Can English Wikipedia Admins seriously not just stay the fuck away from Commons unless they know the VERY BASICS?

Good, bad, biased, paid or what-have-you. There's an endless supply.
Post Reply
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Warrior
Posts: 712
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 110 times

Can English Wikipedia Admins seriously not just stay the fuck away from Commons unless they know the VERY BASICS?

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:34 am

This is getting tedious now.

I have how seen THREE extremely high ranking en.wiki Administrators talk UTTER BOLLOCKS on/about Commons, but with ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE they were in the right.

Commons isn't a mystery. As a bare minimum requirement, they only take free licenses, and they don't want copyright content, so before you accuse anyone there, even a new user, of intentionally breaking either of these basic rules, you better be sure they aren't more capable of following them than your dumb ass, either because the user themselves knows, or has already been assisted in this task with tools or guidance.

I don't think it was any coincidence that all three are straight old white dudes.

First it was Ritchie333, who got so absolutely outraged that he even tried to start a revolution against Commons after their perfectly sound deletion of his photo of the Trump Baby blimp. In the UK, non-permanent 3D artworks are copyright, and so taking a photo of one is a derivative work. Fucking basic stuff.

Even more basic was the more recent example of two utter morons spouting off as if they know shit about shit.

Beeblebrox was quite sure that YouTube videos are copyrighted. Seemed to come as quite the surprise to him that yes, some can be released on free licences, and so un-fucking surprisingly, Commons editors have tools etc, to find them. Arrogant prick didn't even apologise when he realised he had fucked up, and indeed seemed to think he was due a doggie biscuit for having even noticed all by himself, AFTER he had put them up for deletion, that he was talking utter crap.
Description indicates the Christie image is extracted from a YouTube video, thus making it almost certainly not a free image. I've taken it out of use and will nominate it for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I see that whatever ORCA media is does license it's videos with a CC license, but these images are horrible anyway and should not be in use..... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
And now I've just seen Cullen try and pull the exact same shit......
The Ilhan Omar interview is an upload from The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth, a commercial series on Showtime (TV network). In my opinion, the odds that this is a copyright violation are about 99.9%. Why would a business like Showtime freely license their content? So, the uploader looks to me like someone with zero understanding of copyright restrictions....... Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
The source YouTube video appears to be uploaded by the copyright holder, and the video info indeed claims it's licensed under CC-BY, so this is not a slam-dunk license laundering case, but it is nonetheless rather suspicious. — The Earwig (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Once again, absolutely no apology!

I wouldn't have ordinarily bothered to start this as a topic, but since Wikipediocracy are apparently duty bound to their membership (which of course includes Beeblebrox and Ritchie333) to treat any and all statements by English Wikipedia editors as gospel, and all statements by anyone on Commons as the word of a pornographer, a balance has to be given.

Not all Wikipedia critics are sell outs.

Post Reply