User talk:Tuvalkin

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


kea + mwl[edit]

Hi, I've created some missing {{User kea}}-[0|1|2|3|N], added them to {{User/Language1}}@k, created the missing Category:User kea-[0|1|2|3|N], and requested an {{editprotected}} on Template:Babel list of languages adding older {{User ain}} and {{User av}} sets while at it.

So far it was simple, and maybe pointless, at the moment you are the only user in the new kea categories. But on your user page you also have {{User mwl-1}}, and apparently that should be {{User ast-1}}, or rather, that's what the link in {{User mwl-1}} suggests. Is that correct, can I simply redirect {{User mwl-1}} to {{User ast-1}}, or is something not as it should be? –Be..anyone (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Be..anyone, thanks for the kea work — Capeverdean is a vibrant language with almost half a million speakers on three continents. I hope and expect its usage scope to grow soon and its speakers to finally start using it for things like Wikimedia projects. (My knowledge of it is merely passive, though: I cannot create any content, only read others’.) (pinging Waldir -- Tuválkin 12:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC))
-- Tuválkin 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
You’re right that mwl is a subset of ast, however, Mirandese (thusly termed) is enshrined in the Constitution as an official language of Portugal (a completely bogus accolade, with no practical meaning), and has even a separate, official spelling (you can trust Portuguese linguists to make a mess of things and ignore a century of dialectological and orthographic ground work made by their collegues abroad). I’d warmly welcome a solution that would subsum me among Asturian-Leonese speakers (again, as a non-speaker with mere passive understanding) yet somehow, if possible, retaining the separate Babel boxes and their labels for user pages…
-- Tuválkin 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:ItamarFrancoPresidente.jpg[edit]

Hi, Tuválkin. I do not understand Portuguese, so please help me and comment the request. Taivo (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2,00 c€ added and sadly a Symbol delete vote.svg delete vote. But maybe User:Gunnex has a better idea: unlike him, I don’t know much about copyright, and I’m not Brazilian. -- Tuválkin 01:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Buffalo&Birdie.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Buffalo&Birdie.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)‎ | +/−

MPF (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Renaming[edit]

This issue of your misinterpretation of our guideline will continue to cause trouble as long as you keep making statements that are simply not try, and keep blocking/attacking those who are correctly interpreting the guideline. Stability is important but not paramount. The guideline lists some scenarios where stability can be overruled in order to improve some other quality, and a rename can generally be performed without great community discussion. The guideline also has an incomplete list of scenarios where the case to overrule stability is so weak that these should generally never be performed (though there may be the odd exception). For other cases, like the one at Village Pump, it is not obvious. A community discussion is appropriate. You seem to think the first list is in fact the only circumstances when renaming is ever justified. That's simply not true, and is a misreading of the guideline. Saying "do not rename files" is a "hard-and-fast rule" is absolutely wrong. Perhaps there's a language problem and you should consult a dictionary before commenting. Because "hard-and-fast" is a rule with no exceptions and that can never be changed. But there are exceptions. Stability is merely a very important quality. No more than that. If you can't understand that, then I suggest you find a good friend with a better grasp of language to help interpret the guideline for you. -- Colin (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Nothing to add about the subject matter: Looks like we agree to disagree about COM:FR, me taking a maximalist view of it, for the sake of stability and to avoid a slippery slope of improvement-renaming.)
That my “grasp” of English might not be sufficent for a unsupervised participation in the curation work here, were that true, would be an alarming cue that the use of English as Commons’ lingua franca is unsuitable, by shutting off all but the most skilled non-natives. However, and considering the whole of your interaction with me, the apparently reasonable piece above notwithstanding, I go for a simple and more sensible conclusion: That you are trying to shut me off from the discussion, and making use of whatever excuses you can: Me being a non-native English speaker with slightly above average command and supposedly someone conscious of language use praxis and ethics issues in an international setting (no shit, Sherlock!) offered you the necessary ammo.
Alas, I’m unbudged: I’ll go on expressing my opinion whenever and wherever I feel like, as clearly as my skills allow. You can take it at face value, or you can ignore me — that would be probably the best, as your bad faith is transparent, even when you mask it under smarmy, fake sympathy.
Speaking louder than any re-framed language issue you may raise publicly to cast doubt about my Commons experience and trustworth, there is my work record here (I just added in my sig a link to my contribution history). Hesitant third parties will know exactly what is going on when you repeatedly demean and insult me.
(Messages from you in my talk page are unpleasant. Please make sure you do not come here more than the stricly necessary minimum.)
-- Tuválkin 11:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm disappointed you view my attempt at trying to resolve our differences as "unpleasant". I am genuinely trying to understand why someone with your apparent intelligence (I'm not being sarcastic) has so much difficulty with word-use that is clearly not what those words mean. Far from trying to shut you off, if you would express your opinion on the village pump and elsewhere as mere opinion ("In my opinion we should not rename this file / should rarely rename any files / whatever") then I would have no problem with it. But instead you repeat falsehoods as fact. I fail to see how your contribution history makes any difference if what you actually write is wrong. What you believe is your own concern. It is this (and your very unpleasant attack of another editor when they renamed in a way you disapproved of, and which was ultimately caused by your extremely sub-optimal choice of filename in the first place) that I react to. I'm not sure where you think the "bad faith" comes from, and you need to stop thinking of me as an enemy if there is any chance we can work together. And there's no reason we can't. My concern is merely your hostile and fundamentalist approach to file renaming. Outside of that I have no issue with you that I can recall. Since we appear to have reached a stalemate about what FR guideline actually says/means then I do genuinely suggest you find a third-party to help advise. I myself am open to hear what others may think on what the guideline says and doesn't say. There is a third possibility -- that the guideline does not in fact represent community practice or views on this matter -- and if that is the case then I recommend you propose changes to improve its wording. -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)