User talk:とある白い猫

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Half curve tl.png Half curve tr.png
Half arch tl.png Half arch tr.png Half arch tl.png Half arch tr.png
A Certain White Cat
Bilinen Bir Beyaz Kedi

User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox #1 | #2

Half arch bl.png Half arch br.png
Half arch tl.png Half arch tr.png
Today is Monday, 24 October 2016 and the current time is 14:40 (UTC).
There are currently 123,947 galleries and 34,142,711 files on Wikimedia Commons.
Half arch bl.png Half arch br.png Half arch bl.png Half arch br.png
Half arch tl.png Half arch tr.png
!      HALT! If you are here about an administrative action that I have taken, please read this page before posting.
Half arch bl.png Half arch br.png
Half arch tl.png Half arch tr.png


Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post comments below. Anything you put here will likely be archived and available for public view. Please be polite and civil.

To post a new topic please use this link.
Half arch bl.png Half arch br.png
Half curve bl.png Half curve br.png



Commons:Deletion requests/File:37thtfw.jpg[edit]

You closed this saying that there was no valid reason for deletion without at all addressing my comment:

"Without a source, we do not know who produced it or who photographed it. You say it is a product of United States Army Institute of Heraldry, but the uploader and the file description do not say that. It is well established that individual representations of blazons have their own copyright, so in order to keep this we need to know who created this particular instance and, if it not the USAIH, a free license. Also, since this is a photograph of a 3D object, we need a free license from the actual photographer unless, again, the image came from the USAIH or another Federal source."

It may well be the insignia of the 37th Training Wing, but without knowing who produced this patch and who photographed it, we are potentially infringing on two copyrights. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: It isn't though. See w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. "A photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original" as quoted in Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The U.S. case of Bridgeman v. Corel (1999). You cannot claim copyright just by snapping a photo of a patch. Nor can you claim copyright by simply re-creating or restoring a PD work regardless of the effort it takes. This is different from snapping a photo of a 3D PD work and claiming copyright from it based on lighting etc. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 10:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
+1 -- (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphan cats[edit]

Could you please help uncategorize all images from the following categories?

-(tJosve05a (c) 20:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Josve05a: ✓ Done That was over 100,000 files! :D -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Undeleted unsource emblems[edit]

Hi, please add a hyperlink to a US federal government site to the source field to show these are genuine USAF works. Jcb (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jcb: Umm no? Hyperlinks are not a requirement for this kind of content. These patches predate the internet. A simple google search depicts multiple examples on multiple sources. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 11:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If you are just too lazy to execute an appropriate process, please leave it to somebody else to deal with the UDR. Jcb (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Jcb, you are just being rude, there's no other way to see your accusation of being lazy. Please back off and concentrate on some different backlog areas. There's plenty to do that would not tempt you into personally insulting other contributors who hold different viewpoints from you. This rudeness drives away volunteers from having positive discussion and eliminates any chance of having a consensus building discussion.
I was contacted on IRC earlier, and may add some sources to the two undeleted files this weekend depending on my real life commitments. I doubt this will satisfy you as there are no "official" USAF military sources, however there is no significant doubt that the patches are in use and representations of them are as validated and used by USAF employees to describe and illustrate their own active units. If you want to keep on deleting these low risk images, then raise a DR, present your case, and the community can discuss it. -- (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you are making trouble about, Lineagegeek already completed the task for these two files. Jcb (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Anyone that disagrees with you seems to be liable to nasty personal allegations of being lazy, forum shopping, disruptive, on and on. You are not rude to volunteers that happen to agree with you at the time. Back off please, or be seen to work constructively with others, including those you have technical disagreements with. This is not me "making trouble", this is me objecting to your deliberately provocative language, which is what we expect of trolls, not administrators. -- (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jcb: I do not follow your logic. Do you have any reason to doubt that these files aren't works of the US federal government? They look like military patches to me, various internet sources collaborates this including images of pilots wearing them.
Honestly I am rather distressed by the conduct of multiple parties in handling of obvious public domain works in this manner. Such scrutiny would better suit other areas where we do have more pressing issues such as obvious copyright violations (screen captures, etc).
@Jcb: How about this? Compile me a list of patches without hyperlinks and I will OTRS verify them with the US Department of Defense.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@とある白い猫: With regard to your comment in the UNDEL request, the list is the "other files" at User_talk:Ellin Beltz/Archive_5#Deleting emblems of United_States_Air_Force_emblems. These match up with the Flickr album linked there (provided by Ellin). -- (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite creepy[edit]

Hi とある白い猫,

After the discussion was closed, I saw you describing Colins proposal to INC to not work past midnight to avoid misunderstandings and distress as ...Identifying someones sleep cycle is kind of as extreme as you can get, it is quite creepy to be honest... I object to your interpretation of Colins concern as an attempt to identify someones sleep cycle, and that you describe Colins concern as "quite creepy". I think that is a highly unfair, exaggerated and unbalanced accusation as Colin is trying to make a constructive proposal for how INeverCry could avoid some non-optimal decisions or misunderstandings. You have hereby harmed Colins online reputation. If my conduct was described as "quite creepy" in such a situation, I would be very distressed about it.

I have noted that today INC has written I've got to stop staying on Commons for 12+ hours per day as Colin rightly pointed out. It's difficult to discuss things productively when you're tired and short-tempered after a long day of editing. Which is a clear acknowledgement of the observation and proposal Colin is bringing forth has validity.

I hope you will be more mindful when you use such terms to describe other users actions in the future, and I hope you will consider redacting that comment as a courtesy and a sign of good will.

-- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Slaunger: You are welcome to object. One does not need to be specific about speed cycles, eating habits or other more personal factors in order to simply say "tired". Such remarks can easily be interpreted in many ways where as tired is tired. Overworked, fatigued, admin burnout are also phrases that can reference to the well known problem. In the case of INeverCry this was blatantly obvious to everyone.
I retain that Colin's approach was unhelpful at best, and more on the creepy side of things. Talk to any individual you are not well acquainted with about your observation of their sleep cycles etc, and the reaction you will receive will most certainly not be positive and perceived as I described. These are basics in civility. One does not need to cite a users comments to convince them of something if one wants to be constructive. All he would need to do is claim INeverCry was tired in a neutral manner. Certainly a phrase such as "Without some change to his editing patterns, I see an inevitable de-admin (whether self-requested or enforced) and the community made it clear the last one was the final" would not be received well by an already tired and overworked admin. So I think Colin has harmed his own online reputation in the discussion concerning INeverCry. If anyone's reputation is harmed by a few noticeboard posts, it was too flimsy to begin with.
We expect a level of temperament when commenting on noticeboard discussions which Colin evidently lacks. Discussions can get heated and last thing we need is people add fuel into the fire. People may make accusations of intimidation, harassment and stalking for example which are known on-wiki problems. I needn't list the users who were blocked for these reasons who were otherwise constructive.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 09:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Since you retain that Colin's approach is "more on the creepy side of things", which is a variant of your original "quite creepy" I am stuck speculating how you reach this conclusion? The best idea I can come up with is that you may have a lack of knowledge of the history before this, which Colin's proposal was an extension of. INC has, on more than one occasion brought their own sleep pattern up and in one recent case from September 2016 given it as a possible root cause for fall-outs in otherwise good judgement. The examples that come to my mind are
Colin brings this past history up, but you just dismiss it. Given this is a self-acknowledged problem stated in public by INC, I do not think it is taboo for another user to bring it up when noticing a correlation between bad decision-making and working late for many consecutive hours. I agree that if there had not been such a prior history it would appear a bit odd, to bring up the topic, but given the history here it is an entirely different matter. Maybe you just did not know the background, and when it was brought to your attention, you did not do your homework of checking out the background.
You argue that Colin has overstepped basic rules of civility. The fact that INC has obviously not perceived Colin's observation as uncivil indicates for me, that your judgement has not been correct in this case. Instead I urge you, again, to consider just how civil it is to describe a users sincere attempt at proposing a solution to a difficult self-acknowledged problem as "quite creepy/more on the creepy side of things".
Remember, there is a person behind a user name, when you sit at a screen and type that a users action is "quite creepy". Take a moment to consider how you would react if your actions were described as "quite creepy". When I am about to write something critical about another user, I also try to think about; would I say this also, if I met the person face-to-face? Did you consider that?
-- Slaunger (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Intentions and what is perceived do not always correlate. AGAIN, no one here disputes INeverCry was tired. Merely stating that is more than enough. Specifically trying to prove sleep cycles is not. If you mentioned sleep cycles in a face to face my reply at a minimum would be "that's creepy dude". If you tell this to someone of opposite gender you may earn yourself a slap. People have had restraining orders enforced on them for such "observations" in extreme cases mind you. Point here is sleep cycles and other such very personal issues can very easily be interpreted as creepy.
Noticeboard participation requires a level of temperament Colin evidently lacks. Noticeboard discussions get heated fairly often so people should at all times adjust their language to be absolutely sure they would not be interpreted in different ways. You should never perceive a remark posted there as too personally as harsh and even unreasonable remarks are common. This is particularly and issue if a tired/overworked user is involved whom is more likely misinterpret intentions. We do not want issues to spiral uncontrollably costing us good users. This is something Colin himself eluded towards in a sentence that can be interpreted as a threat.
We should not reward/promote uncivil behavior simply because INeverCry managed to reply in an eventual cordial manner (now and in the past). What if the user was slightly paranoid? Would the same behavior be acceptable? There are so many ways Colin could have destabilized that discussion.
Even before Colin's involvement we already were discussing what to do with the actual issue on IRC. There was some concern if lifting the block would be worse or not, which is understandable. Such considerations are always made when overriding another admins action. The same conclusion would have been reached without his involvement.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a very big difference between beginning to discuss a persons sleep cycle out of the blue, and discuss it when the other person has openly brought it up earlier in public. You are completely dismissing this aspect as if "I did ot hear that". You are now generalizing your slur about Colin with the statement "Noticeboard discussions requires a level of temperament Colin evidently lacks".
In contrast, I find that your allegation towards Colins does nothing to calm down or stabilise the situation, but instead escalate a molehill to a mountain top. Colins headline was "INC overtired again". There are plenty of examples of Colin making constructive suggestions and help resolve issues at the Noticeboards. From the same discussion I referred to above, you have above Nick stating ...Colin's wise words above are similarly appreciated..... Of course there are also examples of unsuccesfull interventions as there are with most, but a generalized statement as this is not fair and unbalanced. Just today Colin received The Teamwork Barnstar because he and Jkadavoor helped resolve a conflict between WPPilot and Ikan Kekek. Colin has initiated and orchestrated the Commons:Photo challenge. Something you cannot do without excellent collaborative skills. Colin can be blunt, especially when the recurrent "let's speak badly about Colin" wave hits the boards, which your contribution here is an excellent example of.
You write "Even before Colin's involvement we already were discussing what to do with the actual issue on IRC." I have a very eerie feeling about these IRC discussions taking place to discuss administrator and user conducts between a subset of users, who are in average hardly representative on the community, as it has a strong bias of very computer-oriented users and the IRC user base probably has an age bias. Who is "We" on IRC. We is certainly not the community. IRC logs must not be logged and are hidden from the public giving it a "closed club" mob-appearance for the outsider. I recall having logged on a few times years back and thinking; I am too old for this communication form. It mostly seemed more like a social chat and it had a closed club mentality. Why not discuss these things in the open? What is there to hide?
--Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)