User talk:Stefan2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Stefan4)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:New Wind River System's company logo.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:New Wind River System's company logo.png 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Jgowan13 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:New Wind River System's company logo.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg
File:New Wind River System's company logo.png 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 see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

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!

Jgowan13 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit Summary[edit]

When editing a page on Commons there is a small field labeled "Edit Summary" or "Summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the Edit Summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the Edit Summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's name in the Edit Summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G.: why would you want to template an editor who has been contributing for over 10 years and has more than 130,000 edits? -- (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@: >50 edits today UTC, all without substantive summaries. He should know better.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then by all means point that out, without using a template intended for newbies. Maintaining a non-hostile environment includes not being openly patronizing to fellow long term contributors. Thanks -- (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:=Ka'gara.ogg and File:!Haunu.ogg[edit]

Should be good now. CC release on original website. Kwamikagami (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • User:Kwamikagami: Looks correct now, but note that Creative Commons licences with the "BY" attribute require preserving the copyright notice. There was a copyright notice on the linked website. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. I should copy the wording from the website rather than just link to it? Kwamikagami (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CC-BY-SA 4.0 says that If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: a copyright notice;.
CC-BY-SA 4.0 does not define what a copyright notice is. United States law used to require a copyright notice and defined what a copyright notice was, although the definition has changed over time. Historically, some other countries have also required a copyright notice, so there was probably a definition in the laws of those countries too. The concept of a copyright notice is also defined in some international copyright treaties, most importantly the Universal Copyright Convention. The part © 2018 B. Sands is a copyright notice under the United States Copyright Act of 1909 (although it's supposed to be a ℗ instead of a © for sound recordings), but since the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence doesn't define what a copyright notice is, someone could maybe argue that the copyright notice includes more of the text on that line. By quoting the entire sentence, I think you cover all potential interpretations of a copyright notice. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete[edit]

Hello, I'm the same person, can you delete this file please? Thank you. Joe Pig (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MainGate.JPG[edit]


File:MainGate.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion. (Reason: Wrong redirect. Many of the public scenes and private scenes have got a main gate.)

Why not upload a picture of a plant, animal, or anything else which fits into our scope. You can contribute any media type you want, including but not limited to images, videos, music, and 3D models. Start uploading now! If you don't have anything to upload at the moment, why not take a look at our best images or best videos, sounds and 3D models. If you have any doubts/questions don't hesitate to visit our help desk.

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : PQ77wd.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename declined[edit]

Does [1] not complying with Criterion 4? Hddty (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set. There are two scenarios that this criterion is designed for. First, certain complex templates (such as those that use BSicons or that display football kits) assume that the images used in them will follow a specific naming convention. Wikisource also uses a specific naming convention for the source files they transcribe. Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons’ upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists.
I am not aware of a template which uses the file in the same way as the BSicon templates and a coat of arms is obviously not part of a book on Wikisource. Therefore, the file does not meet either of the two conditions for renaming under criterion #4.
You might also wish to read a recent discussion about criterion #4: Commons talk:File renaming#Criterion number 4. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not aware that it should be part of template etc, but regardless of that, why not move it although there's no similar svg logo of this?
Mentioning the uploader, what does their opinion on this @RaFaDa20631: . Hddty (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Files should not be renamed unless they meet the renaming criteria. See COM:FNC: In general, Commons aims to provide stable filenames as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, let me tell you about this Hddty. I have uploaded the North Kalimantan coat of arms with an additional note indicating that it is 2021 version, not 2012 version. I don't want to "harmonise" with other files with just "Coat of arms of <enter the province name>" because the regulation used as a reference is much different. RaFaDa20631 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Church of St. Anthony the Great September 29, 2019. Reader-10.jpg[edit]

You performed some "cleanup" on this page. The mess at the bottom of the page should have been a warning sign: the nominator failed to add the DR notice to the file and they failed to notify the uploader. I will fix this and add a warning to the DR. Brianjd (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Right. Maybe I should have checked if the uploader had been notified or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Hi again Stefan2. I noticed that you've made malformed deletion requests. When you want to delete a page by manually using the {{Delete}} template, please remember to follow the instructions in the template, including the "Click here to show further instructions" portion (or Commons:Deletion requests/Listing a request manually), otherwise you will create a lot of work for other people.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jeff G.: Actually, in the DR you linked to in the original version of your message, it was the anonymous IP address who created a huge mess, and Stefan2 was just trying to fix it. Also see my message to Stefan2 in the previous section of this page. In that case, Stefan2 was also just trying to fix a malformed deletion request made by another user. Brianjd (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems like Stefan2 is trying to learn from that feedback, although they are still making some mistakes. For example, in revision 606895524, they tried to transclude one daily log in another (I have removed this). As far as I am aware, they are not creating their own deletion requests, merely trying to fix those created by others. Brianjd (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the addition of a daily log page to another daily log page in the diff you provided. In Special:Diff/607327044, you claim to be removing a daily log page, but you actually added and deleted a lot of deletion requests from the log page. The removed deletion requests will need to be re-added if not also transcluded somewhere else. I notice that one of the three deletion requests I added, Commons:Deletion requests/2021/11/7, has disappeared from the daily log page and it has not been transcluded to another daily log page, so it will need to be re-added as the request will otherwise not be spotted by anyone and therefore not closed. I hope that you didn't remove anything else. Whether the IP that created the deletion request didn't include the file name in the title of the deletion request is unclear, but it's at least included in the wikicode, so it's unambiguous which file the nominator wished to nominate for deletion.
In the case of File:"Houses of the Holy VI" Painting by Stella Michaels.jpg, it seems that the error is that I wrote "day" instead of "date" which is just a small typo. Since the nominator didn't bother tagging the file, the normal script for nominating files for deletion couldn't be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what happened with revision 607327044. It was only supposed to remove Commons:Deletion requests/2021/11/7, which I mistook for a daily log (the corresponding daily log is Commons:Deletion requests/2021/11/07, with a leading zero). I have undone this edit.
Commons:Deletion requests/2021/11/7 was a ridiculous page to begin with. I have moved the request to the correct location, where there were already three open requests for the same file, and added {{Unsigned2}}. I have also corrected the two(!) daily logs where Commons:Deletion requests/2021/11/7 was transcluded. I did not bother notifying the uploader, as the earlier three requests were created by them. Brianjd (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You also continued a mess in this edit by just adding a header, and not including the reason or a facsimile of the nominator's signature.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nominator created a deletion request page. From that it can be deduced that the nominator wanted to delete a file for deletion. Furthermore, the name of the file could be deduced from the page title. For some reason, the nominator chose not to provide a reason for deletion. If you think that the nominator should have provided a reason for deletion, then you should discuss that with the nominator.
The nominator forgot to transclude the deletion request to a daily log, so I fixed that part. The nominator also forgot to add a header so I added a header as the deletion request otherwise wouldn't get a separate section in the daily log. I don't see why I should search for a deletion rationale when the nominator chose not to provide one and I don't like the idea of copying the nominator's rationale from one page to another (from the file information page to the deletion request page) as it could then look as if the nominator had posted that comment to the deletion request page. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I routinely take actions on behalf of other users, such as copying information to the correct place and closing effectively withdrawn DRs (if there is no reason to leave them open). When I do this, I use the edit summary to give a link to a relevant page, revision or diff. In this case, you could have just said something like "add rationale from DR tag on file description". Brianjd (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]