User talk:Nick/Archive4

Nick is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Please use e-mail to make contact urgently if you need to do so.

I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia, if you need source or copyright information from an image that has been deleted on en.wiki, please leave a message below and I'll provide all the information that I can find. I cannot guarantee how quickly I will be able to respond.

File:Signaltowercropped.png§

Hi Nick, since User:Heligoland (I'm assuming that is you because it redirects here) was the original uploader of File:Signaltowercropped.png, can you tell me where this is? I am trying to categorize this image properly. Thanks. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@P199: I've added a category, description and listed building ID to the image. It's the Signal Tower museum in Arbroath, Scotland, as seen from the harbour at Arbroath. It was used as a shore station for the Bell Rock Lighthouse, which is well known globally. Nick (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:43, 21 October 2015 (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:New Range Rover Sport launch UAE - Fan photos (8956153873).jpg

Yours sincerely, Themightyquill (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

File:New Range Rover Sport launch UAE - Fan photos (8956153873).jpg

File:New Range Rover Sport launch UAE - Fan photos (8956153873).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!

Themightyquill (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

IRC question

Greetings Nick, Not sure if you heard but RD and Alex blocked me on IRC again and this time they included channels where I am being told I am welcome to participate such as Commons, Wikidata and the CVN SWMT channel. So my question is, would you be willing to unblock me on the commons channel? A couple folks have told me you have the ability to do that although I'm not sure you have the desire to override their decision, which I am certain they are counting on. Reguyla (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll ask them, but it would need to be on the understanding that any extended discussion of your English Wikipedia ban would be completely prohibited. I use the phrase extended rather than just discussion to illustrate that you would be able to explain in conversation that you're banned from English Wikipedia and where necessary refer people to the discussion, but not to discuss it further. I'll get back in touch with you some time in the next few days, after I've had a chance to discuss with Alex, RD, the other accessmods and operators in the Commons channel, and the wider channel operator base. Nick (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure I can wait, thanks. I wouldn't expect them to concede though to be honest. My ban is an embarrassment to some of the admins and ops, as it should be, so they don't want me talking about it. Especially RD and Slakr, they find any reason to justify it. Alex and Barras just go along with it and help enforce the decisions no matter how abusive or ridiculous. Reguyla (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Nick. Since it had been a couple days I just wanted to followup and see if there was a decision yet. Reguyla (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing at this point that the answer is no so I will just create another username on IRC. Reguyla (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've spoken with various people, nobody is particularly against you resuming IRC use as long as picking fights with channel operators and endless discussions about your en.wp ban stops, we just don't have agreement yet on what will constitute sanctionable activity and what any further sanctions should be. Nick (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all I am not picking fights with the channel operators. I have complained about a couple ops doing whatever they want like RD. But since no one is willing to complain about it but me, even though I know for a fact a lot of others have issue with his conduct and Barras's complacency I will just create a new IRC nick. I appreciate you asking about it, but if you all aren't willing to unblock it then just tell me that. Don't string me along for weeks. Its nothign personal towards you but I don't think anyone has any intent to unblock my account. And for what its worth, I am not going to stop complaining about my abusive ban on ENWP until it is revoked. So I guess there are no need for sanctions now, since I can just use another nick until someone catches me and then I can just change my IP and do it again. If people don't want me to use my username, then I won't. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can only report back on the conversations I've had, and from the ops and GCs I've spoken to. They say they're happy to unblock you globablly if they're not going to be pinged, messaged or harassed by you complaining about various them, others or your English Wikipedia ban. Nick (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Well if they are happy to unblock me then that's fine. But I am not going to promise not to complain when RD and company block me for no reason again on channels where I am welcome just because they feel like doing it. I am also not going to promise not to complain when I ask them reasonable questions like how long the block is for who did it and then get responses like "Until you grow up", comments about trolling or some other BS. I am also getting tired of people complaining about me talking about my ban when they are fine with the ban being placed abusively, the policy manipulation and violation that caused it to be implemented and the ongoing damage to the project it causes through collateral damage and an excuse to harass others and their edits because they think its me. I won't bring up my ban, but if someone else brings it up, I shouldn't be blocked for it and I should not have to ignore them. If they want to block someone for talking about my ban, then they should block the people who bring it up, not me. But like I said, I can just create a new nick but I doubt that will do anything but cause drama and give them an excuse to cry about how much of a jerk I am because I am ignoring their bullshit.Reguyla (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW sorry if I seem like an asshole here and I do appreciate your help, I am just tired of all the lies and hyperbole about how I am disruption because I refuse to let a couple bullies push me out and no on cares about all the policies that were broken to get my ban in place and to keep it there but everyone wants to enforce it any way they can. Reguyla (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings Nick, since its now the 5th of February and I see my IRC account is still blocked by RD and company and I haven't heard anything at all from anyone, I am just going to assume that I should just go ahead and login using a different Nick from now on? Obviously the IRC ops want to make an example out of my username because the Reguyla account is associated with Kumioko who is banned on the English Wikipedia. Since the English Wikipedia rules the WMF projects, that means that the ops should be able to block me there whenever they want. Its an open ticket to harass me right? But if I complain about the treatment I get and harassment from RD, Alex, etc. then I am just an asshole? Editors and admins on ENWP lie and manipulate policy to get and keep me banned because I was critical of the Arbcom and a few abusive admins, but that makes me public enemy number one eventhough I have done more edits that nearly every editor on ENWP with the exception of less than 20, including admins! But I have no idea what I am talking about, because I am banned by people who do not care about policy! But complaining about it and fighting it just make me a criminal. Anyway, cheers and see you on IRC. Reguyla (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right - until you agree to stop harassing other people on IRC, I cannot possibly sanction your presence on IRC. You know what you have to do. Nick (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, basically I can either stop using IRC or change my nick. I know that the word harassment is a buzzword around the WMF these days, but the only time I have ever done anything that would be considered harassment was after someone else was harassing me. You say 2 wrongs don't make a right,well RD does wrong after wrong and no one makes him do anything right. He does whatever the hell he wants too. Complaining about RD's abusive behavior on IRC isn't harassment, it's a valid complaint and just because he and Barras are buddies and Barras is complacent and tolerates abusive op behavior, does not mean I am just harassing. You tell me what you consider harassment and I will tell you if I agree to stop doing it. Because I suspect your definition of harassment diffes from RD's (if I am logged in, as far as RD is concerned, that's enough to accuse me of harassment). Reguyla (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't do anything about your complaint against Barras or the other group contacts, if you have an issue with them, you would need to raise the issue with Freenode and the Wikimedia Foundation. I only have enough authority to allow you to use the Commons IRC channel, and before I'm prepared to allow you to join that channel, I need assurances that you're not going to continue to discuss your English Wikipedia ban in the Commons channel, or that you're not going to continue trying to engage RD and others in conversations about other IRC matters, especially when they've indicated they don't wish to discuss things with you repeatedly.

The channel is for discussion about Commons issues, for collaboration and for co-ordination, it's not the Kumioko complaining channel. If you're prepared to use the channel for its intended purpose, you're most welcome to return to the channel. Nick (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok that's fine. I understand. Reguyla (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Any idea when you might get some time to unblock me from the channel? Especially since RD blocked me from it and shouldn't have. I just checked and saw I was still blocked. If your not going too just let me know. Reguyla (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since RD shouldn't have blocked me in the commons channel in the first place for a community I participate in and that I am welcome (aside from him) to participate in as far as I am told, please let me know if you decide on whether or not you are going to unblock me on IRC. There are a lot of edits I would like to be doing here but I am waiting on the result of your decision. Reguyla (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok Nick, I'm not going to wait on you anymore. I'm just going to assume at this point that you never really had any intention of unblocking my IRC account that RD should never have blocked in the first place and that you were just trying to get me to go away. If you had any intention of unblocking my IRC account you would have either done it or said something to me about it by now. Since the only communication I get from you is when I come here (and I feel a bit like I am hounding you at this point) its hard to think you ever had any intention of doing it and I once again feel like I was just stupid enough to believe you ever had the intention of doing it. You guys can waste your time with IRC. Happy editing. Reguyla (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, real life has been particularly hectic the last couple of weeks. I'll get round to dealing with this when I've got some free time. Nick (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but really its no big deal at this point. I'll just change my IP and IRC nick. There should be nothing to deal with other then unblocking an account that RD shouldn't have blocked in the first place. If it's harder than that, then the system doesn't work. Reguyla (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand that the reason why you were banned was legitimate - you were harassing people, hell, even I've had to ask you to knock it off in the not too distant past. This isn't about righting some great wrong when it comes to IRC, it's about getting you to adhere to a basic level of behaviour we expect of everybody, which is that you don't go around pinging and PMing people who don't want to speak to you, and that you don't discuss English Wikipedia matters (by and large) in the Commons channel. As it happens, I've been idling on IRC for the last few days, I've not caught up with you or anybody else to deal with a ban exemption for you, but it's something I'm trying to do. It will get done, it just won't be affected by repeated antagonist posts here. Nick (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nick again thanks for the help but if you don't have the ability or desire to just unblock me in the channel then don't worry about it. Common uses their channel a lot to discuss stuff but I can just create another nickname in IRC. Reguyla (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It'll get done when it gets done. Your repeated postings here can't speed it up until I speak to the people I need to speak to. I think, at this stage, I'll ask you to stay away from my talk page until such time as I've managed to get you unbanned. Nick (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's fine Nick, I understand real life gets precedence as it should. It's been more than a month so clearly you don't have the ability to unblock me on the commons channel and honestly I never thought you did so it's more than ok. It was always a long shot anyway. It's ok, I am not blaming you, I know that RD has control and you can't do anything about that and Barras won't. I'll just make another nickname. Honestly, RD would just reblock me for some reason again anyway so it wouldn't matter. The positive side effect is that I just won't be able to help out on commons much anymore because the commons community uses IRC so much. So those folks that don't want me editing get another win. Reguyla (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So I just got confirmation from someone that my request to be unblocked on the Commons channel was denied by the channel ops. I have to admit I am a little annoyed I found out the way I did but I wanted to let you know that I did find out. It's good to know where I stand with this community! Reguyla (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I left a note on the village pump letting everyone know that I won't actively contribute anymore. No one will care of course and I know that, but I would rather tell people what's going on instead of make assumptions or find out second hand. I will still make some changes since my wiki at Wikia uses commons content here, but my contributions will be limited to that from now on since people are more worried about maintaining and enforcing my abusively implemented ban on ENWP for criticizing corrupt admins and complacent arbs than on having dedicated and active contributors. Reguyla (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

C-r Starling

Hi Nick - File:European Starling early summar orange beak.JPG - did you ever find out the details of where it was ringed? Also, where was the pic taken, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334523644).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334523644).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334523118).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334523118).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334522564).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334522564).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334522080).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334522080).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334521558).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334521558).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334521204).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334521204).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334520940).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334520940).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334520554).jpg

File:Jaguar Ahlan! Masquerade Ball 2012 (7334520554).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!

Ras67 (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Block terminology

Perhaps best to move your question and discussion here. @A.Savin: . Feel free to move my reply here. I don't want to be accused of continuing a closed section. -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to repeat my question for all concerned, do you think we need to remove "Intimidation/harassment" from the list of drop down block reasons, should we replace it with something different or not, and thinking a bit more, should we maybe write a very short guideline on what administrators should and shouldn't write in Block Log entries (as I note some log entries relating to PetarM have been deleted). Nick (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(copy from AN/BP)yes absolutely. In my view we need to change the language used to deal with this. Online offences are increasingly being taken seriously and reported widely in news and social media. Terms like "intimidation", "harassment", "stalking" are all criminal offenses. I'm not a lawyer but I would assume it would be relatively easily to sue for defamation in the UK if the word is used inappropriately and unjustly. It could easily affect someone's job prospects if an internet search for their real name reveals a block for "harassment" on a reputable Wikimedia site. The actual Commons:Blocking policy only describes harassment as a blocking reasons for accounts primarily to create a hostile environment for another user which certainly doesn't fit any long-term user typically editing in good faith. The term may be appropriate for some IP/Vandal attacks but otherwise not. Its presence in the drop down list is certainly a concern and I would support its removal, along with a warning in BP to avoid potentially defamatory block reasons. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am also concerned that COM:BP says "Blocks may be applied for a number of reasons. The more common of these are detailed below:" but I have seen an admin admit they looked in that list, after applying a block, to find post hoc a valid reason for their block. In other words, thinking those are the only reasons the community allows blocks. And since only one entry covers users being unfriendly towards each other, the H word gets used.

To answer your question, I think we need advice generally, but perhaps repeated wrt blocks, that users should not accuse each other of criminal offenses or other illegal behaviour. This includes words like "libel", "intimidation", "harassment", "stalking". Criminal and illegal behaviour should be reported to WMF. Or the police. I'm not sure what other terms to use. But "blocked for harassment" is as good as a criminal record as far as our online social media world is concerned. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(moving from adm. noticeboard as reply to this comment [1] @Nick: . Yes. If you want to say I have double standards, maybe you're right. We all learn something as time goes by, and I better shouldn't have implemented this block rationale regarding some accounts. Note, however, the following: 1) As you already pointed out, I/H is one of the block reasons in the dropdown list; 2) As for now, it is only one generic block rationale for issues like trolling; and 3) if you look at the accounts I blocked in the last 12 months or more, you will find out that none of them are real-name accounts similarly to myself; all are anonymouses and afaik no intention to ever reveal their identity. It's a huge difference if dubious block rationales do stigmatize a real-name account or an anonymous. --A.Savin 20:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

And regarding your question, if we should remove the I/H rationale from the dropdown list: yes, definitely. There is a variety of possibilities to create a generic reason without accusing a criminal offence someone who is not criminal ("repeated trolling", "personal attacks", or like they have on German wiki "no willingness for constructive collaboration"). --A.Savin 20:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Listed buildings in Highland council area

I've just spent four years working on Scottish categories. The intention was to standardise towards "Highland council area" rather than "Highland (council area)", because the brackets are redundant. Kindly follow this in future so as to avoid undoing tons of positive work. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And Inverness doesn't need to be "Inverness, Highland", because I don't think there's another one requiring any disambiguation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm standardising, it keeps things nice and tidy, making it easier to know where to sub-categorise things in future. Nick (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Are you sure ? Almost everything, and I do mean almost everything, is still under Highland (council area). We've got Category:Buildings in Highland (council area), Category:Listed buildings in Highland (council area), Category:Derelict buildings in Highland (council area), and so it goes on. There's very few instances of categorisation using ...Highland council area. Nick (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

If other people have made mistakes in the past, it makes sense to get them right now if we can even if this creates a few temporary inconsistences. As for standardising, I think it's better to standardise to something that makes sense rather than what some previous editor wrongly thought was a good idea. The only reason I haven't really touched Highland yet is because it's so huge and I have been looking for sensible ways of subdividing it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll move everything to the correct titles under Highland council area, but I'd really prefer to keep the council area together with the parish for categorisation as it's just so much easier to handle when moving between multiple council areas (I was only trying to empty some of the higher level categories today). Nick (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Beer is the world's most widely consumed and probably oldest alcoholic beverage. It is the third most popular drink after water and tea. Thanks for all your contributions to commons. :-) Steinsplitter (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Commons User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad closing by Revent

Nick, I'm asking you to review the closing remarks and revert by User:Revent. IMO this is an abuse of admin closing procedure. If Revent wished to make his own comment on the topic, he can do so as any normal user, and permit a reply as is only respectful. Instead, Revent made a number contentious points, particularly so in his post-closure remarks, which I object to. By insisting his closure is the final word, I think this is abuse of his admin position. I think he (or someone else) should restore my comments and let the matter be settled at that. Currently I have an allegation made about me that cherry-picks the wrong definition of a phrase in order to threaten me with a block. And I have no opportunity to respond. This is very unfair and not civil. Admins should stick to making closing remarks that already summarise consensus, or that are non-contentious and so unlikely to warrant any further replies. Further, Revent engaged in speculation about my motivation, something that he a few minutes later criticises me for doing with INC, and his speculation is wrong.

I'm happy the section is closed, but insist that I be allowed to make the comment I did. -- Colin (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: The 'wrong definitions' I quoted are the ones returned by Google, and exactly how I think most native English speakers would interpret it. My 'post closure' comments were purely factual, and only stated there because you reverted my warning on your talk page. Many times in the past (and I am not going to dig them up) there has been a clear consensus on Commons that attributing an editor's behavior to some kind of pathology or mental illness was unacceptable. I welcome Nick's review, and will abide by it, but... you are wrong.

You pointed out that I did not warn INC for using the same terminology. I had not read his comment, but have now done so. And warned him. Revent^talk

User:Revent, "Apart from roles which require use of the admin tools, administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor". If you wish to make a comment about me at AN/BP then do so like "any ordinary editor". Your closing comments weren't "purely factual". They not only contain several factual errors but indulge in speculation about my motives. You cannot regard that as "purely factual" and you yourself criticised me wrt INC for doing so. Your remarks "It's impossible (and irrelevant) to attempt to determine who was originally at fault at this late date." are themselves irrelevant. What has "originally at fault" got to do with anything. Nor is it impossible to resolve this, but you and others show no inclination. Indeed the fact that you did not spot it was INC's phrase shows how little you actually read or understood.

But my most strong complaint is abusing your closing remarks to add your post-closure remark. I agree that describing mental illness to another is wrong, and in fact I seem to recall the last time I got someone blocked over this, you were the main obstacle and made hostile personal attacks on me. But you should also accept that dictionaries have different meanings for different words and phrases get absorbed into the vocabulary such that they become everyday. See en:Crazy paving. You need to treat the term as a whole. definition and definition disagree with you. Can't you see that if there is a reasonable definition that does not require you to behave in a hostile response to me and threaten me with a block, that you must per COM:AGF choose that. But no, you loathe me so you won't.

I think you are failing to appreciate that in closing that discussion while also making contentious personal remarks about me, you are not behaving in a civil manner, and not behaving like an admin should. Instead, you are assuming an Admin is better than other users and can have the final say. Your revert is an abuse of your admin role. You should restore my text and let my criticism of you stand. Not doing so makes it clear you are willing to abuse your admin rights in order to censor criticism of yourself. -- Colin (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: I do not loathe you, and invited you to make complaints about me at the correct venue. That you repeatedly say I do is, itself, bordering upon an accusation of bad faith. Any editor can close a discussion in a way that does not require the use of advanced permissions, if it is ripe. This one was, as clearly nobody desired to comment further. Closed means closed, and you appeal it to the wider community, you don't get 'the last say' after closure. My post closure comment was about me warning you about the 'subject', and you reverting it off your talk page (and I should note that you are not supposed to do so). "I didn't hear that" in response to an admin warning is not acceptable. Revent^talk 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Revent, it is quite obvious you abused the "close" at AN in order to make remarks that have no place there. You were not "closing" the discussion but making novel remarks that were contentious. This is disgraceful behaviour. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: The statement that describing another user's behavior as 'pathological' is not allowed is neither novel nor contentious. There is a widespread and longstanding community consensus that 'pathologizing' another editor's behavior is an unacceptable personal attack. I attempted to avoid warning you publicly for it (and instead doing so on your talk page), but your 'rejection' of the warning made it necessary IMO. Revent^talk 07:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you still going on about this? From someone who things "Google" is a dictionary. The term "pathological liar" is a phrase in everyday English. Once you start deconstructing phrases, and picking the wrong definition out of a multi-meaning word, then you can make all sorts of wrong assumptions, and demonstrate nothing more than your obvious bad faith. I've given you some links yet you still act like English can be deconstructed and random meanings for words extracted and recombined. Your excuse for abusing the closing notes is lame. Your whole close was lame. What possessed you to think and suggest I wanted an apology from Fae? I want someone to ask him to stop lying all the time, and responding to valid on-topic criticism with outrageous off-topic personal attacks. My comments were not about old issues, but about abuse from him since this Summer and a lie he made just this week. You didn't read it at all. And I think it fair that Ellin should resign the 'crat position, as she has neither used it AFAIK, not demonstrated any greater wisdom or competence than any other admin (plenty examples to the opposite). But you didnt' read what I wrote. You just steam up your glasses with red mist when you see my name, put on your blinkers, and enter critic mode. You are remarkably unable to demonstrate self analysis or self awareness, blatantly demonstrating the same flaws you criticise others for. I suggest, Revent, that you (and some other admins and 'crats) remind yourself of what Administrators are. Specifically the bit that says "administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position". You need to stop making threats as though you have some authority like a policeman. I am a long term user with a long track record of good contributions to Commons. It is not acceptable to threaten to unilateraly block or to determine the length, as you did -- that is not your priviledge to do so. You absolute must seek and gain community consensus for controversial blocks, something that Ellin learned to her cost and shame -- being forced to apoligise to the community for her actions. Your threats makes you a bully, nothing more. Leave me alone. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

From your own link, a 'pathological liar' is "a person who tells lies frequently, with no rational motive for doing so". The accusation that an editor has no rational motive for their actions is a personal attack. The warning stands. Stop. Revent^talk 09:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: If you have a complaint about another user, COM:AN/U is the correct venue, not the talk page of an admin. If you have issues with how a particular request was closed or any additional comments, you can voice them on the closing user's talk page or as a new topic in a venue such as COM:VP or COM:AN. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the venue for making a public complaint. I had hoped that discussing this with an admin whom Revent appears to respect, might lead to Revent handling the situation wisely rather than the need to make a public spectacle of him. But it appears Nick is off-wiki and Revent is digging his heals in. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

#wikimedia-commons IRC

Hi Nick,

You have recommended a few times that more Commons users, like content creators should give #wikimedia-commons a try. You may have noted that I am a sceptic based on past experience. But it may be that my past and experiences are just unlucky. I am willing to update my view so to say, if there is reason to do so.

Is there actually any policy about "governance" on #wikimedia-commons and how you are supposed to have there and the scope of things you are supposed to discuss there?

I tried looking for policies and found Commons:Internet Relay Chat telling me that #wikimedia-commons is for "discussion about Commons", which is an extremely wide scope - and that may be fine. I also looked at the linked tutorial at EN:WP, but this was just a technical tutorial not giving any indication of user conduct and governance. From the post previously on you talk page, where Reguyla is asking to be unblocked from the channel it appears that there is some governance of user conduct, and that you play a role in it. Can I read anywhere any kind of policy/guideline whatever on what is accepted and what is not accepted in the channel? -- Slaunger (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I also found this meta:IRC/Guidelines. Is that one, which is applies to #wikimedia-commons as well? -- Slaunger (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the page I was going to link to. I (and Natuur12) are accessmods - an IRC equivalent of bureaucrats, looking after the appointment of the channel operators and trying to provide an extra little guidance. When we say that the channel is for discussion about Commons, I agree that's extremely wide in scope, but discussions there are exceptionally varied, from discussing content matters like categorisation, licences and the like, asking for advice and opinions on user issues, through to issues with bot accounts and technical matters with files, the upload wizard and bugs which occur.

We recognise that at times the channel has been allowed to become too hostile, and that's something we're keen to work on - I think, in part, because only a relatively small group of users tends to be active in the channel, the nature and tone of discussion can become a bit rowdy, perfectly acceptable for a group of regulars but not at all appropriate for new users coming in for the first time.

I don't believe what's discussed is really an issue, the tone is, and that's something we're all going to have to try and work on going forward, otherwise our use of IRC is likely to fade away. Nick (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for your helpful reply. I tried to login earlier today in a relatively quiet period, and it was indeed just basic questions about how to do some mass changes assisted with VFC or a bot, that a file looked suspicious etc.

I noticed the notice on top about not to do public logging, and I see it is also in the guidelines, where it is elaborated a bit as "Don't post public logs of any channels without prior permission from all persons quoted. This is a good rule of thumb, but some channels do not have this restriction - if in doubt, check.".

Over the years I have, despite this rule, from time to time received dumps of logs from other users with examples of what was going on. I have never asked to see any of those logs, but they have dumped into my inbox. Some of the logs have contained personal threats against other users, or orhestrated meatpuppetry and harassment of other Commons users not online in the channel. I understand of course that it is not such there all the time. Nor have I been subjected to any hostility there, only a little teasing, and that is fine, no problem.

I have found it very strange to have such knowledge available, and the senders have most often asked me to keep them confidential, as they knew they could come into trouble if it was found they were the source of the leak due to this forbidden public logging. On the other hand, from reading about logging, I get the impression that logging is widely utilized despite you are not supposed to, and it is very hard to enforce that no logging is done.

It has left me wondering about the pros and cons of not allowing public logging. I understand that IRC is supposed to be more lax and relaxed and not be taken so seriously as what you write in public visible and searchable for all on Commons. I also understand that users may out people on IRC or inadvertedly publish private information, which they later regret, but which cannot be revdel'ed or oversighted as that is not how IRC works. But is there a something in-between solution to this? What are the benefits of not allowing to publish evidence of activities, which are against Commons policies, as long as private information is left out? I can see there was a discussion if the logging policy should be changed that started way back in 2008, but never have found a consensus. What is your opinion on this? Can such logs be send to either you or Natuur12 in such cases to evaluate if the behavior is acceptable within the limits of the loose guideline? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem I (and most other channel operators) have with this type of public logging is not that it reveals behaviour people would rather was kept quiet, but that the logs are frequently incomplete, maybe the person logging has a participant in the conversation on ignore, has joined part way through a conversation or their connection reset, so what is discussed is taken out of context or is missing vital information, and that's just the people who don't have an ulterior motive. We've had plenty of reports of selective logging, users being removed from the logs or the logs being selectively edited to make it look like a user is talking about a specific editor when they're not, that sort of thing.

Most users will log channels privately, keeping the logs for their own records; I log all of the channels that I'm a channel operator in (including Commons), so that I can refer back to previous conversations or operator decisions when deciding on how to treat things like channel management issue or to refer back to issues which are relevant on-wiki. That logging is perfectly acceptable, publishing those logs absolutely is somewhat against policy.

When I say against policy, it's worth taking some time to note that this is primarily a Freenode policy, not just a Wikimedia IRC channel policy. The default stance for all channels is no public logging, Freenode's policy has always been to discourage public logging as they believe it dissuades free and frank discussion. Channels do get to choose their own logging policy, but must make the policy clear in the channel topic and a join message if there's public logging.

My own view - I don't object to public logging, as long as it's done by one of the reliable logging bots that run 24/7. I'm also happy to receive reports or logs of problematic behaviour (in strict confidence) - the extent of the action I (and other channel operators) can or will take will depend on the extent we can corroborate the logs, but we're likely, at the very least, to have a quiet word with the persons involved and discuss the concerns. Nick (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Thanks for the explanations. It makes good sense, also the concerns with unofficial logs being incomplete or tampered with intentionally or unintentionally. I do agree with you viewpoint, that if logging was to be made public, it should be from official and reliable 24/7 loggers, which contains the entire story. Also thanks for clarifying that private logging is OK and to keep the logs as private records, as it was not clear for me if this was acceptable or frowned upon. I am also glad you have clarified that it is OK if you receive logs in strict confidence if there is a perceived problematic behavior. By having your own complete log you can then verify if the report is accurate. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nick!

Happy New Year!

Nick, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:2009POTY/header/R1/i18n

Hi! Can you please explain me what this one was created for? I don't see where it's being used. And there already exist pages like {{2009POTY/header/R1}}, and some translations are available too. What should be done with them? Besides, it's quite an old topic and I, personally, wouldn't disturb it, as there are many more new pages to be made translatable, but that's only my personal opinion.--Piramidion (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@MtDu: is working through a series of translations at the moment. Nick (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Unprot request

Hi Nick, you (Protected File:Wikidata cupcake II.svg: Highly visible image: at Wikidata ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Upload=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))). While Move and Upload protection is o.k., please reduce Edit protection that established users are able to set tags. Thank you sarang♥사랑 07:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nick (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions/i18n

Hi! Templates like this sometimes already have translated subpages (see Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions#Localization), and before marking the /i18n page for translation those existing translations should be moved into the new system, like MainTemplate/xx → MainTemplate/i18n/xx. Then the main /i18n page can be marked for translation, and the existing translations should be integrated into the translation system using Special:PageMigration. Besides, this template is protected, and an administrator is needed to change the "base" parameter to

base=Flickr-no known copyright restrictions/i18n

If you do this, I can do the rest.--Piramidion (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've made the change to the template needed. If there's anything else or it's not quite correct, just let me know. Nick (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I'll transfer the existing translations.--Piramidion (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please delete this one Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions/i18n/zh-tw – translations to that language aren't allowed for some reason.--Piramidion (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've done that for you. Let me know if you find out what the reason is behind this issue. Nick (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll notify you if I find something specific, but for now the translation to zh-tw seems to be disabled project-wide (for instance, see [2] or [3])--Piramidion (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The language code is blacklisted as being deprecated (see here)--Piramidion (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, please change base in {{GPLv3}} to

base=GPLv3/i18n

Thanks!--Piramidion (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Two more to speedydelete: Template:MIT/i18n/zh-hans & Template:MIT/i18n/zh-hant.--Piramidion (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Dekselpot met lange lijzen (Rijksmuseum AK-RBK-16254).jpg

I think the photo needs a license as it is of a 3D object. It can be CC0 as somebody mentioned in that DR. Jee 13:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The photograph isn't a 3D object, but may (and that's subjective) be sufficiently over the threshold of originality to generate a new copyright on the photograph itself. It's quite probably redundant but it covers everything in any case. Nick (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. (corrected my comment) Jee 13:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've added the CC0 licence for the photograph (per this page that refers to CC0). A photograph of a 3D object always gains copyright, Nick, there's no question of "threshold of originality". The photographer will choose lighting (there are two lights used here - you can see their shadows), presentation and backdrop, angle of view, camera lens focal length and aperture, exposure, etc, etc, which all influence the result. There's nothing "subjective" about this, and quite clear in law AFAIK. What is less clear is whether a photo of a 2D object merits copyright, with Wiki taking the view aligned with the US that it does not. I think a few of our museum artefact photographers would be rather upset to think that some consider their work to be not worthy of copyright.

That DR was of course POINTy but several responses were rather disappointing. User:Odder is wrong that since both are "public domain" that there is no problem -- the photo should have a CC0 tag, which is not quite the same thing as being public domain, and certainly not because of a 1923 publication date. User:Revent's comment about the API is simply wrong. Both "works", the photo and the subject, should be correctly tagged, and I'm surprised there is any confusion about this with experienced users. It is a shame the templates don't allow one to distinguish between subject and photograph/scan. As far as Commons is concerned, the copyright/licence of a photo of a museum artefact is more important than the copyright status of the subject, which for lots of ancient exhibits is rarely mentioned nor worth the effort to mention. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, my reply makes less sense after Jee clarified his original post. I had misunderstood the original comment about the concern being a copy of the photograph, not the photograph of the artwork. I agree with you (though I do wish it wasn't always the case) about photographs of 3D artwork generating their own copyright. Nick (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: I think you misunderstood me, not that it particularly matters. I've fixed many, many images of 'artwork', over time, to indicate the license of the 'object' and the 'photo' separately, and pointed out in community forums that it's what should be done repeatedly. The sole reason that I said the API 'agreement' is irrelevant is because the museum had explicitly declared such images were 'copyright free' long before the API existed, and the 'use' of the API adds restrictions that do not apply to us. - Revent^talk 00:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Revent, there's different kinds of "wrong". I get the feeling the pointy DR annoyed people to the point where they stopped actually trying to help the project, and just argued. The page the vase photo is hosted on indicates it is a CC0 image. So Vincent Steenberg was correct, but linked to the wrong page to justify it. Why does it not surprise me that Nick (after some persuasion by a photographer) eventually did the right thing and added the missing, and absolutely necessary, tag, whereas others, including yourself, just argued against someone they found disagreeable. The licence/copyright information on the page, stating the "work" was PD 100 years/1923 was simply wrong and our re-users would be right to think we were sloppy and untrustworthy. The DR wasn't necessary of course, and could have been closed swiftly had someone simply fixed the photograph licence tag straght away. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree, Hubertl should have added the CC0 tag to the page instead of creating the disruptive DR nomination. Nick (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Requests by Russavia

Hi, I am not responding to or accepting any requests or comments by Russavia, even if his fan club is insisting or repeating on his behalf. It has been well established that I don't have to and don't need to. Jcb (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: You do have a duty to the rest of the community to explain your administrative actions. If you are not prepared to explain your actions when asked, you need to resign now. Nick (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: You are responsible for acting in the best interests of the project, period. You deleted files that were both in scope and properly licensed, in error. When they were undeleted, the usages should have been restored. It does not matter, at all, if it was Russavia who pointed it out... if an action (restoring the usage) should be done, and would have been done if anyone 'other' than Russavia pointed it out, you should do it as in the best interest of the project. If you want to prevent Russavia (or any other banned user) from trolling, or having an incentive to troll, then the wisest course is to both not do anything 'optional' for them, but also to take any action that you would have taken if it was requested by some random anonymous person. If something (such as restoring usage) is clearly in the best interest of the project, you should do it as soon as you become aware of it... to do otherwise is opening the door for trolls to 'prevent' useful edits merely by suggesting them. You have (IIRC) in the past reverted DRs opened by Russavia where he indicated that a file was a clear copyright violation, and those files were later deleted as copyright violations. Your actions, in this case and in those cases, were obstructing what was clearly in the best interest of the project. Stop. - Revent^talk 08:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not helpful, Revent/Nick. Jcb is not required to do anything when requested by a banned user, whether one thinks that action is "in the site's interest" or not. Revent's opinion that he should act on Russavia's post as though made by another user, is just that: his opinion. Both of you have an obligation, per the rules of this site made by the site owners, not to encourage or facilitate posts by banned users. Such an obligation does not permit you to engage in judgement over whether that post was trolling/vandalism/helpful. In other words: Russavia is banned from editing here full stop -- he isn't just banned from making unhelpful posts.

Nick's two reverts today, which restored Russavia's text on Jcb's talk page, were very unwise. I note no warning is made to advise Nick against edit warring, never mind edit warring to restore text by a globally banned user. Do I need to remind either of you want happened to the last admin bully who abused his position to give Russavia a voice on this site? Jcb does have a duty to the rest of the community to explain admin actions, but Nick made his query in the same edit that restored Russavia's text. Do either of you not appreciate how you have undermined your argument? The pair of you would do well to recognise the mistakes you both made today. Nick should not have restored Russavia's text, and Revent should not be claiming that Jcb needs to take any notice of Russavia.

Acting "in the best interests of the project" is always a judgmenet call. Completely ignoring Russavia posts here, is not only black and white, but the only long-term solution to this conflict. If either of you wish to have off-wiki communitcation with this chap, and that inspires you to make deletion/undeletion requests in your own words and take responsibility for them, then that's your call. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I've replied to your e-mail. You would have a valid point if Jcb had replied to my second message, where I worded the concerns personally and didn't re-use Russavia's text (although as I've explained, I considered that I had taken ownership and responsibility for that text by re-posting it, as is commonly accepted behaviour when dealing with banned users, particularly in administrative matters where administrators will act upon reports filed by banned users when they're in the best interests of the project). The problem with Jcb's behaviour arises when he refuses to co-operate at all, regardless of how I asked him about his deletion. If nobody is prepared to hold Jcb or any other administrator to account when he's deleting images uploaded by any banned user, not just Russavia, then any administrator can go around deleting correctly licenced images uploaded prior to any block or ban with impunity, regardless of the damage this causes to our sister projects. That's a far more serious issue than emulating the w:WP:DENY policy with Russavia.
I suggest Jcb compromises by asking another administrator to handle deletion requests for Russavia's originally uploaded material (i.e that which was uploaded under his Russavia username) if he's not prepared to be accountable for any deletions where Russavia is involved. That way we should be able to strike a compromise in not having Russavia posting in contravention of his ban and not having Jcb running around damaging the project. Nick (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's do this on-wiki. Your first edit was to restore the text of a globally banned user and add "I'll ask as well. What gives, Jcb?" Not "I'm asking myself" but "as well". You are normalising Russavia's participation here and using your admin position (though not tools) to enforce that edits he makes (such as to a user's talk page) are retained. Your second edit was a simple revert. You are now edit warring to restore the text by a globally banned user. That's getting into "losing your bit" territory. Your third edit was now you complaining about Jcb "refusing to explain a deletion when requested by a fellow administrator". Well he might not have refused, if you hadn't twice combined your request for explanation with restoring the text of a globally banned user and making it a joint request with your "as well". I don't know how you think that was helpful. If you want to criticise an admin, don't complicated it by edit warring, restoring banned user's text, and then making threats like here where you insist he resigns.

You could have dealt with this entirely differently. You could have said (without reposting anything) "I have looked into this matter myself and believe the deletion may be in error [cite details/urls]. Could you please explain your deletion rationale. Thanks.". Then, if Jcb had refused to cooperate, you would have a point. Separately you could remind your friend never to post on Jcb's talk page again, and to make such requests via another valid user. I think Jcb is quite entitled to completely ignore all text made by a banned user regardless of it merits. -- Colin (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Jcb is entitled to ignore a banned user, but not other users when they ask, regardless of how, when or where they ask. This is giving Jcb excessive freedom to avoid accountability and is not acceptable Colin. I asked Jcb with completely new text [4] which was met with the same answer, which leads me to believe Jcb is refusing to be accountable for deletions of Russavia's original uploads regardless of who asks him or what the question looks like. Nick (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, if this comes up again, I'll remove anything Russavia writes and if appropriate, I'll write a completely new question, that was Jcb will have no legitimate reason to avoid attempt to hold him accountable for his actions. Nick (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)