User talk:Tony Wills/Archive008

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

Archives.


4/Mar/07 - 29/Aug/07
29/Aug/07 - 6/Dec/07
6/Dec/07 - 31/Jan/08
1/Feb/08 - 10/Dec/08
11/Dec/08 - 29/Jun/09
30/Jun/09 - 31/Dec/09
1/Jan/10 - 26/Dec/10

And You too :)[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy New Year! I wish You all the best in New year!
--George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Good wishes from me too Tony and glad to know that you are still around too :) --Herby talk thyme 15:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Blackbird Male photo[edit]

Hi Tony, I'm new to Wikimedia so apologies if my request isn't appropriate. I was searching for images of blackbirds I came across you beautiful photo of a male blackbird. I'm an Australian amateur artist living in Tuscany. Your image inspired me to make a quick sketch from my computer screen now I'm having trouble understanding if I can post this sketch on my blog or elsewhere if I attribute the photo reference to you. Help!

Wonderful nature photos - I particularly love the birds.

Yes your message is quite an appropriate way of checking usage permissions, all my photographs posted here can be used freely in anyway and the most that I ask is for acknowlegment as the photographer. But in the case of a sketch made from the photo, I think the skill of the artist is the important thing, and wouldn't ask for any attribution to me :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Delightful news. Thank you so much, Tony. Now I just hope I can do your original photograph justice.

Only this[edit]

Explain the white sections in the pictures, or the poor quality. We are not talking about photograps out of scope. We´re talking about draws, make for someone with a software, who claims to be "own work". If you can tell me what software produce so bad pictures, I thanks so I can avoid to use it forever. One thing is deletionism because is not usefull, like [File:Pierre et peau carré.jpg this] (which I think it´s a terrible mistake) and another is to acredit notability to something from an uncertain source. My fight finish here. If you are really interesting in the picture and thinks it has application, use it. I won´t. Cheers. --Andrea (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Olympus C-750 front right-1.jpg[edit]

I admire your Kiwi wild life and the other photos on your user page -- we spent six months in New Zealand, mostly in Lyttleton, 15 years ago, and they take me back.

A quibble, though -- how is this a self portrait? I imagine four possibilities:

  1. An arrangement of mirrors, which seems unlikely and would probably introduce artifacts.
  2. A super-human moving the camera from the pictured position fast enough to beat the arrival of the changed image at the focal plane. This would require the suspension of relativity.
  3. A sheet of "slow glass" (glass in which the speed of light is at least ten orders of magnitude slower than in air) is between the two cameras
  4. You own two of them, in which case it is a "sibling portrait", not a "self-portrait".

BTW, I know just how hard it is to take an image like this, with so many reflective surfaces, without getting the camera (the one taking the picture) in the image somewhere. I have a chrome-plated bell that I've worked on several times without success.

Finally, have you thought about running for Admin? We have a shortage of Admins who actually work and I recruit likely candidates whenever I run across them.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, the C-750 images are, as you guess, not actually taken by the camera in the photo. I borrowed an identical camera, so a "clone" rather than a "sibling". It would be impossible to tell which photo is of/by which camera, they would take identical photos of each other (ok the EXIF data might give it away if the camera serial number is in there). So as close as anything in the universe to being a self portrait :-).
Yes I have thought about becoming an Admin, but when I'm active here I spend far two much time doing "house-keeping" operations and trying to fix things, if I took on the responsibilities of being an Admin, I would need to clone myself to leave time to do anything else (like uploading a few of the thousands of possibly useful images that I've made) - so I resist the invitations to apply for Admin rights :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I certainly can't complain that you aren't doing your part -- good images are, after all, what we are all about. If you change your mind let me know.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Tony Wills![edit]

Just I have sent the file "Oresund bridge near Malmo" as Featured Pictures again.I am waiting for answer. YoursВитольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 15:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading the original. I can see the problem - too much photoshopping! When people are judging FP nominations they will be examining it at full size, not looking at the 640x480 version. So they see all the problems introduced by pumping up the colours and brightness. To get an image promoted to FP it usually has to be a very high quality photo to begin with. Photoshop can hide small faults, but you must be very moderate when boosting colour or brightness as it will cause other defects :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!![edit]

I was so happy to see Your work.Frankly speaking:it's WONDERFUL!! I think that You have unforgetable talent!!!Thank You.With respect,Лиза Безушко (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC):-)

from ar.wikipedia[edit]

Hello. regarding your post on ar.wikipedia, I think the case is concerning User:Latifahphysics, isn't it? I sent her a warning on the discussion page in order to read commons policies and comply with them otherwise her account will be blocked. --Ciphers (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help :-). I very much do not think they need to be threatened with blocking, I have already posted a message back on the ar-wiki. You can continue the conversation here if you wish. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

User rights[edit]

I've assigned you a few extra user rights (filemover and rollbacker are the important ones). Let me know if for some reason you don't want them. Further, would you accept my nomination for admin? Would you make use of admin rights? --99of9 (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see Jim asked the same question about admin rights above. Obviously we all think we need you! But I understand your response, let us know if you reconsider. --99of9 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I had noticed the enhanced super-powers (but I take it that I still can't leap tall buildings in a single bound :-). I was just reading your talk page and was going to drop a note of thanks there. I'm not sure how much I will use them, time will tell :-).
Red billed gull speaks.jpg

Yours is the 4th (ok, I'm interested enough to count them ;-), offer of nomimation for admin rights. I've resisted the temptation so far as I think it keeps me grounded to be on the same 'level' as other users that I'm interacting with, I am forced to be civil as I don't have a club to beat them with :-). And I really do spend far to much time here already (its 2am here), I probably shouldn't take on more at the moment. So thanks, but not yet. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Showing that you can be civil is precisely one of the reasons we seek to nominate you! I like your noisy gull. --99of9 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Just re-reading that, I hope it didn't look as though I consider admins as un-civil ;-). Yes, I was struck by your silver gull, and thought I'd call upon a red-billed gull to greet you :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pleased to see you again in whatever capacity you like. Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Renaming File:Z01-2011-04-23.ogv[edit]

Hello Tony, thanks for your comment. Please have a look to the distributions of Ixodes scapularis (United States) and Ixodes ricinus (Europe). My video was taken in Germany and my determination was confirmed here also. Regards, --Pristurus (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake :-), I'll deal to it as per original request :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
It is never a mistake to be careful (and it seems you have sharp eyes). Thanks again, --Pristurus (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Strž u Staré Huti - bývalé letní sídlo Karla Čapka.jpg[edit]

Hello. The reason given was "Old name is uninformative and ambiguous", with which I agreed. I don't speak Czech, but the former name was simply a reference to a gorge or ravine, and frankly misleading given that it is a photo of a house. Had the name simply been "House" or "Old house" or "House near gorge" or something to that effect, I would have left it. Is there a problem with the new name? I translated it first, but please let me know if there is a problem with it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking back, I guess the one I ought really not to have moved would have been the one named "Studio". I guess the word "studio" has so many meanings that it is potentially misleading, but technically that file name was not incorrect. Anyway, thanks for giving me the heads up to review my own logic. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Filename is fine? :/[edit]

Ehm, it sounds like Tower of Londinium or King of UK, quietly an historical anachronism... --Vituzzu (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it may be strange, it may not be precise, it may be an anachronism, but it just the name for a file. Filenames really, really aren't important. There needs to be a good reason to rename a file see Commons:File_renaming. The important thing is to get the file description correct, preferably in multiple languages. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Hi My name is EMAD KAYYAM and I am a new user in Wikipedia and I am in my 2nd month studying Wikipedia Roles and regulations, I hope if some editors see my photos which I upload them and give me some instructions or hints on how should I proceed to update and promote my self in editing. I am looking to learn more about Wikipedia before I start editing by my self and wish if you help me by giving me some hints and advices to re-correct my self with my photos

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome :-). I have posted some comments on your talk page.
(a small point: it is usual to post new comments below previous comments on talk pages and use the "Add topic" button (next to the "edit" button) when starting a new discussion :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Hello Tony…Kindly first I would like to thank you indeed for your generous help, secondly I hope I post this comment in the correct way ( I click on the talk next to your user name "Tony" then I press the add button next to the edit button! Hope I am correct, third in this stage just I hope to re-correct my photos and their license as they all have contain original ideas and original observations and very unique view in scientific fields, and a number of them I draw by my self and the others I re-design, compare and add modifications to present my point of view but very important to notice that the original figures I use are in the public domain and has a free license and secondly I did notify in the description area below each photo or figure "from where I bring the original figure and I attribute the original figure to the copy right holder".

I hope if some body makes some review to my figures and send me some hints "photo by photo" to re-correct it to the best practice in Wikipedia.

Finally I would like to mention that I am not going to write any thing about my self or publish any thing about my research but in the same time hope if some body studies my case as I publish all my work before in a scientific peer review journals and have many scientific letters which favorably impressed by my work from many notable scientists hoping if he write a stub article in a neutral way which can educate the people and teach them this kind of methodology that presented in the figures and the information which could be gained from them.

Thanks a lot, EMAD KAYYAM

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great :-). I will go through your uploads and highlight any that look problematic tomorrow :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

--EMAD KAYYAM 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you mush, you really did a wonderful and comprehensive review for my figures, I appreciate mush your hints and comments and I will start re-correcting them soon.

Also I would like to mention some important points:

1- I will stop uploading any photos or figures until I reach the optimum criteria that Wikimedia Common looking for in the uploading images and photos and until you state for me that I have passed all the required qualifications to my previous already uploaded figures and photos.

2- Some figure I draw them by my self I swear (i.e. the ground track of the sun, the geometry of the two eye balls…etc)

3- Some original figures (which I used in my work) are in the public domain and I see other wikipedians use them before me in there articles ((i.e. File:Similarity Relation between Human Eye Ball & the Planet Earth Ball in Shape & Tilt. Designed and Prepared By Dr. Emad Kayyam.png)) the Earth here is used before in a wikipedea article (Earth tilt) and the eye ball is from Grays Anatomy " a figure of more than 90 years (1913) "

4- many original figures I used in my images are in the public domain also I see them in a wikipeda articles for example the Earth ball in ((File:The Eye Ball & the Earth ball- A Model for Inverted Planetarium. Released by Dr Emad Kayyam.jpg))

Finaly the ""Common: Drivative work"" gueid lines state that: Many creative works are a derivative work of something.

It also says that ""As opposed to an exact copy or minor variation of a work (e.g. the same book with a different title), which does not create a new copyright, a derivative work creates a new copyright on all original aspects of the new version.""

Thank you mush and hope you give me some time to re-correct my images, since I need to study more copy-right –tags, templets,…I need to understand better what is a drevative work and also to review the images one –by –one and the most important question is how could I convince you as an editor that there is some origanilty and creativity in the resulting idea, consept and theme of any of my figures.

Thank you mush

EMAD KAYYAM

N: B Kindly I hope you give 5-6 days since I need to study many subjects regarding uploading figures in Wikipedia

--EMAD KAYYAM 13:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments and highlighting; I will start making the re-correction process for the images. Kindly would you please tell me if there is any template or tag to protect my images from being deleted in this stage? Or can you as a senior editor or as an administrator in Wikipedia having a higher authority to protect them at least for some days until I finish the copy right process and reformatting the description section. Your kind assistance is highly appreciated. Thanks a lot, EMAD KAYYAM

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Question: Kindly I intend to apply for a Prize in science one day, my question is did Wikipedea put in her mind that as it is a knowledge source and an accelerator to the education process by offering images and photos and scientific text, is it prepared to promote this process if it is undertaken by one of its Wikipedian or in other way lets say I would like to meet a movie producer or a creative director in Hollywood and lets say he want to make a science fiction movie as Harry Potter for example based on these observations, conclusions and novel insight, did Wikipedea can participate in this process as it is widely and broadly distributed.

Thanks again EMAD KAYYAM

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Steamers Trail, Rossland and Minto at Arrowhead.gif[edit]

Hi Tony, you removed the duplicate template I added to this image. Can you explain your rationale? As far as I can see it's a low resolution gif version of the same photo. I'm curious why you described it as "much different". Thanks, -Gump Stump (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have given an extended 'rationale' on your talk page, let me know if it is not enough :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
That's great, thanks for explaining that Tony. -Gump Stump (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename requests from 208.81.184.4[edit]

You left a note at User talk:208.81.184.4#Rename requests to discuss recent rename requests from this IP address; not sure how to approach this, so I guess we can go one at a time thru the ones you rejected a second time.

The most obvious one to start with is File:Mormons jesus.JPG - your statement It is a statue of Jesus made for Mormon site, quite adequate filename is not a fair assessment: this is a replica of Christus, a ~1829 masterwork by Bertel Thorvaldsen found in the Church of Our Lady (Copenhagen), the (Lutheran) National Cathedral of Denmark. The replica in the photo was not made or even commissioned by the LDS Church - it was merely bought from a monument company (which normally specialized in graveyard monuments), and placed in a visitor center at Temple Square; the same monument company also sold several of these replicas to other institutions/locations, including File:Christ JHM.jpg, which is found in the Administrative Building of Johns Hopkins Hospital. If I purchase a really nice Shaker chair and place it in a Mormon building, it doesn't suddenly loose all of it's provenance and become a "Mormon chair"; however if a Mormon cabinetmaker makes a uniquely Mormon furniture design (like the convertible couch/bed on display at Cove Fort) then that would rightly be called "Mormon furniture." There is a significant difference, and it is as disrespectful to Thorvaldsen/Danes/Lutherans to misappropriate their significant cultural artifacts as it is to Shakers to not give credit for their works. Although Mormons really like this statue, it's not intrinsically Mormon. -- 208.81.184.4 00:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reply on this -- are you OK at this point with my resubmitting this rename request, based on the explanation provided here? -- 208.81.184.4
Very sorry for not getting back to you, I started a long (too long a reply :-), and then thought this was one of the images that had been renamed by someone else anyway, so never finished it. I suppose the short answer is, even if the file is renamed we would keep the old name as a redirect as the file has been here a long time under that name. So by all means ask for a rename again, and see if someone else will authorize it, but I don't think they should as it does not meet our renaming guidelines as it is a statue representing Jesus and is owned by a Mormon organisation. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrections to my figures[edit]

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Tony

Greeting...

Hope I am not asking too mush, I made many corrections to my figures, and I am still in an updating process for them, also I send a letter to the websites you mention for me to bring from them a permission to republish there row (original figure) in my modified re-designed figures, I will publish the permissions one by one in my figures, once they arrive, I hope you give more time and wish if you review my figures again when you have time ( I upload just one more figure which is belong to my Atmosphere figures of the Eye because it’s a an essential figure completing the whole picture of my view in "Atmosphere")

I have still 16 more figures waiting to be uploaded. I will wait until we finish at least passing my already "uploaded figures" the Wikimedia Commons standards for uploading images before I take the adventure to upload them.

Wish to stay in my side and give me your advice.

Thank you mush,

EMAD KAYYAM

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: DR File:Territorial changes of Poland 1940.jpg[edit]

Hi Sorry, but I only added the file under the category of territorial growth maps of Russia, I do not place the notice of deletion (please see history). Shadowxfox (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

but nicht good. See: Category:Maps of the history of Hungary between the World Wars Hungary ist nicht good. repari!! Zastava S. Jugoslavije.png Szajci pošta 18:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I really have no idea about which maps are correct. If the filename is wrong use {{rename}}. If the description or categories are wrong and editors cannot agree add {{fact disputed}}. If the accuracy of the map is disputed use {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate uploads[edit]

OK. But better way to complete set of images would be to change the name of File:Chateaucarpathes1.jpg to File:'The Carpathian Castle' by Léon Benett 33.jpg. Now is "a hole" in the set. It is a strange solution you proposed. Electron   21:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Of coarse I am not against putting link from File:Chateaucarpathes1.jpg to File:'The Carpathian Castle' by Léon Benett 33.jpg. In the future the best way to solve the problem would be to uplod a better file on the existed file from the set (with a small description, eg. see the file history ->File:'Propeller Island' by Léon Benett 69.jpg). There will be 2 files in one - miaght be useful for some uses... Electron   22:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
In some cases, yes, upload the new version over the top of the old, if it is uncontroversial. In this case the existing file set only consisted of three files and the new set was given a new set of file names (perhaps the original partial set hadn't been seen at that stage). So in principle if we had retained that naming scheme we could have uploaded the new copy of Chateaucarpathes1.jpg and Chateaucarpathes4.jpg overtop - that would have retained the original file history, and image, and it could be reverted to the earlier version if necessary. I very much do not like the idea of retrospectively uploading the old file again over top of the newly named file. One problem is that deleting images doesn't actually recover any space (everything can be undone & reverted so deleted files are effectively just hidden), so uploading it again just means there are two copies of the identical file using space instead of one. Maybe it is possible to merge files without uploading.
In this particular case there was no need for that anyway as the only apparent difference between the two files was different meta data (the JPEG comment fields etc). Normally I wouldn't rename the file just to get a better filename, but in the case of an existing set of files it makes sense or someone will come along and upload the 'missing' piece anyway! --Tony Wills (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: File:Chateaucarpathes1.jpg[edit]

Hi Tony. No, I didn't upload any file more from the book. Best regards, --Lucien (es·m·com) 06:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember, but in this page you can find a lot of pictures and information (in spanish :(). Regards, --Lucien (es·m·com) 09:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your recent helpful comments.

I considered opening a discussion, on the Village Pump, or reasonable equivalent, asking for input on using wikileak's documents.

Some people may think the classified nature of the documents would mean that they are not PD. I am sure that is mistaken, as per the Pentagon Papers.

Some people may think that we should refrain from publishing the wikileaked documents out of respect for the US government's claims that the widespread distrution of these documents erodes public safety. I think this is a mistake as well -- but for reasons that are complicated to explain.

Is this recent "Arab Spring" a good thing? I don't think wikileaks' publication of candid diplomatic cables is given emough credit for the Arab Spring.

FWIW Justice Rakoff made a similar point to yours about how allowing their information to be made public was probably in the captive's interest.

cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Undo revision of File:Heuliez GX 107.JPG[edit]

Hello.

I don't understand why you've undone my revision about this picture. Except the plates blanked, it's actually the exact same picture... We should delete of those. Kevin Benoit [Let's talk about it!] 09:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

By definition it is not an exact duplicate then. If I were to delete any version it would be the smaller version with the blank plates as that is in the revision history of the other one. But we normally keep modified images and the originals, hence my changes. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Frivolity[edit]

re: the discussion on file renaming -

Perhaps you didn't realize this, but your constant use of smileys gives the impression that you're not taking this at all seriously and you're being whimsical and jokey and mocking.

I am sure this is not your intent; may I suggest that you edit your comments so as to remove the smileys? DS (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 :-(
Perhaps it is just points punctuated with ";-)" ? Or perhaps I am not consistent with my use of smilelys and they may mean a different thing in different places. This is how I think that I use smileys, but I have used them for so long it is a bit like other body language and done automatically. (I'll try to update the list as I watch myself using them) :
 :-)  When I would be wearing a happy face if I was in face to face conversation with somebody. Meaning simply that I am not unhappy, not angry, no animosity is meant etc and the context should show whether I am happily agreeing, or respectfully dis-agreeing. Perhaps people should be very worried when I don't punctuate a conversation with a smile! ;-) [← that was a joke]
 ;-)  I am making a joke or pun, or I am having a good humoured dig at something, or I don't really believe what I just said
 :-(  I am sad that you think that, or I am sorry for what I have said/done
 :-|  I am trying not to smile in case you take it the wrong way
There is perhaps an issue when conversing with people with English as a second language, or from a different cultural background. I am conscious of both those issues and try to use simple sentence structures and straight forward language, and sometimes too much redundant language, to make things clear.
Thank you for the note, but please assume I really am contributing in good faith, without animosity, and usually quite seriously. :-) :-| --Tony Wills (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A letter to Wikimedia Commons board of editors[edit]

Hello editor Tony,

Thanks a lot for your kind care to review my figures. I am doing my best to develop them and I will finish editing all the required element that make them eligible to publish in Wikimedia Commons, (including the permissions from the original author for the original figures) very soon, and I am right now reading too mush literature about the policy and future view of Wikipedia in editing and I will finish writing a letter to send it to Wikimedia Commons board of editors explaining to them in a brief the subject of my figures and my future view and outlook about their destinations. I will do my best.

Thanks to you mush, EMAD KAYYAM

--EMAD KAYYAM (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good luck :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

re: Redirects[edit]

Well, on the home-wiki I came across an empty page that redirected inexplicably to another image. It was quite a confusing thing, so I looked for help pages to explain the policy for redirects here and it was frankly really unclear for an outsider: as it is it looks like it referred only to gallery pages and not to files too. It seemed quite useless an orphaned redirect (I checked the global usage), also because after a file name change CommonsDelinker fixes links on the other wikis, so I asked a speedy deletion; it admit that it was quite an unorthodox thing to do, but had I made a mistake, someone would have reverted me (since it would have been certainly reviewed by an administrator or at least an experienced user) and maybe explained more clearly. Sorry for the mistake and thanks. --Austroungarika write here! 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't remember how I came across the redirect, but you're right, those are quite good reasons to keep a redirect. I just had not thought about that, and assumed that someone had simply forgot about it. Thank you for taking the time to explain. --Austroungarika write here! 13:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

re: File:Alexander Binder.jpg[edit]

Hi Tony,
as I wrote some time ago on my talkpage and in the UR entry, you should feel free to un-delete that file if you are still on it, anyway. I'm not sure if I should/can undelete it by myself, after it surfaced on UR. --Túrelio (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:File deleted[edit]

Sure.

I didn't delete the file, only the redirect. The file still exist with the name of File:Улица Кирова, Чернобыль.jpg. Béria Lima msg 12:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In normal i would agree with you, but in this case there are no global usage, no delinker logs and only one use in google images - to an wikipedia. So, i don't see the point in keep that redirect. Béria Lima msg 12:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Lupe-test.png DR revert[edit]

I made this image just for discussion. It isn't exactly the same, since it was work in progress. But which use has this image now as the discussion is over? It is very low resolution in comparison with the final result. See versions of File:Magnifying_glass_with_focus_on_paper.png. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In general I think we should keep all revisions and discussion images as these are wiki projects, and there is a wiki history that won't make sense if the image no longer exists (this is of course assuming it was discussed on a wiki page, rather than discussed off site). If it is annoying to have it in the relevant category pages, I usually just add such things to Category:Image detail for discussion and remove any other categories. It won't get deleted by anyone through the "duplicates" process as that is expressly for identical or scaled down versions of the same image. Just submit a normal deletion request if you really want rid of it. Hope that helps :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see it is discussed in de:Diskussionen_über_Bilder etc and those discussions are archived, so I would definitely want to keep it. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No one ever answered to this thread. So there was no discussion and the user i discussed with on DE knows about the final result. I don't see any possible issue when this image is deleted. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
It won't be me who makes the decision, so you don't need to persuade me :-). I see your point, but what advantage is there to deleting it (remembering it is a wiki, nothing really ever (well there might be a few oversight removals) gets deleted, just hidden). Your de discussion (or attempt at discussion :-) will be archived, or even if you deleted it before the archive bot deals to it, it will still be part of the wikis history. Why delete the image, does it improve anything ? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Why crowding categories, search functions, etc. with useless content? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 11:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
One more file in ten million doesn't make much difference :-). Submit a DR and see what others think. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Very pointy if you ask me. [1] -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 19:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I should have changed the speedy into a normal DR as it ought to be. Instead I have ensured this discussion is linked so that whoever considers the speedy is fully informed. I am quite happy to revert to proper process if you prefer :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be as useful as writing poem about the fly you just smashed on your screen, because it was just annoying... -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Note to self, redirects that should be retained[edit]

There isn't any need for an deletion debate[edit]

I'd made some SVG form some GIFs. (This one, which are better available as SVG). I paint them (there are exakt copies), I replaced every GIFs worldwide. Usually I'm (or better my book project) the only user of these graphics. And I'm the creator of these files, and wish the deletion! Why do I have to bother now with a deletion-debate? No pages use thise grafik any more. Superseded is absurd. There isn't any need for an deletion debate. I have to do better things with my time as to work over your nonsensical changes. speedy-delete! --Mjchael (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)