User talk:Tuvalkin

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

SN2 reactions category[edit]

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. This isn't an illustration relating to Sn2 reactions in any way. The only reason it uses "SN2 reaction" as an image is I wanted a text string that contains the characters 'S', 'c', 't' and 'a'.

It's a standard feature of articles on typography and lettering topics that they will use sample texts in which the text content is meaningless, and solely provides a way to make the image more interesting and give a sense of what the font looks like in terms of spacing and proportions. To use some example images not done by me, this image should clearly not be categorised as an image about psalters, this one clearly isn't about Jacquard looms, this one isn't about nasturtiums, and I could go on and on. This is a standard practice in books on lettering and font specimen books dating back centuries. Blythwood (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is a standard practice in type design, as you say. But, unlike as you say, an image containing the lettering "SN2 reaction" pretty much belongs in Category:SN2 reactions et c. Please recategorize yourself for this doesn’t need to become an edit war. Or, if you want to defend this wrong view in a wider forum, please bring it to COM:VP. -- Tuválkin 19:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked[edit]

Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Seasons greetings to you too, @Jon Kolbert: When will this block end? For the record, this is about this. -- Tuválkin 18:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: See my comment on the AN/U thread. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jon Kolbert: Yes, never mind, meanwhile I saw it. If you care to check, you’ll see that I carefully avoid edit warring (defined as the 3rd consecutive undoing/revesal). Not going to wikilawyer about whether this time it is such case or not, considering intermediate edits. The fact that guys who like to categorize photos of libraries get weirded out by this photo is understandable, and it explains why it keeps getting uncategorized, but no amount of Commons drama can ever change the fact that this photo shows someone in a library and that’s a fundamental trait of this particular media file. Cats are not galleries yadda yadda — should a cat for this be created? Maybe Category:Unusual situations in libraries, to cover not only nudity and keep these oddballs away from Biliotheconomy busybodies? Here’s an idea. I might work on it in 2019. Too bad you had to block me when I have 17 browser tabs open with unfinished edits, mostly about obscure logos and unusual characters. One week seems frankly a long time (it is a long time to leave the computer on, that’s for sure), but I bet that there’s a crowd in irc demanding you to block me for one year, not just till next year, so… -- Tuválkin 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    (talk page stalker) Tuvalkin, you made edit war, didn’t you? Of course, another warrior should be admonished too. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Incnis Mrsi: Looks like I did, yes. Meanwhile the admonishing was issued, so all good. I understand fully well why edit warring is problematic and how it works (just see the section above) and my only excuse here is that seems that I cannot count, maybe. Meanwhile in the discussion people are saying that I care more for the contents of edits than for the ancillary process (well, yeah?) and also that unidentified libraries should remain unidentified because it might cast a «bad light». Heh, what next?, remove locations for photos of street beggars and homelss people because it could show municipal authorities in a «bad light»? -- Tuválkin 19:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether or not it was by accident due to miscounting: would you agree that you've reverted too often without meaningful discussion in this particular case? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alexis Jazz: There was a sort of discussion going on in edit summaries — that is the wrong way to discuss, of course, and I usually try to avoid it and ask reverters to engage in discussion in the file’s talk page (example above). Most such reverters being unexperienced, the matter usually fizzes: There is a slew of file talk pages with me asking for others’ ideas, mostly about categorization, that never got any echo. What happened here is that, unlike what I do usually (again, see example above, one case still lacking valid categorization), I wrongly did revert his reversion a third time, as I posed the question in AN/U, instead of staying put. It’s useless to ask me whether I’m willing to “stop beating my wife”, but I would point out that counting all times I re-added this cat to this file in the course of several weeks falls off the scope of what edit warring is. (Why has this photo been repeatedly subjected to this particular uncategorization already argued above.) -- Tuválkin 11:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Maybe Category:Unusual situations in libraries, to cover not only nudity and keep these oddballs away from Biliotheconomy busybodies? Here’s an idea. I might work on it in 2019."
Not really needed anymore I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alexis Jazz: Yes, I had noticed. It’s another way to go (first); ultimately both ideas can be implemented. I see nothing wrong with your take on the matter. B’s version now prevails, though, based on the notion that Category:Unidentified subjects and its subcats are mantainance categories to hold files temporarily; this view was also raised in the AN/U discussion (wrong forum, b.t.w., and incl. such “collegial” and “good-nurtured” aspersions such as «nonsensical»). As I see it, this is wrong: While ideally these cats should be empty, they never will, as there’s always something, new or old, left to be identified. This is one of many such cases. Now, anyone to be splitting files between unidentified and unidentifiable? Not me. -- Tuválkin 11:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Me neither, but probably not for the same reason. I think it's a good idea in general, but the "unidentifiable" categories will probably attract deletionists. (for lack of a better word) So I'm not doing it either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have lifted the block, please ensure that was the right decision. Happy new year. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

work in progress[edit]

✓ done -- Tuválkin 15:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


Check out: Commons:Village_pump#Disambiguation. Thanks. Evrik (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.

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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


And also:

Yours sincerely, Jc86035 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)