User talk:Frysch

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

Files you uploaded may be deleted[edit]

The files listed below, which you uploaded, have been tagged {{OTRS pending}} for more than 30 days. This tag indicates that an email setting out permission to use the file was sent to the OTRS team. Unfortunately, we cannot find any record that such an email has been received, and accordingly the file remains without permission. Unless the OTRS team receives evidence that permission has been granted within 15 days of today's date, the file will be deleted. If you have not sent the permission, please send it to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" now. Please quote the file name in your email. If you have, please leave a message at the OTRS noticeboard, quoting the file name, so that a volunteer can follow this up. Alternatively, you can contact an OTRS volunteer directly. Please note that this message is being left by an automated bot, whose operator is not an OTRS volunteer, therefore please do not send this information to me, as it will not save your images from deletion. Thanks for your time! Please help translate this message! HersfoldOTRSBot(talk/opt out) 05:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:LibreOffice[edit]

Category discussion notification Category:LibreOffice has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Mark85296341 (talk) 13:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Frysch!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Anton Hofreiter.jpg[edit]

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Anton Hofreiter.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Anton Hofreiter.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

GeorgHHtalk   19:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oxygen icons[edit]

Thanks, btw, for tagging all those. I was 'aware' of them, because they were a major part of the 'automatically' detected duplicates list, and was somewhat hoping someone would flag them all. Revent (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

What? Why do I have to tag them then?..--Frysch (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not that you, or anyone, 'has to', it's that I wasn't crazy about speedy-deleting several hundred files without someone else indicating that they agreed it was a good idea... it would have crossed the line, I think, to the kind of unilateral bulk deletion that starts silly AN wars. I just had not gotten around to creating a huge DR for them yet... I'd only noticed them a few days ago. Revent (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just that it is some hours of stupid machine work to tag them all and I would like to avoid it if there's an easier solution handy. With an exact duplicate the deletion should be uncontroversial. If you leave a redirect there should be little potential for any harm caused by deleting a duplicate. The only things I can think of that we should be careful about are to retain all the metadata from both description pages and maybe have a look if older versions exist that have a different content and got overwritten. Eventually, upload tools should prevent the upload of exact duplicates.

I didn't know of the duplicates list. Where is it?--Frysch (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It was also, FWIW, several hours of silly work getting rid of them all, as well. I wasn't at all worried that just doing it might be the cause of 'legitimate' drama... it's the 'you're evil for killing all my files without warning' type of complaint I'd rather not deal with, at least not when it comes to a pile that big.
As far as duplicates, there is of course the 'user created' list at Category:Duplicate, but there is also a server-generated list of files at Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. It is explicity the output of a database search for files where the most recently uploaded version has identical hashes... it's not easy to work from, really, for a few reasons.
  • It's not a 'live' list, it's the output of a database search that is only run every few days, and things don't go away as you fix them... a redirect is still a blue link.
  • It's unsorted, and unsortable... there are some sets of 'duplicates' in it that are legitimate, such as place markers for missing pages in book scans, and you can't filter them out
  • It includes any files that have been overwritten with a duplicate, and only indicates the 'age' of the most recently uploaded version... it thinks an old version that was reverted to is 'new'.
  • It has, the last time I ran to the end, over 3000 members.
Because of that, it's makes it quite possible to realize that a particular large set of dupes exists (by the many similar names) without making it much easier to deal with them. Most of what needs to be done to fix them, which is figuring out 'what needs to be done' in each case, doesn't really need an admin, it just needs someone with a clue to flag it for the admin to hit the button. Revent (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's some useful insight. Thanks.
I don't yet understand how there can be legitimate duplicates when we can have redirects.--Frysch (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)