User talk:Bageense

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Bageense!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Archive 1

Undeletion request

It seems I haven't explained much why I closed your undeletion request, so here's an explanation. If you will see {{Agência Brasil}} applies only to images found on their site. And the files in the uDR are also found on their site. Great. But, wait, if you will take a look again, you will see that it also contains "unless specified otherwise", and since those files are also found on their Flickr under a different license, that "unless specified otherwise" exception apply. So, you have four options to have them undeleted: one, ask them to change the license on Flickr to an acceptable license, two, OTRS (I don't recommend this), three, prove that the Flickr account is fake (I don't think it is fake), or four, create a fresh, new undeletion request of these files and prove me wrong (I can make mistakes sometimes, and it would be appreciated if you can prove me wrong, but I expect a new rationale for that request). Thanks, ★Poyekhali!!! 00:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Poyekhali: That's an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the laws. Agência Brasil is a widely used source, not to mention it is a government agency, like NASA or something. The "unless otherwise specified" means that it is in the public domain unless otherwise specified. Nothing is specified, so it is in the public domain. You don't have to interpret the licenses so strictly. It is public freaking domain, for god's sake. Holy Goo (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I am hardly thinking how you get to that conclusion. If what you are saying is true, we would have a lot of PD images already. But no. :O ★Poyekhali!!! 01:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: You can't block me indefinitely! I regularly upload files here. I'm not a newly created account. Why are you all so authoritarian? You remove my content arbitrarily and avoids further discussions. Holy Goo (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Simple: YOU harassed/insulted an admin with wording that warrants an indef. block. You can't behave, you can't be editing here. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, Hedwig, I am not an admin... But if that's not me, apologies, I can't see their diff. ★Poyekhali!!! 01:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Your last insult resulted in revoking talk page and access. Your behavior is a total no go here. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Goo, you musn't have used that word... You should have thought first before saying that, because Commons is a multilingual project, and, Hedwig is a German... I was actually blocked before bexause of using that word against the WMF.. ★Poyekhali!!! 01:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A medalha do desbloqueio

	A medalha do desbloqueio
	Olha só quem foi desbloqueado... Parabéns! Érico (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Érico: Poderia ter sido bem antes, né, senhor Érico. Mas valeu. Me sinto aliviado. Holy Goo (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Ricardofelicio.jpg

File:Ricardofelicio.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chefes de Estado e de governo que integram o G20.jpg

File:Chefes de Estado e de governo que integram o G20.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Gunnex (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:Manoel Fiel Filho jornal.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Manoel Fiel Filho jornal.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Manoel Fiel Filho jornal.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Gunnex (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Manoel Fiel Filho jornal.jpg

Please DO NOT revert my comments for COM:A to understand better the copyright status. "Noboy cares" --> it's none of your business Gunnex (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Commons. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block. See the block log for the reason that you have been blocked and the name of the administrator who blocked you.

Daphne Lantier 04:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: That's not fair! I was blocked for a week only! Holy Goo (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't completely aware of your other behavior and block history. I think anyone who calls a fellow editor a fascist should have their account globally locked, but I only have the ability to block people here on Commons. And then what do you do here? You go after Gunnex, one of the most respected and experienced editors on Commons. You have the option of posting an unblock request. You'll have to explain why you're not a net-negative for Commons. Daphne Lantier 05:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Related to this episode, Holy Goo went after NMaia in enwiki and said "Me fala o que você ganha em apagar fotos oficiais de nosso presidente no Commons, heim, seu desgraçado?" (Tell me what you get in erasing official photos of our president on Commons, eh, you bastard?)[1]. Before he went after Hedwig in Washington in enwiki and said "All of that because of a dumb insult? Why be do authoritarian? I didn't call you that name a second time. I just pointed out what word I used. I am extremely offended by your aggressive attitudes towards me, a simple user who uploads stuff and wished to make good contributions. Can I at least provide my unblock request in my commons talk page? (...) And Jesus Christ, how was I supposed to know you were german."[2]. Repeated personal attacks and intimidation/harassment/bashing continues in enwiki.

• "New, temporary image, until someone decides to delete it from commons because they have nothing better to do" [3]
• "Why is Wikipedia so full of atheists and skeptics?"[4]
• "Skeptics are the cancer of Wikipedia. The goal of the article is to explain what ID is, not judge it straight away in the first paragraph. I'm an atheist but come on, knock it off with your "science"[5]

Please, also check if Holy Goo ("Holy God") qualifies as a simple-purpose account because he just edits articles either regarding pseudoscience and fringe science or the political agenda of the Free Brazil Movement. He was already warned many times but he doesn't stop. 46.38.61.181 06:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Daphne Lantier: Well, to be quite honest, I don't think that warrants a global block. I edit for one year in the pt wiki and I've been doing a good job, recognized by pretty much everyone, despite a few "incidents", let's say. I'm not sure how things work here, but at least here in Brazil, calling someone a "fascist" is a common way to politically attack others, especially those who are percieved to have authoritharian right wing ideas. I personally am a social democrat, but believe it or not, I've been called fascist in real life by people from the left. It's not a big deal here, depending on the circumstances.

Regarding my work here on Commons, I have in fact contributed with a lot of images, and I don't think that internal conflicts like this one should make my work here invalid. The goal of Commons is to have as much freely licensed content as possible, and people who use this website to look for free images don't really care about internal disputes or fights. Holy Goo (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to talk about Gunnex. I had left him a message wishing him a good Wikibreak. The thing is that it's hard for me to get into the spirit of this project. I do think that you are like, too strict in relation to copyright stuff, much more than I see as being necessary, and that is hard for me to get used to, to be quite honest. Holy Goo (talk) 06:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Everything you wrote is a lie. BTW, you are gonna to be blocked for two weeks because of your repeated bullying behavior. 46.38.61.181 06:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I need to inform you that a permanently blocked user on the pt wiki is using its sockpuppets elsewhere. Holy Goo (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not supposed to be here on Commons, or any other project, to "politically attack others". I don't know if it's your age (you seem young and immature) or just a negative attitude, but you don't seem to be able to edit constructively very well with other editors. Your kind of confrontational behavior can chase people off of Commons, and it's not in the "spirit of this project". From what I've seen you're doing a lot more harm than good here, so please find somewhere else to spend your time. The above isn't a constructive use of your talk page while blocked, so I've removed your talk privilege. Daphne Lantier 07:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It's quite sad that we are here going through all this again. And it's especially embarrassing to me, as I personally interceded for Holly Goo with Hedwig in Washington, asking him permission to lift the former ban, as Holy Goo was showing good signals of behavioural change at wiki.pt, having been granted autopatrol flag, and with a generally more constructive approach. Unfortunately, the last incidents here and in pt.wiki show that there's still a long way to go.

I concur with Daphne Lantier, Holy Goo distorted perception of what Commons is - a kind of a "slave" project to the wikipedias - and the aggressive and confrontational behaviour he has consistently shown here is not in line with what is expected in this project, where life doesn't need to always go neat and smooth as sweet vermouth, but we should stay mellow at all times. That's the gospel truth.

I have no idea about who the denouncing IP actually is, and it doesn't really matter as they are correct on what they say, and the evidences they brought here and at the board are factual and on point. Fighting the messenger doesn't help anyone when the message is true.

Finally, I must say that I have issued a final warning on pt.wiki to Holy Goo after the last incidents about reinstating his ban here in Commons, but I was not aware of the recent problems here in the project. I apologize for not being more vigilant here. I should write, nevertheless, that despite all that has been written in the last few days about Holy Goo, specially on pt.wiki, I still recognize his potential to become a member in good standing in this community, and I hope this ban does not get permanent and some day he may improve and return, with a more constructive approach.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 11:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, no,no. Not on commons. Not on my watch. No wonder he's acting up everywhere when he's getting away with all the shit on pt-wiki. Pardon my choice of words. What a waste of energy and volunteer-resources. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 00:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC).jpg

And also:

• File:Dilma em sua defesa no Senado.jpg
• File:João Dória Jr.jpg
• File:Raquel Dodge sabatina.jpg

Unfortunately, content from Agência Brasil's website is no longer free but has a non-commerical restriction that is incompatible with Wikimedia Commons. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Hello. It's been 1 year and four months! Well, I regularly edit the portuguese Wikipedia, but also the english and german Wikipedias, because these are the languages that I know or that I'm currenly studying. I decided to ask for an unblock request for two reasons, so let me make it quick. 1. As an active editor elsewhere, I quite often need to make small changes here, such as nominating a file for deletion or uploading a new version of a file. Usually small stuff, but it's an annoyance to have to ask for others to do it, and since they pretty much always do what I ask, why not just do it myself? I regret having behaved in an improper manner in the past and although I've been blocked twice, one of these blocks was applied by a now globally banned sockpuppet. 2. I want to get a name change, and the folks over the portuguese Wikipedia said I should get my situation here normalized before they could make the change. I have told them already that I'd have no problem if they left a redirect from my previous user page to my new one, or if I had to say in my new userpage that my previous name was Holy Goo. So, I would like to fix things in gerenal. Thank you. Danke, wenn Hedwig diesen Text liest." Decline reason: "Our policy requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. Your request does not do this, and is not credible. 1) We do not lift blocks because they inconvenience renaming. We lift blocks when there's credible reason to believe the disruption will no longer continue. 2) That one of the blocking admins also edited disruptively does not mean the block was invalid. That you--and, embarrassingly, a steward (!!!)--focus on the behaviour of others instead of your own is an indication of a failure to understand and take responsibility for your misbehaviour--a lack of credibility. 3) Further, you have been blocked four times (!!!) here for "Intimidation/harassment." You begin with "It's been 1 year and four months" and that you "regularly edit the portuguese Wikipedia". Presumably you intend to communicate that you have in that time learned to work collegially with others and offer those projects as examples of that productive editing. Well, as recently as 8 December 2018, you were blocked for disruptive behaviour/personal attacks (to say nothing of extensive other blocks there in 2018). While we do not have reciprocal sanctions for actions on other projects, we can consider them in assessing your credibility. The person at the keyboard does not change with the project space. Indeed, it seems you have not learned anything in the time since you were blocked, which is consistent with the utter inadequacy of this request. Эlcobbola talk 17:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

@Hedwig in Washington: Ich habe vergessen, dich zu pingen :) Holy Goo (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Hedwig in Washington: Please have a look into this. I endorse unblocking here. The blocking admin had a long history of abuse and has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, the reason I think this user deserves another chance. So please consider unblocking him (and also make it clear that this is his last chance). Thank you, RadiX∞ 01:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@RadiX: That INC is now banned doesn't make the blocks invalid. It's the same pattern as before: Getting blocked, asking auf ptwiki for help, insulting folks here, getting blocked. I have my doubts this will change this time. Did you take a peek at the block log? IMO this user is causing more damage than good. The last time was supposed to be the last chance. Frankly, I am really disappointed that they are blocked. Again. Anyhow: If you want to unblock it's your call, you're the steward. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registo/block&page=Usuário%3AHoly+Goo

@RadiX: Okey, RadiX, there is this user saying you have a political agenda. I'm not getting engaged in an edit war to stop the troll, so let the admins do what they want to. Holy Goo (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington and RadiX: Ruypatricio seems to be well known LTA Leandro Teles Rocha, banned from wiki.pt a long time ago, which has an also very well known political agenda, which apparently includes chasing Holy Goo in a crossproject crusade. He came here to troll yet again, and has now been indefed by me. Please ignore what he said. Despite some punctual episodes motivated by a health condition assumed by Holy Goo, he is generally in good standing at the Portuguese Wikipedia, and a productive editor there. Those episodes, while being kind of unexpected, didn't caused any harm to the project. Last block here was mainly motivated by the trolling of that LTA, back then using some proxy or VPN service, and then put in place by INC sock Daphne Lantier (now also indefed here) without the necessary inquiry. I understand Holy Goo needs the ban to be lifted here, so that he can rename his account. As in the last time he requested the unblock, I certainly do not believe Holy Goo is a danger to Commons, and support the block to be lifted here (or at least he should be allowed to rename the account, despite the block).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Hedwig in Washington and DarwIn: I didn't mean the previous blocks were invalid because the blocking administrator is now banned by WMF. I am aware that Holy Goo very well deserved this. I just thought that he could benefit from a second chance here, since the block could be reviewed by another local administrator in this case. I am going to rename his account regardless of what you guys decide on the local block thing. I'll keep a redirect for the old username in order not to obfuscate his block history here. Thank you for your attention and kindness. RadiX∞ 01:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@RadiX: Cool, I'm waiting. Holy Goo (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Elcobbola: What you mean by "and, embarrassingly, a steward"?! Read my comment above. I was not aware of his full block log here and there (and that the last one was already supposed to be his last chance). I've never said that previous blocks were invalid only because the blocking administrator is now banned by WMF. The user is just seeking for a username change, which may happen regardless of being blocked in a given project, as I explained above. So I do not understand such inappropriate comment towards me. RadiX∞ 01:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I trust my meaning to be clear. I did read your comment above, and that is what you said -- "The blocking admin had a long history of abuse and has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, the reason I think this user deserves another chance." That could not be more explicit and, sure enough, Hedwig read it the same way. There was nothing inappropriate about my comment; it is indeed embarrassing that a steward would 1) use such a rationale and 2) support unblocking without bothering to do rudimentary or appropriate research ("I was not aware of his full block log here and there"). Эlcobbola _talk 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Request

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "It's been quite a while since my last block. It was applied by Daphne Lantier, a user blocked indefinetely for sockpuppetry. Well, I'll never have a sockpuppet, that's why I'm opening this request. I was blocked initially forbad interaction with others here, but I promise that now I'll just work quietly. As an active editor at the portuguese Wikipedia I need to update some pictures and upload a few others, and I don't want to create another account or ask for others to do it. I promise I'll just be quiet and do my work alone." Decline reason: "What part of the previous comments was unclear? COM:BLOCK requires an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. The actions of others are not relevant and do not invalidate blocks. To reference them in the first place is a failure to take responsibility for your own actions--a lack of credibility. Further, the mere passage of time is also irrelevant ("It's been quite a while since my last block"). Indeed, since the last request, you have been blocked several more times for personal attacks, abusive behaviour, and vandalism (!!!). This could not speak worse of your credibility; you clearly have not learned that your behaviour is unacceptable. Note that continued unresponsive unblock request may result in the loss of your ability to edit your talk page. Эlcobbola talk 06:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

@Hedwig in Washington: Since my last blocker is a perma-banned sockpuppet, I'm supposed to contact you, the first blocker. Hi. Bageense (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: He seems to be inactive. His last edit was in January. Bageense (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: You were the same who declined my request last time. Couldn't I have a second opinion on this? I opened my request only one hour or two ago. Does it all have to depend on you? Bageense (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Logo do PPS.png

File:Logo do PPS.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Nesta imagem só há "formas geométricas simples" mesmo? Há a bandeira do Brasil, o texto estilizado "Brasil", gradiente de cores. Fora que envios que sobrescreveram a imagem inicial não apontaram suas fontes. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Luan (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Logo do PPS.png

File:Logo do PPS.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Túrelio (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Manifestante a favor de Sérgio Moro.jpg

File:Manifestante a favor de Sérgio Moro.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

A1Cafel (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Request (3)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Hello, I'd like to ask for yet another chance to participate in this community. I've been blocked two times due to improper behavior. @Hedwig in Washington: was both the admin responsible for my first block and the reason for my block. He seems to be inactive since July. The second time, I was blocked by @Daphne Lantier: a now-banned sockpuppet. But, in the last 3 years, since my last block (11 September, 2018), I've grown a lot as a person. After one year of improving my behavior, the Portuguese Wikipedia community granted me the right to edit in the Wikipedia domain again, after a long filter ([6]). I had been filtered for the same reason. Here, I've never had an alternative account, neither licit nor illicit. When I needed to upload an image, I had somebody else do it for me. But this is exausting other people's patience, and I wish I could do that myself again. My last two requests were closed quickly, by the same admin, who is uninvolved. I now ping @DarwIn and Érico: , who can perhaps support my unblock. Thanks. Bageense (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Seems like you still do not understand, which reasons are valid for requesting unblock and which are not. The fact that Hedwig is inactive does not invalidate her blocks. Even the fact that Daphne is indefinitely blocked and INC is banned does not invalidate his blocks – all his blocks seem to be correct. Seems like you are requesting unblock, because you claim to have learned to co-work with others without insulting them and you show your work in Portuguese Wikipedia as proof. I do not take that as proof. Your last block there ended in June, 4 months ago, and this is not enough. Let's look your block log there https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registo/block&page=Usu%C3%A1rio%3ABageense . You have been 4 months unblocked there in the past (2017 October – 2018 May, 7 months and 2019 May – September, 4 months) and still been blocked afterwards for the same. Your request is not credible. Taivo (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

@Taivo: Hello! Frist, I mentioned my blockers because I'm supposed to invite them to chime in. I said, however, that might not be possible due to the reasons I exposed. Secondly, the unblock you mentioned is actually the removal of the filter I was talking about. The removal was my initiative (it was not a necessity, I could be a wikipedian even with the filter), and it followed a period of one and a half year of good behavior.

I guess it all depends on how you want to count. Technically I've been unblocked for 4 months, but I was an active editor before that. I was already showing better behavior, and that's why the community unanimously agreed to remove the filter (see link in my request). Bageense (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Taivo: It's true, Bageense behaviour has improved greatly in the past years - that's why he was unfiltered at wiki.pt. On the other hand, the second block on Commons was done with the interference of a well known LTA active on wiki.pt at the time. Furthermore, Bageense has been indirectly contributing productively to Commons during the block, by uploading many useful photos on Flickr under a free license, which we have been able to import here to Commons. He's now a productive member of wiki.pt, and I do support the unblock here, without any reservations.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I believe DarwIn and I unblocked you. Happy editing! Taivo (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, to both of you! Bageense (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Gazeta do Rio de Janeiro, Nº 3.jpg

Copyright status: File:Gazeta do Rio de Janeiro, Nº 3.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gazeta do Rio de Janeiro, Nº 3.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Xunks (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Xunks: For gods sake, it's a newspapaer from 18 fking 16. You can see it on the cover. Bageense (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So what? You must license your uploads properly, see COM:EVID and COM:L. --Xunks (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:12122022-lula-e-alckmin-so-diplomados-pelo-tse 52559771426 o (cropped).jpg

Yours sincerely, ━ ALBERTOLEONCIO Who, me? 01:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Olavo de Carvalho em 2013.png

Yours sincerely, RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Bageense, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Talvez lhe interesse

https://silo.tips/download/tupi-1-lektion-einleitung-tupi-antigo-aba-pe-ende-pero

Nada que você já não saiba, mas em alemão. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Aliás, encontrei este livro do Navarro. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: Li o livro aqui no trabalho. Tem mais um caráter filológico, documental, por isso é meio enfadonho. Ademais, eu já conhecia muito do que está ali. Deu pra aprender algumas coisas, claro. Se tiver outro livro ou texto interessante, pode mandar. Eu queria ver aquele livro do Navarro sobre Sócrates, só por curiosidade. Bageense (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Esse eu não tenho. Não vou escrever muito pra não te atrapalhar no emprego. Boa produtividade aí, faça valer a pena o dinheiro de meus impostos. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: Ahusahusa, estou trabalhando do mesmo jeito que trabalharia normalmente kk.

Aproveitando, te mostro uma fonte interessante que achei ontem para o artigo do MMTA: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ilustrad/fq26069838.htm Ali diz o que motivou a publicação do livro:

Assim que começou a dar aulas, ele percebeu que o material didático disponível no Brasil sobre o idioma tupi era muito escasso. Foi então que o professor passou a criar apostilas para auxiliar seus alunos no aprendizado do idioma. As apostilas acabaram servindo de base para o livro "Método Moderno de Tupi Antigo".

Qualquer hora dessas coloco isso no artigo em pt. Bageense (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

É pertinente ao assunto mesmo. Eu já tinha lido isso, mas provavelmente esqueci de adicionar ao artigo. Ficou sabendo da famigerada ”pandilha pró-tupi-guarani” que está a tentar apoderar-se da Wikipédia? Tá famoso, hein… RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: Não.. que conluio é esse? Não sei se você se refere ao incidente que houve no artigo Português brasileiro. Se foi isso, acho que eles estão muito longe de se "apoderar" da Wikipédia. Bageense (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: Que tu acha desse livro do Tibiriçá: tupi - uma língua asiática? Ele fala que o tupi tem origem no sumeriano. Eu achei viagem demais. Aliás, o estudo dele não é científico. Ele ficou só na grafia das palavras, sem analisar os fonemas e os sons http://etnolinguistica.wdfiles.com/local--files/biblio%3Atibirica-1978-tupi/Tibirica_1978_TupiLinguaAsiatica.pdf Bageense (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Heh, isso é pseudociência pura. Não leve a sério. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

File tagging File:Karl Weissmann.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Karl Weissmann.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Sturm (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sturm: A iamgem é domínio público não por causa da permissão, mas porque é antiga (1958). Tem um template pra isso mas "esqueci" de colocar (preguiça). Bageense (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

File tagging File:Itamar Vieira Jr 1 (cropped).jpg

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Itamar Vieira Jr 1 (cropped).jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Itamar Vieira Jr 1 (cropped).jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

Sturm (talk) 05:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Palco vestido de noiva N Rodrigues.jpg

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Palco vestido de noiva N Rodrigues.jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

Sturm (talk) 05:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sturm: Mesma coisa, aqui o que vale é a antiguidade. Só ver a predefinição. Bageense (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Itamar Vieira Jr 1 (cropped).jpg

File:Itamar Vieira Jr 1 (cropped).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)