User talk:Kephir

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


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Kephir!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for the figure at standard part function. Would it be possible to develop a cleaner version of the original figure as well? Tkuvho (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

File:Android will win in 2016.jpg[edit]

In general, an image which has survived a deletion nomination can't be speedied, unless there has been a significant change in Commons policies during the meantime, or a completely new issue is being raised... AnonMoos (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos: which policy? Where can I read it? Keφr (keep talk here) 15:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
You didn't read what I wrote. Unfortunately, speedy is a highly limited tool, which is subject to a number of constraints. There are some images highly deserving of deletion which nevertheless cannot be speedied. Whenever there's a controversy about use of speedy templates, the resolution is almost always to take it to a formal deletion nomination. AnonMoos (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
"unless there has been a significant change in Commons policies" — what policy forbids me from marking a copyright violation for what it is? Point me to it. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
You're still not reading what I wrote -- I was referring to a change of policies such that what was not considered a copyright violation at time T would now be considered a copyright violation at time T+X. AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
By which policy then is this not a violation of copyright? Tell me. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if you could occasionally bother to reply to what I actually said, instead of what you think that I might have said. I didn't say that this image is not a copyright violation -- I said that procedural factors mean that use of a "speedy" template is not advisable, and therefore the matter should be taken to a formal deletion nomination... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating for deletion. AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy flags[edit]

This has sometimes been a contentious matter. Commons has many hundreds of them -- they're almost always allowable as personal userpage images, and the generally prevailing practice over a number of years has been not to delete them unless they include some additional obnoxious element (being hoaxing or hatemongering, etc.) AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I get it, and I think this ought to change. Fantasy flags are nowhere in the mission statement, and keeping them opens the door to hosting all kinds of fabricated nonsense that will drive the signal-to-noise ratio down to zero, make this whole repository unmanageable and that someone will inevitably mistake for the real thing, at which point you will have a hard time defending its deletion (after all we keep all this other made-up stuff, right?). Keφr (keep talk here) 15:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Template {{fictitious flag}} is useful for signaling a flag's status without having to go through the deletion nomination process. If a fictitious flag keeps getting re-added to articles, that tips it into the "hoaxing" category -- see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abbasid_flag.png... AnonMoos (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
What about things like File:Unofficial DOS icon.svg and File:Contrived MS-DOS logo.svg? Obvious fakes meant to imitate w:ru:File:MS-DOS icon.png. I only had them renamed and tagged {{fictional|logo}} to discourage their use, since Commons' "no editorialising" policy (COM:INUSE) probably means that a plain deletion request will fail. I am not particularly inclined to fight with the local communities of Wikipedias whose languages I cannot speak at all. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Fake logos are sometimes made to get around copyright concerns involved with real logos. However, an image of this type could be used as an icon to open a DOS-box emulator running under Linux, and it would be completely "authentic" for that purpose (though obviously not the official Microsoft DOS logo). AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. Revent (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Britain-Norway.png[edit]

1) It's not really considered good etiquette to scribble on deletion discussion pages after the discussion has been closed. 2) You could try to read my remarks there (sometimes you seem to have a few problems with reading and understanding...) AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"Revenge" deletion nominations[edit]

Doubling down on the personally-motivated "revenge" deletion nominations doesn't hurt me, but it certainly succeeds in casting a negative light on your own personality and character. You might want to take a cue from User:Pieter_Kuiper, who caused much turmoil and was eventually banned because of his incorrigible addiction to revenge deletion nominations... AnonMoos (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never made a single "revenge nomination". I nominate files on their merits. Cease these baseless accusations immediately. Keφr (keep talk here) 06:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, you have also been nominating files I have an interest in and I can not see why. You need to move on and find better things to do. Fry1989 eh? 19:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems[edit]

Fry1989 mentioned you there again (technically should have notified you). AnonMoos (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You know, if you avoid speaking up at the current "User problems" noticeboard discussion, and then start in with a whole new round of deletion nominations against inoffensive (i.e. non-hoaxing non-hatemongering) special or fictional flags, this is unlikely to be interpreted as evidence of good faith on your part... AnonMoos (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
By doubling down and doing exactly what I warned you against, that means that whatever you think your motives are, from the point of view of the community of involved Commons users your actions are more or less functionally equivalent to those of a troll... AnonMoos (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)