User talk:Jeff G.

 

Babel user information
en-N This user has a native understanding of English. en-US-N This user has a native understanding of American English. es-1 Este usuario tiene un conocimiento básico del español.
Users by language

Welcome to my user talk page!

Current Monthly Archive    (redlinked the first week    or more of each month): 2024/October Past Monthly Archives

Newly registered and IP editors may leave messages at the bottom of this page.

Your message

I have been a wikipedian for almost 20 years and I made almost half a million edits, but yours is the first time I meet someone who threats me with a ban for mistaking a procedure because "Warning: such edits are not tolerated and have led to account blocks, as "We cannot work here with people who are not willing to follow our procedures, in particular for deletion requests.". I don't know who the "you" are and why you think "you cannot work" with whomever "does not follow your procedures". What I know is that we wikipedians follow the rule of "always assume good faith" and help each other in case of mistakes. Also, if a procedure proves too complicate to follow and people get mistaken with it, the solution was always finding a way to make the procedure simpler, not to ban people to refuse to follow your intimations. If you want professional work, simply pay people for a professional performance. Had I been a novice, your attitude could had simply discouraged me. Please don't repeat your threats. Ban is the extreme measure for proved vandals, not the way to show your attitude in front of other people's mistakes. Thank you. My best wishes. User:G.dallorto (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User:G.dallorto: I'm sorry you feel that way. For years, I have been railing against incomplete deletion requests, which are caused by malformed use of {{Delete}} templates and lack of follow-through, and which are populating subcats of Category:Incomplete deletion requests. This problem spurred the creation of that category 17:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC), over 17 years ago, and my tracking of it 18:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC), over three years ago. ColorfulSmoke was blocked 17:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC) by Mdaniels5757 with an expiration time of 3 days (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page", pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 29#ColorfulSmoke, and Alex Neman was blocked 16:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC) by Yann with an expiration time of 1 month (account creation blocked) for "Continuing to make malformed deletion requests despite repeated instructions; not responding to concerns on talk page" pursuant to the discussion archived at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 34#Alex Neman, so blockage is a very real possibility.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Pnau Sir Stewart Bovell Park January 2012.jpg

Hi Jeff G. Could you take a look at File:Pnau Sir Stewart Bovell Park January 2012.jpg? Its licensing was verified by FlickreviewR shortly after it was uploaded, but the source (at least the current incarnation of the source) provided for the states "All rights reserved". Of course, the photo's licensing could have been subsequently changed to a more restrictive one, but I'm not too sure on how to determine that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Hi. A the bottom of the source page, I see "Additional info" and below that "License (History)", where "History" opens a popup that reads in part:

Date February 10, 2014 at 6:55:54 AM EST

Old License Attribution (CC BY 2.0)

New License All rights reserved

and the same thing five seconds later. I tagged the file {{Change-of-license}} for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for checking on this. I didn't know about the "License history" feature. Is that something all Flickr files automatically get when there's a license change? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, and maybe if there hasn't been a license change.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Commons abuse filter doesn't seem to be working right

Earlier today you did a revert for me which I couldn't do; thanks. It appears to me that this same check should have prevented the change I was reverting (that editor's account was literally created today), but it had no effect. Am I missing something? Let me know if there's some place else I should report this. Thanks, Danbloch (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Danbloch: You're welcome. Pinging @GPSLeo as author of filters 303 and 313.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The filter was triggered as the edit triggered a bug resulting in the removal of the content the filter intends to protect. GPSLeo (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: I'm not asking about my edit now. I'm asking about the preceding edit. Why was Rahmi Zeki able to make this change? Thanks, Danbloch (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The first edit was a simple edit were there is no way to detect the vandalism. Then your revert triggered a bug that in some cases reverts do not revert the edit but result in a total replacement of the file page with nonsense text. GPSLeo (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Got it, the filter issue only affects reverts. Thanks! Danbloch (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)