This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Olá Wilfredo! Por onde você passar o Carnaval? Mas de uma coisa eu tenho certeza: por onde quer que você esteja durante o Carnaval, sua câmera vai registrar muitas fotos! Bom Carnaval! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
@ArionEstar: Eu tenhia pensado ir o Carnaval de rua, mas agora estou olhando que e practicamente sexo e lixo na rua, os tickets estam muito caros, sera o proximo ano. por favor, preciso de sua ajuda com isto [1] --The_Photographer (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded an alternative crop (which you proposed) and would appreciate if you could indicate a preference, or that you have no strong preference. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, you may wish to take time to reflect on Commons:Talk page guidelines if you have not already. I note that you have auto-archiving set for 31 days, remember you can tweak this rather than leave discussions stale, and I find the template {{DNAU}} useful for threads I intend to return to after planned investigation or just as a aide-mémoire.
All page watchers, you can remove this user page from your watch-list if it offends you in any way. I doubt that The Photographer has asked you to watch their page, nor has invited you to use this page as a personal soapbox/sandbox rather than using your own user pages.
As Parisian, as directly involved in the recent Paris events, facing 17 dead persons and their families, as proud member of the four millions people marching for freedom and peace january 11 in France, I think your "#etc..." is just foolish and disgusting. Obviously, you don't know what you wrote, and how many people you hurt. And you dare quoting Saint John on your talk page ? Shame on you !! Of course, no need of any answer.--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I support and agree with Jebulon in this. Commons is just a hobby and Russavia has been required to find another one: equating this with forced disappearance, as some do, or showing solidarity by appropriating the slogans of a campaign that is deeply serious and important to many people, is immature and insulting. Please respect those who died and those who mourn by removing this tag. Thank-you. -- Colin (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only agree with Jebulon and Colin. Their interpretation is the one shared by most, including me. If you want to follow your point of view, do what you want (even if it looks really odd to the outsider, including that name change), but it is way out of line to even consider to compare the blocking of a User and a mass murder of innocent people by using a similar line. Doing it just for the shock value would be even more despicable. --DXR (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Je ne me sens tellement désolé, ce ne est pas mon intention. Je ne peux pas prendre la responsabilité pour une mauvaise interprétation. "Je suis charlie" est pour moi le symbole de la lutte par les difficultés et l'injustice, est une icône. Je ne vais pas retirer le message essentiellement pour la même raison, ici a été lésé. Si cette personne est bonne ou mauvaise est la situation hors de propos. Je vais également être bloqué par WMF, ce est une question de temps, le système ne peut pas être changé et de nombreux membres de la communauté ont pris l'habitude d'obéir et baisant la main de ceux qui les maltraitent. --The_Photographer (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not "misinterpretation". We both understand fully what you are doing and it is juvenile and insulting. I agree you will be blocked eventually, not because WMF are nasty and randomly press buttons, but because you are heading down a dark path with bad friends. -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This evening we are mourning in Denmark over a symmetric terror event in Copenhagen. The French people are greeting us with #JeSuisDanois. I find your tag an insult to the severity of the recent events. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that is disturbing and shows lack of empathy. I am not surprised though after your dismissal of my question above, where you claim that my intentions are "manipulative and hidden", where they are the complete opposite. They are in the open (not on IRC or via private channels) and I do not manipulate or assume anything. Your whole editing pattern reminds me more and more of Mr Hyde in The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Please find your Dr Jekyll again. I beg you. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with below.) The Photographer, the above will distract you from the real issue. As pointed out above, you made this edit. In that edit, you converted "me" in your comment to "Russavia." Hence, it easily occurred to you, "je suis russavia." Since that is what you were effectively creating, literally. It also probably occurred to you as connected with the standing for human rights that the "Je suis Charlie" movement is asserting. That there was a tragic massacre at Charlie Hebdo, and that Russavia has not been gunned down, isn't relevant. The words, "je suis," have not been set aside and allocated only to Charlie, and small causes are not a contradiction of large ones.
Now, remarkably, that was simply an edit summary. It only shows up in a search on Commons because of the question above on this page, and now these objections, which I see as attempting to shut you up. In other words, if we are involved in a struggle for freedom of expression (as we are), we are, here, meeting the enemy. This is common, it happens all the time, in our fervor for something, that we aid the opposite. From Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
The risk to you is not being blocked for writing "je suis russavia." However, acting to pursue an agenda of Russavia's is much more dangerous. What you were doing there was seeking an explanation from a former checkuser, and, to some extent, harassing him, because he's been asked the question many times. In your defense, I would say that this was on your own talk page. He could freely ignore it. Nevertheless, repeatedly pinging that user with this could be considered disruptive.
As well, writing bitch was grossly uncivil. It does not at all help that it is in strikeout. I thought at first that you had copied this from Russavia somewhere, which would explain the "we" and maybe the "bitch." Or not.
If I am asked to do something on-wiki on behalf of Russavia, I will take full responsibility for it, and would not pass on something that I considered disruptive, including incivility. I have seen admins do that for users, and, in fact, an admin on en.wikipedia, the one most centrally behind my ban there, once passed on what I'd written to him, because he saw it as constructive. I was banned at the time. "Meat puppetry" is only against policy under certain conditions. The WMF has not banned the rest of us from supporting legitimate actions, even if they come in some way from Russavia. That is what was so offensive about those leaked remarks from OTRS discussions, that they threatened deletion of material even if by others who had worked with Russavia. Definitely a bridge too far.
Please understand that we are a diverse community, and that we will have widely varying views and stands. Drop the cudgel. If you want to stand for Russavia, stand for Russavia. In certain ways, I am, I am watching his Talk page and looking at what uploads of his are nominated for deletion. To be quite clear, I am not acting at his direction, I have had no communication from Russavia since his ban. I'm simply supporting his work, as I can, without approving of all that he did, and in many cases, I don't have enough knowledge of Commons policy to comment. I'm learning, though. Russavia did an amazing amount of work, regardless of whatever else he may have done. I want to respect that. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
So to speak clearly: You didnt like what is in my page and want to rule what I place on MY userpage? The argument that is offensive holds no water at all because according with our rules, Commons is not censored, and legitimately includes content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive. Also with relation to the tag itself, the #JeSuis tag was used in several different campaigns not related with the attacks in Paris, even was used to create the #JeSuisMuslin tag against islamofobia by the Muslin Vibe. So, unless you want to violate our laws and the freedom of speech laws all around the world, you have nothing to say here anymore. Even more because that is bordeline personal attack, because I'm not even the only one with that hashtag on my page but I'm the only one who is being judged by having it. And about the quote by the saint: Is MY faith, you can't condone me for it. The_Photographer (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Condemn. "Condone" means to allow or tolerate, even to approve. Chill, The Photographer, I recommend it. You will be more effective. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
As I have said elsewhere on Commons, one of its biggest problems is those who fail to understand the difference between what they can do, by law, policy, terms of use, whatever, and what they should so. You should be ashamed of appropriating a campaign slogan used by those mourning because of and who are standing up to terrorism, a thing that is many, many orders of magnitude more serious than one user being blocked from a photo website. We are not "ruling" on what is placed on your user page. Have you ever had a friend give you advice you didn't want to hear? Do you realise you are now citing NOT-CENSORED in order to justify insulting and offending your friends? How low have you sunk? Well I have news for you: that policy applies to the media files we host, not to talk or user pages. But then you have just demonstrated rule #12 on MastCell's The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia: "Anyone who defends their edits by citing WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't have the first clue.". -- Colin (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
So The Photographer misused a policy. He is not going to be sanctioned over saying "Je suis Russavia." This is not going to be censored. So, Colin, you are right about the policy, but still, yourself, clueless. You are arguing for censorship, against The Photographer's right to harmlessly express his opinion on his own talk page over a matter that does have relevance to this community. You are offended. Well, lots of people were offended by certain cartoons. What do we do when we are offended? That was big, involving true fanatics who will kill for what they believe, and even die for it. This is small, you are certainly right about that, but you are not making it small. You are making a Big Deal out of it. "Shame!" "How low have sunk?" And there are many very strong accusations above.
What does this have to do with honoring the dead at Charlie Hebdo? Or, for that matter, the thousands upon thousands of victims of terrorism, whether it be individual terrorism or state terrorism? No, with The Photographer, I turn your accusations back on you. Shame on you, using that terrible tragedy as a means of attacking a user here for what was essentially harmless. You are dishonoring the dead, not he. If you want to honor them, see this and weep with us, and seek and stand for that forgiveness, and practice it. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
While appropriating the "Je Suis Charlie" slogan for the likes of Russavia is rather lame, the entire point of "Je Suis Charlie" is an expression of a person's right to say rude and ignorant things without fear of sanction or harm. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Bingo. He did not actually "appropriate" the slogan, it was the natural thing for him to say in his edit summary, in which he was substituting "Russavia" for "me." So, literally -- in a certain way -- "je suis Russavia." The appearance here is of users who are angry about his support of Russavia, who then find something they can accuse him of, since anyone who supports That Horrible Monster must be Really Bad. Now, how can we prove that he's really bad so we can get rid of him too? Maybe, if we poke him enough, he'll say something dumb, and then we can get him blocked.
That's a story, a possible interpretation. I'm recommending that The Photographer drop all that, see the image I pointed to, "Tout est pardonné." --Abd (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not a natural thing to appropriate a national tragedy for the petty politics of an internet forum. He has the right to do it, but he is an absolute ass for doing it. However, people should be able to express such nonsense, but they have to be able to take the heat of those they offend in doing so. Heat in the form of lambasting and ridicule, not violence or in this case administrative sanction. He is after all just mouthing off... if he starts painting wikimedians with his penis or compensating people to do the same then that is another discussion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an assumption with this slogan that Russavia was globally banned by WMF for saying or doing something provocative that must be silenced? The guy uploaded other people's photos of aeroplanes as a hobby, and was a rather unpleasant individual to those he crossed. Why was he banned, I do not know but he wasn't a free speech martyr and the claim he stands alongside those who have lost or given their lives for such rights and freedoms is both ridiculous and insulting. -- Colin (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: I don't want to comment here; but while reading your comments, I see an attempt to defend "The Photographer" from many "enemies". Please note that many people already commented here are his friends in FPC community for years. All I see is some wise advice from some very experienced people here who have very good relationship with him so far. I'm disappointing to see his attack against Slaunger. If my memory is correct, it was Slaunger who informed about that camera donation when it poped up in a less noticed page. Please note that a conflict of opinion in single incident will not decide the fate of true friendships. We've a proverb: "Elders words and ripen amla will first taste sour, later sweet." (May be my last comment here.) Jee03:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you pinged me, Jee. I'm curious: you mention "elder words." I wonder if you'd care to guess at my age and level of experience. I've been advising The Photographer -- and others -- against the idea of "enemies." Anyway, people will do what people do. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Who made it possible to upload all the Kremlin.ru stuffto Commons? Colin may guess three times... But I know, all good things are very quickly forgotten, all bad things are never. But any constructive contribution related to Russia was never particularly highly appreciated by the WMF folks and their friends; I know it already from my time at German wiki, and the fact that they don't accept any donations from Russia is certainly no coincidence. --A.Savin17:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps just step back a bit and read WMF Global Ban Policy. This isn't about whether someone was under-appreciated, or pissed Jimbo off too much: he must have done something really really bad. Game over. Find a new hobby. No need to equate this with actual martyrdom or terrorism. -- Colin (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"He must have done something really really bad." We don't know. At all. I know two of the other banned users, fairly well. The bans essentially allege violations of the TOS and sometimes other things. One of the users, the one I know the best, I'm quite certain did not violate the TOS. The other, probably not. For the one I know the most, there is a likely reason. It's an error, but I understand the appearance that the WMF ban would be based on.
The other user, as well, there are common charges against him that, years ago, I reviewed in detail. Misleading, generally false, but, again, some kind of possible basis. Not TOS violation.
With neither of those two users, did the global ban come as a surprise to me. I know how organizations and people think. Russavia, again, there are possible reasons, but not necessarily what the WMF alleged. With Russavia, though, I know much less.
So what was the basis of the bans? Here, you proclaim personal certainty. Based on nothing but opinion. This is very obvious. Russavia was popular among some, disliked by others. Totally banning him was bound to cause disruption. It actually makes detection of his socking more difficult, than if he's allowed to edit where he's welcome (because that can generate a flow of checkuser evidence that stewards can see). So why did they do it? I don't know. I don't know if it's "good" or "bad." One thing to me, however, is clear from this and other events. The WMF does not trust the community. That is neither good nor bad. I'm not claiming that the community can be trusted. However, this much is, again, clear: the success of the WMF projects depend on communication and cooperation between the corporation and the community. Without trust, that will decline, and there will be more and more "incidents." There are some who clearly trust the WMF, but most people with long experience on the wikis started out like that. What happens, long term? For a long time, Wikipedia has been bleeding experienced users, they leave. I've studied what they say when they leave.
It is not usually, "Thanks, this has been great, but I now have this great opportunity and I won't have time." In fact, I can't remember seeing that, though I'm sure it happens. Much more often, they are bitter and disappointed. What causes that? I'll say we can see a piece of it right here, we don't have to look far. Good luck, folks.
I will add one thing: one of the best things that ever happened to me was getting banned on enwiki. What came out of that will have effects that will live longer than I, much longer. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a really strong smell of troll on your page, The Photographer. You would do well to get some air freshener. -- Colin (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Definitely. I agree. The same has been active here, and in the past,[2] and on the Village Pump today.[3][4][5]. SOP for people like him, as they burn out on the wikis. --Abd (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, he harrassed no one less than Jimbo, that's really really bad :) Dear WMF, in German wiki I was harrassed almost to suicide by a couple of users who are all still very active, so let us have a deal: I'll donate something to you and forgive you Beta_M, Russavia and others and become your best friend and biggest fan, and you'll globally ban these guys for me. But... öhm... sorry, so much money as Jimbo I cannot invest, and what I'm able to supply is surely peanuts for you dear WMF; so let's continue to live with the fact that some wikimedians are just more equal. Your old poor --A.Savin18:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
A.Savin, the ticket you mentioned above is a great contribution by him. I acknowledge his other good contributions too; no doubt about his skill on that area. But I don't think he get banned for harassing Jimmy or any other BOTs. Otherwise he get banned years ago. I will say he started digging his own grave when started against other fellow volunteers here. Do you think comments against me like "the last thing you want if your name getting in the press with quotes like you have said on otrs-wiki" acceptable? I don't want to encourage more public discussions due to the nature of the threats. But I will say he is lucky enough to get banned if for a less serious offence. Jee03:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The WMF didn't publish anything, just created precedents. My comment here was related not to the ban, but to Colin's previous comment, that is very unjust and let one think that the only job RA's was mass uploading not-really-in-scope-images "as a hobby". It has particular bad taste, as Colin is actually in many discussions a clear WMF lobbyist. --A.Savin12:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Here you can see how Colin made a big fight with CC and criticizing WMF for their lack of support to the community. (I was fairly neutral in that discussion. Note that we are seeing same faces in WMF and CC). :) Jee12:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where the "not-really-in-scope-images" idea comes from. I'm sure he uploaded plenty educational content. The point remains: he had a hobby that involved making use of WMF servers and resources, and broke their terms-and-conditions so is now banned. This, in terms of world or life importance, is like being banned from the local golf club. Big deal. Move on. In the real world, some of us are unlucky to lose jobs, babies, wives, parents, colleagues, cars, homes, careers. And, I'm certainly no WMF lobbyist. I just happen to know who owns this site. I'm not sure Russavia did. We own our individual bits of the content but our only ultimate power is to fork or leave. -- Colin (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Done Thank you for helping to keep this space more clean and easy to read --The_Photographer (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
