User talk:Nikkimaria

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Nikkimaria!

File tagging File:JARTERMINAL cropped.jpgEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:JARTERMINAL cropped.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS ( This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:JARTERMINAL cropped.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Saibo (Δ) 15:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of "rv"Edit

Please do not introduce falsehoods into media description pages. "Rv" for such edits is an inappropriate edit description. Thank you for your attention. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize media description pages by adding nonsensical editorial commentary. Please do not revert good-faith attempts to address your inappropriate edits. Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"Commons:Vandalism" is a serious accusation. Please point out to me a single edit of mine here which you consider "vandalism". I have removed or reworded bog-generated garbage, misattribution, and blatant falsehoods that unfortunately mar Commons. If you don't know, some local wiki to Commons transfer bots are set by default to produce language relevant to photos created by the Wikipedia uploader. When those bots are mis-used for content not original to Wikipedia by users who shirk their responsibilities to make sure the information is accurate, the results can be horrid and ridiculous, with false dates, false statements of authorship, etc, and absurd statements like calling a local Wiki copy of file that had been online for many years previous the "original upload". I strongly urge you join me in helping fix such broken uploads and description pages on Commons. Thank you for your attention. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
As an example, I suggest you do a search for "Original upload log" + "PD-USGov". The vast majority of the files you will find will have blatant falsehoods and absurdities in the description pages. Such pages are a major blot on Wikimedia Commons and are badly in need of fixing. this edit of yours reworded something, but didn't fix anything that was broken. In contrast, this edit of mine fixed made multiple problems. I suggest if you are interested in improving Wikimedia Commons, your efforts are more badly needed in the latter type of edits than the former. Thanks for your attention. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This is such an example. The wording that was present, "Wikipedia upload log", did not claim that that was the "original", but simply that it was a log of the image's upload to - an accurate description, AFAICT. You changed that to "transwiki trivia", which is a rather nonsensical and unhelpful judgement, notwithstanding your opinion on the matter. If you'd like to remove these sections, as I've seen you do elsewhere, I suppose I can't stop you, but please don't continue to add such descriptors to hundreds of media. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
There is some set standard wording for headers for transferred files which were previously but not originally uploaded to local wiki projects before being copied to Commons, please point it out to me. If there is not, and you wish to set some reasonable standard of clear wording, I would welcome and support your effort. Otherwise, I do not see that any wording I have used is in any way "nonsensical" nor "unhelpful" nor in any way inferior to your preferred wording. And it is vastly superior to the blatant and embarrassing falsehoods which I have often replaced. I will also say that YOUR wording is also vastly superior to such blatant and embarrassing falsehoods which still infect Wikimedia Commons. I would welcome efforts by you to replace falsehoods with accuracy, and think that would be much more useful than quibbling about what I consider rather minor issues of wording. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
If my wording was fine, then why did you revert it? In your efforts to "replace falsehoods with accuracy", please keep in mind Commons:Guide_to_layout#General_considerations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I do keep those guidelines in mind, thanks, as should all contributors here. As to why the revert: Yes, I think your wording is much better than misinformation and garbage that infest many misedited paged on Commons, but I thought it was not quite as accurate as my wording. I consider your wording less specific and clear than mine. While I don't particularly see why you think your specific way of wording things is so important that you need to expand major efforts to remove mine and replace it with yours, as long as your wording is not inaccurate I am not inclined to argue about it. However I don't understand the point in edits like this of yours - making the language less specific. Why? Puzzled, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Seriously - if you really think I am a "vandal", I think your best course of action would be to report me at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism, and perhaps propose all of my uploads for removal at Commons:Deletion requests. If not, I'm at a loss to understand why you seem to be spending time searching for edits by me and reverting or removing them. If you really have some issue with my edits, I would appreciate a serious calm discussion without hyperbole. Thanks much. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't really understand why you think what you're doing is appropriate, and I know you've been called on it in the past, but I have no confidence that reporting you would accomplish anything and have no reason to propose your media for deletion. I've tried to explain my concerns with editorial commentary like "transwiki trivia", and surely anyone with common sense would realize that "a picture of something that the person who uploaded it cares so little about that they don't think it worth identifying" is an unhelpful description of an image, right? You've added comments like these to hundreds of media. They lack neutrality, are often uninformative, and are confusing to those unfamiliar with your reasoning / the background. I happened to see one when reviewing images for an article at, and my immediate assumption was that the page had been vandalized. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
That edit is an example of my sense of frustration leaking into my editing, I admit, and hardly consider it typical of my edits. But note that what was there before my edit was even worse. (My caption wasn't useful - except as an attempt to prompt the uploader to fix the shameful mess they left. What was there before didn't even do that much.) I think much more typical are my edits in such cases are the example posted before [1]. What is your problem with this? Is there anything in my edit that is not a massive improvement on what was there before? Do you have a better solution for fixing such examples of images with blatant false information and garbage descriptions? Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, that description is editorial and not helpful to the viewer who is unfamiliar with the background. "Transwiki upload", another one you've used, is preferable, or removing any verbiage about "original" that you object to (and not adding "UNoriginal"), or even removing the whole thing. I get that you get frustrated, but these types of edits are not the best way to deal with that - and that one you agree was a poor choice, while perhaps not typical of all of your edits, was not an isolated example. When you find yourself writing that something is "garbage and lies", even in an edit summary, that's probably a good indication that you need to step away for a bit. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you really not able to figure out anything useful to do than follow me around and re-edit things I've edited to substitute some less specific language you prefer for my wording? -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following you around, actually, I'm simply searching for distinctive key words and phrases: "totally unoriginal", "in no way whatsoever", "deriviative", etc. But I do consider it important that media description pages have some level of professionalism, don't you? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Caiman skull.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Caiman skull.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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Gretarsson (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Nikkimaria".