User talk:Michael Barera/archives/2019
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| 2010s: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 |
| 2020s: 2020 2021 2022 2023 |
Model year edit
I guess the question is what we think the Car by Model Year category is for? To me it is an invaluable tool for illustrating articles on the cars as they left the factory, for which this picture of a hot rod is unsuitable. For an article on hot rods, the model year is largely irrelevant (I know, '32s, which is why they have their own category). Any thoughts? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 14:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- How about we consistently create "modified" categories, like the 1932 one you reference? I understand your point about not mixing modified/hot rodded vehicles in with stock ones, but I think it is important to date modified vehicles, too. Michael Barera (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I only see that being of much use for those iconic years, like a '49 Merc or such. I generally do not add any modified vehicles to the "by year" category as I think the mud the waters quite considerably. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should. I'd be happy putting these images in modified categories, or in the main categories, but I do not like the idea of excluding them from by-year categories altogether. Michael Barera (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: December 2018 edit
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: January 2019 edit
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: February 2019 edit
| ||||||
This Month in GLAM: March 2019 edit
| ||||||
Re. your (very prompt! :) correction of my edit on this pic edit
.jpg)
Hi Michael, thanks for correcting my terrible use of prepositions, to my great shame I mostly get that wrong. And I didn't know about the "Note" thing either, useful tip too. One note on that pic : it looks like some spots in the sky were (sort of) "painted over"/tweaked, like with the 'spray' tool in Paint. Did you do that or is it natural? (if it is natural I find it quite amazing - never seen that in the sky before. Never been to USA either, mind... so am curious about it.) Anyway, am going to use this one and some others of the ad hoc category to somewhat build up the French article on that park - for the dinosaurs; so, thanks very much for the pics :) Pueblopassingby (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- You are most welcome, Pueblopassingby! The photo is completely unmodified, as are the vast majority of my uploads. I've never paid that much attention to the sky in most of my photos, but you might notice that effect in some of my other August 2017 photos, or maybe in my Texas summer photos more generally. Last but certainly not least, thank you so much for what you are doing on the French Wikipedia. Merci! Michael Barera (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Io Herodotus edit
You have an invlovement with him on my talk page so you must understand his problem. Please would you explain it to me. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- This may be a factor in his concerns. Eddaido (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Eddaido: / @Io Herodotus: I believe he (Io Herodotus) was concerned by your (Eddaido) removal of the automobile-make-by-year categories (such as Category:1924 Bentley automobiles) from individual automobile categories (such as Category:Bentley 3-Litre in the ZeitHaus) and my subsequent edits that removed the by-year categories from all individual images and returned them to the categories on the individual cars. Perhaps it is confusing that the year is not in the individual automobile categories? If you think it would be better, we can rename the "Bentley 3-Litre in the ZeitHaus" to "1924 Bentley 3-Litre in the ZeitHaus", but we really, really need to have the by-year category (in this case, "1924 Bentley automobiles") applied to the category, not to each and every one of the files in that category. These categories are for individual cars, so categories pertaining to their model year/build year, color, and so forth need to be appended to the category, not all the individual images within that category. Michael Barera (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Michael,
- I am accused of edit warring. Would I revert one of your edits without comment? Please look at the history record of my edits and see if, with your knowledge, you can see a reversion (or many of them) and this "edit warring" which this editor complains of.
- Over several years I have put in what must amount to a total of weeks or more of work into your system just so we can have at least one page with all images of a particular type of vehicle on that page. (So I am doubly maddened by an inarticulate (false)accuser.) You are now announcing you are immoveable on this matter? Eddaido (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Michael,
- Eddaido, Io Herodotus is absolutely right about this, and I don't think there is anything inarticulate about their argument. See here for the instance of edit warring that sparked this thread, but also see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for other similar instances of my reverts to your edits. In all of these cases, you have been removing the automobile-make-by-year category from each of these categories that are for one individual automobile and then adding that category to all of the images in that category, thereby creating redundancy and a case of overcategorization. Per the policy page: "The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those". Here the category on the individual car is the most specific category, and because it is only one single car, that specific category should by fully categorized (by make, model, year, museum, color, body type, etc.) so that none of those additional categories need to be added to the individual images in the category on that one car. While I really appreciate all the hard work you have done with automobile images on Commons, please do not remove the automobile-make-by-year categories and add them to all the images in that category. Michael Barera (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Michael, you are so wrong. Eddaido (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If the overcategorization policy changes, then yes, I could be wrong. But as long as it reads "always place an image in the most specific categories" then I am most definitely correct. Michael Barera (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Michael. As I suggest above and in my edit comments you really should set yourself to reviewing your personal interpretation of this and if necessary changing policy. I realise you are a professional archivist but you seem to base your schemes on a person being able to give a precise name to an object they wish to categorise. Accordingly you commit Commons to a vast accumulation of unidentified images just by making it so difficult.
- I do not believe that creating more text here lends more strength to my strong argument.
- Please understand my delay in responding is only because your thoughtless responses make me so very angry. Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- How can I "revert" an edit I know nothing about? Eddaido (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- I am completely befuddled by your response, Eddaido, and I must strongly disagree with your characterization of my responses as "thoughtless". This is not about me or my credibility as an archivist, this is simply about following policy. If you'd like to try to change the overcategorization policy, then by all means, go for it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I look at your edits again, I think the point that you are making is that you want all images of a particular model year/build year of a car to be categorized under the appropriate year/make category, such as Category:1924 Bentley automobiles. Am I correct in understanding this?
- What I want is to make sure that categories about individual automobiles that are of said particular year/make category, such as Category:Bentley 3-Litre in the ZeitHaus (which is specifically a 1924 Bentley), are subcategories of the year/make categories. While the files of that particular car in the ZeitHaus will no longer be included as files in the 1924 Bentley category, the whole "Bentley 3-Litre in the ZeitHaus" category will be. In other words, the category on the individual car is a subcategory of the 1924 Bentley category. Therefore, to be perfectly clear, all those images are still in the hierarchy of the 1924 Bentley category, just down one level as a subcategory in accordance with the overcategorization policy. There is no informational loss incurred by this practice, while the efficiency of categorization increases, which is probably why the policy came to be in the first place.
- Does this assuage your concerns? If not, would renaming the subcategories (in this case, "1924 Bentley 3-Litre in the ZeitHaus") make it any better from your perspective?
- If we are still as far apart on this matter as we were when this thread started, how about we ask a few other editors for their opinions? I think that Io Herodotus has a good grasp on the issue at hand, but you may see them as biased at this point. If we still haven't found common ground, I think that we should look to our fellow editors for advice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- For a cool-down period I have waited some (4) days before coming to see what you have written.
- You do not seem to remember that this matter has been a topic of discussion over a period of some years.
- I can only assume you have taken your new attitude because I have now finished so much of the some years of Your work classifying cars by model year or year of manufacture.
- The way I see your new attitude is that your purpose is now largely accomplished (by me) and now you can block my sole reason for doing all Your work.
- You refuse to even consider the need for easy access to images on at least one single page. Eddaido (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Your assumptions are completely wrong, Eddaido. That was not my intention, nor my thinking, in any way, shape, or form. I think that our perspectives on this issue are too divergent to settle between the two of us. Therefore, I will turn to other users for mediation. Michael Barera (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Unless you'd like to first pursue informal mediation with other users, as I previously suggested, I think we should take this disagreement to the user problems section of the administrators' noticeboard and seek resolution there. Michael Barera (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: April 2019 edit
| ||||||
Need your presence at Featured sound candidates edit
|
We request the honor of your presence at Featured sound candidates | |
| Dear Michael Barera, Featured sound candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating sounds for the FS tag. You can start reviewing/nominating sounds now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC) |
This Month in GLAM: May 2019 edit
| ||||||
Pocket parks edit
I created a new category for "Pocket parks in Texas" to diffuse the number of images in the "Parks in Texas" category. Of course there are different opinions out there on what a pocket park is. I moved several of your images that I was pretty sure would be considered pocket parks. I also moved some that may be in a gray area. These are images of city square parks. Although, they are small urban parks that are mainly for relaxing in, usually lacking recreational facilities, they are typically larger. I am thinking maybe a "City square park" category would be more appropriate. Any thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Nv8200p (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the initiative on this, Nv8200p. I have been considering parks in Texas to be pocket parks if they were built on the site of a single downtown building, especially if they are bordered by standing buildings on both sides. For me, those are the clear cases. I think that city square parks are more of a grey area.
- I've thought about it for a while, and I think that a separate "city square park" category would be best for parks that are on squares, in other words surrounded by streets and on parcels of land the size of a block or so. Plus, an added bonus of a "Category:City square parks in Texas" category would be that it would be a subcategory of Category:Squares in Texas. The more I think about it, the more I like that idea. Thanks for asking me about this. Happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: June 2019 edit
| ||||||
Photo marked as copyright violation edit
Good afternoon,
I went to edit a photo on my commons page to add to my updated Wikipedia page and noticed that it had been marked by you as a possible copyright violation. I am trying to figure out why it was marked as such and what I need to do to fix the issue, so that I can have my professional fighting headshots back to add to my page. I have a professional camera and took the photos myself, but no longer have the original files. I would appreciate any insight you can provide to help me with getting the possible copyright violation removed.
Thank you, José Luis Becerra Warycha (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- My apologies for the mistake. I tagged your photo as a possible copyright violation almost four years ago, so I don't distinctly remember why I did. It was probably something in the file metadata that made it look like it was taken by another photographer, or a copyright statement in the metadata that clashed with the license you uploaded it under.
- Please go to Commons:Undeletion requests and make a request for this file. This is a process I'm aware of but that I don't have any experience with, so I can't tell you what to expect or anything like that.
- Please let me know if that works for you or not. Again, my apologies for my mistake. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
filter hits edit
 | Hello, Michael Barera. 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. |
--Achim (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Done, these false positives won't happen any longer. Best, --Achim (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: July 2019 edit
| ||||||
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. |
Affected:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
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. |
Affected:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
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. |
Affected:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
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. |
Affected:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2019 edit
| ||||||
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. |
Affected:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yours sincerely, Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, wouldn't be more appropriate : People signing autographs? -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 15:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think so. "Giving" is more restrictive: it is signing an autograph for someone, whereas "signing" is the act itself, regardless of purpose. Please feel free to make the change, and to all the subcategories, too. Michael Barera (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2019 edit
| ||||||
Dallas photo trips edit
Hi, Michael! Do you have any plans to take any photo trips to Dallas at some point? If so, I can make a list of schools to photo in the HP/UP area, North Dallas, and/or Vickery Midtown WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I take daytrips with my camera, including once or twice a month in the DFW Metroplex, roughly from May through September. This time of year, and through the winter, my photos will be more event-driven and museum trips. However, I'll definitely be looking for Metroplex trip ideas again next summer. I've already covered Highland Park and University Park extensively (see here and here), but I'm open to suggestions like North Dallas and Vickery Midtown. Michael Barera (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sure! There will be a new HPISD elementary school opening in 2020 ([1] the building was built in 2017 but will be its own school in 2010), and Bradfield [2], Hyer (old Hyer will be demoed this year [3]), and University Park elementaries are/were rebuilt; combined with the HPISD HQ pictured here that's five items. Anyway it is true that most of the things in HP/UP have been taken. But as for North Dallas I have:
- Vickery Meadow area
- Dallas ISD new headquarters: 9400 North Central Expressway Dallas, Texas, 75231
- Emmett J. Conrad High School: 7502 Fair Oaks Avenue, Dallas, TX 75231
- Sam Tasby Middle School: 7001 Fair Oaks Ave, Dallas, TX 75231, United States
- Jack Lowe, Sr. Elementary School: 7000 Holly Hill Dr, Dallas, TX 75231, United States
- Lee A. McShan, Jr. Elementary School: 8307 Meadow Rd, Dallas, TX 75231, United States
- Jill Stone Elementary School at Vickery Meadow: 6606 Ridgecrest Rd, Dallas, TX 75231, United States
- L. L. Hotchkiss Elementary School: 6929 Town N Dr, Dallas, TX 75231, United States
- Dan D. Rogers Elementary School: 5314 Abrams Rd, Dallas, TX 75214, United States
- Vickery Health Center (of Parkland Hospital): 8224 Park Lane, Suite 130, Dallas, TX 75231
- Preston Hollow area
- Hillcrest High School (if you want additional views): 9924 Hillcrest Road, Dallas, Texas 75230
- Ursuline Academy of Dallas: 4900 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas, TX 75229
- St. Mark's School of Texas: 10600 Preston Road, Dallas, Texas 75230
- Dealey Montessori: 6501 Royal Ln, Dallas, TX 75230, United States
- Benjamin Franklin Middle School: 6920 Meadow Rd, Dallas, TX 75230, United States
- Preston Hollow Elementary School: 6423 Walnut Hill Lane, Dallas, Texas 75230
- Walnut Hill Elementary School: 10115 Midway Road, Dallas, Texas 75229
- Arthur Kramer Elementary School: 7131 Midbury Dr, Dallas, TX 75230
- Pershing Elementary School: 5715 Meaders Ln, Dallas, TX 75229
- Preston Royal Branch Library: 5626 Royal Ln, Dallas, TX 75229
- Addison and nearby
- Greenhill School: 4141 Spring Valley Road Addison, Texas
- George H. W. Bush Elementary School (in Addison): 3939 Spring Valley Rd, Addison, TX 75001
- Anne Frank Elementary School (in Dallas): 5201 Celestial Rd, Dallas, TX 75254
- WhisperToMe (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sure! There will be a new HPISD elementary school opening in 2020 ([1] the building was built in 2017 but will be its own school in 2010), and Bradfield [2], Hyer (old Hyer will be demoed this year [3]), and University Park elementaries are/were rebuilt; combined with the HPISD HQ pictured here that's five items. Anyway it is true that most of the things in HP/UP have been taken. But as for North Dallas I have:
Thanks for the ideas, WhisperToMe. I will see how I might be able to work these suggestions into daytrips next summer. Happy editing! Michael Barera (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- You're welcome! When I come back to Houston I'm going to try to re-photograph all the schools that were rebuilt (at least three high schools in Houston were rebuilt and another will be rebuilt soon). It's a bit annoying to me as I felt I already photographed them, and yet I would now need to go photograph the new buildings again :( WhisperToMe (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Important message for file movers edit
A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.
Possible acceptable uses of this ability:
- To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
- To perform file name swaps.
- When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)
Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.
The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Majora! Michael Barera (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2019 edit
| ||||||
Hi, Michael 
Thank you for your attention and your indications to allow me to make contributions without errors.
I allowed myself to correct (link) the presentation of engines that are not presented inside cars among the categories by year (link).
In order to keep a coherence of interpretation, I allow myself to create the categories corresponding to photographs of the interiors of cars.
Another sincere thanks for your indications 
Best regards, — DePlusJean (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- You are most welcome, DePlusJean! Thank you for all your hard work! Merci! Michael Barera (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you 
edit
Hi Michael Barera
A sincere thank you for your encouragement !
The task of classifying Alfa Romeo automobiles by year is tedious. The photographs are consulted one by one, possibly to consult the source links, to determine if coherent dates are valid.
Thank you for your kindness
Cordially, —— DePlusJean (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for all your hard work, DePlusJean! Merci beaucoup! Michael Barera (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks! edit
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at Wikimedia Commons.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation, Martin. I will consider participating. Michael Barera (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2019 edit
| ||||||