Anonymous IP

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, IP68.213.169.171!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

This is the IP address I used to work under and, in keeping with the spirit of anonymity, I'm keeping it, no matter where I go...sort of...

I also have an account on the English Wikipedia with well over 10,000 edits, so you aren't talking to a rookie here, no matter the edit history of this account. I choose to keep that account and this account unrelated. Perhaps I'll change my mind in the future.

White House portraits

Some discussion might have been nice as to why you feel these are all copyright violations. Please discuss somewhere, as it was my understanding that these paintings were all donated to the White House. A portrait for just about every president and first lady have been uploaded to Commons, most recently one for George W. Bush about three weeks ago, and there haven't been any claims of copyright violations. The logic that they were commissioned for work but may still retain the copyright can be said of any photograph ever taken of the president or first lady, including their official photographs. Some further explanation is needed. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• None of those are copyvios, as they are all works for hire and were displayed on the WH website. Evrik (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A work for hire does not mean they forgo their copyright. Perfect example is if you go to Sears for a portrait. They retain the copyright unless you purchase if from them. Relabeling accordingly for deleting. 69.153.70.180 04:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand copyright and the technical meaning of work for hire. Thank you for your enthusiam, but this zeal is misplaced. Durova (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Then explain it to me. 68.213.169.171 03:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Work for hire. Durova (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Okaaaaaaaaaay, even if we're going to go from that (and realize this is a Wikipedia article, not policy or law), please explain...

• "If a work is created by an independent contractor or freelancer (that is, someone who is not an employee), the work can be created as a work made for hire, or not. In order for it to be a work made for hire, all of the following conditions are required: i) the work must be specially ordered or commissioned; ii) the work must come within one of the nine categories of works listed in the definition above; and iii) there must be a written agreement in advance between the parties specifying that the work is a work made for hire."

There is no such agreement of which we are aware in the case of the portraits mentioned. If there is, then evidence of this contract should be provided and the images should stay.68.213.169.171 22:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Still waiting for an answer here... 68.213.169.171 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• <crickets chirping> 68.213.169.171 23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked, along with 69.153.70.180 (talk · contribs), for disruptive socking. Further reading here: User_talk:Durova/Archive_4#Still_waiting... Cirt (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WHAT THE ****!?!? How on earth did I do ANYTHING related to sockpuppetry?!?! You have no evidence of disruption WHATSOEVER!?!? I request an unblock to appeal such a decision. 68.213.169.171 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "Two admins are scratching each other's backs here. Semiprotecting your own page to prevent discussion is a bit inappropriate, IMHO. I asked for assistance/clarification. I also asked for guidance on where to go if their pages weren't the appropriate place. Instead all I got was a block for something I didn't even do. How is posting from an IP address sockpuppetry!?!? How is asking a question disruptive!?!? This is ridiculous!!!!" Unblock reason: "This block was placed in error, though the error was a reasonable one. I strongly suggest you create an account and use it." This template should be archived normally.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Please stay calm, I'm already investigating what's going on here.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. 68.213.169.171 01:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry about the flame answer, but this is beyond the pale. I asked for assistance/clarification. I didn't get an answer. All I got were accusations. I fail to see where I could possibly be accused of sockpuppetry. I'm one single person editing from one address. Maybe my IP address was moved by my Internet provider/hotel I'm staying at, but I'm not using that to portray any additional support, ergo, no sockpuppetry.

As for being disruptive. All I did was ask a question. Apparently I don't understand something with regard to this, but instead of an explanation rooted in some policy or guideline, all I got was, "I think like they do" and "the decision has been made". What's a guy to do?

This strikes me as QUITE inappropriate for an admin (who is supposed to be helpful). 68.213.169.171 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another related question: Since when are admins allowed to take unilateral action in an issue in which they are involved? 68.213.169.171 02:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any improper admin actions here - please feel free to point them out on COM:AN/U. Given your tone and persistence, I'm not surprised people were less helpful than you'd like. Please try to tone it down; Commons is a mellow place.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Inappropriate_redirect_of_an_IP_address_page_to_userspace.2C_and_inappropriate_username. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike said this place was more mellow, but acts like these cause me to feel the opposite. All you had to do was ask. You didn't need to bring it up and highlight me to all the admins. Geez. IP68.213.169.171 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Username

Could you please choose a new username which is not confusing? When usernames resemble IP addresses, it is confusing for other users. As well, they are very difficult to remember, which has social consequences in terms of communication and social cohesion. COM:CHU is only an edit away.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request sent. IP68.213.169.171 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)