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

Hi, don't know if you saw it, I asked a question at one FFD you nominated, here [1]. Am I missing something there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this isn't your admission of some sort of bias or agenda in the deletion of these individuals? Grsz ¹¹ 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll try to be short and concise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your actions are being discussed here -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Humm..., this is interesting, If you go to [2] and then go to the botton left side and click on "Derechos Compartidos", you will find the PD claim, however what is interesting is that both sites use " http://www.salonhogar.net/" as thier websites. Tony the Marine ( talk) 01:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do sometime today. Tony the Marine ( talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I believe it's not actually PD. The website actually says: "Todas sus imágenes son obtenidas de varios proveedores de imágenes gratuitos que se encuentran en Internet para proyectos educativos no lucrativos" [3]. Do you agree with Google when it translates it to "All his images are obtained from several image providers who are free on the Internet for nonprofit educational projects."? That would mean that the images are not even free, since their use is not allowed for any purpose. -- Damiens.rf 12:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Therese Mickelson

Manager Corporate Communications

City of Coquitlam

3000 Guildford Way

Coquitlam, BC V3B 7N2

604-927-3019

TMickelson@coquitlam.ca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newbie's involvement

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

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

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

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

Im not gonna overflow your talkpage so go here [4].-- General Cheese 08:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

As you continue to be rude, insulting, hound people, and be unresponsive to the communitie's concerns, take this one week break to think about the issues. Hopefully you'll realize what caused this to pass and won't do it again. Just a few recent examples: [5], WQ thread, and driving away a longtime productive user. Wiki is a consensus based environment and your behavior is highly counterproductive to that. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

A few more recent examples: [6], [7], [8] — Rlevse • Talk • 18:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Damien,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the diffs provided

1. Cleaning up images related to Australian, Puerto Ricans or Greeks is not racism. Your accusation is far fetched.
2. This is not WP:POINT at all. I was just tagging self-published blog as an unreliable source. I guess other users agreed with that [20] [21].
3. I've explained that most images of PR where uploaded by Marine, and most of his uploads are problematic. They need cleanup. Also, I have seen no diff of your accusation of hounding RSleeve
4. Not vandalism, as I explained you above, that had nothing to do with sourcing. That was an editorial decision that I was politely discussing the issue with the community when you indef blocked me.
5. This is not uncivil at all! On the contrary, it is the polite way of warning a user about many problems, instead of using automatic tags.

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

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

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

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

Various views

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

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

OK

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

The editions at the Medal of Honors articles were not vandalism, but defensible editorial decisions, as shown by different opinions expressed about the matter when the topic was raised in a wider board: (favoring the use of large quotes: [22] [23]; against the use: [24] [25]).

I am not a racist.

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

Not-OK

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

>>> That's what you said just 10 days ago when you were blocked for 1 week [26], and didn't do it - or you wouldn't be blocked and back here again after just 2 days on the loose.

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

>>> Don't confuse defensible with argumentative. [27]

"I am not a racist."

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

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

>>> "Sure" [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

1. Avoid further actions that appear to be racist, or that bait editors of a particular race. (Questionable image deletion nominations of famous Puertorriquenos [31] [32] [33])
2. Avoid violating WP:POINT. (Above diffs, pointy deletion nominations.) Another: [34]
3. Avoid hounding editors such as User:Rlevse or User:Marine 69-71. [35] [36] [37] (last link, read whole page)
4. Refrain from vandalism. (Removing MoH and Navy Cross citations, needlessly, when these are very easily source-able. [38] [39] [40])
5. Observe the requirement to relate civilly and collegially with other editors. (Not nice at all. [41])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the diffs provided

1. Cleaning up images related to Australian, Puerto Ricans or Greeks is not racism. Your accusation is far fetched.
2. This is not WP:POINT at all. I was just tagging self-published blog as an unreliable source. I guess other users agreed with that [42] [43].
3. I've explained that most images of PR where uploaded by Marine, and most of his uploads are problematic. They need cleanup. Also, I have seen no diff of your accusation of hounding RSleeve
4. Not vandalism, as I explained you above, that had nothing to do with sourcing. That was an editorial decision that I was politely discussing the issue with the community when you indef blocked me.
5. This is not uncivil at all! On the contrary, it is the polite way of warning a user about many problems, instead of using automatic tags.

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

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

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

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

Various views

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

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

OK

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

The editions at the Medal of Honors articles were not vandalism, but defensible editorial decisions, as shown by different opinions expressed about the matter when the topic was raised in a wider board: (favoring the use of large quotes: [44] [45]; against the use: [46] [47]).

I am not a racist.

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

Not-OK

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

>>> That's what you said just 10 days ago when you were blocked for 1 week [48], and didn't do it - or you wouldn't be blocked and back here again after just 2 days on the loose.

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

>>> Don't confuse defensible with argumentative. [49]

"I am not a racist."

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

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

>>> "Sure" [50]

And for those missing the background info here are two good summaries: [51] and [52]. Elephants have better memories than zebras.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey Damiens. I fold some old photos here (two pages) [53] of some buildings including ones by architects whose articles I'm working on. How do I Determine if they are in the public domain? Is there someone here who's an expert that I can ask? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great. Thanks. Dr.K.  ^{λogos πraxis} 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• By the way, telling people who don't agree with you "Try to understand what's the issue at hand before voting" is rather rude. [54]-- Blargh29 ( talk) 05:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I was just trying to point out how offtopic the votes about replecabilty were, since the image was not nominated on that grounds. I didn't realize it could sound rude, but now that you point it, I kinda get the point. -- Damiens.rf 07:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And your comment was also not that polite anyway. -- Damiens.rf 08:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<copy from here>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Damiens.rf. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Hello, Damiens.rf. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

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

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

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

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

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

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

Hello, Damiens.rf. You have new messages at Veriss1's talk page.
Message added 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

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

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

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Yoani Sánchez. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Damiens,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please can you explain why you have arbitrarily decided that my page (Malcolm Phipps) is not good enough for Wikipedia - if you are so concerned about standards perhaps constructive criticism would be the better path to take ie. tell me what you (and I stress the you, as it is only your opinion) think is wrong, rather than just deleting the whole page. Having looked at other pages of notable karate people, I don't see any difference between their pages and mine. Please explain yourself. Sfarrer ( talk) 11:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The article as you wrote had to many problems to be fixed. It was better to restart from scratch. You should consider familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:ARTSPAM, to begin with. -- Damiens.rf 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, or really the lack thereof. I think your concern should be focused on your disruption of the many articles you've reinstated your edit warring on after a lengthy time of uninvolvement once your versions were reverted with Consensus and per policy. I'm strongly considering a user conduct RFC to protect WP from further disruption by you. Dreadstar ☥ 17:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to be heavily involved with copyright issues, can you please link your qualifications for judging copyright and fair usage? I ask because from the few pieces of work I've looked at so far you seem to have a very exclusionary viewpoint that seems to be out of line with the community's viewpoint. Thanks Hasteur ( talk) 23:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens - I think that a reasonable majority of people support enforcing NFCC as written, but you seem to be interpreting it in an exceptionally exclusionary manner. Until you get more community support for your position on interpreting it, please stop editing in a disruptive manner and removing images as you have been. This is not OK. You can work through the consensus process to move or adjust consensus and written policy - but you aren't allowed to disruptively try to subvert it. Your ongoing behavior here is across the line right now. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not rely on credentials, but in arguments. -- Damiens.rf 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reported you here for edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was protected instead of a block. But if you continue edit warring, this may not be the next result. Discuss on talk pages instead. Dreadstar ☥ 02:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed this one too. Sorry, forgot to AGF for a moment... :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're much welcome. -- Damiens.rf 16:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But in such cases it's better to strike out the retracted text, instead of removing it, so that other user's replies don't look out of line. But thanks, anyway. -- Damiens.rf 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might revise yours too...to match... :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look closely at the text sourced to blogs later today but in general Sanchez is stating her experience and opinion and as long as that is attributed there is no concern with using a blog per Wikipedia. Self serving refers more to statements which might inflate a person beyond the ordinary which non of this text does in Sanchez's case. As well... I have you watch listed, and this statement which I found on Dreadstar's user talk page is troubling and indicates you have a bias and possibly Conflict of interest per this BLP. This statement is especially a concern. What she writes about herself and about her country is never uncontroversial. That's a political blog whose author takes money from an enemy country. In a country like U.S.A., she would hardly be free at this time. I suggest you take great care with what you edit into the article given this statement unless you wisely decide to not edit it at all on this article, and just use the talk page to voice your concerns and comments. There is no leewaay for POV editing, most especially in a BLP article. Something to think about.( olive ( talk) 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

What's exactly the problems with why I said? Aren't you being a little US centric? Please, elaborate on that accusation.

I'm the one removing the pov existing in the article. At least on the biography section, the article repeats her account of facts as if her blog was an reliable independent source, what it's not. For instance, her account of why she left Cuba and why and how she came back is self-serving and unbalanced. -- Damiens.rf 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not disclosing either my political position which has no place on Wikipedia, nor my nationality. I'm suggesting you take care. You've amply indicated your position. Best wishes.( olive ( talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

Have I disclosed any political position in that statement? (My nationality is not a secret). Are you sure you've read it correctly? -- Damiens.rf 19:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Kira Reed. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

[Name suppressed by reviewer] is a porn star: See [link suppressed by reviewer](NSFW). She doesn't seem to have a problem with it, as seen on this interview [link suppressed by reviewer]. Damiens.rf 16:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have edit-warred to call a living person a "porn star" in the article about them, without providing a reliable source in the form of a inline citation for this change, as you are required to per WP:BLP: [55], [56], [57] and previously [58]. This is a severe violation of our policies WP:BLP and WP:EW. Your unblock request indicates that you do not understand this problem. Even if the person "is" a porn star, it is a violation of WP:BLP to call her one without providing a source, especially if this change has already been challenged by others.

For this reason, and considering your block log, I believe that the current time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued violation of WP:BLP by you. Considering that you have been previously warned about the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP ( [59]), in application and enforcement of WP:BLPBAN, I am hereby banning you from making edits about living persons for the duration of three months. That is, you may make no edits to articles about living persons, and you may make no edits that add, change or remove any information about a living person on any page (except as described at WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans). If you violate this ban you may be blocked or restricted further without warning. This ban can be appealed as described at WP:BLPBAN.  Sandstein  19:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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

I hope this unblock request won't take longer to be replied due to admins over-analyzing the links I've post in my defense. -- Damiens.rf 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Given your own fact-tag blitz, it's ironic that you were edit-warring over trying to impose your personal opinion. There's nothing whatsoever in the article that qalifies Reed as a "porn star". ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is a completely unsourced BLP, and should actually just read "Kira Reed is an actress ^{citation needed}". When the admins stop "analyzing" the links I've provided above, they could unblock me and I volunteer to fix the article. -- Damiens.rf 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that your "porn star" entry was satirical? ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I just thought it was supposed to be uncontroversial. But apparently, I was wrong. I was planing to source / clean the whole article later. Bad choice of priorities, I believe. -- Damiens.rf 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, would you like to choose a different word/link to describe the administrative review of your unblock? I tend to think that your choice of verb to describe the review as in extremely poor taste. Hasteur ( talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the link posted in the unblock request, I suspect he was just being funny. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Hasteur. Relax. Wikipedia can handle a little bit of humor. -- Damiens.rf 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dreadstar. When following my edits revert them, make sure to only revert the passages you plan to fix. It's not unusual for your reverts to re-add improper material, like unsourced original research that have been tagged for years.

Other than that, thanks for the almost pathological interest on my affairs. Together, we can fix Wikipedia. --Damiens.rf 02:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please quit reverting my edits when I'm obviously right in the act of sourcing and copyediting articles that you've merely deleted content from. It would be far more helpful if you would actually take some time to do some research and add sources. There's nothing so contentious in any of the material I'm restoring and sourcing that you have to revert me right in the middle of the work I'm doing. Dreadstar ☥ 03:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

One can always use the history tab. There's no point in restoring content that has been tagged as unsourced for years just because you plan to fix it sometime in the future. -- Damiens.rf 03:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm fixing a lot of things at the very same momement you're reverting them. You just did it right here: [60] [61] [62] Stop it. Your edit warring will only lead to further blocks. Dreadstar ☥ 03:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My edit warring? You follow me contribs and revert every one of them and I'm edit warring? Your work is not my important than mine. You could show a few more respect by fixing the articles without plainly reverting every fucking article I touch, no matter how obscure and unrelated to you it is. You're freaky.

Last night I had this nightmare where I clean up my bedroom, throwing away old stuff, just to find them back, but in a new arrangement, when I arrive home. You fixed the old t-shirt I've thrown away and restored the old painting! Go away!!!! -- Damiens.rf 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From your contributions list, I see you've found something better to do. Thanks a lot. I'll sleep much better now. -- Damiens.rf 13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am amused by your huge picture stating "This talk page is not a battleground", yet you post provocative and condescending edit summaries such as this one. Please be more polite in your summaries. a_man_alone ( talk) 19:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this to ANE. a_man_alone ( talk) 20:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good bye. -- Damiens.rf 20:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess you were WRONG. -- Damiens.rf 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit war does not have to transgress 3rr - we both stopped short of that, however it was obvious that it was headed that way, boy. a_man_alone ( talk) 07:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Damiens,

I don't know if you've encountered this before, but when you run across something that might be verifiable, but isn't currently accompanied by an WP:Inline citation, then the best thing to do is usually to add {{ fact}} after it, not to delete whole swaths of articles.

Also—were you aware that the policy is named VerifiABILITY, rather than "VerifiED" for a reason? The goal is to include information for which a reliable source exists (anywhere in the world), not to include only information for which a reliable source has already been typed into the article.

If a reliable source exists, then the material cannot, by definition, violate the WP:No original research policy. I recommend that you carefully read the first four sentences of that policy. Much of what you've deleted recently as 'violating NOR' is perfectly acceptable under NOR, because reliable sources exist (even though they aren't already conveniently named for you).

There are only a couple of types of statements that are required by any policy to have inline citations. You can see the list at WP:MINREF. (Note that the failure to have a citation in these instances violates either WP:V or WP:BLP rather than WP:NOR.)

Let me encourage you to spend more time tagging material that you'd like to see provided with an inline citation, and less time deleting verifiABLE material simply because nobody had good enough mind-reading skills to know that you wanted to see citations. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong. Unsourced information is to be ruthlessly removed. The {{ fact}} tag is just an optional exercise of mercy. -- Damiens.rf 22:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are committed to your opinion. Well, how would you like to resolve this? Shall we discuss your, ah, unique interpretation of the written policies at WP:NORN? At WP:ANI? What's your preference? It's your choice for the forum; it doesn't matter to me. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're the one seeing an issue here. -- Damiens.rf 02:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

True, I'm seeing an issue here. My issue is that you have a pattern of claiming that material for which (1) a source exists but (2) no source is currently named violates WP:NOR. WP:NOR directly says the opposite ("The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists"—not "for which no reliable published source is already named in the article"). If a source exists, then the material cannot violate NOR. (It could violate WP:V or WP:BLP if the material is one of the items named under WP:MINREF, and you could certainly WP:CHALLENGE the material yourself.)

IMO this is a problem because you are removing policy-compliant material (which hurts our readers) and misleading editors (by falsely claiming a violation of a policy). If you said, for example, "I WP:CHALLENGE this uncited material", I'd be less concerned. You'd still be violating the WP:Editing policy's WP:PRESERVE mandate by removing content that could be easily fixed, but you wouldn't be misrepresenting the nature of the content policies and thereby sowing confusion among editors.

I assumed initially that you simply weren't aware of the actual metes and bounds of the policy. (I think it impossible for anyone to keep up with all of the policies and guidelines, so honest mistakes are common.) However, I don't see any indication in your response that you are even slightly interested in stopping your misleading claims about the NOR policy or adopting a strategy that tends to build, rather than tear down, the encyclopedia. Am I correct in my assessment? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, please understand that some facts about Wedding reception that are completely obvious to you may not be so for some stupid exemplars of our species, like me. And that's what sources are for. -- Damiens.rf 20:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a given bit of material is unfamiliar to you is a good reason not to delete it without warning, but to tag it—or even to WP:HANDLE the problem by looking for sources yourself. A brief trip to your favorite web search engine would have quickly demonstrated the fact that sources exist and thus that there could be no NOR violation. (That's what I did to check on some of the Asian reception customs.)

BTW, your comment suggests that you may know more about African wedding customs than Western or East Asian ones. The article says basically nothing about African wedding customs, and I'd be happy to have someone expand the article in that direction. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The fact that the information is reachable on google does make it improper for me to remove them from an article, if there's no reference at all. The editor has the obligation to attribute everything he adds to independent sources.

Africa is diverse. My grandpa's marriages was nothing like mom's. Our family no longer follows savage feral rites. But I know there are regions where they do. There's nothing like an official African tradition. -- Damiens.rf 16:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am undoing your deletions from Japanese war crimes for similar reasons. You removed several thousand characters, including verbatim quotes, that would have come up as the first hit on Google if you had simply tried a search. I agree with User:WhatamIdoing - you need to us {{ fact}} instead of deleting easily verifiable portions of articles. To your credit, your deletion has caused me to add references to the deleted sections, but it would have been much easier to look for them via {{ fact}} instead of digging through the article history. Jtwang ( talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it would not have been easier. By the time I first spotted Japanese war crimes, it contained {{fact}} tags as old as 2009. -- Damiens.rf 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You have demonstrated clear contempt for the contributions of other Wikipedians that you deem lacking. Clearly there are at least two people here who feel that deletion must be wielded much more carefully. While it's certainly easier to delete, you should at least try a cursory Google search and see if you can *improve* Wikipedia by adding content instead of deleting tracts of it. Jtwang ( talk) 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... no. While more than often I do that, it's not my duty to google search references for any text some lazy editor throws in some random article. The one adding the contents is expected to source it to begin with. Unsourced (contentious) material is to be ruthlessly removed, not tagged. Tagging is optional mercy. -- Damiens.rf 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Tagging is a method of improving the encyclopedia. It is not "optional mercy"—but even if it were, "optional mercy" would be a desirable and appropriate choice in many circumstances. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to punish imperfections.

I think you might want to read WP:BURDEN; the actual requirements are far more limited than you seem to believe. If an editor adds material (1) for which reliable sources exist and (2) that s/he does not think WP:LIKELY to be challenged, then WP:V does not require the editor to add any citations at all "to begin with". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But how that justify you reverting my removal of a three years old tagged material? -- Damiens.rf 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As WhatamIdoing has already explained, see WP:PRESERVE, specifically Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Try_to_fix_problems and the list of suggested alternatives to deletion, including "doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself" Jtwang ( talk) 20:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! In response, I found that we only have non-free photos of him (unless there's something I missed on the USGov websites, and I already site searched the Bureau of Indian Affairs)

There's nobody (that we know of) that we can ask for free photos, because the man's wife and daughter also died in the same plane crash. WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

While this may be a case for using a non-free image, this is not a case for using a photo from Associated Press.-- Damiens.rf 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright - What additional restrictions does an AP image have that other non-free images do not have? BTW I sent an e-mail to the Morris Thompson foundation asking if they are willing to do a relicense. WhisperToMe ( talk) 00:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with AP photos is that AP makes money exactly from selling usage rights for those photos. Want to use a beautiful photo of Kurt Cobain to illustrate your webpage about Kurt Cobain? You can get one from AP, for a fee. When Wikipedia simply takes some AP photo and uses it, it's being unfairly disingenuous. That said, the doctrine of fair use in U.S. laws allow we to display an image when we are discussing that very image (instead of simply using it because it's a cool image).

Of course, this is true not only about AP images, but from images from any commercial news agency or photo agency.

Make sure to really follow the instructions on WP:COPYREQ when contacting the MT Foundation. The best outcome, undoubtedly, would be for them to release some photo under a free licensing. -- Damiens.rf 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. So if we had to choose between non-free images, it would be better to use one that doesn't come from AP versus one that does, even if both are nonfree.

In the e-mail I linked to the OTRS section that states "Declaration of consent for all enquiries" and to "Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses" so that the user will understand what "free usage" means

If the user agrees, but does not specify a type of license, I will ask the user to specify a license. When the user does specify the license, then I send the related e-mails to OTRS to confirm the permissions.

WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. -- Damiens.rf 02:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Damiens.rf. You have new messages at Cinosaur's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Any_guidelines_on_mass_deletion_requests.3F regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it shows his face, its stil, in my opinion, too small and blurry to have in the infobox. The quality and size of the action photo is much better.-- Yankees10 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah thats him.-- Yankees10 19:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That ones not bad.-- Yankees10 20:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring at eHow to try to get your own way. The matter is under discussion at Talk:EHow#Wikipedia_blacklisting and you will need to gain consensus there to make the changes you want to make. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on eHow. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Ahunt ( talk) 18:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Damian - what do you think under the long term lack of availability of a commons compatible picture in regard to a recently expired subject and the opinions for a non free rationale for a low resolution portion of a copyrighted picture? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The guy is recently dead and, giving his position as a public figure, there are certainly many pictures of him available. We should expect (actively, and not just passively) some of these pictures to be released under a free license. -- Damiens.rf 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, just as a question - how long, how many years of looking and requesting, how long do you support the lack of a commons compatible picture in relation to a dead person to be a decent reason to support/oppose a non free rationale? For example this subject we have been looking for a commons compatible picture for the last ten years and nothing has turned up, when do you suggest we move to a default position of more openness to accepting of a non free rationale? Off2riorob ( talk) 17:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to establish a timeframe, as getting an image to be freely released depends more on motivation than time. Setting a date beyond which (lazily acquirable) non-free images would be acceptable would ruin the efforts to look for a free one.

The "ten years" figure you give is simply not truth. There were no Sai Baba article on the 2001 Wikipedia. -- Damiens.rf 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, that was a guess - we have been looking for a commons comparable picture since the start of the wikipedia en (around a decade now ) and not found one, that is years and years of looking - non free use is not the devil and he is now dead - how many years of searching would be enough for you to accept a non free rationale - its also worth considering that users connected to the foundation have commented that a picture is of clear benefit to an article. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just repeating yourself. Tell me, in the benefit of a progressing discussion, how do we differentiate "10 years of searching" from "10 years of sitting down and waiting"? (If you consider it helpful, please be offensive on your reply). -- Damiens.rf 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me if I am repeating myself - I am only looking for your actual reasons. The picture is again replaced in the article, the one you have removed twice already, why is that, don't forget - non free is not the devil, not even nearly the devil. Sathya_Sai_Baba - imo what is required is a non free picture with a low quality portion and a decently erxplained non free rationale. Such as - we have been looking for a commons licensed picture for the last ten years and one has not been offered, as such this low quality image portion is educationally beneficial until one is available or not as the case may be. Off2riorob ( talk) 18:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:eHow. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. In particular your direct accusation here that I am sockpuppeting is a completely unfounded personal attack and I can prove that. The two IPs in question are 68.32.94.161 and 141.214.17.5. As I mentioned before, if you check the ARIN registry for North America you will see that those two IPs are a Comcast subscriber in New Jersy and the second is a direct assignment to the University of Michigan Medical Center. As I also previously mentioned I am in Canada and my ISP is National Capital FreeNet, which gets its DSL from Teksavvy in Chatham, Ontario. I'll save you the trouble of requesting a checkuser to back up your personal attack by signing my name here and then signing out and signing it a gain with my IP address so you can check that on ARIN. I then expect an apology from you for this baseless personal attack. - Ahunt ( talk) 14:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) My IP signature: - 69.165.136.77 ( talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I love the patronizing message. Some time has passed since that edit. Was there something new that led you to post this template here? I mean, something besides the fact that every new editor joining that discussion has disagreed with your view? -- Damiens.rf 15:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The personal attack was yesterday - I was waiting to see if you would reconsider what an error that was on your part and revert yourself. I am not concerned about the outcome of a reasonable debate to find a consensus on an issue and I can certainly live with the consensus that emerges from that debate, regardless of what it is. That doesn't excuse your edit warring and it especially doesn't excuse your unconscionable personal attack on me, which I have conclusively proven was unfounded and an extreme case of bad faith on your part. I am still waiting for your apology. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting an investigation of sockpupetry is not a personal attack. Commenting more on editors than on content is. -- Damiens.rf 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't start a sockpuppet investigation - you carried out a personal attack and on a clearly unfounded basis. I am still waiting for your apology. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, don't. I regret none of the actions you mention. -- Damiens.rf 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though you have been proven to have been 100% wrong in the subject of your personal attack. I am awed. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To the benefit of you passage on Wikipedia, you should consider really reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks (or at least the in a nutshell version). -- Damiens.rf 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Staring a sockpuppet investigation against me is one one thing, we will deal with that over there, but you didn't even complete the process at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance which requires you to inform me that you had done that, Step VI says "Notify all the users you are accusing..." Instead an admin had to complete the job for you. So next time you file a sockpuppet report please do complete the process right to the end and inform the person of your accusations. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. To the best of my recollection, this was my first sockpuppetry report. -- Damiens.rf 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I had to look up how they work myself, after six years here I have never filed one either. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion came across my watchlist a little too late to participate. Hence, I'll offer my comments now. When I originally came across the article, I had the slight impression that it was geared too much towards the plane crash. There was a text comment left to the effect of "Don't add a birth date unless sourced," like it was going to be difficult or something. I suppose if you're 100% reliant upon Google to the point where it blinds you to the existence of other sources, there may be a problem. It should be obvious that with a Google search, the results are going to be skewed more towards corporate media sensationalism if the opportunity presents itself.

In a sense, it's a good thing to see the photo go away, and also to see effort put into finding a replacement. Now, addressing the rationale:

• Point 3: Thompson had two other daughters, who far as I know, still survive. Being an Alaska Native, he has an abundance of relatives in numerous communities throughout interior Alaska.

• Points 4 and 5: Is it really important to have a photo of Thompson as an older man? Like I alluded to earlier, this perhaps is giving undue weight to the plane crash versus any other aspect of his life. Where I come from, Morris Thompson is known for a whole lot more than having died in a plane crash, and Athabascan people (as well as others from around here) may become very offended if they realize that's what the case is or may be. It may possibly stand in the way of someone granting permission for a photo to be used on here.

Several months back, I did send an e-mail to the BIA asking if an official photo was available. I never received a response. From my so-far-limited experience in making inquiries, people in positions of receiving such requests typically automatically turn their noses up at the first mention of "Wikipedia." Anyway, happy hunting. RadioKAOS ( talk) 05:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is better without the last quotation, although my feathers got ruffled by the use of the word parrot. Awkk! (On the Internet nobody knows what species you are.) Yours in birddom, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This file File:Hopper Rider.jpg that you commented on at FfD has been re-listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 28#File:Hopper Rider.jpg Please see the discussion to see why this is. Skier Dude ( talk) 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, and congrats for the honesty! -- Damiens.rf 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been going through a large number of your nominations. A substantial number of them are for people who appear to be notable if you do a simple google search. However trying to check hundreds of AfD nominations is going to result in articles of notable people being deleted. Can you suggest a way to get an adaquate review of them all within the regular AfD listing period? Monty ₈₄₅ 03:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just don't try to do it all yourself. We have enough volunteers. If we, as a community, were able to create articles for almost every person that has stripped for Playboy, and we, as a community, could review a small part of these articles and nominate the oddest ones for deletion, then we, as a community will be able to discuss the deletions and save any false-positive that may have been listed by mistake. -- Damiens.rf 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have similar concerns as Monty845, and have raised the matter at ANI here [63]. While I'm in general agreement with the argument you make, I believe that the sheer bulk of similar nominations overwhelms the process. I've been editing toward the same end, over the last month or so, focusing on redirecting stub article for marginally notable models rather than outright deletion, with little controversy. I fear that the large number of nominations will turn into an all-or-none which won't turn out favorably; and that the relatively small number of "false positives" (several clear cases of which I've already noted) will be taken as evidence that a general WP:BEFORE failure has occurred. I'm seriously concerned that this will backfire badly, and prevent us from solving the problem that we're both trying to handle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please stop now -- we're only 4 hours into Thursday, and there are already more nominations than all of yesterday.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 04:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Full stop. -- Damiens.rf 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Monty and the rest. While the wiki community is massive, the participation at AFD is only a very small part of the whole. With this enormous number of AFDs being postef at once, there is no way that every article will be reviewed thoroughly. Beach drifter ( talk) 04:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, these could have all been nominated together if it really was that important to nominate them, and with literally about a hundred of these up already it makes it difficult for someone interested in improving the articles to get to all of them in a reasonable timeframe. I might recommend procedural closes for the AfDs and discussion brought up at the related WikiProject instead, then any that can't be improved can then be directed to AfD in turn, not en masse. CycloneGU ( talk) 18:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Experience shows it does not works. Wikiprojects are inclusionist by definition. -- Damiens.rf 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, nominating 119 articles for deletion all at once - I think most would have sufficed for a redirect request on the talk page, they didn't ALL need AfDs. Some might, but I don't see the inclination to study Playboy through the years. Regardless of past experience, I think raising the issues within the WikiProject is a good first step; that's my opinion however. CycloneGU ( talk) 20:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In this specific case, the issue of playmates notability was raised on the project's talk page to no avail. Then an rfc was started and, with the wider input (i.e., editors not blinded by their interest on the subject), it was decided that playmates are not notable (per se). Some few months has passed and nothing happens. A WikiProject will never start a deletion/redirect campaing on it article. Their members somewhat few the project is more important if it has more articles (instead of better ones). Your opinion, of course, is welcome. -- Damiens.rf 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to echo what's been said above as well as point something out. Those articles were not all created in a day. It wasn't as if the community came together to add them. Many were created a month at a time as the models were announced. And therefore were added by single editors. Dismas| ^(talk) 20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tell this to User talk:HipsterDad. -- Damiens.rf 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. 56 notices of articles for deletion in a day. Is this some sort of unofficial talk page record? CycloneGU ( talk) 21:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a very uninteresting discussion right now. -- Damiens.rf 23:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The source was given at the time of upload. I composed it from US government files, which are by law in the public domain. What more do you want? Why are you wasting time with such stuff? — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to list which files those are. Don't worry about my time. -- Damiens.rf 00:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As we appear to have no more contributions to the discussion at eHow I was asked to look at the comment and come to some conclusion, please refer to Talk:eHow. With regard to the sockpuppet investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahunt/Archive which has been closed perhaps I can suggest some bridge building with User:Ahunt on the matter. Thanks. MilborneOne ( talk) 15:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Damiens, just got back from a double bypass operation. You are right in your observation. The copyright holder of the document is the U.S. Army. I will remove the error committed by me. Tony the Marine ( talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you're doing well. -- Damiens.rf 03:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I find myself doing that only too often, very difficult to remember whether I've left the brain in gear! Opbeith ( talk) 19:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you when you did your mass deletions of Lost and South Park episodes that you singled out the ones uploaded by me? Or is that just a coincidence?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a coincidence. I actually followed your upload log. -- Damiens.rf 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

But of course, once in an article, I analyzed all images used there. -- Damiens.rf 21:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So is there a reason why you're following my edits? Can we expect you to go over the episode articles or do you just have an issue with me?-- CyberGhostface ( talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled upon one of your images and decided to take a look at your upload log. Yes, now that I know about it, I plan to do a full review on all SP episodes articles, and maybe in some other series, why not. -- Damiens.rf 22:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This guy has a history of disruptive editing. I recommend you take the matter to WP:ANI. The deletion nominations appear to be bad faith and in my case, retaliatory. The deletion nominations are vexatious because they have no real basis in fact. Jehochman ^Talk 21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:AGF. -- Damiens.rf 22:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case there is strong evidence to the contrary. Jehochman ^Talk 22:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No. It's absurd to suggest that Peripitus' comment is consensus to delete. Nyttend ( talk) 11:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please can you explain why you didn't tell me you had nominated this image for deletion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I trust the script to do that. Maybe it failed. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Let me know if there's something I can do to compensate you for the disturbance. -- Damiens.rf 23:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Damiens.rf, just a courtesy note that after some discussion Talk:Avatar_(2009_film)#Deleted_images here I've relisted File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg at Ffd for more discussion - see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_9#File:Avatarmotioncapture.jpg - Peripitus (Talk) 10:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My talk page is not a battleground, either. Keep you damn tags to yourself. I don't want to see them. I want you to work but if you won't, I don't want to know about that, either. — Xiong 熊 talk * 20:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not yours. -- Damiens.rf 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The next word out of my mouth is going to be an ugly one. Quit the assholery now. You are now randomly nominating everything you can find in my contribs. Fine. You do that. I don't much care.

Now pay careful attention:

• Do not tag my talk page -- not for any reason.
• Do not be thoughtlessly offensive to other human beings.
• Create if you can. Destroy if you must. Either way, don't bug me.

— Xiong 熊 talk * 09:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy. This is just a suggestion, but in the future, you may want to comment regarding which of the criteria an image violated.-- Rockfang ( talk) 18:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the edit warring and you will be blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 04:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You know that edits to enforce one of our most important polices are never edit warring. -- Damiens.rf 06:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And you should know by now that repeatedly reverting without reaching a consensus or even fully discussing the supposed "policy violation" in question in talk is disruptive and unproductive, to say nothing of risking being blocked for violating WP:3RR as you recently did in the 2001:A Space Odyssey(film) article. Shirtwaist ( talk) 12:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on admins, he's begging to be blocked!-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "without reaching a consensus"? What was the consensus for the non-free content review? -- Damiens.rf 13:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD to understand where you went wrong. Shirtwaist ( talk) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing BOLD on removing an illegal image from an article, so I think this nice essay does not apply. -- Damiens.rf 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

None of what you say excuses you from WP:3RR. Keep it up and you will be blocked. I'm also considering an RFC/U to ban you from image deletions and removal of content from articles, you are abusive, rude and detrimental to the project. Dreadstar ☥ 23:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement of policies is excused from your 3RR traps. Please, grown up and stop posting intimidating arguments on my talk. I'm essential to the project's image deletion process. -- Damiens.rf 07:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a very high bar set for 3RR exemptions; in this case, to be exempt, it must be unquestionable that the image violates copyright law or NFCC. And it clearly was not unquestionable. I'd really refrain from edit warring if I were you. Dreadstar ☥ 18:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"What was the consensus for the non-free content review?" Well, the consensus at this non-free content review and this non-free content review both resulted in KEEP decisions for the image. Aren't two separate consensuses enough for you? Shirtwaist ( talk) 04:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, you're currently under a three-month BLP topic ban, which started in April. [64] Did you appeal this, or is it still in force? If it is, you can't edit the Jessica Valenti article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK| CONTRIBS} 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

God damm, you're right! I'll restrict myself to the talk page. I hope I haven't broken anything. -- Damiens.rf 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I read it, that ban includes the talkpage as well. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As I read it, I can not edit BLP articles, and I can not add/change/remove information about people in "any page". Say, I can not go to some talk page and add "Did you know that Mr. Smith is rich?", but I believe it still leaves room for some cooperation in talk page discussions, even for BLP talk pages (this is not to say that I haven't inadvertently violated this rule before). -- Damiens.rf 18:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I can not edit my user page to add information about myself. -- Damiens.rf 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, I think it's best to observe the ban broadly interpreted and in spirit, and in the meantime make yourself very familiar with the BLP policy so that when you return to BLP editing you won't encounter problems again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK| CONTRIBS} 19:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, the jargon used in sanctions can be confusing, so I wanted to clarify it. Itlooks to me that your BLP ban covers all pages which would include the talk page of BLP. Look at this page for exceptions for a better idea of what it means. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is to say that I pretty much fucked it all. What happens now? -- Damiens.rf 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not as bad as that. :) You just have to stay away from BLPs—and posting about living persons on other pages—until July, and in the meantime read the BLP policy carefully, and you'll be fine afterwards. SlimVirgin ^{TALK| CONTRIBS} 20:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Right. As long as you don't come back next week and go "oops, I forgot", I don't see any need for further action here. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 20:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• How the fuck was this ban not noticed when this editor nominated a 100 BLPS for deletion recently? Glad to know he wasted all our time with that. This editor should be permabanned for life.-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 02:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  Per WP:REMOVED the notice should not have been removed as the sanction was still in effect, maybe if it had not been someone would have noticed as much. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely No copyright violation with this image. Hence it must not be nominated for deletion. This image is completely for free use by anyone and anywhere.

Sourav Mohanty ( talk) 20:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not revert the deletion tags. This is not the proper way to dispute the nomination for deletion. -- Damiens.rf 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to another editor who has treated you civilly by saying "What you say is a big fat lie. It's nauseating to interact with you." -Damiens.rf6:14 am, 11 May 2011, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC−7) [65] is very disrespectful and not at all in keeping with WP:CIVIL, is it? You should probably watch that. Shirtwaist ( talk) 00:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just noticed several FfD nominated that had all been uploaded by the same user. That does make it more difficult for them to deal with the issues presented - I'm not sure if doing that will give the best chances of quality, calm discussion and therefore the best outcomes for Wikipedia (whichever way the decisions go). To be clear, I'm 100% certain you had totally good faith in your nominations (all were very well grounded) but if I was Chesdovi, I'd feel under siege. Might be worth thinking about on a future occasion? Cheers -- Dweller ( talk) 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and usually there's not enough support for the idea that we should not review the upload log of image-policy challenged users. I for one see things as follows. If you have a good case for an image to be kept, you need no more that a few minutes to write it down. The 7 days given by FfD is more than enough for that. -- Damiens.rf 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought you might say something like that. In truth though, if a user doesn't respond quickly to any XfD discussion, it's very hard to pull it round, once the first few "Delete"s have come in - not least, persuading people to return and reconsider their opinions. I was also fairly concerned about potential heat in the debate, due to a user feeling overwhelmed. As it happens, Chesdovi has remained very calm and I needn't have worried. Cheers, -- Dweller ( talk) 09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why I find really important for the closing admin to completely ignore the vote count and simply weight the arguments. Votes like "delete per user:momomomo" are useless, and should be discounted. Any two votes defending the same view point should count as one, and votes made in ignorance of policy count as zero. Strictly speaking, by saying count here I'm doing the very same mistake I'm complaining about... -- Damiens.rf 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a totally uncalled for uncivil personal attack edit summary, please be more judicuous in your comments in the future. Dreadstar ☥ 19:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, what the fuck? No, seriously! -- Damiens.rf 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Listen, just because the article mentions one of their products, "Arrogant Bastard Ale," doesn't justify your use of the phrase "arrogant bastard" in your edit summary, especially when the content you removed had absolutely nothing to do with that product. Your use of the term in that manner can appear to be a comment directed at someone, which is why I suggested you be more judicious in your comments. Dreadstar ☥ 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If I ask you gently here and now, would you stop to follow my contributions? You don't seem capable of doing so without generating unnecessary distress. Why did you self-elected as my tutor? Your failing as that. -- Damiens.rf 20:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, if I see something problematic then I will take whatever action is appropriate. For instance here, you edit warred with me and you put in incorrect information. Why would I not fix it? That's just one example of many. Why don't you take my advice and be more cautious with your uncivil comments, mass taggings and unvetted deletions? I suggest you find a Mentor to assist you in these areas. Dreadstar ☥ 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If I find a MENTOR would you stop stalking me? I'm getting frightened. Really. You're scary. You're the last one I would follow advices from, since you act as a psychologically afflicted individual. -- Damiens.rf 20:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please, spare me the dramaz. Dreadstar ☥ 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

When an editor scans through your edits, addressing problems and notifying you of them, you should look at it in the same way as when you scan through another editor's image uploads, addressing problems and notifying them. Do you consider your actions stalking? I'm sure not. You check image edits, addressing issues and making notifications; I check edits, addressing issues and making notifications. Same difference. And at least I don't spam your talk page with dozens if not hundreds of automated notifications like you do, [66] [67], while making insulting comments [68]; and instead of just making mass deletions of article content, [69] [70] I take the time and effort to find resources and add content. [71] [72], all the while dealing with your edit warring while I'm in process of improving the article. [73] [74] Look to your own actions before making inflammatory accusations against others; like false accusations of vandalism and other personal attacks. Dreadstar ☥ 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Scanning some user's uploads is really not the same as following each recent edit I do and interfering with them, either in mainspace, user talk, deletion discussions. While I sometimes loose my mind, most of your accusation you link above are being taken out of context or are plain lies. Guy, you're sick as hell. Find someone to help you.

You don't need to reply here. -- Damiens.rf 23:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, please, both of you, avoid each other. Damiens, I highly recommend leaving any further images of Dreadstar alone; Dreadstar, the particular warning which opened this thread was petty and useless and shows that your "monitoring" of Damiens is not really constructive either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting pseudonym namesake you have in Robert-François Damiens. I did not know his story before. I wonder what parallels you derive in Wikipedia :) It's inspirational really; his torture and execution had far more negative effect on the French royalty than it did on him, and in the end while his attempts at assassination proved ineffective, his legacy really is the downfall of the French royalty. On such unexpected results does history turn. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I confess I had never seen that this way. Really interesting parallel you draw. -- Damiens.rf 14:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Try talking to me first or use the image talk page first. If I can't resolve your problems, I'll be happy to nominate the image(s) myself. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Try to see it in perspective... You're not the only one around here with problematic images in the log. -- Damiens.rf 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Try and follow policy and discuss first with the offending user and then nominate for deletion, not a first step ( WP:DEL#CONTENT. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The section you mention is written for article content, not images. And predicting your defensive disagreement, why do you point your finger to me when the usual behavior at FfD is the same as mine? -- Damiens.rf 23:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering both ?s

1. The policy is written for ALL page deletions, not just articles. That is why you see references to images throughout the policy, and not the word "article". A "page" includes files: Wikipedia:Glossary#P.
2. To quote a certain commentator "You can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior." It doesn't matter if other people are doing it too. The fact remains you are doing so. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 23:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Pay attention. I said "The section you mention is written...", not the "policy is written" as you imply. Also, stop sticking to the letter and absorb the spirit of what's written (even when it ruins your case).

And if you really care, I was not trying to justify anything. That was an honest question. (But don't worry post here again just to reply it. I'm not interested enough to live through your sweetly worded rudeness). -- Damiens.rf 01:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI — BQZip01 —  ^talk 05:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Did you just changed Wikipedia:Glossary to make it support your point #2 above? -- Damiens.rf 15:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just updated it and a glossary seemed to be the best place to keep all the numerous references in one place (it's a clean, clear, and concise definition and doesn't force you to wander through a page to find what I'm trying to show you).

If you don't like that, I'll be happy to point out a few others:

1. Help:File page
2. Help:Files
3. Help:Page name
4. Wikipedia:Page name

Do you really need more? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 15:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on, people, are you two still seriously squabbling over the semantics of the word "page" and whether images fall under it? Facepalm. Newsflash: Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We don't do or avoid to do things because the literal wording of some guideline says so; we do things if and when they are established good practice and if and when they make sense. Discussion prior to deletion nominations is typically expected for articles because it is assumed that problems with articles can often be remedied through editing of its contents. With images, you don't normally expect content editing; it's typically a black and white matter, keep it or delete it. That's why WP:DEL#CONTENT doesn't normally apply in the same way to an image. Another reason is that image deletions are routine, mass procedures that need to be kept efficient. If someone thinks an image is problematic, then an immediate deletion nomination is in fact the perfectly appropriate first step to take. If there's scope for discussion about improvements or remedies that can avoid deletion, then the deletion discussion itself is still as good a place for that as any other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe renaming "Files for Deletion" to "Files for Healthy Discussion" (and keeping everything else the same in the process) would diminish the distress created by those nominations. And this is a serious proposal (ok, the "healthy" issue was humorous). -- Damiens.rf 16:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That's actually true. And while we're at it, fold the "PUF" and "NFCR" processes into it. I've never understood why they were separate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have no issue rolling all 3 together. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 16:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitively , we need to try that ASAP. -- Damiens.rf 17:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)