User talk:Chris troutman
Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki — it is really easy.
More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.
I'm afraid I have to remove your votes for this challenge. It is only open to Commons users with more than 50 edits or who have contributed images to the challenge. I appreciate you are active on Wikipedia but those are the current rules. I hope you feel inspired by the challenges to take and upload photos for Commons and can vote some time in future. -- Colin (talk)
File:Harry Scott Smith.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.
Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - September - Fountains and wells/Voting and Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - September - Fossils/VotingEdit
I'm afraid I had to remove your votes for these challenges since they were made after the deadline, which is the end of October UTC. We should soon have new challenges for submission and voting in November. Thanks for your participation, but I'm sorry you were a bit too late this month. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!Edit
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.
Dear Chris troutman,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth 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 (2017) 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 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.
In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.
Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Should I be concerned over your comment...Edit
After he was indefinitely blocked, at en.wiki, World's Lamest Critic transferred an deep focus on challenging my contributions here to the wikimedia commons. It is as unpleasant here as it was on en.wiki.
You weighed in at one of those challenges, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerial view of the Pentagon shortly after the attack on 2001-9-11.png, and, reviewing it today, I thought I better ask how seriously I should consider part of your comment...
- I wrote "Tineye finds the image on this US Army page ... So, keep."
- World's Lamest Critic wrote "In any case, it's a poor quality cropped version of File:Aerial view of the Pentagon during rescue operations post-September 11 attack.JPEG..."
- You wrote "...This keep rationale is a rearguard action by Geo Swan to excuse mistakes made long ago..."
Nominator only drew attention to the earlier image after I left my keep comment. No, I would not have argued to keep a lower quality duplicate of an earlier image. In my comment I proved it was a public domain image, which is all the nominator had challenged in their initial nomination.
I don't remember you and I ever having a dispute. If we had a prior disagreement, then not remembering it is compliant with policy. Unless there are strong reasons to doubt another contributor's good faith aren't we supposed to fairly consider the arguments they make in new discussions, and do our best not to bring any hurt feelings from prior discussions to color what we write? Ideally shouldn't we do our best to not only not voice any hurt feelings, but to not even hold any hurt feelings?
Your comment? It was unpleasant to read. It seemed to imply you had a good reason to generally doubt my good faith.
As I wrote above, I have no memory of us interacting before. If you think you remember a good reason to generally doubt my good faith, and it is going to color any future interactions we have, would you please consider offering a link to that earlier discussion, together with a brief explanation of what triggered your concern? A single sentence, or a link to a relevant policy document may suffice.
We are all fallible. If you voice a concern you may draw some problem to my attention that has escaped my notice in my previous dozen years here. Alternately, maybe your concern is based on a misunderstanding, which you'll drop, once we get that misunderstanding straightened out.
- @Geo Swan: If you are going to make accusations about me, please let me know by pinging me. There was no reason to mention me here at all, since you seem to be focused on Chris troutman's comment from 8 months ago and not anything I said. Incidentally, I think the deletion discussion speaks for itself. Had you identified the original source of the image, it would not have been necessary to even have that discussion. So long as you continue to be careless in identifying copyright statuses and origins, you will probably have to defend your uploads when they are questioned by other editors. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: Generally speaking, I don't AGF. I'm a misanthrope and see every reason to distrust all of humanity. That said, the issue here was that you uploaded a bunch of US Gov't pdfs years ago, for no apparent reason except that you thought they were fair game. I sent them them to deletion back in February because they violate COMMONS:SCOPE. In a sad effort to excuse your past uploads, you uploaded a png image taken from one of those nominated pdfs and mentioned the image in that discussion about SCOPE. Hence, when I made my comment in the later discussion in question, I wasn't arguing that the image wasn't public domain. My comment opined that you only uploaded the image to help excuse the fact that you wrongfully uploaded those pdfs in the first place (based upon ). I didn't show up to either of those discussions based on some prior interaction, as if I sought to settle a score. I found your editing to be despicable and I dutifully followed process in that regard to have deleted the offending files. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)