User talk:P199

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

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at

This is the user talk page of P199, where you can send messages and comments to P199.

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

Utilisation d'une de vos photos[edit]

Bonjour Monsieur Grandmont,

Je souhaite utiliser deux de vos photos pour une vidéo de vulgarisation historique. Il s'agit d'une de vos photos du sarcophage de Portonaccio ainsi qu'une de vos photos de la cathédrale de Tournai. J'ai lu dans les conditions de licence que vous aimeriez qu'on vous contacte pour vous signaler l'utilisation de ces photos, raison pour laquelle je vous écris. Naturellement je mentionnerai votre nom dans la référence des images utilisées.

Merci Sandozfred (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sandozfred: You left this message in error on my talk page. You must have meant User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT. --P 1 9 9   01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, You closed this as "Deleted", but the file is still there... Yann (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. Somehow missed it. ✓ Done --P 1 9 9   13:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giuseppe Frascaroli/Wegeta[edit]

P199, I now regret nominating those files for deletion. I have every reason to believe that the uploader is one in the same with the author, and had every right to upload original works and assign proper licences to them. Unfortunately, on Commons we often vilify authors of original work, as if we have some magic pixie dust which enables us to discern whether or not they've actually produced the works they claim to have produced. We transfer stuff in from Flickr all the time with less scrutiny. I wish I could've withdrawn that broad and overreaching deletion request. Won't you reconsider this decision? Elizium23 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Elizium23: Thanks for your work on Commons. As for these files, I had more concerns. The fact that 2 different users uploaded them and claimed as own is a big red flag. They may be the same person but this would definitely need a VRT ticket. And assuming that User:Giuseppe Frascaroli really is the artist, then several of the uploads where he is in the photo, therefore not own work anyway. --P 1 9 9   19:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my limited experience, Commons has little regard for whether sockpuppets are the authors of media uploaded as "own work". Take, for example, @Orlando Paride and their multiplicity of alternate accounts. Since the photos are high-quality, not obviously stolen, and literally forced into as many articles as possible across the WMF, they have been kept, despite repeated deletion requests. Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Orlando Paride 🤷🏼‍♂️ Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Montreal photo requests: Drawn and Quarterly[edit]

Hello! I was doing work on manga articles on ENwiki and I found that en:Drawn and Quarterly is based out of Montreal, with its headquarters and bookstores there. If Montreal is still convenient to your location, you're welcome to take photographs of the D+Q sites.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hi @WhisperToMe: Too bad this message came a few days too late. I was just in Montreal! I can't say for sure when I will have an opportunity again... --P 1 9 9   15:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for letting me know! I'll see if I can find another Wikimedian who is in the Montreal area. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You simply wrote Deleted: per nomination., but the nomination has several different reasons, most of which are invalid per Ikan Kekek. What was your actual reason for deletion? Brianjd (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessing deleted SVG files[edit]

Heyo, I'm looking to try and find some SVG files someone uploaded that you had deleted back in 2021, the Wayback Machine is crashing pretty frequently for me when I try to do this and said uploader's email doesn't work. Is there any way you could help me here if I were to send some more info via email or such? NorthTension (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently closed this discussion and deleted one of the two files that were nominated. Since no distinction was made between the two identical files, I assume this was just a minor oversight. Can you please have a second look? Thank you. Marbletan (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marbletan: yes, oversight. Thanks for letting me know. Now deleted. --P 1 9 9   14:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to clarify regarding your close: Are you saying that the ticket number in the edit summary of the diff I provided is not a valid ticket number? Or does not actually provide permission? IronGargoyle (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IronGargoyle: I am not a VRT member, so I can't see the ticket. I don't know if the ticket number is valid (2010101810011729), but it means that it was submitted on Oct. 18, 2010. If it was indeed submitted on that date, it should have been processed by now and added to each of the uploads. There was no VRT ticket at these files. --P 1 9 9   01:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too am puzzled by the closing comment. The ticket was judged satisfactory by two OTRS members, in October 2010 [1] and in May 2011 [2]. How can it now be assumed to have not existed? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: You expect anyone to dig in category revision history and old unrelated DR's to find an OTRS ticket? That is NOT how OTRS tickets are dealt with. So no, an edit summary in a Category [1] and a closing comment in a DR by a non-OTRS member [2] is NOT satisfactory. OTRS tickets are for files, and should be mentioned in the file description. Where is the actual ticket??? --P 1 9 9   02:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't expect someone to dig into the category, but since I did dig into the category and pointed out there was a ticket, it might have been worthwhile to check with someone on the VRT before closing the discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one had to dig into anything. Those two instances were explicitly specified and linked in the DR, one by IronGargoyle, the other by me. And yes, even if we hadn't already done it, it is certainly expected as normal procedure for the closing user to proactively check the previous discussions about the same matter. The ticket was also mentioned in some of the description pages. The 2011 DR was not unrelated, it was exactly for one of the same files, it was duly noted in the talk page, and the closing admin was an OTRS member [3]. The DR was closed as kept specifically on the basis of the permission in the OTRS ticket. When, twelve years later and after the licensor has died, files are deleted without checking the permission, that is a big problem. Having not read the permission, it is peculiar to boldly proclaim that it is not satisfactory in opposition to the VRT members who read it and accepted it as satisactory. The information indicate that there is an existing permission. Doing as if the permission did not exist when it is known that it exists is not a useful option. If there are doubts about the permission (indeed it's quite ok to have doubts and to check), then the solution is to ask at the VRT noticeboard or VRT members, or alternatively, if a user won't do it, the closure can be left to someone else. The solution is certainly not to blindly delete valuable files when the available information seems to indicate at least that they are likely legitimate. Broad tickets, covering all works of a person or covering all uploads made by an identified authorized account, as may be the case with this ticket, don't necessarily end up being noted on each and every file page, especially when more new files are uploaded over a period of time (and for a number of possible reasons, including optimal management of limited resources and time of the VRT team, oversight, etc.). Such tickets should be noted at least in the logical places, on the relevant category page and/or on the relevant user page, as the case may be. If one believes that each file should also display a template noting the ticket, why not, but then again the solution is not to delete the files, the solution is to fix what one perceives as a problem and request that VRT members add such templates. As for the last question, it is in the records of the OTRS system that the ticket would be recorded. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have asked the VRT noticeboard to look into this issue. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your nominations to delete my works.[edit]

Thank you for your nominations to delete my efforts and works and interest in blocking incompetent editors like me. Absolutely right move, you are a great editor. If you want to delete all my works, then you can do it, do you need a nomination for that!!. If you want to block me then you can do that too. Take care dude and by. Tojoroy20 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do something about this.[edit]

Ghghghghb (talk · contribs) is replacing photos with images of a random dude. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2022 voting is open![edit]

2022 Picture of the Year: Saint John Church of Sohrol in Iran.

Read this message in your language

Dear Wikimedian,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2022 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the seventeenth 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 (2022) 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 two most popular images in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just three images to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on 1 May 2023, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote now!

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2021 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

undeletion request for Our Personal Space files[edit]

Hi, you deleted these files per Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:Our Personal Space, please undelete them. Detailed assets information can be found from GitHub repository and files are openly lisensed.

--Zache (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zache: What educational purpose do those screenshot serve? They seemed mostly promotional to me... --P 1 9 9   15:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded them as an example images for en:Ren'Py en:visual novel engine. More specific I uploaded them as replacement images for artificially created Ren'Py images by Midnight68. Our Personal Space images could be used as example photos for en:Educational games too if we stretch our imagination little bit. -- Zache (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I will push this up as you seem to be daily active again. Please, restore the images as the deletion rationale of incompatible license were incorrect. The detailed copyright information of the images was not just in licence text, but they were copied to inwiki file description too. --Zache (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just FYI, As I didn't understand what it means that you didn't answer to me I added this to Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Our_Personal_Space. --Zache (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is the right way to do it. Thanks for letting me know. --P 1 9 9   20:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually appealing decisions says: If you disagree with an admin's decision to delete a file, or not to delete it, you should first set out your reasons on the admin's talk page and ask for reconsideration. and another bullent point for admin before actual deletion: administrators are encouraged to check whether the uploader was notified on their talk page of the pending deletion request (Commons:Deletion_requests). -- Zache (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Photographer's Barnstar
For your work on w:Ontario Highway 11. The gallery of images at the bottom really helps you understand the layout, appearance, and condition of the road!
-Asheiou (they/them • talk) 16:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asheiou: Thanks a lot! --P 1 9 9   16:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wrote:

Kept: looks to me as an exact replica (i.e. copy) of the original

I think you have a misunderstanding of what the "original" is here. The w:First Alcibiades is a text, not a physical document. Any "original" which was first written down has been lost to time; all we have are copies made by medieval scribes. This particular image is a creative work - a reimagining of what that original document might have looked like by an amateur calligrapher. It's both ahistorical and not clearly in the public domain. Omphalographer (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Omphalographer: So, is this image a copy/replica from a Medieval document? If so, it is certainly PD now as well. Whether or not it is ahistorical is irrelevant because the image is in use a lot. --P 1 9 9   18:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text is copied (more or less, see the file talk page), but the presentation is original. My feeling is that there's enough creativity in how the calligrapher chose to present this passage that it's above the threshold of originality - the intent of the piece was to showcase the creator's calligraphy, not to present the text to readers, and in that regard it's their original work. Omphalographer (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omphalographer: deleted. Regards, --P 1 9 9   14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not about alternatives in Category:Escalators, and I'm surprised you gave such an inappropriate deletion reason, which is perhaps analogous to deleting a useful photo of a particular species of lizard that lives in a very limited area with the argument that "we have plenty of pictures in Category:Reptiles." That is a picture of an escalator in a particular LRT station in Kuala Lumpur, isn't it? Why do we want to not have photos of escalators in particular stations to be viewable on this site? Would you reconsider? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ikan Kekek: we already know that you and I don't have the same standards when it comes to scope and quality of images; you don't need to argue over every DR I close... ;-)
This image was blurred, unusable. And there are escalator alternatives in "its category", meaning Category:Bukit Bintang MRT Station. Regards, --P 1 9 9   14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just try to make a clearer statement like this when you close and you wont get an incredulous reaction like that from me. I actually have no big problem with that one being deleted (especially courtesy deleted) if there are good substitutes for views of that escalator in particular. But if you make a closing statement like you did, I will tend to react incredulously and at least wonder whether you are applying some kind of blanket deletion reason like the one you have for logos. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Hengelo, Karneval[edit]

You deleted Category:Hengelo, Karneval ‎with a rationale "unused and implausible". However the category was used for years until it was made a redirect and its content moved. As it was in use for many years, there may be many people (without wiki account) who use this category as a bookmark or as a link on a website. Now it is gone without a CfD or anything. I think this is a disservice to reusers of commons content. The existence of the category was not wrong, it was helpful. C.Suthorn ( (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Balazs Marton.jpg[edit]

Why did you delete this picture? This was upload by me years ago. I am the author. Wikizoli (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

????? Wikizoli (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my additional comments at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Balazs Marton.jpg. BTW, you don't appear to be the uploader; it was uploaded by User:LiaVeja. --P 1 9 9   20:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then she replaced my picture. Check the history. My one wasː File:Balázs Márton.JPG Wikizoli (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
???? 10:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi P199, FYI, a proposal has been opened to revert your CfD closures at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from automobiles and Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from vehicles. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AFBorchert: Thanks for letting me know. As fellow admin, you should see that this is not really a "proposal" but a discussion about the category that should be discussed at COM:CfD, not at the Village Pump. --P 1 9 9   20:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know but I did not open that thread, I just thought that you should be notified. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Isaabdulla09[edit]

Thanks for closing Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Isaabdulla09. I notice that you deleted all the listed files, except for one. Since the nomination didn't make any distinction between the files, maybe this is just a small oversight - or maybe I'm missing something that's different about the file that wasn't deleted? Can you please have a second look? Marbletan (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marbletan: Thanks for letting me know. Glitch with mass processing. I should have double-checked... --P 1 9 9   17:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

restore file[edit]

hello, I am writing to ask you if you could please restore this file for me since according to the description it is the work of the painter Ferdinand Voet and consequently the copyright has already expired for well over a hundred years

Rikamini96 (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Rikamini96: The file was uploaded by an abuser - the facts of this image need to be verified. The right place to ask for restoring a deleted file is COM:UNDELETE. Thanks. --P 1 9 9   13:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the file in question was not uploaded by an attacker at all because according to the description I analyzed the appropriate Template Artwork, and the source would derive from a book that would be entitled: Petrucci, Francesco (2007) (in Italian) Il principe romano. Ritratti dell'aristocrazia pontificia nell'età Barocca, Gangemi Editore ISBN: 978-88-492-1328-7. OCLC: 117926133. and also the licenses I think are more than appropriate (being a work of Voet) and therefore I think that whoever deleted it has absolutely not checked the details of the work in question and regarding his request to appeal to the COM:UNDELETE page unfortunately it would be a waste of time since from what I have seen no restore request is seriously considered so I appeal to you who are an administrator Rikamini96 (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block sock and delete files[edit]

Hi, I'm Pbritti. Previously, you have deleted files uploaded by Wiki Eapen such as File:Alencherry.jpg and File:Srampickal.jpg, both of which have been re-uploaded by Sleevachan (the former was again deleted and again re-uploaded, now as File:Catholicos-patriarch.jpg). Sleevachan and TheCompassFour have both been blocked on EnWikipedia as Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese sockpuppets. I am requesting administrator intervention directly on your talk page as my request on COM:AN/B has gone several days without action while the abusive editor has continued to add images, including those deleted by community consensus. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggesting a move[edit]

It was suggested to me at w:User talk:Veverve#Vatican City to move File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg, please read the discussion. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what do you think? Veverve (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve: Thanks for asking, but I've no opinion. Unless renamed to something unsuitable, file names are not much of a concern to me... --P 1 9 9   12:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File name change[edit]

Hi, regarding my renaming request of File:Debreu, Gérard (1921-2004).jpeg, per MOS:YEARRANGE: A simple year–year range is written using an en dash (, – or {{ndash}}, or {{nbnd}} for a non-breaking en dash), not an em dash, hyphen, or slash. It is therefore requested that the file name be changed to be in line with this standard, as the existing name with the hyphen is unsuitable and does not adhere to the style guideline. Rowing007 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rowing007: The MOS is from WP, not Commons. And the style guideline is for articles, not filenames (which are not even visible). So, utterly pointless to change hyphens to en-dash for innumerable filenames, and then have that updated for each use in articles for something that is not even visible. Not to speak of the major inconvenience of having to type en-dashes... This is akin to Criteria #1 at COM:FRNOT. Thanks. --P 1 9 9   18:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File names are visible in the source code, and are part of articles. My renaming request is valid under use #6: Non-controversial maintenance and bug fixes. The request is inherently uncontroversial and correct. It does not "look better"; it's a correction of an error. The file is used on 138 articles globally. That would take maybe 1 hour of time to do manually, or a bot could be created (if it does not already exist) to automate the renaming process. Also, COM:FRNOT Criteria #1 is terribly ambiguous; there is no quantification of what constitutes something that looks "a bit" better (i.e., versus something that looks "a lot" better). Lastly, en dashes are not an inconvenience to type. On desktop, simply copy one into a notepad as a reference and paste it into each instance or simply type (i.e., copy and paste) –. On mobile, press and hold the hyphen key to bring up and select the en dash. I'm seeing this refusal as simply a lazy unwillingness to correct an error, but it's out of my control I suppose, so I'm moving on, knowing that some day it will be fixed, if not by humans, then by a bot someone creates to fix these issues that people seem to consider too trivial or trifling to be bothered trying to fix. Thanks. Rowing007 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At nearly 300,000 edits on Commons, I don't think you can call me lazy. This is inconsequential, and therefore meaningless, work creation. Our efforts are better used elsewhere. --P 1 9 9   19:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling it "inconsequential, and therefore meaningless" is a gross mischaracterization of the issue, and deserves my description for this particular instance, regardless of the number of previous edits you may have... If Eliud Kipchoge were to suddenly act like a couch potato for no reason other than he "doesn't want to get up because it's 'inconsequential, and therefore meaningless'", it would indeed be accurate to call him lazy for that, despite his numerous athletic accomplishements. I hope you can see the analogy I'm trying to make; this is not a hard task, it's objectively correct, and if I would have had the ability to implement the change myself, I would have had no problem doing so, including cleaning up the 138 global articles that use the file. But, like I said, a bot will eventually take care of it, I'm sure, so I'm not worried that you're not taking this seriously. Best regards. Rowing007 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so you decided to delete a small copy of a PD Nasa photo. I get that. But you didn't actually hide the photo, and the file page is now dysfunctional. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some glitch I assume... Now corrected. --P 1 9 9   13:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protect a redirect from edition[edit]

Users have tried to change this redirect in the past and I suspect others will continously attempt to change it in the future. Changing this redirect breaks too many redirects, including ones used on WCommons to credits the author. This is why I am requesting for it to be protected it: only admins should be allowed to change this redirect, and this restriction should be indefinite. Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]