User talk:Ranveig/Debating

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

Deletion notices
License questions
Questions and debates

Really unused[edit]

Hi - I have just asked Andre Engels to create an updated list of really unused images. What do you think? Any sugestions for the next round? -- Duesentrieb 17:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL! And here I was, thinking the number of unused images had simply shrunk dramatically! Did the problem with non-ASCII characters get solved? That's my only concern. Apart from that, I'm definitely part of the cleaning gang.
Oh, and congrats on the little one! -- Ranveig 18:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a fresh list of really unused images on my box now, nearly 9000 entries. I have put up a test page showing entries up to the letter D here: User:Duesentrieb/really_unused - please have a look and tell me what you think on my talk page. I have sorted the images by uploaded, because i feel we should try to get people to clean up their mess. I hope you'll help me with this. If you have an idea how to get more people involved - please tell me. Thanks! -- Duesentrieb 19:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Paris or Category:Paris, France[edit]

didnt't you know: Commons:Village pump archive-12#"Paris" or "Paris, France"? Schaengel89 @me 12:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it, but I don't see any conclusion, except that a lot of people seem to want the capital of France to be called Paris. -- Ranveig 10:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Project Country Categories[edit]

Hi. I had only today noticed you had responded on the discussion page of Commons:Project Country Categories (it wasn't on my watchlist for some reason). I have responded. / Fred Chess 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1568[edit]

I am not so happy about your changes, from Category:Historical Professions to Category:1568 in some picture, because the source shows more the whole midle age and not only this special year. It's not a history event. Perhapse you can use Category:Amman-1568 or something like that. (Amman was the author.) So the whole book can be a part of Category:public domain books.Kolossos 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The most important thing for me was to get rid of the "Historical Professions" category; it's not very informative and the capitalised P is wrong. But I like your suggestion, and I'll try to implement it.
Meanwhile, there are some German words for the occupations that I don't understand. If you know them, perhaps you can explain what they're doing, or find an English translation? Cheers, Ranveig 11:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can tell me which you mean, and I will try my best to explane it. But some of the pictures have so old names that I also don`t know what the exactly mean. Kolossos 12:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found a few helpful websites which made it possible to categorize most of the images in questions. The ones which are still at category:Historical Professions I'm not able to place. The new category is category:Das Ständebuch (1568). -- Ranveig 19:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to explane:

  • Hefftelmacher: He is working with en:Wire of en:Brass for clothing. I don't no what this is.
  • Jakobs Brueder: He is someone who is going on the en:Way_of_St._James to Santiago de Compostela.

I hope, it help.Kolossos 19:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great help! Part one of the task is complete. Now all I need to do is move everything that's left in category:1568... Ranveig 08:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests[edit]

Category:cottages[edit]

Hi, I've been looking at Category:Cottages and Category:Huts, and wondering if we should change everything to Category:houses. The reason for this is cottage and hut are very subjective, particularly in the international context (and have negative connotations in Africa). Or hut could be used to mean only a temporary shelter, for a guard or outdoor worker, but not a home.

As you worked on one of these cats, do you have an opinion? JackyR 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there, cheers, JackyR 20:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the above to Commons talk:CommonsProject Architecture. I hope that's OK. JackyR 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Insect[edit]

Hi Ranveig,

I'we senn the file called Image:Blackberry insect.jpg. The fly there is Pulucella volucens from Syrphidae. uk:User:Aledubr

Added to Volucella pellucens. Thanks! --Ranveig 23:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:Two little girls.jpg[edit]

Why do we need upskirt shots of preteen girls on Wikimedia Commons? AnonMoos 16:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? --Ranveig 17:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you're going to have to come up with a slightly better explanation than that for a picture whose visual focus seems to be a little girl's panties, or I'll nominate it for deletion, just like I nominated Belginusanl's images: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=prev&oldid=2129499 . Those did end up getting deleted. -- AnonMoos 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos... please Assume Good Faith, Ranveig is a longtime contributor to Commons. Ranveig...you may not have noticed but the image is a bit out of our project scope and also a bit creepy to some people. I believe it will be removed. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you by any chance American, Mr. AnonMoos? Kjetil_r 00:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, and most probably the creator of the photo, the focus is on composition and the girls' thoughtful faces. If the image is so "creepy" or "offensive" to you, perhaps the offensive bit can be cropped out of it? (However, this might ruin the composition). I do think we need images to illustrate children in various situtations, moods, and different types of clothing. --Ranveig 22:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That exact same photograph could be cute and harmless as a private family snapshot, but in the context of being uploaded with a free license to Wikimedia Commons, it naturally attracts suspicion to itself. AnonMoos 23:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AnonMoos, do you suspect Mrs. Ranveig of something? Kjetil_r 01:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that "Ranveig naturally attracts suspicion to himself/herself", I said "it[the photograph] naturally attracts suspicion to itself", because that's what I meant. AnonMoos 07:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relax. AnonMoos came on heavy at first.. it's somewhat hard to blame them, considering some of the real creeps that we've had uploading pictures in the past. It's clear that Ranveig is a good longstanding contributor who is uploading pictures of many types. There is no reason to worry about that.... but it's still the case that the usefulness of this upload is pretty limited. --Gmaxwell 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that this particular image is hardly essential... but that could be said for most files here. I do think it is useful to have pictures of normal, modern in addition to the elaborate, mostly old-fashioned ones in category:dresses. --Ranveig 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution to this problem?[edit]

I don't get any joy out of being unpleasant, but five days have passed, and nothing has happened with this image. If something doesn't happen relatively soon, then I'm going to nominate it for deletion. AnonMoos 01:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem? It is a nice photo of two girls playing on a verandah. One has to have serious personal problems to think of this photo as a "upskirt shot of preteen girls." Kjetil_r 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrasing from http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Current_requests&diff=prev&oldid=2129499 , did the photographer get appropriate legal permissions from the parents or guardians of the girls to release the photo under a free license? Can the original uploader validly legally document that he got the appropriate permissions from the parent or legal guardian? Does the photographer have a signed model release? Does this photograph violate the "rights of personality" (i.e. privacy) which exist in the laws of some countries? Are there potential legal problems caused by posting a photograph of identifiable minors? Are there potential ethical problems caused by posting a photograph of children who are too young to make an informed decision to consent to the public posting of their photograph? Most importantly, do we want this photograph on Wikimedia Commons. "Minimal educational or informational value plus maximal potential problems equals delete, by my calculations."
Meanwhile, "Kjetil r", if all you can contribute are glib pop-psychological diagnoses, then maybe you had better shut up, and leave the matter to be discussed among those of us who have the maturity to discuss this issue without descending to pschobabble and gratuitous personal attacks... AnonMoos 12:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. AnonMoos, please abstain from personal attacks. By the way, why do you put my name in quotation marks? Kjetil_r 00:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. AnonMoos comments are needlessly hostile. Relax. We're all trying to help here. We don't all have to agree all the time. Life goes on. I don't think the photograph is a useful addition to commons, but no violence is needed here. --Gmaxwell 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't think I have much a sense of humor with respect to this matter -- at least not "kjetil"'s particular brand of alleged "humor". I find it revealing how "kjetil" is completely and utterly unwilling to address any of the numerous issues I have raised above in any way, but he somehow has lots of time and energy to spare for the purpose of attempting to taunt me on the basis of my national origin, and to insinuate that I'm a sexual pervert (see his comments above) -- and when I point this out, he is incapable of any reply other than a childish "I know you are, but what am I?" reversal.
All this, apparently, is "kjetil"'s attempt to intimidate and harass me for having "dared" to raise issues with respect to this image. Well, I "dared" to raise issues with respect to User:Belginusanl, and he's permanently banned from Wikimedia Commons, and I'll continue to "dare" to raise issues with respect to this image whether "kjetil" likes it or not. AnonMoos 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. You still put quotation marks around my name. Are you having problems pronouncing it? If so, you may call me Chuck. Most Americans do.
  2. I have no idea why you refer to my “brand of alleged 'humor'”. I can assure you that nothing of what I have said in this discussion has been intended as humorous.
  3. I have not taunted you on the basis of your national origin. Actually, I love America and Americans. But as an European living in the United States I have noticed that we do have a different view on sexuality. No European would consider a photo of two girls playing as sexually suggestive in any way. In fact, the paranoia one sees in the US regarding photos of children is most likely leading to the sexualization of them - not the protection of children, as the intention is. Kjetil_r 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you STILL haven't actually addressed any single ONE of the issues I raised, but are merely spouting abstract amateur-sociological bull intended to prove your rather irrelevant thesis about the superiority of the European way of life to degenerate inferior Americanism. Waging your little Kulturkampf, and launching into personal attacks against me, is what you use to substitute for actually debating or dealing with any of the relevant issues. AnonMoos 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, if you do not stop your personal attacks immediately, I will stop discussing with you. Kjetil_r 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your question about being American was an unneeded escalation in an already stressful situation. Both of you need to stop fighting. AnonMoos should put the image up for deletion and lets be dispassionate about it, we can all then respond on the deletion page like normal people. There is no more need to invoke cultural stereotypes here than there is need to imply that poor Ranveig is a pedophile. --Gmaxwell 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that my “being American” comment might be misunderstood. I can assure you that I did not in any way mean to offend Americans, and I am sorry if I offended some of our users. Kjetil_r 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When he called me a sex-pervert was when his irrelevant personal attacks began to escalate. AnonMoos 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I call you a “sex-pervert”? Kjetil_r 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you appointed yourself as a glib pop-psychologiest and said "One has to have serious personal problems to think of this photo as a `upskirt shot of preteen girls'." (which is a slight contextual misquotation of what I originally said, by the way). AnonMoos 08:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have never called Ranveig anything, but "kjetil" accused me of calling him/her things as part of "kjetil"'s strategy of launching irrelevant personal attacks against me, in order to create a distraction, and avoid having to actually deal with any one of the issues that I raised. AnonMoos 07:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still put my name in quotation marks. Why is that? Kjetil_r 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been on Wikimedia Commons for over seven days, and nothing has happened. If nothing has happened when I login tomorrow morning, then the first thing I will do is nominate it for deletion. AnonMoos 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness?[edit]

Hi Ranveig, Looking at your uploads it appears that you are submitting many images from flicker only on the basis that they are sufficiently free. For example, Image:Heart-painting.jpg. I can't for the life of me figure out how we would use this image on any Wikimedia Project. In general, images submitted to commons should be useful, if not directly in one of or projects then at least indirectly by supporting the community activities of our contributors. While there is no direct harm from a single non-useful image, we are simply unable to support the extra burden of acting as a general purpose free image hosting service for a large number of images.

I know it would take more work, but if you could focus your flickr copying efforts on images for which you can locate a need it would be very helpful. --Gmaxwell 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think through and also do work with my uploads. I usually search flickr for pictures of themes I'm working on, although if I see something I think might be useful to other users I upload that as well. That's what I consider to be helpful. (However, if it's the case that you have to manually sift through all flickr uploads I can understand if you want to limit them). The image you mention can be found in nn:Hjarte. --Ranveig 01:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ranveig/Debating&oldid=5154297"