User talk:O/2007/September

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Image:Foxie_with_player.jpg and Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg

Discussion was very complex and went about 4 months. On the moment of closure there were no sign of a clear resoultion. It would be desirable to know, what arguments of participants of discussion have affected your final decision. I think placing "not done"[1] in the and of thread, is not enough in that case. Please, i ask you to comment on a closure of undeletion request done by you. 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That shall remain deleted, since there was simply no consensus to restore it, even though discussion was very complex. I count all opinions when making my final decision, as with every other administrator who closes a(n) (un)deletion discussion. Also, the closer of the discussion does not have to say anything more after placing {{not done}}. (O - RLY?) 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus to delete it too. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wolf-n-horsy.jpg and count 7 vs 3.
Let us see the arguments of deletionists on the undeletion proposal.
Fred J claimed that i cannot appeal. I approved that i can appeal according to Commons:Deletion guidelines#Appeal
Lar asked to show that the image is needed in some specific article. I showed him ru:Йифф
Madmax32 claimed Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos etc. I answered him that image already used in one of wikimedia projects. I also provided explanation made by SB Johnny that this artwork can be used as substitute for real sex photographs(source).
LX claimed that this atwork is failed miller test and is pornography. It was refuted by Bryan. Pornography is just showing a sexual act without any artistic expressivness. This artwork has nudity but it is art, not just reproduction. Also see Commons:Nudity#Related ideas
I ask you open discussion or undelete images. 13:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
So what? The discussion was already closed, and you treated this as a vote count. As the discussion is already closed as not done, the images will not be undeleted. (O - RLY?) 03:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I will find another admin that will not just use power given to him and will not refuse to sit at the bargaining table. Thank you for participation. 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, however please don't forum shop while you're at it; it's not considered good etiquette. Thanks, (O - RLY?) 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not have a wikimail feature like you. 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So why not create an account?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed before that 27 july you have deleted my userpage [2]. Please let me know the reason of that gesture. 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the userpage said "Wikipedia Commons is worse than Putin." That is classified as patent nonsense, and could be an attack to Commons users. It is also because IPs do not have userpages like registered users, so I am following common practice in addition with the criteria. (O - RLY?) 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also take a look at wikipedia:ru:Image:Foxie with player-2.jpg and the corresponding policy Commons:Nudity#Related ideas "The Commons is not censored: a depiction of nudity is not in itself a reason for deletion". Please let me know if you don't have enough time during your wikibreak to substantiate the closure of request. 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my first reply. Continuing to whine to administrator(s) won't get you anywhere. (O - RLY?) 07:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
O's right. If it went through deletion review, let it go... continuing to push the point is disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You said that "i'm pushing point". Commons:Nudity is a policy, and is not my point. 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it is a guideline, not a policy. And these deletions had nothing to do with nudity of humans.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop discussing this and let it go for a while. I can only foresee more infighting that won't get us anywhere, and my closing the original undeletion discussion was because of a no consensus. (O - RLY?) 00:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi O. I'm having difficulty understanding a recent RfA comment of yours: "I've also seen an undeletion discussion closed by him that looked like something that belonged on en.wikipedia, and that is very troubling to me as well as other users" - you're pretty active on so I'd appreciate it if you elaborated. Do you have some objection to the way discussions (undeletions discussions in particular?) are handled on If so, what are they? Do you think such a negative comment on the project is a condusive to Wikimedia projects working together? Sorry about the number of questions but your comment rather took me by surprise and I'd like to have a bit more explanation. Cheers, WjBscribe 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That was another wording of a common "Commons is not Wikipedia" phrase that is tossed around here. My comment was also based off of the opposes there, which mentioned en.wikipedia tradition. Sorry if anyone misunderstood the meaning of the comment. (O - RLY?) 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to be more precise about why it was wrong to apply an approach to closing that particular discussion. WjBscribe 23:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
And the reason is: the traditions of the two projects are widely different. Some of the opposes on that RFA include things like "thinks that en.wikipedia policies also apply here" and such, and that is what amounted to my comment. Please do not think "Commons is not Wikipedia" means Wikipedia is bad; it only means that the two projects are different, and users here should do what other Commons users do. (O - RLY?) 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Interstate Business template shields

Hi, some more info on this request would be welcome. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Better now? (O - RLY?) 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:Flickr reviewing

Thanks, O! :-) Happy editing uploading! :-) --Boricuaeddie 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Flickr review of own images

Hi O. Can you tell me what current practice/policy is on flickr reviewers reviewing their own images? I'm a sysop at ENWP (ID check) and would like to use this to review my own images.--Chaser 09:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such policy for this, but it is recommended not to review images that you transferred from flickr. If you were the author to the image on flickr, and you decide to transfer it here, then just upload normally using {{flickr-self}} (instead of {{information}}) and the license on flickr as your description. There is also no need to place {{flickrreview}} if the copyright belongs to you. —O () 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, a recommendation answered my question. I'll request later for other folks' images if I decide I become more involved on Commons. Thanks.--Chaser 05:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

O, many of the images I see in the human review category are Flickr images where the uploader failed to specify a source URL. What do we do in those circumstances?--Chaser 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Try to find the source image on flickr search. If you do find it, get the license information and copy the link to the description page here. If the license on flickr is different than it was here, then update it and the flickrreview template accordingly. —O () 21:00, 21 September 2007 (GMT)

Bandshell image

Thanks for the notice. I'll be sure not to upload any more cc-nc pictures. Best, Dar-Ape 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Barte (talk · contribs)

Not sure why you blocked this user? I see nothing in his logs or contribs. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked; after you brought it up, I reviewed the uploads, and see some legitimacy. That was one heck of a bad mistake. —O () 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Yuyuan Gardens

Why did your bot change this category? You should provide a reason for the move if you're deleting existing categories. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is because the Yuyuan Gardens are better known as the Chenghuang Miao (城隍庙). Sorry if it wasn't clear enough, but by default the bot doesn't provide that much of a reason. —O () 21:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
To even further clarify, I was just there 17 days ago —O () 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
As en.wp has articles on both w:City God Temple (Chenghuang Miao) and w:Yuyuan Garden, it seems that they are different things. Some of the pictures are clearly of the garden and some are of the temple, so please correct this. Secondly if the category had no legitimate use (which I don't believe is the case here) why delete the category? Make it a redirect! Deleting it serves no purpose. thanks --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Redirect has been made. I'll see about the en.w articles. —O () 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange idw from your bot

Hm, this edit [3] looks a bit the strange, the image in question seems to have been deleted as copyvio a long time ago. I just thought I should let you know, in case there is some bug with your bot. Regards, Finn Rindahl 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That was just following common practice of substing {{idw}}. Templates like that are supposed to be substed, no matter what happens next. Cheers, —O () 20:57, 26 September 2007 (GMT)
Mea culpa, I didn't read the edit right. I thought you added a new idw when your bot was only substing an old one. Thanks, Finn Rindahl 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)