User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 3

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

1854 B&A station[edit]

When you created the category for this station how did you get the year 1854? I'm looking for sources about the station and if you have any it would be great to add to them to the page. Please let me know if you do. Cheers!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this, but I'm still trying to find what I used. All of my notes for compiling the complete history in the main article are somewhere in a large pile at the moment. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Later note: this was resolved in February 2016 when I moved it to Category:Union Station (Pittsfield, Massachusetts, 1866) after further research.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Archives[edit]

FYI - Uploads should also be tagged with Template:City of Boston Archives partnership and perhaps Template:City of Boston Archives license (0403.002) for the OTRS. I have not felt there is a need to inform Geo Swan. If you are interested, the Template:Boston Public Library collection could also be improved. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that either of those categories should be added to images from their flickr stream. They are licensed under a conventional CC license (not that old template) and they are being taken from a public stream (not supplied as part of the old partnership program). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. All of the images already tagged are posted on Flickr. Previously there was no option for PD there, which is why the license is the one with the lowest restricion available. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's tricky. For flickr images that I am 100% are PD (particularly images published before 1923) I add the PD tag in addition to the CC tag. CC-BY is such a minimal restriction anyway - any sort of proper academic use would demand attribution for verifiability anyway - that I don't bother looking too hard for the additional PD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the OTRS? I am only trying to help out here, but since I have no immediate interest in Boston, I have not. Perhaps it would clarify the situation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not, so I don't know whether it releases all BPL images or merely those released under the program. Lacking other information, using the CC-BY licenses from all files actually transferred from flickr is definitely on the legal side of any grey area, and probably the easiest as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old MBTA Service Car[edit]

I'm curious about the manufacturer of this old service car next to the PCC Car from 1967 on the former Green Line "A" Branch. ----DanTD (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that service car an old Peter DeWitt or something else?
That's #6131, a Center-Entrance Motor #1B built by Kuhlman in 1918 and run in revenue service until 1953. 6131 was kept around a while as a service car; and it's not at Seashore. The NETransit roster is the definitive guide; it has full historical information, and is kept up to date nearly daily on CR moves. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just wish I could add a category for that streetcar, because so far I can't seem to find one. ----DanTD (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made categories for any of the BERy and M.T.A. rolling stock older than the PCCs yet, though it's in my plans to do so. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unidentified image near you[edit]

I've been searching through the category Category:Roads in unidentified countries, and despite the buildings that no longer exist, I believe this is actually near Wood Island (MBTA station). Care to provide further evidence? ----DanTD (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The pedestrian bridge over the RR tracks and the street name sign started me off, but the signs along the median convinced me this is where it was.
Yes, that is Neptune Road in East Boston, which still exists (albeit truncated and stripped of buildings). There are several others also in Category:East Boston. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Later note: Category:Neptune Road is now well-populated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using Your work and Attributing it to you Appropriately[edit]

Good Morning,

We are interested in using your work for commercial purposes and want to ensure that the work is attributed appropriately. Please e-mail me at [removed to avoid spam] to discuss your preferences. Thank you for your time.

I've emailed you and removed the email here to prevent you from getting spammed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Station of NYC Subway[edit]

Excuse me but I don't understand your question: what's the difference between Category:Stations of New York City Subway and Category:Stations of New York City Subway ? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 17:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand. But I guess that you are requesting an inconsistent thing. You see, the general naming rules on Commons are different from en.wiki. Here the naming rule is "subject of main topic" (Players of XXXXX, not XXXX players, Alumni of XXXX, not XXXX alumni, and so on). Thus I suppose that you infere that metro stations make exception from the rest of Commons? Let me know, please, and show me where it has been decided. Waiting for your response. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 07:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks, π, for your helpful message! I will categorize my media from now on! :-) user groov3, JH Roy from Montreal

Roger Puta images[edit]

I've tried fashioning a template suitable for these images: {{RogerPuta}}. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! That simplifies three of my tasks into one. And I see it works just fine with the reviewer bot. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: User talk:Jameslwoodward#File:Canadian (22263483230).jpg. Mackensen (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know more about the exact status of Puta's images? We're going to have go down the OTRS route to save these. It's enough to make someone rage-quit. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going well; I'm tempted to walk away. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden State (21771931904).jpg[edit]

You flagged this as Washington Heights, which is plausible, but any idea about the exact location? There's a station building on the right, but I can't correlate it with an existing structure on the Rock Island Line. There's some old timetables at [1] with disused stations listed as well. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the 99th street station - it's barely visible on the station sign. Here's a 1967 aerial to compare to. (The digits aren't very clear, but 95th street didn't look like that at the time and 55th and 59th were grade-separated). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Hello Pi.1415926535/Archive 3, the following content you uploaded violates one or more of our policies and therefore has been or will soon be deleted:

File:T.F. Green Airport station schedule.JPG

The Wikimedia Commons (this website) only hosts media files with a realistic educational purpose and that can be used for any purpose, including:
  • use in any work, regardless of content
  • creation of derivative works
  • commercial use
  • free distribution

See Commons:Licensing for the copyright policy on Wikimedia Commons, and Commons:Image casebook for some specific examples. Some other Wikimedia projects have different licensing policies. For example, the English Wikipedia allows fair use of sounds and photographs. This is not the case on Wikimedia Commons; "fair use" materials are not acceptable here.

Please make sure that you only upload educational content you have created yourself, those which are out of copyright, or those for which you have the required permission for the work to be used in all the ways described above. Please note that derivative works of copyrighted material are also considered copyrighted. Again, please read through Commons:Licensing, which is quite crucial, to understanding how Wikimedia Commons works. Thanks for your contribution, and please do leave me a message if you have further questions.

Yours sincerely, Alan (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for the quick delete. I wasn't quite as clear what was and wasn't PD when I started out editing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston SC Amtrak station[edit]

I should've known Category:Amtrak in 2015 was the better category for most of those images of Charleston, South Carolina (Amtrak station) than Category:2015 in rail transport in the United States. So, thanks for the ones you did. I'm just glad I was able to expand the gallery before the floods came. ----DanTD (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! That was just some side cleanup I was doing as part of populating Category:MBTA by year. The by-year model worked really well for Amtrak and seems good so far for the MBTA; it might be worthwhile for NYCS, LIRR, NJT, SEPTA, etc that have a lot of images every year. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trams in the US[edit]

Okay, about this: Which of the other cats of this photo is a better replacement for Category:Trams in the United States, in your opinion, considering COM:OVERCAT? The way I see it, none is:

Unrelated categories
Categories about trams, but not about the United States
Categories about the United States, but not about trams

So, which is it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Nashville Electric Railway & Power Co. is indeed about trams - the company operated trams in Nashville (and, like many tram operators of the era, sold power on the side). That category is properly categorized under Category:Trams in Tennessee which in turn is under Category:Trams in the United States by city. Is that not reasonable? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is reasonable, once you added Category:Trams in Tennessee to Category:Nashville Electric Railway & Power Co.; when I created the latter last october I didn’t do that (unlike for countless other such cat. about US suburbans) for a reason, which, alas now eludes me. Eitherway it is acceptable, especially since futurely that company cat will be split along several subcats, one of them being something like Category:Tram fleet of Nashville Electric Railway & Power Co. (thus enabling separate categorization of non-tram items pertaining to this company). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Nashville appears to have a particularly complex history of street railways; finding out which folded into which is not easy, but long term I'd also hope to have a hierarchy of categories that reflect that history. I actually just created Trams in Tennessee (and another two dozen tram categories) today while cleaning out the tram and horse tram metacats for the US. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester & Millbury Electric Railway Co.[edit]

Hello again! About this one: You removed Category:Interurbans in the United States, but this route looks pretty much interurban (i.e., countryside/rural) to me, especially considering how the area looked like before Car Age. Not so? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True interurbans have several very important distinguishing characteristics from street railways and locally-oriented rural lines: private right of way over the majority of the route, heavier rolling stock and trackbed for higher speeds, and limited-stop service oriented around intercity rather than local travel. Only three Massachusetts lines - the Boston & Worcester Street Railway, the Grafton & Upton, and the Berkshire Street Railway's Huckleberry Line (Lee-Huntington) - had significant interurban characteristics. The Worcester & Millbury (which was very quickly pulled into the Worcester Consolidated) ran entirely on street trackage, had lightweight rolling stock (note the single-truck car in the image), and made local stops, so it was just an ordinary rural line. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page stalker) Middleton did apparently recognize the Consolidated as an interurban, although I haven't read past the citation. The line gets blurred easily since so many interurbans started as knitted-together street railways. Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Worcester Consolidated did have some lines of an arguably interurban nature, notably the line which connected with the ConnCo and SLERy's New London Division. I don't believe the Millbury Line was ever anything but street running, though. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pi.1415926535, thanks for the input and the food for thought. I tend to see the distinction more on the street running vs. rural r.o.w. aspect (even when on or next to a road), the rest — rolling stock, schedules, mean distance between halts, etc. — being subsidiary to that distinction. Your definition seems to limit the name "interurban" to heavier outfits, excluding, seems to me, the “vicinal” network in Belgium (the very epytom of European interurbans), or this quaint little thing. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that both the vicinals and the Eletrico de Sintra qualify as interurbans by any definitions - both included substantial amounts of separated ROW and limited stops (the Eletrico stops less than once per kilometer), even if the rolling stock was lighter than would normally have appeared on an American interurban. Hinton and Due (in The Electric Interurban Railways in America) mention the European networks as interurbans, but do not include local-stopping rural lines unless they had substantial sections of private ROW. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

permission to use photo[edit]

Hello Pi,

The Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration (a non-profit) would like to use one of your photos in an upcoming book, The History of Tunneling in the United States. Could you please contact me via email at [email removed to avoid spam].

Thanks so much,

Diane Serafin Managing Technial Editor for SME

Just sent. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi Pi.1415926535, Bit random but I apologize if I've upset or offended you with my RFA !vote - Having reread it it did come across in a shitty way which certainly wasn't my intention and it should've been much better worded than what it was,
Anyway I apologize if I had upset or offended you - Beers are on me ,
Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 11:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: : Don't worry, I was not offended, though I do appreciate you softening your wording. I don't think we've ever interacted before this week, but I've seen you around (I almost replied to your comments on Geo Swan's talk page a few days before my RfA, oddly enough) so I did consider your !vote as something to think about more than those of editors I already assumed weren't very fond of me. Not in an attempt to change your vote now, but looking at the possibility of a future RfA (right now it's 12/4 which could easily go either way), I was wondering if you could answer some questions about what you do look for in an RfA candidate. (If you prefer, you can wait until after the RfA closes to answer).
One was your comment "I'm not seeing any actual need for the tools whatsoever". I'm asking for the tools primarily to perform speedy deletions of obvious copyvios, duplicates, etc which I come across in my regular work, and for deleting categories (I do a lot of cat moves to synchronize structures, and to reflect new information I uncover about rail stations). I can't see my deleted edits, but I have about 1,680 which I'm guessing correlates to at least a thousand admin actions that I've requested. Do these types of edits not represent a need for tools (i.e, do you believe it is better to have fewer and thus busier but more trusted/experienced users with admin rights); if so, is that a wider consensus across Commons? I had assumed that it would be useful for me not to have to request that many admin actions, but I may well be wrong.
Second (and related), I've indicated that I don't necessarily intend to do a lot at DR except for closing of obvious cases. (I'd estimate that at least half of the files there at any one time are copyvios that could have been speedied anyway; if I can clear out some of those at times, then more experienced admins would have more time to tackle the thorny ones). Is me not having done a lot at DR a liability simply because it casts doubt on my ability to determine which images should and should not be on Commons? Or is more substantial experience at DR viewed as a prerequisite for being trusted with speedy deletions? Or something else entirely? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator![edit]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ +/−

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Pi.1415926535, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! That was a close shave. Good luck with the tools! Jianhui67 talk★contribs 23:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations :) -- Geagea (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA[edit]

Congratulations, Pi.1415926535. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:LaToya Forever.jpg[edit]

Hello. I have to do a big mea culpa on the Latoya Forever file not having the appropriate license. I have been working with the web master from her site to get a picture on and it was accidentally licensed wrong. It has now been corrected, is it possible to get it processed as a keeper now that everything is in order (at least I hope everything is in order). MPJ-DK (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that the license has already been changed on flickr; the file has been updated and I've closed the deletion discussion. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of MIG-15 from Beverly Aiport[edit]

Why was there need to delete that? It was unique image and given gave some degree of characterization of the work. This was my own work, what was the issue with that image? -- Colt9033 (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colt9033: First of all, it has not been deleted yet; the deletion discussion is still open here. Second, while you took the photo, you only own the copyright to any original artistry in the photograph. The sign that you photographed was put in place after 1989, and it is thus copyrighted to its author under US law, and that copyright is relevant in this photo as well. This page can probably explain that better than I. So, unless there is proof that the author of the sign also released their work under a Commons-compatible license - which is extremely unlikely - then the photo cannot be hosted on Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosales & Partners[edit]

Despite closing that as 'no consensus', I've also marked 53 of them as {{Npd}}, and they should die from that. Reventtalk 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Metrorail categories[edit]

You say the removal of location-specific Washington Metrorail categories were redundant;

"Redundant or duplicate: no need for this secondary level of disambiguation"

What about the disambiguation between the locations and the line colors? ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are six lines and three jurisdictions; at any reasonable future point there will be at most two more lines. There is no possible need to further subdivide eleven categories in this manner - it just creates an additional level of clicking through that doesn't add any useful value. See for example Category:MBTA stations which has several types of subcategory and works just fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oratorio di San Maurizio - Villadossola (VB) panoramica con campanile 06.jpg[edit]

Hi, I saw that you removed the SD request in that file. Actually the user bacame aware of a copyviol and wanted to remove the image without making a lot of fuzz (discussion about it in our discussion pages). How do you suggest to proceed? --Ruthven (msg) 08:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthven: : The user made no indication that it was a copyvio, nor that there was any discussion elsewhere. The speedy deletion tag given was G7, which is only valid for unused images less than seven days old, neither of which was true here. As such, there was no valid reason given for deletion. The user should provide evidence that it is a copyvio - either a web link in a speedy deletion tag, or a longer explanation in a conventional deletion request. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's difficult to follow a long conversation in Italian, but we were saying that it is a copyviol because the author is still alive and there is no evidence that the sculpture was released with a free license. I'll point him toward a conventional deletion request. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pi.1415926535, I am the author who Ruthven make reference to, he is right because the author of the sculpture is still alive, it was my mistake because taking a whole photo shoot in the church I took picture of a monument that might be a violation of the copyright, a warm greeting--Fcarbonara (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Menzies[edit]

Hi,

Many thanks for deleting all those images!--5 albert square (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I try to check the administrator's backlog every few days. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive_3&oldid=544093454"