User talk:~riley/Archive 4

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

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, ~riley!
Hi ~riley, thank you for all your valuable contributions on Commons. This help fulfill the number 1 goal of Commons: To be a free, educational media repository for everyone.

I wish you and your family a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
    Poké95 01:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Zalig Kerstfeest
~riley en een bruisend 2017

Lotje (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, ~riley!

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

20:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hallo, I just came across an image

Boekflap Economie zkt geluk

listed under Boek, which is a small settlement in Müritz-Nationalpark in Mecklenburg, I think this image showing a book cover should not be there, but a former deletion request has been waived. It seems that a user from the netherlands has used his word for "book" (boek) as a category for book. As I did understand, usually categories in commons should use the english language. Would be funny, if we Swiss would start to enlist images under Swiss german expressions... Maybe, it should be moved to "book" or deleted anyway, as it seems not really helpful - at least not when looking for images of "Boek, Mecklenburg-Vorp.", kind regards from Switzerland Martin - Mboesch (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please delete them it's a redirect of File:Singer 208 cc 1902 (02).png. I can't tag as speedy. --2003:DE:3D1:8E2:C1EF:B46:74E6:65E9 05:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for processing my edit requests. --Arnd (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

18:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Finnish Air Force Hawker Hurricane warbird and US Navy T-6 Texan warbird in flight over Finland.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Finnish Air Force Hawker Hurricane warbird and US Navy T-6 Texan warbird in flight over Finland.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritsa Lake rename issue

~riley sorry that I didn't notice that there were two filemovers involved, it is strange to me why first file-mover declined it, my requested name is 100% correct and better see article en:Lake Ritsa and en:Lake Smaller Ritsa, there are Greater and Smaller lakes. I think you can agree that this name is better for such a good photo.--g. balaxaZe 12:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I was very concentrated on my request diffs and the last rename diff, that's why I missed that pre-rename decline, like a fool =).--g. balaxaZe 12:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for delineating the limits under which I may run VFC. I'm sorry, I had forgotten to update User:JeffGBot since my first Bot Request. I updated it while you were closing this Request. Mass DRs would be limited to 499 files if all uploaders were different, right?   — Jeff G. ツ 23:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Mass DRs should be broken up as follows: by same uploader or same category if not posted individually. The reason I recommend this is because as an admin, a mass DR with any more than 75 files is a pain in the a** to deal with. If I can be of any help with anything bot related, let me know. ~riley (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. FYI, this page has 51 sections and renders at 328 kB. To take care of bot postings I've read, I typically delete them or reply to them to get them archived.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This one approaches that limit, I hope it's ok.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ~riley. You have new messages at phab:T132650#3172001.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

asturianu  беларуская (тарашкевіца)  български  বাংলা  català  čeština  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)  English  español  suomi  français  galego  हिन्दी  hrvatski  magyar  italiano  日本語  ქართული  македонски  മലയാളം  Plattdüütsch  Nederlands  português  română  русский  sicilianu  slovenščina  svenska  Tagalog  Türkçe  简体中文  繁體中文  +/−

--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Deleting redirects

Is there a reason you're tagging redirects for deletion[80] and breaking image use across our projects[81]? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: That single edit was over a year ago, and that request was likely made because I disagreed with "frog.jpg" redirecting to one of ~4,500 species of frog. I don't see my connection with CommonsDelinker removing the image across all those wikis, that falls on the deleting admin:
09:04, 18 February 2016‎ CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,957 bytes) (-67)‎ . . (Removing "Frog.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Taivo because: Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect: author's request on creation day.)
I am sorry for any error made, I can only guess at what I was thinking last year. ~riley (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh gees, you're right, I thought it was only two months ago. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Closure

While I appreciate it is a brave admin who gets involved in this issue, one comment in your closing remarks is neither a summary of the consensus nor does it reflect an endorsement of Michael's analysis and conclusions. Michael created a sub-section so specifically reject the idea of interaction restrictions because they are not suitable for Commons and nor suitable "between two active and experienced editors, both of whom would legitimately like to express their opinions on discussion threads that are of significant interest to the community." His comments to me specifically state "there is no requirement on one editor to avoid the other". Odder has also, in previous discussions on this, rejected interaction restrictions as being a cop out that does not deal with the issue. No other editor (Odder, Slaunger, Jee, Pokefan95, Nick) made any suggestion that my edits recently are improper or require restriction. My desire is simply that Fae treats my edits with the same respect and consideration as edits from any other user. That is fundamental to a community wiki. I would ask you to reconsider those comments. I don't believe my edits in 2017 justify any kind of sanction, warning, threat or editing restriction. -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Just for clarification, Commons:Administrators states: "administrators have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor.". When closing a discussion, especially when closing in your role as admin, it is vital that your closing comments reflect only the community consensus. If, for example, you wish to add your own personal recommendations/observations, then you have to do so as a regular editor in the discussion, and permit time for involved parties to respond if they wish. Using a closure to "have the final say" with your own viewpoints, particularly when they are in direct conflict with the consensus, is not permitted. I really think it would be best if you remove that sentence, as Michael notes below, as it is in contradiction with your endorsement of Michael's conclusions. Thank you. -- Colin (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi ~riley, I've just seen your closure, and I agree that action was called for to prevent the discussion getting out of hand. I wonder, though, if I could ask you to reconsider and remove the sentence "You are both invited to stay away from each other before one or both of you are blocked or a non-voluntary interaction ban is imposed". I specifically excluded a non-voluntary interaction ban in my conclusions. Even though you've used the word 'invited' it does give the impression that you, as the closing admin, are in practice imposing a de facto interaction ban as you are are threatening future blocks merely for interaction. That's not a fair summary of either my conclusions or of Odder's. Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the closure. I have no problem whatsoever with "stay away from each other", as I have already not replied to any question from the other party for a year. The only issue with an early close is that I have yet to have a reply from the Bureaucrats with regard to MichaelMaggs conflict of interest in this case, and they are not known for responding quickly. Thanks -- (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs: My apologies, the enwiki user in me came out where an interaction ban would be the next step before a block if punishment were needed. I have retained my invitation for Colin and Fae to go your separate ways. @Colin: My inclusion of you in my now-striked warning was indirect to either party and as such you shouldn't feel the need to defend yourself, at least with me. @: This discussion was ripe for closure, in my mind you also forfeited your right for the discussion to continue by going on leave. ~riley (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, though if it all the same to you, I may decline your invitation, for reasons stated at the AN. Since I'm no admin or curator of other's files, anyone is welcome to restrict their edits to File: namespace if they want me to "forget all about" them, but otherwise their comments, proposals and votes on Common and User pages are there for me, you, Michael, and others to agree or disagree with as they are for any other person in this project. Nobody is special, and nobody can prevent inconvenient people, such as we see attempted with Michael, from playing their role on the project to the fullest extent. -- Colin (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
As I was not consulted on availability, nor process, my travel arrangements seem irrelevant. I remain available by email, which I can normally pick up even when abroad. Thanks -- (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@: You picked a bad time to start a COM:AN thread then, Fæ. As Pokéfan95 pointed out, nobody forced you. ~riley (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I should have settled for being tried in absentia, by someone I know to have a conflict of interest using a process that nobody defined. Thanks for the closure, hopefully the other party will take care, in the same way that I have done for the last year. -- (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)