BrownHairedGirl

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear BrownHairedGirl,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth 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 (2015) 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. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Time for a graceful exit?

Have you ever actually considered walking away from Wikipedia entirely? I think you get treated disgracefully, and worse, a very big part of it does seem to have a sexist component. Have you ever asked yourself, does Wikipedia need you more than you need it? I have wondered if you were the head down and just get on with it type, able to brush it all off, but since you have spoken of the harm it causes you, can I ask if you would just take a pause and examine whether it's ever going to get any easier? Where does it end? Is Wikipedia really worth you damaging your own health? I can't stress enough that I really have never seen you be wrong on any substantive point of policy. But I'm afraid that's just not enough these days, if it ever was. The price to be paid for Wikipedia allowing anyone to edit, is just that. You really aren't being judged by your peers, and never will be, and I think you know that. You're judged by people who don't actually even really care whether Bobby Sands being a political prisoner is a matter of dispute. You're judged by people who didn't give a damn that their desire to have joke categories, made your critical maintenance work much harder. It goes beyond disrespect. They simply don't value you. Never have, imho. Your feelings don't matter, just as your policy points don't matter. Only how you express your understandable frustrations, matters. Which would be a laudible stance, if it wasn't for the rather obvious fact that this is a standard they've never really applied to the male majority. No surprise to see it's a woman, a strong opinionated women who stands up for herself, who seems to be the first to be subjected to a civility sanction designed to operate like a noose. Designed to get ever tighter. You wouldn't think we lived in a time when mental health is meant to be paramount. Don't allow yourself to become some kind of experiment for the community finally deciding an effective civility sanction is a necessary tool. Don't become a victim of Wikipedia's institutional sexism. I hope you can walk away, and I think you have done before, no? Let a man be the first to be subjected to this medieval looking torture device designed to ensure unfailing civility. Something that looks awfully like a device from the witchunting era, and not unintentionally I don't think. I know you think you patched up your differences, but the man who rambles is definitely a better candidate to use as a Guinea Pig to see if this device actually works, before unleashing it on women. If it can't work, he'll be the one who can break it. He really was trying to taunt you, his apology is insincere, and as anyone who follows him can see, he only disengaged not because he respects you or regrets his actions, but because of his already long and troubled history of uncivil behaviour. Chub Nariah (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chub Nariah: Thank you very much for taking the time to write, and apologies for the very belated reply. I rarely visit Commons, so I only just spotted your message.

I agree with nearly all you have written. But I am not ready to quit just yet, and I no longer let it get to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy note that the account has been blocked as an LTA. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think communicating about Wikipedia matters on commons is a good idea. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Single Color Flag - 0087DC.png

File:Single Color Flag - 0087DC.png 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!

OmegaFallon (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)