Open main menu
B216 bei Sonnenuntergang.jpg I am taking a part-time wikibreak from the following topics:
1) Princess Meridia uploads (including uploading -wm versions)
2) deleting any files (listing for future RfD is ok).

I am allowed to edit five Princess Meridia files per day.

If found violating this break I should be slapped firmly in the head with Roger's sizely salmon.
Commons Administrator.svgThis user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)
fi
en-4
sv-2

Archived user talk -2011 2012-2013

Contents

TUSC tokenEdit

344b18b6314b57c5011343f5908efa36


https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Burmese_(horse)&diff=next&oldid=59354031Edit

Hi Pitke, I was wondering wat cateogry-bot does. Thank you for your time.Lotje (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Category-bot used to imagine categories such as "1982 animal births" were for humans, resulting in all kinds of miscategorisations. It's been a while though. --Pitke (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it adamantly added "people by name" categories to animal categories with animal birth/death year cats. See here. --Pitke (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Maps of fictional EarthEdit

Unfortunately, this name is somewhat equivocal or ambiguous in wording... AnonMoos (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wanted rosesEdit

I added all rose cultivar articles missing a picture I noticed on your list - hope that's fine with you...
just thinking... perhaps I/we should create a 'puplic' subpage of Rosa cultivars, where people could add rose pictures they are looking for - and hopefully also see which ones we'd really like pictures of... what do you think?
All the best, Anna reg (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the page, that really saved me a lot of work :3 As for a public list, I suppose we should just use the existing alphabetical galleries and add an noinclude section for links to missing cultivar galleries with breeder + year info as available. --Pitke (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Amber_ShadaiEdit

   FDMS  4    12:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

File:A Close-Up of Sunny Lane's Ass at AEE.jpgEdit

How do you explain this out of process deletion? This image is in scope of Sunny Lane, Red clothing, Close-ups of female human buttocks and Adult Entertainment Expo, was posted by joanna8555 at http://flickr.com/photos/36162362@N03/4412280199. It was uploaded by Electroguv to Commons in 18:28, 30 May 2011 and reviewed on 30 May 2011 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0. So undelete this file and if you think this file is out of scope nominate it to DR as out of scope is not a reason to speedy deletion. Tm (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As a low-quality buttocks-only close-up of a person of whom we have a better quality, wider shot in the exact same clothing (and pose, even) to take up whatever use (none) it was doing in any of its scopes, I liken it to similarly low-quality close-ups of any other highly sexualised body parts. If you don't find this reason satisfactory, please let me know and I'll restore the file to DR it properly. --Pitke (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2014 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Geagea (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Before you get slapped withEdit

another salmon: Could you have a look at File:Icon agouti.gif and such in Category:Dog icons? Seems the source got lost in transit and now your icons show up in Category:Images without source. Thanks a bunch! :-)) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the heads-up. --Pitke (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry to disturb you, I found a few more here: [1], starting with a horse. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

CaviesEdit

Hallo Pitke,

you created Category:Tortoiseshell cavies and Category:Tortoiseshell variant cavies. Is the last one really necessary?

To get an overview over American and European breeds I recently created:

Maybe you can help with a riddle: Teddy cavies. The EE knows the "US Teddy" and the "Swiss Teddy". The ACBA the "Teddy" and the "Teddy Satin". Category:Teddy cavies could be a disambiguation, but there are 3 to 4 breeds... How'd you handle that?

{{disambig}}
'''Teddy cavies''' might refer to:
* [[:Category:Teddy (US cavy)]], US "Teddy" breed in Europe
** [[:Category:Teddy (cavy)]], US "Teddy" breed
** [[:Category:Teddy Satin]], US "Teddy" breed
* [[:Category:Swiss (cavy)]], Swiss "Teddy" breed

For others I planed this scheme: European: Category:Peruvian cavies with {{cat see also|Peruvian (cavy)|Peruvian Satin}} --PigeonIP (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the other issues are more complicated and I'll need to think about them more, but as for the tortoiseshell variant cat, yes I think it is necessary or at least user-friendly. AFAIK the only cavies that are "actually" tortoiseshell (i.e. get to be called that) are those with pure red and black pigments. Any others, although genetically variants of the tortoiseshell, are called simply "bicolor" or "tricolor" depending on whether they have white or not, and sorted by whatever colours their patches are. (We really have quite a small collection of cavy photos, I might go Flickr-mining today.) --Pitke (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.
Bicolor and Tricolor may be Category:Bi-colour cavies and Category:Tricolour cavies.
I asked the EE per mail, if they donate some photos. It got forwarded to Evelyne van Vliet. p.14–95 --PigeonIP (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Bicolor and tricolor cats should follow the form and spelling that are used for virtually every other cat with those words. Here's hoping the EE greenlight some nice piggy pics! -Pitke (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

gallery modeEdit

Hallo Pitke,
I saw that you are changing the gallery mode of some rose cultivar offspring galleries. I think that it's better if all galleries on a page have the same mode (but not necessarily the same size). What do you think of 'Ophelia' and 'Condesa de Sástago'? In the latter I made a separate gallery for upright pictures to have them as prominently featured as the ones in landscape format. Anna reg (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My only qualm about having the same mode for all galleries on the same page is that when browsing short (1-3 images) with a larger screen, the centered alignment of the otherwise superior packed mode looks weird. -Pitke (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I know what you mean - the smaller === headlines === look especially weird. And I just tried, align="left" doesn't work. Another thing I really don't like, is that to have the pictures reach both borders without changing the gap width (much), the rows have a different height, making it difficult to choose a good height, as the results will vary - and you get a strange effect, if you narrow or broaden your browser window. Anna reg (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

LuokitteluEdit

Moi, ja kiitos erittäin ahkerasta luokittelusta. Lisäsit Halikonlahden luokkaan Birdwatching in Finland. Halikonlahti on varsin laaja alue ja pääasiassa vain sen perukka, Viurilanlahti, on alue jossa käy lintuharrastajia ja siellä on lintutorneja. Suurin osa Halikonlahden luokastahan on aivan muita kuvia kuin lintuharrastukseen liittyviä. Täten en pidä tämänkaltaista luokittelua mielekkäänä, mutta ymmärrän kyllä pointtisi tässä. Tarkoituksenani on luoda tänne luokka Important Bird Areas (IBA) ja siitä edelleen maittain. Toinen erillinen luokitus on Finnish Important Bird Areas Suomen tärkeät lintualueet (FINIBA). Ne voisi ehkä lisätä sitten myös luokkaan Birdwatching in Finland. Lisäsin Birdwatching in Finland luokkaan Birdwatching towers in Finland. tässä tullut joku väärä koodi. –Makele-90 (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Joo monet näistä luokista on vielä "vaiheessa" koska sisältöä ei oikein ole tarpeeksi että tarkempi luokittelu olis järkevää tai siitä jaksaisi. Siksi "Birdwatching in Finland" käsittää lähinnä parin lintulahden luokat just nyt. Pitihän mun joskus tehä joku tommonen IBA-luokitusrakenne tänne mut jäi tekemäti. Katotaan jos tulis tehtyä tällä kertaa kun on nyt täälläkin tullut juttua aiheesta, saattais jopa muistaa. --Pitke (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Lajit SuomessaEdit

[Species in Finland categories]

Taidat olla luomassa kattavaa luokkapuuta Suomen lajeista. Jos projekti onnistuu, eli luokkiin saadaan edustavasti sisältöä, siitä on varmasti hyvinkin paljon hyötyä. Minua kuitenkin askarruttaa miten välivaihe toimii.

Olen monasti muissa yhteyksissä löytänyt tarvitsemani luokan Commonsissa, mutta vain vähän kuvia. Eihän kaikesta ole vielä kattavasti kuvia täällä. Mutta sitten, toisessa yhteydessä, löydän kuvan jota olin ollut etsimässä. Kuva on ehkä luokiteltu, mutta toisessa hierarkiassa (esim. toinen käsittelee talvea ja toinen lunta ja Suomesta sitten on "talviset maisemat" ja "lumiset maisemat", ilman kytköstä ja ilman järkevää työnjakoa). Kun kohtaan tällaisia, yritän luoda puuttuvat kytkökset, vähintään {{cat see also}}-mallineella.

Luokka Kuuset Suomessa sisältää nyt kolme kuvaa, joista mikään ei ole kovin edustava. Suomea tuntematon ei välttämättä hoksaa, että sadoista muista luokista löytyy kuusia joka toisessa kuvassa (vastaava tilanne on Suomen puutalojen kohdalla: vain tusina taloa on luokiteltu puutaloksi).

Jos kestää ennen kuin luokka itsessään saa kattavasti sisältöä, mielestäni on kohtuullista antaa vinkki luokkaan törmäävälle siitä, mistä kuvia kannattaa etsiä. Meillä on huomattavasti paremmat edellitykset antaa vinkkejä kuin mitä ulkomaisella Commonsia tuntemattomalla käyttäjällä on etsiä kuvia omillaan. "Nature of Finland" on tietenkin turhan laaja luokka, mutta en äkkiseltään keksinyt parempaa - ja kuusia varmaankin löytyy suurimmasta osasta alaluokkia.

Onko muuten missään ohjeistusta siitä, miten näitä luomiasi luokkia pitäisi käyttää? Käyn melko usein läpi luontokuvia Suomesta ja lajiluokkien lisääminen kävisi sillöin tällöin luontevasti siinä sivussa. Yritätkö saada luokkiin rajoitetun määrän hyviä kuvia vai pitäisikö jokainen kuusimetsän (ja ehkä sekametsän?) kuva liittää kuusi-luokkaan? Miten mustikat, kanervat ja poronjäkälät?

--LPfi (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Mjoo kyllä, näin on. Pyrin siihen että kaikkiin luomiini luokkiin tulee kohtalainen sisältö. Jotkin luokat ovat niin keskeisiä (esim. Picea abies in Finland) että uskallan luoda ne jo ennen kuin olen kerännyt "tarpeeksi" sisältöä mukaan koska sisältöä on ihan takuulla tulossa aikanaan. Muita luokkia seuloessani sitten valikoin en suinkaan kaikkia kuvia joissa kuusia vilahtaa, vaan hyvälaatuisia tai muuten edustavia esim. vaihtelevine kuusibiomeineen, -muotoineen, sellaisia joissa näkyy Suomelle tyypillistä ympäristöä tai muuta lajistoa, jne. Kuusikuvia kuitenkin on niin perhanasti. Samaan tapaan toimivat pitkälti muutkin lajiluokitukset. Kaikkien kuvien ei suinkaan tarvitse olla lähikuvia, joissa koko yksilö näkyy selkeästi. Esimerkiksi miljöökuva on ihan ok, jos esiintymispaikka on tyypillinen ja kuvassa kuitenkin esiintyy lajitunnistettu yksilö. Jos yksilön sijainti ei ole ihan selkeä, niin Note-toiminnolla voi osoittaa sen paikan.
Siihen, että luokka löytyy mutta sisältöä ei, en oikein voi sanoa muuta kuin että tervetuloa talkoisiin. Luokittelu on sellainen puuha, joka ei täällä lopu. Monet luokat syntyvät niin, että joku luo ne omaan tarpeeseen, muttei jää seulomaan ylempiä luokkatasoja erotellakseen sieltä loppuja aihepiirin tiedostoja tarkempaan luokitteluun. Esimerkki: siirrän luokasta "Trees of Finland" tiedostoja luokkaan "Tilia cordata in Finland". Piipahdan luokassa "Tilia cordata" siirtämässä suomeksi nimetyt tiedostot ja muut ilmiselvät tapaukset uuteen alaluokkaan. En kuitenkaan jää selaamaan kaikkia kuvia, joita luokassa on lajista riippuen kymmenistä satoihin. Tunnen omantunnonpistoksen, koska en saman tien kopioinut maakohtaiseen luokkaan siirtämiäni kuvia asianmukaisiin aiheluokkiin kuten "Tilia cordata - plants", "Tilia cordata - saplings". En edes viitsi aloittaa moista luokittelua, koska muista luokkanimikäytänteistä eroava tapa nimetä luokkia tyyliin "Laji - aihepiiri" turhauttaa ja hämmentää sisäistä insinööriäni.
"Katso myös" -linkit on hyvä idea, koetan muistaa lisäillä niitä milloin kytkös lähiaiheisiin ei ole luokan oma yläluokka tai alaluokka.
Lisäyksenä vielä tuohon mainitsemaasi tapaukseen Lumi Suomessa, Talvi Suomessa -- täydellisemmässä luokkarakenteessa ongelmaa ei olisi, koska suurin osa lumikuvista löytyisi molempien luokkien alla olevasta luokasta Lumi talvella Suomessa. Tai sitten ei-talviset lumet olisi erotettu omaansa ja lumiluokka olisi talviluokan alla koska lumi kuitenkin on ennen kaikkea talvi-ilmiö täällä. Luokittelusta on paljon näkemyksiä. --Pitke (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Juu, talkoita riittää. Luokkien luomisessa vain on se, että ne voivat lisätä työmäärää olematta hyödyllisiä ennen kuin joku on tehnyt työn. Ajatuksesi näistä luokista kuulostavat kuitenkin hyviltä, eikä minulle liene huomauttamista, kunhan aika tietyn luokan luomisesta edes jonkinlaisen sisällön varmistamiseen ei veny liikaa.
Minulla on ollut vastaavaa omantunnontutkiskelua, kun olen joitakin luokkia yrittänyt selventää. Oman haasteensa tuo kieli (mitkä reet, kelkat, ahkiot tai pulkat ovat sledgejä ja mitkä sleightejä?) ja ennestään sekavat hierarkiat (eläinjälkien suhteen luovutin, en uskaltanut ryhtyä suursiivoukseen ilman keskustelua, enkä keksinyt missä keskustella).
Lumi ja talvi Suomessa ovat ongelma, koska emme elä täydellisessä maailmassa. Kahden luokan lisääminen melkein jokaiseen Suomen talvikuvaan on työlästä ja jäisi useimmilta tekemättä. Siksi luokat pitäisi jotenkin yhdistää (ehkä ehdottomallasi tavalla), mutta se taas tuo ongelmia kansainväliseen symmetriaan. Helpoin tapa on tuo "katso myös", jonka avulla kuvat löytyvät vaikka luokkarakenne olisi hiukan sekava ja kuvat vain osassa luokkia.
Kuusille kannattaisi varmaankin luoda galleria (Picea abies in Finland tms.). Hyvä lajitelma hukkuu nopeasti, kun muut alkavat käyttää luokkaa, mutta galleriassa se säilyy ainakin kohtalaisesti, koska siihen ei lisätä kuvia sattumanvaraisesti. Toki luokastakin pitää huolehtia, mutta ainakin galleriaan "pelastetut" kuvat löytyvät helposti.
--LPfi (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Geochelone_carbonaria_in_zoosEdit

FakirNL (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New YearEdit

Happy new yeaaar, a 2015 of good things, wishes happy holidays --Pava (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2015 (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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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:

Martin H. (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your updated colors on {{By color}}Edit

Thanks for your updated colors on {{By color}}, Pitke. They do look better than the standard web colors. If it isn't too much to ask, though, would you mind updating the colors in {{Bicolor}} and {{Tricolor}} accordingly? It would be great to keep the colors consistent across all three universal templates. Thanks for considering it, at least. Michael Barera (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem at all. --Pitke (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your quick response and color-related improvements. The templates all look much better, thanks to you. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
^__^ --Pitke (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

wanting to help, but...?Edit

Hi Pitke, got your message at en.wiki that a lot of the files I uploaded from Flickr didn't transfer over with the best tags (I used the default flickr tagging, mostly) I'd like to help, but I'm having trouble figuring out how to refine a search here to, for example, "files uploaded by Montanabw in category "horse"" If you can help with that, I have recently figured out how to use cat-a-lot and would be glad to fix. Can you ping me at my talk page here on commons with any advice or suggestions? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

INeverCry Blocked - Serious or Joking?Edit

I noticed that the account of User:INeverCry has been blocked for "abuse of admin tools, baseless accusations, disruptive editing." If I'm not mistaken, this admin has already announced his/her retirement from Wikipedia, although that may be a joke in itself. Perhaps you are participating in some sort of inside joke by blocking the user? Please help me understand what's going on here! Thanks, --BDS2006 (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would never block a user as a joke. One block reason I did not remember to enter while blocking was pointiness: admins mustn't block users for sockpuppetry based on no disclosed proof. The block I issued is temporary and rather short, unlike the infinite block INC had placed on themselves on grounds of "Intimidation/harassment". In light of recent discussion on Russavia's sockpuppets and so on, I think this indefinite self-block was not a genuine "leaving forever" autoblock (AFAIK, Commons does not grant users blocks on their own request even if they want to abandon an account forever). Rather, it seems to me the autoblock was a part of a pointy demonstration that went something like this: 1) "these users are Russavia's sockpuppets or cronies, no one else is going to block them so I will" 2) "and here's the block the Secret Cabal will give me when they catch me so I'll save them the trouble and block myself". The edit summary ICN left as they deleted their user page supports this assumption rather heftily. I hope that in a month's time they will have calmed down and will be able to discuss the situation in a constructive way. However my experience on Wikipedia is that users who start acting out or being pointy due to beliefs of a Secret Cabal do not have a favourable prognosis.
I personally view my block action not only as a block but as an amendment of an overly long block made based on wrong reasons. I'll copy this comment on their talk page for clarity. --Pitke (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Poistetun kuvan palautusEdit

Moi, voitko palauttaa kuvan File:pauli_vahtera_wikipedia.jpg. Olen käsitellyt kyseisen kuvan OTRS-luvan. –Makele-90 (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Tehty. --Pitke (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hienoa, kiitos! –Makele-90 (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RevertEdit

I only meant to revert the bot's archiving of the AN/U regarding Magog the Ogre. The other one is still on the archive page. Fry1989 eh? 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay. I didn't see a corresponding edit in your history or an edit summary so I hastily assumed. --Pitke (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please complete templateEdit

Hiya Pitke: If you're going to keep an image, like Commons:Deletion requests/File:(north) Ballachulish Church 1829.JPG, please be sure that you provide a source for the image, otherwise it ends right back up in image without a source and the problem is not solved. I'd point out there is no proof to any of the following "Photo taken circa 1890. Photographer unknown. We don't know when the creator of this image died." If we do not know the photographer or the source, we cannot confirm and 1890 photograph. This looks in much too good quality to be pre 1900. Would you please take another look at this totally unused file and see if you can complete the information, else perhaps consider reclosing this "not kept". Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance. That was a serious oversight by me. --Pitke (talk) 07:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the change. Cheers!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Must these files be deleted?Edit

Hi Pitke, I'm just sending you this message cause you just archived this DR. Could you say me, from your if the following files are in the scope of Commons : Paula (2).jpg and Beba (5).png? I'm in doubt, and think, especially, the second file may be deleted, because of it is an explicit file. Thank you, regards --Hannah ma bestah (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the film has articles in the Italian and Lithuanian wikis so it would seem the screenshots are within the project scope even if explicit. The film is erotic after all so erotic stills are natural. --Pitke (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you <wiki>{{</wiki>:D<wiki>}}</wiki> --Hannah ma bestah (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism is not appreciatedEdit

العربية | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Tok Pisin | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−


  
You have vandalized the content of Wikimedia Commons. Please stop. If you continue making inappropriate edits you may be blocked from editing Commons. You may test freely in the sandbox.

Stop editwarring. In case of dispute, ask a third party. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Yann (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of my manners, but I feel compelled to mention that you could have simply typed your custom text with a "knock it off" and saved yourself from the entire template application hassle. yes I'm being a brat --Pitke (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Personal_defenseEdit

Sanandros (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply:Thanks butEdit

Hello.I am working on some Media needing categories.I want to empty and delete some sub-categories.The files are always located.And any shareholder can re-review it.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be civilEdit

العربية | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | Українська | +/−


 
You are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. If your behaviour is not moderated, you may be blocked from further editing.

-- George Chernilevsky talk 17:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me but where have I been uncivil? --Pitke (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The editwarring. You has twice vandalized this file. You can ask me for more information, but not revert edits with my comments. B.t.w., all fungi identification was confirmed in dispute few years ago. You can find this dispute at QI promotion archive page with this picture (really huge page).
With best regards, very friendly and without any sarcasm -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Expressing valid concern (in this case, lack of labelling to pair specimen with species info) is not vandalism. --Pitke (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
(Just a passerby comment) Category:Unidentified organisms and its subcategories are maintenance categories to attract expert eyes so that they get identified. So if a work is already identified to the lowest level maximum possible by viewing a photo (can be a genus or family for small subjects), there is not much meaning in adding it to "unidentified ...". See similar expert opinions here. It is a pity we don't have a good mechanism to identify organisms so far. We're working on it. Any suggestion, help, and participation is highly appreciated. (BTW, I think this edit war is due to a small misunderstanding as many people here believe all organisms here need to identified to species level or added to "unidentified". It can be discussed. So I don't like the edit-war; nor the bold accuse like he vandalized. Personally I don't like admins fight for a small topic hurting each other. Be friendly and help to make a positive environment. Have a nice day to all.) Jee 02:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Girl's_dressesEdit

BethNaught (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Girl's_dresses_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Museum_of_ArtEdit

BethNaught (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pink rosesEdit

Hi, look this correction[2].--6AND5 (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  Boooo !!!! We miss you!! We wish you were more active, please log in soon and help us with the backlog!!
Hope to see you around soon! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Black-eyed_dogsEdit

Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by INeverCryEdit

Hi Pitke,

You may have noticed INeverCry has retired and there are some personal attacks which have been revdelled on his talk page:

<redacted>

It is plain to see that he has "retired" to avoid the consequences of this disgraceful behaviour. I would suggest that you take it to COM:AN/U to have it dealt with it so that he can't simply return as if nothing happened.

On a sidenote, you might like to contact WMFOffice as well given that calling an editor a "cunt" is now grounds for being globally banned by the WMF. 101.186.144.122 18:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • My apologies Pitke. My behavior a few days ago certainly was crappy and embarrassing to say the least. It won't happen again. I ask you to give me one last chance to put this behind me and get back to doing helpful work. I agree that a block would definitely be warranted as a preventative measure if I run my mouth again, but I really don't think that will be a problem going forward.

    I'd also like to address Russavia: Scott, I don't know why I've been such a hardass toward you. I think I took the whole "sock-hunter" idea of adminship and carried it way too far. We never had any problems and got along fine. I wish it was 2014 again, and you and me were still fellow admins. As I say at my talk, I won't be interfering with you or your activity here in any way going forward. I wish you both a Merry Xmas and Happy New Year. INeverCry 21:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please undeleteEdit

These are all linked to from other editor's userpages. Move them if need be, but they should be undeleted please. Sr71a2015 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Erect_equine_penisEdit

Jarble (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Erect_horse_penisEdit

Jarble (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Kuvan poistopyyntöEdit

Pystytkö poistamaan File:Samsung Xcover 2 back open.JPG kuvan aiemmat versiot, koska niissä näkyy sarjanumero? --Zunter (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Piilotin ne. --Pitke (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Kiitän. --Zunter (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Types of Red?Edit

I see you added Category:Types of red to File:Great tit side-on.jpg on 21 January 2015‎. I see no reason why that image should be in that category. Sure, it has a reddish background but that seems super tenuous. Was it a mistake or is there a reason I'm not realizing. Have you added more images of birds to categories of color? Jason Quinn (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It was for the curious shade of red in the background. It's not my habit to add images like these but for a few I've done it for the same reason. --Pitke (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Translation needed:Edit

Hi! Could you please translate this watchlist notice into FI? Thanks in advance! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

[[Commons:Photo challenge]]''': Time to vote for [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Diagonals/Voting|'''Diagonals''' (January)]] and [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - January - Wheels/Voting|'''Wheels''' (January)]]. Submit your entries for [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - February - Mailboxes|'''Mailboxes''' (February)]] and [[Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - February - Reflections|'''Reflections''' (February)]]

ChaperonesEdit

Hi, Pitke, I created the category:Chaperones an now I come across the category:Chaperons (people).   Sorry for that. What to you suggest? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the thing to do is figure out which is the dominantly used form and move the media from the other name under that name, and make the other name a category redirect. It's not an easy question, but I think we could go with the Oxford English Dictionary, which says that "chaperone" is a common misspelling. Chaperons (people) is also clearer for people who aren't fluent in English. If you agree we can merge these categories without further ado. --Pitke (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Thank you.   Lotje (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Mark Cavendish and chaperone, this says it all... Lotje (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't quite follow.... --Pitke (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Me again, why can't I just explain in a proper whay what I want to say  , I mean: if I would have paid more attention to that image before creating the category Chaperone , I would have known, it clearly says: "chaperon" Lotje (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

De-adminship warningEdit

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Pitke, I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2016 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you, odder (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note to self and to anyone it may concern; I have dealt with this. --Pitke (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Are these colours correct?Edit

Hello,

As you are specialized into animal colours, I wanted to ask you whether these colour categories are correct (especially in black&tan dogs there are some that are not completely black in their "black" region): Suomenlapinkoira --Canarian (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll take a look. --Pitke (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hoar_frost_on_treesEdit

Carnby (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Pitke!Edit

Category:Plants damaged by pestsEdit

Terve Pitke,

we should define a clear border between Category:Insect damage and Category:Plants damaged by pests. I'm not sure, how to categorize damages from insects to plants in the moment.--Kémite (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, plants have pests that are not insects, and insect damage can occur on things that are not plants, also plants can be damaged by insects that are not pests; it would be good to have a common subcategory of Plants damaged by pest insects (or similar) for these. --Pitke (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Metadata CommonsissaEdit

Käypä neuvomassa fiwikiläistä tässä jutussa. --Pxos (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

De-adminship warningEdit

This talk page in other languages:

Dear Pitke. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Commons because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Commons:Administrators/Inactivity section/Aug-Sep 2017 within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Commons:Administrators/De-adminship.

Thank you--B dash (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Low_quality_images_of_plantsEdit

Steinsplitter (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Apua ryhmäviestiinEdit

Moi!

Koordinoin WLM:ää Suomessa Wikimedia Suomen kautta ja lähestyin Romainea jotta voitaisiin lähettää osallistujille viesti palkintojenjakotilaisuudesta. Tämä ei ole vielä edistynyt, oletettavasti koska hänellä on kiire, joten minulle ehdotettiin että lähestyisin sinua :). Pystyisitkö laittamaan viestin eteenpäin? Täällä on aiempi viestini.

Kiitos! Tiakangaspunta (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Category:Groups_by_sizeEdit

Josh (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Robbing the deadEdit

Hello.
You had to supply some explanation with Revision of File:Quarter_Horse(REFON).jpg, far beyond an automatic HotCat’s summary. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Idk 'bout robbing or the silent majority, but thanks for catching that. I have uploaded an edited version and confused this one for that. --Pitke (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Cracked shoed hoof.pngEdit

Copyright status: File:Cracked shoed hoof.png

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Cracked shoed hoof.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

RenameEdit

Hi! Please rename this file.--Neriman2003 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Pitke (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Damaged automobiles by type of damageEdit

Hello, thanks for the new categories. Could you make a note on Category:Automobiles with major crash damage, Category:Automobiles with moderate crash damage, and Category:Automobiles with minor crash damage, so that the average person would know how to categorize an image of an automobile with crash damage? I am not sure what criteria to use in this type of category. Thanks for your help Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Pitke (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:FiakersEdit

@Pitke: Hi Pitke. I know from reading something you wrote some long time ago that you too are interested in untangling the images of horse-drawn vehicles. Just over seven years ago you placed this note (below) on category Fiakers. I don't think it is correct. Do you know the source of your information? Please can we talk this through properly seeing we share the interest.

Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: I'm sorry to say, but even though I'm interested in keeping all equestrian categories sorted, in some subareas my expertise falls very short, and fine driving is one of those. It's been a very long time, but it's most likely I looked at either the English WP article or the interwiki links. --Pitke (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but I really do need to discuss these things with somebody and even if you just checked from time to time that you agreed / disagreed with amendments (which I will continue to make for, I am afraid, a long time still to come) I'd be grateful. Not entirely comfortable with your link to fiacres or the see also Victorias. Eddaido (talk) 10:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2017 is open!Edit

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2017 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in R2.

Dear Pitke,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2017 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the twelfth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2017) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top 2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2017.

Round 2 will end on 22 July 2018, 23:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 11:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cultivars_by_generaEdit

Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

FilterEdit

Hi Pitke! The filter error was my mistake. Frankly, I have no idea why you weren't excluded.   Anyway, sorry for the mess!   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There were multiple reports about stupid filter, such as here. Is Hedwig in Washington qualified enough to make live changes to a software serving thousands regulars? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Or as GAndy just put it: "Не ошибается тот, кто ничего не делает." --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories "Caricatures of fashion" and "Cartoons about fashion"Edit

The word "cartoon" had a very different meaning before the mid 19th-century, and is not always applied to things before that time. In particular, classic caricatures -- such as stand-alone single-sheet humorous images, each printed from a metal plate engraved by people like George Cruikshank and James Gillray, then hand-watercolored after printing -- are rarely called "cartoons" by knowledgeable people. Churchh (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm very open to hearing your suggestion for "humorous illustration, with or without visual exaggerations". --Pitke (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
If you consulted an abridged pocket dictionary which only gives one definition of caricature, then that can't override the terminology used by scholars who study people like Thomas Rowlandson and James Gillray. It would have been better if you had consulted someone or something other than an abridged pocket dictionary, since you've now created inconsistencies in category names (such as "Caricatures of crinolines", as well as others). Churchh (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
You have made an incorrect assumption about the reason behind my previous category naming, and repeated your suggestion of having some expertise in the topic at hand. This does not increase my understanding of the terms of art, or propose a solution or an approach to the problem of inconsistent category naming. How do you find my suggestion of "humorous illustrations"? Luckily, the category structure here on Commons only has to serve a largely international, English-non-native-speaking crowd of widely different levels of education--one can only imagine the hassle if the user base extended across history as well. --Pitke (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I am not a professional scholar in this area, but I have a certain amount of practical experience (as you could see from my upload and edit history going back to about 2006) and am very familiar with the terminology used by professional scholars. You should have consulted a suitable area-specific reference work, since whatever one you did consult was obviously inadequate. It would also be a good if you could display a little less arrogance in laying down the law about a language which you are not a native speaker. I don't tell you what correct Finnish is, so maybe things will go more smoothly if you refrain from trying to tutor me in correct English. Churchh (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Plié category in Squats one?Edit

Hello!
If I'm not mistaken, your addition of "Squats" as parent category for the "Plié" one is just an error / a mistyping? Can it be cancelled without problem?
Regards. -- BarnCas (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Ps: maybe did you mean the exercise? But the corresponding WP page talks about "strength training and fitness" and doesn't mention ballet steps. Should the Plié then be really classified in this category? -- BarnCas (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi @BarnCas:, you're quite correct. I'm not a native English speaker, and was under the impression that "squat" is the generic term for a position where a person stands, while deeply bending at the knees. I've fixed the Plié categorising. --Pitke (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention. To be honest, as non-native speaker too, I didn't even know this sportive meaning of squat until I saw it thanks to your categorization. So I thank you also for your contribution to my vocabulary improvement  
Regards -- BarnCas (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Girls of MexicoEdit

Any basis for [3] referring to these as "girls of Mexico"? I agree that presumably their heritage includes Mexican ancestry, but unless you know them personally (I don't) I would not presume that two young people in a parade in Seattle are not from the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this was a Fiestas Patrias celebration in a majority Spanish-speaking neighborhood, but I'd be pretty comfortable asserting that the majority of young people there are U.S.-born. I don't think we would presume a 7-year-old redhead at the St. Patrick's Day parade in NYC was from Ireland. - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was tagging a lot and thought this was an event in northern Mexico. --Pitke (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
People have said that about South Park, part of why I like the place, but we're about 200km from Canada! - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I cannot recognise US locations from photos beyond the rusty hills of California, the swamps of Florida, the Great Plains, and the southwestern desert. --Pitke (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, pretty near impossible to know by "the look of it" unless you just plain know the place. E.g. all of the following are in the smallish city of Tacoma, Washington, and I don't think any of them are even obviously America:
Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!Edit

Dear Pitke,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked.

In the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.

Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Pitke".