User talk:Errabee

Please leave your comments at en:User talk:Errabee.

Copied from namespace:

Image:Victory Park (Moscow).jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading images on Commons.

Please add your images to appropriative pages and/or categories where other users could easily find them. For example to Category:Moscow.

EugeneZelenko 02:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Art[edit]

Please see Template talk:PD-Art#Clarification needed. The date of first publication is only interesting for published U.S. works and anonymous non-U.S. works. On a side note, creation (or even exhibition of a painting!) is not publication. Dissemination of copies in a tangible medium (such as art prints, or in an exhibition catalogue) is publication. Lupo 11:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image revokeing[edit]

I am sorry but we are unable to remove your images. It is impossible to revoke a license to GFDL, cc-by, or a release to Public Domain once made. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you put "own photo, summer 2004" on Image:Millenium Monument (Novgorod).jpg if it is not yours? Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 21:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has deleted images of paintings. There is still an outstanding deletion request. It has not been fulfilled. One or two users doesn't make up all of Commons. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 00:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you mention Pablo Picasso. According to copyright laws of the European Union as well as the United States where these servers are hosted, images of Picasso's works are not free (Picasso only died in 1973) and therefore not eligible for hosting here at the Commons. :::Apparently you don't understand copyright laws very well. Commons would be negligent to remove your images after hosting them for more than a year under GFDL, as subsequent websites will have already used these images for that length of time. It's not that we don't want to...we cannot.

The removal of your ("your cousin's) images would constitute a bad internet practice. There is a considerable difference between you releasing Picasso's images to GFDL and you releasing your cousins. You obviously had the right to your cousin's images.

You are unlikely to convince this body that you are doing this with any less than malicious intent. It is not our fault that you are ignorant of copyright laws. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploaded and released your (cousin's) images over a year ago, you clicked a button indicating that the images were yours to upload and release. Now you're stating they're not. Never mind that you've released them and they're being used in multiple wikipedias. That's what the GFDL and CC-by Licenses are all about. When you release them, we don't have the problems like we do with copyrighted material.

Fair use of images requires permission, notably on intellectual property such as artwork. This is not only not silly as you put it, but well-established policy. You can have your cousin email permission (a) wikimedia.org asking us to take the images down. Please make sure he/she specifies your name, the indivdiual who violated our policies by licensing and uploading images that did not belong to him, so we can let people know not to trust your uploads in the future. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass ^demandez 19:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request[edit]

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: "I appear to have been blocked due to a violation of WP:POINT 6 months ago. The reason given by Gmaxwell is: User dislikes commons because we refuse to include unlicensed non-free works. He has lied to us to further his agenda. Shows no interest in contributing productively. No reason to believe he will not lie in the future. I submit there is no evidence that I show no interest in contributing productively, I hadn't edited for 6 months, until recently when I uploaded a free painting by en:Ilya Repin. This block is absolutely out of order and should be lifted asap. This block is entirely due to a difference in opinion between Gmaxwell and myself, and his dislike of me, not because any wrongdoing on my part warranted it."

Decline reason: "See below."

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

This is the link to the block on 4 May 2007: [1]. It relates to an incident in October 2006; this is gross admin abuse. Errabee 16:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You lied multiple times about the copyright status of your images to Bastique. I've seldom seen someone so emphatic about that copyright status of their uploads. We didn't know you lied for sure until you were forced to admit it in your enwiki rfa. Between your dishonesty and your perspectives on our policy I don't see how we can trust you to upload. I have never previously met you, much less disagreed with you, until discovering your behavior on commons. There is no bias in my actions: I would have blocked any other person who lied about the copyright status of their uploads, certainly if they did so aggressively and persistently as you did, and certainly if they expressed anger at our requirement to only host free content.--Gmaxwell 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective on Fair Use, as I've explained on my RfA on en:wiki, is completely compliant with the Foundations new licensing policy. That you don't like it, is a fact, and you haven't convinced me for a bit that it hasn't played a role in this block.

Furthermore, I wasn't forced to admit anything. I practically guided people here to view what happened in my RfA. Cyde was even astounded that I mentioned it of my own volition, being only tangentially related to my RfA.

Thirdly, this incident was mentioned on the Admin's noticeboard here, and nobody saw fit to block me then. And everyone knew there had to be something wrong: either I had uploaded pictures that I didn't own (not so) or I tried to drive home a point (indeed, my bad).

Fourth, I have never uploaded anything that I knew was copyrighted in one way or another. It was only afterwards I learned there might be difficulties with photos of statues or buildings in Russia, but they haven't been deleted so far because everybody here is unsure about the actual copyright status, and there might be many more uploaded by other editors.

Finally, you couldn't even be bothered by leaving a block statement, which means other people cannot find out about it. I must admit I was very much surprised to see I couldn't edit without even an explanation on my talk page. This is an immense lapse of judgement on your part. Errabee 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request on my en usertalk I have brought this up on the Commons Administrator's noticeboard: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Indefinite_block_of_User:Errabee_by__User:Gmaxwell I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Errabee 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see where this is going. Fair enough, although I hope I'm permitted to make one final analysis, a timeline with some observations and comments on others:

On 23 October of last year, I started this by trying to get my photos deleted.
On 28 October of last year, I made my last edit, having lost all my faith that Commons would be able to service Wikipedia to the fullest of its abilities.
On 27 April, 6 months later and not having edited in Commons, I started my RfA at en:wiki.
On 2 May, I found out about the new licensing policy adopted by the Foundation. Although it explicitly excluded Commons, it mentioned helping to set up an EDP on other projects if they wanted to have it. For me, this was finally a step in the right direction, and one that ultimately could result in something like Commons for Fair Use, as it seems like a lot of work to upload all these FU pictures to all wiki's with EDP.
On 3 May, having regained a little faith, I uploaded a free image: a painting by the Russian painter Ilya Repin (died 1931, more than 70 years ago, so PD).
On 4 May 05:02, Gmaxwell wrote this in my RfA, which prompted me to start a discussion with him personally.
On 4 May 05:10, Gmaxwell wrote this on David Gerard's talk page. Some might consider this to be uncivil, as Gmaxwell implies the opposite of the quote, but I deserved that statement. However, it shows he was completely informed at this time.
On 4 May 11:22, I wrote what I believe to be a very calm and respectful note to Gmaxwell. Please note I never asked him to reconsider.
On 4 May 19:07, Gmaxwell replied to my note.
On 4 May 19:10, Gmaxwell blocks me indefinitely here.

Now this leaves me wondering: if I hadn't written the note to Gmaxwell, would he still have blocked me? Somehow I doubt it, as he could have done it earlier, and it leaves a foul taste in my mouth. By trying to enter into a respectful discussion I got myself blocked. It seems that where everybody thinks that disputes can be solved by discussing it in a calm and respectful manner, this is exactly what got me blocked.

A.J. wrote that similar cases have occurred with User:Riva72 and User:Captain Scarlet. True enough, but I would like to point out some differences: Riva72 was actively changing a free license to a non-free license in addition to trying to get his pictures deleted. In addition, he altered his images to an unusable variant. Captain Scarlet does the same: he replaces all his images with this image. Captain Scarlet wasn't blocked at all, Riva72 was blocked for 1 year, and this was while his incident was still going strong. I had never changed the images, nor the license that had been stored with the image; I hadn't edited for 6 months, uploaded 1 free image afterwards, and was only then blocked indefinitely. Somehow this seems to me to be a punitive block, where I thought usual practice is that blocks are never punitive but preventive. There has been no indication at all that I intended to repeat what happened 6 months ago, not here nor in my RfA, so a preventive block is out of the question. Furthermore, the length of the block also seems to be unusual in comparison with the other 2. Errabee 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riva's case was different in that he was, as far as I am aware, honest. We can deal with a lot of things, but dishonesty about image copyright status isn't something we can just accept... Because we often must take an uploader at their word our ability to succeed depends on uploaders being mostly honest and commons users feeling comfortable in trusting the honesty of our uploaders. When we catch someone lying it hurts our communities ability to trust ... So the results extend beyond the single user with an honesty problem ... it's a poison, just as pfctdayelise said.

I would have thought differently of this if you were also a good active contributor here, but you haven't been.. so blocking you don't disrupt anything important as far as I can tell, or if you weren't so outright negative about commons and our stated purpose. I'm not even sure *why* you'd want to edit. --Gmaxwell 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turandot Verona.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Turandot Verona.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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

--User:G.dallorto 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kramskoj_Christ_desert.jpg[edit]

Image deletion warning

Image:Kramskoj_Christ_desert.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Túrelio (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kutuzov_moscow.jpg[edit]

File:Kutuzov_moscow.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.