User talk:Pitke/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to this page.

Valued Image Promotion

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

File:Colegiata de Santa María, Calatayud, España25.JPG

Hello Pike, this picture is a candidate for QI. You commented that there was a problem with the tilt, problem that I hopefully fixed uploading a new version short after your comment. Since then I didn't hear from you anymore. Is it good enough for QI? are there other issues? Thanks and best regards! Poco a poco (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Licence plates

Sorry, I don't understand about licence plates. Is there a rule about them? There is nothing about privacy with the licence plates, as they are visible to anyone, and any person may log their appearance. Also they are photoed by police department at the highways to prevent speedy racers and to check if the car is carjacked. Also there's no law preventing me from shooting the car plates. That's why I didn't care about them, but if it's a rule — please give me a link. Thank you.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no such rule, and editing licence plate info out would be only a matter of courtesy. Pitke (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Pitke!
Tip: Add categories to your files
Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

about my pictures

Hi Pitke,

When you will delete my pictures, even if they are low quality, I would like, that you announce me about deletion. Before the deletion happen. OK? Please. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I will try and do this. Pitke (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. DenesFeri (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Equus ferus caballus, Konik.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Equus ferus caballus (Peruvian Paso).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Peruvian Paso

Hello Pitke, I am sorry, the image promoted as VI for Peruvian Paso hasn't been much appreciated in en:WP :-( Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

En:WP has its quirks. I've come to learn that they're incredibly obstinate about page images. Even when the original is tiny and counter-lighted and the proposal is beautiful... Pitke (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
For that one, please glance at that article. In place since 2010! --Myrabella (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I know, I remember well how I had to appeal to get it in place! The small one is still inhabitating the ambling article methinks. Pitke (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Kekkonen-apuja?

Moi! Koska olen aika avuton täällä Commonsissa, voisitko kätevästi pyöräyttää oikeanlaisen mallineen tiedostoon File:President Kekkonen.jpg. Kirjoitin käsin "Uncertain" kohtaan lisenssi, mutta oikea malline ohjaisi kuvan oikeaan toimenpidejonoon (deletion tms.). Voin siitä sitten ottaa mallia, miten täällä toimitaan. Kiitos. --Pxos (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Kiitos upituksista!

Moi, huomasin että olet lataillut paljon hevoskuviani Flickristä wikimediaan. Se on tosi hienoa, kiitos siitä, mukavaa että kuvat päätyvät näin oikeastikin yleishyödylliseen käyttöön! Lisääkin seuraa aina pikkuhiljaa, kunhan jaksaa skannailla ja upitella vanhoja ja kuvailla uusia... :-)

Ystävällisin terveisin, Sini/smerikal

Eipä mitään, mahtavaa vaan että vapaita kuvia suomenhevosista yms. on saatavilla. Otoksiasi taitaa olla siellä täällä jo käytössäkin... Nyt kun olet kirjautunut tänne käyttäjäksi, voin ehdottaa kuviasi laatukuviksi (yksi vaatimus on, että tekijä on wikikäyttäjä). Pitke (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Great! Osaisitko sanoa, että miksiköhän tuolla 'My contributions' osastossa ei kuitenkaan näy näitä kuvia? Tai siis selkeästi tämä käyttäjänimeni täällä ei ole 'linkitetty' oikeaan nimeeni ja noihin kuviin - voisikohan sen jotenkin tehdä? Smerikal (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Tuo 'My contributions' -toiminto luetteloi ainoastaan ja vain tiedostot, jotka on itse ladannut, eikä sitä ole mahdollista säätää näyttämään millään ehdoilla muiden lataamia kuvia. Tällä haulla pitäisi löytyä kaikki Flickr-tunnuksellesi kreditoidut kuvat, niistä voit koota esimerkiksi käyttäjäsivullesi gallerian koodilla
<gallery>
File:Nimi.jpg
File:Nimi2.jpg
</gallery>

--Pitke (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

Hi, this file that you eliminated is in the same OTRS permission sent for this. I received the confirmation messange, but i do not know why the staff did not aproved it, cause all pics were sent together in same OTRS. +PrinceWilly 16:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I sent the email for you. +PrinceWilly 16:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention in the matter, and sorry for taking so long in replying. This matter has been solved by now. Pitke (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Edsim Vascular.jpg

File:Edsim Vascular.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

SilkTork (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

deletion of Edsim Vascular.jpg

Hi, you left a standard "this file up for deletion" message on my talk page a while ago. I'd like to point out I have only once retouched this file and have nothing to do with its original upload. You should probably contact someone else about the deletion. Pitke (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That message was left automatically. I didn't select for you to receive it. I suppose the thinking behind the programmer, was that anyone who had edited the file might have an interest in a deletion review. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Thanks for helping improve my color templates. Your horse template sure looks a lot better than mine, and you've also inspired me to go back and create proper stand-alone templates for the categories I've been working on. For one thing, they'll be much easier to edit in the future! Thanks again and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh boy, thanks! I'll pop by to check on those templates later :) Pitke (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the animal "by color" navigational template. You've clearly been improving the color samples, and I also really appreciate how you've integrated "by pattern" categories (such as striped, colorpoint, etc.) into the templates. I think I have a pretty good handle on inanimate objects (automobiles, doors, polo shirts), but you've really improved on my work with living things! I really do appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Well what can I say, you're very welcome, I'm a sucker for animal colour genetics so it's been a real lark ^_^ Pitke (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I uploaded this pic under cc-2.2 but I change some paramters of it, and the bot could not reconize it. Can you take a look?+PrinceWilly 17:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what went wrong there. Did you use some tool to upload semiautomatically (such as Flickr Helper or what have you)? Anyway I checked the licence and removed the review request, issue solved. Pitke (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rose cultivar categories

Hello Pitke,
I see that you started working with Rose cultivar categories and wanted to ask what exactly you want to achieve so that we can coordinate our efforts...
As far as I can see, you are categorising existing cultivar cats as well as creating new ones - and while I wholly support the first one I wanted to ask if it is really a good idea to make categories for only 1 single picture (as you did here)? In my opinion, categories should if possible have more than a single picture, which is why I only create them if there are four or more pictures of a rose cultivar - of course, the same could be said for galleries, but I think that those have more possibilities to show & organise information than categories...
To have both a category and a gallery for one picture seems a bit much - even though there's of course always the hope that further pictures will come along! ;->
Hope to hear your ideas soon,
Anna reg (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed there were only 1 'Terracotta' files a bit too late... Usually I aim for 2 or more, ideally 3 or more pics of the same cultivar. 2 pics both catted under, say, colour and breeder cats is ok, but with three it's starting to get too busy browsing those cats.
Generally for colour cats, this far I've been removing all cultivar catted files out of colour cats and put the cultivar cat under that instead, but I suppose it would be okay to keep some of the individual pics there as well, the best ones, that represent variety. What I would like to avoid is colour cats filled to brim with sets of mostly identical, low quality shots of identified cultivar roses -- those might be valuable in representing the cultivar, but not representing pink roses (because that cat alone has dozens and dozens of great pics of different type pink roses).
Ah yeah where was I. Yes, although creating cats for only 2 or 3 pics might seem wasteful, it's also worth remembering that having those categories exist helps in categorising stray and new images with Hot Cat (which I use SO much).
Hope this helps understand my motives some? Best wishes, and thanks for yous massive work previously, it has helped me a lot :3 Pitke (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining!
Cleaning up the colour cats is a good idea - and removing all individual pics sounds good. If you find the time, you could perhaps you even include the best ones in the corresponding galleries? There should be one for each colour - except the ones created recently... (after all, there are enough low quality shots of unidentified roses that the galleries can help identifying the 'best' ones...)
All the best, Anna reg (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pitke,
once again I'd like to discuss something I'm not that sure about...
As you are creating categories for all rose growers, you also created categories such as Category:Rose by Boerner or Category:Rose by Evers. While the first is probably a good distinction for Category:Rose by Jackson & Perkins, the second opens a new discussion, as Hans Jürgen Evers is but the first Evers to develop roses for Rosen Tantau - his son Christian Evers is leading the company today, making the category name you chose ambiguous. But if we decide to make separate categories for both Evers, there should also be categories for both Mathias Tantau (sen. & jun.) as well as for all Kordes and Meilland rosarians - probably using their full names, which in turn would change the 'last name system'...
What do you think?
--Anna reg (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: I really like the 'Offsping-addition'...

Heh, thanks, I'm something of a genealogy nerd :3 As per rose grower cats, how about a following structure?
  • Roses by grower
    • Roses by private growers
      • Subcategories for private growers with a number of cultivars
      • Individual cultivars by private owners ('Lady Penzance' and 'Lord Penzance' for instance]] could be categorised directly under "Roses by private growers"
    • [Roses by nurseries/Roses by commercial parties/???]
      • Roses by Company Name (Such as Roses by Tantau)
        • Roses by Grower Name (for that company)
    • Roses by grower by name (to keep a list of all

-- Pitke (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Or the following? (I'm not sure about the 'private'/commercial separation - especially for historic rosarians)

  • roses by grower
    • roses by nursery
      • roses by Jackson & Perkins, Kordes, Meilland, Tantau, ... (using the company names? or the abbreviation commonly used on rose signs?)
    • roses by breeder (using the full names ? Roses by Matthias Tantau jun., Roses by Wilhelm Kordes II.,... - probably necessary to make the distinctions but it will be noisy - the other possibility would be to use full names only when necessary...)

or can those two main categories too easily be taken as synonyms? --Anna reg (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This sounds good. Let's implement. Pitke (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pitke,
it's me again... ;-> I'm quite sure that the pictures in Rosa 'Jadis' are from another rose cultivar as ['Jadis'] a pink... Perhaps there is another cultivar called 'Jadis' I didn't find anything about - or it had a wrong sign and is therefore not identifiable...
If it's the first, the gallery can remain as it is now - if it's the second, it would probably be best to rename the pictures and categorize them as 'unknown rose cultivar'. All the best, --Anna reg (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, true! Will do and delete unneeded gallery+cat. Pitke (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

re Identification?

Hi Pitke,

I'm sorry, but neither I don't know the names of this roses. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please leave Before 1923 only tag on Category:Emil Wikström

You removed the {{Before 1923 only}} tag on Category:Emil Wikström (now renamed to {{URAA artist}}). As the tag states, although Emil Wikström's works are now in the public domain in Finland, they are not in the United States unless they predate 1923. The reason is the URAA - the works were still in copyright in 1996, so their US copyright was restored until at least 2018. Works must be in the public domain in the United States to host on Commons. See Commons:Licensing#Uruguay_Round_Agreements_Act for details. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouble in paradise ;-)

Pitke, this is a mess you are better set to fix than me. I think someone (a banned user and sockpuppet, to be precise) uploaded a bunch of copyrighted images of horses from Flickr. See here. Also appears to have miscategorized a bunch of stuff, which I tripped over at Category:Morab and fixed, (had Thoroughbreds categorized as Morabs and ponies... ) but I'm betting this user screwed up more stuff. Anyway, I know you are the person who best knows the categories on Commons and did more than anyone to organize them, so a heads up that this will need help from someone. Montanabw (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pitke

I must applaud that you have taken more time to consider your viewpoint. As far as I can tell, not only is every image with educational value, such as the donations Dimitri has made in the past are, welcome, but what he has already given us is of higher resolution than national geographic display on their website. I don't know if higher resolution than those he has already donated to commons have ever been sold or published. If so, I can't find them. I thought you may wish to know as you are taking the time to examine the matter. Penyulap ☏ 15:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On commons File:Bride sitting on a bench with Cubans.jpg ‎(700 × 467 pixels, file size: 166 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg);

On national geographic nationalgeographic.com 608px × 405px JPEG Image 96.88 KB (99,202 bytes)

Already the best is here. Penyulap ☏ 15:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I took the watermark out of the second one to see if it was easy. The first one no way, too much work, but the image is maybe ok for cutting up with scissors so to speak. I redirected the link to the original image here I hope you don't mind. Penyulap ☏ 17:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Now here is one that is totally screwed. But still good for components to assemble other images. Textures and so on, for drawing. The other watermarked collections, I think a robot could be written to remove them all at once, but I'm not sure of the size of the collections or the demand for the work.. Penyulap ☏ 18:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

File talk:Royal Crown of Finland.svg

If an agreement is reached, you can find my version uploaded here. I have contacted both parties, and hope they consider my compromise. I now leave this matter in your hands, in hope of an agreement that will please all parties. :) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and consideration to make this version. I do hope the others find it good, and I'll see the discussion to the end. --Pitke (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I fear the picture of the physical crown is a copyright violation, having looked up the original crown. Wikipedia mentions it was made in the 1990s. en:Crown_jewels#Finland Lemmens, Tom (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Answering this on the file talk. --Pitke (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Steer.jpg

Hello,

tx for clearing my mistake with the zoology category in this pic. But I think, this category should be more specific. Would you agree to change it to Category:Mammal behavior? (I think Category:Animal testing will not fit here). Tx again --Funfood ␌ 12:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned you

Massive cleanup and categorizing project here: Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Uploads by Princess Mérida (with watermarks needing attention) I told them you were a person who knew the categories and might be begged to help! Montanabw (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as I get finished with the roses and the dahlias. I.e. don't hold your breath ;) --Pitke (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
When I saw the expertise in categorising as "Conformational side views of horses" and "Liver chestnut horses" I thought it was Montanabw, I forgot how much incredible talent there is here :) nice work ! Penyulap ☏ 03:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Now now, thanks :D --Pitke (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Pitke is the ultimate guru of the horse categories on wikipedia. I have learned to acknowledge the master! Montanabw (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok Monty, what do you need me to do? :D (I'm already going through the Meridia watermark uploads. Slowly, but am.) --Pitke (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Exactly that. This photos have, as you have already noticed, terrible categorization. ("Spring?") But many are excellent and as I drag them over to WP for various articles, I'm also going to ask if Penyulap can remove watermarks. Actually, there are more than just the watermarked ones, all the Heather Moreton images uploaded by Meridia are badly categorized. (Too bad we can't make a bot do this or something) Montanabw (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Well you CAN ask someone to make a bot categorise all of them into a hidden "Let Pitke sort these out" cat, as in "if uploaded by user Princess Meridia and not edited by user Pitke, categorise into...". That'd be quite a helpful tool actually. I'm also removing some watermarks for a change, especially if I find something really valuable... --Pitke (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
How? Is this something you can do? 15:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


In the sense of "is that ok", yes it should be all-ok as long as the category is hidden and isn't left to rot. I'm quite a power in horse-related categorising after all, and have tried my hand elsewhere as well. Also, naming it more in the way of "Inadequately categorised uploads by [PM's username here]" won't raise as many questions... --Pitke (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So all we need is a bot driver who won't question that if I have edited a file, its categories are perfect ;) --Pitke (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
HeeHeeheeeee, good thing I don't know how to drive a bot!  ;-D I will say, though, that I don't see you differ from my views on too many categories these days... though sometimes I have trouble finding images due to the depth of the trees... but maybe it makes the searches work better, not sure how the search algorithms work. Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Horse categories

Hi. I've categorized these images of nokota horses as best I can. Montanabw says you may be able to do better. PumpkinSky talk 19:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Checked them. For future reference, we do have a cat for the breed ("Nokota horse"). --Pitke (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mention

Hi, you have been mentioned at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Admin power to delete without consultation, notification or request. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pitke, while it's not a big issue, deletions with no other deletion-rationale than simple "out of COM:SCOPE" should not be directly executed without any prior speedy-tagging and without notifying the uploader, especially if it's an established user, such as was the case with File:Beautiful red flowers in garden.jpg. Actually in such cases filing a regular DR is more appropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That, as well as hundreds of others, was uploaded with a automatic tool, no? Batch uploads are better when uploading large numbers of mostly useful images, but there are usually some bad ones mixed in, in which case it isn't useful to anyone that a housekeeping admin keeps spamming the uploader's talk page with deletion notifications. --Pitke (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Automatic tool" may be technically correct, but the real uploader was Fæ, an established long-term contributor, as was clear from description and upload-log. In such cases "on-the-spot" deletions are not appropriate, except for blatant copyvios. "spamming the uploader's talk page" - hmm, you left zero notifications on the uploader's talkpage.
Honestly, after reading your comments on AN, especially mentioning the totally unrelated File:Junior.jpg, IMO you really should show a bit more insight. One doesn't lose face by admitting an error. Fæ didn't file a user complaint against you, he just asked whether the procedure was proper. Other's would have made a big fuss out of such a deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I used the "spam user talk" as rhetorics. I don't habitually comb through categories like I've done with Cat:Flowers. With the flowers, many pics that turn up in that specific category are from Fae (I understand they do a lot of automated or semiautomated uploading), so there is good ground for making "RfD these later" lists. Is this what I'm requested to do? As for the kitten pic, I was intending to start a branch of discussion but I apparently failed. I will not be making promises about future (although I'll be refraining from deleting things until things are settled) before I have it clear, I do get that "bit iffy" pics are not to be deleted as eagerly as I did, but for that kitten pic level, I'll be looking more of a discussion. --Pitke (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Rethought: it's obvious that I'm tired and allowing too much stress over categorising. I should probably take a break and forget about 1) Cat:Flowers, 2) the Princess Meridia uploads for a while, until I feel less of an urge to directly delete mildly low quality images in those categories. I'm leaving something like this in that discussion as well. --Pitke (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Take all the time you feel to need. While the admin-force on Commons is truely underpowered, it doesn't make sense to self-enslave with admin-work and it's best to take a break as soon as one doesn't enjoy the work. Hyvää jatkoa. --Túrelio (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Equus ferus caballus, American Saddlebred.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Category:New and old fashion in art

Good category. Churchh (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :3 --Pitke (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Pitke. Check your email—you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Category:Clematis patens cultivars

As used the category is confusing. "Clematis patens cultivars" means "cultivars of the species Clematis patens""... not hybrids involving that species. Now it is used for both and this is misleading. Both hybrids and cultivars of C. patens usually belong in the Early Large-flowered Group. A good reference site for Clematis is Clematis on the Web Uleli (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You can read about the accepted cultivar groups here [1]. Uleli (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I intended to only use the species cats for non-hybrids so fixing that is most welcome. I'll look at the cultivars more closely after the main cat has been cleaned up (with the renames and all) so no worries. --Pitke (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional Papal Arms

I've asked this to INeverCry before, but he didn't have time. Someone has created a category Category:Coats of arms of Franciscus, Pope - bad now, which is why I bring this up again, and hope you can resolve this. (I've also posted this on Fastily's user page, but he didn't respond and his bot removed this comment after a day)

My message to INeverCry:

This has been going on for quite a while now. Not sure how the propose to close template works, so I'll do it this way.
The original reason for the deletion request isn't valid anymore (we have official sources now). Copyright violations have been deleted. A merger of File:Insigne Francisci.svg + File:Coat of arms of Franciscus.svg is contested, and such a discussion could probably continue elsewhere. A merger of File:Blason fictif du Pape François.svg + File:COA Franciscus.svg + File:Fictional Coat of arms of Pope Francis.svg + File:Pope Francis CoA.svg was not contested. It's of course up to you or another admin to do this. File:Pope Francis CoA.svg would take precedence in the merger. It would be an image of the Pope's coat of arms before the revision, and I will make a rename request to clarify it after the merger. File:Fictional depiction of a coat of arms for Pope Francis.svg was voted for deletion by UV and Kathisma, agreed to keep by NikNaks, Fry and myself. My proposal to keep it was uncontested by Perhelion, SajoR and Maxxl2.
So, a short summary:
That seems to be the conclusion of the DR. :-) Lemmens, Tom (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the files in question has been deleted in a separate deletion request (which shows that this request really should get resolved), so ignore what I said about precedence. It should probably go to File:COA Franciscus.svg now.

Thanks in advance. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Erigeron compositus

Hi Pitke, Thanks for all your nice categorization work. You disputed an identification of mine the other day on User talk:Slaunger/Greenland/Plants. You may be right, but could you please have a look at my comments there, when you have time? Best wishes from Denmark, --Slaunger (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Pitke. Have you seen my message here? I will also ask User:MPF to have a look as he has previously helped me with id'ing.--Slaunger (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I see you are editing, so ping. --Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I have this on my to-do list. L. vulgaris is a common plant where I live and I doubt a farther cousin genus like Erigeron would have species so closely like it. I'm preparing a more detailed reply but I have a few IRL things taking my attention for the time being. Patience, my friend :) --Pitke (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That is fine. No worries. I was just unsure if you had noticed my original message. I can also dig up my references (three different books dealing with the flora of Greenland) stowed away in some dark corner in the attick. I have lost my competences in idi'ng due to lack of training over the last 5 years, but I can at least find what I have. --Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

de-categorisizing my photo

Hello Pitke, you de-categorisized my photo (that one with the horses). - It is now in no "horses"-category at all. - How should anybody (eccept me) find it?

OTRS

Hi, at OTRS we are in need for more people who are able to respond to FI tickets. Are you interested in joining the team? Jcb (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Tentatively yes please! I'm not going to be very active in summer but ping me in august ok? o/ --Pitke (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's great! To join the team, please follow the instructions here. (the queue for permissions is: "permissions"). Jcb (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

white horses, grey horses

Hello :), in those pictures there are white horses, or gray, if you are categorized as not good in your opinion, is a most suitable category. Is important thing is that those looking for photos with white or gray horses, easily find those pictures where there are horses white or gray --Pava (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

thank you, i have more cat the pics, now the cat are more specificate, ciaoo :) --Pava (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Please: If you know the correct name of the color, please categorizes more images properly cataloged with "white horses" but do not delete the category without calling a more specific. thank you :) ciao --Pava (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Views of horses"

Could you explain why you added Category:Views of horses to File:18 Mar 2007 Seattle Demo horses 02.jpg? Seems basically redundant to me, since it has Category:Mounted police in the United States. Pretty much every photo of mounted police is going to be, one way or another, a view of a horse. - Jmabel ! talk 01:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice Views of horses categorises horse photos by the direction and angle the horse is seen from. Top views of horses are just as viable to be listed as rear views, but until now there have been too few to make a category for them alone. --Pitke (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. I would think nothing should be directly in Category:Views of horses. Isn't it intended as more of a meta-category? - Jmabel ! talk 15:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
It should, yes, in practise it's being used as a holding ground for types of views that are rare and/or nobody thought up a good name to call the view yet. --Pitke (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
OK. I guess I'll bow out, as long as someone is thinking about it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


Category:Close-ups of Euphorbia milii flowers

Hi Pitke, I think you made this category by mistake. Actually not any image in it shows close-ups of Euphorbia milii flowers. Please read en:Euphorbia to understand that what looks like flowers in genus Euphorbia are NOT flowers! If you want to keep the category's content I suggest Category:Close-ups of cyathia of Euphorbia milii cultivars. Note that not any of the images shows the cyathia of the true Euphorbia milii species that meanwhile is very rare in cultivation. The frequently cultivated plants are all hybrids between Euphorbia milii subspecies and closely related species. Greetings. -- Ies (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. I'm by no means an expert in plant morphology and usually just rearrange files in the main flower close-up cat according to their taxonomy. I read a bit as you suggested, and found this article which specifically mentions the Euphorbia cyanthia as a type of inflorescence. The close-up categories here use "flower" as a generic term friendly for a layman's understanding and for ease of categorisation. As for the division between E. cultivars and E. milii specimens, some of the files in the category were moved from the main E. milii cat. In case you're knowledgeable in the matter, could you please confirm that even those files actually feature hybrid specimens? I'll move the cultivar cat originating files under a new name. --Pitke (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You around?

You have a compatriot who needs some hand-holding about how things work at Commons: User_talk:Pkatfin. Montanabw (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, I've had a clash with them on fi.wikipedia already, over the Ahkhal Teke article *groan* and cannot promise I can be patient with them after all that... I'm not going into detail but you surely know what entails when a fervent promoter of a controversial topic, completely fresh to Wikipedia, comes and "owns" an article... At one point I was called things. Anyways, I got them to calm down a little (not before they asked me to leave the article alone!) and use the preview function, but using the edit summary is still a work in progress... Pfft but yes, my patience is not great with this individual. Just please please tell me this isn't about Kerri-Jo's photos... --Pitke (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Sorry to break it to you. My take is that if people want to create subcats that say "horses registered by registry X" as a subcat of the "main" one, fine. Then the people who want to create "horses registred by registry Y" come along, they can do that too - both subcats of the main "Breed A" category. If you want to scan the talk at en.wiki Akhal-teke, you will see that I think I've gotten two other factions there to settle down. I sympathize with a lack of patience; we had a dramafest when Dana was tryng to get en. wiki Sorraia to GA quality too. In the Arabian world, there is a faction that claims only about 2% of all Arabians are "real pure" Arabians. I have concluded that, perhaps, ALL horse people are simply insane. (Possibly including myself!) But if you need a giggle, join my little snark club here: [2] Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Rosa 'Arabia'

Hello Pitke,
I just saw that you changed the 'by year' category for Rosa 'Arabia' from 2000s to 2010s... which is a bit difficult to say with this cultivar, as it has a date it was recorded/developed (I'm not to sure how that date is defined), which is listed as 2001 in helpmefind - while 2010 was the year the cultivar was introduced as 'Arabia' in retail sale in Germany. As some cultivars are introduced in different countries at different times, I usually use the earliest date - in this case 2001...
What would you suggest?
Anna reg (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiyo o/ My preference for year goes in this order:
  1. Year of production (since, as you said, year of introduction can vary from country to country)
  2. Year of first introduction
  3. "Before x" year in case neither of the above are available.
However the year of introduction is IIRC the info more widely available, and the info by which roses are sorted by in commercial catalogues etc so I could be talked into switching the preference as well. We'll just need to pick the one we want to use and stick with it. Probably also write it up somewhere so it's easy to check when memory's playing games.
As for 'Arabia', it was a brain fart on my part and I'll go fix it now. --Pitke (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your preference list. Point 3 (before x) can also be necessary when the year of production differs from source to source - in that case it would probably be best to use before x (the later date). Anna reg (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

SokoWiki

Moro! User SokoWiki is likely a sockpuppet of user:WPK. I have filed a checkuser request on this. --Pxos (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Native costumes

Hi Pitke, I see you used the term "Arabian Nights" costumes as opposed to "native" costumes for your new category. Fine by me, but my choice of "native" is based on an actual category in horse shows. There is also a category "western" (as in cowboys), for instance. It is not my own invention. (see http://www.arabianhorses.org/home/faq/AskExpert7.asp) --Judithcomm (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw here. Yes, do NOT call these "Arabian nights" -- that's a dinner show in Florida! (grin). IN the USA, the competition is called "Mounted Native Costume," (yeah, I know, not very "Native" more "Hollywood" but we can blame Rudolf Valentino for mixing the two...) so "Arabian costume" or something like that would be better. Montanabw (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Follow up: I boldly just recategorized them as Category:Part Arabian horses in "mounted native costume" because all of the images are from mounted native costume classes at horse shows in North America, no parades or anything else. (I may add some more, myself, was at Canadian National show this yearThe category "Category:Arabian horses in "native" costume" is OK with me for everything else, which can include shows, parades, movies or whatever. I also created a Category:Arabian costumes for anything not really related to the Arabian Nights literature, kids halloween costumes or whatever else. I'm not super tied to all my reorganization, just the above issue Judith raised, and then my own-anal-retentiveness. Montanabw (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead. I based the cat name on the supcat and the fact "native" costumes sounded snarky, without being aware of the competition class nomencalature. --Pitke (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there any difference??

Between Category:Bubo bubo (captive) and Category:Bubo bubo in zoos? Seems to me they're pretty much the same thing, or are you using 'zoo' in a restricted (officially registered?) sense to exclude private bird collections like those held by falconry enthusiasts? The important thing is to make sure there's no photos of non-natural (captive, etc.) birds "contaminating" the photos in the main category of natural photos from the wild. - MPF (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There are many modes of captivity. Zoos of course are a very common one, for birds of prey they might be privately held as you said by falconers etc, many species can belong to animal trainers working with TV and film productiona, wild animals can be held at animal hospitals or rehabilitation centres after rescue, they might be part of a captive breeding or study program etc, they might be temporarily held for study, or being removed from urban areas etc etc. Differentiating zoos from those is valid. --Pitke (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
OK thanks! I guess I would count private collections etc., as private zoos, but I can see that others might not - MPF (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Category name

Since I've seen you work with categories a lot, perhaps you can help me out here. We have the category Category:Armorial de Gelre. This should be renamed to the English name, Gelre Armorial, right? Or at the very least the Dutch name, as it is a Dutch armorial. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I'll go put in a command for the bot. --Pitke (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok the bot operator is MIA, it'll take a while just to clear the bot command backlog and sadly enough this armorial cat is not high on my personal preference list to manually move because of the 90+ galleries within it... I'll put up the new cat and move the files and the subcats, the galleries will stay until some brave soul dares recategorise them ;) --Pitke (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:O'Higgins_Region_(Chile)

Category discussion warning

O'Higgins Region (Chile) has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Jespinos (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge Category:Portrait paintings of wedded couples Category:Paintings of wedded couples

Hallo Pitke, first I want to thank you for your wonderful work on commons delinker. If you consider the files in both categories, I see no difference. So I suggest to move all files to Portrait paintings of wedded couples and make a redirect. what is your opinion? Regards--Oursana (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)s

Heh, thanks :3 IMO the issue here is that many portraits still linger in the supercat while they should be in the subcat. I'll fix this and you'll see there indeed are a few paintings that by no means are portraits. So no merge. Being somewhat anal about category structures, this would in fact been my stance even if there hadn't been any non-portrait paintings at the moment ;) --Pitke (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Now is fine. Have a sunny day.--Oursana (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Views from buildings in London

Hi Pitke, You deleted Category:Views from tall buildings in London stating "Moved to Category:Views from buildings in London" However the target category has not been created, nor have the files been moved, there is a real demand for this category. If possible can you complete the category rename or restore the previous category? Oxyman (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, what a blooper. I'll set CommonsDelinker to move the subcats. Files will have been moves as you read this. Thanks for letting me know! --Pitke (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting that out, I moved the subcats manually, I should have paid more attention to what you wrote, oh well Oxyman (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:World's Columbian Exposition

Because of use of bots, it's hard to tell whether you are the person who I should go to on this, but:

I think you renamed Category:World Columbian Exposition (fine, it was apparently misnamed), but you (or someone) put its subcategories in Category:World’s Columbian Exposition and the images that had been directly in the category in Category:World's Columbian Exposition, and did not put the latter into the cat tree. The difference is between ’ and '. I don't think we ever normally use the former in category names, because it can't readily be typed on a keyboard. I'd suggest getting this all into Category:World's Columbian Exposition; in any case, we certainly should not have both Category:World's Columbian Exposition and Category:World’s Columbian Exposition. Since the one you created is not the one I'd have chosen, I'm passing this back to you rather than just consolidate it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Aw sheesh, yes I am the right person to ask about this as I was the one handling that particular command and also did a bit of manual moving with the cat. It seems the original move request used the curved thingy and I didn't notice it as I moved it to the bot line. It's not a big deal though, I'll go turn some doodads and push some twiddlybits. The bot is taking it mellow for the time being, but the move shouldn't take more than a few hours altogether. --Pitke (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Oooo I just noticed that Cat-a-lot shows both characters as a curvy one! This is mostly a note to self to bring this up later in the right place. --Pitke (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Eudocimus albus at Brevard Zoo

Hi Pitke - the birds at Category:Eudocimus albus at Brevard Zoo are actually wild birds, 'just visiting' the zoo, not inmates; they should really be in the main species category. Alternatively, can you think of a rename for the category that does not imply they are zoo inmates? Thanks! [cc: User:Kersti Nebelsiek] - MPF (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeees and this is why I do prefer the syntax of "Species in Zoo Name" for "inmates". Perhaps "Species visiting Zoo Name", to go with "People visiting Zoo Name" would be both clear and intuitive? --Pitke (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Autumn roses, Botanic Gardens, Belfast (3) - geograph.org.uk - 984833.jpg

Hello Pitke,
I just saw that you labeled this picture as misidentified. Could you explain to me how you were able to tell that? If it is truly misidentified, the picture in the English Wikipedia should be changed, too... (and it means that we only have one bad picture of that world favourite)
Best regards, Anna reg (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, I must have been way too tired to confuse Floribunda with Hybrid Tea. Ignore my blooper. --Pitke (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok - and I already thought you had learned a mysterious way of identifying Hybrid Tea/Floribunda... ;-> Anna reg (talk)
Ha! If only! --Pitke (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance of editors' move commands from the designated list

Again, like in the past, you seem to have deleted a series of uncontroversial rename commands without placing them elsewhere e.g. feeding into the Bot to perform them, and without starting a procedure of possible objection sustained by any comment whatsoever. Please avoid that. Orrlingtalk 05:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, those all had been performed manually or otherwise before removal. --Pitke (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
We're seeing different things maybe. For your eyes only:

Rename Category:Categories in Germany by state to Category:Categories of Germany by state (3,330 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Orrlingtalk 03:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Rename Category:Shops in Staunton Street, Hong Kong to Category:Shops on Staunton Street, Hong Kong (122 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Orrlingtalk 10:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Rename Category:Loreto Department to Category:Department of Loreto (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Orrlingtalk 23:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Rename Category:Al Istiklal cemetery, Haifa to Category:Al Istiklal Cemetery (27 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Repaired caps and format Orrlingtalk 23:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Rename Category:Maccabi Haifa to Category:Maccabi Haifa F.C. (59 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. This category deals with the soccer club. There’s also basketball Orrlingtalk 23:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
All removed from that page on 24.Oct. Orrlingtalk 06:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I distinctly remember seeing those completed. I'll never trust that page again. Into the queue they go. *SIGH* --Pitke (talk) 11:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Orrlingtalk 14:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Rosa 'Charlotte Armstrong' was uploaded! ;->

Hello Pitke! You can remove Rosa 'Charlotte Armstrong' from your 'superwanted roses' - Eric Timewell uploaded a quite good one yesterday... ;->
Best wishes, Anna reg (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! (Also I'm a bit surprised that anyone's visited my UP :D) --Pitke (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Uh, yes, I sometimes look at userpages before commenting (to see which language I should use or if they provide a first name and to know a bit better to whom I'm writing...) and as commons has me drilled to notice roses, I remembered your 'cultivars to find' list (it's a good idea) and that 'Charlotte Armstrong' was on it - not surprisingly, as that cultivar is mentioned in quite a lot of rose galleries... ;->
Anna reg (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Your assistance please

You deleted Category:Maps of Canadian Rivers with the deletion log entry that said it was an "(Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect: content was: "Category:Maps of rivers of Canada")"

Could you please direct me to the discussion, if any, behind this deletion, or, if there was no discussion, could you explain your reasoning?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning: it is inplausible not only because of the non-standard name format but also the non-standard capitalisation of the category name. --Pitke (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pitke/Archive_2&oldid=162023028"