User talk:Stas1995/Archive 1

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

Done

Worked on your request. Shouldn't you remove the retired template above? ;-). Best, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Notifying users

Please notify users who uploaded problematic files. This gadget is very useful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Fireworks from the Philippines to celebrate 2016
Happy New Year Stas1995! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké95 07:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

File:HIC 59206 (edit).jpg

File:HIC 59206 (edit).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 ∙ +/−

Yann (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Tagging copyvios

Hi, When tagging copyright violations, please inform the uploader. This is best done using the gagdet. See in your preferences. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hi, Please read the criteria for speedy deletions. "Out of scope" is not one of them. Use a proper DR instead. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

When requesting removals due to duplication

If you have special/extra information to inform an administrator about deletion requests then please add it to the template when requesting a speedy deletion. {{Duplicate}} takes positional parameters $2 and $3. The comparative view that an admin gets to see the two images isn't going to show up that difference in scope, or that detail, so it was presented as a standard deletion with no reason to go outside the expressed process for which to keep.

BTW, your warning at the top of this page about inactivity is inaccurate. If you are being active, even lightly active, would you please remove the statement. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

FP nominations

Hi! Subsequent nominations must be opened in the form: Commons:Featured picture candidates/filename/2 (and then use the parameter com-nom in {{Assessments}}, if necessary). Please, do not request deletions of archived talks (never! Except for obvious vandalism, of course…).
Hope this helps, bye! — TintoMeches, 13:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplication is speedy deletion, non-exact should be put through a normal DR

Please don't make false duplication requests to push a deletion through without a discussion. There is a process that allows for community review of normal deletion requests, so please use that, rather than images that are not exact duplicates or uploading over the top to make a duplicate, see Commons:Overwriting existing files. Please just use the process, it is not burdensome.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm a uploader of this file and I can request speedy deletion. If you so need this file please delete it and upload new (from ESO website - last updated version) via your account. /St1995 12:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

why the revert?

[1] The file description says "Women of China in Italy." Cheers.99.234.209.208 08:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

COM:AN/B

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#File:Валерий Васильевич Герасимов.jpg. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

–Totie (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


Deletion request

Hi folks , thanks for your message , this files has been uploads in 2008 or 2009 , many of this TV Show has been finished, i dont edit Wikipedia articles in the last years , i approve to delete the requested images. I believe that will not bring losses to this articles.

Reference : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Renan.forni

(Renan.Forni) 23:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletions (again)

An admin already warned you about tagging files for speedy deletions. Please don't tag files for Speedy without a valid reason again. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  • What? First, the User page is not yours, it belongs to the Community, and it is intended for warnings like this. The Deletion Policy is clear and Yann already warned (say go away to him), if you tag any file for Speedy again, I'll report you to the Administrator's Noticeboard. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Go away, again. All you actions (creating meaningless DRs for unused personal files) belong to wikistalking. If you continue doing so, I will report you to the AN. /St1995 21:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Stas1995, this is not a proper answer. You are requested to follow policies, and answer when you do something which doesn't match the policies. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank for reply, dear Yann. I don't think that creating thousands DRs (because a lot of personal files on Commons) for such garbage is a good idea. Many other users nominate personal unused files with "speedy" and almost all admins delete them immediately. The case of Amitie 10g - the first in my practice here. /St1995 12:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Report at the Administrators Noticeboard

I shuld notify that I reported you to the Administrator's Noticeboard. You just ignored the warnings from Yann and even tried to tell her the reasons for deletion based in a MediaWiki interface rather than the Deletion Policy. And no mention your harassment... --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Permission and licensing

I see that you've tagged File:Meridian state bridge1024.jpg with a "No permission since" template (diff). If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you explain to me why you attached the template to this particular file? I see that the photo's licensed as public domain, and a Google image search doesn't turn up anything that suggests to me that someone casually lifted the photo from a website and uploaded it to Commons as their own. The username of the uploader, User:Demache, isn't identical with or clearly related to the name of the photographer, Jesse Kagarise; but neither does my own username resemble the name on my driver's license, and that shouldn't be taken as evidence that the photos I've uploaded to Commons aren't my own. Is there a reason why you believe that this particular photo was, say, misappropriated by a well-meaning but copyright-casual Wikipedian? — Ammodramus (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment at File talk:Meridian state bridge1024.jpg. Ammodramus (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply at the Meridian bridge talk-page. Your comments there lead me to worry about the future of my own photos at Commons, which also have the permission parameter blank. Would they be subject to the same process of tagging and removal? This probably wouldn't be a problem as long as I was alive and active on Wikimedia, but if I should be run over by a bus today, leaving no one to defend the public-domain tags that I've put on the files, would these photos be at risk of deletion? If so, what steps should I take to prevent this? — Ammodramus (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-speedy deletion

Please don't use it on files uploaded 10 years ago and in use on loads of wiki's like File:Abu Ghraib 53.jpg. This is just lazy tagging, it's obvious that image was taken by US military people. Multichill (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Final warning

Hello, you have previously received warning by Yann in regards to tagging out of scope files for speedy deletion. You are wasting the time of admins by tagging these files out of process. COM:CSD does not include out of scope files, and they must go through the COM:DR process. Please review COM:CSD, and consider this a final warning before having the patroller right removed and possibly facing other adverse action. ~riley (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  • COM:Deletion_policy#Out_of_scope (However for files/pages which very clearly fall outside of Commons' project scope, the tag speedydelete can be used). Dear riley! It only your problem for creating multiple meaningless DRs, not mine. Please stay out this page and stop your "edit wrapping" and checking my contributions. If you continue doing so, I will create desysop discussion. Additionally, many admins deleting personal unused files speddly. Goodbye, /St1995 17:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I second ~riley's warning and if you either continue this behaviour or start making threats again I will block your account. Your edits clearly need tracking since you are ignoring previous warnings. Natuur12 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for for two weeks.. The reason for the block is : Although I had just made a final warning above, I've gone ahead and made a block in regards to Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_58#Stas1995_and_his_speedy_tags_and_harassment. This discussion has been brought to my attention, consensus has clearly been determined that these files must go through DR. In addition, the "unused" clause is not applicable on files that have been uploaded 3 hours previously. Based on the above threat, previous interaction: [2][3][4], this user is not ready to play nice with others. Please note that your user talk page is not just yours, its an outlet for the community to communicate with you. Advising users to "stay out" and "go away" when being presented with valid concerns is inappropriate (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

-- ~riley (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Neodymium acetate.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:Neodymium acetate.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Thatonewikiguy (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No permission since

Hi,

When you add the "No permission tag" on a file, you must also notify the uploader with {{Image permission}}.

You can use the gadget Quick Delete or VisualFileChange to automaticlly add the tag and notify the uploader.

Regards. Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Unused personal files

I have fixed your DR to list the files, and notified the uploaders. I came here to drop a friendly note, but unfortunately after looking at the talk page, I feel like I actually have to make it a warning. You may not create a deletion request for multiple files without listing them on the file page, and you may not nominate files for deletion without notifying the uploader. You especially may not do so for over a hundred files at once.

We have scripts specifically for the purpose of doing this in the proper manner.

If you nominate ANY file for deletion, speedy or otherwise, in the future without notifying the uploader, I will block you for disruptive behavior. Reventtalk 19:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

  • @Revent: I just do not want that my username is available in a page history. I have enongh edits in a talk namespace. Better I will not nominate any files for deletion (with notifying or without) in future. Thank you. /St1995 20:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not yelling at you about the 'context' of your proposed deletions, speedy or otherwise, even if the community wants to. You simply cannot nominate files for deletion without letting the uploader know, or do it in such a way that it requires special effort for anyone else to even know what is nominated. It's irritating to anyone that tries to deal with it, unfair to uploaders, and likely to create a huge war it we let it go. You have more than enough experience to know that by now. Reventtalk 22:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pacific Ocean ru.png

File:Pacific Ocean ru.png 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 ∙ +/−

Dogad75 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Answer to mail

Hi, I'm a bit too busy today but I will look at your request as soon as possible, likely in a few days. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply to email

Hello, I just received your email, and I have license reviewed those files as you requested. I don't know why you need to email me (I don't look at my email often, but thanks to Echo, I can receive notifications about email), but thanks for the request anyway. ★ Poké95 11:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Illustrations of the species of Bassaricyon - ZooKeys-324-001-g003.jpg

Hi Stas,

this file is bigger than File:Illustrations of the species of Bassaricyon.jpg, but it's not cropped. May you please do this?--Viewdusk (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of scope files

Hi, Out of scope is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please create a regular DR. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

your reverts/re-upload

Hello Stas1995, could you explain please, why you want to force a new user who made a mistake with his/her first upload, to have the "metadata extended" image version being kept instead of the second otherwise identical image? against the explicit wish of the user directly after upload… Holger1959 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Probably this user choose random file for deletion but better to keep original. File:Landschaftsschutzgebiet Zweidorfer Holz - Woltorfer Holz.jpg has earler change data and better MB size and likely has better quality than File:Landschaftsschutzgebiet Zweidorfer Holz - Woltorfer Holz 1.jpg. /St1995 20:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
you write "likely", but did you check? please tell where the difference in quality is? Holger1959 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I checked and it seems 4MB file looks better than 2MB. Anyway better file size gives better definition quality. /St1995 20:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
there is no visible difference in pixels if you zoom in (try 3000% or more). if you want to force other users this way (by re-uploading a version they want being deleted as duplicate) you need a comprehensible reason (eg. an obvious difference in resolution or dimensions, not only general assumptions). otherwise i think, we should act in deference to user requests (especially from new users). Holger1959 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stas1995/Archive_1&oldid=659215140"