W?F	This Wikimedian opposes rebranding the WMF as Wikipedia.

This user opposes the Wikimedia Foundation's arbitrary, opaque, and dictatorial office-banning of administrators when the community and ArbCom are more than capable of handling the issue themselves.

Welcome!

Hello, Alexis Jazz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1

Some of your images or media files have been listed for discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 January 1 if you are interested in preserving their usage.

• File:Semnan Damghan train collision.jpg
• File:Semnan Damghan train collision wreckage.jpg

Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 09:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Minister of defense Mohammad Hossein Jalali.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. Wikiacc (¶) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 09:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Second World War Memorial in San Marino.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. Wikiacc (¶) 09:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Wikiacc (¶) 09:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you responded to my recent VMware image move request. Since this is a personalized request, and you know exactly what you need to do ;p, could you please move File:VMWare Fusion 7.0 Icon.png as well? Thanks. Silikonz (alternate account) (💬│🖋) 09:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silikonz-alt:  Done — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a thank you to all contributors to Wikipedia, who are excellent at writing correct English. (After all, they are the ones who pick up much of the slack when others add content imperfectly.) Regards from a Scandinavian i.p. ! 89.8.71.4 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about me not filing enough rename media’s, however Alexis, I did nab both this & this today. I really do put in effort. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was having the hardest time bringing that file into full compliance with all of the pertinent Wikipedia protocol, specifically the file data and display sizes, some red squiggly lines that were appearing in it (because I had imported it from the original PDF to Word, without also doing an edit check, and did a screen capture on it to be able to save it as an image that I could upload), and then that bot "chasing me" (as you said) because I hadn't specified the origin or creator (which I had, I just had forgotten that one bracket, as you noticed and corrected, earlier up the page which threw the code off for the rest of the page which apparently did not register with that bot), so Thank You. I am not the very greenest of Wikipedians, but I know I can always learn more, especially from one so obviously proficient and advanced as you. QuakerIlK (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adjusting the photo. There is a discussion on the talk page as to whether the photo should be reverted to the old one, and one editor feels that it is too dark and his facial features are not so clear. This is why I tried to adjust it. Amirah talk 14:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 15 § Orphaned files uploaded by Krise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

If an editor claims the right of an image has been transferred to them and the owner of he image has sent a mail to the OTRS to this effect, as non OTRS volunteers, Is there a way this claim can be verified? Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Essentially no, we are supposed to trust OTRS and the permission templates added to file pages by OTRS volunteers. (OTRS doesn't always manage to sniff out copyvios, so on occasion this is problematic, but what are you gonna do?) Obviously, if the identity of the owner is publicly known and they can be contacted off-wiki, you could attempt that. Also if you have severe doubts you could report your findings to OTRS, it's possible they retract the permission if you can prove it to be fraudulent. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that does make sense. Thanks for taking your time to explain this. Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexis Jazz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for all the support and having faith on my contributions. Best wishes — Amkgp 💬 17:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Carlossuarez46 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Hog Farm _Talk 04:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really need to say "I'm sure responsabilidad isn't in your dictionary either."? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@力: Yeah okay that could be shorter, changed it a bit. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Two questions:

1. Why do people want to be a party to the case? Is there some benefit (maybe glory) in being a party to the case? What about the drawbacks? Is it possible that users other than Carlos face sanctions in this particular case?
2. What does "resolving by motion" mean? How does it differ from a full case?

Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: He accused me pretty directly of conspiring in secret against him, I think that makes my statement relevant. Can't speak for others, I am unaware of benefits. But there is no community-based desysop vote process on enwiki (afaik), that might be why that ArbCom case kinda seems to turn into one.

I'm not the best person to ask as I have little experience with ArbCom. But wikt:motion should clarify: A parliamentary action to propose something. A similar procedure in any official or business meeting. The way I see it, a proposal is made and voted on. Otherwise, there's a bunch of stuff with numbers and timetables and having tea with the queen. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @4nn1l2: Being a "party" mostly means that you're one of the people directly involved. Like a lot of what happens at ArbCom, it's quasi-legal language borrowed from English court/judicial terms. As far as I am aware, ArbCom can pretty much sanction anybody, as long as it's the English Wikipedia. Resolving something by motion means that the committee feels the problem is simple enough that they can hold a quick vote on what to do, rather than having a full case, which requires several long steps and could take several weeks to conclude. GMG^talk 16:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several motions have been proposed at the case request you are a party to. If you would like to comment on them, you may do so in your section at the case request. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration that you were a party to has been resolved by motion. A permanent link to the motion can be found here and the announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a suspended case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have been working on the Wikipedia:Licensing update on many wikis and I noticed that Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates still get new files. I thought that was just due to mistakes. Then I made User:MGA73/sandbox to look for orphan GFDL-files to see if they are still useful or if they should be deleted. And as you noticed I nominated many for deletion. But I found a few recent files so I found out that it was not due to mistakes that files are uploaded as GFDL. My guess is as pointed out that some users use GFDL as a way to avoid commercial-use or as a way to keep the files away from Commons. I know that not all like Commons so that I can't fix. But I think we can do something about the non-commercial trick. But perhaps there are any good reasons why someone prefer GFDL. I just don't get them. --MGA73 (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Neither do I. I didn't notice any nominations for deletion beyond those two, I don't follow deletions regularly. I was on that page because I had nominated something myself that day. Users who dislike Commons or need local copy for any other reason can use {{Keep local}}. Do you have a list of recent GFDL files? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not have such a list. Should be possible to make one on https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But check this out Special:ListFiles/Jonathunder. --MGA73 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Yeah, that one's obvious. Though no reason to suspect that's using GFDL as a non-commercial backdoor as no CC-NC license is attached. I think some users use GFDL only to make a point. What that point would be is unclear. Something about all free licenses being equal or something. That was part of the opposition in the last proposal. The last proposal was poorly formulated anyway, it never had a chance. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think a new proposal need a better intro. I think that "lets do as Commons do" is the wrong start. It should be more like "WMF decided that ..... lets honor their wishes and make Wikipedia more free" or something like that. No need to mention Commons as a main argument. --MGA73 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: I believe the WMF has some plan to phase out GFDL entirely sitting in the fridge. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo. I have spend many hours trying to end the license migration project. So I would love to see things getting more standardized. Right now I work on ja.wiki and uk.wiki. --MGA73 (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I started on a suggestion at User:MGA73/GFDL. You are welcome to comment/modify. --MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I posted it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Restrict_uploads_of_GFDL. --MGA73 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I was planning to look at this again but half forgot and half got caught up in some big abadi scandal. I'm slightly concerned with the "The content is licensed GFDL by someone else than the uploader on Wikipedia." exception. Two photographers could make a deal to upload each other's photos. Kinda disruptive, but technically allowed under these rules. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed the proposal from VPP so the wording can be tweaked. Sorry again for not responding sooner, but I'd hate to see the proposal fail because it needed a few tweaks and have to wait a year before it can be brought up again. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is not a guarantee but I think it is hard to make it bullit proof. But go ahead and give it a try. --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Any further comments/suggestions or are we ready to go? --MGA73 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, I see Pandakekok9 also noticed the proposal, so it has been proofread by one more user. Yeah, I think it's good. I bumped the deadline as the voting/discussion could last beyond 1 June, also did some more copy editing. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posted again Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Restricting_GFDL-licensed_uploads. Thank you for your help. --MGA73 (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Masem support to restrict GFDL for Wikipedians but not for third party sources. As you know it is not easy to implement because it is possible to get passed that by uploading to Flickr and then to Wikipedia.

How are the rules/practice for modifications of a suggestion in progress? If Masem (or any one else) knows a good third party source could we then add that to the exceptions list? I never heard of such a source but if it exist I'm not totally refusing to make an exception. --MGA73 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGA73, don't modify a proposal in progress. It would invalidate all the votes. Masem, I added a note to remind users that if the need would actually arise (which is highly theoretical at this point), a new vote could establish consensus to make an exception for a specific source. Because many Wikipedians are active on various self-published sources, policy that only limits Wikipedians is difficult to write. (suggestions always welcome) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes it would be possible to make future exceptions so I think it is a good idea to mention that. --MGA73 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive332#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed has been archived.

Xeno pinged me yesterday in their talk page, but I just don't understand what they say at User_talk:Xeno#Iranian_abadis and I don't want to pester them with my deletion requests. What is exactly the stumbling block? Could you perhaps provide a "for dummies" version? Is manpower needed? If yes, then I can provide it. I just want to finish this project on Iranian abadis as soon as possible, because I have been dealing with them for at least two months in at least two projects and I don't want to see anymore of it. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4nn1l2: I think Xeno wants to create redirects where appropriate, but it's unclear to me exactly which articles/redirects they want to create redirects for. So I can't really help either beyond the creation of {{subst:ABADI}} which I hope might speed up whatever Xeno wants to do. Btw, there is a similar mass deletion request for Azerbaijan articles created by Carlossuarrez46: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Azerbaijan articles created by Carlossuarrez46. You had actually voted on the original request but that was archived. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Majidabad-e Ardalan redirect to Majidabad? 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These have the same condition, i.e. a very specific place name goes to a general disambiguation page. I think dab pages should redirect readers from general pages to specific ones, not vice versa.

• Amirabad, Ilam to Amirabad?
• Mokhtarabad, Jiroft to Mokhtarabad?
• Mohammadabad, Qanavat to Mohammadabad?
• Karimabad-e Kaffeh to Karimabad?
• Amirabad, Kashan to Amirabad?
• Soltanabad, Sarbisheh to Soltanabad?
• Mohammadabad-e Tabatbayi to Mohammadabad?
• Mehdiabad, Shahdad to Mehdiabad, Iran?
• Do Ab, Khuzestan to Do Ab?
• Do Ab-e Alishahi to Do Ab?
• Aliabad Zare to Aliabad?
• Hoseynabad-e Kachali to Hoseynabad?
• Akbarabad-e Do to Akbarabad?
• Soltanabad-e Tanbali to Soltanabad?
• Hasanabad-e Gudarz to Hasanabad?
• Mazraeh-ye Gorgan-e Bitaraf to Gorgan (disambiguation)?

This one may be correct, but not necessarily:

• Why does Zazul mention the Iranian abadi at all? Y

These are definitely wrong:

• Baba Adam (Iran) to Baba Adam Shahid (Bengal) N
• Tang-e Shur to Tang-e Shur-e Olya by you N

These are correct and understandable:

• Chubdar Y
• Akbarabad-e Olya Y
• Sarsari Y

I'm still trying to understand what Xeno had in mind. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4nn1l2, Ymblanter made these, I don't think they are needed either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong ones have been created by you :)

Let's ping @Ymblanter: and know what they think about these redirects. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to nominate these for XfD. For the time being, I am creating these redirects because I do not think there is community consensus on whether they are needed or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. Regards, Heiro 21:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me a chuckle. I want it. jp×g 00:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, go ahead! I actually stole it from User talk:MjolnirPants. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Google Book page preview, here are few other tricks I learned over the years: 1) Amazon will sometimes offer a preview just like Google Books, usually for newer books 2) rarely, a copy of a book can be found on Internet Archive - usually for older works 3) then there are the 'shadow libraries' like Library Genesis or Z-Library. Those are very useful indeed, although there are 'minor ethical issues to consider :> Oh, and books aside, check out the Wikipedia:Library. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thanks! I'll be trying these. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this thread I filed. TAXIDICAE💰 21:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I am, thank you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 11:37 Qala‎ diffhist −16‎ Alexis Jazz talk contribs Rm links from disambig pages to Abadi and Azerbaijan stubs per request, report errors if you spot any rollback
• m 11:25 Kambu (disambiguation)‎ diffhist −78‎ Alexis Jazz talk contribs Rm links from disambig pages to Abadi and Azerbaijan stubs per request, report errors if you spot any rollback
• m 11:25 Kaleh‎ diffhist −24‎ Alexis Jazz talk contribs Rm links from disambig pages to Abadi and Azerbaijan stubs per request, report errors if you spot any rollback

YOu are probably running twinkle or some other automation. Please be careful with edit summaries. Wron summaries create confusion and waste of time for other wikipedianss. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lembit Staan, what's wrong about it? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is that it's not literally 100% exactly the problem that was initially reported on Ymblanter's user page, well this evolved from trying to solve that and the solution is the same. The general request was "clean up after yourselves" and that's what I'm doing. The articles either are or will be deleted and shouldn't be redlinked either. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your edit summaries create confusion. If you are cleaning after yourself, do it in proper order: first delete the page, then delink it. By the way, Kalleh, Kermanshah is not your article, so you cannot possibly do a "clean up after yourselves" . Lembit Staan (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for article deletion, please follow the procedure: prod or AfD. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Oh, I looked at Ymblanter's. OK never mind. If nobody notices what you are doing, in means nobody cares about these thousands of villages. My solution would be merge/redirect (I did this several times), but I agree it would be huge waste of time for nonnotable things. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lembit Staan, no problem! I'm not an admin, so I can't delete first but the admins are working on it and they have their hands full so I try to help out a little. And it's a little safer to delink before some unrelated article gets created/moved with the same title as one of these stubs. The deletion has already been approved, otherwise I wouldn't delink. You are so far the only one to have noticed these links to thousands of villages going away. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you opened the can of worms, Alexis Jazz and now you are tired :) While Carlos was not good at Persian, cleaning up the mess he left behind should be done by those who seem to have absolutely no clues about Persian or Iranian languages. What a sad story is happening on the English Wikipeida with all these misinformation about Iran :( Special:Permalink/1021087860 was a funny mishmash of Persian, Mazandarani, Arabic, and who knows[?] maybe other Middle Eastern things. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for moving the files I requested. I have a question though, why was File:Psycho-Cybernetics book cover (fair use).jpg renamed with (fair use) in the filename?Jonteemil (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto File:Love Tracks (Gloria Gaynor album) (fair use).jpg.Jonteemil (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonteemil, I've been meaning to start a discussion about that on a village pump. I generally add that to avoid (future) conflict with Commons. Since Commons doesn't allow fair use, adding that guarantees it'll never end up in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. In the case of that book cover, someone might upload it to Commons as PD-ineligible. Discussion may or may not follow and in the meantime it would sit in Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons. It can also happen that Commons fails to notice/delete the upload (example, local PD-USonly copy, DR for the same logo, see also c:Category:Sky logos) while enwiki decides it should remain local. In that case, the file would have to be moved again and that's what I want to avoid. For the Gloria Gaynor album, my idea is that someone may take a photo of the vinyl or CD (or perhaps a localized cover or re-release that might be PD-ineligible) for use on a Wikipedia without fair use and name it the same. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I mean, I get your thinking, however I'm not sure how clever it is to do something which hasn't been decided on. Then maybe it is better to first ask, then decide and thirdly apply the newly decided-upon policy. But then we both now that deciding something like this doesn't really get much attention so a decition often takes quite some time, and I guess being bold then isn't such a bad idea, if one's intentions are good. I was afterall the one who asked you to be just that earlier... and yes I know my critique might seem a bit hypocritical...Jonteemil (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been courteous to notify me that my uploads were being discussed above. Jonathunder (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathunder, assuming you are talking about Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Restricting GFDL-licensed uploads, an example was asked for. You were the first search result. Per WP:CANVAS I couldn't ping you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are still working on {{Not public domain/LangSwitch}} and related templates, so I won't modify them yet, but that template is calling three nonexistent templates that may need to be created. Note that at least one of those was already deleted, so proceed with care and make sure you justify the recreation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]