User talk:PhysalusAntiquorum

Long-finned pilot whale

Hi. You recently labeled a photo with a captain that clearly stated it was a long-finned pilot whale as "Unidentified Cetacea". Why? All you had to do was type in it's common name on Google and it's scientific name would've appeared. You could've then copied and pasted them into the proper cat. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not a native englsih speaker and I didn't notice that "long-finned pilot whale" was the name of the specie. In fact, as it was in the category "Unidentified Mammalia", I changed it in "Unidentified Cetacea" which is more precise but I couldn't identify precisely the specie just by judging the picture. Thank you for correcting that. Florn (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning for repeated vandalism

{{|autotranslate|base=test3|1=|2=}} --[[User:Amitie 10g|Amitie 10g]] ([[User talk:Amitie 10g|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a warped sense of what vandalism is. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and another admin has blocked the person who gave you the warning, which IMO was inappropriate. Your nominations may have been, er, optimistic, but vandalism they were not. You may consider the warning withdrawn on behalf of the admins, but I do suggest you look at some other deletion nominations to see what sort of things are really deletable. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just seconding this... you do not look like a vandal, at all. Maybe a bit 'new and over-enthusiastic', but that's not a big deal. You should probably take some time to look over the COM:Deletion policy and COM:CSD before you nominate lots of files, but being new is not a crime. Revent (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion nominations

Dear PhysalusAntiquorum,

Some people find your deletion nominations disruptive and I can't say that I disagree with them. Commons has quite a broad scope. Files are often considered usefull even if they are blurry, vague etcetera because they still have educational value. And honestly, the quality of the images you nominated for deletion isn't that bad and in general files like that are not deleted. Could you please refrain from creating such nominations for deletion? Natuur12 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's take File:Ducks on Lake Maxinkuckee.jpg for example. If one is about to write a travel guide to that specific area this photograph can be used quite nicely as a stock photograph. It can also be used to illustrate the subject reflection of water. Natuur12 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. What about all the cetacean articles I nominated? None of those have any use on cetacean-related pages. I mean, you can't even tell what species any of them are! And why keep a blank page?? That's ridiculous. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, this one is indeed bad but it is in use. Generally we don't delete files that are in use. However, this file is not used in article but in a De-wiki village pump. It is not uncommon that files used in that specific village pump are deleted because they try to ID species over there and often the files are nominated when the ID fails but not always. Normally we don't delete files if they are used to illustrate a discussion at a local village pump. Personally I would close that DR as delete but others will close it as keep. When it comes to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eighty years ashore and afloat, or, The thrilling adventures of Uncle Jethro - embracing the remarkable episodes in a life of toil and danger, on land and sea (1873) (14782903492).jpg. Yes, this one is out of scope but the uploader usually goes through his uploads and nominates them for speedy deletion. You couldn't have known that so that DR was correct and Amitie could have placed this speedy tag himself instead of closing the DR like this. Not all your DR's are bad, like this one. This one could have been closed as delete just as easily. But scope is a tricky one especially since everyone has their own perspective if something has educational value. People are a it annoyed so it might be better to get some more experience with com:SCOPE before starting scope based DR's since people are getting a bit frustrated as you can see above. Natuur12 (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

So pretty much any cetacean photo I wanna delete might get kept because a single pixel has "educational value"? That's really stupid. Oh, and Amitie's a bastard. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks like that, however aggrieved you may feel, are a surefire route to a block. Meanwhile, please read COM:MELLOW. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edits

Please use edit summaries, just as a matter of courtesy. It makes the whole project run smoother. Thanks. Revent (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I know. I'm lazy. I'm not putting an edit summary for the few hundred times someone can't identify a gosh-darn harbor seal or mallard. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Block expires: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 05:21:55 GMTHedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 05:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

That was expected. Guess I get to read today. :0 PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Block expires: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:32:21 GMTHedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. Now I'll have to only identify actual whales and ducks! How terrible!! Too bad whale and duck season are just around the corner. *Whimpers longingly* PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop whining and just behave properly. There's no reason to call other peeps names. Sigh... --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with "asshat"? PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? Here's a quick field guide... don't call people things that are in the Urban Dictionary, especially if there are more than 5 pages of definitions. Revent (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't check the Urban Dictionary. Good idea! I'll go do that now. Thanks. :) PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Provocations lead to: removal of email and talk page editing rights. Doesn't want to learn or isn't able to. Next block could be indefinite, just FYI. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)