User talk:Tuvalkin

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


"Here, you're welcome to these"[edit]

Here, you ask if I can point to any improper deletions.

No I can't. However, I can point to some unfortunate deletions. Here's the successful deletion request for one. I only noticed this some time after it was concluded as delete. The image was of a photograph by Rob Hornstra, with a longish text by Hornstra. It was uploaded, with Hornstra's warm encouragement, by somebody who at that time was an intern of Hornstra's. I don't remember the details, but there wasn't an OTRS communication. Thus there was indeed no immediate evidence that the uploader was the copyright holder, and the deletion request was reasonable. (I'm not saying it was unfair; I just say it was unfortunate.) I believe that the lack of OTRS communication was at least in part because the description of the application process made it sound complicated.

Commons deletion requests can be a mystery to me. Consider the most recent one in which I participated. Let's put aside the reasons for deletion and instead look at the reason for retention: "in use by a sister wiki". In the context, this must mean "in use by en:Wikipedia". I had never realized that being in use by en:Wikipedia was a reason not to delete. If it really were a reason, then I wonder why it didn't also apply to the deletion request of the previous paragraph (for a file in use in both en:Rob Hornstra and nl:Rob Hornstra). -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me talk page stalking: "In use by a Wikimedia project" is a reason not to delete for reasons of lack of educational value, which includes "mere self-promotion". It is not a reason not to delete for reasons of copyright. The first DR you link to is a copyright DR, the second one is an educational value DR. I hope this makes things less mysterious to you. darkweasel94 10:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Nenia problemo, Darkweasel. -- Tuválkin 05:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
In short, Hoary, you cannot point to examples of photos by notable photographers which were in use in an article on a sister project, and that got deleted in spite of acceptable and confirmed licensing. Too bad, for there are probably a ton of them — it is only logical due to the bad habit of idolizong deletionists and giving them free reign to ransack the repository of Commons as an inept and pusilanimous way of counter-acting the identically trollish approach by WMF pushers of mobile uploads and other such “easy” ways of “contributing” random media to Commons.
On the other hand, and adding to Darkweasel’s explanation above, you did find a case of a DR that was closed to keep and yet where there were raised points indicating a possible copyright violation, or at least so it looked to me after curosy reading. A case for a new DR, if so.
-- Tuválkin 05:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
There may indeed be pusillanimity. (A cromulent word!) As for Benteaching.jpg, I hadn't realized that whoever closes DRs here does so purely on the merits of the arguments for/against the original objection. The realization surprises me; but there are so many DRs that energy has to be conserved, and on reflection I sympathize and understand. A new, separate DR for Benteaching.jpg? Not from me. It's merely a screengrab from a video released as a PR exercise. The screengrab is employed in a WP article that itself was seemingly created as a PR exercise (see here). I think that we all have better things to do than point out a flaw within a PR campaign, and I think that a second DR would merely show how the PR campaign had failed to tie up loose ends.
But back to Hornstra (and Meadows). I sense that a lot of people are favorably disposed toward Wikipedia (etc) and would like to contribute graphics. (Viewed very cynically, this could be questioned as self-PR; but both these people have achieved critical acclaim and a degree of commercial success; crudely, they need coverage in WP less than a self-respecting encyclopedia needs coverage of them.) As I read what was required for a known photographer to contribute JPEGs to Wikimedia, have them credited to him, avoid their later deletion, and keep on contributing without any need for repeated OTRS communications, I got lost. No wonder people with even less experience of Commons than I have are deterred. Perhaps the system is better than I think; perhaps it has been improved. But my alternative -- a CC page within the person's own website -- seemed promising. I'm grateful for having certain misunderstandings corrected, and after their correction the idea still seems promising. (I'm not knocking the established, OTRS route, just hoping to avoid it.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nigra-blankaj fotoj de tramoj[edit]

Saluton! [1] [2] Kial? Tiuj fotoj ja montras tramojn, ne nur trakojn. darkweasel94 08:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Mi tion faras per Cat-a-lot kaj iuj bildetoj estas tro malgrandaj. Pardonu pro la eraro. Kompreneble mi planas vidigi al mi plenekrane la enhavon de la nova kategorio kiel sekvencon kaj korekti tiajn erarojn, sed b.v. korekti jam tiujn se vi emas. -- Tuválkin 08:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done darkweasel94 08:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File:BSicon WASSERqf.svg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:BSicon WASSERqf.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 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 | 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 | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

JuTa 04:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

dSKRZ-G2o/u[edit]

Just inquiring: [3] what is too tight and for what? YLSS (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I think it is too tight to do, e.g.,   when you could do    , which better matches  . I think that narrow icons with stuff that that needs to crammed in is a bad idea. (Not the case, of course, of   or  , for instance, which are appropriate to have as half-with icons.) Another example, not narrow, is the whole   family. Note that I’m not defending those “crammed” icons should be deleted or anything, but would recomend they sould be avoided in normal use. -- Tuválkin 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hm, of course you're right. But don't forget there's a difference between   (WBRÜCKEq) &   (WBRÜCKE1q) (at least in ru.wp, both are used to show bridges of different size, as well as   (WBRÜCKE2q)). Also, sometimes there is really-really little space, and every pixel is priceless (e. g. {{Баженово — Рефт}}). But yes, I agree that in normal circumstances, more aesthetically-looking icons should be used. YLSS (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, WRT [4]: maybe they would better be (RP2+exBUE)? Because AFAIK you didn't plan any out-of-use road (which I also find extraneous). Also, probably they should be (RP2+BUEq) & (RP2q+BUE) (for "standard" priority crossings), and possibly "v" needs to be duplicated... or not... YLSS (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Luca Sartoni[edit]

Hi Tuvalkin. Thank you for your message. You are quite right! I just created Category:Files from Luca Sartoni Flickr stream, for photographs by Luca Sartoni and for files hosted in this Flickr stream. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)