User talk:Gabrichidze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Images 3 Self promotion 4 Mermaid 5 Please stop removing them. 5.1 Fair warning 6 "Chess Revolution" Surrealist Art by Gabrichidze 7 WP:SOCK 8 Vandalism

[edit] Welcome!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Wikipedia has strict policies about copyrights; please see Wikipedia:copyrights an read carefully section about image use. Copyrighted images and images of unknown source are deleted from wikipedia. Please provide the source of the images you uploaded and their copyright status. mikka (t) 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gamarjoba,

Please read Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Also, I repeat, please read and understand Wikipedia:copyrights and GFDL. It is insufficient that you grant rights to wikipedia. You works must be release under one of free or fair use licenses, so that you works may be used in wikipedia and all derived places that conform to GFDL. In addition image source must be indicated. mikka (t) 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images removed for failure to comply with rules. Only free, public domain and fair use licenses are allowed. Unused images are deleted as well. Wikipedia is not a gallery. mikka (t) 05:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you will continue to put your painting, which do not ad information on the subject into various articles, you will be banned from editing for trolling. mikka (t) 05:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self promotion

Hi. I removed the image because - regardless if you are the real Gabrichidze or not, the edits smell very strongly like self promotion. Gab seems to be an artist that is only locally known, and by far not yet famous enough for major articles. Also, the images you uploaded are labeled as fair use. Please be advised that the Wikipedia recently changed its rules, and will no longer allow fair-use images [1]. Only images that allow 1) derivative works and 2) commercial use as for example licensed as public domain, GFDL, or CC-BY are still allowed. All other images will be deleted in the near future. Please either change your license, or expect deletion of the images. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I am afraid you misunderstood which categories of images will be deleted. "Fair use" is not forbidden unconditionally. mikka (t) 16:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2Cris. 73 .Many thanks for your suggestions. If copyright status shell be changed it will be changed, but for a time being we keep it fair use. Feel free to edit and re edit the articles which seem like self promotion to you but note to things: Self promotion as such isn’t a crime, not is it a Focus on the content of the article, and on the image itself for that matter. Lets say after the ordeal with deletion(which was inspired by other dispute anyway) we will make Nick Gabrichidze create an illustration to some articles at wikipedia which are now screaming for some attractive graphic content, would you object? and if yes why, only because this images will be sighed by the name you se not to fancy? And if yes on which grounds? If you write an article and sign it. Apparently you do self promotion and you have all rights to do so, because you should receive some credit for your work. If artist does an artwork for wikipedia he also shell sign, is it right?

Note: From a point of view of pure logic writing an article about any leaving person is a promotion. So you may come to the conclusion that we do promote Nick Gabrichidze here otherwise we would not take our time to write an article. We also do promote some other people like A.F.Th. van der Heijden or Dutch Provo’s which was written by our friend Peter(he occasionally writes here). But we do it not for profit, we believe to contribute to wikipedia that way. So please stop worry about promotion and focus on article itself.

Please also check the note at VfD page and have a nice day. Gabrichidze 11 : 59 June 21 (UTC)

About deletion of fair-use images: There seems to be some uncertainty about that, I will investigate further. As for now, I will not delete your images. Sorry for the confusion. About Self-promotion: it is not a crime, but it is really despised at Wikipedia, and other "artists" of dubious notability have been running into similiar problems. Personally, I think many of your immages are not really of any help for some articles. About Plato: I looked at the page before, and decided to leave the image there, since it is actually marginal useful (although IMHO artistically of low quality). However, promoting yourself as a famous artist on many other articles is a strong exaggeration, you may or may not have some local fame in your town, but otherwise you are a nobody just like me. Please restrain yourself about adding further links to your article (should it survive Vfd). -- Chris 73 Talk 11:29, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion Chris. Well if one is a successful actor in small village of Hollywood then one is successful interne nationally, even if many actors in let' say Baghdad or Abilene, Texas.. If one is successful as an artist in Amsterdam(if one works in Europe) or NY(in North American case) it is enough to be considered successful internationally. It is unfair I agree, because someone who is engaged in arts or acting in let's say Mozambique might be 100 times more talented then Britney Spears or Andy Warhol but this is how entertainment and arts world is set. About image at Plato: I wrote at the discussion page there that best solution will be moving it to the cave allegory section, however some other user of that page seems to like the painting and decided to run a poll about keeping it there(poll was not began by me, check it out please). I think it would be fair to let it run for a week or so, instead of engaging the editors war like 173 is doing there. BTW same about surrealism: image was put there not by me(you tend to believe that everyone who supports Nick Gabrichidze here is a sockpupet but it is not the case, believe it or not) and was then edited and formatted by sparkit who is maintaining that page occasionally. So please stop focusing on promotional side of the things and lets focus on improving the content of vkipedia together I will appreciate more detailed criticism about artistic quality of image at Plato, it will help understanding what type of images (style, quality, technique) wikipedians are looking for and will help avoiding misunderstandings in the future. If this page survives VfD we will appreciate your help in cleaning it up. (If you will help submitting it for clean up request it will be also wonderful).

Gabrichidze 2 : 05 pm 21June (UTC)

[edit] Mermaid

Please stop adding your picture to the mermaid and Plato pages (and others), and instead discuss on its talk page why you think it appropriate there, since it seems that several people disagree with you. In general we do not add paintings to encyclopedia articles that are not about art, and Wikipedia is not a vessel for self-promotion (see WP:VAIN for details). Finally, are you aware that if you are the author these paintings, you are basically forfeiting your copyright by uploading them here (see GFDL)? Yours, Radiant_>|< 08:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop removing them.

I am not restoring Nick Gabrichidze article(it took few hours to write it and I am not interested to do it again-if someone else will decide to write it then be my guest).

I never heard a word against content(images itself)I have added; only loud complaints against the fact that someone is editing the articles which other editors began to consider their own domain for some reason. I am adding the content to other articles with according to me is valuable. This recourse is advertising itself all over internet as a site where users can freely edit each others material, without submitting it for review first.If anyone doesn’t like the way wikipedia works were are tons of recourses and on line encyclopedias where one should suggest an article to the redaction first; then it will be edited and posted for others to read, but only the site administrators will be able to change the article. If one can not handle the way wikipedia works, then why don't this person use those other recourses(Webster, Encarta etc) instead of blaming other users for doing exactly what this site is supposed to be used for.

No I am not author of the paintings, author is Nick Gabrichidze who agrees to use his images on wikipedia. The fact that my nickname is Gabrichidze does not mean that I am physical person called Nick Gabrichidze. SO PLEASE STOP THIS SELF PROMOTION PARANOYA. I am more then open to discuss the material I am trying to add, but I am not going to answer any more intimidating questions about why I am giving myself a right to add the content to wikipedia or to edit some articles. Sorry. I do my contributions here in my free time and have no time to endlessly argue about why did I gave myself a right to add this or that content (without discussing content itself). I have a work to do..

• Well, people shouldn't consider an article their own domain. If you see that happening, you should politely inform them that they are wrong. But see, we have this problem a lot: editor A makes change X to some article, and editor B disagrees and undoes the change. At this point we have two options: either the two can keep reverting each other (an "edit war", which is considered harmful and may eventually lead to both being blocked), or they can try and talk it out. In the latter case, we attempt to establish consensus. In this particular case, the majority of users disagrees with you, so the images are removed. It's not about giving yourself the right - you have the right to add text or pictures, anywhere. You have a good reason for adding the content. But other people also have a good reason for removing it. So discuss it.

• I will accept your statement that you are not the painter of these pictures. However, in that case you should consider the fact that the images would fall under copyright law - and that Gabrichidze doesn't mind including them on Wikipedia is not enough. Wikipedia has a strict license called the GFDL, which means that he must personally and specifically relinguish certain rights to his paintings. Legal issues can be tricky, I'm afraid. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• All images you've uploaded are now listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please explain there why you think they are allowed to be included in Wikipedia. Radiant_>|< 10:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

This situation has nothing to do with copyright. There are no copyright related problems regarding those images

• Prove it. Radiant_>|< 10:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• What prove do you need? If you want give your email adress and the leter with signature from Nick Gabrichidze will be mailed to you(we know him well and he would not mind).Anything else? However this harastement from group of editors who just go around resourse,icluding teh pages they have never been previusely and removing the images of particular author should should stop. I allready posted a note at willage pimp, today i will see what other actons are possible

besides i request removal the VfD ag frm caucasophobia article.

I have not found any link to images of Gabrichidze at the Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please give a discription where can I find them

• Like I said above, "he would not mind" is not enough. Read the GFDL, our license. He must relinguish his right to a monopoly for distributing the image. And provide proof thereof. [{WP:CP]] does not mean the images will be deleted. It means they will be investigated by our copyright experts.
• Please do not remove VFD notices. Such a discussion will be closed (usually after five days, but we have a bit of a backlog).
• This is not harassment either. We have been informed at the noticeboard that you were unilaterally inserting the images in a number of locations, and decided to investigate. Radiant_>|< 10:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Crap. Who gave you a right to dispute the copyright status of the image you have not uploaded? You claim a copyright at this image? I am informing you that we have a permission from the aritist; if there is a form to fill in please do provide a link. Ther is no investigation neccesary please stop the vandalism, weare politely asking you one more time. I am removing all teh dispute tugs you have added to the nick Gabrichidze images, and reporting vandalism in progress(I guess it is adi vandalism if it's not gonna stop) if you will not give up. And what is "uniliteraly insertng the images"?

• You are wrong. The burden of proving that the image is usable here, lies at your side. Since it was created by a contemporary artist, it falls under copyright law, and may not be reproduced on Wikipedia unless we have express permission to do so. We cannot take your word for it, we need proof. I am not vandalizing anything, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with wikipedia procedures before claiming otherwise. Radiant_>|< 11:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair warning

Your persistent inserting of Gabrichidze images against consensual opinion is disruptive, and bordering on vandalism. If you keep this up, you may be blocked. Radiant_>|< 11:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? I am adding the content; in cases where it is disputed by other users I agree to run a poll like I did at Plato page. Your stalking is vandalism, which I will file. About copyright: you are not the copyright owner and have no information about the copyrigt status. Hence you 1)have no grounds to clam copyright violations based on your personal PoV 2)Have offered no solution to "proof" you need

Please back up your claims about Copyright violation before tagging the image

I will check how can I protect myself from this endless harrastement. Are you a mikka's sockpuppet by any chance? The style of editing is surprisngly similar

• WP:NPA. Attacking me doesn't prove anything.
• Like I said before, The burden of proving that the image is usable here, lies at your side. Since it was created by a contemporary artist, it falls under copyright law, and may not be reproduced on Wikipedia unless we have express permission to do so. We cannot take your word for it, we need proof. Radiant_>|< 11:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am filing a report abut vandalism and stalking. You do not have any proof to back up you claims about copyright volations, you keep harrasing the user with absoluely absurdic caims to prove that images which are uploaded by this user aren't illegal(the sufficient box was checked when each image was uploaded) and you refuse to provide any friendly advice or link to the sufficient page where the proof you ask for can be presented (unsurprisngly becuase judging by how fast you ae you have put any page where image by NG may appear on your watch list ad removing them around the clock either by mikalai or radiant nickname your motivation is not the copyright) You(and your sockpuppets) are obviousely obsesd with an idea to remove certain data you dislike from wikipedia. If you will not stop there will be other option but filing a complaint. Thats end of discussion

• One more time.
  1. You did not create the image. You said so above.
  2. The image is copyrighted. Automatically true, from copyright law.
  3. Copyrighted images may not be put on Wikipedia without permission. Wikipedia policy, AND copyright law.
  4. The creator of the image must give permission - not just to allow the image, but to release it under the GFDL.
  5. Have you read the GFDL? If not, do so first.
  6. Since you are not the creator, we cannot take your word for it.
  7. Like I said before, proof goes to WP:CP.
  8. WP:NPA.
  9. WP:CIV.

Radiant_>|< 12:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse me but what particular proof do you need? The copright status for this works are exactly teh same as for any otehr work used at wikipedia. Please note one more time: you can not harras user laiming him for copyright violation wihout any back up for your claim. Please stop removing the copyright tugs from imaging and stop replasing them with copyright disute tugs based on your PoV

Also: Please note that Wikipedia has a rule that forbids editors from reverting a page more than 3 times per day, offenders may be blocked. For details see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, for listing of offenders see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Then block yourself first.And do not forget to check on radiant and mikka versions of yours

How many sockpupets mikka has?

• More specifically, releasing something under the GFDL would make the image freely available for anyone to use including for commercial purposes. I doubt that's the artist' intention. Providing proof, as in uploading a copy of a message of consent or a message coming from an email adress which can be verified as belonging to the artist's legal representative would be a start.

-- Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• "More specifically, releasing something under the GFDL would make the image freely available for anyone to use including for commercial purposes. I doubt that's the artist' intention"

No it is not. I would not put the email address here, because we have a serious doubt about mental health of some users and their intentions(no one likes to receive tons of spam and/or viruses). However we can provide either artists business phone number, or if there is a wiki-form to fill we will do so(we even will ask artists to put his digital signature); and will list every image there. Copy of the message from artist can be uploaded too. But please, to avoid another round of skirmish with a local rule fricks, can you tell us exact text you want artist to sign and upload ok? Images are under fair use currently. If some are under GFDL then it applies for digitalization and use at wikipedia only. However after the vandal intervention of mikkalai and his clones(sock puppets) I am not sure what labels the images have at the moment. This users edit the images of Nick Gabrichidze in the tempo of videogame removing my tags and adding their own (or deleting the images). Honestly I use wikipedia only in my spare time and can't catch up with them.. If someone wants to investigate the images please revert each to the last version edited by Gabrichidze first OK?

Gabrichidze 1:03 June 23 UTC

Hi. Two things: First: If the artist has a website, he can release the images under the GFDL or a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA on the website. This would also work, and Wikipedia cound simply refer to these licenses. Second: GFDL applies worldwide, forever. You cannot license the images to Wikipedia only under the GFDL. GFDL means (in summary) anybody can use the image for free, including commercial purposes, as long as the artist receives credit and the image stays under the GFDL license. If you want to commercially use the images in the future, then I would advise against uploadin them at Wikipedia. Also a more general comment: Other users have tried to (ab)use wikipedia for promotion of themselves before, and many regular users are very wary of any signs of (self) promotion. Wikipedia is an encxclopedia, not an advertising vehicle. If you want to contribute, then maybe you could do some other edits that are unrelated to Nick or his works. Just an idea. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:44, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

edits: There are two people writing from this IP (me and user jumber)If you will check our contributions you will see that we have done quiet few. Actually the many of the topics who have had nick work as illustration also received some additional material, plus few interesting contributions to art articles(not only nick related ones), for example Andy Warhol related fair use image and some info at pop art page, and don’t forget caucasophobia which started the whole holly war(will someone bother remove the VfD decoration from there please)..Also mikkalai was right about astofuging(or whatever it is called) we did send emails to few friends asking to help with VfD page and contribute to wiki. Most did, I have-not kept the track on all of them, but some wrote very interesting material about Dutch Provo’s for instance, and something else I suppose..

Anyway we would write more but you guys kept us so busy deleting each image we had uploaded(not only from article's but even from wiki content and feature picture page) and tagging them with copyright dispute marks 5 seconds after appearance at wikipedia that there was no time to write another article. Honestly even if we will contribute it will be more interesting to write another article about something socio-political instead of participating in VfD voting like many editors do. We do not mind Gabrichidze page being removed(if somebody else will rewrite it then ok, be my guest, but I wash my hands) but what happened at caucasophobia page was really a shock. And image related aggression was even more shock-after all this resource is screaming for some extra visual material.. I also have noticed similar aggressive and in some cases even bigot responses to some other articles regarding hot political topics would it be Islam, polygamy(our image-related editor war was an oil into the fire of already going conservative vs. liberal one about text) . If I will decide to engage myself into that type of abusive style of discussion I will enter an unmoderated opinion forum, thanks. So we are ambivalent about doing something else at wikipedia for a time being but I will keep watching how things will develop. Copyright: Fair use is most suitable currently. Most images have had fair use tags before mikkalai or his sockpuppets began vandalising them(what they have now I do not know).The on-line sourse was also given at the most cases(Check the first uploaded images).It is a Nicks photo albom, still available at the user bio page where content from his page was removed(see Nick Gabrichidze Vfd page for details) As far as I see many articles use fair use images,and it is not a problem but it is not suitable for featured image. About GFDL we have to think, and also consider it if some of the works will be submited for featured image again.

Gabrichidze 12 : 14 June 24 UTC

• One small explanation... tagging the images with {{imagevio}} is not an attack - it is a matter of process. The tag reads This image is a possible copyright infringement, which basically means that our copyright team will take a look at it, and clear that up. They are quite knowledgeable about such matters, and can decide whether it actually is such. Fair use is often discouraged. And another thing, I am not Mikkalai. It just so happens that we have a warning mechanism here, and you triggered it, so several users investigated. Radiant_>|< 01:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• What team? You guys are having a police force here?LOL

This image is a possible copyright infringement

What grounds you have to offend uses with such crap? You people are trolls.

I have more important things do then playing some childish games.Go get the life Gabrichidze

• Yes, we have a police force here, precisely to deal with disruptive users such as yourself. Think on that before spewing more personal attacks. Radiant_>|< 09:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• You overastimating the importance of your web-site.

Keep acting like a center of univerce and abusing users and you will have no traffic at all very soon

Obviusely it is allready nothing but a agressive unmoderated chat where one can't even report abuse. Not the first one atthe net and nt the last

(written by Gabrichidze)

[edit] "Chess Revolution" Surrealist Art by Gabrichidze

"Chess Revolution" by Nick Gabrichidze is a Surrealist Masterpiece! I fully support the display of this artwork in the Surrealism article. Please put it back in.Classicjupiter2 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nick Gabrichidze is a Surrealist Genius!!! VIVA GABRICHIDZE!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 22:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SOCK

Please stop using sockpuppet accounts to put images on Wikipedia that violate copyright law (not to mention our regulations against self-promotion). We're seriously not fooled. Radiant_>|< 12:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Altering other people's comments on talk pages and changing attribution of signed comments is considred Wikipedia:Vandalism. Knock it off or you can be blocked from editing. -- Infrogmation 21:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)