User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 10

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

Could you explain the multiple reverts of the wikidata infoboxes[edit]

Hi, I noticed you reverted multiple of my staging work for wikidata infoboxes including the Great Trestle. Can you explain why these were removed? I'm working on linking the categories and/or creating concepts in wikidata for items in the covered bridges which have a category of their own so there is consistency across and the concepts can be queries from Wikidata. Wolfgang8741 (talk)

@Wolfgang8741: Wikidata infoboxes should only be added after the corresponding Wikidata item is created and linked in order to avoid the NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND! error. If for some reason it is necessary to add the infobox first, your edit summary needs to be something like Adding Wikidata Infobox – will be linked to Wikidata item shortly so that other editors understand what you are doing. Otherwise, it just looks like you are adding blank infoboxes. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation, but I disagree that that the "No Wikidata ID found" is an error. This is not presented to a user in any "warning" dialog, but the category is a tracking category which to monitor for uses of a template and only for concepts which a Wikidata item should be created. Setting that aside, I encourage reviewing a user's contributions and timestamp to see if they are actively working on the category before reverting, or contacting them in case the timestamp is close to present and they may be working across a category. I'm using the workflow of adding infoboxes first is important as it enables creating the wikidata item from wikicommons which also associates the commons category as the origin and associated to Wikidata Q without extra actions to associate. The ability to apply a longer comment is a good suggestion, but what I added was not inaccurate and due to manually typing the comments each time I was looking for a balance of efficiently working across categories of bridges and chose a shorter comment. Wolfgang8741 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That message is visible, in all caps, whether logged in or not. To the reader, or even to the user who is not rather familiar with Wikidata, it will always be read as an error. Please remember that most people viewing a category are not "power users" like you and I.
Yes, as I always do, I reviewed your recent contributions. What I saw was mass addition of infoboxes without Wikidata items attached, without edit summaries clearly explaining why. Your edit summaries should always be sufficiently clear that it is not necessary to review numerous contributions across multiple wikis, or to contact you, to even understand that your edits are useful. Not wanting to type out an edit summary - especially for repetitive edits that can have the same edit summary - is not an excuse for unclear edit summaries. There are plenty of workarounds; most browsers have autofill functions for text fields, or you could use an extended clipboard (an optional setting in most OS). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation[edit]

I am looking for a power user to categorise several files of the following person(s), please. Are you able to do that? Otherwise, please ignore the request or tell me, where to ask:

@NearEMPTiness: After taking a look, I ended up deleting the user's uploads as spam. All were uploaded to promote a non-notable artist (not the same as the possibly notable doctor), and the account is already blocked on fawiki for sockpuppetry. For categorization, all I would have used is VFC. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, thank you very much. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kiftaan[edit]

COM:PCP requires deletion in cases of "significant doubt". Can you elaborate on where you see the significant doubt in this case? These are images of US soldiers on patrol, carrying firearms in a foreign country. How can this plausibly be anything but on duty? Is it possible to come up with a weird scenario where this was taken off duty? Maybe. But I don't see how that doubt reaches the threshold of significant. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in {{PD-US-Army}} is ...taken or made as part of that person's official duties.... That's very different from merely 'taken while on duty' - while there is little doubt they were taken while on duty, I have significant doubt that these photos were taken as part of official duties. I have no strong feelings about the DR - I was just closing the oldest DRs - so you're more than welcome to bring it to COM:UDR for review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


COM:AN/U[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Pi.1415926535. Disruptive behaviour..

5.173.12.61 08:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, explain your mass removal of so-called "Tangential categories" from the map file below.[edit]

I reverted your edit here [1]. I looked for a Policy and definition of "tangential categories." Can you provide me a link(s). Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are only for the subject of a file, not tangentially related subjects. There is no need to categorize a regional map under every single municipality visible on it - that would result in the categories for this municipalities being bloated by dozens or hundreds of files where the only connection is the place's name fifteen pixels high. Those municipalities are not the subject of the map, and it is not useful for this file to appear in those categories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs‎[edit]

Hello, You notified me on my talk page about the existence of Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs‎, at the time a hidden file. You removed the hidden file status so I and others would not make the same mistake in categorization. (I've spent much time undoing my mistakes regarding this.) Today Lieutcoluseng replaced the hidden file status. I undid this. Hope that was ok. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, I was attempting to upload a new logo file for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Clearly, I have done this incorrectly.

I was trying to do this because the current uploaded logo uses a stroke for the outline, which causes issues when scaling. I was attempting to upload a newer, scalable version published by their brand guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHIutch (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IHIutch: I'm not quite sure what you need help with - with uploading the file, or getting the SVG correct? I can help with general questions like the former; for specific SVG technical questions, I'd ask at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't very clear. I was attempting to update this current logo file with a new version, which I uploaded here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Massachusetts_Bay_Transporation_Authority_Logo.svg. I do not have the permissions to replace the MBTA.svg file. I was hoping to replace the current version with one that is scalable (one that doesn't use a stroke width on the outline circle). IHIutch (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IHIutch: Gotcha. New users aren't able to upload new versions of existing files (to prevent spam, trolling, etc). I've uploaded your version to the existing file and deleted the duplicate. Happy editing! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rock on, tyvm IHIutch (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal is back[edit]

Hello, it seem the vandal is back. Veverve (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Thanks for the notice. IP blocked, page re-protected. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fuck this

--KOsaurusrex (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The return[edit]

Welcome back. This is too painful for me right now, but I will shortly be writing a summary of the ban period as well as the actions of you and the other administrator towards me. Regards. Matlin (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ready yet, sorry. Matlin (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video incorrectly attributing your images / images you've uploaded[edit]

Hello,

I recently watched a Youtube video which credited you at the end, but did not abide by the actual CC license requirements of your photos.

Namely, the video didn't provide a link to your images in the video or description, nor indicate the CC licence they were under (assuming they were not public domain), nor a link to such licenses.

I just wanted to let you know about this. I think the creator of the video has good intentions, but I didn't want to email them about changing the attribution on your behalf.

Neuroxic (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuroxic: Thanks for the heads up. Sad to say, most of the usages I see of my images are improperly credited or licensed. At the moment, I'm attempting to deal with an eBay user who has thousands of items for sale using my photographs, none of which are even attributed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deleted image under death's dynamic shroud[edit]

Hello,

I am the original uploader of this image, and saw it was deleted under a 'copyright violation' by you.

I am in discussion with the members of the group and was wondering on a solution to this - is there any way I can indicate that it is within public domain in a reupload?

Thanks, SydAtMaulcat (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SydAtMaulcat: Please see COM:VRTS for instructions. Please note that permission is needed from the copyright owner; depending on the contract made with the photographer, copyright may be owned by the band or by the photographer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deletion of Images[edit]

Hello,

I am the upoader of these images.

I want to be able to show the logo that is being used and used to be used Granted, the Paramount Home Entertainment logo was not an official logo, but at least that one should have been the only one to be deleted. Also, when I uploaded these images, I said they were not my own. I want to understand how these deletions can be avoidable. How can I avoid these deletions in the future? This is the first time I have seen these many deletions in my commons. RamsesTimeGame (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RamsesTimeGame: Please read Commons:Licensing. Commons is a repository of free images; most copyrighted images - including these logos - are not allowed on Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could I please redraw an diagram which was deleted by you due to copyright reasons on Czech Wikipedia?[edit]

Good morning sir, I recently visited "Elektronová konfigurace" page on Czech Wikipedia and noticed one of the images was missing. I looked in edit history of the page and saw that the File:Elektronová_konfigurace.png was deleted. I then was able to find the deletion request page and saw in the discussion, that it is possible to redraw it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Elektronov%C3%A1_konfigurace.png I would like to recreate, redraw the image, but I don't know how to access the original file so I can start drawing. Could you please help me with that?

Thanks, BratwurstBaron BratwurstBaron (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BratwurstBaron: If you send me an email (you may need to click "Allow other users to email me" in Special:Preferences) I can email you a copy. Regards, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Where is your email? I didn't find it on your page BratwurstBaron (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BratwurstBaron: Special:EmailUser/Pi.1415926535.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Notable Russians.jpg[edit]

Hello, today you notified me that you need to add the missing information, otherwise the file will be deleted. Now I have added all the necessary information. Please uncheck the missing information box. John locke1995 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John locke1995: Thanks for adding the sources. In the future, please remember to indicate all source works when uploading files. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you! John locke1995 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Andrea Hickey File[edit]

Hi. I've asked Chiyako92 to review this file, which is similar to the one that was deleted. She previously reviewed this one, which was uploaded under the same circumstances, from what I can tell, and is included in a featured article. Please allow her time to review before deleting, per the "reasonable possibility" F1 guidelines. JCLowe3 (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JCLowe3: Please read Commons:Licensing. All files uploaded to Commons must be under a free license that does not restrict usage and modifications. The vast majority of files that you find on the internet do not have such free licenses and cannot be placed on Commons. When you view this video, clicking "More" shows you that the video is under a license that only requires attribution, which is compatible with Commons. When you view this video, no such compatible license is shown. That means the file is not allowed to be uploaded to Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the "More" option that you mentioned. Where can that be found? Can you possibly take a screenshot or copy and paste the text from that link? JCLowe3 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JCLowe3: It appears that is not visible on mobile view - you will need to open the desktop site. Most mobile browsers have "view in desktop site" or similar available on the menu. (I just confirmed it works in Chrome, using the three-dot menu at upper right.) When in desktop mode, "More" is just under the video title. In any case, it is your responsibility to confirm a Commons-compatible license before uploading - you cannot simply grab images from the internet and assume they're allowed on Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't simply assuming it was allowed on Commons. I saw the Hathaway image and couldn't spot any difference; that is why I uploaded it. I wouldn't have otherwise. Anyway, I can't see the "More" option on my desktop. Just trying to get a decent image of the performer on this site. I can tell that this one might not work out, though. -- JCLowe3 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. If you really want to remove these, go ahead. The consent form for "2022" was sent via e-mail, but it looks like the article on 'Wikipedia' is going to be deleted. JCLowe3 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo da Galiña Azul (Ourense)[edit]

Hello. You have deleted Logo da Galiña Azul (Ourense). However, the logo is on the façade of the school, it is a public school and the photo is taken on the street. Other examples:

Galiña_Azul_Carballo
A_Galiña_Azul_de_Coirados,_Marín
A_galiña_azul_A_Xunqueira

Best regards. --[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tfeliz Tiberio Feliz (My Talk)] (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tfeliz Tiberio Feliz: I have undeleted the file. Please remember to use {{FoP-Spain}} to indicate photos of artworks etc taken in public places. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Pi.1415926535! I'll upload an image with a wider plan that reflects the public nature of the photo well. Best regards! [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tfeliz Tiberio Feliz (My Talk)] (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:AcuraARX-06.jpg[edit]

Hi Pi.1415926535. Would you mind taking a look at COM:VPC#File:AcuraARX-06.jpg? You already deleted this file a few days ago as a copyvio and it appears to have simply been reuploaded without any verification of its licensing provided. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. The uploader has been since blocked. Perhaps that will finally get their attention? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One would hope so. Unfortunately, it seems to be very difficult to impress upon users that copyvios are not allowed; I've only seen a handful that actually switched to uploading properly licensed photos. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking[edit]

@Pi.1415926535: wondering if you could reconsider (of course with all parties concerned) the decision blocking Jan Arkesteijn. If you ask me, this has all to do with the language barrier. The block dates from 2008 and Jan Arkesteijn Reyk stated back in 2008 The damage deliberately inflicted by this user will take a lot of time and effort to clean up. They shouldn't be allowed to touch this project again. If the clean up Reyk means has to do with what I did a couple of minutes ago with f.e. File:Alexander Pavlovich coloured drawing.png, I do think this is a situation that can be taken care of., if for example Jan Arkesteijn cleans up what went wrong. Thank yo so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje: I would be very hesitant to consider an unblock. This was not a language barrier; this was deliberate falsification of images and even EXIF data. That level of deceit carried out for years means that there would need to be checking of every single edit they make for quite a while, and many users would be unlikely to ever fully trust them again. This is not a case like copyvios or rudeness where it is easy to confirm that they are abiding by a restriction; it would take significant volunteer time to ensure they were actually fixing their wrongs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pi.1415926535 for your clarification. On the other hand, can you take a look at this image, I added some information and was wondering if that is the correct way to at least do something about the missing infobox template. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit looks generally good. I made a few additional changes (see diff) to archive the source, correct the license, etc. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of two images[edit]

I was trying to upload an image using two images made by Pi.1415926535 to show comparison between two Muni buses between 2019 and 2020. Is it acceptable to upload it to Commons? Here is what I tried to download two images and upload one image:
File:T Third Street bus on King Street, October 2020.JPG
File:Muni route 18 bus on Fulton Street, September 2019.JPG
Evan0512 (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you would be allowed to upload the composite image. The 2020 image is {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} and the 2019 image is {{CC BY-SA 3.0}}; you would use {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} for the composite since 4.0 is backwards-compatible with 3.0. However, before you upload it, I'd like to know what the image is for, for two reasons:
  • If it's for a Wikipedia article, there are templates like en:Template:Multiple image that can display the images without needing to upload the composite separately.
  • There's not much to compare here; other than the minor variation in paint scheme on the 2019 image (which is too trivial to need to be illustrated on Wikipedia), they're identical buses.
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: , I uploaded a compared file of two Muni buses together, like File:Muni bus wheelchair ramp comparison between 2019 and 2020.png. I don't have much to say, which

Presidential standard of Russia[edit]

Hi, I've made an update for File:Flag of the President of Russia.svg, and I made a request at its talk page, and I'm sincerely hope you can help to review and apply the change. Best regards. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't have the knowledge required to review your proposed change. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sarah Connelly.jpg[edit]

I thought the VRT Ticket:2022082810006458 had be placed on this file. If not, it should be restored, with the ticket number, for the time being as it is being worked on to obtain permission. Ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ww2censor: Copyvio or not, this file and the others from the same uploader are out of scope and don't belong on Commons. See en:Draft:Sarah Connelly which shows no indication of notability, and also User talk:JohnGood2022 which makes it pretty clear the uploader does not actually have rights to the image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He just uploaded it again today! Ww2censor (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between that and the personal attacks on his talk page, I've blocked him as NOTHERE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request[edit]

I was wondering if you'd be able to help revdel the original versions of the following images I uploaded since they contain faces of people (the latest versions are cropped):

Thanks! wctaiwan (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wctaiwan: Generally, we don't use revdel just to hide faces in photos of public spaces, unless there is a specific reason to do so (such as images of protestors who might be endangered by such photos). There are hundreds of thousands of images of public places on Commons, most of which have faces visible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockville gare et station de métro[edit]

(en français car je ne parle pas et ne comprend pas l'anglais) Bonjour, vous avez reverté les regroupements séparés des images de la gare et de la station du métro ce qui n'est pas pratique pour retrouver puis illustrer les images car il s'agit bien de deux éléments distinct (proriétaires différents et surtout système d'exploitation différents) d'un ensemble multimodal. Il est vrai qu'en anglais tout est "station" mais en français il y a une "gare ferroviaire" et en parallèle une "station de métro" ce qui n'est pas la même chose et justifie des articles séparés. Le regroupement des images spécifiques au métro ne posait pas plus de problèmes que le regroupement des images, toujours existant, de l'ancien bâtiment de la gare. Cordialement Quoique (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(via Google Traduction) Il s'agit d'une seule gare avec un seul hall qui dessert à la fois les trains de grande ligne et de métro. Peu importe comment cela serait considéré en France. Il n'y a pas besoin d'une catégorie Commons séparée ni d'un élément Wikidata séparé. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Arkesteijn[edit]

Hello Pi.1415926535, I was wondering if there would be a possibility to come back on your decision. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje You asked me this barely six weeks ago. Nothing has changed from the response I gave then. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pi.1415926535 ...deliberate falsification of images and even EXIF data... wish I could find an example to fully understand what you mean. Thank you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Commons AN/U thread and enwiki AN/I thread that led to his block on both wikis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, is action needed like I did here? Thnks. Lotje (talk) 07:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loris565[edit]

Hello Pi.1415926535,

you closed that DR but did not delete (or keep) File:Fort d'Arguin (Mauritanie).png. Would you please take another look? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 09:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig ✓ Done Thanks for notifying me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Per this PDF states "This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." just before the reference section.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James My understanding from the DR was that while the article text is CC licensed, the images may have separate copyright from their source. I'm not the most familiar with the ins and outs of open-access publishing, though - I was trying to close the oldest DRs. Looks like the image has been brought to COM:UDR already. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Richard Klein[edit]

Hello Pi.1415926535,

thank you for closing that DR. Four files are left and were neither deleted nor kept. Could you please take another look? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig Good catch - looks like the mass process gadget messed up. I've deleted them now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco (37608245174).jpg[edit]

In what policies you base your deletion of this file??? Since when is "junk file from mass upload" justification for your speedy deletion of this file outside of any proper and established form. Just because you are an administrator, it does not put you above and outside of rules. Also File:Leica Moments (15817739592).jpg is in the same situation. Undelete this files and follow proper ways and not your own ways. Tm (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the same with File:New Flyer DE60LFR (46716375984).jpg with the same "arguments". Tm (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States (37521073921) (cropped).png with the excuse of "nonsense crop" albeit is was and is in use in mzn:بیز. Tm (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first three files were a poor angle of a well-documented structure that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, a photo of an unidentified private individual, and an out-of-focus photo that, again, adds nothing educationally distinct. All of them were from mass uploads where the uploaders did not do any curation for out-of-scope, copyvio, etc images, nor did the uploader add useful filenames or descriptions. (It appears that you have similarly forgotten to do the latter with many of your recent uploads.)
I would have undeleted any of these if you asked and indicated why you believed they were in scope. However, I'm rather confused by your intentions. You've already re-uploaded several of the files - what use would it be to undelete them? Why did you not add required information (like a description and non-generic filename for File:San Francisco (37608245174).jpg) when reuploading them? If the files are important to have on Commons, surely it's important they have useful names and descriptions so they can be found and used.
You are correct that the fourth file was in use - that was an error on my part. I opened a tab to replace it and must have accidentally closed it before making the replacement; thanks for fixing that. However, that crop is functionally a duplicate of the original (and other crops like File:DJT Official Portrait cropped.jpg); there was no reason to create a separate crop. Like most of that user's other uploads, it was not created with any intention of in-scope use; it was created solely for creating fake infoboxes of nonexistent elections, which are then used for roleplaying games on reddit and whatnot. I intentionally did not delete the user's other two portrait uploads, which have distinct value and are in use. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive_10&oldid=718048564"