Open main menu

thanks for thatEdit

thanks - I do hope you reverted the item - there are indeed mistakes at times JarrahTree (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Possible_geometric_interpretation_of_IM_67118.pdfEdit

The file mentioned in the subject heading was in use in the Wikipedia article IM 67118, and has just been deleted. I now see that there was an alert sent a month ago to my Wikimedia Commons talk page about the proposed deletion, but I somehow failed to notice it. As far as I can tell, there was no alert in my Wikipedia account. I didn't realize I should have been checking for alerts in Wikimedia Commons as well. At any rate, the article is now missing a key figure. How should I proceed? My apologies for the trouble my inattention has caused. Will Orrick (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Will Orrick: I've undeleted the file for now - I somehow missed that it was in use. If possible, the diagram should be in .SVG format rather than .PDF format - the MediaWiki software doesn't thumbnail PDFs very well. It looks like you created it in TeX; there may be a package to allow export directly to SVG, or you could use Inkscape to do the conversion. If you're able to do that, just upload the SVG as a new file and replace it in the article, then let me know and I'll then delete the unneeded PDF.
As for not being alerted, that's curious. You should have gotten a notification (the bell icon) about a new talk page message. Go to en:Special:Preferences and see if the "Show notifications from other wikis" button is checked. You can also go to Special:Preferences here on Commons and enable emails for talk page messages. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the file. My TeX installation doesn't seem to have the capability of producing .svg files directly, so I'll have to investigate your other suggested option. Another question: is it acceptable/desirable to upload the .tex source?
On Wikipedia I am receiving notices from other wikis, but not alerts. Notices and alerts seem to use the same preferences settings. Or am I mistaken about this? The "Show notifications form other wikis" button is checked, and I assume this should apply both to notices and to alerts. Will Orrick (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I discovered a macro that allowed my LaTeX implementation to export .svg, and I have now included that version in the Wikipedia article. The results aren't quite to my liking: the information that the edge labels should are mathematics and should by typeset in in a mathematical font seems to have been lost, and there is a white and gray checkerboard background when I click on the image. But overall, I can live with it. I'm not sure whether some of my problems are due to the fact that the macro I used produced a .css file to accompany the .svg file, which I had to eliminate to get the file to upload. Will Orrick (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Will Orrick: Very nice work! I made a few changes in Inkscape - italicized the text, added a white background (that checkered background you see is the software indicating that the image has a transparent background), and made it display bigger. Okay to delete the PDF now?
I think you're correct about the notifications. Might be worth a post on en:WP:VP/T where editors more knowledgeable than me could help. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this. You can delete the .pdf now. I've just realized that notifications from other wikis aren't archived on Wikipedia: once you read the message, it no longer appears in your list of read messages. Probably I did receive that alert last month—I must have accidentally marked it as read without reading it. Will Orrick (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

What does "MD" mean?Edit

There is some discussion on the Finnish Wikipedia with regard to this deletion. What does the phrase "by MD" really mean? I gather that English is not the first language of User:E4024, so the sentence probably could be re-phrased like this: "I doubt that the file in question really is "own work" as claimed by the uploader. I have based my assumption on "MD" (a Commons policy? a doctor?) and the fact that the uploader has previously uploaded copyright violations". Since you deleted the file, you must have understood the cryptic abbreviation. --Pxos (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pi.1415926535! Pxos beat me here, I was going to ask if you wouldn't mind explaining why the image in the DR was deleted? I believe it was a picture of a cat and it was in use on the uploader's user space in Finnish Wikipedia. It didn't seem to be a professional image and according to the user it's his cat. I promised the user that I would ask why it was deleted. -kyykaarme (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That image should not be restored. Original uploader said that image might be taken by him/her, but not sure. So license is invalid. --Vaivihkaa (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what "MD" was supposed to mean in the DR. However, the image was definitely previously published here by 'Tiitus Röholm' - the same author to which the uploader attributed it. The metadata and small size also indicate that the image was taken from a Google search, rather than from the original file. If 'Tiitus Röholm' and User:James Chudrie (who indeed has uploaded several other copyvios) are one and the same, they still need to send OTRS permission because of the previous publication. I apologize for not explaining all of this in my original close. If you are not convinced, feel free to file a UDR to get other eyes on it. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
They are the same, he changed his username from TR to JC. I think I'll advise him to upload another image of his cat if he still wants to upload one, it's simpler that way. It's only for his personal use, but I believe editors are allowed to have a couple of images in their own user space. Thanks for the explanation! -kyykaarme (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. Yes, a few personal images for userspace use are allowed on Commons for active contributors (as he certainly is). He'd be advised to add it to Category:User page images to make its use more clear. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible misunderstandingEdit

Sorry to disturb you, I am not harassing Patrick Rogel. I just want clarity. Today, he nominated two of my files for deletion. He pointed out something and I showed him that his assumption was incorrect. He then retracted that reason and placed another one there. I want to speak to him and discuss his meaning. I am referring to this. He sees the notifications but he is basically ignoring them. I don't like to be ignored. I always enjoy having discussions with Wikipedia and Wikimedia users. Can you please look at this. This deletion request has disrupted my entire evening. Kind regards. Lefcentreright (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Users are not required to respond immediately to pings - even if they are active doing other things on the wiki. Pinging someone four times in a row (within an hour) and interrupting other posts they make are not remotely acceptable behavior. Neither is opening a COM:AN report merely because a user filed an entirely legitimate DR. (And frankly, I see why he's not responding - there's no need for him to. He's said all he needs to.) You need to calm down, stop hounding Patrick, and be more careful when uploading images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I was entirely calm, just frustrated. I did not mean to hound Patrick. I still do not believe it is a legitimate deletion request. It is licensed under the Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) license. The Flick Reviewer Bot confirmed that. I don't see why it can be considered for deletion. How can it be considered for deletion? Please do tell me. I always try my best to improve and add images to Commons. I just cannot see why it is an "entirely legitimate DR". If those images were fully protected by copyright all rights reserved, the Flickr account would surely not have published it under the CC BY 2.0-license. All the images on the account are published under that specific license (CC BY 2.0). The photographer and author of the images, Marianne Weiss, gave the account "The Official CTBTO Photostream" the proper permission to publish it under that license. In the description of the mage, it reads: "Photo courtesy of Marianne Weiss, www.weissphotography.at/". In the EXIF it reads: "Copyright Notice - (C) Marianne Weiss, www.weissphotogaphy.at" You can look at the photo here. (Please do then you will understand my point) Lastly, I am quite disappointed. I raised that COM:AN because I wanted other people to discuss the DR. You took the liberty to close it. I doubt you even looked at the image at the link. You just saw my replies and assumed that I was harassing Patrick. I just wanted him to clarify, because it wasn't his initial deletion reason. I felt that he didn't say enough. I want clear reasoning. Can you maybe put our partisanships aside and just resolve this issue peacefully, please? It would greatly be appreciated. Thanks for reading this. Lefcentreright (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of how you were feeling, pinging someone four times in an hour and interrupting unrelated threads is not acceptable behavior. If you cannot acknowledge that, then your attitude is not suitable for Commons.
Evidence is required that the photographer actually gave permission for the CTBTO to republish it under the CC-BY 2.0 license. That cannot be determined from the flickr license alone - a direct statement from the photographer (or proof that they have directly released it elsewhere under that license) is needed. In many cases, a photographer gives permission for a photograph to be republished, but has not explicitly given permission for that republication to be under the Creative Commons license that the republisher uses - and that appears to be the case here. That is an entirely legitimate reason for a DR, and there is no need to be up in arms about it.
I closed your AN case because it was ridiculous. Nothing about the DR requires any special attention other than your unacceptable behavior. Your assumption that I did not actually look at the image or the DR is entirely false; in no case would I close the AN report without due diligence. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I aaccept I was wrong. Should I go through the OTRS-system to get the license approved? Lefcentreright (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, OTRS with a statement from the photographer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I appreciate it. Lefcentreright (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, there. Can you please remove the deletion request on the image File:Minister Naledi Pandor delivering speech, June 2015 (cropped).jpg & File:Minister Naledi Pandor delivering speech, June 2015 (cropped).jpg? A user named Alexis Jazz said at the Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minister Naledi Pandor delivering speech, June 2015 (cropped).jpg that it is in fact COM:NOTCOPYVIO, because " © is not a problem nor incompatible with the free license." Even Mr Rogel agreed. Thanks in advance.
The problem that it is not clear whether the photographer themselves released the images under that license is not solved. Unless you can prove that, I have no choice but to close the discussion as delete. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Declining unblock requestsEdit

Hello. According to COM:BP, "requests made on user talk pages may only be declined by an uninvolved administrator". Hence, I think you should not decline the unblock requests by users whom you have blocked yourself. Of course, you can oppose with their unblock request, but the unblock request should remain open for review by uninvolved admins through Category:Requests for unblock. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, whoops. I'll undo my decline and leave it as a comment instead. Are you sufficiently uninvolved as to be able to take a look? Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had some sort of "squabble" with the user a few months ago. Although I do not think that I am involved or have conflict of interest, I prefer not to intervene. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

SlowkingEdit

Hi Pi.1415926535, I was asked to remove all user-rights from the Slowking account, of which he has 3 or 4. However, is this usual and/or necessary with a blocked account? I am asking you, as you blocked him. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good question - I don't think there's a specific policy on that. I can't recall seeing that done before, so probably not necessary. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Piers in San FranciscoEdit

FYI

Evrik (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks great! Do note that the early history of the piers is very confusing - several of the numbers have existed multiple times, and sometimes in different locations. (Before about 1910, the piers within about a mile of the Ferry Building were more closely packed.) That renumbering is why there's a number of gaps. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

File:San Francisco 2012 2.jpgEdit

Not sure why you deleted this with no warning? If it's the statue on the left, then I can crop that out? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was cleaning up Category:San Francisco, which is mostly abandoned flickr transfers - I should have pinged you to see if you wanted to crop it. I've undeleted the image for you to crop. (It's a very nice shot, by the way - it captures the foggy mood well.) Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I've cropped it, is it OK now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
BTW, if that statue is a problem, then you might want to have a look at Category:Madonna by Benny Bufano (Fort Mason)... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, well. Looks like this whole thing is on me for not doing my research. The statue is from 1962, so it almost certainly qualifies as {{PD-US-no notice}} (I can check in person, but the odds that a 1962 statue has a copyright notice are rather low). You can go ahead and undelete the original version, and I'm very sorry for taking your time! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Jgross17Edit

Why did you block this editor? —Beetstra (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on the enwiki contributions evidence, and their one upload here, I'm fairly confident this is a Slowking4 sock. I left talk page access on the off chance that it's a false positive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pi.1415926535".