User talk:Tuvalkin

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

cat q[edit]

Hey! Did you put this file into the Thomson SA category by mistake? I thought it was an electronics manufacturer. --Palosirkka (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


100% pure gold. *grabs popcorn*. The images are nowhere to be found. See for yourself (scaled down): [1] [2]. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, the user was never notified so the deletion was out of process anyway. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Aw horachmim (1909).ogg - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:WSDüker.jpg
I guess "unused" now means "delete". Also, InstantCommons users can go fuck themselves. The file was a .jpg of a BSicon like File:BSicon uexhKRZWa.svg (similar to that one but not the same). While .jpg is a bad format for this, closing the DR with the message "non controversial maintenance", implying this could have been speedied.. He's just asking for it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
We have deleted thousands of these icons in the past. Keeping them online if they don't form part of the systematic series makes no sense. Could indeed have been speedied. Jcb (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
"we have already done this thousands of times" is never a valid argument for anything. We have burned thousands of witches and held thousands of elections without female voters. The argument "but we've already done this thousands of times!" was also heard before those things ended. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Replying:
  • @Alexis Jazz: how did File:WSDüker.jpg differ from File:BSicon uexhKRZWa.svg, topologically?
  • @Jcb: In past such deletions, a link to the replacement BSicon with proper format and file name/format, used or not, was offered — either in the deletion rationale or in the DR, if any (or even both). Not this time. Why?
-- Tuválkin 11:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes, mostly not. But all the systematic files from the coordinated effort are in the catalogue. So if such an icon is not in the catalogue and not in use, it can be removed safely as non controversial maintenance. The colors of the deleted files differ slightly from the standard, so that it could not be used. Jcb (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that you evaded my question and that you presume to teach me about BSicons. -- Tuválkin 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • WSDüker.jpg, description was: "Symbol für Formatvorlage Wasserstraßen (Basis: Bahnstrecken)" - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @Alexis Jazz: Looks like the line across is somewhat close to 3399FF, while the wavy line is 003399, instead the usual 069DD3. The icon semantics is line across over wet culvert — therefore closest to   (uWBRÜCKE2). Anyone looking for the deleted file can now locate this discussion and establish the nexus, even though an indication in a DR, as said above, would be a much better service. -- Tuválkin 20:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's more acceptable when we know there is an SVG version. We also have {{Vector version available}} for this purpose. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Another thing. Jcb is deleting The Commons. Flickr's The Commons, that is. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Brno centrum Montage.jpg - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC) (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Home eropkinsky 16.jpg). I could actually upload my version with caption here.. It educates about the scope of Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


RP4c2 RP43+1
BSicon RP4c4.svg

The dotted lines on the curves don't match up with the ones on the diagonals. Which should be changed? Useddenim (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Useddenim: I suppose It’s desirable to have matching and homogenous icons, of course. If the length of the gaps and strokes needs to be adjusted, I’m not at all against that. These icons were originally designed in an amateurish way, meanwhile we come a long way.
(I wanted to inspect the matter in more detail and was going to add PX=64px to the lines of your sample diagram, but alas it’s created using that unparsable inhuman notation: Not touching it. Face-sad.svg)
-- Tuválkin 01:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Category: Travessa do Oleiro[edit]

Honestly, given his experience in Commons, I was surprised by his defense of such an obvious mistake. With regard to its expeditious reversion in [Category: Travessa do Oleiro], and applying 'precision' when categorizing in Commons, I would like you to consider a couple of observations: 1) By systematic and general rule, the categories of people, categorize people. Only in the very unlikely case - and that it would have to be justified by a reference - that the people who appear in the photo were "oleiros" would have a place, very tangentially, in the category of potters. 2) If it had taken a few minutes to consult my history or my discussion page I would probably have inferred that I am a basic editor on pottery and ceramics issues. Not in vain I have been collaborating for six years in the project that WP-ES dedicates to this subject. As I have Galician friends I know the meaning of oleiro, and I have had the pleasure of creating some articles dedicated to oleiros such as Niñodaguía or Buño. 3) I find it interesting to look for a relationship between this photo and the pottery, but correctly. If something happens to me and you're interested, I'll tell you. Thanks for your attention.

En cualquier caso, todos podemos cometer errores o un mal gesto. Me he tomado la molestia de dejarle estas observaciones porque considero que los títulos que figuran en su página de usuario hay que demostrarlos.--Latemplanza (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Já que se assenhoreou de se me dirigir nas línguas que mais lhe apraz, respondo-lhe como se segue:
  1. Diz-me que «categories of people, categorize people», muito bem. A Travessa do Oleiro homenageia um anónimo oleiro, o qual é/foi alguém (people) — daí a categorização que apus a Category: Travessa do Oleiro está correcta e a sua reduziu-lhe a precisão. (Para o resto do argumento que ajunta, veja-se §3, infra.)
  2. Ou seja: não tem desculpa.
  3. You keep saying «this photo» (also in your §1). Pray tell which photo? I did categorize under Category: Potters not any particular photo but a category: Category: Travessa do Oleiro. Whatever photos are categorized therein have only an indirect relationship with Category: Potters.
  4. P.f. faça o obséquio de usar # para criar listas numeradas, para melhor leitura (como faço aqui). Pediria também que, já que faz uso de listas numeradas, automáticas ou hardcoded, que cinja a sua argumentação a segmentos disjuntos em cada ítem delas.
-- Tuválkin 18:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I do not understand half of what he says. I am afraid that my understanding of languages ​​(I use the Google translator) does not give to understand their argumentation. Does not matter. I apologize for having made an exaggerated statement about a detail with little importance.
  1. I wrote (well, the bot translator) a paragraph in his mother tongue, courtesy and considering that what was said in it could be disrespectful between two strangers.
  2. By the way, he forgot to link a notice so that I would know that you answered me on your talk page and not mine.
  3. Thank you for your timely lesson in using the keyboard on the complicated Wikipedia editing page. I have been slow to understand what he wanted to tell me, but it has been worth learning something more in this medium.
  4. Greetings. --Latemplanza (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)