User talk:Revent/Archive 12

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

Duplicated Images

Hi Revent, could you double check which file File:TennesseClassBBCamouflageG162038.jpg is an exact copy of? Thanks. -Mys_721tx (talk) 04:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mys 721tx: Fixed... I lost the trailing 'g' when copy-pasting. I've been uploading high-resolution copies from Naval History and Heritage Command in a somewhat systematic manner, and some previously existed on Commons in 'web-resolution' images uploaded via other websites.. (it's hard to locate them before uploading, because I'm having to convert them from the TIFF originals). Reventtalk 04:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #226

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Lowered relevance threshold for ArticlePlaceholder search results from 3 to 2 sitelinks (T144188)
    • Added 'otk' as an available language for monolingual text values (T137809)
    • Working on making it possible to paste partial URLs into the site selector (T144310)
    • A Grafana board now tracks general usage and error metrics of the Query Service UI
    • Made progress on showing editors on all Wikimedia projects which articles on their project use data from a given Wikidata item. We will also show in the page information (action=info) which items a given article uses. Also worked on showing which projects use a given item in the page information. (T103091)
    • Added meta information to the html header of item pages (T88475)
    • Made progress on making ArticlePlaceholders indexable for search engines (T144590)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Nice to see you replacing low quality versions of old photos with high-resolution originals. I'm happy to process the duplicates. INeverCry 23:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Yeah, there are 'lots' of them, unfortunately... I've been getting a lot of 'thanks' from various wikis, many of them are scans of old printed copies published by the same source. It's going to take a while, but I'm attempting to methodically run through the whole 'corpus'.. Category:NHHC images uploaded by Revent is over 300 now, though probably only a quarter to a third are dupes. Reventtalk 00:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
You're doing work that's well worth the time. Better than chasing image spammers and socks like I do... INeverCry 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #227

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
Quality process on Wikidata

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Wikidata weekly summary #228

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Note on speedy delete tagging

Please be sure that categories and any other relevant information are on the image intended to be kept before tagging another version which may have better info/categorization to be speedy deleted, thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: For most of these images I'm working on, there's only one or two categories, and I was copying them over first... but, I also was assuming that whoever ran the 'process duplicates' tool would use the 'merge the file pages' screen to make sure everything was moved over (since it's actually easier that way). I've also, unfortunately, been unable to figure out any reliable way to track down existing version without actually uploading a new jpeg, since a 'tiff' and a 'jpeg' of the same image don't match, which is why I have not simply been overwriting the old versions. Reventtalk 22:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the log (I did not catch at first that 'you' were not the one that deleted it, that you just restored it and moved the image over... apparently that assumption (that people would actually merge them) was mistaken. :/ I'll make sure to move them all over from now on (though in this case, I think all the same information other than the categories was in 'my' version of the file page as well, just organized differently). Reventtalk 22:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

What COM:AGF says

My criticism at AN/B was that at least one Admin/Crat was citing AGF without actually having understood it. Interpreting just those three words "Assume good faith" without actually reading what the policy says. Let me repeat again for you:

  • Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
  • If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
  • If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.

And what you said:

You accuse me of forum shopping, making a complaint due to "personal issues", that it is "purely personal" and "due to interpersonal drama". The "purely personal" is particularly bad in that "purely" implies I am doing this 100% out of spite rather than for any merit, say DefendEachOther. Now where in our AGF policy does it entitle you to comment negatively about my motives here without having the slightest evidence. Could it possibly be because you have a personal problem with me? I couldn't possibly comment! Further, you admit you have not looked at Tuvalkin's history, yet you seem sure there is an ongoing personal issue between me an Tuvalkin. There isn't. I haven't had, to my knowledge, any significant interaction with Tuvalkin on this project, though I am aware that he pops up occasionally to throw insults. I made a very mild criticism of Tuvalkin's block rationale at one discussion for which he responded with an outrageous personal insult, and which he labelled a "personal attack" (for some reason), which made it all the easier for an admin to immediately block him. When he appealed his block, I made a perfectly reasonable comment that I did not wish the appeal to be agreed, and further to that suffered more insults from him and a couple of his friends, for which further blocks were handed out. That is, to my knowledge, the extent of any negative interaction between us. It hardly forms some "ongoing interpersonal issue". It was one event, which came out of the blue, from Tuvalkin. Do you seriously suggest, as Nick did, that because I was insulted by Tuvalkin, that somehow this censors me from making any further criticism of him, or of defending others when they are insulted by him. You need to seriously examine your admin role and why you continue to look the other way when serious personal attacks occur under your nose. Your comments at AN/U are indefensible and utterly at odds with clear policy. Keep your nasty unfounded thoughts about me to yourself. That's what AGF says. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: You, yourself, used your past conflict with Tuvalkin as an excuse to not attempt to engage with him when it was suggested.
If Tuvalkin indeed has a long history of intimidating and harrassing behavior (and, from his block log, that certainly appears to be the case) then that is indeed 'interpersonal drama'... his, not yours... and a short block truly will not fix it. It never does. Reventtalk 14:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
See, you are misrepresenting things again. It isn't "my past conflict". I have no ongoing dispute with Tuvalkin. He attacked me out of the blue and that's in the past. End of. It isn't an "excuse", but a fair reason why me engaging further on this matter with Tuvalkin would be rebuffed. You and Nick spend your time lecturing on what other people are doing wrong or ineffectively, yet your alternative is simply to ignore and do nothing. Revent, that isn't acceptable, yet is your pattern of response to outrageous personal attacks against certain people. You know quite well that you described my going to AN/U as "purely personal" on my aspect, not Tuvalkin's. You were suggesting this was a vexatious request out of spite because you claim I had issues with Tuvalkin. At AN/U you are engaging in ad hominem attacks on me, and you're clever enough to know that. You once again repeat the slur about "your long term pattern of behavior" without providing any evidence of any long term pattern of behaviour. Stop doing that Revent, it isn't allowed per COM:AGF. If you ever want to mention my "long term pattern of behaviour" do that in the relevant forum or talk page, in a discussion about me, and supply dozens of diffs to justify this extraordinary claim. Otherwise, stop side-tracking a discussion on Tuvalkin with slurs about me. -- Colin (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at links from something else entirely, I happened to come across you referring to Tuvalkin as "a good example of bad faith"Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_55#Colin.27s_use_of_anti-LGBT_language. Your description of the history is apparently incorrect. Reventtalk 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was talking generally about three users when I made that statement. If you're going to lecture me on incorrect descriptions of history, you might want to make sure your description is fair and accurate then also. Seems like I made a rather mild response to an insulting comment by Tuvalkin. Once again, this is simply an out-of-the-blue attack on me, having not interacted with Tuvalkin before or afterwards, or indeed, ever. Clearly Tuvalkin has "personal issues" with me, for reasons I cannot fathom. But that's not how you phrased it above. You were clearly stating that my reason for posting the AN/U was "personal" on me. You do remember that the mental health insult was on Jcb, not me. So your disruptive campaign at the start of that page was an ad hominem attack that this AN/U was vexatious and out of some personal spite. I rather suspect you didn't do your research, assumed there was a mutual conflict, and ran with it. You are wrong. -- Colin (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless. There is clearly a history between you and Tuvalkin, and you derailed the discussion about Jcb to be about him, then forum-shopped it to ANU when you did not get the response you wanted, after you yourself explained that there was a history between the two of you. That the accusation of bad faith that I quoted above was toward three users instead of just one doesn't make it any better, but I've seen you make such statements many times, though usually they are more 'implicit'.

You claim that I was making 'ad hominem' attacks, yet several of the statements you linked weren't even about you, and the others were criticism of your actions. That's not what 'ad hominem' means. Steinsplitter (talk · contribs) told you to stop, and you instead attacked him. If I was actually making repeated ad hominem statements about you on ANU, while you complained about it, someone else would have said something. They didn't, because they were not ad hominem attacks.

And by the way, saying that your statement on Elcobolla's talk page looked like trolling was not an ad hominem attack... I did not call you a troll, I made a statement about your actions. You, on the other hand, have directly said to me "you are a troll", which was far more of a personal attack. Now go away. Reventtalk 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I received a notification that you had sent me an email. But no email arrived. This also often happens to me when I send email through Commons, depending on the recipient. It's a known bug and the MediaWiki folk are frustratingly slow to do the simple fix necessary (essentially, media wiki spoofs the sender of the email, which many email providers consider to be naughty and so block). You can tell the email did not get delivered if you requested a copy of the email -- you won't have got that either. I suspect if I tried to email you through Commons, I'd get the same but I'll give it a go. I know we corresponded a long time ago, but a quick search on my phone did not turn up any messages I could reply to, and I have forgotten your email or name. Perhaps my desktop PC has this, or perhaps you still have an old email from me. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Nevermind. To be honest, after sleeping on it, it's probably a better thing, since you have made it quite clear you are not interested in what I have to say. I'm sure that you will eventually become aware of what I was going to tell you about through someone else's actions. Reventtalk 10:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* Your comment suggests it was more of your "How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways". So, yes, I guess it is for the best. -- Colin (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Not even remotely. Reventtalk 11:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
What was the purpose of your post at 10:33? I do in fact wonder that about much of what you post about me. You could have written "Actually I have changed my mind." and left it at that. Instead we get something vaguely hostile and with the intention of indicating your superiority in the situation and my loss. Fine, it's your user page, so you can use it to boost your ego if you like. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For this record (though he says he is no longer listening) my deciding that it was probably a better thing is because Colin has specifically, in the past, asked me to stop attempting to help him. Reventtalk 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:160717-F-NK612-009.jpg

It was an error to nominate this image, if you still have a concern go here.--Officer (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #229

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Worked more on making it possible to use Wikidata items and properties to make statements about multimedia files on Commons in the future
    • Adding a list of items used in an article to the edit page on Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T144921)
    • More work on automated language links for Wiktionary (phabricator:T145412)
    • Improve the way to count and display the number of items on the main page (phabricator:T144687)
    • Solved a bug on the gadget DuplicateReferences (phabricator:T146318)
    • Clicking on the desired property while adding a new Statement didn't focus the value input. That has been fixed (phabricator:T144037).
    • Made it possible to use the bzr and cvs protocols in URL data types (phabricator:T146692)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Category

Hi, The category was designed as a temporary thing so no one could waste their time categorizing images that could end up be deleted - As of yet I don't know what images will be deleted and what will be kept so the category helps in that people will see it and hopefully won't waste their time categorizing,
Ofcourse some have ignored and removed it which I have no issue with either but as I said I'd rather people didn't waste their time that was all,
Also I wasn't shouting but having it in lowercase probably would've meant it wouldnt have been seen so I figured caps was best,
Thans, –Davey2010Talk 18:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: ALLCAPS is generally taken as shouting on the Internet. I get what you're trying to do, I think, but it comes across as very aggressive and unprofessional (and so does the profanity, for that matter). I think just using a regular user category (Files uploaded by Davey2010 to be sorted, or something similar), and letting people waste their time if they want to, is much less likely to cause drama. Reventtalk 18:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I know but I would assume here it wouldn't be taken as shouting but perhaps I'm wrong,
Picture this - You spend 20-40 minutes finding for instance a vehicle model, I come along 2 days later and have the image deleted .... You're going to ask yourself why the hell did I bother and even worse you'd perhaps feel disheartened .... So I try to avoid all of that with this category,
The reason it's not a usercat is stop the bot coming along and shoving it under "uncategorized" - Ofcourse if people want to waste their time that's their choice but to me I'm giving the option of not wasting their time - Despite how aggressive it may look I'm trying to be helpfulas I possibly can,
What about if I renamed it as "Files uploaded by Davey2010 to be sorted" but left it as a normal cat... would that be better?,
I apologize for the language earlier too,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Just to let you know I've renamed the cat to "Category:Files to be sorted by Davey2010 - Please don't remove" ... and have made over 3 thousand edits in the process , Hopefully it's not aggressive now lol, Anyway thanks for your comments, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 20:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Davey2010: I think that's better. I wasn't trying to start an argument about it, but I'm pretty sure someone would have eventually. I saw the message on your user page, BTW, so I get why you have 'so many' files you might not want. Reventtalk 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I know it's cool :), In all honestly I've had too many issues with the category and figure the dramah won't ever stop lol, Ah yeah that's old - I've stopped mass uploading altogether as it's stupid and extremely disruptive to mass upload whilst not categorizing them,
Anyway thanks for the kick up the arse - I did in all fairness want to do something but kept shoving it under the rug hoping it'd all go away lol
Anyway thanks and have a great day :), –Davey2010Talk 20:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:Papon at the launch of the song Chu Liya.jpg

This image is owned by Bollywood Hungama (formerly known as IndiaFM) which are licensed under the [licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported] license. File source is here. An administrator review is required to confirm that the above license is valid. See Category:Unreviewed files from Bollywood Hungama for further instructions. --SlowPhoton (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@SlowPhoton: I'm quite aware of the situation with Bollywood Hungama (I'm a Commons administrator, and an OTRS agent). I failed the license review on this file, and marked it as 'no permission', because the indicated source gives a 404 error, so the permission can't be verified. Quite likely, Bollywood Hungama has simply moved the image to a different location, but I could not find it. Hopefully you can... sometimes BH simply removes images. Reventtalk 03:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I have found the new source URL for the file here and updated the same in the file page. Hope you can now review it. --SlowPhoton (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@SlowPhoton: Done. Thanks for hunting it down. Reventtalk 14:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Revent/Archive_12&oldid=209830609"