User talk:Kephir

Add topic

[Welcome]

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Kephir!

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.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks

Hi, thanks for the figure at standard part function. Would it be possible to develop a cleaner version of the original figure as well? Tkuvho (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Android will win in 2016.jpg

In general, an image which has survived a deletion nomination can't be speedied, unless there has been a significant change in Commons policies during the meantime, or a completely new issue is being raised... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos: which policy? Where can I read it? Keφr (keep talk here) 15:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote. Unfortunately, speedy is a highly limited tool, which is subject to a number of constraints. There are some images highly deserving of deletion which nevertheless cannot be speedied. Whenever there's a controversy about use of speedy templates, the resolution is almost always to take it to a formal deletion nomination. AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"unless there has been a significant change in Commons policies" — what policy forbids me from marking a copyright violation for what it is? Point me to it. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You're still not reading what I wrote -- I was referring to a change of policies such that what was not considered a copyright violation at time T would now be considered a copyright violation at time T+X. AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

By which policy then is this not a violation of copyright? Tell me. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could occasionally bother to reply to what I actually said, instead of what you think that I might have said. I didn't say that this image is not a copyright violation -- I said that procedural factors mean that use of a "speedy" template is not advisable, and therefore the matter should be taken to a formal deletion nomination... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating for deletion. AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy flags

This has sometimes been a contentious matter. Commons has many hundreds of them -- they're almost always allowable as personal userpage images, and the generally prevailing practice over a number of years has been not to delete them unless they include some additional obnoxious element (being hoaxing or hatemongering, etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I get it, and I think this ought to change. Fantasy flags are nowhere in the mission statement, and keeping them opens the door to hosting all kinds of fabricated nonsense that will drive the signal-to-noise ratio down to zero, make this whole repository unmanageable and that someone will inevitably mistake for the real thing, at which point you will have a hard time defending its deletion (after all we keep all this other made-up stuff, right?). Keφr (keep talk here) 15:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Template {{fictitious flag}} is useful for signaling a flag's status without having to go through the deletion nomination process. If a fictitious flag keeps getting re-added to articles, that tips it into the "hoaxing" category -- see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abbasid_flag.png... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

What about things like File:Unofficial DOS icon.svg and File:Contrived MS-DOS logo.svg? Obvious fakes meant to imitate w:ru:File:MS-DOS icon.png. I only had them renamed and tagged {{fictional|logo}} to discourage their use, since Commons' "no editorialising" policy (COM:INUSE) probably means that a plain deletion request will fail. I am not particularly inclined to fight with the local communities of Wikipedias whose languages I cannot speak at all. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fake logos are sometimes made to get around copyright concerns involved with real logos. However, an image of this type could be used as an icon to open a DOS-box emulator running under Linux, and it would be completely "authentic" for that purpose (though obviously not the official Microsoft DOS logo). AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Revent (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Britain-Norway.png

1) It's not really considered good etiquette to scribble on deletion discussion pages after the discussion has been closed. 2) You could try to read my remarks there (sometimes you seem to have a few problems with reading and understanding...) AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"Revenge" deletion nominations

Doubling down on the personally-motivated "revenge" deletion nominations doesn't hurt me, but it certainly succeeds in casting a negative light on your own personality and character. You might want to take a cue from User:Pieter_Kuiper, who caused much turmoil and was eventually banned because of his incorrigible addiction to revenge deletion nominations... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never made a single "revenge nomination". I nominate files on their merits. Cease these baseless accusations immediately. Keφr (keep talk here) 06:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, you have also been nominating files I have an interest in and I can not see why. You need to move on and find better things to do. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Fry1989 mentioned you there again (technically should have notified you). AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, if you avoid speaking up at the current "User problems" noticeboard discussion, and then start in with a whole new round of deletion nominations against inoffensive (i.e. non-hoaxing non-hatemongering) special or fictional flags, this is unlikely to be interpreted as evidence of good faith on your part... AnonMoos (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

By doubling down and doing exactly what I warned you against, that means that whatever you think your motives are, from the point of view of the community of involved Commons users your actions are more or less functionally equivalent to those of a troll... AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. 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.

Block expires Sun, 20 Sep 2015 06:29:56 GMT --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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 was AnonMoos who was at fault here. His closures were illegitimate and premature. I also suspect the blocking administrator has a grudge against me, given that they closed a number of my deletion requests in my disfavour, against the better judgement of multiple administrators who closed my other requests." Decline reason: "No grudge. Removing text from DRs is vandalism and that's why you get a break from Commons. What another user does isn't part of your block, so it doesn't matter here." Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

 Comment For trying to hide my decision and reverting my unblock decline, your talk page access has been removed until Sun, 20 Sep 2015. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 08:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Returning after your 1-week ban to redo exactly and precisely what people found objectionable before the ban

Have you ever heard of the concepts of "courtesy", or at least PRETENDING to listen to the comments and concerns of other people?? Unfortunately, not modifying your behavior in the slightest degree, and continuing to do exactly and precisely those things which have been found problematic in the past gives highly negative impression of your personality and character -- i.e. that you have no interest whatsoever in working well with others, or doing things in a way which would create less turbulence and turmoil on Commons. Were you often sent to the corner and told to lay your head on the desk in kindergarten, and if so, did you learn anything from this? AnonMoos (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The only one who is causing turmoil is you. The nominations are valid and should be closed early just because one user feels strongly that the nominator is a bad person. Keφr (keep talk here) 07:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep that attitude and this is just going to keep coming up as a complaint. You have the power to stop this by letting it go and moving on to different topics of interest. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm a stranger to this story however you appeared to have been blocked for disputing decisions made here on Commons repeatedly. You return from the block and do exactly the same thing. I really only say please stop it or you will be blocked again by me or another admin. I do hope you heed this warning. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but a significant number of users (including admins) disagree with your disruptive editions against the Community (not against few users). The Block has been a chance to change your behaviour and refrain to make these non-sense DRs. but you're still continuing and even insulting the users that disagree with your editions against the Community. Have you personal reasons to make these non-sense DRs, or you're just trolling? Your behaviour is not tolerated in Commons; if you continue, well, you will be permanently blocked. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. 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.

Yann (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much the end, I guess

Kephir, I don't want to taunt you, or kick you while you're down, but while in your own mind you may have worthy motives for your actions, the fact that you're completely unwilling or incapable of adjusting your behavior in the slightest degree in response to comments and criticisms raised by others, but instead insist on continuing doing again and again exactly and precisely what others have objected to, created a strong negative impression in other people's minds, and made the current outcome highly probable. Unfortunately, your latest action in nominating another User:Gambo7 graphic presented a very strong appearance of being yet another of those revenge deletion nominations that you claim you don't make, and may have smoothed the path of your final descent... AnonMoos (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, three months should be enough to think about his disruptive editions and Community concensus. --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is, why is he an autopatrolled user?! --Gambo7 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The COM:ANU is the right place to discus that. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Glutton for punishment? (or: returning after your 3-month ban to redo exactly and precisely what people found objectionable before the ban)

Every time you've returned to do exactly the same thing that people objected to before, it hasn't worked out well for you. Why do you think the outcome will be different this time? Haven't you heard the quote "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"? Or to to put it another way, there's the old joke of the man who goes to a doctor and says "When I keep banging my head against the wall, I get a headache." Doctor's answer: "STOP BANGING YOUR HEAD AGAINST THE WALL!" -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

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.

It seems you don't want to learn.Yann (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: Can you at least explain to me what my actual purported offence is? "Disruptive editing" seems far too laconic for my taste. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think AnonMoos has explained it very well. Yann (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yann: No, I am afraid he failed to do so. I believe my nominations were valid, that I have acted within the bounds of policy and established custom. And I believe that one angry editor does not a consensus make. This is not anything a civilised and sane dispute resolution process should not be able to handle. The concerns in my AIV report have not been addressed at all. Keφr (keep talk here) 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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: "Per above." Decline reason: "By my count, at least eight editors (Natuur12, Herby, Amitie 10g, Hedwig in Washington, Pitke, Yann, AnonMoos, and Fry1989), far from "one angry editor,” have indicated in various discussions ([1], [2], [3], [4]) that your repeated deletion nominations of fictional flags are problematic and/or disruptive. That is a consensus, and the reason you were blocked for three months in September. Now, despite that block, you have resumed nominating fictitious flags. While I am inclined to agree that most fictional flags do not belong here, that is apparently not the prevailing opinion (policy). If you were actually acting "within the bounds of policy and established custom," which you are not, you would have observed that COM:DR sets forth "Deletion requests are not the place to attempt to change Commons policy [...] Please use the Village Pump or the policy talk page if you wish to propose a change in policy." Similarly, COM:BP sets forth that "blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere." Again, there is a consensus that the DRs are damaging; and there is no indication that you intend to desist. Further, although not the reasons for the block, the repeated failures of COM:AGF (e.g., accusations of grudges [5] and racism [6] (!)) do not exactly suggest an ability to edit collegially. Эlcobbola talk 20:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

I was not trying to change policy, merely enforce it. Existing policies like COM:NOTHOST and COM:EDUSE already exclude files I nominated. This is an interpretation with which several administrators had been agreeing until a few shouty users appeared. My opponents have not made a cogent argument against any of my nominations; all they did was questioning my motives. The grudge may or may not be there; to me it surely looks like one. After I specifically requested for my block to be reviewed by someone else than the blocking admin (who did side with pro-keeping users before), the very same user reverted my edit and revoked talk page access for making a markup mistake. "Racism" is an exaggeration, but there is surely something perplexing about the arbitrariness of which requests are granted and which are not. So I mostly stand by what I have written. Meanwhile, while I have been blocked, some people have been uploading garbage like File:Fictional_flag_of_SR_Albania.png, File:Fictional flag of Albania.3.png, File:Fictional flag of Albania.3.png, File:Flag of the Sudame-Kiwi Plan.png, File:Privadoygenteist_Big_Black_flag.jpg (hmm, I vaguely remember nominating a nearly identical flag...) and File:Flag of the United Regions of America.jpg. Perhaps you could nominate these files on my behalf, but I think it would be more convenient for everyone to just unblock me. Keφr (keep talk here) 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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: "Per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kephir (talk • contribs) " Decline reason: "No evidence that you plan to change your behaifuir, For examle "(...) So I mostly stand by what I have written. (...)". Also per Elcobbola's decision above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

Hello

I noticed that File:Truth_in_all_of_its_senses.jpeg is an obvious copyright infringement. For some inexplicable reason I am unable to mark it as such. Can you do it for me, User:Yann? Keφr (keep talk here) 15:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yann (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Special_or_fictional_logos

Special or fictional logos has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

ƏXPLICIT 03:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)