User talk:Graphium/Archive 1

Unblock request (4)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "I promise not to cause any more disruption to Commons. Perhaps, it would be good to say that I will mainly be participating in FP noms, contribute some images I'm willing to give free licence, and fighting vandalism. In future, all images that I upload will be free forever, with no room to revoke the licence. You and the Commons community have my word on the above. Whether or not this request is successful, I hereby forgive any Commoners who have treated me badly/rudely in the past, made things difficult for me, or even still hold grudges against me. I hope my request will be considered seriously, and fellow Commoners can forgive me for my previous wrongdoings, give me a chance to start afresh. Thank you. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Lack of community support for now, see below. Jcb (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

If no serious objections are posted at his page in the next few hours, I'm willing to grant this. Jcb (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose - The user has shown a willingness to disrupt the project, and an inability to comprehend what "irrevocable" means. He may give "his word", but his past contributions have shown us what that is worth. I don't see how anything will be gained by allowing this unblock. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck, can you explain why you say I dont know irrevocable? Thanks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 17:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 Comment See Commons_talk:Courtesy_deletions#Past_examples. I think we can forget past incidents. Jee 17:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 Questions What is your understanding on the legal revocation of licenses for Creative Commons licensed files? Do you think it can be done? Do you think the licenses for the images you uploaded both here and at the Malaysian wiki have been revoked? And, can you please explain, in your own words, the principles of Creative Commons licensing? I apologise for asking this gauntlet of questions, but due to the circumstances of you leaving the project I think it is important that you answer these questions. Liamdavies (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Q1. Sorry, but I don't get you. This aspect of copyright is probably too "deep" for my age. But anyway, they shouldn't be revoked. Disclaimer: This does not mean I allow my deleted files to be used in any way. Under terms of "All rights reserved". More info in my reply to Russavia below. However, you have my word that all future uploads are irrevokable licence, as I'm now fully aware of this condition. Q2. Answered in Q1. Q3. I'm forcing it down, by hook or by crook. Just see that those images are uploaded to my Flickr under "All rights reserved". Q4. If I didn't understand your question wrongly, you are referring to the purpose of CC licences being created? To increase and encourage the sharing, reusing and modificatio of works, to enable people to have a way to allow others to share, use and modify their work, and to allow people to use others' copyrighted works without having to take the trouble to ask for permission. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, this does not really answer all my questions or alleviate all my concerns, so I will ask two again, but this time simpler questions. (you may answer yes/no if you like)

• If a file is licensed under a CC license, can that ever be revoked and made back into a 'All rights reserved' license?
• When your files were deleted, was the CC license also revoked?

Sorry to say it, but this unblock does not look promising at the moment. Having said that, it is very promising that you realise you did wrong, want that to be in the past, and wish to constructively contribute the Commons. If this fails, I think in a few months you have a reasonable chance of being unblocked. There are just a few things to address first: you really are going to have to understand and know CC licensing quite well (due to the nature of the request the community will likely want assurances it will not happen again, this can only happen if we know that you understand the licenses very well); you are going to have to continue being contrite (sorry), whether you like it or not, in the eyes of many you did wrong, not others, forgiving people is one thing (but may come off the wrong way), but the last sentence of your unblock request is right on track; you need to drop the stick so to say, the comments you wrote to Russavia do not come off as very COM:MELLOW, you need to put your feelings to other contributors aside and focus simply on being unblocked. I also like that you have identified an area in which you want to work cooperatively with other users, this too is positive. Liamdavies (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Q1&2. Nope. Giving a politically correct answer first to show my understanding. If you want to do anything with the images, that's for future discussion. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 06:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Good, I am glad that you understand that just because the file was deleted the license remains, this is a great step forwards from where we were during the delete discussion several months ago. For what it's worth, I would oppose undeleting the files, as I now believe you made a good faith mistake, that you will not do again due to your better understanding of CC licensing. Now that this has failed, I think you should pause for a couple of months, write up an unblock request that covers all issues around your block, and demonstrates your contrition and understanding of how the licensing works, and why we have it (it may be advisable to draft it with the help of another user or users). Can I also suggest you clean up your userpage and talkpage, you are not voluntarily retired, and the message on your userpage does not demonstrate a good faith commitment to the project. Liamdavies (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Liamdavies for helping him. As O suggested in the first request ("make a note but do not request unblock. The community will decide given your circumstances."), I think there is no need for another request. Instead, please continue a discussion with him. I hope a watching admin like Avenue will unblock him, when reached enough confidence in his replies. Thanks. Jee 08:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not trying to stir up any trouble here, but since those images were blurly put under free licence, all would assume "All rights reserved" now. Nobody, even if you have a copy of the image, is to do anything with or use them. Those are precious images with lots of hard work behind them, some of my best. Thanks a lot. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 08:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• This comment is slightly less useful, I have no intention of using your images, my main concern is about your understanding of the licensing, and that just because the files are deleted does not mean the license is revoked. You are more than entitled to place them on Flickr, or any website for that matter, with any license you choose, it is called multi-licensing, and is perfectly compatible with CC licenses; it does not replace or invalidate a CC license, but sits beside it. Please do no see me as an enemy, what I am saying is not out of malice, but to clarify your knowledge (and our understanding of your knowledge) so you may eventually get unblocked. In this edit, you leave the summary "...but I can't clean my userpage...", would you like me or someone else to blanked your userpage? Or reverted it to an earlier state? Liamdavies (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Probably he may be frightened by the threat by another admin above. So he need to assured that we have no plan to reopen old things. Jee 16:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Glad to see MichaelMaggs assured it below. Jee 17:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I just hope people can play dumb and think the file is "All rights reserved", avoid any trouble and forgive me for the innocent mistake. After all, it wasn't stated in the Commons Deed that time, I wouldn't read the Legal Code (if irrevocable is stared there), and so is a innocent mistake. Shouldnt people forgive and forget? And yes, can you please help me revert to first version of the page? Thanks. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• I understand your concern, and do believe it to be a mistake, but it there can be no more like that, and I (and the community) need to know you understand. As I said, I have no desire to use your images, and do not think an undelete is warranted, at least not without discussion. I am now satisfied that you understand the irrevocable nature of CC license, and that there will be no repeat of mistakes made in the past. I have restored the previous version of your userpage for you. I highly suggest you take the advice of MichaelMaggs below, it is very solid, and a pathway to an unblock. Liamdavies (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Licence requirements and Commons hosting decisions are quite separate things (though some here have trouble separating them in their minds). We can't stop a third party using your deleted images (if they have them) under the terms of the CC licence. But this community has chosen not to host them on Commons any more. That's not going to change. There'd have to be a large community consensus that a huge mistake was made in deleting them based on faulty information (e.g., you turn out to be a 40-year-old professional photographer). Nobody is going to undelete them unilaterally (they'd find themselves stripped of their admin bit before they had time to make a cup of tea) so just ignore those threats. -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Colin for making it clear. What I was earlier trying to say is that since the Commons and Wikipedia community are aware of everything, then they are not to use or do anything with the images that are otherwise allowable under the CC licence - play dumb and think it's All Rights Reserved. As for third parties (my definition of them is they are not on Wikipedia or Commons at the time of the incident), it's fine only if they got the image while it's still on Commons, but not if a Wikipedian or Commoner with a copy passes it to them. This are my main worries; I know Commons will not host those images anymore without my approval. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 03:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Anyway, I doubt any 3rd party would have take the image in such a short time. So should be safe or relatively safe. After all, butterflies are not that popular and the overall quality of Wikipedia's butterfly articles is bad (sad to say so, hope to improve them when I'm back at wikipedia). ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 04:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I think your files are safely 'All rights reserved' at the moment, and I reiterate Colin's point, I do not see them being hosted here again without your permission, or extraordinary circumstances. Liamdavies (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose As per every other unblock request. This editor does not understand the disruption they have caused. If the unblock request should by any chance be granted, note that I will undelete any of their files that were deleted. I also am dumbfounded at this editor "forgiving" editors who were "rude" to him in the past, and whom hold "grudges" etc, but it was in fact the editor who was rude to the community and individuals, and whom appears to hold grudges; a sign of immense immaturity, a sign that they are unable to see what they did wrong, and a sign that such problems will likely occur in the future. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, but in this case it is evident the block is preventative. russavia (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Question Do you stand by your comments in this edit summary; namely: "Commons can be concluded in 1 word: Sh*t."? russavia (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

1) Not anymore. That was in a fit of anger. 2) Regarding the "I will restore your files" thing, I really doubt your competence as an administrator since you don't seem to understand courtesy deletion, and you have been involved in numerous other problems here as well, as far as I know. Please also note that I rather blocked forever than have my images restored. How do I know last time that CC licence cannot be revoke? Only with v4.0 then they state in the Commons Deed. 3) Definitely there are people who hold grudges against or hate me. For the disruption and to those people, I say sorry. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Russavia and Mattbuck. This editor doesn't appear to be mature, stable, or trustworthy. INeverCry 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Russavia and Mattbuck. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I see some positive signs in this unblock request: Arctic Kangaroo acknowledging his "previous wrongdoings", and that his future uploads would be irrevocably licensed. I do still have some unanswered concerns, partly about his understanding of license irrevocability, and partly about his view of the previous disruption. If we really had to decide on this request in "the next few hours" after Jcb's post, I would probably still be against unblocking. But we don't have to decide this so hastily, and I see no harm in taking a little more time to let AK explain why we shouldn't expect his previous disruptiveness to continue if he was unblocked. --Avenue (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • His talkpage is still open. You can speak with him about the block and maybe prepare a new unblock request at a later moment. It's clear that there is no community support for unblocking at this moment. Jcb (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, this unblock request, and the ensuing conversation shows promise that AK can return to Commons as a productive editor. Liamdavies (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Avenue: Perhaps you want to state a few questions for me to answer? I'm open for friendly discussion. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply; my wiki time is limited at present. Your answers to Liamdavies above have reassured me about your understanding of irrevocability. More generally, do you understand that when you license something under a CC license, it is the full license text you are agreeing to, not the license deed? Some of your answers above have left me concerned about this, and since you say you want to contribute some images, I think this is important to clear up.

And without wanting to prompt a rehashing of all the previous turmoil, I'm interested in your current perspective on what happened, and especially what you feel you've learned from it. I know you ereceived bad advice, but I think some of your actions also inflamed the situation. Can you please tell me how you think you could have approached things differently, in hindsight, to pursue the deletion of your pictures from Commons with less disruption? --Avenue (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Avenue: I would have been more polite instead, and not so stubborn as to keep forcing fellow Commoners to revoke the licence. Perhaps I could have proposed something like this. Another thing I done wrong is having so much confrontation and attacks against other user. Thus I mentioned in the unblock request above that I will take the first step to forgive evveryone, as I have realised my mistakes. I also should have not removed the images everywhere. Would be good if I was civil, others in the mood to assume good faith as such, image stripped of potd and deleted asap, and everyone is happy. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 04:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• This comment here is a great example of how to act, and these are things you have to discuss and address if you wish to be unblocked. The discussion in the last two days (although not resulting in an unblock) has been very productive. I would also like to again apologise for my part in this drama; If I knew then what I now know I wouldn't have opposed the delete. Liamdavies (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, IMO this comment shows that you're now able to take a more mature view of the dispute. It can be harder to do so with fresh disputes, especially when other editors don't seem to be doing so, but your comment goes a long way towards convincing me that you might now be mature enough to contribute constructively here.

I don't think you've addressed my first question, about your understanding of what you would be agreeing to if you upload your photos here under a CC license. Jee's new section below (#Further steps) goes into similar issues, so feel free to respond to that instead if you prefer. --Avenue (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Avenue, I missed out on that one. Thanks for telling me about that. Initially I thought reading the Commons Deed is enough, and it summarises the Legal Code. I will spend some time to digest some of the Legal Codes before I start uploading. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 03:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. In an ideal world, understanding the Deed would be enough, but licenses are complex things, and IMO the CC Deeds (especially earlier versions) simplify things to the point of being misleading. You don't need to be an expert on the license to upload anything, but I think that reading through the license text is a good idea. Feel free to ask questions too. --Avenue (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Community: Then under what conditions or how then I can be unblock? 'Cos I can't try to regain your trusts if I blocked. I don't see an end to this. Hope someone can clear my doubts. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 02:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why free licenses?

What I have missed a bit in the discussion is an explanation why we find it so important that our free licenses are respected. Well, an important driving ideal behind our project is the desire to get rid of a world where everything is privately owned by companies or people and restricted by copyright laws. We have the goal to make the world available to the world. To make all knowledge available to everybody, without restrictions. To create a world in which knowledge is not just available to the people who can pay for it. We believe that the old copyright systems are outdated and incompatible with the digital age. To guarantee that no person or company catches the exclusive availability to such free knowlegde, we need to have free licenses. Those licenses have to take care that all free knowlegde will be free and remain free forever. These free licenses can only work if they are irrevocable. If a free license would be revocable, it would be possible that a company goes to the author of something and makes a contract with the author that the work is no longer available under a free license and that from that moment the company would be the exclusive owner. Such a company would be able to make free resources unavailable to the world. That's why it touches the core of our ideals that a free license is really irrevocable forever. I hope this explanation helps you understanding why the community became so angry with you. Jcb (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Em, I'm not sure the community is fully behind Jcb's "get rid of a world where everything is privately owned by companies or people and restricted by copyright laws". In fact, I'd say just about any creative artist who isn't living on benefits would disagree. Donating some of one's work under a free licence is a choice, and not incompatible with choosing to retain all rights on some works, and not incompatible with respecting those who choose to retain all rights on all their works. The irrevocable nature of CC licences is practical rather than philosophical or fundamental. Users need to know their can use works without having to contact the owner now and in the future.

The anger you got was party caused by your own behaviour but also by the bullying behaviour of some fundamentalists on the project. Some people cannot see the difference between licence requirements and hosting requirements. You need to appreciate that even if you have recognised your mistakes, learned from them, and promise not to repeat them, that you will still come across unreasonable people on Commons. Some of the most unreasonable people are also admins. And the community will have little patience with you. So think carefully about coming back too soon. If you are still at school, imo, that is the most important thing you should concentrate on. Finding a mentor is probably a good idea, both for your on-Commons actions but also to keep an eye on your real-life balance. -- Colin (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Further steps

Hi Arctic Kangaroo; glad to see Michael offered to help you as a mentor. Glad to see further helps from Avenue, Liamdavies and Colin too. I think, now you are convinced that we have no plan to reopen your old deleted contributions. So stay calm and get ready for a new start. As Michael commented above, "it's not essential that you have any detailed legal understanding of every license terms", it is good if you have some basic understandings. So I would like to guide you to some basics.

1. The license: Commons allows several choices of licenses; but you can concentrate on Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license. As Avenue commented above, A CC license has three layers.

Layer 1 - The legalcode: "Each license begins as a traditional legal tool, in the kind of language and text formats that most lawyers know and love. We call this the Legal Code layer of each license."

Layer 2- Deed: But since most creators, educators, and scientists are not in fact lawyers, we also make the licenses available in a format that normal people can read — the Commons Deed (also known as the “human readable” version of the license). The Commons Deed is a handy reference for licensors and licensees, summarizing and expressing some of the most important terms and conditions. Think of the Commons Deed as a user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath, although the Deed itself is not a license, and its contents are not part of the Legal Code itself."

Layer 3 is not for humans. "Taken together, these three layers of licenses ensure that the spectrum of rights isn’t just a legal concept. It’s something that the creators of works can understand, their users can understand, and even the Web itself can understand."

So you can see the legalcode is the real license and "by exercising the Licensed Rights (defined there), you must accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions defined there."

legalcode#s2a1: "Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material."

(I linked the new CC BY-SA 4.0 links; there is slight difference in previous CC BY-SA 3.0 version.)

2. Commons:Policies and guidelines

While participating in Commons you are bound to follow the existing and forthcoming policies defined here.

Commons:Deletion policy: Unlike in Flickr or any other similar sites (like your personal website), you can't delete a content hosted by you on your own will. You need prior community approval for it which is based on the Commons:Deletion policy.

3. Read CC FAQ and Commons:FAQ

Feel free to ask any questions here; me or someone else will be pleased to help you. Jee 05:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Also note that Commons:Courtesy deletions is not yet a policy or guideline and hasn't got a very firm definition. Your images were courtesy deleted only after a huge amount of fuss. It is very unlikely the community would do this again for you, and if they did (e.g., you immediately noticed you'd uploaded the wrong image and swiftly asked for it to be withdrawn) then that might be your last edit. There won't be much willingness to put up with more "childish mistakes". So take great care what you upload. By the way, if you upload images to another site (e.g. Flickr) with a free CC licence, then someone else may copy them here, so take care elsewhere too. Be wary of using any automated tools to upload.

Although CC BY-SA imposes restrictions on the reuser (e.g., that they must credit you and also release their copy under that licence), you may find sites reusing your content without obeying the terms of the licence. If this bothers you a lot, then I suggest you strongly consider not posting images here, and stick with "all rights reserved" and place big ugly watermarks all over your images when posting online. It would be nice if the world played fair but it doesn't and accepting that you have lost a degree of control over your work is good advice. -- Colin (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion preparatory to next unblock request

Hi Arctic Kangaroo. The question you have asked above is a very good one and I have opened this section of the discussion to see if we can work towards a resolution.

As a matter of principle Commons welcomes contributions from all good faith constructive editors/uploaders who support our goals of improving holdings of and access to freely reusable educational media files. There is no age bar, and users of all ages who are able to and who do in fact fulfil those criteria should be embraced by the community.

I am sorry that things seem to have gone so badly over recent months, and I am sure that both you and others have said things that would better not to have been said. I am also sorry that things got off to a bad start with you in that you were badly advised right at the beginning when you asked for your images to be deleted. The advice was given by an editor with the best of intentions, but unfortunately was incorrect. Now, that's where we are, and there is no point in going over old discussions. We have to focus on how to go forward, and how you might be accepted back as a good contributor once again.

Some of the other editor comments posted above read to me (though I may have misread the intent) as being pretty aggressive and perhaps implying you can never be accepted back. I do not agree with those comments and do not think they are representative of the community as a whole. Your existing images have been deleted and those deletions do have community consensus. In spite of a suggestion to the contrary above, a single admin would not be allowed to go against community consensus to restore those old existing images on Commons.

On the question of 'understanding licences', it's not essential that you have any detailed legal understanding (indeed probably most contributors don't), and I don't think the community should require you to answer abstract legal questions before you are accepted back, The only thing is that people don't want the same issues to arise again. But they shouldn't, as you do I think understand that you will not be able to ask for any licence change or deletion of any images that you upload to Commons in the future.

To be honest, I wouldn't expect any problems if you were accepted back, but as some editors do clearly have worries it might help everyone settle down if you were to agree to refer any problems that you come across straight to me, either on my talk page or by email. I could then jump in quickly as a sort of mentor and hopefully avoid more anger, misunderstandings and blocks. Others could do that as well if need be.

I would suggest you see what community response we get to this, wait at least until after Christmas, and think about re-applying for an unblock then. If all goes well I would be minded at that point to approve the request.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Not gonna say I take or leave this yet. Still waiting for Avenue's reply. Probably earliest is when I wake up later this morning. Cheers. 😉 ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 17:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs We can start now? Christmas in Singapore already!!! Merry X'mas!!! :D ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 16:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Would you like to file another unblock request, mentioning my name, and let me know when done? I probably won't be editing tomorrow, and suggest you leave it until Boxing Day at least. Merry Christmas to you! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs Hmm...all I have to say is already in the recent unblock request. Then the rest are the recent discussions. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 17:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Avenue des Champs-Elysées in Paris

Hi Arctic Kangaroo.

Thanks for your review in the FPC page.

You asked for some sharpening, and I've sharpened a little. Would you please be kind enough to have another look, and give me your opinion again ? Thanks a lot in advance.--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I will take a look and vote when I on computer. Cheeers. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 00:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Re : Hi

Hi AK, I'm also glad we can meet here. BTW, don't forget to check my message on your past IP. :p — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Yep, but internet in your country is much faster than here. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 09:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, even if your IP number always changing but you have a good network connection in your country to do online work with faster, not like in my country which the internet are still slow and still need to wait until 2020. :( LOL, that's what I mean. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your delist candidateships

Hello Arctic Kangaroo,

I have noticed that you have startet several delist candidateships with the same not very meaningful reason "not parallel". There is no such criteria at FP that dictates that butterfly wings have to be parallel or closed. I advise you urgently to stop this absurdity otherwise I will announce this conduct at User problems. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And don't forget that you have been unblocked with lots of AGF. Repeated spam of FPC isn't good at all for your credibility and will result in a final ban of your account much quicker than you might expect. --A.Savin 19:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

+1 Please stop this.   • Richard • [®] • 21:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wladyslaw, A.Savin and Richard Bartz, if you re-read what you have posted above you might see that you have instantly gone on the attack against a user who is is trying to contribute constructively but who is not (yet) familiar with the ways of FPC. You seem to have taken offence at AK's suggestion that several FPs should be delisted, for a reason that you do not agree with. No offence need have been taken: you could simply have explained that multiple de-listings are generally not considered a good idea, and that de-listing tends to succeed only when very strong reasons are given (eg the original promotion was a clear error). Delistings are not really intended as a forum for an editor to re-open a promotion on the grounds that he/she simply disagrees with the original result. I was very glad to see that AK has remained calm in his response, below, and that as a result A.Savin has provided some additional help. That's the mellow way we like things to happen. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK guys, let me explain myself. Probably not all of you are butterfly photographers, so I can pardon you if you do not understand/treat as unimportant the concept of being "parallel" to the butterfly. But being a butterfly photographer myself, this is a very important part of butterfly photography, and frequently emphasised by fellow members of the butterfly interest group I'm in. And also, please ignore the definitions of "parallel" I have written - I have trouble trying to explain it. Anyway, don't you find that a shot is nicer when it's parallel to the butterfly? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I respect the opinions of the Commons community, even though they hold differing opinions. If they are fine with it, so be it. Anyway, it's about consensus. And another thing, of course "parallel" is not a criteria, or you would need to list the criteria for each and every type of photography. But if you want to talk about criteria, I tell you that IMO, butterfly shots not parallel to the butterfly don't make me go "Wow!". (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎)<

It's not about your personal FP criteria, because you're of course perfectly free to oppose if there is a butterfly FPC and the picture is not parallel (whatever it means) or otherwise not FP-worthy to you. But for a delisting process of any existing FP, there must be much more weighty reason, for example if the picture's quality is inferior to another FP with identical motif. This can, for example, apply for some of our early FP's (promoted about 2005/06), which is mostly the case for our delist candidacies. Anyways, the delist procedure must be used rather sparely and 4-5 candidacies at once are a no-go. --A.Savin 09:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I too noticed a bunch of DLs without proper reasoning from your side. Note that you can only make two delisting nominations at a time, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

I understand your point; it is good to align the camera sensor to a flat subject like butterfly wings. But people are free to make experiments; wings open, wings closed, half open, face to face, etc.

I see some unhealthy conflicts and pointy style votes too; not so good in a friendly community. Stay calm, relax, make good contributions. Note that Commons is a multilingual project; people may not understand you well, always. People like Richard are great macro contributors here; try to learn from them too.

Have a nice time here, in Commons. :) Jee 13:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Jkadavoor Yup I know some of the comments were very sarcastic. But personally I'm fine, as long as one does not sarcastic too often. Anyway, I occassionally can be sarcastic as well. :P (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Better if you don't do sarcastic at all! Leave that to others, always be polite (even to people who are not polite to you), and things will be fine. I find that being friendly and polite to someone who is initially a bit snappy often results in them becoming friendly themselves. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request (5)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "MichaelMaggs has suggested in the section "Discussion preparatory to next unblock request" above that I wait until today (Boxing Day) before trying to request unblock again, so here it is. My reasons for requesting unblock are all stated in the section titled "Unblock request (4)" above and in the discussions. I and several other contributors find that the discussion has been very fruitful, proving my understanding of the terms of the CC licences and guaranteeing that the same mistakes wouldn't repeat themself again. However, I understand that certain users may still be afraid that history will repeat, and so you are welcome to throw questions at me to answer. I hope we can have a friendly discussion (if needed) to resolve all issues en route to my unblock. Thanks and belated Merry X'mas. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 07:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)" Unblock reason: "Arctic Kangaroo has been blocked for almost five months now, and during that time has made significant efforts to demonstrate to the community that he can again be a positive contributor here. Although a few editors are still wary, I see no reason why, with care and good faith on all sides, AK should not be invited to join the community again, and I am accordingly agreeing to unblock. AK, please let me know straight away on my talk page if you run into any problems at all. Existing editors, please welcome AK back, and be friendly and helpful to him in the best traditions of Commons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)" This template should be archived normally.

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

Thanks Michael for placing trust in me. I will treasure this chance make constructive contributions here, become a valuable contributor here, and will not disappoint you, Jcb, and the community. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 04:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. Please be very careful, especially in the first months. Gaining trust will cost some time. Jcb (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I second Jcb's comments. Good luck. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Other issues

A misunderstanding

Arctic Kangaroo, I don't agree at all with your unblock for reasons which I have made known to the WMF, but which they will not respond to the issue as an honest reply from them will likely prevent minors who can not legally enter into a contract from participating on our projects. But User:MichaelMaggs has decided unilaterally to unblock you, so let that be his responsibility to deal with. But I am now seriously considering whether you should be reblocked. I find it difficult to believe that you are legally competent to understand and agree with licencing terms, because it appears that you do not understand what being indefinitely blocked on English Wikipedia means. I have just had your sock account on that project blocked, and I sincerely hope you will not be using that account here on Commons. But the mere fact that you have created and used a sock account on another project on which you are blocked does indicate that you do not have the competence to understand key policies; which calls into question your competence to understand licencing. For info of others, the account was created on 29 December 2013, which is after the date of your unblock here. Unfortunately, you being a minor (who is quite likely under the age of 13) would morally, and quite possibly legally, prohibit me from publicly identifying the account, but the socking on a project on which you are indefinitely blocked, taken with comments about about your behaviour since being unblocked here, leads me believe that you are really not competent to participate on these projects, so-called prodigy or not. But whatever, people are putting their necks on the line for you; that is their choice, no matter how ill-informed a choice it is, and it is entirely likely I will be saying "I told you so" down the line. I will leave it up to others to ask you the obvious questions about your competence. russavia (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC) OK ok, something serious is going on. It's very obvious that someone is trying to attack me (not you, Russavia, don't worry). I just uncovered a so-called "sock" account of mine, and I didn't know there are more. Russavia, let's talk through email. This matter is really serious, and please link those so-called "socks of mine" to me in the email. When you have done emailing, inform me about the mail here. Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Arctic Kangaroo, as you are a minor, I have no intention of entering into any private correspondence with you. But do I understand you correctly that you are denying that you have used any sock accounts on English Wikipedia? russavia (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Yes. Other than to wish some friends Merry Christmas, report a sock (one only), and to send an urgent alert mail on the serious matter. As for the 2nd one, I couldn't get over it if I don't do it. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Russavia, despite the bad ways you have treated me, I still trust you, and that you will not disclose my information or anything in the mail. That's why I hope to talk to you about it. But what do you mean by you "just had that account" blocked? I trekked into en.wiki to see what you mean and how you did it, only to find out that you were blocked. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Your email to Killiondude is quite interesting, given that he is the admin I approached on IRC to have your sock account blocked. Can you possibly explain exactly how you knew to contact Killiondude about this issue? russavia (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Russavia I will talk to you through email. This reply concerns private information. Give me a few minutes and you will receive a new mail in your inbox. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Russavia, can you mail me something? If not I can't contact you and it's end of conversation. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Russavia, can you send me a copy of the email, or ask Killiondude to do so? I need it urgently to report this matter. Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Arctic Kangaroo, I can not enter into private email correspondence with you, as you are a minor, and especially as it obviously involves you disclosing personal information to me, it would place me in a very precarious, and possibly legal, predicament. I am astounded that others will knowingly enter into private discussions with a minor, but this I will not do sorry. Again, it really does not make any sense that you deny having used a sock account, but yet straight away knew to contact User:Killiondude about the issue when it was brought here to you. It can be reasonably assumed that in the 1.5 hour timeframe between the account on en.wp being blocked and me posting here on commons, that you visited en.wp with that account logged in, only to find it had been blocked, and you have then contacted the blocking admin. If, on the other hand, someone is out to get you, it still doesn't make sense you knowing to contact Killiondude about the issue. It should be noted that the account in question has been created here on Commons, so a check user could determine if the account is linked to you, or if as you say it is a possible joe-job account and possibly link it to the person responsible. russavia (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Russavia, if you are so interested, then could you do me a favour? Go request a CU to check, link me to the page, then inform me about the result. I don't wish to continue this long-winded chat. Thank you very much. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You have received a mail; probably someone is trying to attack you in EN. Jee 08:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Arctic Kangaroo, the account in question was indeed a joe-job account, and a very effective one at that, so you have apologies on that. The account has been blocked, and the person who did the impersonating has now been indefinitely blocked. I would encourage you not to post to their talk page, but continue going about your business as before. Cheers, russavia (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Russavia for helping me clarify this matter. Let's hope we won't have any more conflicts again, and both of us can work together to make Commons a better place. Cheers! PS. I had earlier already suspected that the culprit was Bonkers, and I hoped my guess was wrong. Sadly, it turned out to be the case. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Constructive contributions

AK, I would strongly suggest that you do not post anything at all on the English Wikipedia while you remain blocked there, not even to say happy Christmas or to make an "urgent" point. Although Wikipedia and Commons are different sites, and being blocked there does not prevent you from contributing here, making Wikipedia posts does not look good and will not be seen as positive by many editors here. You don't need to enter into email conversations with Russavia; just put that aside. Please, please just stick to contributing content and helping out quietly here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure Michael. I will heed your advice. But can you suggest how I can try to clear my name and prevent others from accusing me of things that I did not do. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't attack people whatever you do. You can email me (using the "email this user" option) if you need to. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

AK, you were supposed to be coming to me if you ran into any problems. Starting conversations like this one is not really consistent with your expressed wish to come back here and contribute constructively. You must understand that you were not unblocked for the purpose of allowing you to get embroiled again in controversy, and I fear that unless you are able to restrain yourself from getting distracted by issues which have no bearing on building and curating our library of freely-licenced content, then your unblock is likely to be rescinded sooner rather than later. Please understand that issues you consider to be "urgent" or "serious" and that you really have to speak to someone about are ultimately of no importance at all if they end up in your being re-blocked. Speak to me if you need to. I and many other contributors here will be sad if we have to say goodbye to you permanently, but that very much depends on whether you can exercise restraint. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

+1. AK, if you can't stay calm and indulge only in creative contributions, we can't help you. Try to contact MichaelMaggs or me before running to the talk page of others as you did above. Jee 12:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not attacking him. He's my friend and I'm just giving him good advice and ask him to stop what he's doung. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

His behavior like this is not at all acceptable in Commons. So better, stay away. :) Jee 13:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's the trolling part I'm talking about. I still wonder why the user let him off so leniently, when it was so obvious that it's trolling. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You need not involve in such cases; there are many experienced admins here who will take care of such cases. Concentrate only on your work. Jee 15:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK Jee. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Jianhui67 is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 09:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Congrats

On becoming unblocked. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you are doing well since your return. I hope you will keep enjoying Commons for a very long time. Jcb (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the best things in Commons is JJ Harrison's great bird photos. They are one of the best, if not the best, bird photos I have ever seen. The birds he capture are so beautiful as well. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Great job Arctic Kangaroo! Now enable RTRC on your preferences. Have a look at COM:CVU. I'm glad I have another one by my side doing patrolling with me! JianhuiMobile (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Re.. Happy Chinese New Year...and 2 answers

Hey, happy Chinese New Year too! Get many ang pow huh? :D Haha, actually it's nothing, but I am toooo frustrated with my own problem in my real life + there is too many "sh*t editors" at the English Wikipedia that gives me much more stress. I'm already decide want to retired but after rethink twice I still got many works to be done right here. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 19:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

?

What you mean by this edit on your user page. Use Commons:sandbox for such purposes. Jee 03:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

For uploading an image. I using DerivativeFX. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you could help me clear those pixels? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It is better to ask Böhringer directly as he can edit/reproduce from his RAW files. Jee 03:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...the picture he uploaded look very much like an original unprocessed file. You take a look first? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

unfortunately I have no RAW file --Böhringer (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Böhringer: Jpg is ok. I'm not sure I can process or see RAW files. Anyway I'm currently fuming over an incompetent no standard football referee. You know, we call that referee kayu. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Durdle_Door_Dorset_Sunset.jpg

I laughed a bit when I saw your comment. I used to say the same thing about landscape photos with people in them. I hated it. However, here at Commons there is an element of being educational and/or encyclopedic in addition to bringing great pics. People kept asking me for "scale references" in my landscapes. So now I try to include them in the one I upload to Commons. They add interest for many people and they do give a sense of scale. Cheers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Saffron, thanks for that info. I have reconsidered my vote but sorry, my final decision is still oppose. If you try uploading a photo without any people and try your luck, I will support. ;) Cheers. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I wasn't asking you to change your vote. Just thought you might find it funny. I have many without people in them, but those with people are more useful to the projects. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The "vote change" was just additional info. Anyway I got your main point about the scale references. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 1⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Morning view to Trolltindan and Trollfjorden from Hinnøya, 2012 October.jpg

I did a few corrections ([1], [2], [3]). You need not have to manually do all the steps that the FPCBot can easily done. Only adding the {{FPC-results-reviewed}} or changing the {{FPC-results-ready-for-review}} to {{FPC-results-reviewed}} is enough. Remaining parts will be done by the bot. :) Jee 07:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. *slap* First time closing an FP nom, so I just follow this blindly as the bot did not put the unconfirmed result template. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Other than playing around with the results template, is there anything else we must do, like removing the nomination from the FPC page and logging it? And if the bot has not place the unconfirmed result template before we closed the nomination, do we need to do everything manually? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes; that page describes all the formalities we have to follow when the bot is down (It will happen once in a moth due to several reasons and then we have to do all the things you do and ping Daniel78 for help). The bot will not close the "withdrawn/fpxed/fpded" nominations quickly; so we can move them to the log for convenience. The bot runs three times a day. We can place {{FPC-results-reviewed}} when the time is over; but I noticed that the bot refused to complete the remaining tasks in some occasions (I think the bot reads some hidden timer values). So better to wait for the bot first. :) Jee 07:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Photo Challenge/2014 - January - A bunch of stuff/Voting

You appear to have voted for the sample image. That's not an entry in the challenge. Could you award your 2/3 to something else. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done 13 hours ago.(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good job in reverting vandalism! Keep up the good work! Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks bro. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, just FYI, this page records edits that might be vandalism. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Like the abuse log, I find this page awfully uncomplete. Most of my reverts are done on 3G anyway, and this page takes extremely long to load even while using computer on very quick wifi. I still prefer taking a slow read through the IP contribs log, and checking every odd edit in the last 50/100/250/500 IP edits (depends when my last check was). (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Explique la reversión sobre los maravedíes

Estimado señor: por favor, podría explicar, ¿por qué revierte usted el cambio de nombre? Ya he podido conseguir que todo este tipo de monedas se cambie, y así, puedan tener el mismo nombre y vayan a la par. Juntos, la pareja, ambos tengan el mismo nombre y le pondré ejemplos. --Parair (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't kwon English. Sorry. --Parair (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ejemplos, verbi gratia: , han sido cambiadas de nombre. --Parair (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Estoy cambiando los nombres de las monedas de este usuario para que vayan a la par. Ya sus compañeros me han ayudado. ¿Por qué usted no? --Parair (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Porqué no pregunta a su compañero el usuario User:Marcus Cyron. Él no ha puesto pegas. --Parair (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

COM:QIC

"Picture doesn't mean much"? That comment doesn't mean much, and it's certainly not a reason to decline. QI is not about value, it's about technical merit. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AK, I must admit when I saw some of your comments on QIC I was quite disappointed as well. You seem to be making, on occasion, arbitrary decisions that have little to do with the QIC requirements. I have seen this at COM:FPC as well. However, unlike FPC where anyone is welcome to vote their taste this is less tolerated at QIC. Your assessments there should focus on the technical quality. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Mattbuck and @Saffron Blaze for informing me about this. How can I improve my "arbitrary decisions" at FPC? I always stated reason(s). Please advise me on this and perhaps cite a few examples. @Saffron Blaze (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

"Picture doesn't mean much" isn't a valid reason. "Wrong smoke source" isn't a valid reason. Given you usually offer valid reasons (oversaturated, unsharp, etc) I would assume you are capable enough to see how the other ones are not what people expect to hear when you are opposing their image. I won't bother you any further with this; experience has taught me people will either change when something is first pointed out or they won't and prefer to argue. I have no interest in arguing with you :-) Cheers... Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I will take note of that, especially in QI. Please continue to monitor and advise me on my QI reasons. Thanks. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aegithalos caudatus front-on 2.jpg

As previously discussed you are welcome to oppose for any reason and I am thankful you offered reasons when you did oppose. I am curious, however, as to what forms the basis of the "front on" concern with birds. Is it a convention in ornithology that images of birds only be from the side? On a similar note, I was disappointed you changed your vote on Kelvinsog's Ganymede illustration. It just seemed to me he worked to address our legitimate concerns over grammar and consistency and then holding him to a personal preference over font boldness came across as rather stubborn. I am not asking you to change your mind, just trying to understand. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I remember the bird expert, JJH opposed one similar picture at EN on the grounds of reduced EV as the plumage is not much visible in a front view. But that is at EN; COM has not that much importance for EV. Jee 15:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Saffron: I always provide reasons for my opposes. Anyway on birds, my personal opinion is that only "side-shots" and BIF are nice. As for Ganymede, that's my personal preference. I'm not forcing @Kelvinsong to change anything, as stated in my reply to him. However, he is of course welcome to do so if he wants to. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, not that I implied anything different, but I think sometimes your personal preferences are not founded in anything concrete (I think I've mentioned being arbitrary before). Voting just based on personal preference can often come across like voting to oppose a picture of cat because you only like dogs. Moreover, when you see 10 people support then you oppose for a "personal preference" it again seems not only arbitrary but unnecessary or capricious. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Saffron, I don't mean to argue with you, but I find that front-on shots of birds have no wow. I hope you can continue giving me advice, so I can learn and improve and become a better Commoner. Cheers. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

File rename

Hi AK,
I saw that you moved one of my most recent files. I do not understand the rationale for this. All my files are named for the subject followed by " YYMMDD X" where X is the export serial number in order to ensure that they are absolutely unique in their title. "Sainte Chapelle, Vincennes, South-West View.jpg" is a name that could be used by anybody at any point in the future since it is just "Subject, Town, Direction", therefore I add the additional specification which makes it reasonably impossible to have double name issues.
Best regards, --DXR (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Never mind, it has already been taken care of. Have a nice day! --DXR (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arctic Kangaroo, I think you need to pay more attention to the rename request you make. A number of moves which you have actioned are not compatible with criteria set out in COM:RENAME, and the fact that you made this move shows that you simply aren't paying enough attention to the names: [4]. Please read over COM:RENAME again and take more care in future. 211.28.146.128 13:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi AK bro. Due to a upcoming national exam I'm almost on a wikibreak. But it's really good to see you here. BTW when you'll be unblocked on en wiki? Also what is going on at simple wiki? Everything fine? For some reason I can't load that simple.wikipedia.org. I think it'll be fine between 2 3 days.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I can load simplewiki (just tried it). But anyway I've retired from there. Regarding the block, I will email you later. PS. "bro" or "AK" is enough. Don't "AK bro". (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

QI promotion

Thank you for good words about my image. I fixed the issue mentioned by you; now the sky is denoised. Hope that the image looks better:) Regards, Halavar (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure Halavar. I will review it on the computer later this morning, in about 9 hours. :) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Movefile gadget

What is the name movefile gadget in user preferences? --Kolega2357 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no such preference available. You automatically get that gadget to move files if you are a file mover or administrator. As for non-filemovers who are not admins, you can request for a file mover to move the file. To add the link on the file page so you can add the request automatically, activate RenameLink under "Interface: Files and categories" in the "Gadgets" section of your preferences. Hope this helps. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Flag of New Caledonia

What was your intent with adding {{Duplicate}} to File:Flag of New Caledonia.svg? Assuming you want the page to be deleted to be able to move the file back, it's better to tag it as {{Speedy}} under COM:CSD#G6. Surely it can't be a duplicate as there's no file uploaded at that page now. Also, I re-added the redirect so the file still renders, since it's used more than 5000 times. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually wanted the file to be on New Caledonia, as that was what the file move requester wanted. At first he asked to move New Caledonia to FLNK, then after the move, he requested that FLNK be moved to New Caledonia. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Hosmich requested moving the file from "Flag of New Caledonia.svg" to "Flag of FLNKS.svg", and then I requested moving it back because the claim made in the move request was incorrect (the flag is actually official alongside the French flag). I've replaced the {{Duplicate}} tag with a {{Speedy}} tag. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure SiBr4. Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 23:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

your filemove(s!) …

Why did you move File:Bell tower (left) of the Minalin Church.jpg? Do you think File:SantaMonicaParishChurchjf3289 01.JPG is a completely meaningless name? If so, why does the file description (!) only use that completely meaningless name to describe the photo? Please check (a lot) more carefully whether or not there is a valid file renaming criterion before moving, as filemoves cannot be undone.    FDMS  4    18:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, and thanks for the feedback. I will be more careful about the chosen criterion in future. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 18:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear that :) .    FDMS  4    19:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you can ask an admin to delete the redirect for you to rename the file back. JianhuiMobile (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

QI declines (again), cf File:2014.03.09.-06-Kaefertaler_Wald-Mannheim-C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg

Regarding File:2014.03.09.-06-Kaefertaler_Wald-Mannheim-C-Falter-Nominatform.jpg and the similar ones, I agree that the images should be declined, but I would like you to consider your reasons here:

• Blur

  OK, no argument there.

• bad lighting

  The photos are of butterflies in the sunshine. How is that bad lighting?

• not parallel (bad angle/perspective)

  What exactly do you expect to be parallel here? You're looking down on a butterfly, the perspective is expected and does not need correcting. The general request for perspective correction is where the distortion is disturbing, which usually only happens when you have buildings and such which have parallel lines.

Please consider your declines more carefully. Better reasons for declining those photos would be a lack of colour depth and/or posterisation. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I have seeked Saffron Blaze's opinions following the reviews, here. Regarding the bad lighting, the photo is underexposed, and I did not mention the highly disruptive shadows in the photo. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the "parallel", I'm currently discussing with Saffron how and when to use that reason. I notice you want to know what I consider "parallel". I've mailed you some examples through Flickr. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I was able to understand what AK meant when he said parallel. Taking a butterfly pic off the plane of the insect usually results in the limited DoF causing critical areas, such as the head, being out of focus. Blur I have come to understand means a critical area is out of focus or the picture is overall soft. Bad angle and/or perspective usually refers to the reason the image is of poor quality not the quality itself, but it usually refers to focus issues. Similarly, you will also see pixilated, which is actually normally referring to colour noise. I have suggested he limit his comments to the effect seen not the cause, or offer both in a slightly longer review, as this will help reduce the likelihood of Babylon effects. Using the terminology from the QI guidelines would also help. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Uh..no, you misunderstood "parallel". "Bad angle" basically means "not parallel". I shall send you some examples later, through Flickrmail. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop sending me flickrmails. If you want to communicate, do it here in an open forum. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Contents of the mail are as follows:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluejay-sg/10342827544/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluejay-sg/10851293733/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluejay-sg/11600921246/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluejay-sg/10221352845/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluejay-sg/11266260256/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluejay-sg/11029694056/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davolly-snaps/10247868264/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davolly-snaps/9374151147/

I am not enlightened by this. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Not parallel: File:Citrus Swallowtail Papilio demodocus.jpg (camera tilted downwards), File:Western dappled white (Euchloe crameri).jpg (camera tilted downwards), File:Common Bluebottle Osaka.JPG (not shot directly from the side of the butterfly), File:Papilio paris by kadavoor.JPG (not shot directly from the top), File:Spialia galba by kadavoor.jpg (not shot directly from the top), File:Monkey Puzzle Rathinda amor by kadavoor edit by böhringer.jpg (camera titled downwards), File:Grey Pansy Junonia atlites 2 by kadavoor UN.jpg (not shot from the side), File:Hypolimnas misippus by kadavoor.jpg (not shot from the side), File:Papilio polymnestor by kadavoor.JPG (not symmetrical), [5] (not shot from the side + camera tilted downwards) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Do compare the above "not parallel" examples with the parallel ones given above. Then (hopefully) you should see the difference and understand what I mean by "parallel". And the following can be used as a guide to determine if a photographer is parallel to a butterfly. 1. Undersides (reliable 90% of the time): Both antennae form a single line (very rarely), but in most cases almost form one line. [6] [7] [8] 2. Uppersides (99% reliability): Symmetrical. [9] [10] [11] (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We do not require that photos be taken from directly above or directly to the side of insects! -mattbuck (Talk) 09:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Matt, of course we don't require it, but experience tells us pics of butterflies that don't respect the concept AK is espousing usually fail due to technical issues with focus due to the limited DoF. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I shall not continue this discussion so as to avoid conflicts. But at least you understand now. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Saffron, in which case that is a different reason for decline. AK's decline reason is simply invalid. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mattbuck, I have also listed "blur" and "bad lighting" as the main decline reasons. :) IMHO I, as a butterfly photographer, consider that bad lighting, complete with highly disruptive shadows. As for parallel, you may wish to read Saffron's talk page, on which I have said I would ignore unparallel butterfly QICs with no other quality problems. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked some of your reviews there and commented on one. Hope it helps. Jee 17:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That all said I agree with the opposes he made. With most being very clear opposes. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

See Three Reasons to Photograph Wildlife at Eye Level and Tips for the Nature & Wildlife Photographer #3. Remember the golden rule in review too: "It is not your job to educate all; they can if they want it." Be BOLD in your opinion and walk away. Jee 11:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jee: Lol bold. I'm not that lenient what it comes to critiques in photography, and most of the time I tend to abide stubbornly by my opinions. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

COM:RFR

Hi AK. Please remember to add the username header when you are nominating someone for autopatrol. You forgot to add the username header for the user you nominated for autopatrol just now. I have added it for you. Thanks. JianhuiMobile (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

revert

Is [12] this a mistake? Please restore or explain. -- Colin (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, as explained in the revert that followed. I accidentally clicked [rollback], and mind you, I was and am editing on phone. Cheers. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Odd, I didn't see that till now. Yes, editing on phone or tablet is fraught with danger unless one has tiny fingers. -- Colin (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pluvialis fulva 2 - Laem Pak Bia.jpg

Hello. Thanks for the speedy promotion, but you might want to undo for 2 reasons, it has not been five days (it was just 4 days), and the nomination needs 10 supports per the rules, it only has nine. —Blurred Lines 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. No wonder I had a feel that something was not right. Thanks for informing me quickly. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You did the same thing on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carduelis carduelis close up.jpg, just to let you know. —Blurred Lines 17:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Shit. I messed the dates up. (17, 18). Probably I should take a short break from reviewing nominations not closed by bot. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Himantopus mexicanus (Black-necked Stilt).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope imo. --JLPC (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Arctic ~

How are you now? :P — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Baik. Is there anything? Anyway finally Fandi won. Great match against PKNS just now, though referee kayu. He's been a curse to the LionsXII. On a side note, the numbers on Shahril, Bai and Hariss' jersey piss me off. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha, ok, no, long time didn't see you lorh.. I thought you've been busy in exam right now.. mm, I'm not so interested in club match rather than "country" vs "country".. now I'm waiting for the 2014 AFF Suzuki Cup and 2014 FIFA World Cup. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol...I'm only interested in MSL, EPL, Bundesliga, and anything and everything about LionsXII and the Lions. I also support ATM FA, unless they play LionsXII. As for tournaments, only the UEFA cup league that Man U or Bayern participate (CL, EL) and tournament that Singapore team participate (Suzuki, Asian cup qualifier, etc). I don't really care about World Cup, unless Singapore's in. Btw how's Sabah FA and JDT2 performing in Premier League? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Same here, mm, not too bad.. but getting too many "draw" result make me lazy to watch. You can see about the Sabah team here on their facebook for more information about them. Haha, I want to watch World Cup because I have my favourite team there, if I want to wait for my country team to qualify the World Cup, even 100,000 years has pass, still can't lahh. Just see our football administration that immune to the supporters comments.. That's why I don't like to watch our league club match including didn't put to much hope for our national team too win. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 08:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Carduelis carduelis close up.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carduelis carduelis close up.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Jupiter diagram.svg

File:Jupiter diagram.svg is now up for FPC!—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Own images

Thanks for posting two of my photos on your favorites page.

Sincerely,

Famberhorst (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Famberhorst.

Hello! I have a question - why there is no your own images on Commons? Why see you as an expert of photography here on Commons, you decide (in QI and FP contest) which image is good and which one - don't. You give oppose votes to many images, but no one can see your own photos not only in QI or FP contest, but on your own user upload page and that is very strange to me... I hope to see soon your own images, especially in QI and FP contest because I know, that they would be amazing:) Halavar (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Haha, good question. It's because I don't license most of my works under free licences. So only very few of them are uploaded here. 1 2 3 ++the lousy point-and-shoot butterfly shots at the bottom of the log, except the lowest one. But if you would like to view the rest of my works, you may drop by my Flickr photostream. Just don't zoom in on the pictures, whether here or at Flickr, as I use unsharp mask which only makes the photo look good from the outside, but are very pixellated when zoomed in. I'm still figuring out how to prevent pixels when sharpening and/or how to denoise and/or how to remove pixels. :p Btw, you overrate me and my photography. I only get the occasional good shot. The rest are not very good. In fact, my recent outings all brought back bad shots, so I haven't been uploading to my Flickr photostream lately. Anyway I hope you enjoy my better shots on Flickr. ;) cheers, (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional question: Do you have Flickr account? I would like to follow your photostream if you have one. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a Flickr account. I uploading images here, on Commons and I think you should do the same, because we doing here a good work. As for your images: all of those 3 images are tilted. BTW, thanks for the change of mind about promotion of my images. Halavar (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Halavar: No tripod. :/ Shot on holiday, too troublesome. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Erm ... why do you actually not categorise your images? And why do you not use a free license for you Flickr uploads?    FDMS  4    11:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@FDMS4: There are too few images that I upload. For the similar images on Flickr (though downsized with watermarks) that I upload here, I license them under free licence on Flickr too. As for the other images on Flickr, they are mostly ARR (All rights reserved); some under unfree CC licence. I hope I can replace the CC-licensed images on Flickr with non-watermarked full size versions soon, though. I can't find any time to do so. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the copyright holder is free to choose whatever license he prefers? :) BTW, there is no need to change the license in Flickr even if you decided to upload them here with another license. Jee 12:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jee: I don't upload here in free licence purely for the sake of using the image on Wikipedia. :) --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Read Commons:Scope. Images available in Commons are widely used even outside WMF projects. They include other educational projects, personal blogs, etc. They are even used to print on t shirts and mugs. ;) Jee 12:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ikr. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think it's actually really cool that outside websites pick up my images I upload here. But yeah it's true there is a significant minority of reusers who don't give any credit at all. I literally once found an online store that was selling my pictures printed on mugs & handbags & phone cases. Now why anyone would buy a mug with a sun diagram printed on it is beyond me but they didn't give me any credit at all so it was annoying. But like amusing more than anything.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Contributors to Wikimedia projects in general have the reputation of being "freedom fighters" (although "fighter" is of course not true for a lot of users, including me) ...    FDMS  4    12:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Good fighters should respect others' rights too. For example, see this thread. :) Jee 12:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in any way related to AK, but how can I remove attribution from a file on Commons? There is no Template:Cc-sa-4.0 ...    FDMS  4    13:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Because CC-SA is a stupid licence "you don't have to attribute me but you do have to distribute it freely" I think it was dropped. Perhaps you meant cc-by-sa-4.0? As for AK's uploads, there was a big fight over those, and I do not believe that the Commons community would welcome him uploading anything after that. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

[EC] Well, if I do no longer want to be attributed after my file was modified (my right), but still want that reusers license it freely (freedom fighter) ... ? "Big fight" is a (sad) explanation which makes me understand why AK might have chosen Flickr instead of Wikimedia Commons.    FDMS  4    13:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Give him some time. He starts contributing when he gets enough confidence. Please talk with MichaelMaggs if you want to know more (as he is AK's mentor here). Jee 13:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@FDMS4: ??? No, the licence for every photo is different. Anything that I licensed freely will be on both Flickr and Commons. The rest is restricted to Flickr. There's no "confidence factor". --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons community welcome anybody who contributes on his own will with a thorough knowledge on the license terms. He made some mistakes; but he can learn from it. But we have people who think they know all (but know nothing); still not willing to forgive to their fellow members. :( Jee 13:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely up to each editor the extent to which they wish to contribute to Commons by the uploading of images. Editors contribute in different ways, and some photographers - indeed, probably most - do not wish to upload all of their good images to Commons. That is absolutely fine and should be respected. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, of course. @Arctic Kangaroo: With choice I meant to which public platform you, kind of, upload your photos to by default.    FDMS  4    15:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Flickr. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 18:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edit on FPC

Hi! I saw your edit on my FPC. I also do not agree with the comment given there, I appreciate Jebulon's comments, but is it OK to simply remove such a comment? --Tuxyso (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tuxyso. :) You may want to take a look at a recent report I made at COM:AN/B, the one with 2 IPs. Both IPs, from Sweden, were blocked for trolling on FPC nominations. It is pretty obvious from a couple of the edits that they were trolling, not just from the content in the edits, but it also seems that he understands Commons policies, but is just toying with it and posting irrelevant nonsense. Today's IP has the same editing style, and hails from Sweden as well. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. From the single diff from above I cannot see a clear evidence for trolling - we should not delete more than necessary- I would suggest to leave the comment on the FPC page until your Commons:AN/B#192.36.80.8 AN/B is commented by another admin. IMHO it is not "complete nonesense" what is written from the IP - as I've understood the argument of the IP correctly, Jebulon's reason for the decline "it's my fav place, I will be there next summer and will do it better" is criticized. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but I've never said I'll do better. I've just said that I'll be there next summer, and "I'll try something" (because I think that Tuxyso's attempt was a good idea, but very difficult to achieve successfully). So, maybe I'll try, it's just a challenge for me, nothing arrogant of course.--Jebulon (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that you are not arrogant, I just tried to describe what the IP probably have understood. What do you think Jebulon, is it trolling or just a normal reaction on an FPC review? --Tuxyso (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be both, I guess. On one hand, I am able to answer (technicaly) to the (removed) agressive comment, and to explain better my own comment. On the other hand, if it is only a provocative or trolling intervention, I'm not sure it is necessary to continue the discussion. Of course, as I love the place, I should be very happy to see more and more Featured Pictures of the Alhambra of Granada, even not taken by me  !!! Maybe we could link our debate here to the FPC page ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I commented there. Jee 11:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

• In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Graphium,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

• In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
• In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

review

hi, im a new one to commons, can u review my pictures in qi???, or comments??? i thing they becme as qi--Aathavan jaffna (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aathavan, I have reviewed one of your images. Do take note of the critiques and improve. ;) As for the rest, I did not review, as I'm not very sure how to review those types of photography. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

thak u for ur review...., can i know where i can ask??, anyone can review the rest?--Aathavan jaffna (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No need to ask as it may be considered as canvassing. Wait and see whether they get reviewed. Jee 10:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup @Aathavan. Jee is right. All QI nominations must be reviewed. It's just a matter of time. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ok, however thx :) for ur review :)--Aathavan jaffna (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

COM:AN/V

When you report new vandals to the noticeboard, use {{subst:Report vandal|USER/IP|REASON. ~~~~}}, please. — Revi_complaint? 08:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, @Revi. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Arsenal-Heeresgeschichtliches Museum DSC 7914w.jpg

Hi Arctic Kangaroo,
thanks for having an eye on my image, but the change you reverted was made by myself, not being logged in :-). Cheers, --P e z i (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Aix galericulata (Mandarin Duck), mixed pairs.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Very good choice in a rich scope. Viewing changes to the syntax of scope. we must add a geocoding and the caption location should be indicated. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 Comment I've added geocode and location to caption - hope this helps. -- Baresi franco (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parasol oder Riesenschirmpilz, Macrolepiota procera 3.JPG

Hello! Which photo is better in Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parasol oder Riesenschirmpilz, Macrolepiota procera 3.JPG? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Mandarin Pair.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mandarin Pair.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Insulting language

Hello. You added an offensive commentary on my photo of a frog. You may believe you are a superb photo critic, but this is a photo of a rarely-photographed amphibian and does not warrant the use of language that is offensive in the UK. The original image from the camera, uncropped and before adjustment of tone, is here: [[13]] Charles (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

* Moved from the user page. Bidgee (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You have removed offensive language, but you still say fake-looking, which is insulting. Charles (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You may find "damn" offensive, which I beg to differ, but fair enough. As for fake-looking, I don't see how it is offensive in any way. It is just a critique given to a photo. If a photo is fake-looking (at least to me), it's fake-looking (at least to me). My own opinion. Nothing to argue without valid reason. Sorry. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello..

Hope you have a time to read this as you are the one of my best friend here who keep asking my condition. There you can see a half reason why I always want to retired.. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 21:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on lah bro. Shit happens. Why not take a long wikibreak lasting a few months then come back? You probably need to cool down. IMO you are too infuriated/frequently infuriated by those black sheep assholes you don't look at the wider good. You think that Pisang guy you mentioned didn't irritate me? He's really a pain in my neck + a pain in my ass. Not a great representative of the friendly pinoys. I've noticed most Wikipedians are very friendly. BTW, my appeal to ArbCom last month was unsuccessful. The next acceptable appeal date is 1 March 2015. I will ask AGK (Anthony) in June whether they are willing to give me "early release for good behaviour". If they say "no" then I shall see you next year. If any shit happens just tell me. Please don't leave. You are a great contributor and a great friend. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I should take a rest for a long period. I hope you can come back, the GA may need you there. I see the site are now lack of reviewers, many reviewers has gone. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 07:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's ok, I have withdraw my nomination there since waiting with no response for 8 days. The places section seems no reviewer who currently active. Maybe I will renominate it again once you come back there in the next year. Plus I think the article still need many correction. :P — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 20:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Patrolling

Hi AK. Just a reminder here, please remember to mark the edits you reverted using undo or navigation popups as patrolled. This saves time for other patrollers who are patrolling recent changes. For example, you reverted this and this but did not mark them as patrolled. There are many others as well. In the future, please remember to mark the edits you reverted using undo or navigation popups as patrolled. Thanks. Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 14:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will do so as much as possible. Most of my reverts are done on phone, which as you should know, is not very convenient. ;) Only a small amount of them are done on computer. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You can use RTRC to patrol for vandalism on your phone. I have tried it before. What brand are you using? Jianhui67 ^{talk★contribs} 15:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jianhui67: iPhone 4. Anyway I seriously hate RTRC. It's annoying. The only reason I may use it, and only on computer, is to mass patrol edits of constructive IPs. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Blacklight Margarita Island Sunset in Las Guevaras, Venezuela.jpg

"Blacklight" or "backlit"? Jee 15:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. But "blacklight" doesn't make any sense to me; I don't think there's even such a word. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Black light. But it has a very different meaning. The Photographer is a Spanish speaker and probably using a translator. Jee 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

See Backlighting --The Photographer (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wilfredo, so you mean "backlight"; the present tense of backlit? (Not "blacklight). Jee 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Like Sunsat and Sunset is Blacklight and Backlight. Not a problem with the translator is an oversight on my part --The Photographer (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Photographer: I've helped you to move the file yet again. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome :P --The Photographer (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol should be "thank you". "you are welcome" is in response to "thank you". :P --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

Good evening A. K. Thank you for your compliment.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bro, help!

Haha, bro can you help me to rewording this. My English are not very good on this part. :P

“

"1990s. and later expanded" - while I agree that the sentence shouldn't be terribly long, you should find a way to rewrite this to reflect it's a new sentence, and not just a run-on. — In progress  Done *Eh, "However in the last 20th century" doesn't make sense. I don't mind the reference to 2000s, either. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

”

“

"Vietnam has an embassy in Kuala Lumpur, while Malaysia has an embassy in Hanoi" - should you clarify that both are the respective capitals of the other countries? — In progress (actually I don't understand this, can you be more specifically)?  Done Oh, just that it should be specified that Kuala Lumpur is the capital of Malaysia, and Hanoi is the capital of Vietnam. That's a pretty important fact, and isn't mentioned in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "Both has an embassy located on each other capitals with Vietnam has an embassy in Kuala Lumpur, while Malaysia has an embassy in Hanoi and a consulate office in Ho Chi Minh City. " - poor grammar, specifically "has" (should be "have"), and the "with Vietnam..." part doesn't work. Add a comma after capitals, and find a way to make it flow better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

”

“

Were either Malaysia or Vietnam invaded by Japan in WW2? If so, shouldn't that be mentioned? — In progress  Done "During the World War II, both the Viet Minh and Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army (MPAJA) are against the Japanese invasion of French Indochina and Malaya." - why the present tense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

”

More information you can see here. Thanks!

Btw, you can find the sentence in the article by pressing CTRL+F on your browser and then copy-paste a bit of the sentence above. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 20:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have fix it. :) — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saturn diagram.svg

Wanna like respond at my Saturn nominationn?¿—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I know. But yesterday I had competition for the whole day, and at night I was very tired. Hence I didn't use computer. I even turned the TV off and slept while watching my most favourite football team (LionsXII) at the 70th minute (the new coach is one of the reasons). I will do it later. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 00:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing

Arctic, can you help me do some copy editing here? Thanks! — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 10:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. But I may take a few days, or even a few weeks, as I have been very busy lately. I will probably work on it in MS Word, then copy it over here when it's done. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It's ok, btw, thanks! I hope this guy would give us a time for that. — иz нίpнόp ^ʜᴇʟᴘ! 11:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pyrrhula pyrrhula female 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrrhula pyrrhula female 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Peacock butterfly (inachis io) 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peacock butterfly (inachis io).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please check ...

... your recent nominations. The Photo of JLPC is already in the yesterdays assessment queue. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

deleted in May 4 queue. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit

Is it done now? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 08:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry bro...not yet. Very busy with exam until 19 May. If there's time I do, if not after exam. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's ok. You should focus for your exam first. :) — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Graphium nomius on my couryard at Kadavoor.

Hi Graphium, I remmber you visited my courtyard. :) Jee 09:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor:  :) Btw, a rare skipper visited my flat this evening. I should be uploading some photos to Flickr in the next few week, including that skipper. --Graphium 15:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm; skippers are the most difficult to identify (for me) due to the greater number of variants and the "difficult to capture" wing pose. Jee 16:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Your Forgive(n)

Hi Graphium, Because you now know the rules: I think a good begin is to donate a few of you wonderful photos to general public / commons. Very pity that the pictures are protected by copyright atm. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steinsplitter. :) I did not ask you for the "forgive(n)" as I think you have not forgiven me, judging from various communication with you on the site over the last few months. But I hope you can consider doing so. And back to your question, I have donated some of my images to Commons, and those images are similarly licensed on Flickr. My Flickr images are licensed under various licences, mostly ARR, as well...I'm not really the kind that is willing to release many of my images. :/ I'm really quite regretful that I can't contribute most of my images to Commons. I have very few free images, and prefer contributing to Commons in other ways, as I have done so far. I do admire this guy's spirit and love for open source though, especially images, as you can see from a recent FP nomination of his, as well as my recent post on his talk page. Lastly, I won't appreciate it if you praise my photography in general. Most of my images are terrible; those in Flickr are mostly the rare good shots that I have, and I have a lot to work on in my photography. Cheers. --Graphium 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:CityCat and City Ferry flotilla returns to the river 14 February (5728364964).jpg

Hi, good day! I have tried to remove the dust spots and rotated the picture by about 0.77° CCW. If you have free time, can you please check that was what you meant in the above nomination. If there is some more work to be done, can you add annotations on the image where the dust spots, if any, still persist. Thanks in advance for your time. Nikhil (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikhil. Sorry for the late reply as I have been rather busy lately with my midyears. I just reviewed the image and found one dustspot. I've added a note for that. However, I can't continue at the moment due to some cache problem. I tried purging repeatedly but could not get the new version (although I got it initially). This has been bugging me for as long as I've been on WMF projects. Anyways, I will continue and get back to you again asap, and I would suggest that other than me, you seek a 2nd opinion as well. I tend to miss out on noticing certain flaws in photos sometimes. Cheers. :) --Graphium 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gra, thank you for your time and edit. I also pinged Saffron Blaze for his opinion. He was of the view that it should be tried at QI first. I am not sure that this would pass at FPC now that the size is below the minimum size for an FP. what is your opinion? Thanks in advance. Good day! Nikhil (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikhil. I'm sorry I can't help at the moment. I'm still having the cache problem, and most importantly, I have been busy with my exams over the past few weeks. My last paper is on this coming Monday, 19 May, so I should have a lot of time to help you then. Thanks for your patience. PS. Please don't call me "Gra" or whatever. Graphium is actually a genus of butterfly. cheers, --Graphium 04:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nikhil Update: Still having the problem of not seeing updated versions of images. You may need to wait until this problem of mine is gone. Sorry. I will try to help you asap. --Graphium 10:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

- Exam -

Eh, how was your exam? :P — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 16:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hope you will get a fantastic result! Btw, how about the question? Is it really hard? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 22:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sama-sama. Oh ya, I just heard Rdio just available in Singapore yesterday. Maybe you can use it to relax after exam. :P — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 15:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, just don't forget about the copy-editing. :P — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 20:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but can you email the "cd" link later if it has been started? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 16:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh, you are going to Australia? It's fine here, except getting some Insomnia at night. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 07:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, don't forget to bring some "Kangaroos" here. :P It's ok (Maybe you can be a doctor one day) :P.. Well, when you have always sleep lately + getting more works to be done like the assignments/thesis and get much stress. It would so easy to get the insomnia. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 19:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)