File talk:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG

[moved from user talk, quotation start]

Your pics about Uster

Hi Roland zh,
Lot's of nice pics about Uster that you've placed in Wikimedia (e.g File:'Schloss' in Uster, Ansicht von der Talackerstrasse 2012-11-14 13-28-32.JPG). For me that's an unknown spot in Switzerland. I think, a really have to visit this town once.
Thanks a lot for geo-positioning your pics too. But is it possible to add the heading to the Object too? If you need some help about this, just answer here (also about repositioning, in the pic I've mentioned you were – most likely – on the other side of the road). I put this page on me watchlist.
Best wishes --Lord Koxinga (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [moved from user talk, quotation end]

Hi Lord Koxinga, thank you and please enjoy that part of Switzerland, best you start from Schloss Uster towards Aathal, nice overview towards Pfannenstiel region :-)

Sorry, but my (GPS) logger, an old Nokia N8 as used of today, does not support heading-informations. Before I had another one, Solmetta N1 or so, but it's 'out of order' as a second one, and a new Solmetta logger will be buyed agin, 'some day' in future.

But, usually, so you personally need the heading, please use the GPS-location given and the image description, p.e. "Talackerstrasse", and a 'heading', at least 'northeast' etc may be possible. Best regards, Roland 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What is "Other versions" entry supposed to have?

User:Roland zh reverted me on this file page when I removed files which are not versions of this file but completely different ones. He called it "vandalism" and threatened with reporting to Commons user problem. So, I just want to know whether my edit was legitimate or not? What all can the "Other Versions" entry in file description have? Is there no bound on that? Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, 'Roland zh' called it potentially vandalism, that's a big 'difference', and User:Rahul Bott knows exactly why also was added next one will be handled as "Commons User Problems", as it's not first time that we had such senseless 'conflicts' or 'discussions'.

btw: some people may that repeated behavior of 'forced discussions' call 'personal attacks' by you, Rahul Bott, against me.

Please definitely calm down and let's end that kind of 'discussions' no one would like to participate and spend our rare free time in favour of Wikimedia commons, ok?

So you agree, it's your turn to 'cancel' that thread, thx and finally regards, Roland 19:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not cancelling this thread. I have made no "personal attacks". I made an edit, you reverted it and I'm ready to discuss it here but you are not. It seems as a matter of policy you do not like to discuss. You erase messages posted on your talk page, simply revert without providing reasons or explaining yourself. Guess what, I am going to invite other senior editors to comment on this. I do understand that your time might be "rare" but as far as my understanding goes, projects like these are built as much on the basis of discussions as due to other contributions. Rahul Bott (talk) 07:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked some admins about the Commons policies and they answered, that "other versions" is not well defined and could mean anything. I agree though, that it would be a good idea to make a page concerning the castle and put a gallery with all the pictures on it instead of in the file description.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stanzilla for taking part in this discussion. I am all for the idea of creating a Gallery page/Category for the castle, but my point was/is that atleast intuitively speaking, this is not what "other_versions" is meant for. Imagine doing such a thing to an image of en:Taj Mahal! Rahul Bott (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it is not well defined, there is nothing you or anyone could do about it. In this case it's up to the author. But imho there are many more pressing issues on Commons.--Stanzilla (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding other pressing issues. That does not mean we should not resolve this issue atleast to the point of having some broad guidelines. If that can't be worked out, I'll just like people to opine whether Roland's actions were right. I don't agree that it can be left upto author's discretion to include whatever (s)he wishes to in file description. Who decides for PD-old images in that case? That said, I am certainly not going all out clearing other_versions entries from all files on Commons! I did it on one file, but User:Roland zh's behavior by simply reverting without any discussion (which he does not like at all), calling it "vandalism", threatening with COM:AN/U, personal attack was the main problem I suppose. Rahul Bott (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It makes more sense to bring it to a broader audience. I guess the discussion page of Template:Information would be best. Because "other versions" is described there like this: "Links to files with very similar content or derived files; use thumbnails or Gallery tags

." And the same building can be considered very similar content.--Stanzilla (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the threat: I wouldn't take it personal. Not all users are polite or patient. This can have multiple reasons. And we can't force people to express their thoughts. Imho it's a waste of time to wonder about the behaviour of people in the internet. But it's always a pleasure if the discussions stay calm and polite. :)--Stanzilla (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stanzilla for giving that reference to the description in Template:Information. The given description makes me change my mind somewhat although I still do not think that all the files added by User:Roland zh can stand there on the file page even with this broad interpretation of "other_versions". The discussion is over from my side. Ofcourse, the grudges remain :-( Rahul Bott (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well since it the gallery was removed by an administrator, I guess that's it. I personally wouldn't want to start a debate on principles at the template's page. Mainly because I don't have much time. Don't be angry, please. I know it's easily said not to get angry and admit that I got loads of temper and get angry all the time, but it's useless nevertheless. Regards, --Stanzilla (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Stanzilla, I also would not be starting the debate on template's page for the same reason as yours but if such an issue comes up again, then I'm going to follow Jameslwoodward's guideline. And yes, you are right with your advice about not getting angry. I try! Rahul Bott (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Quoting from User talk:Jameslwoodward version 96571503]

I have removed the other versions from the file. I have never seen "other versions" used for anything except

• different versions of the same image -- crops, tilts (or removals), the original from which this crop was made, color corrections, and so forth.
• occasionally different images of the same painting or other flat work.

Showing different angles and lighting of the same subject can easily be done in a gallery. Putting such files into one or more of the related files seems silly and a maintenance nightmare. His suggestion that your actions were vandalism and his threat are both inappropriate. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

[Quote end]

 Comment The accusation of vandalism and personal attacks is pure nonsense. Other versions means other versions, not a gallery of completely different files. I don't agree with the statement that "'other versions' is not well defined and could mean anything". Common sense or a dictionary will tell you what the word version means. INeverCry 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)