User talk:Adambro

Welcome to my talk page

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.
Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
Leave me a message

My response

I'd like to respond the comment you made here at your talk page

because we have the same discussion in few places, and IMO it is better to have a one place for this.

May I please assure you that I cannot care less about what you thought, are thinking and would think about me? I know what I think about you. I know that you blocked me

(and you did the right thing), but did not block neither Pieter_Kuiper nor even his sockpuppet for the same offence you blocked me for. You are really fair admin, aren't you Adambro?

I'm tired of you calling my views extreme and telling me all the time that my arguments in the discussion are disrupting Commons.

Yes, I want to stop hate propaganda, lies and racism from spreading all over.

Yes, I want peace instead of war, yes I want love and freindship insted of hate, yes I want the safety instead of violence and terror. If you wish to call my views extreme,

please do me a favor.

You could not understand why

this image File:Landing egret in GGP new.jpg "was added to the Ardea alba category because whilst it does

show a Great Egret". Why not? The bird has wings and

legs and everything else the bird should have. This image of the egret belongs to category Ardea alba much more than

latuff caricatures belong to any category, except the

one with his own name, yet you seem have no problems with putting latuff garbage to many categories. Is it only

inconsistency or ...? At one point it looked like you were trying to do the right thing. I thought that you are

really trying to understand. I was mistaken.Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll certainly try to have a nice day thanks. I'll get back to doing something useful then. Adambro (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and while you are doing "something useful" please remember the picture of the egret rather than painting of Leonardo. It will help you to make the right decision.
BTW I've solved the mystery of Mona Lisa smile. She's making fun of you, Adambro, for mentioning her in connection to latuff.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember why I didn't bother replying more extensively. I recall the image of the Egret and stand by my comments. Adambro (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin adambro is continuig being fair

by asking IP vandal yet another gentle question--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too involved

Regarding Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Plairew, you are way too involved in the Carlos Latuff situation to be issuing blocks to participants in the discussion. Please do not do things like that again. Make a CU request but leave the blocking to others who are calmer and less partisan, or at least not in the minority view. ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat amusing that you suggest I'm "way too involved in the Carlos Latuff situation to be issuing blocks" to new users who suddenly decide to nominate for deletion images in such a way which suggests they are looking to make a point and disrupt Commons, yet you consider it appropriate to close a controversial deletion discussion which you have participated in. Consensus isn't determined simply by counting votes. It is determined by considering the merits of the arguments given, judging how they relate to Commons policies, and then deciding what is the appropriate course of action. It is very questionable whether you as someone who has clearly stated their opinion that it should be deleted is really in a position to objectively decide this. I won't be, and haven't previously, restored this image but I disappointed that it has been deleted despite being within the project scope. Adambro (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not close that discussion, I undid wheel warring by others and warned against it. Someone else closed it. Take the close to DR if you like but it will stay closed, and the image will stay deleted, until and unless there is a clear consensus formed to overturn. You are way more involved than I am and your characterizations are inaccurate. Further, do not block users you are in dispute with again. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly accept that I am more involved than yourself. I'm a little unconvinced by your suggestions that you simply "undid wheel warring". On the most recent occasion, it was closed and then reopened after a request made at COM:UNDEL which is the established process by which decisions are contested. Once it was reopened, the discussions were able to continue. I wouldn't say that I particularly blocked a user I was in a dispute with. The user I blocked could be perceived to be in favour of deleting some of the Latuff images which I might disagree with but the comments they made in nominating the images for deletion seemed to suggest that they were more likely opposed to the then ongoing deletion request and was nominating the other images for deletion to make a point. For example where here they commented that "If we protect zionists against attacks than we should also protect nazis against worse attacks". However, I can recognise that it is important not just to only block where is appropriate, but to be perceived to only block where appropriate and in this situation the risk of others perceiving my actions to be inappropriate was high and so I should have raised it for someone else to deal with even if I felt confident of the action required. Adambro (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brendan-Warkentin-2008-07-21-1.png

Thanks for the insight, I still am trying to learn policies and seem to be mixing things up. -Marcusmax(speak) 15:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, there's a lot to learn. Adambro (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caricatures of Ariel Sharon‎

The redirection you've made regarding to the caricatures depicting Ariel Sharon was illegitimate and you know it. It seems as if you didn't act in good faith. I am quite tired of these games. You could have asked a veteran administrator who has a fresh view of this matter to review my request and decide what to do. Instead you decided to confront me. I've seen too many political edits by certain users in the past few weeks, and you are not helping to improve the situation to say the least. If you cannot handle this issue, leave it to someone else. Drork (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I recall, I didn't make a redirect but please correct me if I'm wrong. I've redirected it now though. Your suggestion that I didn't act in good faith has little merit when you have gone around blanking pages without explaining yourself. Adambro (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to be dragged into another endless discussion. If you have a problem with me, we can ask someone who was not involved in our debates to give his opinion, but I am not going to accept this cat and mouse games. Stop that. Drork (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother me on my talk page if you don't expect me to comment. Adambro (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect and misrepresentative comments

I will assume good faith that you are misremembering the facts, but if you review the history of the page, you will see that my FIRST edits to the discussion was to close it after seven days, making your statement about "each time" both factually incorrect, misrepresentative, and implying that I closed a discussion to which I was earlier party. Please strike your incorrect comments. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need you to repeat yourself here, I can and have replied to you at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests‎. Adambro (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get nervous when accused of malfeasance, in my opinion incorrectly, and wanted to ensure I got your attention. Feel free to delete this entire section if you wish. -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

See my talkpage. Yug (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename inquiry

Hello, thanks for renaming the photos from the Keith Allison LPGA photostream. I have yet another kind request though: File:Maria_Hjorth_at_the_tee_before_last_practice_round_of_WBO_08.jpg . Thanks in advance, Wmigda (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done No problem. Adambro (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I copy this file?

Hallo,
in your opinion, may I copy a file with this appended description?

Copyright Information
© Slice of Life and Suzanne S. Stensaas The contributors of this image have agreed that these digitized images can be used in software, projects, research, demonstrations, presentations and course syllabi being developed within an institution and which may be shared and distributed either free or as a non-profit undertaking with other educators and institutions. We have made every effort to ensure that no copyrighted materials have been included in this digital image database. However, if any copyright protected images have been inadvertently included in this database please contact us and the images will be removed.

The original URL is
http://peir2.path.uab.edu/pdl/dbr.cgi?db=images&uid=default&Collection=*&Collection2=%7B*%7D&Type=Radiology&Type2=%5BRadiology%5D&Description=oligodendroglioma&syn=off&mh=20&hits=%6020%21&File=&view_records=View+Records&view_records=Search

Thank you in advance --GdaBaskerville (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atardecerala.JPG

Hi! Its a LAN airplane, and is an Airbus 320. Regards! Aleposta (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Adambro (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:300px-Anaphase-fluorescent.jpg

File:300px-Anaphase-fluorescent.jpg should probably be deleted. It seems to be a derivative work of en:File:Anaphase-flourescent.jpg (Claimed license from copyright holder not verified). --Common Good (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of stamp copyvio

Perhaps you would like to review Commons:Deletion requests/File:Verville-usairmail.JPG as this is a distinct copyright violation. Ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found more and will speedy them. Ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

your removal of my post on Mbz1. Leave it out is not sufficient --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User problems

I certainly agree that the post made by user:Falastine fee Qalby wasn't a relevant complaint needing attention from administrators, but I'm a bit puzzled why you chose not to warn/inform the user when removing it, and also why this was only removed after Mbz1 had answered. But thanks for removing it anyway, Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Steve Cram

Hello! Is it ok that we use your photo of Steve Cram in our Norwegian running magazine, Kondis?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/SteveCram.jpg

You may send me an answer on my email: runar.gilberg@kondis.no

Best regards Runar Gilberg Editor in Kondis

How do you do??

I am fine thank you. I saw you were an admin that speaks my language and wondered if you could help me here. Will you??--God’sGirl94 ^{~~Sign my guestbook~~} 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Display.jpg

Hi. Now that you have taken action against the subject file, would you please consider taking action against its uploader User:Ukdja? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests

I'm familiar with the project scope. And I know what it says about pornographic content.

Why should we keep something like this? Seriously, why? The whole category is full of images showing masturbational acts or spreaded pussies. I mean, come on...

Greets, the anonymous 79.194.228.16 13:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]