User talk:Mosquera

Er...I'm sorry, what are you referring to? The Last Melon 02:44, 8 June 07

Hi, how are you doing? I'm trying to find the discussion that shows consensus to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Almstilhs052030.jpg , but I can't find it. Do you know where that discussion could be found? I also wonder why the editor who deleted that photo didn't write to your talk page to let you know it was under consideration for deletion. Badagnani 03:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Charming, Badagnani. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that meant to be funny (or worse, a "troll"-like comment)? I hope it's neither. The image apparently had a rationale (from what I can see at the image log) so I am confused why I can find no discussion showing consensus for the deletion, or even a comment to the uploading editor's talk page (showing courtesy). It wouldn't be charming to have done those things, it would have been normal, standard, courteous editing. Badagnani 03:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not re-upload images that were deleted according to our deletion policy, like you did with Image:Almstilhs052030a.jpg. If you think an image should not have been deleted, you should list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. If you continue to re-upload images that were properly deleted, you can be blocked from editing. Thanks.

I see you now are threatening my posting privileges. You seem to be bullying me again -- and perhaps trying to drive me from the site in order to prevent me from taking procedural action against you. Respect policy. Mosquera 03:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you are frustrated right now. Please be aware of the process related to "replaceable fair use" images. Whether or not you disagree, you should refrain from removing the tags; instead, editors are asked to add the text {{Replaceable fair use disputed | Your reason why a free replacement is not available}} to the image description page of the image in question. This process was designed, in part, to alleviate the inevitable edit war over an image description page where a disagreement would arise.

Also, you should be aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. The three-revert rule, "is a policy that applies to all Wikipedians, and is intended to prevent edit warring". Editors who revert more than three times on a page may be blocked. I tell you this so that you are aware of the rule; I do not tell you this as a threat, as I am not an administrator, and so I cannot block you. But please be advised and please cease from repeatedly reverting edits by other editors. Cheers, Iamunknown 07:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to give you the same warning in a slightly more curt style. If I may give you this advice, don't bother revert-warring, it's not worth getting yourself blocked over, the images will be deleted no matter if the tags stay on them or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting to see when the 3RR warning would hit. If you guys want to fight me, you only hurt yourselves. By it you contribute nothing to society or anything else. If flame wars give you pleasure, so be it. When you're old and gray, you can look back on the days you harassed and bullied people over 75px fair use images as "the good old days." Mosquera 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The thing is, no matter what an editor says in the "Replaceable fair use disputed," the image is generally deleted anyway, sometimes well before the 7 days is up, and very often without any consideration of the discussion (or sometimes even disregarding comments entirely and going against the consensus that develops there to keep a photo). This also often occurs without any communication to the uploading editor. These practices contributes strongly to a feeling of a lack of accountability and has driven numerous editors away from our project. Badagnani 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Old discussion

Hi, Mosquera--I found this old "talk" page discussion interesting--from User:Irpen to User:Sebbeng in reference to the image wikistalking of User:Chowbok (please note: although Chowbok was engaged then in the same behavior as now, s/he used much more strong, even abusive language against other editors at that time, hence the RfC that was raised to examine this):

Stay cool

Sebbeng, stay cool and don't let yourself be provoked by trolls. That's the first advise. Now, to the question you earlier asked on the course of action. Chowbok illustrates the divide the Wikipedia has between the editors who create content and buddies who attend policy talk pages, admin boards, and IRC channels.

You see, editors find spending time on the policy discussions uninteresting because editors come here to write something interesting. Others come here to socialize and/or fulfill their ambitions unfulfilled elsewhere to be in a position of telling others what to do. There is no universal cure to this problem but one thing that needs done is that editors do need to spend at least some time at Policy discussions to not allow sociolizers hijack the Wikipedia. Chowboks need to be dealt with at policy pages, not by retaliation and curse.

Please take a look at image policies and talk pages that discuss them. Even though image policies do not justify Chowbok's spree, which is a pure trolling by my book, the policy sometimes seem written with anything but a good encyclopedia in mind as they are more restrictive than the US copyright law.

If you want to take Chowbok to RfC, I will support you or I might even start one on my own. Most importantly, you and everyone should spend time reading and insisting on the sane policies being implemented and insane policies being rewritten. Perhaps, making Chowbok a scapegoat for an entire breed of wikilawyers sounds unfair but in reality he took it upon himself to piss everyone off on their behalf and he may get what he deserves. Anyway, do not allow him to provoke you into actions that will enable him to present you to the community as a trouble maker. I am tired of this fellow and prefer to stay away as "not feeding trolls" is my most basic rule. If you have time and interest to compile an RfC, I wll add my comments there. I might write an RfC myself, though, because the fellow is really a PITA. Stay well... --Irpen 07:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of living people

Re [1]: It didn't work because we do not permit the use of fair use images to depict living people, since it is reasonable that a free license alternative of the person in question could be created. If the person is deceased, then it is a case by case evaluation. But, until that time, we do not permit the use of fair use images for depiction. This is why, for example, I removed such an image [2]. --Durin 13:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)