TrashEdit

Hello,

I think you (and fellow admins) have missed a few files in my trash bin. The first four files there have been tagged for author deletion since February 11 with no response/action. Once these are deleted, that should complete the curation/downsizing/cleanup of my earliest uploads. Nick Boppel (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Boppel: I've deleted those files. Commons has a backlog of deletion requests; in many cases, it may be several months before they get closed by an admin. Within a week of uploading a file, you can add {{SD|G7}} to the file for speedy deletion which is typically quicker than filing a deletion requests. Ultimately, though, you should be doing your curation prior to uploading. Several of your Shawmut images, for example, are rather blurry, and you should have decided not to upload them in the first place. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Believe it or not, the photos that I uploaded are actually the best ones out of the bunch that I took at Shawmut. It is incredibly difficult to get high-quality photos underground, especially with the MBTA's "no flash" policy. That being said, I do plan on returning for some better photos this week. Nick Boppel (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Boppel: I feel your pain - I've been struggling to get pictures in dimly lit T stations for the last decade. These days I've mostly switched over to using my smartphone camera for interior shots, since it does better in low light (and has better shake correction) than a point-and-shoot. If you still prefer the point-and-shoot, using shorter exposure times (and brightening with GIMP or Photoshop) and/or using burst mode may help you get good shots.
In general, unless it's unlikely that anyone will be able to get a better shot (like a rare event, or a station about to undergo major changes), it's best not to upload a blurry or otherwise lower-than-desired-quality photo in the first place. That's especially true when there are already similar photos on Commons - for example, a non-blurry version of File:Inbound platform at Shawmut station February 2021 (1).jpg wouldn't add much that File:Shawmut inbound platform, November 2015.JPG doesn't already have, and the blurry version certainly doesn't add anything. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, all I can say is "Wow!" I tried out using my smartphone camera on the Red Line the other day, and I was beyond impressed and amazed with the results. Not only did I get much better pictures of the platforms, but I was also able to get fairly good quality photos of the tunnels leading in and out of the station on either end of the platforms - something that I never thought I would be able to get a good photo of. I would never have thought that a smartphone would have a better camera than a professional point-and-shoot, but I've been proven wrong before and I guess I've been proven wrong again. I visited almost every Red Line station between Alewife and Mattapan, and took photos at each station that I actually stopped at. The photos needs some editing, but should be ready for upload soon. The one downside is that the smartphone doesn't have a strong enough zoom to get a clear shot of trains approaching a station in the distance, like what I just uploaded from Jackson Square and Stony Brook. Nick Boppel (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nick Boppel: I'm glad you were able to get better photos, and I look forward to seeing them! One request: when you upload photos of trains, make sure to add the proper category for the rolling stock as well. Blue has only one type of active rolling stock; the three active Green Line types and two active Orange Line types should be easy to visually identify. The Red Line types may be a bit trickier: while the 01800 series and the new 01900 series are easy to distinguish, the 01500/01600/01700 series are nearly identical. If you can't identify which of those three types you photographed, it's fine to use the category for all three. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

AppallingEdit

Are you serious? I can only speak for myself, but I’d not be surprised if many users were, like me, hoping this discussion would be finally an opportunity to oust, or at least formally reprehend, an infamously agressive and unfair admin. Yet, and even after he dropped an N-bomb in that discussion, to further mischaracterize the matter and silence the opposing opinion, all you can do is to compound his errors and threaten the user who complained in the first place?! Besides, as an English native speaker you don’t have the excuse he does for making light of said N-bomb. I’m truely appalled. The other guy is right, b.t.w.: "Moskal" is not even a well known word in Russian, unlike the megaton English slur he used as a supposedly analogous example, and the power relations of the two groups in question are totally flipped in the situation his example implies. ("Gringo", as used by Latin Americans, would be a much better example, though still a poor one.) Basicly, an admin went against COM:FR biased by their patriotism, a user complained, that admin dropped an N-bomb, and you stepped in to say he’s cool and the other guy should shut up or else. So, yeah, I’m appalled. -- Tuválkin 21:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My close was primarily in response to Kazimier Lachnovič stating that they would continue to bump the thread until they got what they wanted. Threatening to continue a discussion indefinitely until someone caves in to appease them is harassment, and a particularly noxious way of making it miserable for another editor. While I do not think Ymblanter's behavior was particularly admirable, in three weeks of discussion there was not a consensus for intervention. I have clarified my close here, including retracting some overly harsh words on my part.
Re the use of that English slur: I don't see him making light of it, but rather using it as a comparison for how serious he believed the Russian slur to be. I agree with you that it's a rather poor example to use for a comparison given its associations, but I don't think it's anything similar to using the word as a slur. (To use your metaphor, it's the difference between using uranium as a counterweight when tungsten would do, and using that uranium as a nuclear bomb). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to clear out the situation. I understand your reaction on my emotional statement, but I would also like you to understand that I'm emotional because of being desperate in finding the appropriate way to stop the things which I believe are totally against the official guidelines of the Wikimedia Commons. First, I need to notice that in order to find an appropriate solution I've asked the advise of community. Maybe I mistaken, but the only real advise I see there is to prove that the censored Belarusian word (not a Russian word, because w:en:Belarusian language and w:en:Russian language are two different languages like English and German, Spanish and French, Polish and Russian etc.) is acceptable in Belarusian language. So I'm focusing on this in my request. In order to understand your point I would like to clarify some questions: 1) Does the Wikimedia Commons allow any unreasonable and arbitrary language censorship or other language discriminations? 2) What exactly in my argumentation of such censorship for a Belarusian word "maskalizacyja" is weak or not clear? Because I have carefully read all the answers I've got from the other administrators and I can't find the exact one. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The primary issue in my close of the discussion was not about the word - I do not have the specific knowledge to make a judgement there - but about your behavior. Your very first communication with Ymblanter was a demand to reverse his action and an accusation; you made no attempt to resolve the issue in a calm manner. In both the Village Pump and Administrators' Noticeboard threads, you posted numerous lengthy comments (often with the exact same arguments), which makes it difficult for anyone else to step in and resolve the issue. I recommend you read this essay on enwiki, which explains why that style of posting is a problem. What finally forced me to step in and close the thread was your threat to continue posting in order to prevent the thread from being archived until you got what you wanted. That threat – and your subsequent choice to copy 700 words onto the file talk page before changing the file description – are not behavior that indicates you wish to be part of a community, nor do they indicate you are open to considering the views of anyone else. I suggest you step back and consider whether the name of a single file, used on a single article, is really worth thousands of words of argument. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to point out, that my emotional reaction wasn't groundless. I have had some experience with the user before as well as some evidence about his prejudge to Belarusian language (like [1] while it is easy to find in w:en:Languages of Belarus that the statement about 95% of the population with the native Russian has nothing in common with the reality). Considering the fact that it was not me, who having admin rights and knowing me (which was admitted in here having in the past dealt with the user [2]) has took an action concerned my contribution (without any attempt of discussion to prevent unnecessary conflict that was quite expected based on the previous experience) it was hard for me to fully assume good faith. As for the word itself, its not about bludgeoning the process. My main and first argument is quite brief and doesn't require any specific knowledge. If some word of some language is accepted by corresponding local Wikipedia Community it should not be censored in the Wikimedia Commons without the proving of abuse by the community first. I still can't find any reasonable objection of this simple true from any participant of any discussion. And I believe that any unreasonable and arbitrary language discrimination is really worth to struggle with it even by thousands of words of argument (which in unnecessarily in a normal situation when the guidelines are not ignored). --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:Removal of categoriesEdit

From what I see, these pictures don't show railway, but former structures related to railway. I think that those 2 categories deleted by me should be related strictly to railway or railway related stuff. Of course pictures are yours, you take them, so it's your choice to bring back those 2 categories or not. --Halavar (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Halavar: They are still railway structures, regardless of disuse, and should be included in those categories. Please do not remove them from any more photos, regardless of the uploader. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

ScopeEdit

Hi. You deleted File:Daima sevgi kazanacak.png as "out of scope" and without a discussion. I understand why you may have found it OoS, if you do not know the politician, whose cat is empty now, due to this deletion. If you had been able to see the files thereat (they were deleted due to being taken from FB) you would know that "Daima sevgi kazanacak" (Love will always win) is the political motto of the mayor of an important urban district in İstanbul. The motto was written (I mean it "is written", but we do not have that image in Commons any more) at the entrance of the Municipality. So it is in scope. Please restore the file. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I've undeleted the file - thanks for the context. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page guidelinesEdit

Hi, I would ask you about something that I noticed with user E4024. He/she labeled to be deleted 2 files I uploaded, I wrote him to talk about it because I followed the same way as many other files that exist on Wikimedia. But, he/she reverted the section I wrote, well I tried again and he/she does it again. That is against this guide line ​Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages? What I can do?--Jjrt (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You can visit the DR page and write your opinion about the files there. This is not a question between you and another user. Indeed one of the deletion requests has already been supported by another user. That means E4024 is not the only user who is of that idea. (BTW I responded to you in my edit summaries. Did you not read them?) Thanks. E4024 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, TP owner. I did not notice I was stalking. I am so accustomed to be taken to ANU or even "Vandalism"! boards after proposing deletion of some users' files that I thought this was a similar page and wrote without thinking I was intruding. This is why I did not even say "hi". Sorry again and all the best (to both). E4024 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm, uh, really not sure what either of you are asking me to do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Jjrt, did you not notice that I am more communicative here, in the cosy TP of a kind host? Why don't you tell me what you want to tell me? Probably you do not want to talk to me but get me punished for proposing deletion of your files? Is it that? Why have you not written even one word on those DR pages in defence of your uploads? Why did you refer to "speedy deletion" in your first talk to me? Is it because you thought re-uploading a recently deleted file would end up in speedy deletion? I did not make any SD call anywhere, just opened a couple of DRs. Maybe I'd rather have acted differently. I mean should I withdraw my DRs? Is it what you want? If you are sure of your case just defend it, there at the DR pages. Thanks for reading. Sorry again for the page abuse. --E4024 (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm only asking you to excuse me for abusing your TP and taking your time; err, uh, eh, ah maybe also to ignore and forget this unnecessary visit. :) E4024 (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Pi.1415926535, let me give some details. E4024 deleted with a reversion the section I added in his/her talk user page 2 times. Firstly, I assumed that it was a mistake from him/her, but the second time, I was shocked because it was unpolite. My question is: That is against this guide line ​Commons:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjrt (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The guideline recommends against removing messages without replying to them, noting that it may be interpreted as rude, but does not prohibit it. While reverting your message was not the wisest course of action, E4024 used an edit summary ("I did not make any speedy deletion request") that should have provided some context to you. E4024 nominated these two files (two copyrighted logos that you falsely claimed as your own work) for regular deletion - not speedy deletion. However, I have speedily deleted them as obvious copyright violations, as they are complex logos that belong to their creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

File:It's me!.jpgEdit

Could you confirm what the evidence was for this being generated at thispersondoesnotexist?

I can only see the assertion of this by BlueCrabRedCrab (talk · contribs · logs · block log). On the original page there was only an Own work claim and no EXIF data. Thanks -- (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

See my response here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's me again! :)Edit

Sorry, I'm disturbing you once more. Why don't you close speedily Commons:Deletion requests/File:IMG-20171115-WA0166.jpg, it is ripe enough... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not yet deletedEdit

Hello, not yet deleted , see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerhard Langenfeld, O.T., (WV 20, Lw 44), 2020.jpg. Kind greetings --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerhard Langenfeld, O.T., (WV 20, Lw 44), 2020.jpgEdit

The images free license permissions seems to be already verified by an OTRS agent. Please renominate if you doubt the ticket validity instead of deleting them with outdated rationale in an already closed DR. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Fake DR flags are here againEdit

Hello and I hope you're having a nice day -

I'm writing because on this deletions discussion, you state the files were deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/Flags of provinces of the Dominican Republic If I see correctly, the same files with same file names were reuploaded the very next day. These are fake flags. The user mentions a law in the Spanish description with "Bajo la nueva ley 301-39, se autoriza el uso de las nuevas banderas p..." but on Justia, a site with the República Dominicana laws, that law does not exist. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: I've redeleted the fake flags and blocked the user. It looks like they also uploaded a lot of copyvio coats of arms over existing files. Those probably have to be manually reverted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll look at their contributions to see what i can do (reverts). Have a nice day. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what was the user name again? Of the one you just blocked... --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@The Eloquent Peasant: Sofaera888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
What is going on with the República Dominicana is not for the faint of heart. Therefore, I'm not sure what I can do there! Thanks for your help with the deletions. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)