my thoughts in a more succinct way, at least not without making a bunch of unsupported assertions that you'd be very right to question. MjolnirPants (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC) — MjolnirPants 15:24, 25 October — continues after insertion below[reply]

Until now, I thought you had just some problems with etiquette and politeness, but now I realize you're really talking about WP:OUTING. That is by many considered as far beyond mere etiquette – as close to a criminal law as it gets here. So now it finally makes sense why you got blocked. At the same time, I can fully sympathize with why you did so.

But was there really no other option? Yes, I understand that you asked some admins who refused to help, but I know too little about this to jump to any judgment. Did you contact any applicable Wikiproject? You're certainly not the only one against racism here, so there must be others who would have been happy to find a solution together with you. Why not seek their help?

Similarly, you attribute the fact that the other editors, who you write “admitted to only being here for the purpose of POV pushing”, were allowed to continue only “because those editors were polite”. There are clear rules against POV pushing; we have specific measures such as topic bans. Why aren't you writing about any considerations and efforts in that direction? If their behavior clearly met WP:NOTTHERE，and they even admitted so themselves, it should have been easy to prove.

Even if after weighing all options you reached the decision that it was best to refer to the editor's extra wiki life, there are better ways to do that than heroically “out” another editor by revealing information that isn't publically available. If you got that information from anything the user posted themself, you could have used that for a complaint about WP:COI. (Yes, ANI would have been a good place for that.) Otherwise, did you consider CheckUser?

So, in conclusion, while I agree with you that WP:INVOLVED in its current version is going to far, I am far from convinced that it should be abolished altogether. That would be throwing the baby with the bathwater just in the other direction. I feel reminded of the US's reaction to the undeniable alcohol problems a hundred years ago with an all-out prohibition. We should have learned its lesson: That criminal forces will find a way to thrive even then. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break)

although, for the record, I have to disagree with your unnecessary and probably incorrect use of mathematical terminology No, my use is accurate. The more popular the filer, the less likely a boomerang is; that's inverse proportionality. And it's a common appropriate from mathematics.

I don't see how they support your statement that “[not going to ANI] was a horrifically bad idea [and you]'d have had a much smoother time if [you were] as petty as some other editors, and just ran to the mods every time someone did something [you] didn't like”. Well, they indirectly do, because at the point of my return to editing I was popular among both the experienced user base and the admin base (the latter owing to my own experience and understanding of policy). Meaning I was likely to both garner a lot of support, and to get an initial admin who was sympathetic to my complaints. So I might have used ANI to great effect. Even were I not so popular at that point, I'd have known it, and been able to comport myself accordingly.

What I reacted to earlier was your beating yourself up in – please forgive me for being frank – what I perceived as excessive self-pity. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I think of myself as a victim in this. That is not accurate. I think of myself as the fool who discovered a fire ant nest by stumbling into it, waited a bit until the pain of the stings died down, then simply assumed it must be gone and stomped into it again. If I am a victim, I am a victim of my own short-sightedness.

I suppose you could characterize the regret I expressed about assuming the project would be in a better place as self-pity; "My mistake was assuming you were better than this," being a classic indicator, but I'd point out that it ignores the more literal, good-faith interpretation of the idea. Namely, that the sentiment I was expressing was not that WP failed to live up to my expectations, but rather that I set my expectations for WP unrealistically high. That's not self-pity, just self-reflection. — MjolnirPants 14:46, 26 October — continues after insertion below

Sounds good. Sorry about the misunderstanding. SebastianHelm (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised, but I agree with you that the current instruction creep of WP:INVOLVED is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm happy to hear that, but not really surprised. It seems to be a common sentiment among the admins I've known, with at least two former admins I'm aware of having resigned the bit specifically because they felt they could no longer do their job under the standards of WP:INVOLVED being espoused by the community. — MjolnirPants 14:46, 26 October — continues after insertion below

Wow, I didn't know it already had such consequences. How would you estimate the chances to do something about this, if the four of us joined? SebastianHelm (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I don't really believe that anything short of a shift in "public" sentiment would accomplish any meaningful change. I mean, the current state of things is not really a relatively recent change in the policy, but a slowly-built expression of widespread opinion. It's a consensus. I don't see that being reversed by anything less than what created it. On the flip side, however, I don't think that sort of cultural change is much of a stretch. I think what's really missing is a widely-known example of the current tactic causing harm, at which point those editors less prone to clutching pearls at the thought of an admin making a hairy block will have the evidence necessary to convince others that things need to change.

P.S. Here is one of the cases I mentioned. The admin in question (one of the best ones on the project, IMHO) doesn't actually say it, but it's rather obvious from the context. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's a pity! I agree, he was one of the best ones. That said, only one editor claims, apparently without convincing evidence, that he even had a problem with INVOLVED. But I see your point: At least for that one editor the mere suspicion that he had a problem with INVOLVED is sufficient to be written in a time capsule to possibly prevent future resysopping. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a comment he made elsewhere (on his talk page, I believe) that indicated that it was INVOLVED and the way it was being handled by the community that led him to that point. I can't find the diff of that (I thought he'd made it in the thread I linked until I double-checked just a moment ago). I've seen other, similar comments at en:WP:AN about it, but I can't recall who made them. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curious，indeed. I would have liked the opportunity to talk as a mediator with that other editor; I find it often very interesting what motivates people in such cases. Oh, I can tell you what motivated them: the desire to make the article reflect their beliefs. It's a motivation we all struggle with, in any topic that has competing ideologies. And the circumstances -he was arguing with only one editor who had a host of "enemies" on the site- seemed ripe for getting away with much worse than what would otherwise fly. Speaking directly to such people about these things, I've found, is rarely productive, as they simply refuse to acknowledge having anything short of sterling motives, and excuse any poor behavior on their part as an honest mistake, your own misunderstandings or a combination of the two. — MjolnirPants 14:46, 26 October — continues after insertion below

Sorry, that's a misunderstanding. I was only wondering about the 180° turn regarding Z. SebastianHelm (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, naturally, I can't speak for another person. And that disclaimer applies to my last statement, as well. But I will note that several editors joined the discussion, all taking my view, and the participants at ANI were looking at the discussion, as well. It's one thing to tell an obvious lie to one person, but another thing entirely to stand by a claim the community at large finds ridiculously false. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But was there really no other option? Yes, I understand that you asked some admins who refused to help, but I know too little about this to jump to any judgment. Did you contact any applicable Wikiproject? You're certainly not the only one against racism here, so there must be others who would have been happy to find a solution together with you. Why not seek their help? Actually, I spoke to three admins incidentally and contacted 7 directly, all about this issue. The answers I got were not so much "there's nothing we will do until he violates policy", but rather "there's nothing we can do until he violates policy", though I'm well aware that the former answer was the more accurate one. I did contact the WMF, and was told that such issues were left to each Wikiproject to handle. I was also explicitly advised against opening an Arbcom case owing to the presence (at the time) of an Arbcom member who was "sympathetic to this message" and the "optics of stirring the pot". I had initially planned to open the case anyways, but events overtook me. An important point to keep in mind was that I was ready to stop editing then. The block didn't bother me one bit, and wasn't what I'd consider a negative. You can see in my talk page history that the unblock instructions as well as comments from multiple admins that they'd unblock immediately upon my request were posted within minutes and hours of the block. I chose not to, because I needed to get away from the drama. — MjolnirPants 14:46, 26 October — continues after insertion below

Hmm, so they were saying that Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and WP:CoI are dispensable since they are not policies by themselves? The nice words “editors whose personal agendas and actions appear to conflict with its purpose risk having their editing privileges removed” and “COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly” are just empty words if even admins feel there's nothing they can do. Has it come thus far already? I'd really like to see links for that, as well as for the advice about ArbCom. If any of that was written in a public place, such as a talk page, can you point me to it or, if you prefer, send me the link by mail? (Of course I can assure you confidentiality.)

As for the block, it is a factual negative, as it will affect your future chances to effect any change to the better. I understand that it didn't and still doesn't bother you, given that you are considering asking to be blocked, but I am not the only one who regrets the loss. SebastianHelm (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so they were saying that Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and WP:CoI are dispensable since they are not policies by themselves? Not in so many words, but in spirit, yes. That was the message I received, in any case. There may be factors preventing their involvement of which I'm not aware, but I haven't been able to imagine any such factors which would not leave those pages by the wayside.

Diffs will be difficult to track down, as this incident happened several years ago, and memory is fuzzy. Much of the conversation in question happened via emails, however, some of which I have open now. The issue there is personal information; some include tangential discussions with personal details or forwarded emails that include personal details of third parties. I appreciate and believe your assurance of confidentiality, but I've been specifically asked not to share certain details, except with Arbcom if necessary. So, would screenshots do? At least with the screenshots, I can blank out the parts that I'm uncomfortable sharing. I would understand if you don't trust screenshots, however.

Thank you for the offer, but no, I wouldn't want the conversation in any form. Not because I wouldn't trust you, but because it's something I wouldn't do, so I won't ask it from another person. Moreover, the reason for my asking was to a big part just curiosity. I am in no official position to do something with that information, and I hope I didn't raise any expectations in that direction. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not at all. If I expected some official proceedings, I'd be much less reticent about sharing. I presumed it was curiosity (I'd have been curious, too) and I'm happy to see you understand my position. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the block, it is a factual negative, as it will affect your future chances to effect any change to the better. I understand that it didn't and still doesn't bother you, given that you are considering asking to be blocked, but I am not the only one who regrets the loss. Well, the question then really is: Do I have any duty to WP?

I'm happy to have conversations like this one, and even to share my thoughts on solutions. But I'm fairly well decided on whether or not I have any business trying to fix things myself, and that decision is "No. I don't have the charisma or influence necessary to lead a charge for change, nor do I have the patience or temperament to edit en.wp before such a change occurs. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have of course no duty to contribute here. No duty towards WP, and no duty to me, whom you already helped twice, and who owes more to you than vice versa. But given that you, at least in the past, cared about problems I care about, too – and so much so that you knowingly risked getting in deep trouble about them, it makes me sad that you since then decided to stop caring about them.

From the work you did on my pictures, I understand that you seem to enjoy very much fixing things yourself, which is great, but please don't see that as an obligation. For things like WP policies, none of us can do it alone – no matter his or her charisma, influence, patience, or temperament – but we may be able to pull it off if we're not alone. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about me not caring: I do still care, but I recognize two things: 1) It will be extraordinarily stressful for me to continue and; 2) I will not be able to effectively continue, as I'd just be constantly defending myself against overwrought or outright false accusations. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand those two points, they are not unlike my own reasons for spending less time on WP. What I still don't understand is your need to request being blocked. But that's your prerogative, I don't need an explanation.

At the time of writing the above, I was trying to garner your support for what I believed was a concern we shared, but since then you explained that you actually see the problem not with WP:INVOLVED but with WP:TOOLMISUSE, so that has become moot now. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I understand your position here better now, I think. It is that care which I still have which would drive me to continue editing, regardless of the cost or outcome, were I not blocked. As they say, editing can be highly addictive. And with a self-requested block, I always have the option of having it lifted upon request. MjolnirPants (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, you attribute the fact that the other editors, who you write “admitted to only being here for the purpose of POV pushing”, were allowed to continue only “because those editors were polite”. There are clear rules against POV pushing; we have specific measures such as topic bans. Why aren't you writing about any considerations and efforts in that direction? If their behavior clearly met WP:NOTTHERE，and they even admitted so themselves, it should have been easy to prove. That's what I believed, as well. I was mistaken. There are clear rules against POV pushing, but the (mostly) unspoken consensus is that the difference between having a POV and pushing a POV lies in the violation of other rules. So an editor who admits to being on WP to push their POV is only a POV pusher if they're disrupting the project in more obvious ways. It's silly, but there it is.

There's one in particular who explicitly admitted to being on en.wp for the express purpose of "fixing" WP's "liberal bias" and "introducing right-wing POV". That same one !voted "No" at an RfA because the candidate claimed not to be a fascist. They filed an Arbcom case against an editor they'd been stalking, accusing them of the stalking behavior. They filed multiple failed ANI threads against both me and the target of the stalking, none of them with the slightest shred of merit. I complained to multiple admins about their behavior, and in this case, got no direct answers whatsoever. It took a violation of the site's etiquette (in the form of grave dancing over my departure) to finally convince an admin to indef them. Note that I wouldn't blame you if you didn't believe me on this, so I'll happily show you the diffs if you have doubts about how literal I'm being in describing this character. — MjolnirPants 14:46, 26 October — continues after insertion below

As those are quite strong statements I'd indeed like to see the diffs. SebastianHelm (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing.

Admission of right-wing POV pushing.
Opposing an RfA candidate because the candidate was not a fascist. See "Optional question from Cryptic" higher up on the page for the context: the candidate claims they were once a self-described fascist, but have changed their views since.
Here they are opposing another RfA candidate because said candidate is opposed to Naziism.
See also this section they started after falsely accusing me of incivility and being slapped down for it. Note that they actually give said smackdown as an example of where "admins did nothing" in the face of "obvious violations" of civility.
The thread containing the false accusation I just mentioned. Pay attention to the discussion between this editor and Jayron32 (an admin) at the top.
An earlier false accusation made against me.
And then there's this mess... Quick summary: This editor implied another editor was a Nazi, then accused that other editor of calling them a nazi and started an ANI thread to "preempt" the other fellow from following an admin's advice to open a thread on this guy.
Their followup attempt to get back at the other user via Arbcom.
I can't diff their actual gravedancing when I left (the thing that actually got them blocked) as their userpage was deleted over it, but I can link you to the archived thread on the subject: [1] MjolnirPants (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll number my replies; it would be nice if you could do the same above for easier reference:

The term “POV pushing” doesn't occur in the diff; all it shows is that the editor has a self-serving definition of NPOV. No surprise there. The statement presumably may be based on the “Explanation of the neutral point of view” in our policy WP:NPOV. That section only explains the term in two half sentences, buried somewhere in the longest paragraph, so one can't really blame an editor for not understanding it. Apart from that, it acknowledges the fact that it is natural for editors to have different POVs and then spends most of its 500 words on half-hearted commandments, hiding behind such weasel words as “should” and “avoid”, which leave plenty of leeway. I regard WP:NOTHERE as stronger and more actionable, but unfortunately the two aren't fully in sync.
Point taken.
ditto.
The discussion as a whole has 2800 words, reading which would take 20 minutes out of my life, and doesn't appear worth it. I can attest, though, that your concluding remark was not a “violation of WP:Civility and/or AGF, NPA, etc.”
There was a (very human) mistake J made, W reacted (strongly), J apologized (strongly), and W simply accepted the apology. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this.
That's hilarious! It's good, and appears to disprove your complaint about ANI earlier, that this backfired. That the “gaming behavior” would stop in general isn't something you really expected, is it?
This ANI thread has over 3600 words for a reading time of about 25 minutes. From a cursory glance and your summary I presume you included this to support your point of “They filed [...] failed ANI threads against both me and the target of the stalking, none of them with the slightest shred of merit.” Since it is not against you, I presume that you consider H the “target of the stalking”? But reporting that one feels harassed by certain things another person says directly to them can't be called “stalking”.
I see your point that that was a case without merit.
I could look that up, since I can see deleted versions. But is it worth it? While grave dancing is pretty ignoble, I don't think that, if it happened, it harmed you, the project, or anyone else at that point. So, who cares?

What I was most interested in was your statement “I complained to multiple admins about their behavior, and in this case, got no direct answers whatsoever.” I understand that your complaints were not on WP, so I won't be able to see them here.

If your complaints were anything like the above list, I certainly would have replied, although I would have written for #2-9 that I see no need for admin action (resp. additional admin action beyond how the cases were already handled). For #1, I would have politely contacted the other editor on their talk page and then taken it from there. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've numbered my original list, as well, and I'll respond in kind.

What they say is that they're here to counter a perceived left-wing bias in WP's NPOV policy. They're explicitly stating that they indent to "counter" our NPOV policy, which is the very definition of POV pushing. I can show you diffs of their attempts to shift at least one article's POV to the right, if that context helps.
I found that one pretty outrageous, as well. Were I an admin, I'd have indeffed them over that, alone.
ditto²
I certainly can't blame you for that. The relevant detail was one of their later comments, in which they cite their false report about me as evidence that mods don't punish incivility. The mods, actually, told him there wasn't any incivility to punish.
I'm sorry, but your response doesn't seem to make sense. That link was an ANI report this editor opened, claiming that diffs of me explaining to them that we need to follow our policies and how to use sources was incivility, Jayron telling them that there was nothing incivil about it, the user then attempting to "withdraw" the complaint, and Jayron explaining how boomerangs work, in light of that editor's attempts to abuse the processes to win a content dispute. Jayron never apologizes, nor has anything to apologize for. There's nobody with a username that starts with W in that thread. Your characterization seems like it might describe an exchange I remember reading in a different ANI thread, in which a different editor tried to get me sanctioned over my parting essay, so you may have had the wrong tab open.
Well, I've never contended that the process never works. I was, in fact, satisfied with the resolution there, though it should be noted that as of filing that 3RRN report, this editor was at 5 reverts of me and two other editors, and likely should have been blocked, as they were clearly highly agitated and (as seen in the other links) prone to continue. That the “gaming behavior” would stop in general isn't something you really expected, is it? Well, it didn't. If you check the timestamps, this was my first interaction with them outside of the article in question. All the other diffs happened after this, except for one or both of the RfA !votes.
Evidence of the stalking behavior can be seen in the Arbcom thread, dishonestly presented as evidence of H stalking them. But it's really not that important to my point. This editor had earlier accused H of being a nazi. H was then advised by an admin that filing an ANI complaint over that would be productive. This thread was filed just a few moments after the admin made that remark. It's a very clear attempt to evade scrutiny, which failed spectacularly, though not nearly spectacularly enough. I'm utterly convinced that at that point: with evidence of fascist and Nazi sympathies, evidence of POV pushing and evidence of repeated attempts at GAMING, this user should have been indeffed without hesitation. But they were, instead, allowed to continue behaving disruptively.
Thank you.
That's exactly my point. Expressing a preference for fascists and standing against those who oppose Naziism, admitting being on WP for the purpose of POV pushing, accusing another editor of being a Nazi over the most tenuous of logic and multiple disruptive attempts at GAMING sanctions against multiple other users wasn't enough to take action. But gravedancing? An extraordinarily minor form of incivility? That got them indeffed. I mean, one could argue that it was the straw that broke the camel's back, but honestly, that camel should have been a paraplegic by the time they made their second RfA !vote. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mistake in my first sentence. Of course, it doesn't just show that they have a self-serving definition, but also that they are here to act on it.
(Please skip to section #1POV and BMP before continuing here.)
Naturally, for any extremist, WP's 1POV differs painfully from their own 1POV. Since they don't understand BMP, the only remedy they see is heavy “input” (or POV pushing, as we would call it) from their side. So, thanks, I don't need any diffs now; I've seen that thousands of times.
Based on what policy? I may have missed some change here, but I grew up with the understanding that on RfA one could vote their conscience, and I see no reason to punish anybody for publicly giving their reason for a vote, as long as it doesn't violate other policies, such as WP:NPA.
〃
Good. So that was another case that was closed appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I guess I had the wrong tab open. Thanks for the summary. So, if I understand you correctly, it was another exampe for a case without merit that got closed as it should.
Fair enough, I apparently misunderstood or misremembered your original complaint, then. (That could have happened because I was looking for something grave enough to warrant a complete retreat then. I now see the reason for your bridge burning more nuanced, in particular along the lines of your statement “It's not about me not caring ...” above.)
From your second sentence, I gather that it's not worth searching this big haystack for one dull needle.
Re the rest of your message: I would prefer to discuss these other issues outside of this item #7.
You're welcome.
Well written about the grave dancing – I now understand where you're coming from. Regarding the other issues: Again, I'd prefer to discuss them in dedicated locations.

In a couple of items, you widened the scope to statements far beyond the individual diff that started each item. Last time I dedicated the concluding paragraphs to such general considerations, so I would prefer if you could address that. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's much the same with me. I can recognize it quite well, having dealt with so much of it, as well as having dealt with good-faith editors who share beliefs with POV pushers.
en:WP:NONAZIS, an essay I wrote and which is widely popular and well-regarded there explains why this sort of thing is a gross violation of en:WP:DISRUPT. Any editor publicly aligning themselves with fascism is announcing their inability to work with any non-white editor and any white editor who opposes Naziism. Even if the announcement itself doesn't cause an immediate disruption, it's all-but-undeniable evidence of disruption to ensue once they discover that another editor is non-white or opposed to Naziism.
At that point, I disagree that it should have been simply closed. At a minimum, a 1-way tban would have been appropriate, given that it was incontrovertible at that point that they were GAMING to get me sanctioned. This was their third attempt, after having been told twice that I'd done nothing wrong, and they had. They very clearly knew that what they were doing was wrong, but continued in any case.

In a couple of items, you widened the scope to statements far beyond the individual diff that started each item. I disagree. I'm open to being convinced I'm wrong, but I can't see a way that the diffs I provided don't read exactly the way I described them. It may require some extrapolation, but only such extrapolation as is logically inescapable. For an analogy, it's as if the diffs say "X*2=8", and what I'm saying is that these diffs show that X=4, while you're saying that's out of scope of the diffs, because the diffs never actually say X=4. It doesn't really matter whether the diffs actually contained the statement "X=4", because the diffs are meaningless if X=4 is not true. MjolnirPants (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if after weighing all options you reached the decision that it was best to refer to the editor's extra wiki life, there are better ways to do that than heroically “out” another editor by revealing information that isn't publically available. If you got that information from anything the user posted themself, you could have used that for a complaint about WP:COI. (Yes, ANI would have been a good place for that.) Otherwise, did you consider CheckUser? Well, Checkuser would likely not have found anything, as socking wasn't the issue with that guy. He gave his real name on his profile page (see en:User:Deleet), and the additional information I found came from reputable news outlets, but is summed up here. The outing was something of a technicality, since he provided his real name onwiki, but it's a technicality that is understandably strictly enforced. As I said above, I intended to make an Arbcom case about it (despite being advised not to), but events overtook me, so I did what I could to get him removed in a different manner.

So, in conclusion, while I agree with you that WP:INVOLVED in its current version is going to far, I am far from convinced that it should be abolished altogether. That would be throwing the baby with the bathwater just in the other direction. I feel reminded of the US's reaction to the undeniable alcohol problems a hundred years ago with an all-out prohibition. We should have learned its lesson: That criminal forces will find a way to thrive even then. Well, one important distinction between the US and WP is that (with the exception of POV pushers and vandals) WP users are all united by a common interest (editing) and goal (improving the project), whereas the US consists simply of everyone born here plus everyone who comes here. That motivational difference means WP can be much more focused, and can eliminate problems entirely, or near enough to count. I've seen it happen in various workplaces (which share that motivational character of editing WP). — MjolnirPants 14:46, 26 October — continues after insertion below

~~This seems to be contradicting what you wrote above about motivation. SebastianHelm (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind. This is moot, since you're not suggesting getting rid of WP:INVOLVED entirely. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the thing is, what I'm suggesting is not getting rid of WP:INVOLVED entirely. Admins still shouldn't block editors as a result of disputes they're a party to. Admins shouldn't enforce policy on editors they have long histories with. WP:INVOLVED is a good thing that should be kept. It's simply the "admins don't address content disputes" part that I think should go the way of the dodo, and even that, not entirely. Admins shouldn't use the bit to enforce their preferred content. But admins should be able to weigh in on content and consider the relative merits of content-based arguments when dealing with disruptions.

That seems logical in the extreme. In fact, one of the most common missteps new editors make when dealing with their first conflict lies in thinking the admins already can do this, because it's so obvious that if an editor is engaging with the content in a disruptive or bad-faith manner, then it's the job of admins to regulate. It's only after one gains some experience editing WP that one comes to recognize that an editor misrepresenting sources, consistently using low-quality sources, constantly exposing their own POV in the wording of their article-space edits, !voting to exclude content that disagrees with them or to include irrelevant content that agrees with them are all the sorts of things the admins generally won't do anything about.

What I'm saying is that it logically follows that if admins exist to prevent and handle disruptions caused by editors, then admins should be able to address disruptions caused by editors, regardless of the nature of said disruption. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. So we're on the same page here. SebastianHelm (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think INVOLVED as a principle should remain in force. I'm not sure where the "admins may not involve themselves in content disputes in an official capacity" rule is codified, but that's the aspect I disagree with. Even then, I don't entirely disagree with it. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "admins may not involve themselves in content disputes in an official capacity" rule is codified at WP:TOOLMISUSE; that's related to WP:INVOLVED and written on the same page, but a different rule. I don't see a reason to disagree with that one. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, it's a great rule, and I wouldn't do away with it entirely. But the way it's interpreted by both mods and regular editors is causing problems like what happened to me and to JzG. A mod should never use the tools to win a content dispute, but mods should absolutely be able to look at the ways editors are treating content to make judgements about behavioral issues. Indeed, we often do allow them to do this, but only in cases where an editor is being uncivil. As evidence by the diffs above, even large-scale disruption is permitted, if the editor maintains the right level of decorum. MjolnirPants (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you write in this paragraph. But I see nothing that corroborates your conclusion that WP:TOOLMISUSE needs to be changed. You write "as evidenced ...", but, as I already wrote yesterday in my concluding remarks, I see no such evidence. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not see how the case of an editor who was allowed to engage in a large amount of disruptive behavior centered around their personal views and the use of procedures in a nominally (but not factually) proper manner, but who was indeffed for a relatively minor civility violation evinces a culture in which admins are dissuaded from weighing nominally acceptable discourse in considerations of problematic behavior? I mean, as I previously mentioned, you could characterize the incident that resulted in the indeff as the proverbial straw, but then that begs the question of why the weight thus far hadn't broken the camel's back.

Consider your own, earlier statement about editors being expected to vote their conscience at Rfa. Sure, that's true. That's what we want. But that presupposes that the editor is here in good faith, for the betterment of the project, and not here to push an extremist ideological agenda. And here's the case of an editor who maintained a veil of being here in good faith which was obviously nonsense. But they observed the forms, therefore the actual content of their various statements was ignored.

I could point to dozens of editors whose contribution history consists almost entirely of arguing in favor of using unreliable right-wing sources, whitewashing right-wing BLPs, including heavy criticism in left-wing BLPs, lending credence to thoroughly-debunked right-wing conspiracy theories and otherwise endeavoring to undermine NPOV (or BMP, as you've described it below) and make WP echo their extremist POV.

I could also point to a handful of left-wing ideologues who do the equivalent, though there aren't as many, as well as a handful whose POV is less political, but equally as damaging (mostly proponents of pseudoscience). All of these editors are either currently active, or were allowed to remain active for years past the point when their intentions became obvious. In each and every case, you'd find them to be an ultimately polite editor whose collegiality is a rather obvious front for their otherwise poor behavior. Indeed, this was exactly the case with the editor, Deleet I mentioned earlier; an outright Neo-Nazi sympathizer, if not a Neo-Nazi himself, and an apologist for pedophilia.

Meanwhile, if you search the ANI archives for phrases liked "blocked per WP:NOTHERE" and similar statements, you will find almost exclusively editors who were either ignoring editors trying to collaborate with them, or engaged in incivility with collaborators. MjolnirPants (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1POV and BMP

In a number of places, such as our discussion of diff #1 above and your statement “I'm utterly convinced ...”, I realize that the problem lies deeper than individual policy violations. My hunch is that at the heart is our concept of “NPOV”. Beyond the remark I made on our “Explanation of the neutral point of view” , I now see a problem already with the term itself: A neutral point in the middle is exactly where anyone who regards themself as the center of everything sees themself. A big part of the problem is that the central noun of “NPOV” is “point” – the narrowest thing imaginable; the opposite of our multi-dimensional approach. So, at least for this discussion, I think it would help to use two terms so that we can differentiate the two very different concepts which both go by the name of “NPOV” here:

One term for what can be called “the one neutral point of view”, which is how most people would understand NPOV. Often, it may be convenient to think of it as the center of gravity of a set of statements. As explained in the first paragraph above, that term can, with deep conviction, be easily appropriated by anyone for their own purpose. I thought of using “PPOV”, with P for “parochial” (but also stressing that that's only a point) or “CPOV” with “C” for “center”, but both of these are already taken, so I'm now suggesting “1POV”. Other options may be “0POV”, highlighting the 0-dimensionality of a point, or “OPOV”, where “O” can stand for “one” as well as for “origin”, since it often serves as the origin of one's coordinate system.
Another term for our policy stipulation of presenting all reliably published views. I suggest “BMP” – “broad-minded practice”. I like the central noun “practice” because it takes effort and has to be practiced, but other appropriate nouns may be “method”, “path”, or “procedure”. However, I don't like that “practice”, like most of the alternatives I could think of, starts with “P”, like point. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC) – Maybe a single word, expressing a desireable quality, such as “omnidirectionality”, would be better. Or an easily remembered combination like “encyclopedic view”, which expresses the same idea. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Galanthus nivalis

My wife and I haven't found the time yet to determine other pictures with annoying watermarks that might be worth your time, but here's a picture with a different problem: I took it through a mirror, which created offset images, particularly visible at the borders of the flower. Do you know by any chance if there's a way to remove those? ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do with it: I'm sure I can make some improvements, but it'll take me some time. MjolnirPants (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your renewed readiness to help. I didn't mean to put the task on your shoulders; if you have an idea how to do it then I could try my hand at it, too. ◅ SebastianHelm (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My approach would be to restore the background information behind the reflections wherever they are most visible. There are other issues, but they're not visible at the normal viewing size of that image, and there's nothing that really can be done to restore them in any case, short of training an AI to do it (which is, in fact, distinctly possible, but very time-intensive). MjolnirPants (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Check out the current state. This was all done with the close stamp and healing brush. It's really about the best I can do without training up an AI. MjolnirPants (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks a lot! To me this looks perfect – much better than I ever hoped for it to become. SebastianHelm (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Floor

Draft of Guardafui channel amalgamated/juxtaposed with Puntland's kilometer depth

Hi MjolnirPants. I want two SVG maps. So one SVG map that amalgamates/juxtaposes the guardafui Channel with the contiguous zone (typically extending to 24 nautical miles). And I want another SVG map that juxtaposes/amalgamates the Guardafui Channel with the 1 km /1000m seafloor (draft of seafloor linked) of Puntland. The image on the right is a draft of a seafloor image that you could possibly use for my seafloor + strait request. Rcbbtjjhj (talk)

@Rcbbtjjhj: Okay, so let me make sure I understand. You would like one SVG map that covers the area in the mockup to the right, with a 24mi zone around the plotted shorelines shaded in. (Note: Your source, and my own recollection, say that it is actually 12mi, not 24.) And then you want another one, which is basically an SVG version of the mockup on the right. Is that correct? MjolnirPants (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. It doesn't matter if the image is a relief or topographic map or otherwise, but if you include international borders, please use it in accordance with the United Nations member state map. Thank you. Rcbbtjjhj (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lemme see what I can do. Not sure when I'll get the time for it, but I'll try to get it done in the next week or so. MjolnirPants (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, ) Rcbbtjjhj (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MjolnirPants

Contents

File tagging File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg

File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg

Own work?

File:Inchon mh3.jpg

File:Chavchavadze 31-155 s.jpg

File tagging File:The Dome (Rust).png

File:Peace Palace Fairfield, IA.JPG

Copyright status: File:Crafting 1 (Rust).jpg

Copyright status: File:Rust e o purificador de água.jpg

File:Wiec warszawskich volksdeutschów w sali Roma.jpg

File:Tasmania (Scouts Australia).svg

Notification about possible deletion

File:Christmas in Aleppo.png

File:KCCS Cookie.JPG

Message regarding my editing

File:JPAgagianian GPetrowicz.jpg

File:Ömer Halisdemir.png

File:KCCS Cookie.JPG

File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg

File:Catherine Elizabeth Middleton (colorized).jpg

My favorite deity..

Вікі любить Землю 2019 в Україні триває до 31 травня!

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2021 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in Ukraine

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2021 в Україні триває до 30 вересня / Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in Ukraine is on till September 30

Thanks a lot!

(arbitrary break)

1POV and BMP

Galanthus nivalis

Floor

Navigation menu

User talk:MjolnirPants

File tagging File:Tasmanian Scouting.svg

Own work?

File tagging File:The Dome (Rust).png

Copyright status: File:Crafting 1 (Rust).jpg

Copyright status: File:Rust e o purificador de água.jpg

Notification about possible deletion

Message regarding my editing

My favorite deity..

Вікі любить Землю 2019 в Україні триває до 31 травня!

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2021 в Україні / Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in Ukraine

Вікі любить пам'ятки 2021 в Україні триває до 30 вересня / Wiki Loves Monuments 2021 in Ukraine is on till September 30

Thanks a lot!

(arbitrary break)

1POV and BMP

Galanthus nivalis

Floor

Navigation menu

Search