Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

‎Microtoerisme: r
← Older revision
Revision as of 11:05, 16 March 2013
Line 82:
Line 82:
 
:::::::Commons does however have a policy on spamming, see [[COM:ADVERT]]: ''Commons is not a place to advertise. As dictated by our scope, content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted from Commons.'' The watermarks are not the problem, they can easily be removed, but someone who uploads a few thousand images plainly and self-admittantly to advertise his products and his site is a spammer in my book. [[User:Wutsje|Wutsje]] 10:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
:::::::Commons does however have a policy on spamming, see [[COM:ADVERT]]: ''Commons is not a place to advertise. As dictated by our scope, content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted from Commons.'' The watermarks are not the problem, they can easily be removed, but someone who uploads a few thousand images plainly and self-admittantly to advertise his products and his site is a spammer in my book. [[User:Wutsje|Wutsje]] 10:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::::Je bent me twee tellen voor met dat argument... [[User:Kleuske|Kleuske]] ([[User talk:Kleuske|talk]]) 10:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
::::::::Je bent me twee tellen voor met dat argument... [[User:Kleuske|Kleuske]] ([[User talk:Kleuske|talk]]) 10:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+
::::::::Fortunately Wikimedia Commons has enough policies and a nicely liberal mellow approach, so there is no need to refer to the personal ''book of Wutsje''. The attribution that Commons will accept in any licence with a "BY" component is quite open to interpretation whilst remaining fully legally enforcable. If Microtoerisme wishes to attribute his/her website by including a link along with any other details, that would be super duper, it would not be spamming. What is important here is growing Commons with valid content likely to be of an education purpose, to that extent I welcome these uploads and I am concerned at what this block means compared to having a positive and encouraging dialogue with Microtoerisme. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 11:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*''Mono'' I note you failed to sign the block notice you gave this user. I have marked this as "unsigned" and added your name and date on your behalf. Human errors happen, but making this mistake on a critical one week block notice is pretty unfortunate. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*''Mono'' I note you failed to sign the block notice you gave this user. I have marked this as "unsigned" and added your name and date on your behalf. Human errors happen, but making this mistake on a critical one week block notice is pretty unfortunate. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*Some of these could be very useful images. While I agree that we may need a better policy to protect Commons against aggressive spammers who place many images that are only garbage and have no redeeming qualities, these do not fit that mold. Not all spam is garbage -- in fact, fried and served with applesauce, {{w|Spam}}® can make a very good meal. I support removing the block and giving a strong warning against continuing such behavior. .     Jim . . . . [[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]] ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 11:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 
*Some of these could be very useful images. While I agree that we may need a better policy to protect Commons against aggressive spammers who place many images that are only garbage and have no redeeming qualities, these do not fit that mold. Not all spam is garbage -- in fact, fried and served with applesauce, {{w|Spam}}® can make a very good meal. I support removing the block and giving a strong warning against continuing such behavior. .     Jim . . . . [[User:Jameslwoodward|(Jameslwoodward)]] ([[User talk:Jameslwoodward|talk to me]]) 11:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&diff=92673326&oldid=92673238