User talk:Dominic

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

Important message for file movers[edit]

Commons File mover.svg

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

  • To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
  • To perform file name swaps.
  • When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, GMGtalk 19:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

File:"Looking downstream into upper cofferdam excavation. Dike and constricted river channel at left." - NARA - 293750.jpg[edit]

File is slightly broken at the bottom. Can't find the original. Can you have a look and correct this? Multichill (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Multichill: The original TIFF is also uploaded and linked from the image... Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

File:History of Olney Presbyterian Church Gastonia North Carolina 1793-1947 - DPLA - 7518d84185f6eb6552d060c4bfad190b (page 40).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:History of Olney Presbyterian Church Gastonia North Carolina 1793-1947 - DPLA - 7518d84185f6eb6552d060c4bfad190b (page 40).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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

pandakekok9 09:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

uploading blank pages[edit]

Hi, your bot uploaded recently hundreds of completely blank pages. A Lot of with many duplicates - see Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. I'm curently busy to overwrite them with smaller versions - i.e. File:Counties of Clay and Owen, Indiana- Historical and biographical - DPLA - 410eee5fac529aeeb5b0253ce735e207 (page 610).jpg. Can you improve your bot best case not to upload completely blank pages or instead to use a while 1x1 square. Thx. --JuTa 09:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@JuTa: Why are you overwriting files like this? These are pages that are blank in the original work, and so they were digitized that way. This is not a bot error, and you can verify at the linked source. Dominic (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can delete them as duplicates if you prefer that. --JuTa 23:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Blank pages are normally fine -- if it's a scan of a page of a book, well that is what the book had and it's just part of the scan. We don't want to go pulling out blank pages from .djvu files, etc. On the other hand... that one you mention was pure white; not really a scan was it? Guess why that is why they got marked as duplicate, since they effectively are. On the other hand... those compress rather well. There is not much point in making a smaller overwrite -- would be better to revert those, since they will kind of ruin looking at book pages in sequence. I would imagine that blank pages are just as much a backing for Wikisource (to show it was blank in the original). However... I do wonder about the pure white images. Those do seem odd. And having them in the duplicates categories is probably the main issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
My guess was that the ones that look pure white are because it was scanned in black-and-white mode with any edges cropped out. It's hard to know exactly, but I would not think they artificially inserting white pages using the same file, rather than scanning. Dominic (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure they are scanning normally, but the resulting image will be basically identical in that case, and apparently the duplicate-image-checking stuff is finding them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)