User talk:Tryphon

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search


2008 :: 2009

Contents

[edit] Dont get your mad?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Georgy_malenkov.jpg Really, people on wikiepdia dost use to thinking head... With this progress your can delete half files on commons... OMFG.

[edit] Top 200 chemical images that should use vector graphics by usage

Hi Tryphon. How did you create this list? Is there a way to do it in only one step? --Leyo 08:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You can have a look at the code I'm using at http://gitorious.org/bots/mwcheckusage; not completely up-to-date (I'll commit more code when I get the time), but it gets the job done. –Tryphon☂ 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was asking because I think a usage statistics of images in Category:Low quality chemical diagrams (incl. subcategory) would be useful. However, it seems to be too complicated to me. --Leyo 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this what you mean (category and subcategory mixed in the same page)? Note that this is only for the 20 biggest wikipedias; I can extend the usage search if needed, just let me know. –Tryphon☂ 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I think it is OK not to stress the toolserver too much. :-) --Leyo 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Just one wish: exclude all unused images the next time you update the list. --Leyo 12:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This DR should have been closed as delete months ago. Commons cannot keep it. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. –Tryphon☂ 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help. If obvious DR cases are not dealt with, the backlog of all DRs here will rise unfortunately. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm not sure if this image can be kept here: File:Eiffel Tower at night.png Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • You were right, sorry I missed your message. –Tryphon☂ 10:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Eastwood western statue.jpg

If you think this artwork is a copy vio for Commons, please delete it or file a standard DR. I'm not comfortable marking it. Thank you, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done, thanks. –Tryphon☂ 10:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not speak like that, "Please do not upload copyright violations". Do you think I did it deliberately? Himalayan Explorer (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm very sorry; this is just a template message. I know this is a tricky part of copyright laws, and most people don't even suspect there might be a problem. The message was not well fit to your case, and was just meant to inform you that the image was deleted for copyright reasons (so you don't wonder why it disappeared), not to blame you for anything. –Tryphon☂ 12:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making a decision. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pelagos

Hi, this user 2 days after you have deleted all his copyright violations and warned about possible ban started again with low resolution, zero EXIF data files, Some are clear copyvios as File:Vologod.shosse.jpg[1] or File:Most2.jpg (with copyright mark). I am not 100% sure but looks like Pelagos again is taking random pics from Internet and mark it as his own work --Justass (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month, and nuked all uploads; thanks for notifying me. –Tryphon☂ 13:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This DR

This is truly a bad faith DR. Can you revert the nominator's actions or not if the images were in use? They should not be conveniently removed from articles just before his second DR. Any ideas? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know of an easy way to revert these changes across projects. But I agree it should be done. –Tryphon☂ 16:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Perhaps the time has come for this more than 1 week old DR to be closed as delete. Its an obvious flickrwash. I...just wonder how many more flickrwashes populate Commons sadly? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done, thanks. –Tryphon☂ 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images abkhazes

Toutes les images abkhazes que je téléverse sont libres de droits, à partir du moment où le lien avec le site d'origine, celui de la Présidence de la République abkhaze, est indiqué (c'est pourtant clairement indiqué dans la notice d'information de l'image). Veuillez cesser vos destructions aveugles et rétablir les fichiers supprimés.

Budelberger (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC).

Où est-il écrit, sur le site en question, que toutes les images sont libres? Tout ce que j'ai vu, c'est un copyright en bas de chaque page: © Administration of the President of the Republic of Abkhazia. S'il existe une page spécifiant les conditions d'utilisation, il faut en indiquer le lien sur chaque image dans le champ Permission. –Tryphon☂ 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Je sens que j'en tiens un beau, là. Il y a des dizaines d'images, depuis des années, utilisées par toutes les Wikipédias traitant de l'Abkhazie, provenant du site de la Présidence abkhaze et versées sur « Commons » – utilisant toutes la même description ; que depuis des années, hein, autrement dit… –, quand soudain, le 13 novembre 2009, « Tryphon », à peine nobélisé — il faut au moins ça – et ivre de la puissance que lui donne son statut de coopté, entreprend ; il entreprend, car, forcément, il sait tout mieux que tout le monde, ses indignes prédécesseurs, qui eux, ne savaient pas lire ; ceci, par exemple : « О сайте », § 6 ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ ИНФОРМАЦИИ. --Budelberger (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
Charmant. Du haut de ma toute puissance, je ne parviens malheureusement pas à apercevoir où il est dit que les travaux dérivés et l'usage commercial sont autorisés (deux conditions nécessaires pour qu'une image soit considérée libre). Sans compter que l'autorisation est limitée à certaines sections du site (dont l'une des images supprimées ne faisait pas partie). Donc si vous pouviez clarifier ces points, je me ferais un plaisir de rétablir les fichiers supprimés (mais laissez tomber le ton arrogant, je préférerais qu'on puisse discuter calmement). –Tryphon☂ 18:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
« je préférerais qu'on puisse discuter calmement », comme : « supprimer d'abord – faut bien rentabiliser sa cööptatiön –, et pas plus comprendre ensuite » ? m'enfin, on ne se sent plus, hein ? --Budelberger (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC). (« dont l'une des images supprimées ne faisait pas partie » : il faudra mettre à jour votre döctörat de russe, pour le prochain Nöbel, je suggère modestement. Quant à mon ton, il est à la hauteur d'où vous évoluez.)
Vous ne répondez à aucune des questions que j'ai posées. –Tryphon☂ 13:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Vyrus Alto Performance.jpg

Dear Tryphon,

Do you know how to tell this uploader to forward his permission to OTRS. I don't speak French. I had flickr failed it but reverted my actions to give the user a chance to pass his permission to OTRS. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've tagged the image with {{no permission}} and left a note in French to the uploader. –Tryphon☂ 13:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind help. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Parlement Genève 2009.svg

Hey, thanks very muche for your help, I'm getting crasy !

Just for me to know, how did you get ride of this black box that I don't see in Inkscape and only when uploading in Commons ? Thanks in advance, Manoillon (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, I know it's a problem many people encounter (a bug in the Mediawiki software actually). I've noticed that it's usually related to the use of flowed text. It's hard to get, because you cannot simply select those elements in inkscape; you can can either use the tab key to cycle through all elements and delete every flowed text object (you'll see it appear in the bottom status bar), or hack the SVG file with a text editor directly. I hope this helps. –Tryphon☂ 10:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hult International Business School

Hi Tryphon,

I tried to upload photos (Efcenter.jpg, San francisco4.jpg, Dubai1.jpg) for the page Hult International Business School but you have cited them as copyright violations. I am new to Wikipedia and was not quite sure how to license/categorize them - perhaps you can help me? I am part of Hult International Business School and we were the ones who have taken the photos (hence we have the copyright) how do I upload the pictures under this category/license etc?

Thanks for your help, HultIBS

The problem is that these images have a low resolution, no EXIF metadata, and the source given was a website. This all points to someone taking them from that website and uploading them here without owning the rights. If you are the author, you should consider uploading the originals (directly from the camera), and put own work as the source and your name (or pseudonym) as the author; if someone else from the school took the pictures but gave you permission to upload them here, you should get that person to send an email to OTRS sating under which license they want to release the images. Let me know if you have more questions or if you encounter any problems. –Tryphon☂ 07:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, have sent them an email now to prove I am the copyright holder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HultIBS (talk • contribs) 10:08, 2009 November 18 (UTC)


[edit] Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests

Pense tu avoir le temps de regarder cette requête de "restauration" : Undeletion_request:Cigarette_card. J'apprécierais vraiment que ça avance et pour le moment il n'y a pas de développements depuis plus d'un mois. Merci. Cordialement Pro bug catcher (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

C'est fait. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de contacter la compagnie qui produisait ces cartes. Peu de gens sont prêts à faire ce genre de démarches. –Tryphon☂ 07:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:BSD

Hello, I noted that you deleted the image of this template. As the CommonsDelinker seemed to be down at this timepoint, the template now leaves a red image link. I was just wondering if you're able to find a new image, because I think it would look a bit "empty" without an image. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What about using File:BSD wordmark.svg, which I just uploaded. I thought about using the FreeBSD logo (which is free), but using it on a template related to BSD in general would most likely constitute a trademark infringement. This image is surely not the best, but that's all I can think of for now. Hopefully someone more inspired will find something more suitable. –Tryphon☂ 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WRT your recent comment...

WRT your recent comment, no. I realize I recreated a deleted category. I don't make a habit of ignoring administrators' actions and rulings. If there was a good reason why the category was deleted in the first place, over and above that it was empty, and that hypothetical good reason still applied, then I should have placed File:Castle overlooking the Danube.jpg somewhere else.

If the commons was a database, it would have a database manager. And he or she would be responsible for designing a schema -- and policing it. We have no database manager, so it is important we act very cooperatively, and talk to one another about why we empty categories, and why we create new ones.

If you old enough to have used an old-style rolodex this parable will make more sense. Several decades ago I was a member of a small food coop. We kept track of our inventory on little 3x5 rolodex cards -- date purchased, amount, price per kilo. Each item we carried had a card. Each item's card was filed behind a card with a tab for the category, categories like flours, cheeses, oils, legumes, and cereals. When I first started dealing with our inventory the category "cereals" only contained items like oats, "pearl barley", etc -- true cereals. Fast forward a couple of years, and we started to carry, in bulk, a couple of pre-made Crunchy Granola mixes. Another volunteer had shoehorned them under cereals. Following that example, a couple of years later, when we started to carry premium, organic versions of corn-flakes-like pre-packaged breakfast foods, they too were shoehorned under cereals. I took a break from that volunteer gig, and was very surprised when I returned to find that all the true cereals, the oats, barley, etc had been moved to a new category "grains and seeds", leaving "cereals" usurped by breakfast foods.

The point of my story is that we, here, face potential chaos, a category system that is in constant flux, time-wasting flux, if we don't make the effort to explain why we make decisions, and don't make the effort to understand why our collaborators made their decisions. I am doing my part by asking Bapti why they decided to delete the category.

I am not trying to be difficult. Rather the management of categories, to prevent the wasted effort of volunteers undoing the work of other volunteers, is an innately difficult task. Some of our volunteers think it is a trivial task, because it should be obvious to those with experience which categories an image belongs in. In my experience nothing should be dismissed as "obvious". Our decisions on categorization contain idiosyncratic and arbitrary elements. We don't have one perfect categorization scheme that would be obvious to our most experienced categorizers. Rather we have a large variety of possible categorization schemes to choose among, any one of which would be acceptable -- provided it was used consistently.

Earlier today I uploaded an image that illustrated the use of agricultural terraces. I looked under Category:Agriculture. I didn't see an appropriate sub-category. So, should I have created a new category named Category:Terraced agriculture, or Category:Agricultural terraces? Should I have included the new category in Category:Agricultural techiques or Category:Types of agriculture? So far as I know either choice would have been acceptable -- provided it were to be continued to be followed consistently.

The wikimedia commons schema evolves, on an instant by instant basis, through the individual choices made by individual contributors. Consistency is important. And explaining one's choices is important.

What I think would have been a better choice on Bapti's part would have been to have left a longer note like:

  1. deleted after being emptied, following the consensus reached in [this discussion]
  2. deleted after I noticed this category was currently empty.

If Bapti deleted it simply because it was empty then I shouldn't hesitate one second before recreating it.

If Bapti deleted the category after it had been emptied following a discussion where substantive reasons for its emptying and deletion were offered then it would be important to review those substantive reasons -- to see if they still applied.

I have been contributing to the wikipedia for over five years, and to the wikimedia commons for about four years. I have over fifty thousands edits on the wikipedia, and I have uploaded about four thousand images here. In my interactions with the two projects' administrators I have come across some administrators who aren't really open to suggestions that they make a greater effort to document their work. Some, I am very sorry to tell you, become actively hostile to any questions about their decisions, no matter how tactfully they are phrased.

I don't believe I misread the log. I believe my comments to Bapti were civil. I believe my comments to you, here, are also civil. But it is my honest opinion, after long consideration, that the larger our projects become, the more contributors they attract, the larger the pool of administrators becomes, the more important it becomes for everyone, but particularly our administrators, to "show their work", and otherwise carry out their activities in an open, transparent, accountable, responsible manner. Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see Category:Agricultural terraces -- yet it existed. I moved the new image there. The point of this example remains valid however, in spite of my lapse. The decisions we make as to how to categorize images and articles contains idiosyncratic and arbitrary elements. So consistency is important. Geo Swan (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point. I was just surprised that you brought up a one year old edit and ask for an explanation about it. I thought you misread the log into somehow thinking the category had just been deleted.
As for administrators better documenting their actions, I couldn't agree more; although in this case, I would interpret empty as the category was empty, so I deleted it, because if there was a discussion, of course the admin would have linked to it (and if they didn't and you re-created it, the blame would be on that admin; how could you know it had been discussed before?).
Anyway, thanks for clarifying your point. And I'll make sure to be as precise as I can be next time I delete an empty category :) –Tryphon☂ 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Sorry to intrude. I agree with GeoSwan that it can be hard to find all the right categories for images here. Its almost chaotic sometimes. So, if I see a picture of a beach in England, I may say 1. Cat:X (as in current area/location of photo) and 2. Cat:Beaches of England. At least its better than no cat at all. As an aside, if you could make a comment in this DR, it would be appreciated. The original source deleted his account but the uplaoder has a good record with photos. I think it may be kept in this instance. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No need to apologize; everyone is welcome to comment and react to discussions on my talk page.
      But it looks like I'm too late to comment on that DR... –Tryphon☂ 08:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Valhalla picture you just deleted

What about this one....http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Vallhalla_12.jpg???

It should be deleted too. –Tryphon☂ 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] please help

I reverted your revert here. The comment has nothing to do with the image and becides it is absolutely wrong. If you aren't sure how to use a file talk page, please take a look here. As you could see "The File talk namespace is used to discuss images in the File namespace", and not an image's creator. Besides category "water waves" does not follow from the category "Surfing in California" at least I could not find an easy connection. So, please do delete the discussion page of the image all together as irrelevant. I would also ask you to learn your subject before making comment as you did on AN/U. What mr. kuiper did to me had nothing to do with cleaning up the categories. It had neither anything to do with edit warring. mr. kuiper with your help and with the silence by other admins tries to retaliate to me personally anywhere and any time he could. Otherwise maybe you could explain why neither you nor he cleaned up other images in category surfers, and why in the world we need that category at all, if I am not allowed to add an image of a surfer to category "surfers"? If you cannot explain that, or, if the only explanation you have is that silly one of yours ,may I please ask you to add category "surfers" to the image? Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again with the persecution theory. No one is out to get you, talk pages are there to discuss anything related to the image (like categories, and if you thought it was the wrong place, you could have moved the discussion elsewhere instead of just deleting it and go on with your edit war), and I could block you for resuming an edit war after being blocked for that very reason. I don't expect you to listen to me, or even to try and understand why people may have different opinions than yours, because I'm probably part of the international conspiracy directed against you. I'm adding Category:Surfers from America, hoping we can then move on to something that doesn't revolve around you. Good luck. –Tryphon☂ 08:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course mr. kuiper is out there to get me in any place he could, and I could easily prove it. I know you could block me for reverting your edit, and I know that block will be fair (I knew it was wrong what I did). So, if you do feel like blocking me, please do. I will not contest it. Thank you for not getting angry with me for the barnstar. I made it just for fun, and I am going to take it off your talk page now (not for not getting blocked by you, but because you do not deserve it anymore :), and besides mr. kuiper just nominated it to get deleted :) )--Mbz1 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] BibliotecaAH

Dear Tryphon,

We're BibliotecaAH. Please don't delete our images. We're Alfaro Hofmann Colecction Owners and all the images we upload are ours. You can visit our Web Page http://www.alfarohofmann.com/#/home/es.

Thanks,

BibliotecaAH —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.155.14.169 (talk) 10:39, 2009 November 24 (UTC)

In that case, you should follow these instructions and send an email to OTRS confirming that you are the copyright holder of those images and that you release them under a free license (please specify which one explicitly). You have to understand that by doing so, anyone can use these images for any purpose, including derivative works and commercial use. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry

When I made the barnstar, I thought it was just funny, but few users believe it was an attack file. So, I guess I own you an apology. Please believe me it was not my intention to attack you with that file. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm really surprised you didn't mean it as an attack (or didn't realize it could be understood as such). Publicly giving someone an award for being unfair, if it's humor, it's usually at that person's expense. Anyway, if you didn't mean it that way, good. And even otherwise, I usually let this kind of things slide; I don't think it's worth getting all worked up about it. –Tryphon☂ 13:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I assure you I did not mean it is as an attack, but I have to admit that I thought it might upset you just a little bit. If I were an administrator, and somebody would have given it me, I would have laughed at it, and maybe got just a little bit upset, but not so much. I even would have kept it on my talk page for the fun. If you considered it to be an attack, it is even more surprising you did not block me because you had two good reason to do it: edit warring and attack on you personally. Please once again do acept my apology. In no way I wanted to hurt you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You did not hurt nor upset me. As I said, I don't really care. Consider your apology accepted. –Tryphon☂ 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It is kind of you! May I please ask you to delete the file here? Even, if somebody wants to have it for other purposes, it should be uploaded with a different name. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I prefer letting DRs run to their full extent, someone will close it in a week. –Tryphon☂ 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I sent you an email.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DovesPressBible.jpg

Dear Tryphon,

Is this work PD-Old? The 2 authors seem to have been dead for 70+ years? If you agree, then the flickr review license fail template is irrelevant and should be replaced. I have made no edits to this image. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems so. And even if it wasn't for some reason (like a third author who died later than 1939), it's {{PD-US}}, as you can see on the en.wp page. I'll tag it accordingly. Thanks. –Tryphon☂ 08:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your attention. I am not an expert in copyright or FOP--something which MBisanz and I just dislike--so I thought it was better to get an expert's opinion here. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undeletion request regarding User:Quahadi

FYI: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Selected images of User:Quahadi. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 03:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

here. Once again I'd like to tell you I am sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you did that, thanks. –Tryphon☂ 10:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: File:2003_Ohio_License_Plate.jpg

Thanks! I've re-uploaded it as 2003 OH passenter plate.jpg – and requested a file renaming there, since I made a typo. I've updated all uses of the original image, so you can delete it again. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

...and it's gone. Thanks for letting me know. –Tryphon☂ 10:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tryphon"