User talk:Damiens.rf

Template:Expiry

Note of reply

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

x2

Question

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)

File:Gallant_Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.jpg

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

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_May_5#File:Goose_House_Doha.jpg

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)

Image relisted

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)

Don't Tag My Talk Page

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)

Removing images for NFCC violations

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 • ^talkblp-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)

BLP ban

Damiens, you're currently under a three-month BLP topic ban, which started in April. [1] 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 • ^talkblp-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. Monty₈₄₅ 02:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File: Bhagawan Shri Sathya Sai Baba.jpg

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)

Is this civil?

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) [2] 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)

FfD

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)

Civility please

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,[3][4], while making insulting comments [5]; and instead of just making mass deletions of article content,[6][7] I take the time and effort to find resources and add content.[8][9], all the while dealing with your edit warring while I'm in process of improving the article.[10][11] 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 namesake

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)

If you have any issues with my image uploads...

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)

Civility

Please consider this a final warning - continue to be uncivil as detailed in the ANI thread and I or another admin will block you. Being in a dispute is not an excuse to insult and abuse another editor. Fences&Windows 23:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Foolishly unfriendly behavior

Nominating multiple images for deletion very unfriendly editing behavior, especially when you aren't even sure if you are correct, based on "I believe we can't use those non-free images of mobiles." If you aren't sure, nominate ONE image, allow me to defend it and then make a decision to nominate the others only if I am not successful. If you didn't intend to be unfriendly and actually meant it when you wrote, "Let me know if you need some help." then go back and remove those deletion notices from all but one image, allow me to defend the one image of your choosing and wait for the results. I'm aware of WP:NFCC. You are aware that there is a page specifically devoted to uploading these images, right? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=en-nonfree&wpUploadDescription={{Non-free%20use%20rationale%0A+%7CArticle+++++++++++=+%0A+%7CDescription+++++++=+%0A+%7CSource++++++++++++=+%0A+%7CPortion+++++++++++=+%0A+%7CLow_resolution++++=+%0A+%7CPurpose+++++++++++=+%0A+%7CReplaceability++++=+%0A+%7Cother_information+=+%0A}} . Ch Th Jo (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually pretty damm fucking sure we can't use those images at all, but I tried to sound polite. I won't be reverting the nominations, but feel free to add a defense just to the first one and explain it's supposed to work for all others. I'm sure the closing admin will take it into account. --Damiens.rf 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

photo

an original photo taken by me in Bangalore several years ago. read the meta data. may i ask why?

no scan nor scam.

J929 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The description use to say "original photo (scanned version of print)", so I was worried it could have been a scan of a copyrighted work. My fault I didn't noticed the presence of metadata. And the scam in the title was not intentional.

Nice shot! --Damiens.rf 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion nominations

I noticed at FfD today that you're using Twinkle to nominate quite a few images by the smae uploader. I'm aware that this has got you into hot water in the past, so it might n ot be a bad idea to try to refrain from nominating more than two a day by the same uploader. Remember that it takes an editor (thankfully not me, because I don't upload many non-free images) a lot longer to write a defence of "their" image than it takes you to nominate it. Just something to bear in mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but past discussions had shown these complaints are not defensible. If you (anyone) believe you have a case for the image not be deleted, you have 7 days to post this on the image's deletion discussion page. Hardly a relevant post in a deletion discussion will have more than a few lines. There's plenty of time to defend any image you want. Not including the fact that the uploader is not the only one in the position of defending the image.

We have a huge backlog of unusable non-free images as we can't slow down the clean up even more. We're already loosing this race. --Damiens.rf 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the uploaders whose iamges you're nominating en-masse might disagree with you on that. Regardless, I think you're going at this with the wrong mentality. It's not a "battle" and nobody 'wins' by removing an image from Wikipedia, whether its use is justified according to the NFCC or not. I think you;re giving too much weight to the letter of the policy and not enough to the spirit, ie why we have the policy in the first place. The reason it's so restrictive is to encourage the use of free content, not to meet some technicality in a document most editors won't read until well into their editing careers. That aim isn't furthered by deleting images (like most of those you've nominated today) that have no realistic prospect of ever being replaced. Whether the loss of those images ia detriment to the project is a matter of opinion, but, at best, there is no net gain in removing them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood my use of win above and you're mistaken in believing the main purpose of the policy to be encouraging the use of free content images. --Damiens.rf 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:Canvassing

Regarding your comment about my alleged "canvassing", for the sake of keeping the conversation all in one place, I responded here. In any event, it wasn't my intention to canvass, so for now I've removed the talk page images, to be better safe than sorry. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Message to self

Enjoying a wonderful beer right now. Won't tell its name. Won't tell its name again. I've put it on my refrigerator some days ago and now it just called me. I knew it would happen. Enjoying the fun. --Damiens.rf 04:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Image nominations

Hi Damiens. I know we had issues long ago in the past, but I have since believed that they were resolved. With that said, it sort of feels like your listing of five straight images uploaded by myself long ago --> starting here might be a borderline issue of WP:HOUND, as it is clear that you couldn't have coincidentally came across them in such a short period of time, but would have had to have looked up all the images I have ever uploaded and went through them. When you factor in that all of these images have gone unnominated for so long - I believe it becomes more problematic. I hope this isn't the case, but I can't help but notice that it could be.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It was no coincidence but also no harm was intended. I spotted a recent nomination of a file you uploaded and as it was a clear violation case, and you even defended it on the discussion (it's your right to do so), I though there could be more problematic images on your log. I looked into it and found those. Nothing personal beyond that. --Damiens.rf 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe you that “no harm was intended”, but would also hope that you realize that sometimes your actions both do harm people or at the very least give the impression that it is your intention. On your talk page presently there are several threads of users asking that you temper your mass image deletion nominations somewhat, under the pretext that they clash with the collaborative spirit of the overall project and might discourage users from even attempting to devote the time to uploading the images that are critical to the site’s effectiveness as an educational tool. I feel like you may view yourself as the “last line of defense” when it comes to image fair use on Wikipedia, which is not so. If many of these cases are so blatantly obvious – then most likely someone else will also catch them as you do and nominate them. However, when you go through the listings of every image someone has ever uploaded and nominate scores of them at a time; it gives off an aggressive and confrontational vibe (whether you intend it to or not). I believe that you probably mean well in these instances, but I can assure you that if you keep following this path it will only lead to frustration from all parties and probably further restrictions on your editing abilities. My unsolicited advice would be to temper your deletion enthusiasm somewhat (especially when dealing with the same user in multiple noms).  Redthoreau -- (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For successfully deleting the public domain image to Tomio Aoki. Wikipedia is no place for such content. Keep up the great work! We need more Admins like you! Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Spread things out

Damiens, I'd like to try to convince you to quit carpet bombing people with FFD's. I'm not even really looking at your contributions, but I've just happened to come across several user pages over the past few weeks where you've plastered a handfull to dozens of FFD consecutive notices on a users talk page. That sort of thing can easily be seen as being disruptive, and being on the receiving end of it has got to be demotivating, at least. I'd recommend self limiting your FFD activity in such a way that you're ot nominating more than 2 files from an individual user at a time. That sort of self-limitation doesn't mean that you have to slow down (although, to be honest here I have to admit that I hope that you do slow down), it simply means that your efforts will be spread out somewhat.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 09:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohms, I think there is a real problem here, and it needs to be addressed at WP:ANI with some sort of community restriction. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, either make a policy/guideline restricting the number of FfD nomination someone can take a day or do not ask me to restrict myself. A community restriction just for me would be arbitrary.

And since you're at it, why not create a limit for the number of non-free files someone can upload? --Damiens.rf 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well then, I guess that Jehochman is correct. I don't understand how you could fail to see the way that carpet bombing people with multiple FFD nominations is perceived as being at least mildly disruptive, but since you can't I guess we don't have a choice but to pursue a community based restriction as some sort of remedy. I'm not sure what to say regarding the comparison to people uploading content... I suppose that could be seen as the inverse, if you look at things from a specific viewpoint, but... I mean, people are supposed to upload content. Granted, it should be free content, but still. I don't really know how to explain it, since it's a viewpoint really. Ah well. Oh, incidentally, you're garish signature doesn't really help your cause. There's nothing really wrong with it, other then that it's designed to be noticed. I don't know, that's just a thought. I guess that I'll start a discussion on AN/I later tonight or tomorrow (maybe having it run over the weekend will limit "teh dramaz" slightly), if someone else doesn't start one first.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My signature is not supposed to help my cause. It's supposed to make it easy for me to find the FfD discussions I'm involved when scrolling through an FfD daily page. Is that also a problem? --Damiens.rf 17:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and are you sure this is meant for ANI? I don't like those threads because there are some admins that will automatically post a LAST WARNING message to my talk whenever anyone mentions anything about me there. What you want is more like a new guideline, isn't it? --Damiens.rf 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of these nominations are crap. Furthermore, if you think being a copyright hound for huge corporations is something corporations actually want you to do, guess again. Notwithstanding cases like getty images and such which are made to be sold (by all means look for those if you like this work), most of what you are challenging is stuff that no company or individual anywhere will ever care about and things they likely are happy to see on wikipedia. E.g., do Linzi Drew or her publisher bemoan the existence of File:Try Everything Once Except Incest and Morris Dancing.jpeg on her BLP because the commentary about the book is trivial in your opinion? Of course not!! This sort of mindless application of the art of copyright law came up last year with people nominating wine labels for deletion, and even wiki-attorney Mike Godwin said not to worry because no winery would complain about a theoretical copyright violation, they want their labels used as examples. Perhaps my viewpoint seems a bit radical by some if you think I'm endorsing copyright infringement, but I am not. My point is that some non-lawyer wiki editors enforce copyright law with such strict interpretations and construe fair use so narrowly that they are harming the free exchange of ideas which wikipedia stands for. Getting images deleted based on technicalities that you can help fix is not helping humankind or the project.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You misguessed my motivations. --Damiens.rf 17:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know your real motivation is to be a troll, but I know you have a heart too.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't come back to my page to drop rudenesses. --Damiens.rf 17:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly don't condone the incivilty, Damiens, the impression I'm getting is that you can be a pretty frustrating guy. I also get the impression that you don't see that as a bad thing, but frustrating people into submission or Godwin's law isn't the way to win an individual argument or your NFC crusade. You're nominating images for deletion left, right and centre based on technicalities in the NFCC policy and NFC guideline without regard for their encyclopaedic benefit or the spirit of those rules and you're weathering editors down to the extent that you're driving them away from uploading images or even from contributing by tagging their images at a near-robotic speed and frequency. That's not what the rules are for, that's not what Twinkle is for (as your previous trips to ANI should have made you aware) and if that's what was in the best interests of the project, we'd have a bot doing it. You've been offered a perfectly dignified solution that would allow you to continue the good that you do while mitigating the negative effects in the form of a voluntary undertaking not to nominate more than two images per uploader per day. My advice to you would be to take the offer and save us all some time—the laternative is that somebody will take this to ANI or ArbCom and we all waste a lot of time with the result that you're formally restricted from doing what you could restrict yourself from voluntarily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 is not a technicality. --Damiens.rf 21:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've completely missed the point, but you already knew that. I give up. I tried to be nice, but you just won't take the help people are offering you, I tried to be frim but fair and you greeted it with hostility. So, the next time you carpet-bomb someone with file deletion notices, I will block you and/or go to AN and request community restrictions against you because you are disrupting the project and it's clear that you won't stop unless you're made to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I greeted it with hostility?????. Also, you can't make policy of your own. Looking through someone's upload log and nominating problematic images is not a blockable offense. It's not an offense at all. If you plan to block anyone based on that make sure to have a policy to back you up. --Damiens.rf 21:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Damiens, we all realize how this is going to end if nothing changes. I'd appreciate it if you would at least take my second post in --> this thread above to heart and consider it.  Redthoreau -- (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would haply comply with a site wide policy that would limit the number of nominations for the same offending uploader, because such policy would have been discussed by the wide community. This is a whole different thing to hear directions from a local minority. Please, start a policy proposal or policy change proposal. I just can't accept such a Damiens-specific limitation.

Based on past complaints, I'm inclined to believe such a policy/guideline would not be approved because it's just a Bad Idea when one can see the big picture.

The real problem is the uploaders getting sentimental about their files. Taking deletion nominations as an affront, which it isn't. --Damiens.rf 22:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Poker template

I have had this debate before. Basically, userfied my bio several years ago. Recently, I began detailing my online poker experience in a highly detailed manner that might not be inappropriate on WP if I was notable. I am going to trim it down some because it has gotten too long.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You also had a bio? What's with you guys! I want one for me too! --Damiens.rf 15:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's this: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antonio_Vernon. Best notability claim ever: "Chicago's most prominent beach personality". Long ago, funny reading. :) --Damiens.rf 15:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem

I must also praise you on your admirable coolness in the face of some really dreadful and ill-informed criticism. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:F. L. Roffey - Wigan.jpg

hi Damiens.rf, the source of File:F. L. Roffey - Wigan.jpg is a scan of the circa-1922 cigarette card produced by Godfrey Phillips, who I asssume are asociated with Godfrey Phillips India. Could you please tell me what I need to type in, and where, to meet the copyright status requirements. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just posted this info on the image. These good news is that the indicates the image is almost certainly in the public domain, and we no longer need to claim fair use. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 12:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Staying cool in the face of your tagging

I can only imagine you get folks on your talk page with their panties in a bunch about you deleting their images, but you need to take further consideration the images you just tagged. (File:Mose Wright pointing to J W Milam in the murder trial of Emmett Till.jpg, File:Cover of San Francisco Examiner November 28 1978.jpg, File:Stonewall riots.jpg) I think you used poor judgment for all of them, and it does not appear that you took source material that put emphasis on their importance in your determination that they are unnecessary. You will not find a more conscientious editor regarding nonfree images than I. The justifications for these images are written as strongly as I can make them, but the only reason these images are included in these articles is because the sources make points that they are important images.

I'm honestly at a loss why you don't think these are necessary. Full fair use rationales written far more detailed than required, and all three are referenced by sources in the prose in the section where the images are placed. Is there something else I need to do for these images?

I'm going to attempt to answer these here because otherwise you would have me justifying the inclusion of these images in three threads which would be a huge time sink, and which invites the !votes of editors who have never read the articles nor the sources. Why their opinions matter I have no idea. Why yours matters for this I don't know either.

These files passed scrutiny during the very rigorous FAC process and in the case of the image in Emmett Till, GA scrutiny by reviewer User:Iridescent, an ArbCom member. Why does your judgment trump that of the reviewers? Or of the sources? Is this not a case of WP:OR? That you get to decide what's necessary more than the sources do?

Feel free to make a better decision and remove the FfD tags. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)