User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 9

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

Trash[edit]

Hello,

I think you (and fellow admins) have missed a few files in my trash bin. The first four files there have been tagged for author deletion since February 11 with no response/action. Once these are deleted, that should complete the curation/downsizing/cleanup of my earliest uploads. Nick Boppel (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Boppel: I've deleted those files. Commons has a backlog of deletion requests; in many cases, it may be several months before they get closed by an admin. Within a week of uploading a file, you can add {{SD|G7}} to the file for speedy deletion which is typically quicker than filing a deletion requests. Ultimately, though, you should be doing your curation prior to uploading. Several of your Shawmut images, for example, are rather blurry, and you should have decided not to upload them in the first place. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, the photos that I uploaded are actually the best ones out of the bunch that I took at Shawmut. It is incredibly difficult to get high-quality photos underground, especially with the MBTA's "no flash" policy. That being said, I do plan on returning for some better photos this week. Nick Boppel (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Boppel: I feel your pain - I've been struggling to get pictures in dimly lit T stations for the last decade. These days I've mostly switched over to using my smartphone camera for interior shots, since it does better in low light (and has better shake correction) than a point-and-shoot. If you still prefer the point-and-shoot, using shorter exposure times (and brightening with GIMP or Photoshop) and/or using burst mode may help you get good shots.
In general, unless it's unlikely that anyone will be able to get a better shot (like a rare event, or a station about to undergo major changes), it's best not to upload a blurry or otherwise lower-than-desired-quality photo in the first place. That's especially true when there are already similar photos on Commons - for example, a non-blurry version of File:Inbound platform at Shawmut station February 2021 (1).jpg wouldn't add much that File:Shawmut inbound platform, November 2015.JPG doesn't already have, and the blurry version certainly doesn't add anything. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I can say is "Wow!" I tried out using my smartphone camera on the Red Line the other day, and I was beyond impressed and amazed with the results. Not only did I get much better pictures of the platforms, but I was also able to get fairly good quality photos of the tunnels leading in and out of the station on either end of the platforms - something that I never thought I would be able to get a good photo of. I would never have thought that a smartphone would have a better camera than a professional point-and-shoot, but I've been proven wrong before and I guess I've been proven wrong again. I visited almost every Red Line station between Alewife and Mattapan, and took photos at each station that I actually stopped at. The photos needs some editing, but should be ready for upload soon. The one downside is that the smartphone doesn't have a strong enough zoom to get a clear shot of trains approaching a station in the distance, like what I just uploaded from Jackson Square and Stony Brook. Nick Boppel (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Boppel: I'm glad you were able to get better photos, and I look forward to seeing them! One request: when you upload photos of trains, make sure to add the proper category for the rolling stock as well. Blue has only one type of active rolling stock; the three active Green Line types and two active Orange Line types should be easy to visually identify. The Red Line types may be a bit trickier: while the 01800 series and the new 01900 series are easy to distinguish, the 01500/01600/01700 series are nearly identical. If you can't identify which of those three types you photographed, it's fine to use the category for all three. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling[edit]

Are you serious? I can only speak for myself, but I’d not be surprised if many users were, like me, hoping this discussion would be finally an opportunity to oust, or at least formally reprehend, an infamously agressive and unfair admin. Yet, and even after he dropped an N-bomb in that discussion, to further mischaracterize the matter and silence the opposing opinion, all you can do is to compound his errors and threaten the user who complained in the first place?! Besides, as an English native speaker you don’t have the excuse he does for making light of said N-bomb. I’m truely appalled. The other guy is right, b.t.w.: "Moskal" is not even a well known word in Russian, unlike the megaton English slur he used as a supposedly analogous example, and the power relations of the two groups in question are totally flipped in the situation his example implies. ("Gringo", as used by Latin Americans, would be a much better example, though still a poor one.) Basicly, an admin went against COM:FR biased by their patriotism, a user complained, that admin dropped an N-bomb, and you stepped in to say he’s cool and the other guy should shut up or else. So, yeah, I’m appalled. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My close was primarily in response to Kazimier Lachnovič stating that they would continue to bump the thread until they got what they wanted. Threatening to continue a discussion indefinitely until someone caves in to appease them is harassment, and a particularly noxious way of making it miserable for another editor. While I do not think Ymblanter's behavior was particularly admirable, in three weeks of discussion there was not a consensus for intervention. I have clarified my close here, including retracting some overly harsh words on my part.
Re the use of that English slur: I don't see him making light of it, but rather using it as a comparison for how serious he believed the Russian slur to be. I agree with you that it's a rather poor example to use for a comparison given its associations, but I don't think it's anything similar to using the word as a slur. (To use your metaphor, it's the difference between using uranium as a counterweight when tungsten would do, and using that uranium as a nuclear bomb). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I would like to clear out the situation. I understand your reaction on my emotional statement, but I would also like you to understand that I'm emotional because of being desperate in finding the appropriate way to stop the things which I believe are totally against the official guidelines of the Wikimedia Commons. First, I need to notice that in order to find an appropriate solution I've asked the advise of community. Maybe I mistaken, but the only real advise I see there is to prove that the censored Belarusian word (not a Russian word, because w:en:Belarusian language and w:en:Russian language are two different languages like English and German, Spanish and French, Polish and Russian etc.) is acceptable in Belarusian language. So I'm focusing on this in my request. In order to understand your point I would like to clarify some questions: 1) Does the Wikimedia Commons allow any unreasonable and arbitrary language censorship or other language discriminations? 2) What exactly in my argumentation of such censorship for a Belarusian word "maskalizacyja" is weak or not clear? Because I have carefully read all the answers I've got from the other administrators and I can't find the exact one. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue in my close of the discussion was not about the word - I do not have the specific knowledge to make a judgement there - but about your behavior. Your very first communication with Ymblanter was a demand to reverse his action and an accusation; you made no attempt to resolve the issue in a calm manner. In both the Village Pump and Administrators' Noticeboard threads, you posted numerous lengthy comments (often with the exact same arguments), which makes it difficult for anyone else to step in and resolve the issue. I recommend you read this essay on enwiki, which explains why that style of posting is a problem. What finally forced me to step in and close the thread was your threat to continue posting in order to prevent the thread from being archived until you got what you wanted. That threat – and your subsequent choice to copy 700 words onto the file talk page before changing the file description – are not behavior that indicates you wish to be part of a community, nor do they indicate you are open to considering the views of anyone else. I suggest you step back and consider whether the name of a single file, used on a single article, is really worth thousands of words of argument. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out, that my emotional reaction wasn't groundless. I have had some experience with the user before as well as some evidence about his prejudge to Belarusian language (like [1] while it is easy to find in w:en:Languages of Belarus that the statement about 95% of the population with the native Russian has nothing in common with the reality). Considering the fact that it was not me, who having admin rights and knowing me (which was admitted in here having in the past dealt with the user [2]) has took an action concerned my contribution (without any attempt of discussion to prevent unnecessary conflict that was quite expected based on the previous experience) it was hard for me to fully assume good faith. As for the word itself, its not about bludgeoning the process. My main and first argument is quite brief and doesn't require any specific knowledge. If some word of some language is accepted by corresponding local Wikipedia Community it should not be censored in the Wikimedia Commons without the proving of abuse by the community first. I still can't find any reasonable objection of this simple true from any participant of any discussion. And I believe that any unreasonable and arbitrary language discrimination is really worth to struggle with it even by thousands of words of argument (which in unnecessarily in a normal situation when the guidelines are not ignored). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Removal of categories[edit]

From what I see, these pictures don't show railway, but former structures related to railway. I think that those 2 categories deleted by me should be related strictly to railway or railway related stuff. Of course pictures are yours, you take them, so it's your choice to bring back those 2 categories or not. --Halavar (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Halavar: They are still railway structures, regardless of disuse, and should be included in those categories. Please do not remove them from any more photos, regardless of the uploader. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

Hi. You deleted File:Daima sevgi kazanacak.png as "out of scope" and without a discussion. I understand why you may have found it OoS, if you do not know the politician, whose cat is empty now, due to this deletion. If you had been able to see the files thereat (they were deleted due to being taken from FB) you would know that "Daima sevgi kazanacak" (Love will always win) is the political motto of the mayor of an important urban district in İstanbul. The motto was written (I mean it "is written", but we do not have that image in Commons any more) at the entrance of the Municipality. So it is in scope. Please restore the file. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted the file - thanks for the context. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines[edit]

Hi, I would ask you about something that I noticed with user E4024. He/she labeled to be deleted 2 files I uploaded, I wrote him to talk about it because I followed the same way as many other files that exist on Wikimedia. But, he/she reverted the section I wrote, well I tried again and he/she does it again. That is against this guide line ​Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages? What I can do?--Jjrt (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can visit the DR page and write your opinion about the files there. This is not a question between you and another user. Indeed one of the deletion requests has already been supported by another user. That means E4024 is not the only user who is of that idea. (BTW I responded to you in my edit summaries. Did you not read them?) Thanks. E4024 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, TP owner. I did not notice I was stalking. I am so accustomed to be taken to ANU or even "Vandalism"! boards after proposing deletion of some users' files that I thought this was a similar page and wrote without thinking I was intruding. This is why I did not even say "hi". Sorry again and all the best (to both). E4024 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm, uh, really not sure what either of you are asking me to do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jjrt, did you not notice that I am more communicative here, in the cosy TP of a kind host? Why don't you tell me what you want to tell me? Probably you do not want to talk to me but get me punished for proposing deletion of your files? Is it that? Why have you not written even one word on those DR pages in defence of your uploads? Why did you refer to "speedy deletion" in your first talk to me? Is it because you thought re-uploading a recently deleted file would end up in speedy deletion? I did not make any SD call anywhere, just opened a couple of DRs. Maybe I'd rather have acted differently. I mean should I withdraw my DRs? Is it what you want? If you are sure of your case just defend it, there at the DR pages. Thanks for reading. Sorry again for the page abuse. --E4024 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only asking you to excuse me for abusing your TP and taking your time; err, uh, eh, ah maybe also to ignore and forget this unnecessary visit. :) E4024 (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pi.1415926535, let me give some details. E4024 deleted with a reversion the section I added in his/her talk user page 2 times. Firstly, I assumed that it was a mistake from him/her, but the second time, I was shocked because it was unpolite. My question is: That is against this guide line ​Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjrt (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline recommends against removing messages without replying to them, noting that it may be interpreted as rude, but does not prohibit it. While reverting your message was not the wisest course of action, E4024 used an edit summary ("I did not make any speedy deletion request") that should have provided some context to you. E4024 nominated these two files (two copyrighted logos that you falsely claimed as your own work) for regular deletion - not speedy deletion. However, I have speedily deleted them as obvious copyright violations, as they are complex logos that belong to their creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:It's me!.jpg[edit]

Could you confirm what the evidence was for this being generated at thispersondoesnotexist?

I can only see the assertion of this by BlueCrabRedCrab (talk · contribs · logs · block log). On the original page there was only an Own work claim and no EXIF data. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my response here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again! :)[edit]

Sorry, I'm disturbing you once more. Why don't you close speedily Commons:Deletion requests/File:IMG-20171115-WA0166.jpg, it is ripe enough... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet deleted[edit]

Hello, not yet deleted , see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerhard Langenfeld, O.T., (WV 20, Lw 44), 2020.jpg. Kind greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerhard Langenfeld, O.T., (WV 20, Lw 44), 2020.jpg[edit]

The images free license permissions seems to be already verified by an OTRS agent. Please renominate if you doubt the ticket validity instead of deleting them with outdated rationale in an already closed DR. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fake DR flags are here again[edit]

Hello and I hope you're having a nice day -

I'm writing because on this deletions discussion, you state the files were deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/Flags of provinces of the Dominican Republic If I see correctly, the same files with same file names were reuploaded the very next day. These are fake flags. The user mentions a law in the Spanish description with "Bajo la nueva ley 301-39, se autoriza el uso de las nuevas banderas p..." but on Justia, a site with the República Dominicana laws, that law does not exist. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: I've redeleted the fake flags and blocked the user. It looks like they also uploaded a lot of copyvio coats of arms over existing files. Those probably have to be manually reverted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'll look at their contributions to see what i can do (reverts). Have a nice day. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what was the user name again? Of the one you just blocked... --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Eloquent Peasant: Sofaera888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on with the República Dominicana is not for the faint of heart. Therefore, I'm not sure what I can do there! Thanks for your help with the deletions. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not just delete my film locations cats[edit]

Creating good galleries is a lot of work. It takes TIME. I will not be finished the end of May. Please do not just delete any film locations cat I've created and destroy all the work I've done. --Judithcomm (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Judithcomm: I am sorry that you are frustrated, but the amount of time spent on these categories is not a free pass to keep them on Commons indefinitely. You made the decision to misuse the category system by creating these categories; as an experienced editor, you should have a proper understanding of what categories are and are not appropriate. My decision to keep them until the end of May was to give you time to copy the information (lists of files, notes on talk pages, etc) to your userspace or an offline source, not to create galleries for every single category.
Rather than focusing your energy on creating these galleries - which are not an intended use of the gallery namespace and would likely not survive a deletion discussion - I suggest you put this information in the proper places. As I mentioned in my CfD closes, information about filming locations should go as cited prose on enwiki (and any other languages you may speak), and/or on Wikidata. Commons galleries are for displaying media about the matching category (for films, this would include costumes, media events about the film, public domain stills of old films, etc) when curation beyond the simple category is useful; they are not for creating your personal impression of the film. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

In Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Garedesad your reson was "out of scope".
Please explain resonable why these images are oos. And what reasons don't make any of them not be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project. Thank you. --angerdan (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of these images have any illustrative value that the thousands of nudes and pornographic images (both paintings and photographs) already hosted on Commons don't already provide. As modern artworks (ie, without specific historical value) by a non-notable artist, the mere theoretical potential of use does not place them in scope: The fact that an unused snapshot of your friend could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on "Photographic portraiture" does not mean that we should keep all photographs of unknown people. The fact that an unused pornographic image could theoretically be used to illustrate an article on pornography does not mean that we should keep low quality pornographic images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Derivative work of non-free content"!!??[edit]

How in the world is a photo of a bus shelter a "Derivative work of non-free content"??!! Regarding the SL2 Design Center station photos you just deleted. There are plenty of photos of bus shelters here, in Boston and beyond. Nick Boppel (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Boppel: A significant portion of both images were of the advertisements on the bus stops. Those advertisements are copyrighted and cannot be hosted on Commons. Copyrighted material must be de minimis (File:Tide Street station April 2021 (1).jpg is a good example of that); the two images I deleted were far above that allowance. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Elevated Railway[edit]

I noted that there are 142 uncategorized photos of the Boston Elevated Railway. I noted that you created Category:Causeway Street Elevated etc photos for cleanup by Pi.1415926535. Do you want to add the uncategorized photos into that category? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in! These files are a tricky lot. I mass uploaded them for future use, and they need a lot of curation before they're useful. Each file is basically a mini detective mystery - I have to sort out exactly what aspect of construction the photo is illustrating, as the existing captions are incomplete and often inaccurate. As such, I believe they shouldn't be added to regular content categories until I've had a chance to properly identify them - in their current state, they're more likely to be confusing than useful.
I created the cleanup categories (like the one you linked above) specifically so that editors like you wouldn't need to waste your time categorizing them. Unfortunately, I forgot that hidden categories don't prevent the addition of {{Uncategorized}}. I've changed the cleanup categories to non-hidden categories to fix that for now. If you want, you can remove the uncategorized template from those 142 files - I will get to them in due time. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for uploading and categorizing these files - and for your quick reply. Some of the photos are very interesting, indeed. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal file[edit]

Please delete File:Красота достойна глаз.jpg. The file was uploaded by a vandal and used for vandalism in UkWiki. --Mykola7 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Mykola7 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content[edit]

I have found posters uploaded here that violates COM:FAIRUSE. Please have a look

Thank you Run n Fly (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Run n Fly: Looks like they've been deleted by another admin. Tagging files as copyright violations is generally sufficient - you don't need to ask a specific admin unless there's an emergency. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: They have again resumed. See my discussion User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Repeated_uploading_same_copyright_violation_image_after_several_warning_and_deletions. Thanks for the reply. Run n Fly (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the issue has now been taken care by fellow admin. Thanks Run n Fly (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medford Boat Club[edit]

Greetings! I hope I am not causing annoyance, but in fact most of the Medford Boat Club lies within Arlington, including all its buildings, docks, etc. Only the parking lot sits within Medford. Strange but true. with best wishes, Daderot (talk)

Well that's mighty confusing! Does this sound correct? (And not annoyance at all! I'm always glad for your expertise.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted categories for rail transport by city[edit]

I went to Commons and there were pages that were sorted by city in rail transport like Category:Rail transport in Tokyo and they also sort it by year/month of rail transport, like Category:Rail transport in Tokyo by year or year. For example, Category:October 2021 in rail transport in Tokyo.

How about in American cities, like Category:Rail transport in San Francisco? I tried to sort this by month and year and it doesn't show up. It also affects Los Angeles, Boston, and new York city. Examples: Category:October 2021 in rail transport in New York City or Category:2021 in rail transport in San Francisco. Also, I made examples like Category:Rail transport in Los Angeles by year. Evan0512 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Evan0512: I'm generally not a big fan of intersection categories, particularly those that divide up by increasingly specific time categories. In many cases, they increase the workload for editors and make finding files more difficult - without providing any actual benefit. There is undoubtedly no need for by-month categories, ever.
This sort of intersection category should be reserved for operators or locations (in the US, operator is generally better) with a large number of images and sufficient active editors to maintain the categories. For example, we have Category:BART by year and Category:San Francisco Municipal Railway by year, both of which have dozens to hundreds of files per year for several decades. For smaller systems, a by-decade category would be more appropriate.
In general, I would strongly recommend against creating these categories. There's much more useful (and satisfying) things you can do with you time, like sorting unidentified files or making maps. Additionally, there are apparently wikidata features in development that would allow on-demand generation of time-based intersection categories, which would completely nullify any need for them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

Hi, I see you are active, could you please block on this one: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Нікк_лузер,_шавка,_шваль? Thanks — NickK (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I am not screwing things up![edit]

Hello,

Because I lived for a long time in San Francisco, I thought categorizing there would be no problem. But, just like where I live now, Commons categories and enwiki names are different from what local people call places. So I'm sorry if I made a mess of things and will stop categorizing in San Francisco. Please forgive! Best wishes, Krok6kola (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: You haven't screwed anything up that I've seen. I removed a few files that you added to the cleanup category - they didn't really need any further cleanup - but that's just normal maintenance work. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am very glad to hear that! Krok6kola (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to restore Flickr2Commons permission.[edit]

I would like to request you to remove me from the edit filter 208. While I totally understand and apologize for my past behaviour, I think I have done a few things that have improved the site. Issues raised have been sorted, with numerous files categorized, numerous files tagged for deletion, and cleanup have been done. As for uploading files, I don’t have much to upload and uploaded none since then.

In short, I wish to have flickr2commons access restored. Thank you. Orizan (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that you have fixed the issues I raised on your past uploads. The vast majority of your uploads still have bad filenames, descriptions, and categories; because you were the one that created that mess, you need to fix it before moving on to other tasks. Even your most recent upload has junk in the file description, incorrect coords, incomplete categorization, and a barely useful file name. If you cannot add the proper information for a single file, you cannot be trusted with a tool to upload numerous files. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old closed DRs where the files were not deleted[edit]

Hello. I've been looking at Category:Deletion requests December 2020 and noticed 3 DRs that were closed as delete by you but still have files that are uploaded. They are:

I was wondering why some of these files were not deleted but others were in the same DR. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: Thanks for letting me know - I've deleted the files. The deletion handling code sometimes has hiccups, especially on mobile. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: That's fair! Thanks for looking into it quickly :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message to me about NARA TIF files[edit]

Greetings,

Now I am taking your message to me seriously and I am wondering if such files in many places e.g. Category:July 1973 in Ohio should be removed. Also, if they are left as "uncategorized" on certain dates (as is the case), they clog those dates up and those of us who try to categorize get discouraged. Do you have advice? Happy New Year! Krok6kola (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: I'm not quite sure what you're saying, so I apologize if I'm not actually answering your questions. Yes, NARA TIF files with categorized JPGs should be removed from all content categories. I've made that category non-hidden, so that the TIF files won't be automatically tagged for categorization. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the NARA TIF files should be removed from all content categories. Additionally, they won't show up as needing categories. Great! I don't think this issue is generally known, as quite regularly I see both versions in categories. Thanks! Krok6kola (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: This is rubbish and wrong. Tiff files should not be hidden. Folders are required to contain all relevant files including tiff reference files. To do otherwise you would have to guarantee that all jpgs and tiffs are cross referenced within themselves, and you cant do that. Where is the consensus for this; answer; nowhere because its not policy.
If you want a clean folder not showing tiffs you have to create a gallery. Which is also nonsense, because the maintenance overhead is too great.
People get confused here. This is a databank, it's not a polished face on the world such as wikipedia. Broichmore (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: So what are you saying should be done instead of what Pi.1415926535 suggests? Krok6kola (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: Tiff files and their jpg's reside in the same folder. There is no requirement to remove them, quite the opposite. If folders are incomplete then we risk adding duplicates to the system. Broichmore (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: Well, I am confused now. Is there a community decision about this somewhere? Krok6kola (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: Again, there is no consensus for this; its not policy. Broichmore (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: I'm not sure who your agreeing with? If you want to exclude reference files (that is tiffs or png's) from folders then your going to have to check that every tiff etc. has a jpg counterpart already in those folders, and that both files are properly cross referenced within each other.
Your going to have to administer; and police it, because its 'non sequitur' to what we do, and not backed up with consensus. People cat them as they see them. Then your going to have to illegaly revert their legal efforts.
Its a moot point really. The whole precious reason for having reference files in the first place is to use them to improve the quality (depth) of our jpg files. The idea being that as the net speeds up it can handle larger and larger files. That was the thinking pre 2000, and we still cater for it. Computing has progressed past the point of that idea having any real value. Whenever I look for a tiff to improve a jpg I always find them useless for that purpose. I'd rather they were deleted personally. Their supposed to be extreme HQ versions of a file, but in the real world seldom if ever are. Their just bigger. Now for music that's a different story, quite the reverse in fact. Broichmore (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: I agree that the TIFF files are not of better quality than the jpg files from what I have seen. In my view, they just clog up the categories, my reason for using Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs when they haven't been fiddled with i.e. cropped. You are right it is probably a useless endeavor on my part. Krok6kola (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: Up to you. Just a minor point, to be clear, only jpg's are good for cropping, tiff are not. Reference files should kept as original. If used on wikipedia they should be converted into jpg, cropped or not. Broichmore (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: Agree on all points. The problem with having them in the same folder is that some editors crop the TIFF files, assuming I guess, that they are better quality. Krok6kola (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krok6kola: Good point, thats just ignorance. I have asked the question at Commons talk:CropTool. I've not seen this before. One of many problems. There are lots of people here who dont know to cat whats available, before uploading duplicates. An astonishing number of people think filing is an end to itself, with no thought of enabling future research. Broichmore (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: That the two versions are often categorized differently is another issue. The TIFF file may end up in a category without the jpg version. Krok6kola (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users[edit]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Please delete[edit]

Hello, can you please delete File:GH Launch Capital MainShot 2-scaled.jpg, which has been tagged as "no permission" for a month, and File:John R Drake.jpg, which has been tagged as "no permission" for over a week? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: I have deleted the files. In the future, if there is a strong need to delete a file immediately (which was not the case here - they were just ordinary copyvios), it's better to ask at COM:AN than ask individual admins. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media needing categories as of 15 December 2021[edit]

Hi,

In Category:Media needing categories as of 15 December 2021 there are several hundred images already in Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs. I cannot figure out how to get them out of the media needing categories except doing them one by one. Is there a way? Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I admit I did it wrong, so I decided to stop uploading photos from now on.--Kai3952 (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icelandic rating language.png[edit]

Hello Pi.1415926535,

I had kept that file (and various others) as presumably below the Icelandic threshold of originality when deciding Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by FireDragonValo and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Icelandic rating drugs.png a few weeks ago. Now I see that you have summarily deleted those files as "Copyright violation, no indication of a free license on the source site" despite them being tagged wiht {{PD-textlogo}}.

Do you think my decision was in some way not correct? If so, why did you not raise the issue with me or at an appropriate venue? Regards --Rosenzweig τ 11:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig: I deleted these while nuking a bunch of copyvios by that user. I didn't see the previous DRs, and certainly didn't mean to overrule you. I will trust your TOO judgment over mine. You're welcome to undelete them if you see this before I get to them - I may have limited internet access today. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So three days later you were able to make roughly 100 edits, decide several DRs, block a user, but still were not able to "get to them" to restore those files? That's interesting. I don't really feel respected here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: I'm so sorry! This was in no way an intentional slight on you, but an unintentional lapse of memory. I believe I've undeleted all the affected files - please let me know if I missed any. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you seem to have restored all of them. Thank you. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 21:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Love Generation 2010.jpg[edit]

This file was nominated for deletion. I voted keep and supplied reasons. The nominator responded and claimed it was "a clear case of Commons:License laundering". I responded again and requested support for that claim. No support for was provided and no other user participated in the discussion, yet you closed the nomination as Delete. If you agree with the nominator that this was "a clear case of License laundering", can you perhaps supply what I requested in the discussion: "1) support the claim that the image is non-free copyright status, and 2) supply a link to where the image was originally uploaded before it was posted on MyNewsdesk, and 3) support the claim that it was uploaded to MyNewsdesk without permission from the copyright holder." --Bensin (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the nominator: COM:PCP applies because it is very unlikely that LG owns the copyright of a photo of a music group. You are welcome to request undeletion at COM:UDR. However, the onus will be on you to prove that it is not license laundering because of the unlikelihood of the copyright situation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn't the onus on you or the nominator to provide the proof I requested before the deletion? The question is not whether of not LG owns the copyright, but the questions 1-3 I raise, none of which have been answered. --Bensin (talk) 10:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the question is very much whether LG owns the copyright; without clear proof that an electronics company owns the copyright to a photo of a musical group, the precautionary principle means that your questions are irrelevant. Please go to COM:UDR - where you should have gone in the first place - rather than continuing to pester me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive_9&oldid=649098888"