User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 7

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

thanks for that[edit]

thanks - I do hope you reverted the item - there are indeed mistakes at times JarrahTree (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Possible_geometric_interpretation_of_IM_67118.pdf[edit]

The file mentioned in the subject heading was in use in the Wikipedia article IM 67118, and has just been deleted. I now see that there was an alert sent a month ago to my Wikimedia Commons talk page about the proposed deletion, but I somehow failed to notice it. As far as I can tell, there was no alert in my Wikipedia account. I didn't realize I should have been checking for alerts in Wikimedia Commons as well. At any rate, the article is now missing a key figure. How should I proceed? My apologies for the trouble my inattention has caused. Will Orrick (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Orrick: I've undeleted the file for now - I somehow missed that it was in use. If possible, the diagram should be in .SVG format rather than .PDF format - the MediaWiki software doesn't thumbnail PDFs very well. It looks like you created it in TeX; there may be a package to allow export directly to SVG, or you could use Inkscape to do the conversion. If you're able to do that, just upload the SVG as a new file and replace it in the article, then let me know and I'll then delete the unneeded PDF.
As for not being alerted, that's curious. You should have gotten a notification (the bell icon) about a new talk page message. Go to en:Special:Preferences and see if the "Show notifications from other wikis" button is checked. You can also go to Special:Preferences here on Commons and enable emails for talk page messages. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for restoring the file. My TeX installation doesn't seem to have the capability of producing .svg files directly, so I'll have to investigate your other suggested option. Another question: is it acceptable/desirable to upload the .tex source?
On Wikipedia I am receiving notices from other wikis, but not alerts. Notices and alerts seem to use the same preferences settings. Or am I mistaken about this? The "Show notifications form other wikis" button is checked, and I assume this should apply both to notices and to alerts. Will Orrick (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered a macro that allowed my LaTeX implementation to export .svg, and I have now included that version in the Wikipedia article. The results aren't quite to my liking: the information that the edge labels should are mathematics and should by typeset in in a mathematical font seems to have been lost, and there is a white and gray checkerboard background when I click on the image. But overall, I can live with it. I'm not sure whether some of my problems are due to the fact that the macro I used produced a .css file to accompany the .svg file, which I had to eliminate to get the file to upload. Will Orrick (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Will Orrick: Very nice work! I made a few changes in Inkscape - italicized the text, added a white background (that checkered background you see is the software indicating that the image has a transparent background), and made it display bigger. Okay to delete the PDF now?
I think you're correct about the notifications. Might be worth a post on en:WP:VP/T where editors more knowledgeable than me could help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this. You can delete the .pdf now. I've just realized that notifications from other wikis aren't archived on Wikipedia: once you read the message, it no longer appears in your list of read messages. Probably I did receive that alert last month—I must have accidentally marked it as read without reading it. Will Orrick (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

What does "MD" mean?[edit]

There is some discussion on the Finnish Wikipedia with regard to this deletion. What does the phrase "by MD" really mean? I gather that English is not the first language of User:E4024, so the sentence probably could be re-phrased like this: "I doubt that the file in question really is "own work" as claimed by the uploader. I have based my assumption on "MD" (a Commons policy? a doctor?) and the fact that the uploader has previously uploaded copyright violations". Since you deleted the file, you must have understood the cryptic abbreviation. --Pxos (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi.1415926535! Pxos beat me here, I was going to ask if you wouldn't mind explaining why the image in the DR was deleted? I believe it was a picture of a cat and it was in use on the uploader's user space in Finnish Wikipedia. It didn't seem to be a professional image and according to the user it's his cat. I promised the user that I would ask why it was deleted. -kyykaarme (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That image should not be restored. Original uploader said that image might be taken by him/her, but not sure. So license is invalid. --Vaivihkaa (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure what "MD" was supposed to mean in the DR. However, the image was definitely previously published here by 'Tiitus Röholm' - the same author to which the uploader attributed it. The metadata and small size also indicate that the image was taken from a Google search, rather than from the original file. If 'Tiitus Röholm' and User:James Chudrie (who indeed has uploaded several other copyvios) are one and the same, they still need to send OTRS permission because of the previous publication. I apologize for not explaining all of this in my original close. If you are not convinced, feel free to file a UDR to get other eyes on it. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same, he changed his username from TR to JC. I think I'll advise him to upload another image of his cat if he still wants to upload one, it's simpler that way. It's only for his personal use, but I believe editors are allowed to have a couple of images in their own user space. Thanks for the explanation! -kyykaarme (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Yes, a few personal images for userspace use are allowed on Commons for active contributors (as he certainly is). He'd be advised to add it to Category:User page images to make its use more clear. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible misunderstanding[edit]

Sorry to disturb you, I am not harassing Patrick Rogel. I just want clarity. Today, he nominated two of my files for deletion. He pointed out something and I showed him that his assumption was incorrect. He then retracted that reason and placed another one there. I want to speak to him and discuss his meaning. I am referring to this. He sees the notifications but he is basically ignoring them. I don't like to be ignored. I always enjoy having discussions with Wikipedia and Wikimedia users. Can you please look at this. This deletion request has disrupted my entire evening. Kind regards. Lefcentreright (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Users are not required to respond immediately to pings - even if they are active doing other things on the wiki. Pinging someone four times in a row (within an hour) and interrupting other posts they make are not remotely acceptable behavior. Neither is opening a COM:AN report merely because a user filed an entirely legitimate DR. (And frankly, I see why he's not responding - there's no need for him to. He's said all he needs to.) You need to calm down, stop hounding Patrick, and be more careful when uploading images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was entirely calm, just frustrated. I did not mean to hound Patrick. I still do not believe it is a legitimate deletion request. It is licensed under the Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license. The Flick Reviewer Bot confirmed that. I don't see why it can be considered for deletion. How can it be considered for deletion? Please do tell me. I always try my best to improve and add images to Commons. I just cannot see why it is an "entirely legitimate DR". If those images were fully protected by copyright all rights reserved, the Flickr account would surely not have published it under the CC BY 2.0-license. All the images on the account are published under that specific license (CC BY 2.0). The photographer and author of the images, Marianne Weiss, gave the account "The Official CTBTO Photostream" the proper permission to publish it under that license. In the description of the mage, it reads: "Photo courtesy of Marianne Weiss, www.weissphotography.at/". In the EXIF it reads: "Copyright Notice - (C) Marianne Weiss, www.weissphotogaphy.at" You can look at the photo here. (Please do then you will understand my point) Lastly, I am quite disappointed. I raised that COM:AN because I wanted other people to discuss the DR. You took the liberty to close it. I doubt you even looked at the image at the link. You just saw my replies and assumed that I was harassing Patrick. I just wanted him to clarify, because it wasn't his initial deletion reason. I felt that he didn't say enough. I want clear reasoning. Can you maybe put our partisanships aside and just resolve this issue peacefully, please? It would greatly be appreciated. Thanks for reading this. Lefcentreright (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you were feeling, pinging someone four times in an hour and interrupting unrelated threads is not acceptable behavior. If you cannot acknowledge that, then your attitude is not suitable for Commons.
Evidence is required that the photographer actually gave permission for the CTBTO to republish it under the CC-BY 2.0 license. That cannot be determined from the flickr license alone - a direct statement from the photographer (or proof that they have directly released it elsewhere under that license) is needed. In many cases, a photographer gives permission for a photograph to be republished, but has not explicitly given permission for that republication to be under the Creative Commons license that the republisher uses - and that appears to be the case here. That is an entirely legitimate reason for a DR, and there is no need to be up in arms about it.
I closed your AN case because it was ridiculous. Nothing about the DR requires any special attention other than your unacceptable behavior. Your assumption that I did not actually look at the image or the DR is entirely false; in no case would I close the AN report without due diligence. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I aaccept I was wrong. Should I go through the OTRS-system to get the license approved? Lefcentreright (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, OTRS with a statement from the photographer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! I appreciate it. Lefcentreright (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there. Can you please remove the deletion request on the image File:Minister Naledi Pandor delivering speech, June 2015 (cropped).jpg & File:Minister Naledi Pandor delivering speech, June 2015 (cropped).jpg? A user named Alexis Jazz said at the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minister Naledi Pandor delivering speech, June 2015 (cropped).jpg that it is in fact COM:NOTCOPYVIO, because " © is not a problem nor incompatible with the free license." Even Mr Rogel agreed. Thanks in advance.
The problem that it is not clear whether the photographer themselves released the images under that license is not solved. Unless you can prove that, I have no choice but to close the discussion as delete. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declining unblock requests[edit]

Hello. According to COM:BP, "requests made on user talk pages may only be declined by an uninvolved administrator". Hence, I think you should not decline the unblock requests by users whom you have blocked yourself. Of course, you can oppose with their unblock request, but the unblock request should remain open for review by uninvolved admins through Category:Requests for unblock. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, whoops. I'll undo my decline and leave it as a comment instead. Are you sufficiently uninvolved as to be able to take a look? Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had some sort of "squabble" with the user a few months ago. Although I do not think that I am involved or have conflict of interest, I prefer not to intervene. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slowking[edit]

Hi Pi.1415926535, I was asked to remove all user-rights from the Slowking account, of which he has 3 or 4. However, is this usual and/or necessary with a blocked account? I am asking you, as you blocked him. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good question - I don't think there's a specific policy on that. I can't recall seeing that done before, so probably not necessary. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piers in San Francisco[edit]

FYI

Evrik (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Do note that the early history of the piers is very confusing - several of the numbers have existed multiple times, and sometimes in different locations. (Before about 1910, the piers within about a mile of the Ferry Building were more closely packed.) That renumbering is why there's a number of gaps. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Francisco 2012 2.jpg[edit]

Not sure why you deleted this with no warning? If it's the statue on the left, then I can crop that out? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was cleaning up Category:San Francisco, which is mostly abandoned flickr transfers - I should have pinged you to see if you wanted to crop it. I've undeleted the image for you to crop. (It's a very nice shot, by the way - it captures the foggy mood well.) Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've cropped it, is it OK now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if that statue is a problem, then you might want to have a look at Category:Madonna by Benny Bufano (Fort Mason)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well. Looks like this whole thing is on me for not doing my research. The statue is from 1962, so it almost certainly qualifies as {{PD-US-no notice}} (I can check in person, but the odds that a 1962 statue has a copyright notice are rather low). You can go ahead and undelete the original version, and I'm very sorry for taking your time! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jgross17[edit]

Why did you block this editor? —Beetstra (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the enwiki contributions evidence, and their one upload here, I'm fairly confident this is a Slowking4 sock. I left talk page access on the off chance that it's a false positive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We think on en.wikipedia that this is an other participant in the edit-a-thon. The SPI on en however has found a slur of other accounts and you may want to cross check those. —Beetstra (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I unblocked a few days ago. None of the other enwiki socks seem to have any Commons edits, or to be using Commons images which would indicate separate Commons socks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for helping me out with regards to asexual inclusion in the LGBT category. I appreciate it. I'm still kind of new here and it's nice to get help from an experienced person. MissLunaRose12 (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It's very odd that there seems to be a coordinated effort to remove it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dover (DE) station 1912 postcard.jpg[edit]

We do need the used postage side of postcards that you reverted my edit to and I see you have just uploaded several more like this. Why do you no want them as separate files? You are depriving the project of perfectly good images. Ww2censor (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The value of that postcard image, and the thousands of others I have uploaded, is the illustration of the train station. The message side of that postcard has no real educational or historic value and would be out of scope as a separate file. The only situations where the message side would be in scope would be a small number of images to illustrate postcard types (Commons has plenty of those), or where the message illustrates a historical event or is from a notable person (not the case with any I've uploaded). I only upload the image of the message side to provide proof of the date and/or the copyright status of the postcard. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with your closed off viewpoint. However, I'm sure there is a compromise to be found between our differing views whereby you would consider including the postal side of postcards that show good quality datestamps or postmarks and/or fine quality stamps, even if common stamps, do warrant inclusion and are certainly not OOS. To me and other philatelists the message side of such postcards does have real educational or historic value and we don't know why all yours should be excluded. I see most uploaded postcard images in a daily bot gallery but I'm non going to go through them one by one to tag them, annoy you and waste my time for you to just revert them and in turn frustrate me. Perhaps you will reconsider your view and agree that some are certainly useful but you decide. Ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will acknowledge that there is a potential for some postmarks and stamps to be in scope. However, there are three things you need to consider:
  • Scope still applies, and historical value to Commons is a stricter criterion than mere historical interest to philatelists. We absolutely need an image of a kind of stamp or postmark. We don't need fifty images of the same stamp, or the same style of postmark.
  • You need to explain your edits with edit summaries - especially when the reason for them is not immediately obvious. An edit summary of "split" doesn't explain why the message side is of value to Commons. "Message side shows XYZ stamp type, which we don't have on Commons" does.
  • Using {{Split}} is not a good choice here regardless. It's better to keep the message side in the upload history; the split template is for when the overwritten file is completely unrelated. Additionally, the splitting requires an admin to perform. If you believe that a message side has value, simply upload it yourself as a separate file with {{Extracted image}} or {{Other versions}}. I will not object to that, and you will not be contributing to the admin backlog. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Problems Closure[edit]

Thank you for closing Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#EugeneZelenko's strange rationales for deletion requests with a closing rationale that I agree 100% with. You might want to replace my {{Unsigned2}} template with a ~~~~, though. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've learned - partially from watching discussions on Commons and enwiki, partially from some external sites - that in many cases it's better to close discussions once the important points have been said, rather than to let bad blood develop from it continuing. And thanks for the signing note - I've added a proper signature. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but also, what?[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#EugeneZelenko's strange rationales for deletion requests

Thanks for telling Eugene they need to specificy why a file is out of scope. It's all I was asking for, really.

Your comment directed at me I am less pleased with. You say your patience is running thin, at the same time, you agree with my point. Your issue appears to be I didn't discuss this with Eugene on their talk page first. Well, that's true. I asked Eugene on that DR. (and it has been asked about several times before!) What difference does it make in which namespace I ask? Eugene's reply to my concern was not an understanding one, repeating the same question on Eugene's talk would not be seen positively. Eugene already answered, and you essentially agree that that answer was not sufficient. It was, in fact, snarky. Which is the only reason Eugene got a snarky response from me on that DR. I am reasonable with anyone who is reasonable with me. I am snarky towards anyone who is snarky to me.

I don't know what to make of your "suggestion" (which appears to be what the Dutch call "dwingend advies") to stay away from noticeboards. It seems entirely uncalled for. It seems if you actually cared, you wouldn't have made that statement in a closing message that I couldn't reply to directly. You would have made the suggestion on my talk page (or made it in a comment without closing the discussion), and given me some constructive suggestions for improvement. Since you didn't, it appears more like a threat of some sort. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about your reply, the more toxic I find it. If you want less drama, this is clearly not the way. You are just creating enemies, the very thing you accused me of. Considering I'm "banned" ("dwingend advies") from administrator noticeboards, I guess this can only be settled here. @4nn1l2: you asked me recently to become more involved in the project. This will absolutely never happen in a toxic environment. I'm always willing to take constructive criticism on board. But I hate vague threats. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admin noticeboards are primarily to bring specific things to admin attention - policy changes or discussions that primarily affect admins, and matters that specifically need intervention with admin tools such as vandalism/copyvios, mass message requests, and (less frequently) severe user behavior problems. For the latter, it should be a last resort. It is rare that non-admins find the need to post frequently on admin messageboards (except for specific threads, such as when their conduct is under discussion, or those who are interested in becoming administrators themselves), as the discussions tend to only be relevant to those doing the mopping.
However, you tend to post on these boards frequently (51 of the last 500 edits on AN/U), very often in discussions on user behavior that you are not personally involved in - or that involve an editor you dislike for other reasons. When you insert yourself in discussions, very often it has the effect of prolonging and/or inflaming them - and longer discussions rarely result in anything but more bad blood and exactly the toxic environment your describe. (Note my response in the previous thread here.) As best, this is frustrating to those who wish to proceed with a minimum of animosity. At worst, well, colloquial English has a phrase for that.
As I mentioned in my close, you also tend to treat anyone you disagree with as an adversary, rather than a collaborator with a differing opinion. Your post about Eugene is a typical example - it was phrased as an attack rather than a report. That is poor behavior in any forum on Commons - including this very talk page. If you need advice on how to word reports in a more neutral manner, I can offer some pointers.
You are not banned, in name or in effect, from administrator noticeboards. That notion is your invention. (Specially, my relevant words were I strongly suggest that you avoid filing AN reports (except for issues needing immediate intervention) unless you have made actual effort to resolve problems through less-confrontational venues... If you need to report incidents requiring intervention, or you have constructive solutions to a problem, then by all means post. But given the effects your current posting habits have, it would be of benefit to the project (and, I imagine, to the amount of time you have to do the editing you actually want to do) if you reduced your combative attitude and posted on these boards only when actually necessary. My strong suggestion is a criticism of your behavior and an attempt to convince you to focus your energies other places than user problems, not a vaguely worded threat.
Per your request, some specific suggestions: Keep in mind that Commons - and all Wikimedia projects - are based on collaboration. I attempt to think of other editors here as fellow museum curators; even when we disagree about what the museum should have, we're still both trying to make the collection better. Except for obvious vandals, thinking of anyone as an adversary is never going to end well. Unless unavoidable, attempt to focus on constructive pursuits as much as possible (the thread you just created about a fair use filter is a perfect example, and exactly what I mean by "constructive solutions to a problem"); spending time on the drama boards is never a way to make yourself happy. When you do have a conflict with a user, try to solve the disagreement with the least escalation possible. User/category/file talk pages first, asking an outside opinion second, noticeboards as a last resort. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I have been following this dicussion with keen interest and the exchange above is exemplary of good practices in de-escalation and collaboration spirit, the likes of which Commons is in dire need of. However, the intro sentence of the closing remark at AN/U, where Pi.1415926535 said that «My patience with you is wearing very, very thin.», still shocks me when I reread it, even after reading all of the above. It is chillingly agressive and utterly inappropriate, something worded on the notion that an admin is holding not a mop, but a tyrant’s scepter, or maybe a schoolmarm’s ruler. Striking it may undo some of the damage already done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you here - much of my above comment applies to you as well. I lack the aspiration or the charisma to be a tyrant; "janitor annoyed by perpetual mess-maker" is a more accurate description of my mood there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going into detail about things. I won't say my behaviour is perfect, but especially "My patience with you is wearing very, very thin." and "stay out of AN discussions that do not involve you." really ticked me off. AN suggests all administrative noticeboards, which would be even more limiting. (it would make no sense for it to only mean COM:AN) I'm not sure how you counted the 51/500, but it doesn't matter, I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of what I reply to is on AN/U. (at least in the last few weeks) I went over my contributions to these noticeboards in the past month. In a few discussions (maybe two or so), I could have behaved better, but the other side in those discussions wasn't being too nice either. Some room for improvement there. In several other discussions, I either contributed unambiguously constructive or even in a de-escalating manner.
"As I mentioned in my close, you also tend to treat anyone you disagree with as an adversary, rather than a collaborator with a differing opinion. "
This is simply not true. I'm reasonable with anyone who is reasonable with me. Eugene has been told about the issues several times, but even in the ANU thread he remained dismissive about it. I hope going forward his DRs will be better. Collaboration is what we all strive for, but if someone is repeatedly dismissive about issues, a clearer signal can be required. Sometimes that's what it takes. If you're never clear about issues in fear of not being MELLOW, you risk not being taken seriously. When you said "My patience with you is wearing very, very thin" and "stay out of AN discussions that do not involve you", you made yourself very clear and didn't quite treat me like a collaborator with a differing opinion. This can be effective, if you provide constructive criticism at the same time. But accusing me of the very thing you do while accusing isn't.
It does leave a question of the gap that exists between direct communication and ANU. If a user doesn't respond well to issues when addressed directly, the next step is ANU. It's possible to drag them to the village pump, but that hardly ever has a de-escalating effect. I think ANU is not so bad. An admin who simply states "$user, you really should change X" (like you did) can be enough. Yes, in theory anyone on Commons can do that. But in practice, there are users who won't pay attention unless an admin says it. That discussion I started for example could have been closed right away by informing Eugene on his talk page that he should better specify why files lack value, before any further discussion could develop. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuhobus headquarters overview from TRA Straight Line.jpg[edit]

File:Fuhobus headquarters overview from TRA Straight Line.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 ∙ +/−

Solomon203 (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boston PCC streetcars[edit]

Where can I find the All-electric Post-war PCC streetcars of BER; where can I find the Air-electric Post-War PCC streetcars with standees windows ?

Well I can't since you deleted the right category for it.

Please recreate those categories or find a better name, "PCC streetcars of the MBTA‎" is not a propper name since those PCC streetcars are of different models All-electric / Air-electric / Pre-war / Post-war / used (...).

Why are New Flyer buses in different categories, it's the same basic bus model yet one is hybrid, the other is a battery eletric bus. The same applies for PCC streetcars.

Ldgdps (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subclasses of PCC streetcars are not comparable to different models of buses. The actual difference between air-electric and all-electric, and between pre-war and post-war models, is not significant enough to justify separate categorization. Commons is a media archive, not a railfan site; categorization is based what is useful, not the most detailed technicalities possible. The most likely use case, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere, would just be looking for PCCs and would be hindered by the subcategories. What is the actual use case for dividing by subclass?
Additionally, your original categorization was sloppy, and I have no interest in restoring those errors. You put numerous images in the wrong subclass. You did not title the categories in a clear way, and you had grammatical errors in them. (Notably, the Elevated was always abbreviated BERy and never BER). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Jones collection[edit]

Can we simplify the process by removing the published ones from your nomination, and concentrating our efforts on searching for the currently undocumented ones? RAN (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a dozen or so files - I don't think there's a need to strike them from the nomination one at a time. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


COM:AN/U[edit]

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/User problems#Pi.1415926535 deleted files not using a real criteria. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Your revert[edit]

The image is of the River Hudson, isn't it? Broichmore (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a small anonymous drawing on one page of a long PDF. To add the entire PDF to an already overcrowded category (currently with 674 unsorted files) because of that drawing is nonsense. If the drawing is actually valuable on its own (which I doubt), then upload it as a separate file and categorize that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

I strongly oppose your opinion! File names should not be novels. Short and pregnant! I did not say, that the old file names were good. But the proposed new were even more worse. And there is definetly no rule, that files must be renamed just because someone asked for it! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File names should be descriptive within reason. The projects language by the way is English, and titles in English lend themselves to search. If it were an artwork then they should be the title per the artist, and that can be long.  Broichmore (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcus Cyron: While I understand disagreeing with Commons policies, you must recognize that it is your personal opinion. If you are not willing to follow the file renaming guidelines because you disagree with them, then you should choose tasks not related to file moving and let others deal with requested moves. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kailash29792[edit]

Based on your verdict here, could you please comment here? It's been going on for too long without a consensus. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harriet Tubman Memorial, Boston (front).jpg[edit]

Please help. I don't understand the problem. I asked my niece, who lives in Boston, to take a picture of the Harriet Tubman memorial for Wikipedia. She did, and sent it to me. That's what I put in the Summary section. If that's wrong, please tell me what to put. MopTop (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MopTop: There are two problems with the file. When the uploader (you) is not the photographer (your niece), verified permission (usually through the COM:OTRS system) is needed. More seriously, the United States does not have freedom of panorama for artworks. This means that photographs of recent US artworks (post-1989, and many earlier works that were published with a copyright notice) are unfortunately not able to be hosted on Commons in most cases. A smaller version (up to about 400 pixels wide) may be allowed on en.wikipedia under fair use for use in the article about the artwork. I hope this clarifies. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taken on template for uploads[edit]

You can specify the country where a photograph was taken by adding it to the {{Taken on}} template. For example, {{taken on|2018-08-30|location=United States}}. See example . Senator2029 19:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Senator2029: I am unfortunately aware of that functionality. Balkanization of the category system by the creation of ever-more-specific intersection categories is a bug, not a feature, and I have no desire to participate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hi-V 3661.jpg Deletion Nomination[edit]

Hi Pi.1415926535,

Could you help me take care of the deletion nomination of File:Hi-V 3661.jpg? I have nominated it for deletion for over a month now and no one has seem to have been interested in investigating the reason. Here's the reason for reference: "Due to a dispute over whether this file is in the Public Domain or not, it is instead best to delete this file and wait until someone is willing to allow use of their file or a new free file emerges."

I originally uploaded this because the photo was taken in 1908 and there wasn't any indication of copyright; however, the dispute made by Steve Morgan is as follows: "no information has been given indicating where, when and by whom the photo was published. Simply being taken before 1923 is not the same as being published before 1923."

Therefore, until we figure out the status of this photo, whether in public domain or still copyrighted, the photo should probably be deleted. Hopefully, as I stated before, someone will allow us to use their photo of this example of subway car or we find a new free version of the car. Only one example of this class, 3662, survives, and it's pretty difficult to catch at this point due to it being stored after a flood, undergoing restoration.

I should also mention that I started the nomination discussion and no one has replied to it yet...

Thanks,

--Davidng913 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Sorry for the extremely aggravating/unnecessary edits and lack of edit summaries. I'll try to improve this.

✓ Done But please note that many Commons deletion requests are open for months before closure. Patience is a virtue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Message from WriteIncunabula[edit]

@Pi.1415926535: Hello! You flagged a photo I'm using in a draft page for deletion, and I'm in touch with the photographer. I was hoping you could help me figure out the best, easiest way to instruct the photographer to add her permission to the file as it exists now on Wikimedia Commons. I've run into this a couple of times and I guess I find myself balking as I don't know how to instruct rights holders on the best way to get photos up in such a way that they won't be taken down. I'm a fast learner on some things on Wikipedia, but painfully slow on other aspects. Any help and/or advice is very much appreciated. Thank you! WriteIncunabula (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from this edit: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/417163053

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WriteIncunabula: The easiest way to avoid this situation is to avoid writing spam articles about non-notable people. I find promotional paid editing to be morally repugnant, which is why you're not getting a very polite response from me. (Note that English Wikipedia has very strict rules about paid editing, much of which which you are failing to follow.) But if you are determined to be a shill, see the instructions at Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder for how to have the license verified. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: You're right, that was rude, and surprising. While I haven't had a great deal of interaction on Wikipedia, all prior times I've run into difficulty I haven't been working for a fee. I've disclosed every single time I've worked for a fee, which hasn't been often, and by the way, is certainly not against Wikipedia rules. Were it against the rules I would not do it, but when I was approached to write an article as a service, there it was, pre-entered into the Wikipedia interface itself. I'll be happy to proceed without your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriteIncunabula (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filing a ticket to document permission[edit]

Hi, would you happen to know how I could file a ticket for permission to use a specific image file for Wikipedia? I contacted the photographer (John Blaustein) via email to obtain his permission to use a portrait of Chang-Lin Tien, which was (as far as I can tell) an official portrait commissioned by UC Berkeley, seen here at a press release after his death in 2002 (just above the bold words "Memorial Service"). The file is low resolution and could qualify as fair use or even possibly PD-CAGov, but I wanted to get explicit permission from the photographer first. I have an email documenting his permission to use it, quoted below; I just wanted to figure out how to get the permission documented.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for your message. By all means, you have my permission to use the photo of Chancellor Tien. In fact, you may use any of my photos that I took for UC Berkeley. I did portraits of several chancellors over the years--Heyman, Berdhal, Birgeneu, and others (whose names I can't remember now).

I appreciate your asking because many people think that if a photo (or anything else for that matter) is online, it's there for them to use for free and without asking.

It's wonderful of you to volunteer your time to Wikipedia. I just checked the link you gave me and was interested to see Tien was born in Wuhan.

Let me know if I can help you further. (By the way, I went to Cal too, in the '60s.)

Best,

John

> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:10 AM JOHN BLAUSTEIN PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

> Name: Michael Liu

> Message: Hello John! If possible, I would like to request your permission to use a low-resolution copy of your portrait of Chancellor Tien to illustrate his article on Wikipedia. I am a volunteer (and Cal graduate) who edits Wikipedia in my free time, and focus primarily on improving articles by including portraits (when available) and other visual aids such as maps, illustrations, etc. This is a link to my recent work on Wikipedia, if you are interested in a sample of the work I do there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mliu92 (clicking on the "diff" link shows the changes I executed to an article). The photograph in question (at the low resolution I would use) was published by UC Berkeley at https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/10/tien.html . I wanted to check if you would be willing to provide permission for this use, as I feel that illustrations and photographs add interest and appeal to a given article. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

Thanks in advance, Mliu92 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mliu92: Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with this. Basically, you'll need to have the photographer send an email to Commons explicitly allowing use under one of the allowed licenses; usually that's done just after you upload the image with {{OTRS pending}}. COM:OTRS has more details. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards[edit]

Thanks for uploading postcards to commons. Maybe you are interested in COM:WPPC. Best regards -- sk (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the project to my watchlist. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

eBay items[edit]

You may not be familiar with the ebay template {{Ebay item|number}} but note the capitalisation. It's much shorter than using a full ebay url. Good luck.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive_7&oldid=437013094"