User talk:Tuvalkin/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

en:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 20#Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro)

Sometimes I think people need to be smacked upside the head! Useddenim (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

File:MJAlmeidaCosta2004.jpg

File:MJAlmeidaCosta2004.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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−
  • and 2 more files

Gunnex (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File:KabeloMabalane2015.jpeg

File:KabeloMabalane2015.jpeg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gunnex (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File tagging File:ManuelaGonzaga2016.jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:ManuelaGonzaga2016.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:ManuelaGonzaga2016.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Gunnex (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Horse trams in Lisbon

OK, please explain what part of "horse trams in Lisbon" is named for something in the United States. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I wont. You figure it out yourself, since you asked so nicely. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with the way I asked? I said "please" and "thanks". I was straightforwardly asking to understand your thinking. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(Let’s pretend this non-native English speaker misunderstood your sentence as condescending smugness vehicled through the formalities of staged politeness.) As for the matter at hand, the horse- and mule-drawn vehicles of CCFL (withdrawn in 1901 upon electrification) were popularly known as carros americanos due to the fact that the most iconic and numerous model had been built by the Stephenson shops of Elizabeth, N.J.. Retrospectively, and by extension, all such vehicles (even those of other fleets and makes, incl. the locally produced) are named so; that includes argueably “official” names in museum collection catalogs and “official” terminology and nomenclature in traffic regulations, museology, and technical papers on the history of transportation. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

To avoid such misunderstanding in future, I would suggest adding a category description with the name carros americanos to the Category:Horse trams in Lisbon. @Tuvalkin: Could you, please, do it, as (I assume) you know better than me whether this name is applicable to all historical horse trams in Lisbon or only to the depicted ones? (In the letter case it may be even better to move the Category:Things named after the United States to the specific images.) Ankry (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ankry, you say «To avoid such misunderstanding in future». Well, what misunderstanding? As for your suggestion, see my reply to ColonialGrid below. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
ColonialGrid and Ankry, as said the term "carro americano" evolved to mean "horse tram" in Portugal (Brazilians have a generic word, "bonde", for all kinds of trams; that word sadly never took root in Portugal and we’re stuck with the inadequate term "elétrico", which obvious is not extandable to steam-, horse-, or diesel-powered trams) and therefore a Category:Carro americano would be a sort of synonym of Category:Horse trams in Portugal: Misleading and unnecessary. (And, yes, my categorization was tentative and imperfect.
As for leaving aside this kind of esoteric connections from categorization, it’s not a clear cut line. French kisses should not be categorized under France, french windows may or may not, etc. Good luck with figuring it out, though. I’m slowly phasing out my involvement in Commons as it is. So long and thanks for all the trams.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S.: ColonialGrid, one species of roach is Blattella germanica — categorize or not?… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
On the broader point, this categorisation is more than imperfect, it is thoroughly confusing as only someone with intimate knowledge of the subject understands the connection, and as they already know the connection, the cat is useless for them. It would be far better to have a cat description which says that horse trams in Lisbon (and possibly other Portuguese cities, my gleaning of the PTWP article shows) are know as "carro americano", then you could use that as a soft link, still connecting it to Category:Things named after the United States while explaining the connection. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Auntof6's category removal and your revert clearly states that there was a misunderstanding here. Hopefully explained already, but this explanation is present here and not in the category page. So my suggestion.
However, your explanation above led me to think that the category may be incorrect. If "carro americano" is just synonime of "horse tram" in European Portuguese, than maybe the connection is of linguistic nature and completely unclear for people who name things eg. in Chinese. Maybe the better category here would be Category:Things named after the United States in European Portuguese language? But I may be wrong.
Just think two or three times what the categorization is for and how such category would help people in general, not only those speaking European Portuguese. Note that nobody expects an immediate decision from you in this matter. Ankry (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Tuvalkin, I reckon this is a huge improvement! It still links to where you intended it, while offering an in depth explanation, making it highly educational (I know I've learnt something). Thank you. ColonialGrid (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

From AN/U

At AN/U, you said:

Admonishment, heh? What about an admonishment for uncategorization done by you under the assumption everybody else is a fool and that obviously Lisbon horse trams could’t possible have anything to the with the good old U.S.A.? To such extent that even my undoing of the uncategorization, with a remark in the edit summary, was not enough and it was necessary to come to my talk page do demand more details — how rude is that? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not think anyone was a fool, and I did not assume anything about why the category was there. Incorrect categories often get applied, for many different reasons, and they get removed without it reflecting badly on anyone. That is the spirit in which I removed the category.

Since there was no indication of how this category was related to the US, it was reasonable to remove the "named after the US" category. If it remains there, there should be something indicating why it should be there.

Your edit summary when you reverted my edit said only "This is not a mistake." That does not show a connection.

I did not demand anything. I asked politely for an explanation, without undoing your change and without saying anything negative about you. That is a common thing to do, and is not rude. I simply wanted to understand why you were making a connection that seemed to have no basis.

You, on the other hand, gave a snippy answer to an honest question. You misinterpreted my intent in a negative light and without asking me about it. If your English skills are such that you read antagonism where there is none, it might help if you don't make assumptions in this kind of interaction. It's very hard online to read "tone of voice" or the emotion behind things that are said, so assuming that it's negative can be risky. And before you make an assumption here, know that I don't think poorly of people just because their English isn't perfect. I have often worked with people whose first language is not English, and I know that there's no shame in not knowing something.

By the way, you might want to look up "snippy". Since you defended yourself by mentioning that your later explanation was "detailed and snippy", I don't think you understand what it means. I meant it in the second sense given at the Wiktionary definition. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That’s exactly the meaning I intended, as a form of self criticism with a tinge of humour. You dind’t get it? Well, must be my poor grasp of English, or maybe my over-hirsute chest addling my underling’s thought patterns (see?, two can play this game). A pro tip: One can offer one’s own poor grasp of English (or of Tramology or of Categorinomics etc.), to explain one’s own actions: Everybody else can either go «Oh, no, your English is excellent! There, there…», or politely avoid that angle of the discussion. Anything else only adds salt to the wound (or goes against the 1st rule of holes, or whichever metaphor du jour), and, in the case of language skills, looks especially bad when uttered by monoglots.
That said, I should add that I generally agree with your remarks (and indeed that I have noticed some of your work when we cross paths and I have a generally high regard for it), especially about the communication difficulties in this instant (or at least fast-paced) written medium: I honestly saw annoyed smugness in your retort, the "please" and "thank you" notwithstanding.
In a case like this, barring an obvious error (due to a finger-slip over Cat-a-Lot or HotCat, a typo, etc. — and that’s why I wrote «This is not a mistake», assuming it would be enough), I would always assume the user who made the categorization to be right and would ask instead of removing it. If you had done that, I’d have been equally detailed, and yet zero-snippy.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

File:علاء الأديب.jpg

Pay attention to copyright
File:علاء الأديب.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Moumou82 (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this file was: Maybe sotheing I cropped or rotated? Certainly not something I uploaded as licensed by me or maked by me as PD. That’s why the claptrap you added above, Moumou82, is needless and offensive. Either explain to me politely and in good faith what was up with this file, or delete it away and don’t concern yourself with my talk page. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Tuválkin, I am aware you are not the original uploader of this picture. When we nominate a picture for deletion, the notification is automatic and out of our control. Since you cropped it at some point, you uploaded a new version of the picture, this is probably why you have been notified. Moumou82 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Brill Vehicles

Hello Tuvalkin, thank you for correcting my erroneous edit. Since you appear to know a lot more about the category system on Commons than I do, would you mind verifying if I sorted this file in the correct Brill category? Thank you, Nfreaker91 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Imagens da Segunda Guerra Mundial

Saudações,

gostaria que me ajudasses com uma questão...

posso fazer upload de imagens como esta na Wikipédia portuguesa?

Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 22:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Não faço ideia. Não conheço as normas da Wikipédia em Português para imagens não-livres, e não conheço bem como funciona o direito de cópia para obras anónimas. Acho que para obras genuinamente anónimas (que será o caso desta?) são 120 anos após publicação até entrar em domínio público, por isso é cedo para o Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Obrigado pela ajuda amigo :-) Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 14:21, 9 May 2016 (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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

AlwaysUnite (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:World_maps_about_human_skin_color/Biasutti,_1940

Category discussion warning

World maps about human skin color/Biasutti, 1940 has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:World_maps_about_human_skin_color

Category discussion warning

World maps about human skin color has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

AlwaysUnite (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Adam37

And did you see this? Useddenim (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed in pt.w they have been changing the templates, which now have a shaded border — something with an overarching encyclopedic value and that totally belongs in common.css, instead of, say, in vector.css (and no sense for it in monobook.css, which I use). But I didn’t notice how it completely ruins some diagrams. Sounds truely delightful. What can be done? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Imagens de um website

Boa tarde,

Existe um website chamado Luft46.com, e tem umas imagens e desenhos ilustrativos de vários artigos sobre a Luftwaffe.

Contudo, diz no website que o uso das imagens requer a autorização do Sr. Dan Johnson.

Eu contactei o senhor via email (o email que está no website) e ele respondeu-me positivamente o seguinte: 

Hello, thanks for writing. Yes, you can
use any images you wish, but please make sure to
provide a link for Luft46.com as the source. Any
LuftArt must be also credited to the artist. Thanks!

Dan Johnson

O que faço agora? Posso simplesmente fazer upload de algumas imagens, referenciando o website e os artistas, ou é preciso o Sr. Dan Johnson escrever no website que permite o upload?

Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 19:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

O ideal era ele publicar no próprio saite dele, de forma a que toda a gente possa ler essa autorização (é de notar que «use any images you wish» deverá incluir uso para fins comerciais.) Mesmo assim, só com o e-mail que ele te enviou, parece que há um caso sólido para levar ao COM:OTRS; eu não sou da equipa desse serviço — eles melhor que eu te encaminharão no passo a seguir.
Nota também que imagens que estejam em domínio público não necessitam de qq autorização para serem adicionadas ao Commons, independentemente de terem sido obtidas no Luft46.com ou em qq outro lugar (ou seja, o trabalho q este Johnson possa ter tido a meter um incunábulo no scanner não qualifica o resultado para novo copyright), ainda que seja sempre bom indicar a fonte.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Mais uma vez, muitíssimo obrigado Tuválkin :-) Luís Angelo "Tuga1143 11:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: Intimidation/harassment: trolling, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections&diff=prev&oldid=198845076.

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

العربية ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Gaeilge ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

  • Ah, blocked for dissing Colin, and blocked by A.Savin, nonetheless. Looks like Commons will have to live a week without my resoundingly important categorizations of clockfaces or tram photographs. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Funny that the tag above refers to one week from now, but fails to record when «now» is — misworded template, or misused template? Anyway the blocking datestamp is 2016-06-13T03:10:06: I await sitting on needles, as all those clockfaces and trams need me! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "Oops, no rest for the wicked: User Joostik decided that some images I had left uncategorized in my red cat Category:Tuvalkin (temp)/Funiculares were good to go to Category:Funiculars in Portugal. Well, they are not. I was waiting for a book I have in a cardboard box to be unpacked “soon” in order to get these images are[typo] in perfect shape, including sources and more info and thus good categorization[typo], but now where they are we risk misleading or at least confusing people."
Decline reason: "Wait out the duration of your block. ~riley (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)"
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
 (Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

Thanks for your input, admin ~riley. I understand that you chose not to use the unblock request to fix what others in the original discussion felt was a hamfisted approach. One week for "jnaxre" and zero weeks for what “The Photographer” said about baseball bats, for what Colin said about fairies, and for what Savin did here. Unsurprisingly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, there are two reasons IMO why any further unblock request be denied. The first is that per User talk:Tuvalkin/Archive 3#You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week, Tuválkin promised to change and Steinsplitter unblocked with the warning that blocking for similar would be longer. The second reason is that Tuválkin is utterly unrepentant. It was more than "dissing Colin", more than a slip while annoyed, but an unprovoked and calculated offensive personal attack. -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You’re either tone-deaf or you play a good impression of one if you cannot read between the lines of my reply to Fastily’s blocking: It amounts to «Sure, you can have my lunch money, but leave me enough to take the tram back home because it is a long way to walk, okay?»; of course later on the other kids eventually ganged up and schooled that one bully right.
You’re right I’m unrepentant in what concerns your persistent goading of others into snapping at you: You falsely acused me of personal attacks, well I served you one so you can feel the difference. Seems that egging others like this is your sole raison d’être in Commons, besides the equally fruitless but benign image promotion work. Regardless of any blocking and unblocking, my opinion of you is as likely to change as your transparently malicious stance is.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
(On 2016-06-15T10:25:22, Colin wrote something here, being his usual vacuous and pompous self. I keep the diff link in all fairness etc., but don’t want to have my talk page as yet another platform for «Colin’s bizzarre obsession» and all its intrincate trendrils. Sincerely interested parties will take his words in the broader context of his hounding of Fæ and in the narrower context of his crafty avoidance of the actual points raised by me on this page and in the OP; insincerely interested parties will do what they usually do. When this blocking is over I will request an interaction ban, if that’s even possible, between me and this unsavoury character. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC))
I dunno. “I think … you are operating in a red mist of bad faith and hate.” sounds like a personal attack by Colin against Tuvalkin. Useddenim (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Restoring Useddenim’s move of content from his talk page to mine, unadultered, with intact namespace links

You pinged me when you wrote I dunno. “I think … you are operating in a red mist of bad faith and hate.” sounds like a personal attack by Colin against Tuvalkin". I'm not going to respond there as it is clear Tuvalkin doesn't want me to (having reverted my edits) and is only now interested in insulting me. Your comment is ridiculous. But if you wish to make a complete fool of yourself, you are welcome to go to AN/U with it, and try your luck there. I suggest you stick to SVG rather than getting involved in murky Commons politics. -- Colin (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Tuvalkin’s right about this guy’s persistent goading… Useddenim (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You sure have an upside down view of the world, if you think that's "goading". -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Could be right; upon reflection, it may simply be an insulting taunt. Useddenim (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

don't revert

the use of the word "Useless" is inappropriate and offensive, don't revert again. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That word is not even in the text[Alas, it is. See my reply about it below. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)] you wanted censered off my talk page, User:Christian Ferrer. And if you want to disappear offensive stuff, better check what Colin said to the user you so gently blocked for 2 weeks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 2 weeks
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 2 weeks for the following reason: Edit warring after warnings.

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

العربية ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Gaeilge ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

if you revert again, I prevent you to edit your talk page. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I didn’t notice until now that, in this edit, User:Useddenim replaced the word "User:" with "Useless:"; I assumed he was merely moving content from his talk page to mine, too keep the thread together, as said in the edit summary. Even though I chuckled and nodded when I noticed it, it is something that I do not condone: One does not falsify records, ever. Of course User:Jkadavoor could have been more clear about what was the problem there, instead of being cryptic and causing me to assume he was messing with my talk page for no good reason; indeed, the sole correct course of action would be to to replace the offending "Useless:" with "User:" (which I will procede to do next) — keeping the records intact and avoiding escalation. But escalated it did — which is probably what was planned all along. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The red link was the first thing I noticed, very hard to miss, even more for an experimented user like you. And I did not search a long time to find the reason. The only thing to do would have been to ask why an administrator asked (warned) you for not to revert again, but it seems you did not agf with me, then it will be hard for me to assume yours. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I would have noticed the red link if I had seen the wikitext as rendered, not in code mode in a diff. Of course I have no assumption of good faith for you nor for a sadly sizeable portion of the admin team, that’s how “experienced” I am. After all, you assumed bad faith on my part, even though I had been using my fresh-out-of-block time to categorize trams (and psalms!), unlike Jkadavoor and Colin, who apparently are monitoring my userpage in an hourly basis — I am sure they are not here for the trams… For solidarity with Useddenim, I will wait out the duration of my block. As said, I do not condone at all what he did here, but that was his (frustrated?, hotheaded?) reaction to Colin’s offensive demeaning of his work for Commons («I suggest you stick to SVG») and his gloating that he has enough admins in his pocket to make a complaint against him fruitless («if you wish to make a complete fool of yourself, you are welcome to go to AN/U with it, and try your luck there»). Had I been able to advice User:Useddenim, I’d have told him to cool down and go by the books, as some times this bullying eventually backfires — as Fastily’s case shows so well. And, of course, a lot can happen in two weeks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) "Of course User:Jkadavoor could have been more clear about what was the problem there, instead of being cryptic and causing me to assume he was messing with my talk page for no good reason.." Of course; I can use a long edit summary instead of highlighting the inappropriate word only. But I wonder why you missed the red link after your reversion of my edit as Christian pointed out. You had tried to restore it two times after a clear warning from Christian. I can accept you missed it per AGF. But why you think I "was messing with my talk page for no good reason"? In my memory, I never edited your talk page in my years of volunteer time here. We may be in different boats; but I hadn't remember any direct conflict with you. And do your comment "unlike Jkadavoor and Colin, who apparently are monitoring my userpage in an hourly basis" has any background? From my talk page, you can see I was inactive for a long while. I'm only relocating to Kadavoor again; my Internet and other resources are still very weak. The only time I see my watchlist is when I try to upload some works using the Rillke's bigChunkedUpload tool. The only reason I looked in detail is the red link which suggests an impersonation like a fake account. Off course; your pre-assumption about me may make you blind. But it is not fully my fault. And you have no reason to restore Colin's that comment as you already stated he is not welcome here. You removed his edits before and after that. (I saw the ping notification. Hope you expect an explanation; so this comment.) Jee 12:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Jkadavoor, moving this to better thread the replies. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: , I suggest attempting unblock request based on your explanation here. The blocking admin has quoted AGF above, which is a two-way process. Looking at the diffs, it seems reasonable that the issue was hard to see and Christian did not make much effort to explain it in the warning given before blocking soon afterwards. This block was for edit-warring, which you did do, however it is based on a simple misunderstanding, and the word "useless" is far, far less offensive than those used recently by others that have not even been reprimanded. I would hope that some mellow common-sense and natural justice applies when considering an unblock request from a productive contributor who has fallen into an unexpected bear trap. --Fæ (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • (Again, I removed here a follow up comment by User:Colin. You can read it in the linked diff. It deserves neither answer nor to remain here unanswered. It does illustrate this user’s toxic, self-serving stance and add to the huge heap of accumulated material that make me think that dealing with this person is not only not pleasant nor useful but dangerous for me. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Fæ, I have no illusions concerning User:Christian Ferrer’s good faith concerning me, as I hadn’t about User:A.Savin’s in my previous block. They will, for reasons that you know well, use the most severe interpretation of any incident to try and supress their percieved enemies (namely people who don’t see Commons as a photographer’s playground, wanting it to include more than PotDs and caring for curation), just like they will use extra leniency to uphold their buddies when they mess-up. (Examples abound.) That’s how, by the way, you earned extra glitter points in my book, when you acted to severely and effectively curb “User:The Photographer”’s deletionist zeal during his kitten meltdown 2 years ago, regardless of the fact that he was (and still is: extra points!) publicly your friend and “ally” in most conflicts: You not only work hard and brilliantly to enrich Commons (what your enemies call «mere mass-uploads by bot», revealing so much in that phrase), but you can also act for the good of the project above petty feuds.
You say that this block was for edit-warring, but it is also hardly justified: Too many cases of users reverting and blanking their user talk pages, some times with loss of visibility of important content, happened without any sanctions. I was just percieved as an easy target, and I guess I am: Fresh out of being blocked and there I go categorizing photos of trams and improving the usefulness of subcategories under psalms, instead of hurrying to monitor my “enemies”’ contributions and jump snippily on any typo, any miscategorization, or to file DRs for FoP issues and what not on their beloved PotDs — how wussy was that? I was practically asking them to take away my lunch money, with a wedgie to go!
See you guys in two weeks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You insinuate that User:A.Savin and me are acting according to the abilities of others and we discriminates some users. Regarding your insinuate, I specify that I do not find pleasant nor justified, and it looks very much like a deliberate desire to be unpleasant. I don't know the past history you have with A.Savin, but at least for me, this is not justified. And I don't care about any war or ennemies you can have, and I even don't care about your current discussion with Colin. I take your last comment as an attempt of discouragement to let me doing my job, therefore a kind of harassment. I warn you not to do it again or you will assume again the consequences. This time if there is something you did not understand, I strongly suggest you ask explanations. I changed the block to 3 days, you will make a mistake to view this as weakness. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    Christian, thanks for taking the time to review the block. Tuvalkin, please take Christian's action in reducing the block as a gesture of good faith. When there are people about who seem determined to create a toxic environment, it can be hard for others to avoid getting pulled in. Hope to see you doing good stuff again by the weekend. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info if an administrator or someone else is currently interested by an unblock, then he should be interested by this topic too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Christian Ferrer would you mind explain in greater detail your statement in the topic in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, as it appears to me, reading your text, that you threated to block another administrator that disagreed and reverted your undiscussed 3 days block of Tuvalkin. Tm (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment And for further noticed i and Tuvalkin, from some years ago until recently, had several heated and hard discussions and talks, but him at least speaks frankly what he thinks, never insulting (albeit his tought and to the point language), so the arguments that he insults other users are, to me, untrue. Tm (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info I unblocked you, if you were victim here, then I sympathize....very sincerely Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

to do

Add to File:Lisboa DSC03792a (23191927529).jpg: 

[[Category:Coca-Cola advertisements on Lisbon trams]]
[[Category:Tram overhead line poles in Lisbon]]
[[Category:Square road signs]]
[[Category:Igreja de Santo António de Lisboa]]
[[Category:Carris route 28E]]
[[Category:Rears of Lisbon trams with fleet number 541-585]]
[[Category:Lisbon tram 571]]
[[Category:Lisbon trams on steep grades]]
[[Category:Lisbon trams facing right]]
[[Category:Rua Augusto Rosa (Lisbon)]]
[[Category:Traffic bollards in Portugal]]
[[Category:Trams by the Lisbon Cathedral]]
[[Category:Tram overhead lines next to the Lisbon Cathedral]]
[[Category:North facade of Sé de Lisboa]]

(This is hilarious, looks like I cannot even add stuff to my regular to-do list.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

✓ Feito, e tb as 3 cat.s sobre datas, é o q estas zaragatas fazem, fica um tipo distraído e até esquece o q realmente interessa. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Janie_Johnson

Category discussion warning

Janie Johnson has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your comment here? It's not particularly clear to me why you are accusing the user of trolling. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Not clear, heh? Well, read again. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, your latter comments seem to suggest that the nomination is based on racism and perhaps even implies that my lack of a strong opposition to the deletion of the photos is based on racism. While I would lean towards disagreeing (at least with that last part - I have know idea what the nominator's motivation was), I'm open to discussing it. I still don't see what that has to do with trolling though. It's far more helpful to be explicit in your criticisms from the start. As for closing the discussion of the category, I don't think you said anything especially different than I did. Like me, you suggested it wasn't a good place to discuss the deletion of the photos, and then, like me, you went ahead and discussed the deletion of the photos. =) If you do think the photos are noteworthy, you might consider adding a description to the category for anyone that might be interested. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Themightyquill, when I said trolling I was refering to the wider context of ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2’s contributions, not merely to that specific DR. Still, the wording of that one nomination and the user’s subsequent apports were, if not trolling, then a case of failure to use English way below any minimum treshold. Since there’s no requirement to use English, this user could have been wording his nominations and replies in a comprehensible way in another language — yet s/he choses to keep mystifying the community with cryptic demands and remarks that go by unheeded or rejected most of the time. If there’s a better way to term this kind of behaviour, I’ll use it instead of the charged (and yet precise) word "trolling". -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A closer look to the user’s contributions suggests that there have been drammatic improvements since April, and/or I had been getting in our random encounters in Commons curation tasks and venues a view of this user at hir worst. Much for the better. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Psalms

As I noted in the move summaries, the template atop each category reminds us to categorise by the number in the Masoretic Text, not by the number in the Septuagint. Additionally, per COM:CAT, "Category names should generally be in English", and the exceptions are for "some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)." Aside from the rare situation in which the topic is generally referred to with both names (e.g. Category:Bath (Berkeley Springs), West Virginia), having multiple names for the same topic in its category name is unhelpful: nobody says "We're going to look at Psalm 24 aka 25", because they always say "24" or "25". Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You’re obviously wrong, User:Nyttend, but whatever: I’m not going to risk another block for ruffling admins’ feathers. If you actually care about categorizing Psalms (which you don’t[you] as I did[me]), then you’ll eventually see that I’m right and will undo the reverting of my renamings; if you’re not — then mission accomplished: You cowed me away from working on categorization of Psalms. (Hey, I’m an atheist, anyway, so why would I care about King David’s lyrics after all, amirite?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:African motormen

Going to just leave this here: I don’t have (yet?) a clear idea of what to do about this and such cases: 

2016-06-27T20:49:23 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:Freineuse (cable car).jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2016-06-27T20:49:23 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:1873 Horse tram in Lisbon.jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2016-06-27T20:49:22 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:LisbonTram(byBio94)-6108176203.jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2016-06-27T20:49:22 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:Cable cars SF3.jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2016-06-27T20:49:22 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:Cable cars SF4.jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2016-06-27T20:49:22 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:Portogallo2007 (1676960170).jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2016-06-27T20:49:22 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:THE GROVE Los Angeles.jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]
2016-06-27T20:49:22 (diff | hist) . . (-29)‎ . . File:Lisbon 40 (14702202153).jpg ‎ (Cat-a-lot: Removing from Category:African motormen) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Quaisquer-que-sejam-teus-sofrimentos-a-vitoria-sobre-eles-esta-no-silencio-abade-pastor-frase-411-6656.jpg

Hi, Tuvalkin. What do you think, is the file in scope? If not, please nominate for deletion. If in scope, please categorize it. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It’s rubbish; thanks for the heads-up. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Horizontal parallel icons naming issue

Can we settle the issue with exvKRZq and uvKRZq already? You can make your argument or point out any wrongful assumptions on anyone's part at this page if you still want to maintain your stance.   ~ Newfitz Yo! 07:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I will express my continuing disagreement there as soon as possible. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Yard

Category discussion warning

Yard has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:BSicon hNUL-Rf.svg

File:BSicon hNUL-Rf.svg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File:BSicon hNUL-Lg.svg

File:BSicon hNUL-Lg.svg 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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 ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems

Ping. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Christian Ferrer could/should have linked to this discussion in the blocking message below, as previously mentioned. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 2 weeks
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 2 weeks for the following reason: Intimidation/harassment.

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

العربية ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Gaeilge ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I understand the block was placed due to a comment you left at COM:AN/B, resulting in you being blocked for two weeks. I'm slightly annoyed that Christian Ferrer hasn't explained the block in more detail. We all hope you moderate your behaviour in future, so it would have been useful to explain what behaviour you need to moderate in future.

The block is largely (and perhaps entirely) due to this comment ([1]).

It is always unacceptable to suggest any of your fellow contributors have some form of mental illness. I know that OCD is often used in a humorous manner or as part of a joke, but unfortunately, in online venues and particularly in an online venue where varying degrees of English are spoken, this sort of humour can translate very badly, as is the case with your comment. It is better not to make such jokes and to speak in simple, plain English, avoiding the sort of local colloquialisms and types of humour which could be confused for a personal attack.

It was clear to both Colin and myself that what you really meant was that Jcb had displayed "some slight obsession, awkwardness or inconsistency in their behaviour" and that's what you should have said, avoiding the link to OCD.

There's also a more general trend in your recent comments which suggest a certain frustration with the project, and with administrators who are looking for a reason to delete material. There are comments there which have made unhelpful allegations towards some administrators - there's nothing I would consider actionable on its own but put together, it's becoming toxic and creating the type of atmosphere we would want to avoid. It's this frustration which I think led to your inappropriate comment at COM:AN/B and your block, ultimately.

When your block expires (or if you appeal successfully against the block - I won't be reviewing it as I'm involved) you need to become more mellow and rather than making accusations against administrators, communicate in a friendly and co-operative manner with them. If they provide unhelpful responses, bring the issue to the attention of other parts of the community, to other administrators, so we may collaborate on the best course of action - and remember, some of the worst administrative decisions tend to be taken by administrators focused solely on the best interests of the project.

Sorry for the lengthy comment, but I and I'm sure the rest of the community value most of your contributions, and would like you to come back fresh and friendly. Nick (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Christian Ferrer, thanks for pointing to «further explanations». User:Nick’s comment above is exactly what I needed to hear, though. (Redacted) Additionally, I expect no leniency from you, this time, for known reasons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not acceptable to make comments of that nature about any editor, it creates a toxic, corrosive atmosphere. I would ask that you redact your comment concerning Colin, and that you refrain from discussing Colin in future.
I would also remind you, this discussion isn't about Colin's behaviour, if you have concerns concerning Colin, you will have to wait until your block expires before raising those concerns at the COM:AN/U noticeboard. Nick (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(✓ Done, see below.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You see, I do enjoy Commons — the occasional upload, the old filepage clean up, the categorization work. I’d be saddened to have to let it go, and if the price to pay is to muffle the expression of my opinion about things I disagree with in the governance of the project, when they come too close to a selected group or people, then be it.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Nick, thanks for your words above. I’m unhappy with the situation myself: There’s one thing everybody is right about, in those two dicussions: Mental illness, or any such trait, should never be used with humourous intent or as a proxy to bad behaviour — accusing a wide swath of Commons users, incl. a disproportionate number of admins, of having a distructive agenda is bad in itself; people actually suffering from OCD, including some of us, need not to be singled out in any way. I’m frustrated for having linked to en:OCD, and for not having removed that link immediately after.
In my defense I can say that I think I would have retracted that unethical mistreatment of OCD sufferers later, either on my own volition or after being called off, (Redacted)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Nick, you said above: «remember, some of the worst administrative decisions tend to be taken by administrators focused solely on the best interests of the project.» I read it back and forth a couple times and I have no idea what you mean. Can you please point to a discussion, guideline, or policy where this matter is expanded? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes - what I mean is that some of the worst administrative decisions I've seen have been taken by administrators I know are acting in the best interests of the project, they may delete material because they're overly cautious or they mis-interpret legislation, not because they're being malicious or intending to damage the project.
What I was trying to convey is that administrative decisions should be discussed calmly and effort taken to understand the reasoning behind the decisions, rather than immediately condemning an administrator as being incompetent or having ulterior motives for deletion. Nick (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I see your point. And it still makes no sense to me. It’s like saying that filing a DR to delete all files in Commons is well-meaning because that would solve all scope issues and all copyvios! Two sayings come to mind: the old adage about Hell’s pavement, and the current day retort that «intent is not magical». -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Follow up

Many thanks for the redaction. There is a new problem on the horizon, from your perspective. The issue of an indefinite block has been raised, it may be helpful if you could begin to put together a case on how you would explain that an indefinite block is not necessary at this time, taking into account many of the problematic comments you've made recently. See also [2] which you may not yet be aware of. Nick (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict) Yes, I’m aware of that, thank you. Well, “building a case” doesn’t seem like fun. Like said, I’m here to contribute to the curation of a repository of free media in my spare time, in which interactions with other users are often pleasant and instructive. What you suggest is too far removed to anything useful to the sharing of free knowledge — I’d might as well create a Citizendium account and have “fun” there. That said, I might be pushed into protest against the most outlandish accusations, but on the other hand those accusations are so transparently made in bad faith that no defense is the best defense (and leaving it be spares me anxiety and time wasting). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S: If you're unaware, there is the {{Redacted}} template which can be used where text has been removed, rather than having to use the coloured approach, above. The use of the redacted template is the normal way of undertaking a redaction, apologies for assuming you were aware of this and for not explaining it when I left the above message. Nick (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
No, I didn’t know about {{Redacted}}; I’ll use it now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Several people here are expressing disbelief on how after 9 years and 200k contributions in Commons I never encountered the {{Redacted}} template. Well, that’s easy to check, and also easy to explain: Most of my edits are actual curation work, not hostile confrontations with other users that need to be repatedly redacted or retracted. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What’s expected of me at this point?
To clearly reject my use of OCD as a token of caricature of a specific editorial and administrative behaviour in Commons?
Easy — that’s the kind of thing I stopped doing long time ago, for personal reasons, ca 2001, when my big sister started exhibiting symptoms of bipolar disorder. That helped me realize that mental health issues are disjunct of morality and of intellect, and lead me to diversify my vocabolary when needing to express disparagement (before: «Mas estes gajos são doidos!»; now: «Vai-se a ver e deitaram a água das couves no bojão do narguilé!»).
My linking to en:OCD is therefore unexplainable and I regret I did it. I say this freely and regardless of any other consideration in the matter. I’m not disowning my intent, but I should have avoided splash damage by illustrating my caricature of Commons deletionists with a link to, say, Category:Hamster wheels instead.
To stop expressing my disagreement in matters such as this DR and the subsequent UD?
My strong words («Still clueless about scope, User:Taivo, I see.») were mentioned elsewhere among the pilling evidence showcasing my evilness. But, at least I was right — in the light of the facts that the file in question was eventually undeleted with its on-scopeness accepted (grudgingly, granted), and that User:Taivo, an admin, has indeed the habit of nominating for deletion photographs of anonymous people on that same spurious understanding of Commons scope (as if notability implying scope meant that non-notability implies no-scope), whereas most often than not Taivo eventually does withdraw his nomination or the DR is otherwise closed to keep the file. (I do not consider that there is any kind of feud between me and Taivo and indeed I often find myself agreeing with him in other matters.)
I seek guidance here, concerning my “defense” on this specific case of my expression of disagreement and others listed along with it. Not expressing my disagreement at all is also a possible option: Several times in the past, when faced with other users’ disagreement reaching stubborn impass, I simply let go and move to other areas of Commons (see this, this, and indeed this, e.g.). It’s bad for Commons, I think, but it’s good for me — and with “encouragement”, I’d do it even more often.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding building a defense against an indef block. I came with the proposal, not as a threat (I am not an admin, and I do not have the rights for carrying out such an action), but because it makes more sense for me to block a user until the reason for blocking is clearly acknowledged and understood, indicating a will not to repeat the blocking offense. Since you have now redacted the personal atttacks on Colin, and here also very clearly expressed that you agree associating people with mental disorders by linking is not acceptable, and expressed a regret for doing that, I think my original proposal is moot, which I have expressed on COM:AN/U. I have proposed to lift your block now, as i do not see a particular point in the full two weeks at this point, as it is (hopefully) unlikely that the disruptions will continue if the block is lifted. Best wishes, -- Slaunger (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Language gap issues

To clarify, the word "ejaculation" as used (and later redacted) above, was not meant in its physiological meaning, but as a synonym of "utterance" — inspired by the byline of this most excellent weblog I’ve been following for even longer than I’ve been in Commons. Only today I found out that the intended acception has indeed an unsuited meaning (§3), as the utterances I wanted to refer to are anything but short. I should have went for "ecolubrations", which is even more abstruse and has no unwanted locker room conotations. (As for the Portuguese cognate, please be enlightened by refering instead to a quality online resource: cp. "ejaculação" PRT and "jaculatória"PRT.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As an additional clarification, it was only very recently (long after my last use of it) that I found out that the word "wanker", used as an insult, has a much stronger meaning than what its etymology might imply: For what’s worth, whenever I used it I meant merely to accuse someone of having seemingly nothing better to do than being needlessly annoying: Still a notch or two below what it was (rightfully) taken to mean, and for that lexicographic faux pas I apologize. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Next up: To finally find out what is that chip on one’s shoulder everybody’s talking about. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that: Nah, I just want to everybody to get along. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

Hello, my rationale for the block was about your use of OCD. I have respect for you, your editions and your point of views about scope issues even when we disagree, and I agf when you said "My linking to en:OCD is therefore unexplainable and I regret I did it". I'm a small man in size but I'm stronger than 3 man together, and I also have a sister who is disabled. I would want to do everything to give some of my physical strength to my sister, even to cut me in pieces...however I learned this is not possible. But now I hate people who use the difference to derogatory end.
I think people who defend their views point in DRs, or somewhere else, are useful for Commons. I don't think you have to leave when a disagreement, I think you have to learn not to be frustrated when a disagreement, you have to learn not to be frustrated when an administrator don't make the action you'd expect. Because this is frustration that lead to "is therefore unexplainable and I regret I did it". I unblock you, I wish you good contributions, but if you make a difference discriminating once again, then the block will be ruthless and it will be hard to convince me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Apology

I have been trying to figure out why you keep popping up in discussions to be horrible to me, often when I am already under attack by someone else. The now redacted talk page comments above, the "insufferable wanker" insult, and this discussion where your sole remark is to mock my contributions and laugh and which Revent reminded me of yesterday, and probably others too. I believed they were out-of-the-blue attacks and your animosity unexplainable.

My taking you to AN/U over the mental health insult was absolutely not motivated by settling some score/feud or ongoing conflict. I've done it before with Stemoc and will do so again. Other than these bee stings you fired at me from time to time, I have have no reason to be in conflict with you on any ongoing basis. The use of mental health as a joke or to mock or insult is something I feel very strongly against. Those who say my actions were motivated purely by personal conflict are simply wrong. And I put it to them that if it were me who insulted you, Tuvalkin, while linking to the Wikipedia article on a mental disorder, then they would be first in the line to take me to AN/U, assembling with torches and pitchforks, and it would be me sitting with a two week block and not you. I am encouraged that you agree with me about mental health issues/stigma and regret your words.

But I must also admit that if I saw one of my wiki friends making the same misjudgement, then I would be having a quiet word with them first rather than seeking a block. And I am sure I am not alone in this inconsistency. Nick insisted I should have gone through the dispute-resolution steps that are typical on Wikipedia but frequently ignored on Commons. I pointed out to Nick that your remark that I am "toxic" and statement that "dealing with this person is not only pleasant or useful but dangerous for me" suggests my attempts to "engage" with you would be rudely rebuffed. I was also under the impression that you had banned me from your talk page, but I may be confusing you with Tm. This is not a healthy state for Commons to be in, with tribes fighting each other and having double-standards for those in or out of the tribe. How are they defined? The "photographers" versus the "administrative", the "deletionists" vs "inclusionists", or one's stance wrt Russavia's block, and so on. I don't know the solution, but hate is never a good emotion, and dividing people into "us" and "them" is the source of much human conflict.

To get to the point... I have been searching through logs to find some rationale for your periodic attacks on me. I assumed you simply placed me in the wrong tribe. But I have tonight discovered this discussion from March 2015. It is not my finest hour. I am ashamed to read what I posted there. It was unnecessarily hostile. I had forgotten all about it -- some will perhaps not believe that, but I hope my posting this discovery demonstrates some honesty of character so you and others can AGF that I really had forgotten about it. Perhaps that discussion is one source of your ill feeling towards me. I apologise for what I said in that discussion, and hope we can put these events behind us.

-- Colin (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

While I didn’t completely forget that discussion from March 2015, it was interesting to re-read it. Accidentally, while looking for something else, I found this other discussion, held one month later. (This reply doesn’t constitute a full reaction to your post above; at the moment I’m unsure on how to react, at all, to the way this matter of my blocking was resolved.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tuvalkin/Archive_5&oldid=212173453"