Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic warnings. (No source/no license/copyvionote) Why? Because it's counter-productive and therefore a waste of your time.
If you notice a user already has a dozen recent warnings, or if you've got 10 more to add, instead of adding another one which they're just as likely to ignore, take the time to write a short sharp warning explaining * specifically what they're doing wrong (not "violating copyright" - "uploading logos" "uploading screenshots" "uploading random images from the web") * why it's wrong (like: source is require for all images - logos are considered unfree - screenshots don't take any new copyright) * relevant policy pages (usually Commons:Licensing) * where they can ask for help (their talk page, if you watch it, your talk page, Commons:Help desk / Village pump in their language) * the principle of WHEN IN DOUBT, ASK BEFORE UPLOADING. * that if they upload any more files and ignore what you've taken the time to say, then they will be blocked.
And if they do that, then block them. If you're not an admin, ask one to block them.
While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page. This is a good chance to drill home source/licensing requirements and the like, if they stick around.
The aim of the warnings is to try and make users understand the importance of various copyright requirements. Spamming their talk page is not further to that aim, so it should be avoided. "Notifying the uploader" is not the real aim: making them understand is.
As a rough guide, I would say first block, 1 or 3 days. Second block, 3 days or a week. Third block, a week or a month. Fourth block, I'd want to know a very good reason why it shouldn't be permanent. It all depends on the specific circumstances of course, like exactly how many images they're uploading, if they're giving false licenses, if they're responding to messages and warnings, if there's a language barrier, etc.
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
I agree. This tends to happen on Wikipedia a lot. Thousands of talk pages are full of the same subst'ed templates. Over the years, I'm sure this will add up to several gigabytes of wasted space (and years of wasted time).
On 18/07/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Please don't spam user-talk pages with generic warnings. (No source/no license/copyvionote) Why? Because it's counter-productive and therefore a waste of your time.
If you notice a user already has a dozen recent warnings, or if you've got 10 more to add, instead of adding another one which they're just as likely to ignore, take the time to write a short sharp warning explaining
- specifically what they're doing wrong (not "violating copyright" -
"uploading logos" "uploading screenshots" "uploading random images from the web")
- why it's wrong (like: source is require for all images - logos are
considered unfree - screenshots don't take any new copyright)
- relevant policy pages (usually Commons:Licensing)
- where they can ask for help (their talk page, if you watch it, your
talk page, Commons:Help desk / Village pump in their language)
- the principle of WHEN IN DOUBT, ASK BEFORE UPLOADING.
- that if they upload any more files and ignore what you've taken the
time to say, then they will be blocked.
And if they do that, then block them. If you're not an admin, ask one to block them.
While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page. This is a good chance to drill home source/licensing requirements and the like, if they stick around.
The aim of the warnings is to try and make users understand the importance of various copyright requirements. Spamming their talk page is not further to that aim, so it should be avoided. "Notifying the uploader" is not the real aim: making them understand is.
As a rough guide, I would say first block, 1 or 3 days. Second block, 3 days or a week. Third block, a week or a month. Fourth block, I'd want to know a very good reason why it shouldn't be permanent. It all depends on the specific circumstances of course, like exactly how many images they're uploading, if they're giving false licenses, if they're responding to messages and warnings, if there's a language barrier, etc.
regards, Brianna user:pfctdayelise _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Hi Wikipedians,
Brianna Laugher wrote on 07/18/2006 05:04 PM:
While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page.
Do they? I haven't tested it at the Commons, but in DE. A blocked user (in DE) is not able to edit his talk page. It's blocked like every other page.
Bye, Tim.
Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote:
Hi Wikipedians,
Brianna Laugher wrote on 07/18/2006 05:04 PM:
While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page.
Do they? I haven't tested it at the Commons, but in DE. A blocked user (in DE) is not able to edit his talk page. It's blocked like every other page.
Bye, Tim.
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
That should be reported to wikitech-l; as far as I know, the "blocked users can edit their own talk pages" fix was enabled everywhere around this time last year.
Essjay
No, it wasn't. At first it was only enabled on enwiki. On commons was activated on Brianna's request. "Essjay" wrote: Tim 'avatar' Bartel wrote: Hi Wikipedians,
Brianna Laugher wrote on 07/18/2006 05:04 PM: While they're blocked they can still edit their talk page.
Do they? I haven't tested it at the Commons, but in DE. A blocked user (in DE) is not able to edit his talk page. It's blocked like every other page.
Bye, Tim.
That should be reported to wikitech-l; as far as I know, the "blocked users can edit their own talk pages" fix was enabled everywhere around this time last year.
Essjay
Hi Wikipedians,
Platonides schrieb am 07/19/2006 10:32 PM:
No, it wasn't. At first it was only enabled on enwiki. On commons was activated on Brianna's request.
I see.
I should have tested it on Commons before writing my mail. On the other hand now I'm more informed than before :-)
Bye, Tim.