User talk:FDMS4/archive/2016/IV

Ich leiste hier doch keine Sisyphusarbeit

Ich schreibe Ihnen auf Deutsch, damit wir uns besser verstehen. Folgende Dateien habe ich den richtigen Adressen zugeordnet, z.B "Nowa Ruda - miasto 05" ... bedeutet leider gar nicht ... oder circa das gleiche wie "Wien -stadt 01 XXXX und so weiter". Das untere "Nowa Ruda, Niepodległości, verandy" ... ist in 2/3 polnisch und in 1/3 tschechisch ... und zusätzlich ist es doch keine "verande" ... sondern zusätzlicher Seiteneingang ... zufällig kenne ich das Haus. Sie sind doch hier um den Anderen zu helfen, oder ? Vielleicht verstehen Sie polnisch gar nicht ?

• File:Nowa Ruda -miasto 05.jpg
• File:Nowa Ruda -miasto 04.jpg
• File:Nowa Ruda, Niepodległości, verandy.jpg

Und ... noch etwas ... wenn Sie schon über gewisse Rechte in diesem Projekt verfügen vielleicht könnten Sie mal auch richtig helfen ... und zwar hier PLEASE STOP VANDALISM of YOUR BOT!!!!!!!! : Zeile 98. Seit mehreren Monaten versuche ich dem Betreiber des Boten verständlich zu machen keine Dateien die Category:Poland betreffen in die Category:Polonia zu laden ... anscheinend ist für ihn "Poland und Polonia" auch bei commons gleich wie im Latein. Tja ... danke im voraus für eventuelle Hilfe. 85.176.6.30 20:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Die ersten zwei Anträge waren borderline cases – aus Kulanz habe ich die Umbenennungen zwar nun durchgeführt, grundsätzlich bitte ich dich jedoch unser Ziel konstanter Dateinamen zu berücksichtigen. Nowa Ruda, Niepodległości, verandy besteht aus den Eigennamen von Ort und Straße (die auf Tschechisch dementsprechend gleich heißen) sowie einem Zusatz auf Tschechisch, eine Umbenennung lediglich zur Übersetzung auf Polnisch ist gemäß unserer Richtlinien unzulässig. Wenn du mir versicherst dass auf dem Bild keine umgebaute Veranda sichtbar ist kann ich von mir aus auch diese Umbenennung vornehmen, wobei dies ausschließlich durch Kriterium 3 abgedeckt wäre. Der Panoramio upload bot ist ein auf Algorithmen basierender automatischer Bot (Roboter) und kann dementsprechend auf solche länderspezifische Details wohl keine Rücksicht nehmen.    FDMS  4    21:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Metrorail

Hello, I did not duplicate categories, changed the category ″Rolling stock of Miami Metrorail″, to ″Miami Metrorail rolling stock″, in keeping consistency with pages like Category:Chicago 'L' rolling stock, Category:New York City Subway rolling stock, Category:Washington Metro rolling stock, Category:London Underground rolling stock and all the others, furthermore, is Category:Rail vehicles of Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) the correct name?, usually the Category Rail vehicles refers to a variety of railroad cars with in a system, the corect name than should be Category:Miami-Dade County Metrorail rolling stock, or even more correct Category:Miami-Dade Metrorail rolling stock, please let me know your thoughts, kindly, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moebiusuibeom-en: Yes, Category:Rail vehicles of Metrorail (Miami-Dade County) is the correct name. After extensive discussions, it has been decided to rename the main category as well as its subcategories from rolling stock to rail vehicles. Using these plural terms with of instead of appending them is a Commons-wide standard; the categories you mentioned are using legacy titles probably taken from the English Wikipedia (which has its own category naming conventions that with regard to some aspects differ significantly from Commons' ones). Besides that, Metrorail is a proper noun, and as such is never used prefixed with Miami-Dade County or even Miami-Dade (there is by the way no such geographical entity) in official documents.    FDMS  4    19:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind me moving the maps category so that it follows the same scheme (i.e. to Maps of Metrorail (Miami-Dade County))? (Thank you for creating that category in the first place!)    FDMS  4    19:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ping.    FDMS  4    19:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please allow me between the next 24 hrs to perform changes, i'll be offline starting at this moment, regards, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Moebiusuibeom-en: Not quite true but irrelevant since I was not asking you to rename it, but if you have any objections against me doing that.    FDMS  4    18:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mission Accomplished — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

There is a Commons policy allowing role accounts and they are often used. Would you please change the policy to disallow them if you feel strongly about this? Thanks. I would support you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: My POV is that the use of role accounts should indeed be encouraged, while our current policy certainly isn't doing that at least in my experience role accounts are usually tolerated when confirmed through OTRS. All COM:Role account does or was ever intended to do is to point out issues with the status quo, which is what talk (discussion) pages are for, not main projectspace pages like that. No reader gains anything from reading it, as you yourself admitted in the lead: There is no clear guidance available on how to operate one. This page only presents available information [i.e. mostly provides a personal interpretation of the policy it is linked from] without giving advice on the best practice. Put frankly: Pointy stunts aren't helping our case.    FDMS  4    22:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I emailed you. Can we talk by phone or video? When someone accuses me of bad behavior, like "pointy stunts", I often find that having human to human conversation is preferable to text communication for increasing mutual understanding. Whatever else is happening I do not mean to harm anything.

The problem that I am seeking to address is how institutional partners coming to Wikimedia projects will get bashed by people who support role accounts and also come into trouble if they choose to not use one. "There is no clear guidance available on how to operate one" is clarity also that anyone who enters this space will encounter trouble, and they should be warned. I think Commons is more clear to state that this is a problematic area than to send people to pages which suggest that there is a right way to do things, when in fact, all options lead to major problems. This is an especially troublesome place because high profile organizations have made significant financial and staff investments in Wikimedia projects only to get into conflict over unresolved wiki-bureaucracy. I would really like help either defining a best practice, but if there is agreement that there is no best practice, then I think it is fair to give notice of that. Thoughts? Help me out here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Responded via eMail.    FDMS  4   

We are in touch by email.

Beyond this, right now on English Wikipedia some people are revisiting whether Wikipedia should allow or prohibit role accounts.

I took the position that both options are unsatisfactory and that I do not know what a good option would be. I solicited comment at the Commons policy page. I thought you might like to be notified because policies on various projects tend to influence each other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

you have deleated the Link from picture gravesite "Max Immelmann" - Why??

Hello FDMS4,

you have deleated the Link from this picture

Gravesite Max Immelmann - Panorama Image Kulturdenkmal Tolkewitz Urnenhain Dresden Sachsen Germany

to Max Immelmann. Please tell me why?? The picture shows the gravesite from Max Immelmann in Dresden Tolkewitz. What is the problem you see?? - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lupus in Saxonia: Hallo, das Bild ist nach wie vor in der Category:Max Immelmann auffindbar, siehe File:+ 000000001 Panorama Image Kulturdenkmal Tolkewitz Urnenhain Dresden Sachsen Germany.jpg#footer. Grüße,    FDMS  4    17:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Danke für Rückmeldung! - Liebe Grüße vom ---Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lupus in Saxonia: Gerne. Warum ich manche deiner GIFs aus Kategorien entfernt habe liegt daran, dass es sich dabei eher um persönliche kreative Werke als sachliche Abbildungen handelt, die als solche zwar als {{User page image}}s auf Commons gehostet werden können, ansonsten aber nicht mit den restlichen Medien gleichgesetzt werden.    FDMS  4    19:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Hallo FDMS4, vieles ist für mich zur Zeit bei Commons nicht nachvollziehbar - und gegebene Hinweise von Usern "Wenn du keine Ahnung hast, dann lasse es sein .... ist für mich wenig Hilfreich! Auch war mir nicht bekannt, dass Commoons Kategorien nur in Englisch zu benennen sind!?? - Kannst du mir sagen wo das das alles steht?? - (Am Besten in Deutsch) - Wenn ich das Problem kenne, kann ich lernen und es besser machen. - Liebe Grüße vom ---Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lupus in Saxonia: COM:CAT und COM:LP, beide lassen sich mit der Leiste oben auf deutschsprachig umschalten. Grüße,    FDMS  4    11:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello FDMS4, Danke dir für deine Mühe und Hilfe! Liebe Grüße vom--Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves

Your moves of Category:Open-sided streetcars in the United States to Category:Open-sided trams in the United States, and of Category:Bidirectional streetcars and light rail vehicles in the United States to Category:Bidirectional trams in the United States, were both inappropriate, because you made them without any discussion. And also because, in your edit summary, you cited a discussion that you (misleadingly) implied supports the moves/renamings, when in fact it is an open discussion, and several points mentioned in the discussion oppose such moves. Unless you can cite a Wikimedia Commons policy page that supports these moves, you must move them back and open a discussion before moving them again. To move them without any discussion is rude. It does not matter whether people editing Commons know what "tram" means, if there are many, many users (ordinary readers, "visitors" to Commons without accounts) of Commons in the U.S. who do not know the non-U.S. definition of "tram". You are creating confusion for American users, in categories about American subjects. Such moves call for discussion. Steve Morgan (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Steve Morgan: You created those categories in non-compliance with the universality principle of our category policy, which explicitly states the following (emphasis mine):

Identical item should have identical name for all countries and at all levels of categorization. Categorization structure should be as systematical and unified as possible, local dialects and terminology should be supressed in favour of universality if possible. Analogic categorization branches should have analogic structure.

Furthermore, there was clear consensus at the CFD against your proposed exception from that policy. Let me note that despite that being allowed by our category policy as well I did not rename any of your many incorrectly named trams by manufacturer subcategories. A point you made at the CFD discussion was that it would be difficult to create redirects for all tram-related categories, I guess you could thank me for having done just that for the two mentioned categories.

To avoid any of the many U.S. residents having no clue what the term tram means (I consider there being a significant number of them nothing but a myth) being confused by the usage of it I've retained the original category descriptions using local terminology. Actually, the number of U.S. residents not knowing what a tram is is probably lower than the number of U.S. residents without any English language proficiency whatsoever; it being slightly more difficult for the few members of any of those groups to use the Commons category structure is a known downside of not everybody speaking the same language.

Talking about category descriptions reminds me of Special:Diff/210134779, where you put a lengthy unnecessary text on the category and then more-or-less revert-warred over my removal of it. Take a look at the version I restored: It already explicitly notes the terminology difference, unlike your version once instead of twice and without a link to a disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia. What could have possibly been confusing about that? And why should someone looking for media files leave Commons and instead look for them on the English Wikipedia?    FDMS  4    10:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The mention of "identical names for all countries" (which is logical) is not relevant to this discussion. Regarding "local dialects and terminology should be supressed in favour of universality if possible" is very relevant. It lends some support to your position, but I would call attention to the last two words, "if possible", and conclude that it is not possible – or at least is undesirable – to use a word ("tram") that is not widely understood by any of the native speakers of U.S. English who (unlike me) also have no interest in foreign material (sadly, a too-high percentage of the U.S. population), because doing so makes Commons more difficult to use for that group. And how can you, someone who does not reside in the U.S., possibly know what proportion of U.S. residents know what a "tram" is? The U.S. residents with whom you have dealt almost certainly all have some interest in European and other international content, or else they likely would not be editing on Commons in any areas that involve international content. As a resident of the U.S., I find it rather embarassing that so many Americans are so ignorant about foreign subjects, and have little or no interest in becoming educated about them, but it remains a fact. Perhaps using foreign terms on Commons (such as "tram", a foreign word when used in a U.S. context) will help force them to learn, which would be a good thing, but I am doubtful that it will. Personally, I have been comfortable using the term "tram" (to mean streetcar) for many years, but that does not mean that I endorse its use in U.S.-specific cats on Commons.

And I definitely don't agree with your assertion that the majority of U.S. residents already know clearly what a tram (the widespread non-North American definition of the term) is – although that is undoubtedly changing, slowly, in the Internet age. Replying to your last question: People looking for media files often start by seeing a photo (of a tram/streetcar) within an English Wikipedia article, not at Commons, then go to Commons to look for more. Commons has no disambiguation page for "tram", so I used the English Wikipedia one. In any case, it is not worth my time to continue arguing about this. As long as you remain certain that most Americans reading the word "tram" will picture a vehicle of the type that is widely known by that term outside the U.S. and Canada, and not something like this (such vehicles are much more commonly known as "trams" than as "trackless trains" in the U.S.) or one of these, there is no chance that I will be able to change your mind. Steve Morgan (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator feedback

I think the release text generated should more closely track the declaration of consent for all enquiries in the following manner (change in red):

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the free copyright license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International.

It might also be good to add the license shortcut, after its name, e.g. (CC BY 4.0)

Why are we i) providing 4.0 as the default, and ii) not even providing an option for CC-BY-SA 3.0? Correct me if I'm wrong: 3.0 remains the default license of all Wikimedia projects, and switching to 4.0 is only under discussion.

It has bothered me for a long time that the declaration of consent did not address one issue: A person can "represent" someone in many capacities without having authority over the person's property,. So when the declaration says:

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text].

it seems to me it misses something fundamental, and should say instead (change in green):

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

(I'll probably bring this up soon at w:Wikipedia talk:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and think it should be added to the generator's default text.)

At least at one time, we required indicia of authority by mandating that if a release was received by letter, it be on official letterhead, and if by email, that it be from an email address "associated with the original publication..." Has this gone by the wayside? Are OTRS volunteers just accepting the assertion of ownership without this significant form of verification? I see claims of "own work" every day from people who are obviously not owners, so if OTRS is not requiring this, I think we are likely accepting a lot of spurious releases, and if they are, then the generator should indicate that the email address must meet this requirement.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:

You appear to be referring to the English Wikipedia declaration of consent template, which is primarily for releases of textual content, whereas the release generator tool (relgen) is based on Template:Email templates/Consent/en; changes to that template should be discussed at Commons talk:Email templates. The CC BY-SA 4.0 is the default license for media content uploaded to Commons, however, (textual) content under the CC BY-SA 4.0 is incompatible with the CC BY-SA 3.0 and thus may not be used on the English Wikipedia (there is a slightly outdated prototype of a separate Wikipedia version of the tool).

relgen includes the following instruction as part of step 5 (i.e. where users are asked to send the release):

The eMail should come from an eMail address that we can recognise as associated with the content being released. For instance, if you are releasing images shown on a website, your eMail address should be associated with the website or listed on the contact page of the website; if you are releasing images on behalf of an organisation, your eMail address should be an official eMail address of the organisation.

   FDMS  4    02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator feedback

Did I finally make myself clear?

I hereby affirm that I, Robin Glover, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Italia_Shooters_2006.jpg. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Robin Glover 2016-12-16

[generated using relgen]

I don't want to go through this for every single picture that 'shotgun pete' wants to use. I'm not even sure of how many he's chosen and I'm sure he'll add to these choices as the months go by.

There's some other examples that he's asked for in my e-mail below.

Editors: My name is Robin Glover and I am known on soccer message boards and my own web page as Rocket Robin. My web page is named Rocket Robin's Soccer in Toronto. It's address is www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com I have over 185 links with Wikipedia for facts related to teams and players who mostly plied their soccer careers in Southern Ontario Canada thanks to the work of poster 'shotgun pete'. He would now like to include pictures from my site to Wikipedia but has been told by your editors that he needs my permission. Thank you.

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT HE HAS MY PERMISSION TO POST THE PICTURES THAT HE REQUESTS. EXAMPLES THAT HE'S POSTED SO FAR ARE LISTED AS: File: Italia Shooters 2006.jpg File: Oakville Blue Devils championship.jpg File: Brantford Galaxy 2010.jpg

So YES! Let him use these pictures and any others he wants.

I find your whole legal process too confusing to get my message across or I'm sending my permissions to the wrong area.

Robin Glover robing@eol.ca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Glover (talk • contribs) 03:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robin Glover: A Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (OTRS) member has just responded to your eMail.    FDMS  4    04:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia OTRS release generator feedback

Hi there! How do I translate the tool to Polish? Halibutt (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Halibutt: Please see this new FAQ entry and let me know if you have any further questions.    FDMS  4    20:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)

In other languages (translate this)

Please use SVG Thank you for uploading some images! Did you know that Wikimedia Commons recommends the SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format for certain types of images? Scalable Vector Graphics are designed to look appropriate at any scale, and SVG images are easier to modify and translate, helping Wikimedia to distribute knowledge to all of the world. A lot of modern programs support SVG export. If you encountered problems or have questions, don't hesitate to ask me, a member of the Graphic Lab, or the Graphics village pump. Uploading images in SVG format isn't mandatory, but it would help. (To avoid any misunderstandings, please don't just put raster images into an SVG container as embedded raster.) Thanks, and happy editing!

EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@EugeneZelenko: I'm all for templating the regulars where it's appropriate, however, it certainly isn't in this case.    FDMS  4    08:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, probably I opened wrong talk page when file was overridden. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Members of Parliaments for Germany

Given that I'm usually the one for keeping in category names to match their native German titles, and you are usually in favour of translation, it feels a little odd to ask your input here but at least you might help explain that I'm no anglo-imperialist. =) Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: What do you think about my "latest" response here?    FDMS  4    10:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)