Open main menu


   FDMS  4    18:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Would you send me an email so I can reply back about something I wanted to mention offline? I don't see an email link on your page, but even if there were one, the email system doesn't work for me. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  Done. (But I wont be reading or replying e-mail before some 20 h.) -- Tuválkin 01:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Nothing come over, did you send anything? -- Tuválkin 21:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I'll send it again. I'll put a subject of "Email from auntof6" on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Just re-sent it. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Synagogues ⊂ Churches ?

Saluton, Tuvalkin,

vi metis miajn fotojn Hermannstadt, Synagoge, 14.jpeg kaj Hermannstadt, Synagoge, 15.jpeg en la kategorion Square photos of churches. Nu, sinagogoj estas (judaj) preĝejoj, sed laŭ mia opinio church = kristana preĝejo (kirko). Kion vi opinias?

Mi malfaris vian ŝanĝon de Colmar, cercle catholique saint Martin, 4.jpeg‎, tiu konstruaĵo ne estas preĝejo. (Mi malfaris la saman ŝanĝon (de Acabashi) jam en aprilo.

-- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Renardo la vulpo, kiam mi tion faris, mi pensis ke estus jen ne simpla afero. Ja en esperanto "preĝejo" sinonimas kun "templo" ĉar ĝi estas ja "preĝ+ej+o". La iom kutima antaŭsupozo ke "preĝejo" = "kirko", kaj la fakto mem ke tiu lasta estas “neologismo” dum "moskeo" kaj "sinagogo" estas ne (por ne mencii la absurdan ideon ke "templo" estu nepre nekristana), nur montras kiom pezas kristanisma entrudo en la okcidenta socio, eĉ en lingvo kreita de judo.
Mi malpli certas pri la angla lingvo, tamen. Ja "church" kognatas kun "kirko", helenaĵo kiu eniris en la ĝermanajn lingvojn jam kun kristana signifo, kiun ĝi apenaŭ perdis. Laŭ la Vikivortaro "church" estas preskaŭ ĉiam kristana — ĉu do ĉiuj kategorioj pri "churches" devus/devos nestiĝi sub alie samnomaj kategorioj pri "temples"? Mi tion ne kontraŭus, kaj se tiel miaj hodiaŭaj ŝanĝoj estu plu ŝanĝitaj okaze de kreo de meznivela Category:Square photos of temples.
-- Tuválkin 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Dankon pro la respondo. Nu, ekzistas malmulte da kategorioj pri „temples“; pli ofte mi vidas ke „Churches“, „Mosques“ kaj „Synagogues“ estas sub „Religious buildings“, ekzemple en mia urbo. Ne mi faris tion. Al mi la afero ne tro gravas, sed eble judoj ne ŝatas, ke sinagogoj estu sub „Churches“. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Komprenite kaj konsentite: "Religious buildings" ŝajnas tute bona alternativo de "temples" (aŭ eĉ pli vasta tavolo: ja ĝi ankaŭ inkluzivas iajn tombejojn, lernejojn k.s.), kaj eble ni devus ĝeneraligi ĝian uzon kaj klare marki kategoriojn pri "churches" iel sub "Chistianity". -- Tuválkin 13:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Renardo la vulpo: — jen   farite: Category:Square photos of religious buildings. -- Tuválkin 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Trams in Budapest

I am aware that it is probably no coincidence that most subcategories of Category:Trams in Lisbon use the English Wikipedia category naming scheme (Lisbon trams) as opposed to the Commons one (Trams in Lisbon), still, please at least respect the Commons one when creating categories for other cities. I hope you don't object to Category:Budapest trams facing left resp. right getting renamed to Category:Trams in Budapest facing left resp. right?    FDMS  4    15:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I do object, but that has nothing to do with those turf wars between English Wikipedia and Commons, in which, obviously, I have no stake in (to be clear: English is not my native language and my contributions to the English Wikipedia are scarce and mostly pertaining to rail matters). However I don’t agree that Trams in City is better than City Trams to name categories, indeed I find the latter (or its variant Trams of City) way more adequate, the assymetry with other vehicles (such as planes and ships) being intentional and content-bearing. Please refer to this discussion — it’s about time to revive it. -- Tuválkin 10:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 14:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

Your open and clear accusation of racism against fellow editor Ruthven here is just too much. You've gone over the line one more time. There's absolutely no reason to call Ruthven a racist because he opens a mass DR on a blocked sock account. This isn't your playground where you can say anything you want and get away with it. You either owe Ruthven an immediate apology or you can have an extra week of Thanksgiving vacation. I know you pretty well and this accusation of racism surprises even me. He doesn't want brown people on Commons? Are you serious? He speaks Spanish. Wow. I can't believe you sunk that low. lNeverCry 12:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • (She speaks Spanish therefore she cannot be racist? Go on, please… -- Tuválkin 15:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC))
Compounded with the more detailed statement that «Ruthven is an advanced Spanish speaker, so the accusation by Tuvalkin that Ruthven quote "doesn't want brown people here in Commons" is sudden and disturbing.», here. Did you really think this through, INeverCry? Are actually saying that Spaniards and other Spanish-speaking people, of any complexion (some are quite Nordic looking, I’l have you know), cannot be racist just because in your little corner of the world some of them are subjected to oppression? Ever heard of Cortés or Pizarro or, well, Columbus? Ever heard about “morenazis” or the problematic demand of ¡Conmigo habla cristiano!? Do you know anything at all about racism? (Except that it’s bad — a good start, but not nearly enough.) Hmm, and this just in: How advanced a Spanish speaker was the murderer of Trayvon Martin? -- Tuválkin 21:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you want a retractation? I’d be delighted to: I’m a child of the 1970s and I “know” that racists exist only in movies and History books, and maybe in shrinking numbers in a few unenlightened recesses of this ever-improving world, and therefore nobody I ever come across with could ever be an actual racist and presuming racist intentions over any action or statement from anyone could only be a bad-faith insult. That’s what I thought till relatively late in my youth and I yearn to that state of blissful innocence. So, okay, I’m perfectly happy to presume nobody in Commons is a racist and I’ll gladly accept that this reopened DR was motivated by the reasons Ruthven stated and not by any hidden or uncounscious agenda. I can even try to convince myself that the epidemy of DRs disproportionally directed against photos of brown people are all due to all kinds of other reasons and not to racism — after all, those DRs can be (and often are) closed to be kept by using racism-unrelated counter-arguments, and possible reusers end up with suitable diverse imagery at their disposal (which is what matters to me most, in my curatorial work). -- Tuválkin 16:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I find this remark of yours to be unacceptable. We do not need such conduct on commons. If multiple people find your conduct to be problematic, you ought to reflect on your conduct. It makes it very easy to dismiss your intentions and arguments on the grounds of racism and indefinitely block you. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood. By the way, how do you propose to identify, and deal with, actual racism when it manifestates in DRs that will discretely reduce and/or squew the visibility of non-whites (or of any other human subgrouping) in current imagery? (Saying that «That’s impossible as no DR was ever filed for racist reasons!» is a valid reply, but it is also the current state of affairs.) -- Tuválkin 17:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If someone is making mass meritless (nomination not based on copyright, policy, guideline, etc.) nominations it should be treated as such. I imagine this is your claim. What motivates them isn't that relevant since we do not want such people on the site regardless. So, best practice is treat the merit of the nomination itself. If files have obvious licensing issues etc. they can be safely deleted, if not kept. This is tricky if the individual is gaming around the rules just to be disruptive. If someone is consistently making bad nominations, that can be brought to the attention of the community. Ultimately it is all about consensus. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @とある白い猫/16:, we agree on all that: See #below my reply to Nick. -- Tuválkin 21:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @とある白い猫/16:, you say about racists that «we do not want such people on the site»; I couldn’t agree more but it is really unlikely that none of Commons’ active editors is not one. The main issue, anyway, especially since this is a very filtered and subject-oriented online venue, is not to try to expunge racists amongst our midst but to avoid (by any means, both formative and repressive) expressions of racism, regardless of intention — because they hurt at the recieving end. (In the case at hand the reciever is not one of us but Commons itself: its wealth of, and potential for, depicting human diversity.)
To wit: I’m fully sure that INeverCry is not a racist in any shape or form and yet his sentence above about Spanish-speaking people is highly problematic. Concerning Ruthven, whom, unlike INC, I never crossed paths with before, COM:AGF tells me she cannot be a racist, but her careless DR forces me to ask what’s her problem with brown people anyway.
-- Tuválkin 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would want detailed and exceptionally extensive statistical analysis of a user's deletion nominations before accusing them of racism, I would not expect to find an accusation of racism casually thrown into a deletion discussion, but the exceptionally detailed, extensive, in depth report to be made to administrators at the Administrators Noticeboard, where appropriate investigations can be made. I and I'm sure my fellow administrators are ready to investigate a seriously, properly composed concern of racism which is made in the correct venue. Nick (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I claim there’s such a trend, not that there’s anyone in particular doing it, not blattantly at least. I am saying that Commons, or more exactly the Deletion Requests part of Commons, has a problem with racism, with photographs from specific parts of the World (indeed anywhere outside Europe, North America, and, with luck, Japan and South Korea), especially those depicting present-day local people engaged in everyday activities, get hardest hit by DRs filed on generic reasons, most often the very subjective offscopeness. A sizeable chunk of the (relatively) few such DRs I followed end up being closed as keep, but it is frustrating to see this happening to apparently nobody’s concern.
To have those photos of two Angolan girls being dissed for the third time after detailed dicussion was just one time too many. (F.w.i.w., I first noticed the trend in this DR and its follow-up uDR — the photo remains deleted and the exotification problems I pointed out are not solved. Abkhazians are not brown, by the way, and they are litterally Caucasian — the matter is more one of ignorant, cosmopolitan priviledge than actual racism.)
As for what you and your «fellow administrators are ready to investigate», I’m frankly unimpressed. One of them just wrote in this very blocking rationale that the fact that someone is a speaker of Spanish shows that they cannot be racist… Someone has a lot to learn, and I don’t mean only me.
The «exceptionally extensive statistical analysis» you demand to be done before anything is even discussed openly will never be done, of course. Photos like those I try to “save” will go on being deleted proportionately more than others, and Commons will sadly go on contributing to make less diverse the image the World collectively has of itself.
-- Tuválkin 21:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Nick:. -- Tuválkin 21:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • (Since the DR mentioned above as an example of what sets me off rails also starred a less-than-stellar moment by INeverCry, here’s for fairness another example, this time a DR closed as kept showing INC doing the right thing against the will of bigger fish. -- Tuválkin 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If we accept this claim (which I can't do in the absence of proper evidence) is it not the case that it could be explained by differences in copyright legislation, such as freedom of panorama and restrictions of posting 3D artwork/sculptures, rather than any sort of malicious racism on the part of image nominators. Nick (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That amounts to do exactly nothing. But if you don’t even acknowledge the trend, you cannot even start noticing it. All I can hope is to get at least some of the people reading this (all of whom are of course not racists) to start thinking in this way: See, for instance, Category:Grimacing. There a couple dozens of images there; from a cursory browsing there’s 4 or 5 dark skinned people (from among c.ª 2 billion dark skinned people in the World) and half a dozen Scandinavian surnames in filenames (from among c.ª 50 million people with Scandinavian surnames in the World). Now lets check for DRs asking for the deletion (or plain and simple, and ilegal, speedy deletions) of photos showing grimacing people: how many of those, especially the ones ending in deletion, feature dark skinned people?… (I know I saw a dozen at least, and what I can see is but a drop in the ocean.) -- Tuválkin 23:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Here’s a few more:

(There’s more, but it’s dinner time.) -- Tuválkin 23:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriousness unaddressed?

If Tuvalkin, or any other Commons community member, came to the admin's noticeboard and presented direct evidence of racism, whether it be long-term systematic behavior, direct racial slurs, intimidation, deletion requests, etc, this would be a very serious matter. The person being accused of racist behavior, would, I expect, be facing an indefinite block/ban from Commons. If Tuvalkin really though that such a serious problem was taking place, why would he make comments at a deletion request rather than bringing it to COM:AN/U? Racist people are usually racist toward a whole race or group of people, so if Tuvalkin really believed Ruthven posed this kind of threat, wouldn't he want to get admin attention immediately to protect the community? My point is that Tuvalkin is a long-time editor with more than enough experience to know that making accusations of racism in a deletion request is inappropriate (as inappropriate as it gets if there's no evidence to back up the claim) and at very best not the right venue. Someone with Tuvalkin's experience should know that a serious accusation of racism should be brought to a noticeboard like AN/U or ANB so that administrators can address the issue. I don't know about anyone else around here, but If I thought systematic racism was being used by a Commons editor against other editors, I would build up the evidence and take it to AN. I certainly wouldn't be making accusations at a deletion request where no action can be expected to take place, and where the only point would be to upset or bother someone. lNeverCry 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

In reply to INeverCry:
  1. So many words and yet you don’t say nothing new: The above is just «I cannot believe there’s actual racism around! How dare you say there is?!» repeated many times.
  2. Is your final point that actually I have no serious concerns about the supression of selected imagery showing dark skinned people via DRs as told to Nick above?, that I’m only using that talking point as a random pretext and that my actual goal all along was to insult Ruthven and annoy you? Seriously?
  3. Coming to my talk page to refer to me in the 3rd person is right up there on the scale of civility with sentences like «disgusting behavior even from Tuvalkin» (my emphasis). Dully noted.
  4. You said you’d unblock me as soon as I presented an apology to Ruthven. How does that work?
  5. Are you going to follow up in explaining your bizarre statement that Spanish-speaking people cannot be racist?
-- Tuválkin 01:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. Your first statement is just empty nonsense. You should be taking this more seriously. I doubt people who think they've been the victim of racist treatment, as you claim to have been, are so much in the mood for jokes.
  2. So when there's serious racism taking place that affects you, the place to address it is in an individual deletion request? Not COM:AN/U?
  3. I never stated that people who speak Spanish can't be racist, I simply stated something that anyone would notice, which is most racists aren't in the habit of learning the language/s of people they hate.
  4. How does an apology work? You take some sincerity, mix it up with some integrity and honesty, and Viola! there's your apology.
  5. Suppressing selected imagery? I've tagged tens of thousands of images of people who had brown skin for deletion, ditto for people with white and black skin. I tagged them because they didn't meet the requirements of COM:EDUSE or were copyvios. This is what people involved in DR/CSD do. It's not a racist conspiracy.

    I'll give you an example. We get a lot of out of scope and copyvio material coming from people and companies in India. When I delete it, it's not because I hate people from India, it's because I want to get spam and other out of scope material off of Commons. One of the nicest people I know, Jkadavoor, is from India. I would personally love to someday have a chance to spend some time traveling in India, and maybe even to meet him.

    There's no racism in my actions and the same is true of Ruthven. You can come up with all the clever little comments you want to, and do your usual mixing up of words and context to try and make others appear foolish, but people see through this.

  6. You used to be a really good editor, but your editing has grown more and more toxic over the past few years. If it was up to me you'd be banned permanently from editing Commons, but it's not, and it doesn't really matter. You'll get there on your own within the next year or two. I'd really rather you didn't though. You know what one of the things I've frequently thought about you is? I've thought to myself that if you were nicer to people in general, you'd make a good administrator! lNeverCry 02:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have been noticing this case since reported at COM:AN/B. Since accusing someone a racist (wmf:Non discrimination policy) without evidence is a serious offence, I would like to look in the details. "you (and I mean Ruthven in this discussion and many other users in other DRs) don’t want brown people in Commons?" seems more an accusation to many people in Commons than Ruthven alone. If true, and Tuvalkin is agreeing with my stand, I would like to consider this as a mild offence than already considered here.
Regarding the stand that Commons is biased against brown people: I don't think so. We regularly promoting many life moments as featured pictures and many of them are from Asia, South America and Africa too. There is indeed a shortage of good contributions from those places, mainly because of our lack of ability to procure good tools.
Another point is that Commons don't have enough media about people compared to landscapes and other subjects. It is because of COM:PEOPLE; we're helpless in that case.
I randomly checked some photos in that DR. Most of them are Instagram/Facebook style photos usually come under "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on". This is not people photography; I'm telling from my years of experience as a moderator of "People love their life!" and "People love their work!" Flickr groups. We need quality documentation of people around the world. It can't be replaced by some random selfies and snaps taken by friends.
So I suggest Tuvalkin to reconsider your stand about scope of Commons and volunteers here. I think s/he can continue here as a good contributor after this short block/break. Cheers! Jee 04:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Jee: Your interpretation of my words in the Angolan girls photos’ 3rd 4th DR is roughly accurate — my issue is with the suppression of these (and many other such) images, and not at all with who requires said suppression. (I’ll expand on this aspect below.) I’m glad to read you reporting no instance of any bias directed against you in Commons nor against other people, agressions which you could have percieved better than others (incl. me). My point, however, was not about that kind of suppressive behaviour, which would be too blattant to be allowed to endure; my point was about bias against certain types of people as depicted in images subjected to DRs. I invite you (and anybody else), to consider the point I made above concerning Category:Grimacing (which is of course just an example) — do I have a point? Is this a problem? If so, how to improve the situation and eventually fix it? (Don’t feel obliged to reply to me about this at all, of course, but please do consider the issue.)
You raise the matter of COM:PEOPLE, and rightly so, but I disagree that we’re helpless in this case. If indeed that’s the reason why Commons is lacking in people imagery compared with landscapes, then maybe the guidelines should be changed to improve that. (And I should say that my interests are not at all images of people: I arrived here by pure chance.)
You and I seem to have very different ideas of what Commons should be, and that shows on the divergent assessment we make concerning these photos: You seem to see them as «Instagram/Facebook style photos» and I, well, I do not disagree — but I do see also that they are, for now (and very likely for long) our only illustrations of that one city park (or school yard?) in Namibe, of examples of Angolan school uniforms, etc. etc. And that’s paramount for me: Better to have incipient, mediocre coverage, than none at all. I would only not object to their deletion on the face of way more aboundant and photographically excellent material, which we currently lack: As you say: We «need quality documentation of people around the world», and I agree, but I cannot agree with your conclusion: «random selfies and snaps» will have to do while they are all we have. And I do believe that the presence of such less-than-ideal material in Commons may encourage the addition of better ones (that’s true for other topics).
-- Tuválkin 17:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I was away for a butterfly survey at Periyar National Park; just returned. Need more time to read the progress of discussions in the last few days. Jee 04:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Apology to Ruthven

@Ruthven:, concerning my vote in the DR raised by you, and what followed:

  • I have no cause to presume you’re racist, or a racist — my wording was twisted (a bad habit) by what others have termed a «battleground mentality»: I presumed your conscious goal was not to go after photos of brown people and therefore decided to argue my case by trying to shame you, while at the same time, once again, trying to drag people’s attention to what I see as a bias in DRs (as explained above). That was wrong and I apologize for putting you in what I planned as an unconfortable and uneasy position for you. Actually, the only way you’d feel okay with my accusation/callout, was if you were indeed a racist — and that’s clear proof of how counter-productive my “strategy” was: I see that now, and it should be obvious to be much earlier.
  • My concerns, as raised above, are sincere. Everybody, fortunately, seems to agree that the matter of racism is important (or else accusations thereof would not be a serious insult and we would not be here), and while I cannot accept that silencing my concerns has any moral value, I unreservedly agree that I framed it in a way that’s not acceptable (the «thinly veiled» bit is apallingly obnoxious —what was I thinking?!), especially since it was the first time our paths ever crossed in DRs. I owe you an apology for that — and the more right I am in my concern, the deeper my apology must be.
  • I was, and still am, very frustrated about that particular set of photos. A fourth DR seemed overkill and that frustration morphed to anger when I penned my vote. Of course, that’s none of your fault and, at most, I should have said something along the lines of: «Look, I feel there’s an unsettling lack of diversity in our images of people as categorized while too many DRs seem to affect images of “people of color”. Are you sure you want to add to that trend with this DR?» For not having done so (which is still pretty agressive, but at least it’s closer to what I would ever allow myself in normal conditions), I apologize.
  • I had no idea that, as you informed in the DR, when one uses «the tool for bulk operations, you aren't necessarily aware of past deletions; my mistake on the method, not on the form». Well, it was my mistake to, in a knee-jerk manner, presume the worst of you — that you were aware of the three past DRs and still decided to go ahead with the deletion. Apologies for that, too.
  • There are a few loose ends concerning the accuracy of your arguments in the DR, but they seem to be now in the hands of others, so I’ll wisely shut up about them.
  • Additionally, I misinterpreted your user name as female and therefore refered to you as "she". That was due only to my unwillingness of using "he" as a default.

-- Tuválkin 18:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Tuvalkin, to me this matter is closed. But, as I cannot feel offended by such a false accusation and hasty judgment, it's to the whole community that you should have apologised instead. We're all here to spread free knowledge together, and this behaviour undermines the very basics of the collaborative and serene environment we should have. I don't write you down any link related to behaviour rules, as you surely know (or your parents should have told you many years ago) that you must abide by civility and not insult anyone. --Ruthven (msg) 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

About your recent block

Hi Tuvalkin, please refrain from comments like this. Forget about the case, leave INeverCry alone and make a fresh start. You know there was reason for your block. The only one who can change your attitude at this project is you. Please grant yourself a fresh start, that would be better for all of us, including for yourself. There is plenty of constructive work to do. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


{{empty category}}
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams|Detroit]]
[[Category:Detroit Citizens’ Railway|Lisbon]]
{{empty category}}
[[Category:Lisbon trams by fleet number|405]]
[[Category:Number 405 on trams]]
[[Category:Trams with fleet number 1|Detroit]]
[[Category:CCFL fleet series 400-474|05]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|1]]
{{empty category}}
[[Category:Lisbon trams by fleet number|469]]
[[Category:Number 469 on trams]]
[[Category:Trams with fleet number 2|Detroit]]
[[Category:CCFL fleet series 400-474|69]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|2]]
{{empty category}}
{{see also|Category:Lisbon tram 397}}
{{en|The original passenger tram CCFL 247 was transformed into service tram CCFL 397 in the 1930ies. It was sold to Detroit in 1975, where it used the original number.}}

[[Category:CCFL fleet series 203-282 (Brill)|47]]
[[Category:Lisbon tram 247|Brill]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|247]]
{{empty category}}
[[Category:Lisbon trams by fleet number|412]]
[[Category:Number 412 on trams]]
[[Category:Trams with fleet number 3|Detroit]]
[[Category:CCFL fleet series 400-474|12]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|3]]
{{empty category}}
[[Category:Lisbon trams by fleet number|517]]
[[Category:Trams with fleet number 517]]
[[Category:CCFL fleet series 508-531|17]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|4]]
[[Category:Trams with fleet number 4|Detroit]]
{{empty category}}
[[Category:Lisbon trams by fleet number|523]]
[[Category:Number 523 on trams]]
[[Category:CCFL fleet series 508-531|23]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|5]]
[[Category:Trams with fleet number 5|Detroit]]
{{empty category}}
[[Category:Lisbon trams by fleet number|427]]
[[Category:Number 427 on trams]]
[[Category:Trams with fleet number 6|Detroit]]
[[Category:CCFL fleet series 400-474|27]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|6]]
{{empty category}}
[[Category:Lisbon trams by fleet number|457]]
[[Category:Number 457 on trams]]
[[Category:CCFL fleet series 400-474|57]]
[[Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit|X]]
[[Category:900 mm track gauge]]
[[Category:Trams in Detroit]]
[[Category:1978 establishments]]
[[Category:2003 disestablishments]]
[[Category:Jefferson Avenue (Detroit)]]
[[Category:Washington Boulevard Historic District]]
[[Category:Tourist tram services]]
[[Category:900 mm track gauge trams|Detroit]]
[[Category:Detroit in the 1980s]]
[[Category:Detroit in the 1990s]]
[[Category:Tram transport in the 1980s]]
[[Category:Tram transport in the 1990s]]

Categorização por nomes

Viva Tuvalkim. Seria bom que você, o JuTa e o NeverDoING se entendessem sobre o critério a usar. Eu pessoalmente não tenho opinião formada neste momento, mas poderei tentar contribuir, embora argumentar em inglês seja um pouco complicado para mim. A principal razão desta mensagem é para deixar claro que caso eu venha al alterar algo que tenha já editado por si, não é para "reverter", "corrigir" ou "optar por um critério melhor", mas sim porque como eu edito +- em massa poderei faze-lo sem reparar nas edições anteriores. Para mim alem de ser importante contribuir na categorização com critérios lógicos e funcionais e uniformes, é talvez mais importante ainda não entrar em "reversões" e "contra-reversões" pois o desconforto que causa aos editores (pelo menos a mim) é a meu ver insuportável. Abraço --JotaCartas (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Compreendo, e concordo com, a “insuportabilidade” de tais reversões, mas acho que ambos concordamos que há coisas ainda piores: Uma delas é certamente categorias erradas, tenha havido polémica ou consenso — e refiro-me a erros crassos e indesculpáveis, não a coisas a que a gente torça o nariz mas que lá vá. E outra dessas coisas é gente que não tem conhecimentos específicos sobre determinada área andar a impôr convenções e práticas nela por que fazem sentido alhures, contra a opinião de quem mais sabe. Ora bem: Quem é que sabe aqui de onomástica portuguesa? Eu e tu, Jota: O JuTa e o NeverDoING acham que isto é tudo como na terra deles (mas com mais sol e hoteis baratos) e querem aplicar à nossa onomástica (e à espanhola) aquilo que não os deixaram fazer com a islandesa e que tão mal resultou com a húngara. Ora tu sabes que "Aníbal Jorge" são dois nomes e que não há qualquer vantagem em agrupá-los como um nome composto como se faz com "Maria do Céu" ou (por outras razões) "Peter Hans" ou "Jean-Luc". Ídem para "Castro Alves" ao invés de "Castelo Branco" (a menos quando é Castelo da mãe e Branco do pai!) e de, sei lá, "Windsor-Mountbatten". O conhecimento que tu e eu e tantos outros temos da onomástica lusófona não implica automaticamente um sistema de categorização no Commons gerado pronto por magia: Haverá sempre detalhes a ajustar e discussões a ter. Faça-se isso, então, no Category talk:Portuguese surnames, calmente, com objetivos claros. Discuta quem sabe, aprenda quem quer, e trabalhemos todos. -- Tuválkin 14:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


This is about Category:Former town hall of Almansa‎

The problem is not the date. It's the place. Almansa is in Castile La Mancha, not in Andalusia. B25es (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case you should have changed the category to its parent Category:Built in Spain in 1800. Removing (twice!!) the information that this building was erected in 1800, more than edit warring, was vandalism. -- Tuválkin 01:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry. You're right. My intention was eliminating mentions to Andalusia (Almansa isn't there). I've used Almansa as a base for Wikimedia activities because is quite close to Valencia, my hometown. I'm preparing a quite large wikitakes in Albacete province and I found that mention of "built in Andalusia". But you're right, I've should have changed that for "built in Spain". Neither offense nor war were intended. B25es (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Emblemo de Portugala EA

Saluton Tuvalkin. Vi tute pravas ke en la kategorio "Esperanto-asocioj" indas "ŝanĝi ĉion, aŭ nenion", kaj eble malelegantas ke aparte la simbolo de PEA estis inter la unuaj kiuj elpreniĝis, kiam eble la ideo de ordigo ankoraŭ ne klare videblis, sed tamen: Sencas ordigi landajn kaj regionajn emblemojn kaj fotojn en landaj kategorioj, por iom pli da orientiĝo, kaj laŭ la nuna kvanto de emblemoj kaj fotoj tiutemaj ŝajnas sufiĉe uzi la ekzistantajn kategoriojn "Esperanto en LANDONOMO", kaj rezigni pri kreo de multegaj novaj subkategorioj "Esperanto-asocioj en LANDONOMOJ", tiel ke fine por ĉiu lando estus unu kategorio "Esperanto en LANDONOMO" kun nur du subkategorioj, pri "Esperanto-asocioj en..." kaj "esperantistoj en..." (kvankam kompreneble tia ordigo, plus movo de la nuna kategorio al angla titolo "multinational Esperanto-associations" estus plej ordema ago... sed tiel-ĉi laŭ mi estas bona kompromiso inter pli da superrigardo kaj tamen ne-tro-inunda kreado de novaj kategorioj). Ĉu bone? Se vi volus aldoni portugalan klarigon en la kategoria paĝo, mi aprezus tion. --ThomasPusch (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Saluton, Thomas. Komprenite.
Mi konsentas pri evito al troa kvanto de apenaŭ anataj kategorioj sed, kompreneble, laŭ kreskas la numbro de klasifikita materialo en Commons, pli kaj pli da tiaj detalaj kategorioj necesos kaj indos. Ĉio ĉi, kompreneble, mi opinias surbaze de ne tiom mia kono pri la esperanto-movado sed pri Commons-kategoriklasifikado. -- Tuválkin 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

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)‎ | +/−

Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:BS-color

Your help in putting this into colour order (spectrum) would be appreciated. You know a lot more about this stuff than I do. Useddenim (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I’ll take a look ASAP. Going through a rough patch right now. -- Tuválkin 10:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Néstor Mendoza.jpg

File:Néstor Mendoza.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Go ahead. I only cropped whitespace. -- Tuválkin 13:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's be kind to each other

Hi there. Dear Tuvalkin, I am disturbing you for your edit summary in this contribution. I understand I have made a mistake, and you're calling me a "vandal" for this. I think vandals do what they do (vandalism) "on purpose", and not as a mistake. I have waited several days before writing to you: Firstly, not to let myself write under the influence of my feelings of the moment. Secondly, I also hoped that you could have a look around (for example the thousands of files I added to Commons, the hundreds -or thousands- of otherwise uncategorized files I categorized, the hundreds of new categories I opened, etc) and come back and tell me something. Look: The same day with my "vandal edit" I made a revert, this one, only a little before you called me a vandal. Similar edits. The difference is, I wrote "Not a painting", you wrote "NOT a painting!" (and also used the vandalism thing). If you had looked at my last edits before writing me in that -sorry- "rude" manner, you would have seen that there were other ways, like visiting my talk page and telling me about the mistake, to act. (Only in parenthesis: The user I reverted is an SPA; I ordered all their painting files in a proper cat, made a cat for the artist, wrote to their talk page etc and they did not even bother to send me a thank you blink, forget writing something to me. Even to that kind of an SPA (they came back to Commons,after a rather long time, only to change my correct edit) I did not capitalize the word "not" nor added an exclamation mark to me edit summary. Let me cut short a longer history. Your attitude towards me is the kind of attitude that make people go away from Commons, or from the WM projects in general; mine is quite different. I think I have the right to expect and ask for some respect. There is no need to treat people rudely; we're all volunteers, trying to do a good thing here. Please have another look at your attitude. Sorry for taking your time. Keep well. --E4024 (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t say you’re a vandal (if I thought you were one I’d have reported you on the spot): I said I «restored vandalized categories», which is accurate. You mistook a photo for a painting, which could be a “honest mistake”, but you also removed Category:Lakes of unidentified countries and Category:Mountains of unidentified countries as if magically this image being a painting instead of a photo meant that identification of the painted/photographed location was of no concern. Commons was made less useful and less interesting by your carelessness or lack of judgement and I fixed that. The only bad thing about my edit summary was the typo "bogyus" instead of "bogus".
I’m sorry you feel that it’s my attitude of valueing Commons content curation that drives volonteers away. I for one would (indeed had) feel pleased if/when my mistakes are swiftly corrected (and chastised, if eggregious enough), while what may drive positive volonteers away from Commons is, in my opinion, the cronyism and cliqueishness of some (most?) admins, the obvious path of evil the WMF has been taking, the overvalueing of artsy photography over general media content (and the consequent lionizing of quality photography content creators over curators and anyone else, leading to stringent quality and “scope” constrains on photos while for maps or emblems anything goes) and so many other problems.
If I see a bad edit someone made I don’t go running in search of good edits that someone may have made (that’s an admin’s job): I fix it and go on with my own work. I expect no thanks, though I’m no stranger to thanking others (see how often my name shows up here).
What you did for that SPA was valuable work, and I for one am thankful for those edits that made Commons more useful and more interesting, but expecting thanks or mere recognition from SPAs is useless: Some of those will even protest that you added detailed categorization to their artsy shot: they wanted it only with Category:Beauty only!
-- Tuválkin 13:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


File:Abraço(logo).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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Tolomm (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


Hi, In future please do some research before nominating files, I realise not all flickr images have albums however in this case it did and so you should've add the images yourself, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Are you going to admonish like this everbody who created DRs that turn out to be not copyvios? Or you’re harassing only me because you fancy I’m an easy target? Do you have the faintest idea how many times I did something like what you did here (adding lacking sources, categorization, authorship info, copyright status, licensing details), allowing files under DR to be “saved”? And that without ever thinking that’s a good idea to hound the nominator to their talk page for holier-than-thou rebukes… And what’s about this way of closing a DR, using a reversion instead of a regular edit? -- Tuválkin 07:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There's no harassing and there's no admonishing - It was a simple message, Well with all respect if you had looked you would've easily found the Lisboa album on Flickr....., Again I'm not hounding you it was a simple message Tuvalkin so you may want to read COM:AGF,
The DR was closed in the normal way[1] and no edits were made after ? ..... –Davey2010Talk 12:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

File:David A Solomon.jpg

File:David A Solomon.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 | 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)‎ | +/−

Daphne Lantier 03:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Almada trams in smiley livery

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Tuvalkin, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  Done, thanks! -- Tuválkin 23:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tram cats

Hello. We are companions of Wikipedia. --Allforrous (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Number 773 on Rosebud Diner

Where did you see the number 773 on the Rosebud Diner in Somerville, Massachusetts? ----DanTD (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Here. -- Tuválkin 15:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi Tuvalkin,

I noticed this edit of yours, and I was curious what triggered it. The description states that it is a photo of Rineke Dijkstra, and by Daphne Channa Horn. If you could clarify what caused the confusion, I could perhaps remove that confusion.

Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  • No, thank you! Looks like I misunderstood who photographed whom. -- Tuválkin 23:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Anarkiko 002.jpg

Hi, Tuvalkin. Please look the file. Even with Google translator I do not understand, is it in scope or not. If in scope, please give better name and categories. If not, nominate for deletion. Taivo (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Judging from the description, this is a makeshift wood-burning clay oven — either in traditional Native American style or an actual Native American artifact, either recent or ancient. I added a few categories. People who know better may shed better light on the matter. For now, I’d say that it is in scope, or at least not obviously off-scope. -- Tuválkin 14:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


Civilized people give explanations if they dissent on some matter, not sharp comments. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 12:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, since (apparently) I didn’t give the explanation you demand, I guess I’m not civilized: Feel free, therefore, to avoid any further contact, or you may be exposed to such uncivilized notions such as the necessity of keeping discussion threads together instead of on separate talk pages. Or you may actually read what I wrote on your talk page, read the linked guideline, and go through that photo’s file history — and actually get a clue. -- Tuválkin 12:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Addressing for the very first time an user who made an error with "You probably think you did a great thing here. You did not" is not even remotely educated, so yes, you may want to rethink the way you approach to people; as for the clue I should get from the history, I hope it's not "that file is mine and I liked the original name better", because that is not even remotely a valid argument. Now, triviality aside, if the reason why the renaming was wrong is the first decline criteria from the policy (was it difficult to politely point it out?) very well, I made a mistake. I can't fix it, since the redirect prevents me from renaming the file again: if you want the old name back feel free to request the admins to rename it again, I have no problems with that. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 13:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello again, thanks for your reply. Some points to be covered:
  1. I missed till now that this matter was discussed elsewhere. Maybe further discussion (about the renaming) should go there.
  2. You think that my quip to you was «not even remotely educated»… well, you should have seen the first draft. Let me repeat that it is not my lifelong goal to meet your ideas about what’s “civilized” or “educated”. I’m here to curate a media repository and I assume everybody else is. Therefore on Commons our interaction needs to be effective — if it can be pleasant (which it most often is!), so much for the better, but I’m not going to give you medal for going against COM:FR. (That’s also why I’m not siccing the dogs on you about calling me "uncivilized" and "uneducated".)
  3. The clue I hoped you got from the file history is about the cummulative nature of curation improvements, mainly done by means of categorization — filenames, and even descriptions, are comparatively irrelevant. And as a way to compare useful work with frivolous changes. (Not that I don’t engage in frivolities in Commons, but I try to keep them harmless.)
  4. I’m well aware of COM:OWN and, no I don’t suffer from that illness of considering content items as my property that nobody else can touch. If I did I’d have simply reverted your renaming.
  5. The main issue here is not one name versus the other, it’s the loss of filename integrity any renaming causes: My view of COM:FR is that filename stability is to be mantained and only blattant problems should be fixed. (When I created the original filename, upon upload, I didn’t know the location, had to sleuth for it later. Yes, I know COM:File naming as well, and meditating in their essential difference is a good thing.)
  6. Since I value filename stability, I would never want to settle this matter by adding another layer of possible confusion for reusers, be it the reversion of your name change, or my own creation of a 3rd name more in line with my file naming preferences but with added info ("@Bruges"). That’s why this whole matter of frivolous file renaming is so frustrating for me — reverting doesn’t help, as the cat is out of the box.
-- Tuválkin 15:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't ask a medal; politeness is due, always, especially because this a cooperative project; there was no reason to be sharp with me, since I didn't do anything specifically against you (and if you say that most of the times you are indeed polite, I frankly don't understand what triggered the unpoliteness this time, since we never spoke once before). I am always willing to change the way I work if it clashes with policies or with the other users' work, all the other users need to do is just explain and ask, nothing more.
I know that most of the work is done via categories -I've spent a lot of time here categorizing files- but file names and descriptions do a great deal too when you are searching for something; I still don't really get where is the problem in renaming a file (pages on Wikipedia get renamed all the time, how is it different?), but if that's the policy, fine.
The discussion at the village pump was (originally, at least) about the duplicate file. We can move there, if you wish, but it should'bt be necessary; I took notice, and the matter is settled to me. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 16:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Humain Radioastronomy Station

Thanks for uploading File:VeelTelescopen(verroestten!).jpg! I've created a Wikidata entry on the station at [2] - please let me know if I got anything wrong, and anything you can add about the place would be appreciated! I think we only have one photo of the place here on Commons at the moment, I don't suppose you know of any others that could be uploaded? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mike Peel: I have no idea. That photo comes from a dying website I helped (partly) salvage into Commons. I have no particular connection to radioastronomy nor to Belgium. -- Tuválkin 23:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, thank you for the salvage work! Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Rua das Janelas Verdes

Hello. Please see Commons:Categories#Principles: "There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly)." So, Category:Museu Nacional de Arte Antiga‎ cannot be simultaneously a parent and a sub-category of Category:Rua das Janelas Verdes. Since the museum is in the street, it seems more logical to me if the museum category is a subcat of the street category, even if the street is named after the palace which contains the museum. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


BrightRaven (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:やまうち かつとよ.jpg

By your description, we do not understand the copyright status of this statue. What are you dissatisfied with in removing explanation of the statue?--Y.haruo (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • That is a good idea. By the way, Is this way recommended in Commons?--Y.haruo (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:People at looking wristwatches

You've recently moved a number of images to this nonexistent category. Did you mean Category:People looking at wristwatches? --GRuban (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Future admin

Hi. I see that you're a patroller, file mover etc. Probably you may become an admin soon. Therefore please learn what vandalism means before that happens. Also please do not accuse people of vandalism before you check their contributions. I'm not expecting any thank yous from anybody, but I neither accept rude attitudes. --E4024 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I will never be an admin here, primarily because I do not want to (and if I did, I’d still stand no chance). As for that edit, well it was vandalism, and I am glad that 1. I undid it and that 2. it was the only single time in your contribution history that you did anything like that. (I wish I could say the same: Probably many of my edits could be termed vandalism using the definition of vandalism I subscribe to, and I hope they have all been undone, either by me or others.) -- Tuválkin 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

All-caps blackletter?

Hello Tuvalkin, I've seen that you added the category "All-caps blackletter" to that file. I have no idea what this actually means. Could you add a note to the image in order to point out where the typographic error is? I suppose you mean the word BASEL which is indeed in all-caps. But is that an error or deliberate? I am completely ignorant and would love to learn more. Thank you, --Edelseider (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Edelseider, thanks for asking. Meanwhile I cropped off the line of text I wanted to refer to with the new Category:All-caps blackletter. The thing is that in typographic style manuals it is said that all-caps should be used with care (which is fully correct), and typically blackletter/fraktur is offered as the main example of so many ornate letterform styles that are totally unsuitable for all-caps setting.
While I again fully agree with this position, it is nonetheless interesting to witness such an eggregious blunder made in a time when typesetting was a serious and protracted matter, long before today’s covfefes. Someone must have thought that typesetting "𝔅𝔄𝔖𝔈𝔏" (instead of "𝔅𝔞𝔰𝔢𝔩") was a good idea, and managed to convince all others in the shop.
I think that gathering examples of this in a separate category is a good service for reusers who need/want to document this kind of practice (either to deplore or to uphold it). -- Tuválkin 07:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
A very interesting explanation. Although I suppose that the huge spaces between the letters ("𝔅 𝔄 𝔖 𝔈 𝔏" instead of "𝔅𝔄𝔖𝔈𝔏") did the trick in convincing the colleagues, or were a concession to them. Have a nice day, --Edelseider (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


Return to the user page of "Tuvalkin/Archive 6".