User talk:MichaelMaggs

I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page, as well, just let me know.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. Talk page archives: 2006-7, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Commons Photo Challenge January 2014

Thank-you for helping with Commons:Photo challenge. Please continue to participate at the talk page to discuss and help organise this new project. The December 2013 themes will close for submissions this weekend and be ready for voting from Monday 6th January: Coloured light and Silhouette. For January 2014 there are two themes: A bunch of stuff and January. I hope you are keen to participate. Please read the theme descriptions for full submission rules on each theme. -- Colin (talk)

Re message on your page that you might have missed

Hello. You still haven't deleted/restored the items I listed here a while ago nor restored my filemover feature, and you haven't responded to my now eight-days old reply to your own message in an above thread, on the other hand. I guess you may want to now comment with what can this way or another be understood as an answer to that basic, important question or just simply engage in quickly fulfilling the task of deleting my 5 nominated uploads and reinstating my mover right, which might be even quicker and will make me incredibly happy. Orrlingtalk 10:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No chance for it considering one crat and so many admins already rejected your proposal. :) Jee 10:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Orrling, when you first asked me I had understood that this might be some technical thing I could quickly help you out with using the move tool. Then I thought there might have been a simple misunderstanding that could use some additional eyes, especially as you mentioned that "the assistance sought involves a five-minute job". But in fact I find that there has been a huge amount of discussion on these issues already, and that the problem - as you see it - is that you have not been able to obtain community consensus for your preferred solution. But that I am afraid is just the way Commons works, and it is simply not possible for me or any other 'crat to wade in with my own view and to override consensus. Some of the editors who have already contributed to the discussion are crats and respected admins in their own right, and it seems to me that the system is working well. I am sorry that I do not feel able to get involved in this, and I recommend that you accept the consensus and work with it. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the difference between a legitimate, reasoned, impartial Wiki-spirit conclusion which is obviously acceptable and the one that emerged in the specific reported case: that one is exceptional in the way it is the stunning opposite of any coherent, understandable, rational tradition here. Defending a given conclusion just because I've so far failed to change it, without understanding what it says, is an implausible irony, but you obviously did not mean it. I'm here for a reason. In fact, the prominent phenomenon in those "discussions" over there was these administrators utilized the notion of "the way Commons works" with the pure intention of letting me down for any price regardless the matter and how unreliable they come across trying to pretend justifying not letting me get the filenames back no matter how important that is to me. The absurdity is the existence of a discussion, since I was (and am) pursuing a most basic, obvious objective, that is by logic not controversial and not open to any controversy. I was definitely not seeking 'consensus', simply as my cause, and the whole issue, have nothing that comes in need of community's consensus or discussion, the nature of my mayhem is just restoring a valid file name from an invalid one – this "consensus" you're mentioning is exactly what blinds you now (and blinded others too, who were honest enough to admit their mistake), the bulk of admins made it that way because they knew you (or anyone) wouldn't have the time to traverse the case's complexity, and I'm here because I believe you possibly can look through-and-under it and view beyond merely counting signatures. You are of course correct if you try to say that there's been an overwhelming-like trend of voices advocating the abstention from remedying the corrupt files but this is why I'm addressing you, pointing essentially at the fact that that "consensus" was a consequence of partiality, that you shouldn't allow, it was meant to put me in distress and has rather nothing with either our policies or the benefit of the project, in any comparable way. My simple request is that you take a more serious look through, as soon as you can have the time, having access to the links to the major threads. I was allured by one of the admins to believe that once I'd post that matter at the ANU (–when it still was a tiny no-brainer) it would be fixed! Having complied with that, her/his fellow-admins used it to dissolve the simple procedural request and kill it, though they showed disagreement with the renamer's pattern! Later followed my five deletion requests. It appears that one same vandal has dismantled them. I could of course roll-back him/er, to get the five deleted and end this issue but since it could have been seen as undoing administrative action, I refrained from it, and now all I ask is that you delete them.. this is not overridng any concensus. This is my uploader's request. And finally, then again as absurdly, my patient and accountable ways were answered by having my mover tool abolished by them. Please don't fail to reinstate it; I'm 100% sure you understand that this was going over the top for just mocking Commons. Understand that unwanted and unjust things just have 'accumulated' in a pile that grew higher and higher from the moment that I first tried to peacefully retain my filenames. Were I you I couldn't come saying "that's what the admins want". Please take the time to read through, you can email me in privacy with further questions if you need (my-name-at-live-dot-com) I'll answer everything, but this current status can't remain, can't reasonably be worked with. I'm the author and donor of these 16 files, and have compromised myself on about 10 of them, while the others remaining, can't possibly be authorized with names other than the correct ones. These files are damaged! Kindly read some threads, at your pace and time, and try to answer to yourself if what you see is any reasonable. Orrlingtalk 19:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the most important concerns when deciding on filenames is how useful they will be to others. The preference of the uploader is relevant, of course, but no uploader has a veto on naming conventions (that is a condition of the licence under which the image was provided), and many uploaders - myself included - do find that their images have been renamed without asking for that very reason. In your case, I'm afraid that a preference for your own personal naming convention, for consistency with other images you may have taken, cannot take precedence over the systems on Commons which are designed to foster the greatest possible ease of re-use of free content by others. You may be under a misapprehension, as your use of language such as 'legitimate, reasoned, impartial', 'obviously acceptable', 'not controversial and not open to any controversy', 'can't possibly be authorized with names other than the correct ones', and 'These files are damaged!' suggest that you are hoping for and indeed demanding a level of personal control over filenames which no-one here has, and which would be impossible for anyone to get as that would be incompatible with the legal requirements of any of our free licences. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeking a veto on naming conventions, and the correct general arguments you're making are of no relevance for our matter because Shoeshine.jpg, Mukta.jpg, Swedish Hostel.jpg, Akko.jpg and Savanna.jpg are quite clearly the correct names each for its associated image's content,, or are you suggesting any of them somehow falls within an area of inaccuracy, unusability or in contrast with naming conventions? Of course you aren't. You're just being mentioning general points while ignoring this one situation is very exceptional given the incomparable circumstances of, primarily, the December-22 insane rage of blind rioting renaming session that was directed at my contributions rather than at actually deficient filenames on Commons, with the sake of giving me an indirect hostile message/'lesson', that you can't allow. You know my scope of work as both a categorist and uploader, my commitment, my voluntary nature embodied in so many hours of improving this place and its usefulness. While I'm not expecting any grants of outstanding recognition I am expecting that you vigorously ban incivil and vain-yet-sophisticated transgressions against me and enable reversing the results of such, acknowledging the injustice of pushing me under in such a way. Attempting to portray the issue like I'm asking for unusual conditions is a complete inversion of the reality. Indeed, I want to eventually retain my equal control over my indisputably-valid filenames, this is so basic, and this is the point I don't want you to be losing by spokesmanning formal requirements while I'm showing you that specifically these renames had nil reason and are rejectable and dumb. I'm obviously not in any dispute over licenses, but could you assert - after you've seen the logs of the events - that these licenses require and allow using one's mover tool to mess out other editors' tranquil and problemless files? And in which way does our license or any rule prohibit reversing an inappropriate, evidently controversial rename to regain the original stable name, upon request by the uploader? Could you look at it and ask yourself in which way the "greatest possible ease of re-use" is possibly achieved by those distinct renames, and how exactly licenses and naming-conventions encourage these meaningless renamings? I pre-credit you for seeing the facts and finding the absurdity. Regardless: Please grant back my mover right, as already asked. Thanks a lot. Orrlingtalk 14:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not prepared to intervene in the way you request. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but what are you saying? Are you saying you will not reinstate the mover right for my usage and will not check the administrative problem presented above? My mover tool is still not showing to be active as it has been. Please reinstate it fully, thanx Orrlingtalk 13:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Or are you implying there's any other way you're prepared to intervene in that ? The specific way to accomplish the objective does not matter to me... I think you've read the progression I've described and my argumentations and are aware that the current status isn't reasonable Orrlingtalk 16:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Orrling, I think you are pushing too hard here. Having now read the discussions, I am not willing to intervene in the way you request. To be clear, I am not willing to reinstate your filemover bit, nor am I willing to change the filenames myself. I should be grateful if you could leave this be, now, and move on to other things. There is really no point in your continuing to press me. Sometimes you have to accept that you cannot get your own way and that others have differing views. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely I'm not pressing you, it wasn't my intention, I resorted to you seeing a sort of conspiratory denial of my old editor's rights off-order and off-reason here by Admins; I'm acting not to "get my own way" but to casually and merely get the filemover feature reinstated and, apart and regardless, to get five of my files (listed above) deleted or restored as per my elaborate reasonings, and I honestly fail to so far find where and when you stated any reason for actually not performing (or asking any admin to perform) the required corrective assignments really. That means, other than «showing me that I can't get those things», respectfully will you also care to state the reason for strangely declining them, so specific as you can be? Orrlingtalk 18:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have a reason for this but prefer to not comply with my request still in order to harmonize with admin's rule, would you maybe open it for discussion among the admins to draw views and build up a viable and transparent reason? The acts that I'm here to reverse are namely very inconsistent with Commons. I think the message to me by suggesting they can't be reviewed is problematic. Needless to say that revoking my move feature for no good reason is a problematic message and that absent of such a critical tool which was like a third hand for me I will not be able to contribute files, so I don't quite understand the stance about it from you. I was untill recently one of the project's filemovers. Have you observed and studied the circumstances in which this helpful tool was confiscated from me? Would you please somehow process it backwards even indirectly, by some other functionary you trust? Orrlingtalk 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You really need to leave this now and move on to other things. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Things need to be for a reason. What is the reason for not reinstating the mover right? This appears to be ignoring what I've presented and apparently aims at leaving me without the filemover function which was inherent of my contribution activity, without a reason. Just say the reason for the confiscation of the tool and the refusal to engage in the inquiry that will clarify the irregular set of actions I reported. When I hear it I might understand why I'm wrong and need to leave it. Orrlingtalk 17:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Arctic Kangaroo/ccbysa3.0

Hi Michael, can you help me delete this template? It's no longer in use as I created a new one. Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure,  Done. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/MichaelMaggs⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification please...

Yesterday User:Arctic Kangaroo left an apology, of sorts on my talk page, that included the surprising information that their indefinite block had been lifted. I spent some time stepping through the extensive discussion that preceded the lifting of this block, without seeing a reason why the block should be lifted.

It was my understanding that the block was imposed because AK convinced people he was a minor, about 15 years old, and that, therefore, they had not been legally competent to release his intellectual property rights under a creative commons or any other license. Since he is still a minor, I was confused as to why this reason for blocking his contributions shouldn't continue to hold until he reaches the age of majority.

AK referred to the deletions of his earlier uploads as "courtesy deletion". AK had requested courtesy deletion of File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg, File:Plastingia naga (Chequered Lancer), 3 March 2012, Singapore.jpg, File:Cape Barren Goose, June 2012, Kangaroo Island, Australia.jpg, File:Noisy Miner, June 2012 @ Mornington Peninsula, Australia.jpg, File:House Sparrow - female, June 2012, Great Ocean Road, Victoria, Australia.jpg, File:Collared Kingfisher, 9 June 2013, Singapore.jpg, File:Pacific Gull, June 2012, Kangaroo Island, Australia.jpg, and the consensus of the community at those discussions was to reject those requests. While the images were eventually deleted, so far as I am concerned, the keep on the first discussion, and the speedy keeps on the subsequent discussions, establish that those were not what we mean by "courtesy deletions".

The deletion log entries for those images all pointed to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 43#missing legal competence by age? I interpreted that as signifying that the images were deleted by someone who accepted the argument that AK was a minor, and had not been legally competent to give away intellectual property rights under a CC license.

I voiced my concern at User talk:Arctic Kangaroo here,

User:Colin followed up with advice to AK that I was harrassing them, and that they should ignore me. Colin's advice to me included "...if you carry on with this harassment then I shall seek admin intervention against you."

I do not agree that I have harassed AK, either last summer or yesterday.

If AK was blocked because he was a minor, and thus couldn't legally give away the IP rights required to put a free license on an image, I am curious as to how he came to be unblocked, while he is still a minor.

Some of your comments seem to assure AK that no one would be likely to request undeletion of his earlier images. Did you mean to offer that assurance? If you did, can I ask why you offered that assurance?

Have we had good faith contributors in the past, who have made large, positive contributions, in spite of being below the age of majority? I am sure we have. How many? Who knows. My advice to any good faith contributor who has managed to make positive contributions to a WMF project, while being below the age of majority, without triggering any concerns as to their maturity? I would advise them to keep on doing their best to be civil, reasonable, responsible, and to keep their age to themselves. I have no problem treating minors as my equal, when they can behave just as civilly, reasonably and responsibly as any civil, reasonable, responsible adult.

During his appeals to be unblocked AK made various comments that he thinks he retains IP rights to the deleted images that he cannot, in fact, claw back. For instance in this comment AK wrote:

"This does not mean I allow my deleted files to be used in any way..." "Please also note that I rather blocked forever than have my images restored..."

In this comment AK wrote:

"I'm not trying to stir up any trouble here, but since those images were blurly put under free licence, all would assume "All rights reserved" now. Nobody, even if you have a copy of the image, is to do anything with or use them."

In this comment AK wrote:

"What I was earlier trying to say is that since the Commons and Wikipedia community are aware of everything, then they are not to use or do anything with the images that are otherwise allowable under the CC licence - play dumb and think it's All Rights Reserved. As for third parties (my definition of them is they are not on Wikipedia or Commons at the time of the incident), it's fine only if they got the image while it's still on Commons, but not if a Wikipedian or Commoner with a copy passes it to them. This are my main worries; I know Commons will not host those images anymore without my approval."

So, clarification first please -- are you supporting AK's assertion that those deletions were courtesy deletions? If you are supporting that assertion perhaps you could explain why that interpretation should be accepted, rather than that they were deleted because he was a minor who lacked the authority to release IP rights on his own image? If you accept the premise he lacks the authority to release IP rights on his own image could you explain how you came to support unblocking him?

If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept he has the legal authority to release IP rights on his own images, could you please explain to AK that this implies his original releases on his original files was valid, and there is no policy based argument against restoring them?

Could you please explain to AK that the wording of the CC license is specifically transferable, and that anyone who downloaded copies of those seven images, is entitled to re-use them, forever, under the terms of the initial CC license, and that if they uploaded those images somewhere, making sure to honor his initial license, anyone who saw that image would be entitled to download it, and re-use it elsewhere, provided they too honored his initial license?

During those initial discussions, last summer, I pointed out how the User:Essjay and User:Qworty incidents expose how vulnerable WMF projects are to what hackers call "social engineering". Qworty, an embittered minor novelists, abused the wikipedia for over five years to snipe at and try to destroy the reputations of his literary rivals. He would have got away with it even longer, except that a mainstream journalist figured out his long and very damaging charade. What this has to do with AK is that although he has claimed he deserves special consideration, because he is a minor, he has taken no steps to confirm he is a minor. Of course the privacy of minors should be protected -- but the protection to privacy we offer everyone else, through the OTRS system should be sufficient.

In my opinion, even if you had privately corresponded with AK, and thought there was sufficient confirmation of his age in that private correspondence, I suggest it still should have been essential for you to log that confirmation on an OTRS ticket. If no OTRS ticket has been opened to confirm AK is a minor, could you initiate one now? If he won't cooperate in this confirmation, may I suggest you stop offering any extra accommodation based on the idea he is a minor? If it seems incredible to you that an adult would engage in a long masquerade as a minor I need only point you to Qworty, whose cruel and disruptive masquerade lasted over half a decade. Geo Swan (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The point you seem to be missing is regardless of AK's age if he uploaded images and then realized what he was licensing away was not his intent he certainly could have had them deleted via courtesy deletion. This is what should have happened in the first place. Several senior members of the WMF and even Mr Wales himself has said we should not be in the business of resting works away from people who have a honest change of heart.

Your assertion that a minor who indeed licenses his own works could not have those licenses quashed by a court seems countered by precedence for other similar issues regarding contracts. I would suggest you get an opinion from CC on whether your assertion his works should still be held to a CC license before dragging us all through this crap again. Even if they are still subject to a CC license Commons has decided we will no longer distribute them. An UD request would be disproportionally disruptive to the value of those images. Surely little in the way of policy or precedent is likely to be set.

If you have other reasons for your frustration with AK then address them in an open way through the appropriate channels and perhaps this is the first correct step in that process. However, it is my belief AK is well on the road to being a highly productive member of Commons. We all make mistakes and with good guidance we all get past them... AK included. You should too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I will respond on User talk:Saffron Blaze, and return here to leave a brief summary. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• You might want to save yourself the effort. I am not getting into a debate with you and I am not interested in anything else you have to say on the matter. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Geo, you seem to be cross that you were away from Commons for a while and that when you came back things had moved on. The arguments you make above are outdated now, and AK has become a valuable contributor to the project as many of us had hoped and expected he could be from the start. I do not consider that it would be contructive to go back over repetitions of viewpoints you expressed long ago. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haukelitunellen ved Dyrskar.jpg

Hi Michael, I'm not sure if you have any opinions on this, or any advice for me...Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Coventry meetup

What are your plans for travelling to the Coventry meetup? I ask as I'll be coming from London and so it might make sense to coordinate timings, especially if you're planning on doing something other than walking from the station to the pub. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I was planning to check out train times, then walk from the station to the pub :) --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear MichaelMaggs,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2013-06-19%2FOp-ed&diff=602242875&oldid=560898617

Michael, can you please explain this edit by you on en.wp where you state "no longer needed. can delete this page".

Why is this page no longer needed? Why can it be deleted? Did you consult with Mattbuck on before blanking his comments as well?

Of course, it could be a poor attempt at an April Fool's prank, but I think others will see it as vandalism, and people in this community may seriously question whether this is a good move for a bureaucrat of this project to be engaging in what others may very well perceive as an attempt to cover up something on that project.

In the meantime I have placed the content at User:Russavia/MaggsMattbuck-oped, and would appreciate comment from you on this. russavia (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, no idea what I did there. I was trying to go through and delete old sub-pages in my Wikipedia userspace that I hadn't looked at for ages. I was under the impression I was deleting an old private draft, but apparently not. Apologies to all. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries, you know how conspiracy-driven Signpost can get at times. :) russavia (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You probably intended to delete this redirect but was redirected to the Signpost page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This projects bureaucrat's are asleep at the wheel? -- please wake up

As we know from COM:BUREAUCRATS, "bureaucrats are expected be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues."

I need to draw your attention to an issue which is going to blow up in the collective faces of this project, and with the exception of User:Odder, every single one of our bureaucrats has been asleep at the wheel. We are now destined for a trainwreck, and a whole heap of fallout. Numerous chapters, including Wikimedia Israel, Wikimedia Spain, Wikimedia Argentina and Wikimedia Venezuela, are going to be in a mighty pissed mood and ready to have the head on a stick of any bureaucrat who dares come along and do what has to be done for the good of this project.

As User:Odder has opined in the discussion, him doing what needs to be done will surely have cries of "INVOLVED" levelled at him, so this is now left up to the remaining 8 bureaucrats to snap out of the slumber they seem to be in as it relates to this issue, and deal with it before it blows up further in our collective faces.

Further information can be found at:

1. Commons:Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA
2. associated policy pages, templates, wikimedia-l mailing list, undeletion request forums, etc.

The community is waiting for immediate action on this issue. Can you please initially confirm that you have received this message, so that the community knows that you haven't died in your sleep :) russavia (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, I and several other crats are very well aware of this and are considering whether we can be helpful here, and if so how. But I have to ask whether you think that attacking me twice on my user page in the space of a couple of days is really the best form of encouragement. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sincerely sorry that you feel like you are being attacked, but you are not. But Michael, I don't know what encouragement you need; when you became a crat you took on shared responsibility to ensure that our mission and policies are adhered to; it took me all of 5 seconds to realise this closed proposal, and which is now endorsed by @Jusjih: , is not inline with our mission, and is in direct violation of numerous Commons policies. Sure, the right thing to do is going to piss of a few chapters who lobbied for this change, and canvassed heavily for it, and is going to be a partial rebuff to both WMF legal and the WMF Board of Trustees; but that's the price you pay for being a bureaucrat on this project. Also, Michael, I noticed that you posted to wikimedia-l that crats are discussing it. As there is nothing that is confidential in this discussion, this discussion should be held on wiki, rather than on the private mailing list, or on private email. russavia (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael, seriously, we are coming up to 4 days since I made this issue known. You have now found the time to fling shit at Fae on a public list, but as you can see undeletions are continuing. You seriously have your priorities wrong, so apart from telling you to grow up, is it too much to ask you to hurry up and do what needs to be done, or kindly hand in your tools so that someone who is more dedicated to this project then they are to flinging shit at others can step up to the plate and help guide this project and do what needs to be done. russavia (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, sorry to hear you are unhappy with the speed of community discussion on this issue. You mention 4 days, as if that is a long time, but I and others with an interest in copyright issues have known about the potential for problems since as least as early as Golan v. Holder in 2009, and neither I nor anyone else is in a position just to jump in and sort things out in a few days, much as we might like to be able to. If it were that easy this would have all been settled long ago. I have taken the liberty of deleting the 'mellow' userbox form your page, as it has been quite untrue for some time now (in my view). Of course, feel free to revert if am wrong and you still think you are the mellow sort. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael, 4 days is long enough that we now have images which were rightfully deleted re-appearing. So, perhaps, to show some leadership, you may like to do the following:

1. State that undeletions are to cease whilst this the bureaucratic group is discussing the issue (preferably on project)
2. Delete the files which have been undeleted thus far whilst this discussion is ongoing (we have a responsibility to reusers yeah?)
3. Actually discuss the discuss the issue

How does that sound to you? As I say, if people put as much time into discussing the issue as they are on flinging mud at each other on external mailing lists, the issue would have been solved and dealt with by now. That there is going to be fallout from the right decision is something that would not be the case if the bureaucratic group as a whole was actually on the ball to begin with. As I stated to Dschwen, this is not passive aggressiveness or non-mellowness on my part, but being absolutely direct and reminding you of your responsibilities as a crat on this project. So I will repeat, if you are unable or unwilling to do what is good for the project, then step aside. This goes not only to you, but to all of you. russavia (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

See here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Coloured Pensils image use

Hello Michael, I have a question regarding permission to use your Coloured Pensils Image. Could you please email me at [email protected] THnak you! With Kinds regards, Jennifer Kerwin

Hi Jennifer. Feel free to post your question here, is it's non-confidential. Otherwise, you can contact me by email via the "email this user" link in the toolbar on the left (account required). Hope that helps. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

---

 

You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits, as you did here, you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

russavia (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to have to template you Michael, but your doing what you did on my user page makes you look like a n00b, so a good templating like you are a n00b is well deserved. As I said, grow up. russavia (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Background --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Russavia, I would've thought that you'd know better, making uncivil remarks and using silly template warning is something that shouldn't be coming from someone whom is an Admin. Bidgee (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)