User talk:Ari Linn

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ari Linn!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Bahasa Banjar | বাংলা | Català | Нохчийн | Čeština | Cymraeg | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Kurdî | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Ирон | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Scots | සිංහල | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Basa Sunda | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Tagalog | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

On providing reasons for votes at COM:FPC[edit]

Hi Ari,

I noticed you have strong opinions regarding whether one should provide a reason for supporting/keeping or opposing/delisting an FPC nomination/delisting request. I don't want to spam the anime delist request further by elaborating on that there. Thus, I will write here, if you do not mind? It is quite different editing at Commons as compared to a local language wiki. In local language wikis, it is as you state, very common that you provide reasons, that you argue for your opinions. It is, I believe, also costumary that one attemtps to seek consensus, and that a closing admin takes into account the weights of the arguments in a closing process. This is all natural there as people editing there are expected to be capable of expressing themselves fluently in their local language.

On Commons, it is different, as it is a multilingual project. Everyone is free to write in ones own native language, but the de facto is that most editors provide their comments in either English, or another major Western language like German, French or Spanish. That is for reasons of practicality that quite a lot of users will at least be able to undertsnad what is written. However, it gives an advantage to users, which have English or another of those often used languages as their main language, when written arguments ae to be given. Thus, there is a tendency to not expect that much argumentation for ones opinions at Commons to sort of compensate for the language asymmetry.

As a consequence, it is not required that a reason is given for votes at FPC, see Commons:Featured picture candidates#Voting. However, users are encouraged to provide reasons, and it is stated

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

I always provide a reason in my own reviews, but I respect that other find it hard to explain their votes, or that the inflow of nominations at COM:FPC is quite large, such that you cannot spend too much time on the voting process.

There is nothing explicitly mentioned about delisting other than it works basically with the same rules as nomination.

Also, a difference between the featured picture program here and on local wikis is also the closure. At Commons it is a bot-assisted closure, where votes and the eligibility of voters are confirmed by a human. Basically, it is "just" vote counting, and no weight is given to the quality of the reviews, and whether or not a reason is given. you might argue, and be correct, taht a more "correct" decision process would be to take into account the weights of the arguments. However, that also makes it a much more cumbersome process, laying a big burden on the closer, which needs to process a large influx of nominations. Often I have noticed at WP:FPC many quarrels about the final decision by he closer of borderline cases, which a great deal of time and energy is spent/wasted on.

So, at Commons the process is more light-weight - mainly for reasons of accomodating a large flow of nominations and to counteract language asymmetries.

It has been discussed many times since I first came here in 2007, whether one should set higher requirements regarding the reasons given for votes. However, everytime the community consensus has been to keep it simple for the reasons stated above.

I hope my comments here give you a slightly better understanding of why things work as they do here. Best wishes,

--Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

'Kay, understood. Ari Linn (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Images depicting nude people and sex acts on Commons"[edit]

You might want to look again at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lots of stares.jpg :) AzaToth 17:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it already. Thanks for notifying though.Ari Linn (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Optische illusion piano.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Optische illusion piano.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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

76.171.10.147 23:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Houzouji (Okazaki)04.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Houzouji (Okazaki)04.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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Taivo (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)