User talk:OberRanks/Archive 8
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
File:MPRCFrontEntrance.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MPRCFrontEntrance.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just a note. Please stop repeatedly saying that you're taking Lion Guard off your watchlist and not editing it any more, only to return shortly thereafter. You've done that several times and it's getting disruptive. I'd like to know whether it's worth my effort and time (and yours as well) to engage you. You are entitled to change your mind, but when it happens over and over again maybe you should just keep your "off the watchlist" thoughts to yourself? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've kept my word about not adding new material to the article. I don't plan to add or remove another thing to that article until either 2024 or when Trump leaves office, whichever comes first. The article is actually off my watchlist now, but I am manually checking the talk page from time to time. -O.R.Comms 17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, OberRanks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Washington (fiction)
Hello OberRanks,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Battle of Washington (fiction) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Minesweeper flotilla (Kriegsmarine)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Minesweeper flotilla (Kriegsmarine), OberRanks!
Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
When splitting an article, please credit the source(s) of the split in your edit summary (ref Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article)
To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
AfD Nominations
Nomination of Army of the United States for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Army of the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army of the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Farside268 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Regular Army (United States) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Regular Army (United States) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular Army (United States) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Farside268 (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm trying to assume good faith here, but this kinda looks like a hoax. These are statutory codified components of the United States armed forces which appear in millions of service records. Maybe do a bit more research next time and discuss on the article talk pages first? -O.R.Comms 21:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Army of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Rhye's and Fall of Civilization for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhye's and Fall of Civilization is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coin945 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Jerome Ersland
Not really sure what you're trying to suggest but I literally forgot about the article completely cause I had and have no interest in making an article about it anymore. Delete it, I initially made it 6 years ago couldn't care less about it now. Inexpiable (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Its very dangerous to have biography of living persons info on Wikipedia for people who are involved in active controversies. Even more so to have deleted info maintained on a user sub-page. Ersland is a highly controversial figure and the presence of info on him on Wikipedia could easily be used out in the "real world". I'm glad you responded so quickly and we could get that page deleted. -O.R.Comms 18:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to point out that the edit summary "revert blanking of sourced material..." was inaccurate, as none of the material restored was cited. I would appreciate if you could be more specific with edit summaries in the future. Thank you! --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- It was referenced through the general references at the bottom of the article, specifically the SS officer rolls as well as one of the other texts. What was needed were inline citations (which are now added). I would highly suggest using the "citation needed" tag in the future, instead of simply blanking large sections of an article, especially dates of ranks and awards which is something which has been discussed extensively throughout the article talk pages and noticeboards, and has been deemed appropriate for article on Wikipedia. -O.R.Comms 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
A page you started (Bryan Stanyon) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Bryan Stanyon, OberRanks!
Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I removed the phrase "to American people"as Wikipedia is not necessarily USA-centered. You can add it back if you'd like - article looks great!
To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. He would not be known in the US had it not been for Nickelodeon broadcasting the series in the 1980s. That's the only reason I ever learned who he was. On the positive side, a really good actor. The episodes he appeared in were some of the best of the series. -O.R.Comms 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The article Hugo Gutmann has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Subject fails WP:BIO1E, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MILPEOPLE. There are reliable sources that examine the subject briefly, but only in the context of his relationship to Hitler. I don't think the bar for GNG swings that low and the fact that this article has been under-sourced for eight years indicates there was never much coverage on the subject to begin with.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugo Gutmann is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Gutmann until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've removed an external link from this article, as it was a redirect to a porn site. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, now it works ok. I don't know what's wrong here. Restored with apologies. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
That's crazy! Thanks for checking into it. Leipold was my favorite character from Schindler's List. Didn't do anything except say that one line when they got to the camp about efficiency and was thereafter ignored by Schindler. -O.R.Comms 13:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for serial copyright violations
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I remember from earlier encounters you have a checkered past of dubious image uploads. It seems you have not heeded the warnings you got. this image, claimed as "own work", is quite definitely taken from here, a commercial news source where it is clearly credited to a named journalist. This appears to be from here or here.
Blocked indef, given the long history of recidivism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
OberRanks (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am shocked Future Perfect would come to my page in this way and indef block my account after years on this site, without any discussion, meaningful investigation, or warning. This admin also has been heavily involved with articles I edited, and admitted in a post a few years ago that he was angry, holding a grudge, and wanted me blocked from this site.[1].
He repeated this again on a discussion in which he was a party to the article (see: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_October_17#File:Fatherland-Nebe.jpg) and stated "Nonsense, no work produced in the US after 1989 could possibly have fallen out of copyright; you have no idea what you're talking about. And I've come to know what to expect from your references to "colleagues" here and there who conveniently told you something or gave you something – the last time you took recourse to explanations like that you were found to be flat-out lying, remember? Should really have indef-blocked you right then and there. Maybe I'll still do so now, or do you care to actually provide that OTRS confirmation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)"
This is not the person who should be coming here now and indef blocking an account with over a decade on this site with over 10,000 edits as F.P. has been heavily involved with edits I've made in the past, and has expressed anger and a desire to see my account blocked.
As to the concentration camp image he located on the Internet, I found it in my archives of photos from World War II research labeled as a photo from a trip I took over a thirteen years ago. It has circulated since then I am sure, as it is a picture of a pretty famous historical site. The second image, that of the old St. Louis Amory, was easily photographed from the highway when the building still stood. The fact that it would be on several different websites is not surprising at all. I also was involved in the taking of pictures of this building at the time, through my employer, which I can easily prove.
As to being a "serial copyright violator", I've had no other problems or warnings in quite some time, I think for several years. This is not an appropriate block, and I ask it be removed. -O.R.Comms 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm not privy to the private information that Guy and NeilN have received, so if anything in there makes them see the case differently, they're welcome to unblock, as far as I'm concerned. That said, the first two thirds of this unblock request is one big WP:NOTTHEM argument, and the remainder apparently has factual inaccuracies regarding concentration camp image, inacccuracies that were repeated here despite strong evidence to the contrary, maintained a day later and only admitted to be mistaken (at least I assume that's what the mistake refers to) after Fut. Perf. presented evidence that the photo cannot have been taken at the claimed date. To consider unblocking, I'd say a community discussion at WP:AN would be the best way forward, with a new unblock request that cuts out the accusations against others and explains why you stuck to that false information even after multiple editors had pointed out the implausibility of The Guardian misattributing the image. Huon (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- FWIW ArbCom issued OberRanks a copyright warning in 2007. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
You're saying The Guardian has misappropriated your work? --NeilN talk to me 22:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Before an unblock is considered we need an explanation for the Guardian photo. It is not credible that you are implying The Guardian is falsely asserting one of their correspondents took the photo for a 2016 story and that you really took the picture in 2005 and never published it. --NeilN talk to me 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you have the original of the St. Louis photo in its original resolution? Your upload is obviously a cropped and zoomed version of this but the original obviously must be in higher resolution. --NeilN talk to me 23:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- On PDF file at work, yes, from the material that was published about it. I had cropped the PDF to get the photo used here. The original from 2002, which I took with my own camera, was over 16 years ago so no I don't have that one anymore. I also think there is a possibility the website located actually used the photo material from our article, as it was distributed pretty widely in the St. Louis area. I hope that helps. -O.R.Comms 23:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: , do you need me to resend you anything? -O.R.Comms 12:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I find OberRanks' explanation plausible. I guess a release via OTRS would help, but this does not seem to be a copyright problem. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- So, what story did he come up with this time, another mysterious "colleague" who "e-mailed" him the files or what? He's been telling that one a few times too often by now. And don't tell me he found a way to talk himself out of the thing with the Brněnec photo, it's as clear a case of copyright theft as it gets. If you consider unblocking, please be aware I remain vehemently opposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) By the way, it is entirely implausible that he took the Brněnec photo "13 years ago", in 2005. Compare the two authentic pictures from 2004 that we have in de:KZ-Außenlager Brünnlitz, with the two photos in Robert Tait's Guardian article from 2016. You are clearly looking at the same pair of buildings, but in an entirely different state of delapidation. In 2005, the site was still working as a factory, the buildings were still in a useable state. This photo was clearly taken long after the factory finally closed down in 2008, i.e. in 2016, by Robert Tait, as stated in the Guardian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- So, what story did he come up with this time, another mysterious "colleague" who "e-mailed" him the files or what? He's been telling that one a few times too often by now. And don't tell me he found a way to talk himself out of the thing with the Brněnec photo, it's as clear a case of copyright theft as it gets. If you consider unblocking, please be aware I remain vehemently opposed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Future, I shared with Guy and Neills more personal information that I ever have before with any other Wikipedia user in order to clear this up. I gave contact information for my employer as well as detailed information on who I am in the real world as well as the research I was working on when I obtained both of those images. I am not a chronic liar or whatever else you called me. And to allude to the famous Husnock account, which people often like to do, that was a long time ago when I was much younger in my 20s, deployed to the Middle East, newly married, and under a lot of stress. I made some very poor choices back in those days, now almost a decade in the past, and apologized for everything and tried to start this new account and follow the rules. Holding grudges from something that happened years ago seems to me to be contrary to the spirit of this site. I am sorry you have such a negative opinion of me. To Guy and Neills, I thank you all for your review of this case. -O.R.Comms 20:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG: Sorry, no, there is a copyright violation here. OTRS is not an option for that. --NeilN talk to me 07:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - Neil, I sent you one further e-mail with information about that image. Yes, it was a copyright violation and I made a very big mistake. The e-mail I sent you contains all the details. -O.R.Comms 08:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The version of the St Louis image hosted here comes with metadata. Unless I'm very much mistaken, that metadata states the image was taken on May 21, 2005 (with a Fujifilm FinePix A340, which for all I can tell was introduced in 2004), not in 2002 as indicated by O.R. when it was uploaded. So unless O.R. asserts that someone took his image and faked the metadata, his explanation regarding that image seems to be mistaken, too, like the one for the concentration camp image. Huon (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: - Neil, I sent you one further e-mail with information about that image. Yes, it was a copyright violation and I made a very big mistake. The e-mail I sent you contains all the details. -O.R.Comms 08:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Involvement of DRF User
@NeilN: & @JzG: I had really hoped to avoid getting into a discussion about the user DrFleischman; however, as this user has now pretty heavily interjected into this discussion, as well as apparently contacting both the reviewing admins on their own talk pages, I feel it necessary to cover the history between our two accounts. First of all, Dr. F. and I had one encounter on as single article months ago and he and I have never worked on World War II or military history articles, nor has this user ever been involved with any of my image uploads. The article was Lion Guard which I created around 2016 and, to date, is my first and only attempt at writing a modern political science article. The subject matter is also barely sourced, with mostly online material, as this group was founded during the 2016 presidential election, and disappeared quickly afterwards. When writing the article, I had first contacted the Maryland Republican Party asking for information. A response came simply stating this group was not recognized by them and they included a brief list of online sites and articles with a brief (one to two sentence) summary of what the articles entailed. To this, I attempted to write the article. About a year later, Dr. F. appeared and began to blank large parts of the article. I naturally asked why, to which he responded these were not reliable sources and some of them couldn't be verified. I agreed with most of what this user was saying, however the conversation soon took a downward spiral. The entire exchange may be found at Talk:Lion Guard, however here are some highlights
- The user was very demanding that his questions be answered quickly, often on the same day posts were made to the talk page and in the space of a few hours. I received multiple messages to answer questions and, after one period when I was away from computer access for few days, thsi message was left on my talk page [2]. After this, I choose to take this article off my watchlist.
- At one point during the debate, I asked Dr. F a point blank and frank question as to whether he had a conflict of interest with this group. In my opinion this made Dr. F. very angry and from there, I knew that it was best to leave both the article and this user alone. Shortly thereafter, an unregistered account from Baltimore made a similar statement [3]. Dr. F. immediately proceed to file a sockpuppet investigation, which was pretty baseless as I had no common edits with this ip and, I believe, it was probably someone out of the Maryland Rep. Party office in Baltimore adding to the conversation, albeit somewhat crassly.
- I have seen Dr. F. referring to statements that I refused to answer questions and lied on the talk page, and this is simply not true. I tried to be as open as I could about where the material came from, and at one point, gave him an e-mail address for one of the contacts. [4]
After the direction the article was taking, I removed both Dr. F.s user and the article from my watchlist and went about my business. I had no contact with this user, who mainly edits political articles, and went back to my military history work. About a year later, Dr. F. suddenly appeared again, apparently after seeing this message from another user on my talk page [5] in reference to this talk page post Talk:1st SS Police Regiment (section "Higher Command"). The conversation was not only civil, but non-controversial as the other user. Yet, in what I saw as an attack of Wiki-stalking, Dr. F. posted this message on the other user's talk page.
My conclusion about DrFleischman is that they are not here now for constructive reasons. I think they are harboring anger and a grudge from the Lion Guard article, especially the suggestion that they were a COI editor. I have had virtually no other contact with this editor, yet they see fit to say I am a liar and that what I write should be taken "with a grain of salt". I think the edit histories I have provided speak for themselves as I hope this editor's presence here now do not distract us from the real issue which is the copyrighted Schindler factory photo I uploaded. -O.R.Comms 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I harbor no grudge. I only want to help other editors avoid further disruption by advising them that they should expect solid backup before relying on your representations, which have often proven to be grossly inaccurate. If your representations are accurate then that shouldn't be a problem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- One more tidbit. Just for kicks I tried sending an e-mail to the address OberRanks provided. It got bounced back with:
The e-mail address you entered couldn't be found.
Granted it's been a while, but these sorts of government e-mail addresses rarely get removed; rather, when they're decommissioned, e-mails get auto-forwarded to the updated address. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
@DrFleischman: - Dr. F, I think i still have this right since I am not banned and still have talk page access. Per talk page guidelines, I would like you to cease making any further posts on my talk page. Any comments or evidence about my actions on Wikipeida feel free to post directly on the talk pages of the users and administrators you wish to share them with. If this matter is reviewed by Arbitration in a few months, I will make a note to alert you so, you can comment there as well. Thank you! -O.R.Comms 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Further comments
I see lots of people I trust, saying that OR is a problem user. However, the idea of copyright recidivism is not really supported by the deleted contributions log. I note that OR puts his hands up tot he copyvio above. I think it highly unlikely that any admin will unblock without wider participation. I think we should take this for review to somewhere (FSM knows where, though). Guy (Help!) 21:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- @JzG:Thank you Guy, I appreciate your comments and will withdraw for a little while to allow you and Neill to come to a final decision. I've also been contacted via e-mail by others, including some admins, who have suggested letting this process conclude and either revising the case in a few weeks on IRC or taking the matter to Arbitration Committee. I am not sure if I will do either of those things but will keep it under consideration. I think now that you have the real world information about who I am, how this image came about, as well as my history on doing this type of research, I would hope its obvious I didn't do this on purpose. As I explained over e-mail, this is still entirely my fault, and I'm willing to take a years long or even permanent ban on uploading images in order to resolve this. As to these comments by others that I am a lair and a serial copyright offender, these statements simply aren't true as I take pride in my work and have integrity. I think such comments are distracting and I have nothing further to say about them. In any event, thank you and Neill for your review of this case and I look forward to its conclusion. Please contact via e-mail if you need anything else. -O.R.Comms 15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
STLArmorDPRC.jpg Photo
@Huon: - I provided the two reviewing admins in the block case above extensive non-public data about where that photo came from, and when it was taken, which was actually done at the time through my employer. As far as closing the block discussion, I would have preferred Neill or Guy take that action, since they have a large amount of material about this case which I couldn't post on Wikipedia. However, I was advised the matter would most likely have to be forwarded to a higher level in any event, so it's a non-issue. -O.R.Comms 20:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- You listed the St. Louis image as a "Personal photograph from 2002", more precisely 2002-10-13. That doesn't seem accurate unless you can explain why its metadata says it was taken in 2005 with a camera that wasn't on the market in 2002. You listed the concentration camp image as a "Personal photograph", stated "Previously published: N/A", and dated it "17 May 2005". That also doesn't seem accurate unless you can explain how The Guardian published it in 2016, crediting it to one of their staff, and the buildings look much more dilapidated than in the 2004 images. I don't know what non-public information you may have sent JzG and NeilN; the public information is pretty obviously wrong. If the non-public information confirms that you're the copyright owner, WP:OTRS is the way to go. Huon (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Huon: - I would say delete that photo, and in a few months I can provide OTRS information in an undelete discussion. I am not too concerned about that photo as I can provide ample evidence it was taken through my work, but to do so now would reveal even more private information about my identify and occupation. The information I provided to Guy and Neil is more personal information than I have ever given to any other Wikipedia administrator. Yes, I uploaded a copyrighted image, but it was a mistake and there are numerous mitigating circumstances, again tied to non-public information about myself and occupation. I really appreciate your comments and review, and will respect them. It was suggested via e-mail, by another pretty senior Wikipedia administrator, that I let this lie for about six to eight months and then contact Arbitration Committee directly. I think that's a good idea, as it will also show that I am non-disruptive during that period and will not try to evade this block. I also appreciate your comments about WP:NOTTHEM; my main trouble about this situation has been the personal attacks that occurred during this discussion, comments about being a liar and a serial offender, as well as this effort at canvassing by an editor who was completely uninvolved with these image uploads [6][7]. Anyone who knows who I am outside Wikipedia would know I am not that type of person. That too is a matter for ArbCom to consider, when and if this goes before them. In the meantime thank you for your time and maybe we will talk again in a few months. -O.R.Comms 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
OTRS
@Huon: - I was advised this afternoon OTRS was sent relevant information about this image and where it came from under ticket #2018040510007327. I am unable to post this info to the image discussion page because of this current block, but maybe you can. I hope this clears this up about this photo I took nearly 16 years ago. I also appreciate the concerns about how similar this photo is to others on the Internet; as stated in previous posts, I think this is due to the location from which it was taken, which was a common vantage point from which the entire building could be seen across a public highway, and therefore used by a lot of photographers before this building was torn down. Its demolition was actually a widely covered event as it was a very historic building in the St. Louis area.
Regarding the Schindler factory photo, I plan to contact arbitration in six to eight months as the circumstances of how I came about that photo are deeply intertwined with my real world identidy and employment. -O.R.Comms 17:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- OTRS tickets are private; I'm not at liberty to discuss them here. Huon (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Outing attempt / Blank Main Page
@Huon: - Since you were the administrator who declined the above block request, can you please permit the blanking of my main user page until this matter is resolved. This past week there was a somewhat serious outing attempt where someone with full knowledge of this situation contacted my employer, attempting to determine my identity, and also brought up that I was committing copyright violations on Wikipedia and should be investigated. I have no proof of who this was, only suspicions.
I would like the main user simply blanked as there is information about myself on there (age, location, employer, etc) that I do not want visible. I understand it will be in the page history, but at least not openly visible, beyond my control to edit. If it is allowed, I could also have one of the IT personnel at my office to blank the page, but did not want to break rules about WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. I would like to add there were some legitimate concerns here, especially about the Schindler photo which I did make a mistake about, but it is disturbing that some have seen fit to now take this into the real world. I may not wish to file any further unblock requests after this, or return to Wikipedia. Thank you. Copying @JzG: & @NeilN: as other involved administrators. Thank you for your consideration. -O.R.Comms 14:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've blanked your user page. Let me know if you'd like it deleted (that is permitted). If you want it deleted, it can be restored at any time at your request. --NeilN talk to me 14:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Block review
The ultimate cause of this block seems to have been a succession of 3 or 4 copyvios spread out of 11 years. From the information given, and some seem to have been defensible borderline cases, some errors in understanding the data--none of them seem a downright attempt at defiance of our rules. I do not consider that a particularly terrible record. There are also charges of "lying" -- I simply do not see this, though I do see a continuing quarrel between two editors.
At most this might justify a short block, but an indefinite block seems altogether excessive. I'm unblocking. There's been a month time served, and that is sufficient. I give the advice, and it's just advice , that OR and FPAS might do well to avoid each other on WP in the futture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 00:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, DGG. In respect to the promise I made to the reviewing admins, and others on the IRC regarding this situation, I am going to impose upon myself a one year ban on uploading any images. I also agree its best to simply avoid those who have problems with my account. -O.R.Comms 15:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination of Emergency War Order for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emergency War Order is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency War Order until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sandstein 19:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)