Jump to content

User talk:voorts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Specifics

[edit]

Please enumerate what you mean. Engage01 (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring a question. The 3 articles should be amended. Engage01 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ignoring a question. I was asleep. And, nobody is obligated to respond to you immediately. The next time you edit war, I will block you. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi, I noticed my upload (File: Haz Al-Din.png) was flagged for missing permission. I took the image from a public YouTube video thumbnail and cropped it, thinking that since Haz Al-Din is a niche public figure, it would fall under public domain or fair use. However, I now realize I may have misunderstood the licensing requirements. I have a few questions:

  • Does the original YouTube uploader (Haz Al-Din) hold the copyright to the thumbnail, or is it considered a derivative work owned by YouTube?
  • Since I cropped and modified the image, does that change the copyright status in any way?
  • Would I need direct confirmation from Haz Al-Din himself to approve the image for Wikimedia Commons, and if so, how should I obtain that?
  • What is the best license to use in this case? I initially thought public domain applied, but should I have chosen another option?

I want to make sure I follow the correct process - any guidance would be really appreciated! Thanks in advance! NEET FEET (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is owned by the copyright holder, presumably Haz Al-Din. You either need to get him to upload a photo, take one yourself, find an image that is compatibly licesned with Commons (which is where you uploaded the photo), or follow the Commons process for getting permission. All of that said, I recommended reading the notability guidelines again. It is unlikely that Al-Din meets them. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for the clarification! So just to be 100% sure - if I can get Haz Al-Din to upload a photo himself (or get his explicit permission via the Commons process), then the image would be fine? And for "compatibly licensed" images, does that mean something like a photo from a news article that uses a CC license?
I appreciate the guidance - I’ll check out the process again. On notability, I’m still looking into coverage, but he’s been in The Guardian, Newsweek, and Compact recently, so I figured he might qualify. Still learning the ropes here, though - any specific pointers on what counts the most? NEET FEET (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a news story isn't enough. We need in depth coverage about a person. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I understand now that it needs in-depth coverage. I’ll keep looking for more sources.
Just to clarify, have you had a chance to check my draft? I’m still working on it, and I’d appreciate any input on what might help improve it for notability.
Also, if a Commons-compatible image does become available, that would be fine for use, correct? Just making sure I get everything right before moving forward. NEET FEET (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need an image licensed appropriately for Commons. Your draft needs better sources. It doesn't establish notability right now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also bury the fact that he's considered to be a fringe voice. If anything, that would be what he's notable for. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2025).

Administrator changes

readded
removed Euryalus

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed

Technical news

  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edah HaChareidis - is this covered by ARBPIA?

[edit]

Nothing on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say probably, but I don't handle ARBPIA, so it might be best to ask an admin who does. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions? Doug Weller talk 17:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see @Vanamonde93 works on ARBPIA. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 05:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's sorted now. Doug Weller talk 10:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kash Patel on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing thread

[edit]

Hello, you closed that thread 1 min after the other editor made several allegations.

I want to add more to that discussion. Moribundum (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is in your interest to take a break, craft a good unblock request, and come back when everyone has cooled down. That thread would not have led to you being unblocked. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a new unblock appeal but awaiting further advice about its suitability. I don't know who you are suggesting needs to cool down.
The last comment on the thread you closed gave further "examples" of sourcing problems by harassing editor who continues to trawl through my edit history. Since sourcing concern was one of the reasons for block, reviewing admin will see that last comment and take it face value without any detailed breakdown or comment from myself. For example, MEDRS does not strictly apply to history section, since MEDRS relates mostly to health claims and not to historical info about a condition.
Further, I have checked the incorrect citation and identified the correct source which should have been placed here Talk:Pudendal_nerve_entrapment#Sources_in_history_section, but can't do anything about it because of ban. It was human error only.
Why did you close this thread 1 min after that comment? Moribundum (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of closing the thread before I saw that comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 19: WikiWednesday Salon

[edit]
February 19: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
Prime Produce on W 54th St

WikiWednesday is back! You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome!

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

Meeting info:

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Hello, Voorts

I appreciate your help sorting out the situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Query to admins. I have no idea why this editor views me so poorly but clearly everything I said or did was unsatisfactory and we needed a third party. I posted that query to gather feedback about my actions but it also helped resolve the IBan situation so it did serve a purpose.

Despite being an admin for close to 10 years now, this really hasn't happened to me very many times except when blocked editors occasionally return to vandalize my User talk page. And even that doesn't happen that much. I also have meant to say that for a new admin, you have been very, very busy, especially resolving complaints at AN and ANI. Many new admins would steer clear of noticeboards so thank you for all of your contributions since your RFA. It's made a difference. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. I'm happy to do it. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Hello Voorts. Not sure if it's you or Rosguill who will review Moribundums unblock request.

I will note they're again accusing me of censorship in what was meant to be a constructive discussion, and making repetitive WP:1AM arguments, as shown above and below comment here. Two other editors agreed their proposed paragraph was excessive for this article.

I also noted their use of a self published source 28 times in a MED article just a few weeks ago. Certainly not a few minor mistakes as they claim in their unblock request. I thought they might just address this instead of deleting it.

Maybe a case of WP:ROPE and seeing what they do with it though. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've recused myself from reviewing their unblock request as I think I'm too involved in the weeds at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy today. If there are issues that other admins need to review, do what you think is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks like Moribundum is doing a bit of WP:FORUMSHOP now after the post on Rosguill’s talk and now here to Liz. Tagging Liz in case the above is relevant.
On the other hand, Moribundum did suggest to Liz that their block could be lifted but stay in place on the ‘fecal incontinence’ article, which is where the dispute arose and where the incivility and WP:1AM has happened. A potential option. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CSD and compatible free license clarification

[edit]

Hey Voorts, quick question about the CSD you declined. I know the page has a {{free content attribution}} tag on it, I was the one to place it during cleanup. But in researching the license the for tag, I see that the source stipulates non commercial in their copyright licence, see [1]. And when I was making sure it was above board, my understanding of WP:COMPLIC as you linked to it in your declination edit summary, was that NC free linceses weren't compatible. If I'm wrong, that's fine, but would you mind clarifying? Many thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voorts&oldid=1274828390"