User talk:Geo Swan/archive/2019 01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

TUSC token 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 70dfd90b6e52c9080a8e30c0dd592336 Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exposition of Tutankhamun Treasure in Seattle[edit]

Just trying to clarify, because there is no date in any parent category, nor a remark: is this intended to refer to a specific exhibit? The most famous Seattle exhibit of the Tutankhamun Treasure was probably the one in 1978, but none of these photos appear to date from that one. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am sorry, I don't remember. Geo Swan (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind of weird to have a category where we can't say what it is intended to cover. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the time I created the category I had uploaded some Tut images from a flickr site. I based the name of the category on the name of the original flickr uploader's flickr album. If you think the Seattle museum should have multiple categories devoted to Tut, that is fine with me. Alternately, if Seattle was just one stop for a traveling display, and you want a name that names the year, not the museum, that is fine with me, too. Geo Swan (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure these were from a traveling exhibit (but with no idea where else it may have gone, I'll stick with Seattle). But I think we should get a year into the category name because, as remarked above, it's not the most famous Tutankhamun-related exhibit in Seattle history. I'll do that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Hope you aren't too mad. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afghan village destroyed by the Soviets.jpg[edit]

File:Afghan village destroyed by the Soviets.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

IWPCHI (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which Kevin MacDonald?[edit]

I moved Category:Kevin MacDonald to Category:Kevin MacDonald (actor). I suspect you will view this as "harassment" and "hounding". It is not. It is simply doing what you should have done when creating the category. There are several other people named "Kevin MacDonald", some of whom even have categories here already. Please check such obvious things before creating categories. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticism is patent nonsense. A reader who didn't check those two categories might assume you had a valid point.
But you do not have a valid point, as it is long-standing practice to refrain from introducing pointless, unnecessary disambiguation. It only makes sense to create a category name, like Category:Kevin MacDonald (actor), when we have other images of a namesake, also named Kevin MacDonald.
I think practically everyone know better than to add pointless, unnecessary disambiguation to category names, and file names. It is worse than a waste of time, it is damaging in that it clutters up the namespace, and obfuscates what the categories really name.
We both know your past history of offering frankly unforgiveable non-professional mental health assessments. I am not going to follow your unforgiveable example, and speculate over what has triggered such an incredible focus of fault-finding that you find fault where none exists.
However, I know you saw my request to the administrator who blocked you for advice on how to have an interaction ban imposed on you. I believe this nonsense complaint further illustrates the importance of protecting the project from the damage wrought by your incredible focus of fault-finding.
As to avoiding genuine conflation of individuals, while there are times when it is obvious two individuals are namesakes, there are also a lot of namesakes where it is not obvious two individuals exist. And, there are instances where it seems obvious that there are two individuals, when, in fact, one individual has two disparate careers. Mistakes made in assuming two namesakes are a single individual, or that a single individual is two individuals are almost always instances of normal human fallibility. Fault-shaming good faith contributors occasional good faith mistake is, in my opinion, highly disruptive.
So, I am going to advise the administrator who blocked you, and pursue other's advice, on how to have an interaction ban imposed on you. Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of contributors strongly object to unnecessary disambiguation. Those contributors would assert that it doesn't matter whether this individual named Kevin MacDonald had namesakes, also named Kevin MacDonald, who our wikipedia colleagues would consider notable, so long as we don't have any images of them.
I started categories on dozens of individuals involved in the Canadian film and television industries, over the last few days. A minority of them had truly odd names, names so idiosyncratic that it is extremely unlikely they have namesakes whose images would be in scope. But most of them have names common enough that, if you really searched, you could find namesakes, whose images would be in scope, if we had images of them.
Should I have added unnecessary disambiguation to all those other new categories?
No, of course not. Your criticism, above, was complete nonsense. Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say " It only makes sense to create a category name, like Category:Kevin MacDonald (actor), when we have other images of a namesake, also named Kevin MacDonald". We have such images. When you created your category, we already had Category:Kevin MacDonald (footballer) and Category:Kevin Macdonald (director). A search on "Kevin MacDonald" would have revealed that. I suggest you take this simple step before creating new categories. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Touche (3009768428).jpg[edit]

File:Touche (3009768428).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geo_Swan/archive/2019_01&oldid=509023327"