User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 5

Question and Comment

Well, I removed my request. I'll probably try later on. Also, I was wondering if I did Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carl Larsson-Lathörnet.jpg correctly. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and the image itself seems like a fine choice as well. Let me know if you need help finding your bearings here at Commons. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Flickr review notice

Hello Juliancolton. You are receiving this message because you have recently or regularly participate in Flickr review requests. A proposal to move Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers to Commons:License review/requests was made and no objections were raised and thus transferred. Please watchlist this new page for further requests. Commons talk:Flickr files/reviewers will continue to display for a period of time but new requests will not be raised on your watchlist. Thank you, ZooFari 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Valued images

Did I do these two nominations correctly? Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list. One of the images was uploaded by me and the other one was uploaded by another editor, both of the images are from NASA. As for the featured picture nomination that I did, it has two votes and both of them are supports with one comment calling it a superb example of the Swedish arts and crafts movement. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

From a technical standpoint, the nominations look fine, although I'm not as familiar with VIC as I am FPC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting help from another editor. Thanks for trying to help. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

My principal mentor, Herbythyme, is taking a break, so I turn to you for advice and counsel.

My habit is to go through all of the day's eligible DR closures:

• close the obvious ones without comment
• leave a constructive comment where I have one, and
• ignore those where I have no expertise.

I deliberately do not leave many comments with closures because I believe that the admin closing a DR should weigh the comments made by others and not have anything significant to add himself/herself -- if I have a comment, I will make it, and then not close the DR. I do not close DRs where I have made any comment as I believe it is a conflict.

With that in mind, I would appreciate it if you would look first at

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Her Husband's Trademark.jpg

and then at

• User talk:Jameslwoodward#Adminwork

Briefly, I closed, without comment, a DR that appeared to be completely obvious -- {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-norenewal}} and/or {{PD-US-1923}}.

User:Cecil is offended by my closures without comment and calls my work "sloppy" and suggested that I "leave it for somebody with more work ethics". While I can shrug off abuse from IP users and our one or two regular users who have a known attitude, it is hard to ignore an abusive Bureaucrat who tells me to leave Commons. Hence this request.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The role of an administrator when closing deletion requests is not very well-defined, and this does occasionally lead to some issues. At the English Wikipedia, an admin's job is to read through a debate with an entirely open mind and close it based on editorial agreement, if any, all but ignoring their personal opinion on the matter. It's quite different here at Commons; while we still try to work by consensus, admins are expected to have at least a basic knowledge of copyright policies so they can make their own determination with regard to deletion nominations. This includes sometimes overruling a majority and deleting or keeping an image contrary to existing consensus. With that said, whether or not you explain your DR closures is a judgment call, and each situation should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Obviously if you see something the voters don't, an explanation, even if brief, is ideal. On the other hand, many cases are clear enough that a rationale is not needed to justify your action.

In this particular case, I agree that Cecil's comments are rather harsh, and I don't think it's the best idea to raise these concerns immediately following the closure of his own DR nomination. However he is a long-term member of the community, so it might be wise to, at the very least, take his criticism into consideration. I'm not going to take sides, but my best advice would be to keep doing your thing. Everybody who works on a less-than-straightforward part of the project is bound to strike a sour note every now and then, and given the lack of admins closing old DRs, I'm sure nearly everybody appreciates your work in general.

I'm sorry I couldn't provide some more specific advice, as my comments above are quite general, but I trust you'll be able to work it out. Keep me updated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a considered, prompt, and diplomatic response. I will note Cecil's comments, as there is certainly some truth in them. Is it possible to suggest to Cecil that toning it down a little might be good? I would hope that very senior users would be more measured, as you were above. My first reaction was to do as suggested and take my two or three hours a day elsewhere -- someone with a thinner skin or less English might have done that. Regards,      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a measured response from Juliancolton indeed. I am less measured so my advice to you would have been to immediately delete Cecil's initial remarks, with an edit summary that he is welcome to ask you about that DR as soon as he can muster a more cordial tone. But maybe I've been yelled at by the multitude of inconsiderate people on this project one too many times. Wknight94 ^talk 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Photos

It seems someone deleted photos that were still in discussion. The account holder LGEPR is ver reliable and this is another example of there work used on Commons Rosario Dawson. Could you restore the ones I didn't re-upload thank you.

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Henney3677098746_8c4ccec43d_o.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HenneyChoi4066693970_4e6ceda5f1_o.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:HenneyChoi4066693970_4e6ceda5f1_o.jpg

I reuploaded some of them here:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DH3096576851_4c0cb11439_b.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DH4066693970_4e6ceda5f1_o.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DH3991106635_18c9ef6d23_o.jpg

PrayerMe (talk)

• I took this discussion to ZooFari but they on a wikibreak. 09:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• You're probably better off contacting User:Wknight94, who seems to have deleted those images. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the situation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/DodoBot

Hi Julian, would you have a look at the above request? To enable the user to test AWB in bot mode, would you grant him the flag provisionally for further tests?  Docu  at 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Julian, the bot-flag you granted him will not help him to use AWB in Bot mode even for test edits! It is needed, that he is allowed to autosave edits in awb. This is not controlled by the bot flag. This is solely controlled by the rights he gets from awb. To autosave edits the username needs to be under the Bots subsection in the CheckPage Commons:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage.

Now the user has a bot right, what is counter-productive in a test phase, as the edits are not visable in the recent changes, but he can still not autosave edits as he is an normal user in the view of awb as the username is listed under Aproved users [1].

Please remove the Bot flag from User:DodoBot as long as the bot request is open and please list his name under the bot section here.

Under these circumstances I also kindly ask you to reconsidere your decision on my request on Commons_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Bots for my usual Username. Thanks --Schlurcher (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it need both? At some point MW throttle kicks in. Edits are being checked anyways, so the flag as such isn't really a problem.  Docu  at 15:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No the so called bot flag of awb is completely independent of the wiki bot flag so actually no bot flag is needed. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

MW will try to throttle the user if he goes too fast, thus the flag is still needed. The only exception I could find on en_wiki is a admin who wouldn't be throttled.  Docu  at 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Up to now no user needed bot flag for testing the bot, so I do not see the need here. And as the bot does some incorrect changes I highly reccomend to remove bot flag as more people watch the recent changes. --Schlurcher (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Any mistakes by the bot during a trial period will almost certainly be picked up by people, because the bot's contributions will be heavily watched. Also, the AWB bot right is only granted if the bot is flagged, so the two things aren't independent of each other, as you say. Lastly, the bot flag also prevents MW from throttling the bot's edits, so the bot can go at full speed and do a test that is a lot more similar to how it will perform in actual use. - EdoDodo ^talk 08:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You editing my user page

This is a rather unusual action. What is your problem with my highlighting one of your administrative actions? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It paints me in a negative light when I've done nothing wrong. I've closed hundreds and hundreds of DRs, and the fact that the one you highlighted happened to involve an admin made no difference in my mind. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are not especially active in closing deletion request. On July 14, you close a few few very old ones, and a few that were just a week old. This was the one that you kept. A block prevented me from taking part in the discussion. But anyway, this sign with a story in images is an interesting precedent, and I want to keep it handy for easy reference on my userpage. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this then. I rarely comment on DRs outside of closing them, so that list would seem pretty accurate. You're free to keep a link to it in your userpage if you wish, but please don't showcase it as an example of what you perceive to be inappropriate administrator behavior. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much of that was this year. But the point is that on my user page, I should be able to write my perceptions without being censored. I will revert. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound threatening, but I'd advise against doing that. I own my username, and as long as you mention and link to my userpage, I have every right to edit that part of your userspace. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not true, I think. An ordinary user who would try to forbid an admin to use his username in vain would be laughed at. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is the silliest thing I ever heard... I hope you weren't serious. Rocket000 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Was that in response to me or Pieter? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sharp thoughts

I appriciated your point
V-wolf (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. :) Is that hedgehog a pet? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I found it (or it found me) in a lushy rural area near the post office in Avesta town. Its mother ran away as fast as she could on her little legs, but this was a really curious little thing that came to take a closer look on me and my camera. I don't think it's allowed to have E. europaeus as pets in Sweden without special permission, I've only heard of Atelerix albiventris and Hemiechinus auritus as pets. V-wolf (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(the little hedgehog found its mother again after a while) V-wolf (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear they found each other. Nice shots of them both. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Hello, Juliancolton. Xeno told me to talk to you. I started rename process, so i want to be renamed here also. Alredy renamed on sr wiki and on meta, and Tadija is my real name, so...

Tadija - WhiteWriter

If you have any question, write to me! :) Thanks! --Tadija (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure,  Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --WhiteWriter (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Planemad

Not sure what the standard practice is, but the current redirect there is a bit confusing. Especially since there is a talk page at User talk:PlaneMad. I was trying to find the talk page of the user who uploaded File:Ripon Building panorama.jpg.  Docu  at 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I'm not really sure what happened there. I'll take another look tomorrow to see if I can figure it out. Thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably User talk:PlaneMad just needs to be moved to User talk:Planemad. See also Commons:Changing_username/Archive11#PlaneMad_.E2.86.92_Planemad  Docu  at 05:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still sort of confused, but done, I guess. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member

Sorry to bother you with this, but could you assign the OTRS-member group to the list of users, I just sent you per email?--DieBuche (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, remove the image-reviewer flag from admins. ZooFari 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done with the list, and I kept my eye out for admins with the image-reviewer flag. Too many userrights...! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what is the point of the new OTRS-member ‎ (on OTRS) group? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it's purely to make it easier to identify OTRS members. But I'm not really convinced of its usefulness myself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It was mainly created as an reaction to this bot request & is now used to support the abusefilter rule proposed by Docu--DieBuche (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Julian. Yes, too many rights (and changes). ZooFari 20:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

omg outing --MZMcBride (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What about people that don't want their OTRS status known? I'm fine with it, but apparently some aren't: "...and some agents choose not to list themselves publicly on this page."--Rockfang (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it, I suppose. If anybody has an issue with it, my email is always open. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Poor typing

Hey Julian, could I trouble you to delete File:Russain Embassy in Ulan Bator 2.JPG for me, it has since been replaced with File:Russian embassy in Ulan Bator 2.JPG, spelling corrected. Cheers,--Kelapstick (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Image...

Hello,

Could you move File:Nine-L 1977 track.png to 9-L 1977 track.png?

Thanks,

— Iune(talk) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello,

Could you also move File:2010 Atlatnic hurricane season summary map.png to 2010 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png?

Thanks,

— Iune(talk) 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Julian!

Hello dear Juliancolton! It's wonderful to see somebody at least familiar to me around here. So this is how newcomers feel when they come to a new wiki, I suppose. :P Thanks for changing my username. I was starting to get confused of what the other guy meant. Well, anyway, thanks so much...and by the way, cool userpage! :p It looks so professional and admin-ish. God bless, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you around! Yeah, Commons can be pretty intimidating at first. It took me well over a year to get acclimated, but with any luck you'll be a bit quicker on the uptake. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Hi, Julian. Can you move File:Beogradjanka001.jpg into File:Palace Albania.jpg, as it is named wrongly after different building. Thanks! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, i have one more for you. Can you do me a favor? :)

File:Kukavica_065.jpg into File:Zelen grad.jpg? That is the name of fortress... :) I will send you a beer? :)) -WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A Coke would be fine, thanks. ;)  Done the rename. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cold one!! :) Thanks! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for renaming my account name! Kees Recourt

No problem! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Snoopy decorative blowup inflatable.JPG

File:Snoopy decorative blowup inflatable.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!

Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't promote early

...even in open and shut cases. You promoted George early by a fair bit. (check the scheduled end time vs your signature) There is no rush. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It was only a couple hours early, right? And especially since there hadn't been any recent comments... I don't think that's problematic. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

One minute early is problematic. We've had this discussion before and that's the consensus... there is no deadline and being somewhat after the cutoff is OK (within reason) but early, even a little, is not. Please don't do it again, it would be appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall that discussion, much less having participated in and agreed with it. RfAs run for a week, and 6 days and 22 hours is by any reasonable person's standards a week. I've always viewed the scheduled ending time as a recommendation (rather than a deadline, as you said), and consensus was solidly and undoubtedly clear in this case. Being one of three or four active bureaucrats, I like to think my opinion carries some weight, and I don't agree that closing a bit "early" is an issue. I probably won't be closing all that many RfAs before the scheduled ending time, so if you see any issues with this particular case, by all means let me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your opinion doesn't carry weight, I'm just saying we operate on consensus, not via unilateral action. You acted unilaterally. Please don't do that again. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a little extreme. I closed an RfA two hours early. I'd like to see consensus that closing two hours early is worthy of such reprimand. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Better two days late than two minutes early. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. But since this was neither two days late nor two minutes early I'm not sure of the reason behind your comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Was it an on-wiki discussion, now archived? I would appreciate a link. Thanks. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mailing list, IIRC. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating - a sudden influx of 'crats, rarely seen sadly.

Yes it was wrong - most 'crats have done it at some stage (I certainly did). Mostly it is (& should be) mentioned. Mostly it is not worth the fuss and active 'crats are rare beasts here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The way to avoid fuss would be if the first response was "you're right, it does say Scheduled to end: 13:24, 4 November 2010(2010-11-04) (UTC), and not Scheduled to end: 13:24, 4 November 2010(2010-11-04) (UTC) or maybe earlier if someone feels like it... I'll try to be more careful in future." That would be the best way to respond, no fuss, no muss, all friendly. Mentioned, acknowledged, over and done. Instead, Julian, you dug in your heels, and you've used terms like "worthy of such reprimand" ... Not a good approach. I have worded my comments gently but you are being tendentious. Quite unexpected. And disappointing, I expected better from you, you're a role model to many, and a rebuttal to those who say the young should not hold positions of trust. Consider what would have happened if you'd closed an RfA even one minute early on en... ++Lar: t/c 13:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Heh. A discussion on a mailing list does not equate to consensus. Unless you can provide a link to a full on-wiki discussion, please stop complaining. Thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this supposed precedent needs to be discussed. In order to discuss the precedent and possibly establish a principle, we need the community. They should be given the ability to opine. As a result, we will have community approval on a precedent. Secondly, was this a binding or persuasive precedent?

As a bureaucrat and a community member, I find it important that this discussion be discussed on-wiki. The community, as a whole, should be included in this imperative discussion, henceforth my remarks. If there are reasons not to include the community, please state those.

It's in our best interests to have it clarified with the community. In this case we should include the community when making a precedent. After all, we're all trying to make a good working process. So let's all work together and make that happen. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Don't close before the time set should be pretty obvious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the postings above I agree with PK - a date & time for closure is just that and should be adhered too. No "discussion" is needed about that as far as I can see. The world will not end because it was closed early but it shouldn't happen, there is no rush (other than the sd backlog but most admins are inactive so...) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's only the scheduled time or am I missing something? There's a reason it's called "scheduled" and not "This RfX will end at .... Therefore, this may not be closed before or after the RfX ends."

And here comes the guideline/policy on the matter: "Adminship nominations usually remain open for seven days, for votes and comments." The keyword being "usually", not "must", therefore I don't believe Juliancolton did anything wrong. However, that is also why I believe there's something which needs to be discussed - there is no on-wiki consensus to support the supposed precedent. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@Lar: Again I ask for any evidence that my closing of this particular RfA presented any real problems. I acknowledge that the scheduled ending is there for a reason, but a couple hours' deviance hardly seems to require this fuss. As with Peter and Kanonkas, I cannot simply accept some spontaneous conversation on a mailing list as "consensus". If the on-wiki community agrees that closing a minute before schedule is inherently out-of-line, then so be it. Until then, I see no reason to accept my action as wrong. As I said, I don't intend to close every RfA before the scheduled ending time, but it's honestly a bit silly to get so concerned over what seems to be a minor anomaly lacking any consequences. As an aside, I don't appreciate you bringing up "those who say the young should not hold positions of trust". That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You supported my RfB, yet you can't seem to view me as a colleague of equal competence. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason for a definite date/time ending. The wording clearly implies it could go later (and has) but it shouldn't go earlier. If 2 hours early with no opposes is OK, is 4 hours? 8? 16? A whole day? Why or why not? What if there was one oppose? two? 95% support? 90%? 80%? Why or why not? A definite date/time means there's a clear boundary. Not a slippery slope. This was a minor deal but it's blowing up into something rather larger. One minute early is too early and if you can't see why, I have a problem with that. If you think policy should say "up to two hours early" or whatever, seek consensus for that change. It doesn't say that now. That this particular close wasn't problematic is NOT the point. It's the slope that's at issue. You're digging yourself a hole. Stop digging. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lar, did I close it a day early? Were there any opposes? Please don't create these irrelevant hypothetical and hold them against me. Look at the facts: there were almost 20 supports from trusted users of Commons (among them admins and functionaries), nothing resembling opposition, and no recent comments. And I closed it two hours early. Please list the issues it's created so far. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not "irrelevant hypotheticals". I seriously want to know the answers to the questions I asked. If you think 2 hours early is OK, then do you think 3 hours early is OK? 4? 8? 16? WHERE is the line? Ditto if you think no opposes is OK when closing early, how about 1? 2? 5%? WHERE is the line? These are eminently reasonable questions. Please answer them. Justify your answers. If you cannot answer them, and give clear justification, that proves the point that even one minute early is too early. ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They are indeed. I never said closing 16 hours early is appropriate, so you're essentially putting words in my mouth. There is no "line". That's why we elect bureaucrats to use their judgment and not robots to make actions based on numbers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. I did not say you said 16 was appropriate, so your accusation is without merit. I am asking you what is appropriate, and you refuse to answer. That's troubling. Is 2 hours always OK? How about 2.5? 3? What are your criteria for closing early? Get consensus for specific criteria or stop doing it. I asked you politely and you dug in and resisted. You are getting feedback from multiple parties that you need to not close early. Do reconsider your position. Please. What you miss is that by having concrete criteria, the process is fairer. ++Lar: t/c 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then we fundamentally disagree on the crux of this conversation. Since I never closed an RfA 16 hours early, we don't need to discuss what would happen if I had done so. That's entirely irrelevant, as I said. If you want to discuss the RfA process in general, I'll be happy to participate on a central noticeboard. Otherwise, I don't see the need to continue on my talk page. Common sense goes a long way in determining where your "line" is. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not a big deal. But think about this. Suppose Lar or some other crat wanted to close an rfa, which rarely happens because it's usually the same two crats that do the job. Do you think it would be fair for a crat to close it one minute early when another already planned to do so on time? While not a big deal and decisions are okay, I know that I would have been bothered. This has occurred to me both here and in real life and when it does, the feeling is not always pleasant. ZooFari 22:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed does not seem to be a big deal in an RFA as this. However, I think that it is appropriate to stick to the minimal scheduled election period out of respect to the community and to the candidate. Would you accept to find election booths to be closed five minutes early and would you like to be told that your late vote would not make a difference? --AFBorchert (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my previous comment was removed by Juliancolton, and I will try to rephrase. A burocrat is supposed to be burocratic. A burocrat's task is to go by the book and to adhere to procedure. If he does not do that, it should be pointed out. And if the buracrat does not share the common-sense view of what his job description is, he is not fit to be in this position, and should resign or be recalled. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing in a more constructive manner, although I'm not sure what a "burocrat" is. :) Given that I've closed dozens of RfAs, promoted a handful of bots and renamed 100 users since I was promoted back in March, and this is the only bureaucrat action of mine that has stirred up any real objections, I don't really feel the need to resign. It goes without saying most of you folks agree that closing early is a bad idea. So be it. I'd still like a formal discussion, and I still intend to argue my position, but it's safe to say I can probably be trusted not to deliberately peeve people off at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand: this is not about peeves. But if you really want to be formally censured for this, that can of course be arranged. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat? I certainly hope not. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You asked for a formal discussion, and you got one at Commons talk:Administrators/Howto#Clarification on timing. That is what I meant. Because now you do not seem to like it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the matter publicly ( at Commons:Village_pump#Early_closes_of_successful_adminship_requests, which points to Commons_talk:Administrators/Howto ) as you suggested. ++Lar: t/c 11:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for taking care of that! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

G'day J :-) - I noticed this at the VP, and have made pretty much the same post there too.... I was wondering if you are cool with no longer closing any request at all early? (I think this is sensible, and the best plan) - seems to me the idea of blame hijacked the above chat based on a misunderstanding (ironically it was kidna no-one's fault ;-) - hopefully this is an easy one to resolve. Cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey PM, glad to see you around! Well, yeah, I'd be pretty senseless to "do it" again, since I guess my job as a bureaucrat is to push my personal opinions aside. Hope there are no hard feelings amongst this thread. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hypholoma fasciculare 5.JPG

Hi! Thank you for reviewing. Would you mind reading my comments? Thank you. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User name usurpation

I would like to usurp a user name on Commons that has no edits. It appears this is within existing policy. I was told I cannot do that because the user name is not unique enough. This appears to not be within existing policy. The name I requested to usurp has no edits on Commons. It is my user name on en.wikipedia[2].

However, every time I sign in to Commons, Commons, without my requesting it, signs me in as my old user name (which I never signed up for as an account) on en.wikipedia. Then, when I go back to en.wiki, I'm signed in with an account I gave up. I signed up for a different user name on commons, so that I could request usurpation and try to get some help without having to either 1) reveal my IP, or 2) sign back onto en.wikipedia and edit with a name I gave up, and now it appears I have another user name on en.wikipedia, because it was not clear that any user name I use on commons, except the one I want, then becomes the name I am signed in as on en.wiki! I cannot sign in as this name, because it will sign me in with it on en.wikipedia.

I would like to usurp the name Kleopatra, my user name on en.wikipedia, a user name with no edits on commons. Is it possible? If it is not possible, please just delete my commons accounts, and I will simply upload my micrographs to en.wikipedia and let other editors categorize and put them on commons if they want. Thanks.

Can you please respond on en.wiki. I am not going to sign in to commons again with any other user name, or use commons if this is what happens. --WorkSoulsNothing (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm neither active nor a bureaucrat at enwiki, so perhaps this is better taken to a local user? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to usurp the name here at commons, not at en.wiki. I'm just more active there, because I can't upload any images here, and I'm tired of signing in to commons and being simultaneously signed out of en.wiki, even though I did not select the commons account originally, nor did I pick to have this name used as my en.wikipedia account.

My request was summarily rejected, maybe,[3] here at commons, because "Kleopatra" is not unique enough, while, it appears that "Betty," the following usurpation request is a unique name (it's not).[4]

I'm a microscopist. I would like to upload hundreds of images into the public domain here at commons and organize some of the images here better. I cannot do this for articles if every time I upload an image here, I'm signed out of en.wiki. If I don't have the same user name here, that is what will happen. In which case, I will just upload them to en.wiki out of frustration with this arbitrary implementation of rules.

Can you respond here, then, about the usurpation? Kleopatra at commons has no contributions. It's my en.wiki name. It seems as if it is within the allowable usurpations.

Thanks for actually responding. --WorkSoulsNothing (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyhow for at least responding once. I am going to start uploading at en.wiki and not bother with commons uploads. --WorkSoulsNothing (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't gotten a chance to really look at your situation yet. I'll try to issue a response by this evening. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, my sincere apologies for not tending to this matter efficiently. I hope you can understand that I've been busy with both on and off-wiki matters recently, and have only now found the time to review this. With that said, I understand what you're saying now, but I'm a bit confused about where KMLP came from. Could you please clarify a bit? Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm even more confused. I registered at en.wiki with the user name KMLP, and, at en.wiki I started looking at images, I clicked on an image that is at commons, and voila! a bot! welcomed me (uhgg!) to commons. I never registered it as a user name at commons, and I never intended to have it as a user name at commons. In fact, I had intended to select a throw-away user name at commons, then request usurpation of Kleopatra if it was available. It is available. It has no contributions. The welcome page says the account exists, probably for the same reason that KMLP exists, someone at another wikipedia simply clicked on a commons image and voila! a bot! welcomes (uhgg!) that user under that account name to commons. Commons should not do this, but that's another battle.

That's how commons works, apparently, it automatically assigns the user the user name they have at the other wikipedia, without notice, without request, then a bot! welcomes! the user to commons when they click on a link at their home wikipedia. It doesn't say this when I registered an account at en.wiki. It doesn't warn about this when clicking on links at en.wiki.

I don't want to edit from my IP, so I was essentially forced to request usurpation from the KMLP account, but, it turns out that editing from that account signed me in with that, my old user name, at en.wiki, so I sock-puppetted myself for a few edits at en.wiki before I realized it. Then when I picked this at commons, unknowing thta it turns out that it works the other way, too, that this user name becomes my en.wiki name, and I'm signed out of en.wiki. I just want one user name, and that's enough, as it's impossible to edit under two user names. I'm a microscopist, and I'm trying to get other microscopists to edit articles at en.wiki and spanish wiki and contribute micrographs to commons, so I'd also like to be straight on how it works, and I would like to be able to be contacted readily at both locations. The target account is unused here at commons, and it has not been SUL reserved, and I'm a registered and established user at en.wikipedia. When I requested the usurpation it was denied for an arbitrary reason, that the name was too common or something. --WorkSoulsNothing (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely understand your frustration then. I see no problem with usurping Kleopatra for the reasons you listed above, but I have one more question... would you like me to simply vacate the name, or physically move "WorkSoulsNothing" to "Kleopatra"? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would rather it be vacated completely, if there's a choice in the matter. --WorkSoulsNothing (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Sorry once again for the delay. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

help

Hi I am a user in both English (user:logicalthinker33) and malayalam wikipedia(user:സ്നേഹശലഭം). I had uploaded my image here. But I reduced its quality and uploaded another one to make it less probable from misuse. So Kindly delete my first upload from its history. Thank you--സ്നേഹശലഭം (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to have been done already. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gelbe Karte Wikipedia.jpg

Hallo, you did not take into consideration all of my arguments. The picture can't be used in a usefull way. If you think that this is a problem of the local project, however, the picture still violates the rights of the depicted referee and player "number 8" on their own picture. That is why I have quoted from the high-court-sentence from 2004. It is a matter of 15 minutes to find out from the file description the referee's name on the internet. If you wish, I can send you an e-mail with the referee's name, and links to websites from where the name and the players names can be retrieved, Greetings --Rosenkohl (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a moral issue more than anything, so I'm not really comfortable getting any further involved. I only kept the image based on what seemed to be solid consensus, although since it was well over a year ago, consensus could be different now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not just a moral issue but a legal issue and an issue of the project scope. I'm not interested in a "consensus" of anonymous accounts shouting "keep" oder "delete". The image File:Anti68.jpg which I had proposed for deletion but was kept also violates the right on someone's own image. I want the project not to regulary allow editors to violate the right of people on their own images, --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's how DR largely works – barring a reason to overrule it, admins have to go by consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-member flag given to former self

[5] ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alas...  Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sidewalk in Pacifica was destroyed by erosion.jpg

Hello Julian, Thank you for voting on my nomination. I added an alternative. Could you please take a look, when you have a time? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My previous username

Hello Julian,

First please excuse my poor english, I'm not a native ( hope I'm comprehensible anyway). I don't know if you're the right person to ask for this request but here's my problem: I changed my user's name a few months ago. I made this request for reasons of privacy and professional concerns, especially with regard to Google. And I'm fine with this change. But for some reasons my former username still exists (though inactive) and still appears in top of the google search... Is there a way to remove it or something? Also I'd like to know how to remove my name from the infoboxes of the files I once uploaded under my previous name. Despite the change of username, my orignal name is still credited. And there's no option for common users like me to fix this apparently. And I fail to find any indication to change this in the guidelines. So may I ask your help, please? Thanks in advance. Greetings! Akteon (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. It doesn't seem like that username actually exists on this wiki anymore, so it's probably something that would need to be dealt with on Google's end (though I'm not really familiar with how their algorithms work). As for the file info, as far as I know, there's no easy way to completely erase all evidence of your former name, so the best thing to do would be avoid drawing attention to it and you should be fine. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Hawaii_Eddie_Aikau_competition_surf.jpg

File:Hawaii_Eddie_Aikau_competition_surf.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!

Ytoyoda (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OTRS-Member group

Hi Julian, I have newly joined OTRS team and is planning to spend time to deal with OTRS tickets. I would like to have OTRS-Member rights in commons, but I don't see anyone requesting that at Commons:Requests for rights. I believe this is to keep OTRS membership confidential. Can you please help me understand how to request for this right? --Sreejith K (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Rename

Hello, Julian! Can you please rename this images and category? We found out what it is. en:Hermitage of St. Peter Koriški is building entry, and our discusion regarding rename is here (en:Talk:Saint Mark Koriški Monastery). So this is the list:

• Category:Kabashi Monastary --- Category:Hermitage of Saint Peter Koriški

---

• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaDSC00346.JPG --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008062.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, fresco
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaDSC00307.JPG --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, overview
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaDSC00347.JPG --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, view
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008060.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, entrance
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiBesforti048.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, view from far
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008063.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, wall and fresco
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008064.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, arch
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008065.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, tomb
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008082.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, pillars
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008083.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, view of pillars
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008084.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, pillars and arch
• File:BesfortPicturesForWikimediaKabashiMeDaten12.08.2008141.jpg --- File:Saint Peter Koriški Hermitage, ruins

---

Thanks in advance! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done... let me know if I can help with anything else :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe a bit of house keeping? :) Black and tag this blocked sock. and delete his copyvio images... :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Heathclifff
• Fierza

All best! :)--WhiteWriter ^speaks 09:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi! One more thing?

• Category:Sarplaninac should be renamed to Category:Šarplaninac per wikipedia article. Šarplaninac Thanks in advance! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mystic Photos

I see you've taken a lot of pictures of Mystic, Connecticut. Is there any chance you can get one ore more of the Mystic (Amtrak station)? ----DanTD (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me take a look this afternoon to see if I have any sitting around. If not, sure, I'll be sure to get some next time I'm in that area. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, don't think I have any, but I'll probably be able to get some before the summer's over. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Binukalarickan

User_talk:Binukalarickan 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 user page ⧼pageinfo-talkpage⧽, 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. 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!

...Captain......Tälk tö me 17:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

* * * :) * * *

Merry Christmas and happy New Year! I wish You all the best in New year!
--George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and to you too! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename

I have a problem. After renaming I have created a new account with the old name because of SUL. Some images are now attributed to the old name. It's a temporary bug or other problem? --Velq1958 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be that it took a while for the edits to transfer. Let me know if it's still an ongoing issue. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now it's ok. --Velq1958 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bug in the system?

Hi Julian, I need your help. Please see Commons:Village_pump#Bug in the system? when you get the time. Thanks! Rehman 09:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems fixed, looked like a temporary glitch or something. You might be interested in it though. Sorry to spam here ;) Rehman 10:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)