User talk:Tuvalkin

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

Synagogues ⊂ Churches ?[edit]

Saluton, Tuvalkin,

vi metis miajn fotojn Hermannstadt, Synagoge, 14.jpeg kaj Hermannstadt, Synagoge, 15.jpeg en la kategorion Square photos of churches. Nu, sinagogoj estas (judaj) preĝejoj, sed laŭ mia opinio church = kristana preĝejo (kirko). Kion vi opinias?

Mi malfaris vian ŝanĝon de Colmar, cercle catholique saint Martin, 4.jpeg‎, tiu konstruaĵo ne estas preĝejo. (Mi malfaris la saman ŝanĝon (de Acabashi) jam en aprilo.

-- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Renardo la vulpo, kiam mi tion faris, mi pensis ke estus jen ne simpla afero. Ja en esperanto "preĝejo" sinonimas kun "templo" ĉar ĝi estas ja "preĝ+ej+o". La iom kutima antaŭsupozo ke "preĝejo" = "kirko", kaj la fakto mem ke tiu lasta estas “neologismo” dum "moskeo" kaj "sinagogo" estas ne (por ne mencii la absurdan ideon ke "templo" estu nepre nekristana), nur montras kiom pezas kristanisma entrudo en la okcidenta socio, eĉ en lingvo kreita de judo.
Mi malpli certas pri la angla lingvo, tamen. Ja "church" kognatas kun "kirko", helenaĵo kiu eniris en la ĝermanajn lingvojn jam kun kristana signifo, kiun ĝi apenaŭ perdis. Laŭ la Vikivortaro "church" estas preskaŭ ĉiam kristana — ĉu do ĉiuj kategorioj pri "churches" devus/devos nestiĝi sub alie samnomaj kategorioj pri "temples"? Mi tion ne kontraŭus, kaj se tiel miaj hodiaŭaj ŝanĝoj estu plu ŝanĝitaj okaze de kreo de meznivela Category:Square photos of temples.
-- Tuválkin 23:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Dankon pro la respondo. Nu, ekzistas malmulte da kategorioj pri „temples“; pli ofte mi vidas ke „Churches“, „Mosques“ kaj „Synagogues“ estas sub „Religious buildings“, ekzemple en mia urbo. Ne mi faris tion. Al mi la afero ne tro gravas, sed eble judoj ne ŝatas, ke sinagogoj estu sub „Churches“. -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Komprenite kaj konsentite: "Religious buildings" ŝajnas tute bona alternativo de "temples" (aŭ eĉ pli vasta tavolo: ja ĝi ankaŭ inkluzivas iajn tombejojn, lernejojn k.s.), kaj eble ni devus ĝeneraligi ĝian uzon kaj klare marki kategoriojn pri "churches" iel sub "Chistianity". -- Tuválkin 13:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Renardo la vulpo: — jen ✓ farite: Category:Square photos of religious buildings. -- Tuválkin 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Trams in Budapest[edit]

I am aware that it is probably no coincidence that most subcategories of Category:Trams in Lisbon use the English Wikipedia category naming scheme (Lisbon trams) as opposed to the Commons one (Trams in Lisbon), still, please at least respect the Commons one when creating categories for other cities. I hope you don't object to Category:Budapest trams facing left resp. right getting renamed to Category:Trams in Budapest facing left resp. right?    FDMS  4    15:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I do object, but that has nothing to do with those turf wars between English Wikipedia and Commons, in which, obviously, I have no stake in (to be clear: English is not my native language and my contributions to the English Wikipedia are scarce and mostly pertaining to rail matters). However I don’t agree that Trams in City is better than City Trams to name categories, indeed I find the latter (or its variant Trams of City) way more adequate, the assymetry with other vehicles (such as planes and ships) being intentional and content-bearing. Please refer to this discussion — it’s about time to revive it. -- Tuválkin 10:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign for User:The Photographer[edit]

Please excuse me spamming you, which concerns Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign. My contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. I has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and it is very expensive for me to acquire this equipment. I has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a camera with a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. Even a modest donation will make a difference if many people contribute. Thanks. --The Photographer 14:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked[edit]

Stop x nuvola.svg This user has been blocked
The reason for the block is available in the block log. The administrator listed in the block log can give you further information.

See also the contributions of this user or the upload log in order to find out why this user has been blocked.


العربية | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Your open and clear accusation of racism against fellow editor Ruthven here is just too much. You've gone over the line one more time. There's absolutely no reason to call Ruthven a racist because he opens a mass DR on a blocked sock account. This isn't your playground where you can say anything you want and get away with it. You either owe Ruthven an immediate apology or you can have an extra week of Thanksgiving vacation. I know you pretty well and this accusation of racism surprises even me. He doesn't want brown people on Commons? Are you serious? He speaks Spanish. Wow. I can't believe you sunk that low. lNeverCry 12:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • (She speaks Spanish therefore she cannot be racist? Go on, please… -- Tuválkin 15:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC))
Compounded with the more detailed statement that «Ruthven is an advanced Spanish speaker, so the accusation by Tuvalkin that Ruthven quote "doesn't want brown people here in Commons" is sudden and disturbing.», here. Did you really think this through, INeverCry? Are actually saying that Spaniards and other Spanish-speaking people, of any complexion (some are quite Nordic looking, I’l have you know), cannot be racist just because in your little corner of the world some of them are subjected to oppression? Ever heard of Cortés or Pizarro or, well, Columbus? Ever heard about “morenazis” or the problematic demand of ¡Conmigo habla cristiano!? Do you know anything at all about racism? (Except that it’s bad — a good start, but not nearly enough.) Hmm, and this just in: How advanced a Spanish speaker was the murderer of Trayvon Martin? -- Tuválkin 21:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you want a retractation? I’d be delighted to: I’m a child of the 1970s and I “know” that racists exist only in movies and History books, and maybe in shrinking numbers in a few unenlightened recesses of this ever-improving world, and therefore nobody I ever come across with could ever be an actual racist and presuming racist intentions over any action or statement from anyone could only be a bad-faith insult. That’s what I thought till relatively late in my youth and I yearn to that state of blissful innocence. So, okay, I’m perfectly happy to presume nobody in Commons is a racist and I’ll gladly accept that this reopened DR was motivated by the reasons Ruthven stated and not by any hidden or uncounscious agenda. I can even try to convince myself that the epidemy of DRs disproportionally directed against photos of brown people are all due to all kinds of other reasons and not to racism — after all, those DRs can be (and often are) closed to be kept by using racism-unrelated counter-arguments, and possible reusers end up with suitable diverse imagery at their disposal (which is what matters to me most, in my curatorial work). -- Tuválkin 16:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I find this remark of yours to be unacceptable. We do not need such conduct on commons. If multiple people find your conduct to be problematic, you ought to reflect on your conduct. It makes it very easy to dismiss your intentions and arguments on the grounds of racism and indefinitely block you. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood. By the way, how do you propose to identify, and deal with, actual racism when it manifestates in DRs that will discretely reduce and/or squew the visibility of non-whites (or of any other human subgrouping) in current imagery? (Saying that «That’s impossible as no DR was ever filed for racist reasons!» is a valid reply, but it is also the current state of affairs.) -- Tuválkin 17:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If someone is making mass meritless (nomination not based on copyright, policy, guideline, etc.) nominations it should be treated as such. I imagine this is your claim. What motivates them isn't that relevant since we do not want such people on the site regardless. So, best practice is treat the merit of the nomination itself. If files have obvious licensing issues etc. they can be safely deleted, if not kept. This is tricky if the individual is gaming around the rules just to be disruptive. If someone is consistently making bad nominations, that can be brought to the attention of the community. Ultimately it is all about consensus. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @とある白い猫/16:, we agree on all that: See #below my reply to Nick. -- Tuválkin 21:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @とある白い猫/16:, you say about racists that «we do not want such people on the site»; I couldn’t agree more but it is really unlikely that none of Commons’ active editors is not one. The main issue, anyway, especially since this is a very filtered and subject-oriented online venue, is not to try to expunge racists amongst our midst but to avoid (by any means, both formative and repressive) expressions of racism, regardless of intention — because they hurt at the recieving end. (In the case at hand the reciever is not one of us but Commons itself: its wealth of, and potential for, depicting human diversity.)
To wit: I’m fully sure that INeverCry is not a racist in any shape or form and yet his sentence above about Spanish-speaking people is highly problematic. Concerning Ruthven, whom, unlike INC, I never crossed paths with before, COM:AGF tells me she cannot be a racist, but her careless DR forces me to ask what’s her problem with brown people anyway.
-- Tuválkin 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I would want detailed and exceptionally extensive statistical analysis of a user's deletion nominations before accusing them of racism, I would not expect to find an accusation of racism casually thrown into a deletion discussion, but the exceptionally detailed, extensive, in depth report to be made to administrators at the Administrators Noticeboard, where appropriate investigations can be made. I and I'm sure my fellow administrators are ready to investigate a seriously, properly composed concern of racism which is made in the correct venue. Nick (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I claim there’s such a trend, not that there’s anyone in particular doing it, not blattantly at least. I am saying that Commons, or more exactly the Deletion Requests part of Commons, has a problem with racism, with photographs from specific parts of the World (indeed anywhere outside Europe, North America, and, with luck, Japan and South Korea), especially those depicting present-day local people engaged in everyday activities, get hardest hit by DRs filed on generic reasons, most often the very subjective offscopeness. A sizeable chunk of the (relatively) few such DRs I followed end up being closed as keep, but it is frustrating to see this happening to apparently nobody’s concern.
To have those photos of two Angolan girls being dissed for the third time after detailed dicussion was just one time too many. (F.w.i.w., I first noticed the trend in this DR and its follow-up uDR — the photo remains deleted and the exotification problems I pointed out are not solved. Abkhazians are not brown, by the way, and they are litterally Caucasian — the matter is more one of ignorant, cosmopolitan priviledge than actual racism.)
As for what you and your «fellow administrators are ready to investigate», I’m frankly unimpressed. One of them just wrote in this very blocking rationale that the fact that someone is a speaker of Spanish shows that they cannot be racist… Someone has a lot to learn, and I don’t mean only me.
The «exceptionally extensive statistical analysis» you demand to be done before anything is even discussed openly will never be done, of course. Photos like those I try to “save” will go on being deleted proportionately more than others, and Commons will sadly go on contributing to make less diverse the image the World collectively has of itself.
-- Tuválkin 21:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Nick:. -- Tuválkin 21:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • (Since the DR mentioned above as an example of what sets me off rails also starred a less-than-stellar moment by INeverCry, here’s for fairness another example, this time a DR closed as kept showing INC doing the right thing against the will of bigger fish. -- Tuválkin 21:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
If we accept this claim (which I can't do in the absence of proper evidence) is it not the case that it could be explained by differences in copyright legislation, such as freedom of panorama and restrictions of posting 3D artwork/sculptures, rather than any sort of malicious racism on the part of image nominators. Nick (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That amounts to do exactly nothing. But if you don’t even acknowledge the trend, you cannot even start noticing it. All I can hope is to get at least some of the people reading this (all of whom are of course not racists) to start thinking in this way: See, for instance, Category:Grimacing. There a couple dozens of images there; from a cursory browsing there’s 4 or 5 dark skinned people (from among c.ª 2 billion dark skinned people in the World) and half a dozen Scandinavian surnames in filenames (from among c.ª 50 million people with Scandinavian surnames in the World). Now lets check for DRs asking for the deletion (or plain and simple, and ilegal, speedy deletions) of photos showing grimacing people: how many of those, especially the ones ending in deletion, feature dark skinned people?… (I know I saw a dozen at least, and what I can see is but a drop in the ocean.) -- Tuválkin 23:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Here’s a few more:

(There’s more, but it’s dinner time.) -- Tuválkin 23:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriousness unaddressed?[edit]

If Tuvalkin, or any other Commons community member, came to the admin's noticeboard and presented direct evidence of racism, whether it be long-term systematic behavior, direct racial slurs, intimidation, deletion requests, etc, this would be a very serious matter. The person being accused of racist behavior, would, I expect, be facing an indefinite block/ban from Commons. If Tuvalkin really though that such a serious problem was taking place, why would he make comments at a deletion request rather than bringing it to COM:AN/U? Racist people are usually racist toward a whole race or group of people, so if Tuvalkin really believed Ruthven posed this kind of threat, wouldn't he want to get admin attention immediately to protect the community? My point is that Tuvalkin is a long-time editor with more than enough experience to know that making accusations of racism in a deletion request is inappropriate (as inappropriate as it gets if there's no evidence to back up the claim) and at very best not the right venue. Someone with Tuvalkin's experience should know that a serious accusation of racism should be brought to a noticeboard like AN/U or ANB so that administrators can address the issue. I don't know about anyone else around here, but If I thought systematic racism was being used by a Commons editor against other editors, I would build up the evidence and take it to AN. I certainly wouldn't be making accusations at a deletion request where no action can be expected to take place, and where the only point would be to upset or bother someone. lNeverCry 23:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

In reply to INeverCry:
  1. So many words and yet you don’t say nothing new: The above is just «I cannot believe there’s actual racism around! How dare you say there is?!» repeated many times.
  2. Is your final point that actually I have no serious concerns about the supression of selected imagery showing dark skinned people via DRs as told to Nick above?, that I’m only using that talking point as a random pretext and that my actual goal all along was to insult Ruthven and annoy you? Seriously?
  3. Coming to my talk page to refer to me in the 3rd person is right up there on the scale of civility with sentences like «disgusting behavior even from Tuvalkin» (my emphasis). Dully noted.
  4. You said you’d unblock me as soon as I presented an apology to Ruthven. How does that work?
  5. Are you going to follow up in explaining your bizarre statement that Spanish-speaking people cannot be racist?
-- Tuválkin 01:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  1. Your first statement is just empty nonsense. You should be taking this more seriously. I doubt people who think they've been the victim of racist treatment, as you claim to have been, are so much in the mood for jokes.
  2. So when there's serious racism taking place that affects you, the place to address it is in an individual deletion request? Not COM:AN/U?
  3. I never stated that people who speak Spanish can't be racist, I simply stated something that anyone would notice, which is most racists aren't in the habit of learning the language/s of people they hate.
  4. How does an apology work? You take some sincerity, mix it up with some integrity and honesty, and Viola! there's your apology.
  5. Suppressing selected imagery? I've tagged tens of thousands of images of people who had brown skin for deletion, ditto for people with white and black skin. I tagged them because they didn't meet the requirements of COM:EDUSE or were copyvios. This is what people involved in DR/CSD do. It's not a racist conspiracy.

    I'll give you an example. We get a lot of out of scope and copyvio material coming from people and companies in India. When I delete it, it's not because I hate people from India, it's because I want to get spam and other out of scope material off of Commons. One of the nicest people I know, Jkadavoor, is from India. I would personally love to someday have a chance to spend some time traveling in India, and maybe even to meet him.

    There's no racism in my actions and the same is true of Ruthven. You can come up with all the clever little comments you want to, and do your usual mixing up of words and context to try and make others appear foolish, but people see through this.

  6. You used to be a really good editor, but your editing has grown more and more toxic over the past few years. If it was up to me you'd be banned permanently from editing Commons, but it's not, and it doesn't really matter. You'll get there on your own within the next year or two. I'd really rather you didn't though. You know what one of the things I've frequently thought about you is? I've thought to myself that if you were nicer to people in general, you'd make a good administrator! lNeverCry 02:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have been noticing this case since reported at COM:AN/B. Since accusing someone a racist (wmf:Non discrimination policy) without evidence is a serious offence, I would like to look in the details. "you (and I mean Ruthven in this discussion and many other users in other DRs) don’t want brown people in Commons?" seems more an accusation to many people in Commons than Ruthven alone. If true, and Tuvalkin is agreeing with my stand, I would like to consider this as a mild offence than already considered here.
Regarding the stand that Commons is biased against brown people: I don't think so. We regularly promoting many life moments as featured pictures and many of them are from Asia, South America and Africa too. There is indeed a shortage of good contributions from those places, mainly because of our lack of ability to procure good tools.
Another point is that Commons don't have enough media about people compared to landscapes and other subjects. It is because of COM:PEOPLE; we're helpless in that case.
I randomly checked some photos in that DR. Most of them are Instagram/Facebook style photos usually come under "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on". This is not people photography; I'm telling from my years of experience as a moderator of "People love their life!" and "People love their work!" Flickr groups. We need quality documentation of people around the world. It can't be replaced by some random selfies and snaps taken by friends.
So I suggest Tuvalkin to reconsider your stand about scope of Commons and volunteers here. I think s/he can continue here as a good contributor after this short block/break. Cheers! Jee 04:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Jee: Your interpretation of my words in the Angolan girls photos’ 3rd 4th DR is roughly accurate — my issue is with the suppression of these (and many other such) images, and not at all with who requires said suppression. (I’ll expand on this aspect below.) I’m glad to read you reporting no instance of any bias directed against you in Commons nor against other people, agressions which you could have percieved better than others (incl. me). My point, however, was not about that kind of suppressive behaviour, which would be too blattant to be allowed to endure; my point was about bias against certain types of people as depicted in images subjected to DRs. I invite you (and anybody else), to consider the point I made above concerning Category:Grimacing (which is of course just an example) — do I have a point? Is this a problem? If so, how to improve the situation and eventually fix it? (Don’t feel obliged to reply to me about this at all, of course, but please do consider the issue.)
You raise the matter of COM:PEOPLE, and rightly so, but I disagree that we’re helpless in this case. If indeed that’s the reason why Commons is lacking in people imagery compared with landscapes, then maybe the guidelines should be changed to improve that. (And I should say that my interests are not at all images of people: I arrived here by pure chance.)
You and I seem to have very different ideas of what Commons should be, and that shows on the divergent assessment we make concerning these photos: You seem to see them as «Instagram/Facebook style photos» and I, well, I do not disagree — but I do see also that they are, for now (and very likely for long) our only illustrations of that one city park (or school yard?) in Namibe, of examples of Angolan school uniforms, etc. etc. And that’s paramount for me: Better to have incipient, mediocre coverage, than none at all. I would only not object to their deletion on the face of way more aboundant and photographically excellent material, which we currently lack: As you say: We «need quality documentation of people around the world», and I agree, but I cannot agree with your conclusion: «random selfies and snaps» will have to do while they are all we have. And I do believe that the presence of such less-than-ideal material in Commons may encourage the addition of better ones (that’s true for other topics).
-- Tuválkin 17:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I was away for a butterfly survey at Periyar National Park; just returned. Need more time to read the progress of discussions in the last few days. Jee 04:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Apology to Ruthven[edit]

@Ruthven:, concerning my vote in the DR raised by you, and what followed:

  • I have no cause to presume you’re racist, or a racist — my wording was twisted (a bad habit) by what others have termed a «battleground mentality»: I presumed your conscious goal was not to go after photos of brown people and therefore decided to argue my case by trying to shame you, while at the same time, once again, trying to drag people’s attention to what I see as a bias in DRs (as explained above). That was wrong and I apologize for putting you in what I planned as an unconfortable and uneasy position for you. Actually, the only way you’d feel okay with my accusation/callout, was if you were indeed a racist — and that’s clear proof of how counter-productive my “strategy” was: I see that now, and it should be obvious to be much earlier.
  • My concerns, as raised above, are sincere. Everybody, fortunately, seems to agree that the matter of racism is important (or else accusations thereof would not be a serious insult and we would not be here), and while I cannot accept that silencing my concerns has any moral value, I unreservedly agree that I framed it in a way that’s not acceptable (the «thinly veiled» bit is apallingly obnoxious —what was I thinking?!), especially since it was the first time our paths ever crossed in DRs. I owe you an apology for that — and the more right I am in my concern, the deeper my apology must be.
  • I was, and still am, very frustrated about that particular set of photos. A fourth DR seemed overkill and that frustration morphed to anger when I penned my vote. Of course, that’s none of your fault and, at most, I should have said something along the lines of: «Look, I feel there’s an unsettling lack of diversity in our images of people as categorized while too many DRs seem to affect images of “people of color”. Are you sure you want to add to that trend with this DR?» For not having done so (which is still pretty agressive, but at least it’s closer to what I would ever allow myself in normal conditions), I apologize.
  • I had no idea that, as you informed in the DR, when one uses «the tool for bulk operations, you aren't necessarily aware of past deletions; my mistake on the method, not on the form». Well, it was my mistake to, in a knee-jerk manner, presume the worst of you — that you were aware of the three past DRs and still decided to go ahead with the deletion. Apologies for that, too.
  • There are a few loose ends concerning the accuracy of your arguments in the DR, but they seem to be now in the hands of others, so I’ll wisely shut up about them.
  • Additionally, I misinterpreted your user name as female and therefore refered to you as "she". That was due only to my unwillingness of using "he" as a default.

-- Tuválkin 18:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Tuvalkin, to me this matter is closed. But, as I cannot feel offended by such a false accusation and hasty judgment, it's to the whole community that you should have apologised instead. We're all here to spread free knowledge together, and this behaviour undermines the very basics of the collaborative and serene environment we should have. I don't write you down any link related to behaviour rules, as you surely know (or your parents should have told you many years ago) that you must abide by civility and not insult anyone. --Ruthven (msg) 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

About your recent block[edit]

Hi Tuvalkin, please refrain from comments like this. Forget about the case, leave INeverCry alone and make a fresh start. You know there was reason for your block. The only one who can change your attitude at this project is you. Please grant yourself a fresh start, that would be better for all of us, including for yourself. There is plenty of constructive work to do. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)