User talk:PhilippineRevolution

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, PhilippineRevolution!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Please do not edit war[edit]

Deutsch | English | Français | Italiano | +/−


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users' contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.

--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not overwrite files[edit]

Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenčina | Svenska | +/−


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg I noticed that you uploaded a file using the name File:MRT-3 North Avenue Station.jpg. A file by this name already existed on Commons. Overwriting an existing file should not be done except when making minor, uncontroversial corrections, so the file has been restored to its previous version. If the file that you attempted to upload is within our project scope and is in the public domain or published under a free license, please upload it again under a different name. Thank you.

For more information, please see Commons:Overwriting files.

Steinsplitter (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Final warning - The next time you will be blocked. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I did not overwrite any images this time and base on the heading of the section it applies to the overwriting of images. But I understand the warning. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

Hi PhilippineRevolution, please choose names that are better accessable to handicapeds and elderly people. Please don't use such unreadable names. Thanks. I fixed the rest the same way. Greetings. --LezFraniak (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I can go with that as long as you would do the same for those existing files that are already renamed under 2 major categories such as Category:Manila MRT Line 2 and Category:Manila Metro Rail Transit System. Let us be uniform in the renames, Thanks! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I was checking for some files, like this: [1] and I was following. So let`s use it that way. And please sign your messages. Thanks. Greetings. --LezFraniak (talk) 04:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No, all I was asking is that please also fix those that have been renamed with contracted names to achieve uniformity, Thanks!PhilippineRevolution (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Done! ✓ Done --LezFraniak (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Appreciate the helping hand! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@LezFraniak: This is simply invalid – or am I wrong?    FDMS  4    14:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@FDMS4:I think User:LezFraniak sees my point on renaming the images on a unified, easy readable manner. Despite it not being in a template, a unified naming scheme would make the lives of wiki writers and editiors like me on different wiki project pages easier as we would not be fuzzing too much what is the name of the images to be included in the pages esecially if the names are too different from each other. I understand that we had conflicts on what name it should have but rest assured that the name suggestions will be final and hopefully executory. I hope you see my point as we would need it for the pending writing and rewriting of several articles related on different wiki project pages. Thanks! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm afraid your opinion is not compatible with our filemoving guideline. Again, our aim is not to have the best filenames, but filenames that are stable and reflect the uploaders' wishes (and, of course, do not contain any errors or vandalism). You have to accept that, editwarring is not the solution.    FDMS  4    01:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
But it does not state either that these kind of arguments are not allowed for a rename too. Yes I know that we should allow the user choose names, but the images involved were once renamed with almost the same argument in mind so the argument "retain the uploader's name" is already invalid. I know it could take a special request or a higher administrator to determine the legality of such. So in the mean time just leave the rename template to avoid edit warring and let some other higher, unconnected administrators determine the legality of the move.PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, they are, if and only if there is consensus to accept them. A lot of your rename requests meant no improvement of the filename at all, except for following your naming scheme, which there has never been any discussion about (which would be necessary on a rather large scale). I am not an admin, but a filemover, and there are no "high" or "low" administrators or filemovers. Me having the filemover right means that I am the one deciding whether or not to perform a rename request, and if you think I systematically decide the wrong way you can request the removal of the filemover right from my user account (but not try requesting again).    FDMS  4    02:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Im not yet interested in such as I see you just follow the rules in a "by the book" manner, which does not apply all the time in edits and other cases might it be in wikipedia, wikimedia, or in real life. Such is practiced in law that is why there are the so-called "landmark cases" that are yet to be determined and provisions and decisions are not yet in the book or laws. I know that this is not a conventional move reason, but I dont think its also invalid. Consensus or not, this should be a "landmark case" especially if it is meant to ease the lives of other contributors and make wiki project pages more editor friendly for better article creations. That is why all I was asking you was to retain the template and let some administrators determine via a court like setting talk page to argue our support or disagreement on the matter just like any regular court of any land. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a project more people than just you and me participate in, which makes it necessary to have certain rules and restrict certain abilities to certain users. Again, you have to follow no rules (or "books") if there is consenus supporting your actions, but there is not, and therefore, it is common to refer to an established consensus, which you can find at COM:FR. CAT:MOVE is not a court or anything similiar, people like Marcus Cyron expect requests to be valid and therefore follow consensus or a guideline, so there are no landmark cases whatsoever. In our deletion process, there is a difference between requests for speedydeletion (COM:CSD) and for deletion after discussion (COM:DR), but there is no discussion variant of {{rename}} (requests usually get either performed or declined after less than an hour).    FDMS  4    10:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay I understand that though how can I contact other users like User:Jeromesandilanico if he is indefinetly blocked if its possible to ask for his blessing if an image can be renamed? Sure other contributors such as User:PhilippineRailways and User:Exec8 can be contacted anytime but some images are by the first contributor and as I see in his page he is blocked. I hope you could help me on this and be able to ask him properly. Thanks! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Jeromesandilianico is not blocked, see here, and if he was he *could* likely still reply on his/her user talkpage …    FDMS  4    13:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay I just thought that the block from english wiki also applies in commons, anyways I would try to ask for his permission or authorization to rename on his behalf so criteria number 1 could be used if ever he allows to do such. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week[edit]

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: edit war. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Yann:I did not do any edit warrings, basically User:Steinsplitter was the one who mistakenly reverted some items (eg. reverting to the redirect of the new category name instead of leaving the new category name. So I think i dont deserve a block on such grounds. You could even see the history. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You have radded the rename template at it was removed a lot of times. You have received enough warnings. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users' contributions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically it was not an edit war because an edit war would result in multiple reverts and renames at the same time. I renominated it but you removed it and you even have given me my "final warning" above, even if the item is clearly for "image overwriting", for the item which I agreed upon and not anymore added a rename template afterwards so its not considered as edit warring. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw the history, that's precisely why you are blocked. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: but look at the reverted item, it was basically Steinsplitter's fault for reverting to a redirect category Category:Tatra RT8D5 in Manila from Category:Manila MRT Line 3 ČKD Tatra RT8D5 LRV which is the current name. I would accept the block if the 3RR (which i did not breached in this argument really happened) if Steinsplitter will be blocked too as if not those faulty reverts done by him could be considered a frame-up on me. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
It is very clear that you has editwarred, and not only with me. Pleas respect the commons rules. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Please read what User:Yann blocked me for and that is the mistaken 3RR vio that was imposed on me as a block. The history was there and I think you are the one who should be blocked for 3RR vio based on the current edits on the image. I did not revert your removal of templates today so I dont think that even counts on 3RR. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Take your medicine, lick your wounds, learn, and come back in a week. There is a need for an evidence, above opinion, and there needs to be some respect for initial filenames used. Often worth discussing something with the uploader or on the talk page of the work. You'll be fine.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I do thank users like you for being calm and neutral on matters but I just cant accept the reason they gave me especially I see that User:Steinsplitter has a personal grudge on me to the point that he is framing me already and recently reverted some edit templates after being blocked even if the file was clearly misleadingly named (eg.File:Kamuningjf4080 06.JPG) I do think that Steinsplitter has become too abusive already of his administrator rights and that I being a newer user was bullied by such an "admin" in this page. Tho I call on @Yann: to please respond more or this is considered a team-up of "admins" against a user. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal grudge? I hope you are joking. Pleas assume good faith. I have zero tolerance for users who ignoring the rules. Not only i are thinking that this file should not be renamed (see history, very clear case). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope I am too but with what you did, I see that it was not the case. Basically again may i repeat that (calling again @Yann:) that I have been blocked for me being accused of violating the 3RR rule on [2] as per the reason "15:10, 22 June 2014 Yann (talk | contribs) blocked PhilippineRevolution (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation blocked) (Edit warring after warnings: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MetroManilajf1121_02.JPG&action=history) ". But unfortunately, two of your edits on the same article 1 and 2 reverted items which include your faulty reverting to a redirect category Category:Tatra RT8D5 in Manila from Category:Manila MRT Line 3 ČKD Tatra RT8D5 LRV which was the current name, which you have purposely done because prior to the rename template, the category was already the new one (see category below, item changed since June 21, 2014). So basically you should (at least also) be blocked based on these evidences. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
My last comment: I haven't seen the cat (i don't care about the cat), i am speaking about your editwar @ renametemplate. Ther is no consensus to rename this files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Basically my intention was not to editwar either as you can even see when you have not reverted the category anymore and instead removed the rename template only, i refrained from adding it again to respect the verdict and as commons policy. So basically that is what I am reverting and not the removal of the rename template, but the category change you have been editwarring. The editwar the blocking administrator pertained to was the alleged 3RR vio improperly imposed to me that was the reason of this block as per (@Yann:'s) block summary I have quoted above. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
On another note though I think File:Kamuningjf4080 06.JPG's rename template is justified by merely seeing that the Kamuning name is for the district in en:Quezon City as per en:Kamuning MRT Station which is far and very misleading from the accurate and correct Magallanes name which is a district in en:Makati which can be seen via en:Magallanes MRT Station and the background clearly shows the Magallanes viaduct behind. So I do not see how the rename category does not fit. I even dare you to see the differences at least in google maps. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

File:MRT-3 Ortigas Station Platform Morning.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:MRT-3 Ortigas Station Platform Morning.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Mike VTalk 17:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

File:MRT-2 Train Above Recto Avenue 3.jpg[edit]

Hello PhilippineRevolution,

Could you tell me why you removed the French translation I wrote in that picture?
And also in File:MRT-2 Tracks Recto 2.jpg and File:MRT-2 Tracks Recto 3.jpg

Greetings, Sémhur (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Sémhur: Hi I removed the french caption of the image because the image description does not match the english translation. But other languages are welcome if the captions would be a good translation of the current description as I understand that different languages sometimes does not have a direct translation. Plus the Yellow, Purple, Blue namings were already dropped due to the confusing new color scheme currently implemented in the country. I hope you understand and I am willing to help you if you like to get a better french translation of the image. Cheers! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw that you change category of these pictures, so I understand why you did that. But it would be better to write me a message, instead of deleting the translation!
I have not understood the sentence "Plus the Yellow, Purple, Blue namings were already dropped due to the confusing new color scheme currently implemented in the country." Never mind.
I will write a better translation. Sémhur (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Sémhur: the colors are formerly for LRT-1 (yellow), MRT-2 (Purple/violet), MRT-3 (Blue) respectively.
Regarding changing the description, I changed it because the description was poorly describing the image so there is a need to make it as accurate as possible.
About removing the caption, It is already noted and the next time that the translation will be off, I would message you instead in improving it. Cheers! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Please do not edit war[edit]

Deutsch | English | Français | Italiano | +/−


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users' contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.


Special:Diff/128036422   FDMS  4    11:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Some notes: When you revert someone's edit(s):

  • always put "revert", "rv" or anything similiar in the edit summary
  • never mark the edit as minor

I'm sure you didn't know that, didn't you?    FDMS  4    11:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


You have been blocked for a duration of 1 Month[edit]

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 Month for the following reason: Edit warring after warnings & filemove requests vandalism after warnings. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


You have received enough warnings. Enough is enough. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Request reason: "This edits have been done a single time of a day and they are not simultaneous as according to editwarring definition is that it is the repetition of an act multiple times in a day which was the reason of the first block (see log above).This edits were done only a single time and not in a simultaneous manner and clearly User:Steinsplitter has something personal on me by blocking me singlehandedly on inavlid grounds. As per the 3RR rule, this does not qualify. Plus becuase he is the "other party" and such should be dealed by a neutral administrator. Plus come on where is the vandalism in that?PhilippineRevolution (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)"
Decline reason: "There certainly was disruptive behaviour. Je kept making invalid namechange requests for the same files for example. You have been told to stop before. this is not the first time that you have been blocked. I see a lot of bad faith here (no evidence that Steinsplitter has something personal against you has been provided which make it clearly an act of bad faith) and I see absolutely no intention to change your behaviour. As long as you refuse to understand the point I see no reason to unblock you. I don't think that we have met before so that qualifies me as a neutral administrator. Natuur12 (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2014 (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 | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | +/−

My Images[edit]

Hi there fellow filipino and (I suppose) railfan!

I appreciate that you are also interested in my images and that you wanted better names for them but please next time wait for my approval first. I would let go of those you have already renamed but next time that you will do without my permission, I would report you to the admins. I am supporting your cause but please learn to respect the rights of owners next time.NewPhilippinerailways (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing categories from files[edit]

Please stop removing pictures from the category Category:Magallanes MRT Station just because you don't like them. You removed the following files: File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 18.JPG File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 15.JPG, File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 14.JPG, File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 13.JPG, File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 12.JPG, leaving them with NO CATEGORIES!

You also removed the following files from the same category that I have reinstalled before, which again you have removed!!: File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 08.JPG File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 07.JPG, File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 05.JPG, File:MagallanesVillamorjf9982 04.JPG. Please leave them there, you have no right to remove them from that category as they belong there. Wikimedia Commons is not about your personal satisfaction. If you want to stay at Commons, we have rules to follow here whether you like it or not. -- Briarfallen (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well to answer you first the images do not depict the category so why put them there? Its not with what I please to do but more appropriate tags such as Category:EDSA exists anyways so I think that would be better especially the image is about the EDSA and not the station which in these images are barely captured. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Blocked Indefinitely
This user has been blocked indefinitely. See block log.

català | čeština | Deutsch | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Steinsplitter (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

File:MRT-2 single journey ticket front side 2014.jpg[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:MRT-2 single journey ticket front side 2014.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 find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.

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


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Luxembourgish | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

The Haz talk 00:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)