User talk:Arp/archive2011-2014

Renaming psipsipsi .... (complex name)

Ok I've fixed the typo on the file you asked me, regards --PierreSelim (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gryllotalpa septemdecimchromosomica

Hola, a mí me identificó la imagen un experto en esta web, saludos--Hinox (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lo siento, no tengo ninguna otra foto...--Hinox (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename requests require an evidence base

With a rename request like listed at File:Verlusia.rhombea.dorsal.jpg, there is no obvious error (to anyone but experts), so you would be well-advised to provide evidence in support of your request. We ask for an evidence-base, or the agreement of the uploader in such cases to rename their uploads.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What you ask is not possible. Please be satisfied that some people do spend any time at all to correct some of the many, many identification errors in wildlife photos on commons. There was no evidence provided at upload time (not for the validity of the name, nor for the correctness of the identification), so why should I spend a lot of time trying to "prove" the obvious. There are two errors combined in this case:

• Verlusia rhombea is not a currently accepted name, if it were that species it should be Syromastus rhombeus, but it isn't.
• The photo simply shows a different species, as indicated in the correcting edit: Coreus marginatus - by far the most common Coreidae in Germany. Any evidence can only be in the image itself and you already have that. How do you want me/anyone to prove this? Write up a key for the Coreidae of Germany (in this case), upload modified versions of the image with all the characters lined out that make this C.m. as opposed to S.r.? Sorry, it's not going to happen. If in doubt (author, admin) do your own research. Find securely identified images (read: not sourced by wikimedia commons) of Coreus marginatus and Syromastus rhombeus, put them side by side with the images I corrected yesterday and see for yourself. It's obvious, even to the untrained eye.

Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not asking the impossible, I am asking for a slightly stronger justification to be added to the rename requests. If you uploaded files, and someone came along and requested them to be renamed, I am hoping that you would like for me to have a level of evidence rather than a "tick and flick" approach. All I am asking is an abridged version of the above reasoning with the request. Something that makes the request something beyond opinion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It can only ever be opinion. If I propose a name change and/or add a name in the file description, I do so because it is my opinion that this is the correct name. It is totally superfluous to point that out. There can be no "proof" for an ID, other than maybe DNA and even then the DNA-data in the database might be wrong due to initial misinterpretation/misidentification of original samples used in creating the database, which are in fact also opinion based (it's the opinion of the identifying expert that the DNA sampled belongs to species xyz), unless the DNA is taken from the type specimen itself, which is hardly ever the case. Certainly, identification of wildlife on photos is always just an opinion. The only question one should ask is who's opinion you will trust more to be correct. As wikimedia projects are community projects that "rely" on every idiot to do provide images and identification "opinions" you will never get it sorted unless you find a mechanism to identify trustworthy identifications, which means identifying trustworthy experts and trusting their opinion above others. It's not about opinion and proof, it's about trust. How do you propose to manage that?

Asking knowledgeable people to put in time and effort in "proving their point" other than just accepting their opinion, whereas at the same time accepting any name guesstimated by a layman at the time of upload "no questions asked" is not a method for quality assurance - it is a method for driving knowledgeable people away fast. Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you uploaded files, and someone came along and requested them to be renamed, I am hoping that you would like for me to have a level of evidence rather than a "tick and flick" approach.

No. The working principle of the wikimedia projects is "assume good faith". If I start an article on a Wikipedia and someone comes along and changes/corrects "my" article, I'm happy that it was improved. If I upload an image and someone comes along and changes stuff I'm happy when this improves things. If I don't agree I can roll back the change and/or start a discussion. This is the way wikimedia projects work - people just go ahead and edit stuff. Nine times out of ten this improves things. If not, we roll it back and/or talk about it. If someone were to do a lot of "rename" edits for ID correction and there would be discussion on every third one of them I would assume you would go talk to the "contributor" and ask to not edit/rename unless 100% sure of really knowing the species (and all other similar species to rule those out). If need be, and friendly requests to refrain from continuing with erroneous rename edits fail, I presume the contributor would be blocked to avoid more damage. I don't see much discussion about the hundreds of ID corrections, recategorization and rename edits that I've done, so it is fair that you would assume good faith and not request more "proof" other than "it's my opinion that the ID is incorrect and that the new ID should be". Anything I could add beyond "ID correction" (which I usually add) would merely be more words to state my opinion, not "proof" of any kind. Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, and I came to you asked for a little more information in good faith. I did nothing that accused you of a bad faith edit. FWIW w:en:WP:AGF does not mean 'do what someone says without question' and your attempt to throw that me in my face is indelicate.
There is next to no means provided to me to know your level of expertise in insect classification.
I did not ask for "unquestioning proof", I asked for a justification to your rename based on the criteria of "obvious" error, where the error is not obvious.
An example of how you could have justified this name change would have been {{rename|blah blah blah.jpg|example example.jpg|5|See other specimens in [[Category:look here]]}}. In truth, I would have accepted something that indicated some cluefulness like "Based on my broad experience with insects of Germany" or "Such and such a specimen has a striped carapace".

There is nothing wrong for asking for a little bit of a statement ox explanation for a rename of someone else's uploads.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This sort of endless discussion for the sake of "being right" is precisely what's wrong with wikimedia projects. It drives people away. You sneer at me that I would be well-advised to provide evidence in support of your request and that you (we??) ask for an evidence-base, or the agreement of the uploader. I think I have explained with enough detail that "evidence" is not going to happen, cannot happen and I'm certainly not going to beg with every original uploader if I may plllllease suggest a new name for every bogus ID that I find on commons.

Correcting a category with 50% bad IDs takes way too much time as it is even if I race through it and "just" edit every badly IDed file description, recat, add a clumsy rename template and edit the taxon page to toss the offenders out. Frankly I'm already irritated that the system at commons requires me to remember numeral parameters and the sequence of things for filling out a template to even accept a rename request. I'm most certainly not going to spend even more time than that in searching for links and explaining my reasons for the ID. I may do that if/when discussion arises, but if you (we???) truly ask me to do this for every ID-correcting edit than that's it - no more ID corrections. I give you a correct ID and a suggestion for a rename. Take it or leave it.

There is next to no means provided to me to know your level of expertise in insect classification

Yes, my point exactly (see above - IDs are about trust and you don't have a system for that). But this is the modus operandi of the wikimedia projects. You simply don't know who is feeding the system bullshit and who isn't. Edits get done mostly without proof of correctness or justification. This starts with the very first edit/upload of a page. There is no reason for trusting the original poster more than subsequent editors. In fact, I can more easily think of reasons to trust the OP less than more. So if you really want an "evidence base" start by laying down that requirement at the time of upload. After that we may talk again about providing evidence when suggesting the original was wrong. If the original uploader was granted the right to give a name "no questions asked", I should be too. The fact that you have taken away the right for editors to do their own renaming etc etc and substituted this by a system of clumsy request templates that no one wants to "learn", while putting an extra burden on moderators to do the actual renaming (etc etc) doesn't change this. Except that you're the boss now, so you may decide to not honour my request at your own discretion. That's your choice. It is my choice to not provide time consuming justification with every ID correcting edit.

This discussion has taken quite enough time. I will continue as I have been doing, correcting things when I stumble on them and as time allows. If you don't want my ID corrections just say the word, but I'm not going to spend more time doing them due to some empty phrases of "evidence base" where there is no such thing to begin with. Not in the wikimedia system as it stands and not in photo IDing wildlife as a principle. Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Listen Billinghurst/Drewth, I have no beef with you and if my mentioning "good faith" upset you, I would like to apologize for that - I was just trying to get the point across that it's not generally required to provide "evidence" (or wordy justification) for every edit, or rename request for that matter (which is basically also just another edit). Your initial message here, to me, didn't sound much like asking for an explanation (which I gave nevertheless), but sounded like telling me off that I should do things differently in future. So, besides explaining the renaming request at hand (which you didn't really ask for), I've been trying to point out that it is not workable to demand that people provide evidence with every renaming request. The fact that moderators/admins have to do the renaming for us doesn't change that and if you want to put it that way, then yes, basically it's just a "tick and flick" request. Nothing wrong with that. If I could do it myself I wouldn't bother you folk with it. If I were to be wrong about the rename, there would be discussion afterward and it would get settled (hopefully). If I would issue too many bogus rename requests, other measures would be called for. Until that time, yes, it's a "tick and flick" request. In subsequent posts you have gone back from demanding an evidence base to "asking for a slightly stronger justification". I assure you that I have no problem with giving feedback on such requests whenever an admin is in doubt about my rename request (as my first answer shows) and if asked differently I would probably go out of my way to provide more info, explanation and links. This time I felt little incentive for that. Of course I'm not without failure on my ID-opinions (no one is, not even the most celebrated experts), so it's always good to second guess any ID by anyone, but I will not spend the time to provide explanation on every correction of a silly/bogus ID, let alone that any such explanation might constitute "evidence". Of course I understand that you guys have problems deciding which rename request to trust and which not, but frankly that's your problem, or the problem of the system as it functions now. Don't make it my problem by demanding that I put in a lot of extra time by providing reasoning for every silly request. So, here it is: Evidence for photo ID is not going to happen, cannot happen - you'll only ever get opinion. Wordy explanation by default I'm very unwilling to provide, certainly as long as uploaders are granted the freedom to mess things up with bogus IDs, without any such requirements. Additional explanation/reasoning on friendly request is never a problem. Hope that's clear enough for you. Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Deraeocoris punctulatus01.jpg

Pudding4brains, I reverted your edition again. The right place to discusse these doubts is the Talk page, not the description of the file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not wikipedia. People do not generally look at talk pages so the media page needs to indicate clearly that the ID is possibly/probably incorrect. I'm sure that the wikimedia way to do this would be to design some baffling template (or rather 10 or so while we're at it) to stamp all sorts of beautiful messages on the page that the contents are in doubt, need checking, should nit be relied upon and that the filename (hence) might very well be misleading etc (there, that's 5 great template ideas, all for free - I'll leave the other 5 for the template gurus to come up with) but I'm not going to bother with that. I'm simply going to indicate on the page that the ID is in question and people should not blindly rely on it. Cheers Pudding4brains (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Naturalis images

If you're planning on making many annotated images, it's good to also provide a blank version so people can add text in any language, or use some other metadata-based annotation.

just as an aside, the reason the licencing has caused you a headache is that all of the licensing templates on Commons are set up to provide info on copyright restrictions, and the agreement between you and the museum is nothing to do with copyright, as you have identified.

Thanks, –⁠moogsi (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moogsi,

This first image, was just a quick and dirty upload to provide an example for trying out how to handle the "copyright" issue, as discussed here.

And yes, I'm aware that what you suggest is considered to be preferable. And also that wikimedia would generally want me to upload all the originals used for any collage separately as well.

But I'm not going to promise that sort of thing. It takes a lot of time to create a collage like that and it would take a lot more time to beef up all individual images to make these usable/presentable on commons. Also, most are quite bad and/or only partially in focus so there is also little point in cluttering commons with all those "junk" originals that are only good for cropping out one or two details. Especially as that would set me back several hours more just to clean those up and upload etc.

My efforts at creating a collage are not always structured, so I may change or substitute bits an pieces after I've started putting in annotations (often, while adding the annotations it occurs to you that some more/other detail is called for). So more often than not I will not have a "clean" intermediate of the same collage. So I would have to go back and especially create one for commons, with very little expectation that someone may actually want to use that.

Put differently: Collages like this one are not and will not be created especially for wiki(p|m)edia or with usage here in mind. Mostly, I'll be glad that it's done when it's done.

However, I do expect that such collages might be of use to others "as is", if for nothing else than just helping to clear up identification-issues, or for usage in some wikibook or on wikispecies or whatever. So I feel it's justified to make collages such as this available to "all people" with as little restrictions for usage as possible by uploading them here.

In short: I am aware of the preferred ways of uploading things and do keep this in mind an will try and comply to some extend if it's "doable" (time wise), but I'm not going to make it a priority.

I may opt to add some notification with such uploads that it might be possible to create different/special/clean versions on request if someone is truly interested. Generally I don't have a problem spending time to help someone out like that, but I'm quite unwilling to spend time just because it's policy or wikimedia's "prefered way" or whatever.

Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In this case, It wasn't too much trouble to add a "no text" and "empty" version - hadn't done so yesterday as it was just a test.

I didn't mean by "it's good to" that you absolutely have to, or even that anyone expects you to. It's not policy as far as I know. You're certainly very generous with your donations and I do think anyone would be crazy to ask you to do any more than is necessary. This seems like it might be more effort than it's worth most of the time - I thought that the text might be a 'last step' or something, though that would seem not to be the case :)

Please keep doing what you're doing, and never feel like you have to justify not doing something to me or the WMF or anyone else. "I don't have time" or "I don't think it's worth it" are perfectly good reasons when your efforts are already voluntary and very much appreciated.

Thanks again, –⁠moogsi (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Moogs

No problem at all in you pointing that out :o)

I just thought it might be good to explain a bit why I don't always do so, also for possible future reference.

Of course, putting in annotations would be a logical last step in the creation process, but I'm afraid that most of the time I'm too much of a clutterbrain for logical steps :o) Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)