User talk:Avenue/Archives/2014-2015

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

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Acrylic eye, vinyl & silicone doll.JPG[edit]

What you think about this? Jee 08:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a fairly straightforward copyvio to me, but given that it's an FPC, a DR is probably more appropriate than speedy deletion. --Avenue (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion; and ✓ Done. Jee 12:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

URAA debate[edit]

Hey Avenue,

Just a quick word to tell you that I appreciate very much your posts on the current URAA issue − well, we seem to agree a lot so it’s not surprising ;-)

I’m getting a bit tired of trying to explain stuff over and over again here on Commons, and upset I lost a bit my temper on Meta, so I’ll probably disengage from the discussions. Just so you know.

Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for your efforts too. It's been good to know I'm not entirely alone in my opinions. I agree it hasn't been the most rewarding of discussions, but hopefully it will get better. --Avenue (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Through personal communication with a WMF Trustee, I got the following clarification on their opinion: “don't delete stuff without a takedown notice”. The perceived vagueness of their statement is legal prudence ; and as for the "mass" thing it seems to be usual the usual gap between our understanding of massive and the general one (I suppose that outside of Commons “massive” starts at three :-þ)
Of course, one does not have to agree with the board, but in the end it seems their take is clearer than what we thought.
Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I'll think about what that means for the URAA situation. --Avenue (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Avenue/Archives,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and I[edit]

It is starting to look to me like you are not seeing me as a valid user on this project but rather a nuisance. You do not fully read things I say (or you misinterpret them, or you ignore them), and you're so heavily intent on sharing blame equally in a dispute even when I've done nothing wrong. You say regarding this Azeri flag issue that "I don't see the need for a block yet, but it could happen if either one keeps being disruptive", and then ignore my requests for proof of what you think has garnished equal blame and possibly a block if continued. I've made mistakes before, I don't hide from it, but in this Azeri flag issue I have done nothing wrong that you could possibly block me for. I've uploaded a flag, I gave it valid sources, I gave it valid licenses, I gave it an impartial name, I did everything right by it. From what I can see my only real offence in your eyes is that I don't subscribe to your definition of "vandalism". I don't have to! This isn't a project in conformity, and I have not commented on the intent of the user only the action despite your belief that because I call something "vandalism" that automatically means I think they did it on purpose in bad faith, when I have said the opposite. If I am mistaken about how you view me, by all means clear my mind, but I would appreciate if you would stop hanging a block over my head when I haven't done anything wrong. Fry1989 eh? 17:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. I have been giving the questions you posed yesterday at COM:ANU some thought, and have not been ignoring them. I hope to find time to respond there in the next day or so. My time here is limited, however, and I've recently chosen to focus on the related DR (which you requested admin attention to here) since the discussion there has not addressed what I see as the critical points. I intend to spend a little more time there before coming back to the issues at ANU.
In the meantime, a general response is that I certainly do see you as "a valid user on this project". I also find your usual discussion style far from mellow, however, and you seem to find it difficult to grasp or accept that other people can reasonably hold different opinions from you. As a result, your contributions to discussions often seem to me to "disrupt [Commons'] collegial atmosphere". If you persist in that vein (especially after being warned), this makes you liable to be blocked under our blocking policy. You do make many constructive edits, and I would be very happy if you found ways to contribute to discussions without being disruptive. --Avenue (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that I can be rude, harsh, quick to judge and a bunch of other undesirable sensibilities. But I have also shown myself to be friendly, polite, thankful, useful, helpful, and outgoing. I don't claim to be a saint, but I'm not just a trouble-maker. I never said everyone has to hold the same view as me, in fact that is why I said I don't hold the same view as you regarding the definition of "vandalism". If people do not have to share the same views as me, does that not extend the other way around? The only thing I expect people to share with me is fidelity to fact.
I want to shake off my "past" and I am trying hard, but when I get told I'm just as much to blame in a disagreement as the other user when I haven't done anything but upload an image the other user does not like (for whatever reason that may be), and I get told that I could be blocked for defending this image, it makes me feel threatened like there is a weight over my head, and there are people who are only willing to see me through a lens which cannot overlook my negatives. I just would like you to stop mentioning "block" every time you see me in disagreement with another user, unless I've really done something. You have to realize that this place is almost a job for me, I spend between 5 and 8 hours here a day much of the week working on various interests that I am passionate about and I bump heads sometimes with people who share these interests, it happens but it doesn't mean there is a direct fault with me. Fry1989 eh? 22:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply. I see that the ANU thread has been archived, so I'll reply to your post in that thread here too rather than resurrect that discussion.
I've contributed "full-time" in the past too, and I know it increases the chance of becoming embroiled in conflicts, even when you try to avoid them. But that's all the more reason to try. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't defend this image (and others). My concern was about how you behaved when doing so, and in particular your repeated characterisation of their edits as vandalism[1][2][3] (as raised in the original ANU complaint). This kind of continued disruptiveness can indeed be grounds for a block. So I'm concerned to see you say in this connection that you "consider vandalism as vandalism whether it's malicious or not, [...] and I don't care if you agree or not."
The definition of "vandalism" as requiring malicious intent isn't just my opinion, nor is the disruptiveness of accusing people of vandalism without good reason to think their edits were malicious. Besides my earlier quote from COM:Vandalism, en:WP:Vandalism makes this abundantly clear:
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
Later you say that you didn't comment on whether the other's removal of a category was in good faith. You didn't say so explicitly, but by describing that edit as vandalism, you did essentially say their edit was malicious, i.e. not made in good faith. This may not have been what you meant, if your personal definition of "vandalism" is broader than the accepted one, but it is what you said. You're not calling a spade a spade, you're calling it a pitchfork. (You might like to read en:Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal", en:Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade, and the contrasting essay en:Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade.)
You object to my "diplomatic" treatment of both parties to the dispute. I didn't say your actions were equivalent (IMO the other party was sailing closer to the wind than you were, not so much with the DR but with their revert at File:Flag of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan.svg), but you were both editing disruptively and could have been blocked at that stage. I felt blocks would have been overkill and that warnings to both of you were more appropriate. If I warn you (or anyone else) about the possibility of a block, I'm not saying that you are a bad person, but that I think your edits have been disruptive and that you should stop. --Avenue (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see what I have done that you can say was disruptive to this project, unless your definition of disruptive is far broader than my definition of vandalism. Even if I am wrong in my definition and therefore wrong in calling that edit vandalism, it doesn't change the fact I have not done anything to this project. I uploaded an image another user doesn't like, adding content to this project is not disruptive. Trying to censor it by nominating images for deletion wrongly and blanking out categories, no matter how good your intention was, is disruptive. Fry1989 eh? 21:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking you to agree that what you did was disruptive to this project. I trust you can still see that I viewed it as disruptive, and that I am not the only admin who has found your discussion style problematic. How you respond to that is of course your choice. --Avenue (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking out a file's categories is never a good thing. Maybe I should have just called it disruptive instead of vandalism then. What word I use doesn't make the action any better. Fry1989 eh? 22:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Hello, Avenue. 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.

--(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't see any emails from you in my inbox. I've checked my spam folder too, in case it was misfiled there. --Avenue (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Happy April Fools Avenue! :P Have a nice day! (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 22:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You too! :-) --Avenue (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds[edit]

Expecting your suggestions as you participated in many related discussions. Jee 10:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De-adminship warning[edit]

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Avenue/Archives/2014-2015, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Feb-Mar 2015 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. --Avenue (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avenue/Archives/2014-2015&oldid=217085599"