User talk:Pi.1415926535

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

accidentally calling your closure into question

I recently nominated File:Monica Elfriede Witt in uniform.jpg for deletion, citing your closure of this deletion discussion. I took your closure as precedent in the nomination, but it's apparently not as cut-and-dried as I thought and instead I've led to your closing being questioned. I'm not an expert on the matter, just basing my understanding on previous decisions, and would definitely like a consensus on this; not asking your to come down one way or another, but would you mind looking in on the discussion? Cheers, Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: Thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately, I don't think I can be much help here. My close was based entirely on the lack of a source making it impossible to verify any possible routes to it being PD; I don't have any useful knowledge about the contractor issue in this discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grif Teller photo

Hello, I'm looking for a print of Mass Transportation (Army-Navy Game) by Grif Teller and I'm wondering about the photo you uploaded. Was it just downloaded from Michael Froio's site or do you have a hard copy of it in some form? Thank you in advance! Shana3980 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shana3980: Unfortunately, I don't have a hard copy; the version on Commons is indeed from Michael Froio's site. (I can only wish for a hard copy - it looks like originals are around $150 on eBay.) It fortunately is a very good scan, and should be fine for printing up to around 18"x12" without any noticeable degradation in quality. If you do need a larger scan, I can only suggest contacting the PRRTHS. Best of luck! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions; I'll try printing first. Thank you very much! Shana3980 (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capitol Corridor logo.svg

File:Capitol Corridor logo.svg 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

ZandDev (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, Prosfilaes (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod

Hi, you he moved some pictures to Category:Unidentified locations on Cape Cod, even though it has been clearly tagged with category of location, for example Barnstable County or Falmouth, Massachusetts , et ctr , why do moved pictures still to unidentified location, did I place pictures to to not proper category do you think? EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EgorovaSvetlana: It is your responsibility to place your images into the most specific categories - and only the most specific. For example, if you place an image in Category:Falmouth, Massachusetts, it should not also be placed in the parent Category:Cape Cod. You have placed a number of images in very broad categories like Category:Cape Cod, which means other users like me end up having to recategorize them. If the images are properly categorized by location (at least to the town level, if not more specific), you can remove them from Category:Unidentified locations on Cape Cod. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry did not think that brought category should be excluded, now got it, thank you for an explanation EgorovaSvetlana (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nice! have a kitten :D

hsp46BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Ilia2011 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to edit on the Village Pump

Hi. It looks like the discussion you reverted is still showing up in the list of titles for some reason. I have zero clue why, but I thought you might want to look into it and fix the issue if there's a way to. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: It looks like Commons:Village pump/topic list is updated every 6 hours by a bot, and my revert happened to be just a few minutes after it had been updated. The bot removed the header on its next run, so all is fine now. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Grave.jpg

When you deleted this as CSD F10, did you note that the file history contained a far more useful nighttime image of a bridge and historic building in France? It seems the original uploading user uploaded a blurry mask image to make it look like the image was useless so it would be deleted. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IronGargoyle: Thanks for letting me know. I've undeleted. Not often you see someone ask for a courtesy deletion of a decade-old upload. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Sorry for the time you spend for my demand. I was 20 when I publish and I remark only now that the photos were downloadable by everybody in native and supergood quality, and that's what annoy me. I'm trying to find out if I can remove this function, otherwise I would like to stop access, so delete them from wiki. I know CC license is given for life! KyLauren (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KyLauren: The implications of the license, including that it is irrevocable, are clearly listed when uploading. You cannot force the Wikimedia Commons community to delete your files. Generally, policy is that such "courtesy deletions" are only granted in the first 7 days after upload. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it's written black on white that it's possible to remove the file on demand in the website I quote on the other conversation that an oser user share to us.
Thanking you in advance to take it in consideration. KyLauren (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, only files uploaded within the last 7 days are guaranteed to be removed at the request of the uploader - please see Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. After that, it is the decision of the Commons community whether to keep or delete a file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The No Spam Barnstar
Thank you for helping keep Commons spam-free! ─ Aafī (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tayn Castillo.jpg

Dear colleague, you have SD'ed this picture per G10. However, it was in use at Wikidata, d:Q124758991, which makes this file ineligible for speedy deletion. I suppose it would be reasonable to revert the deletion. The best, Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Андрей Романенко: The image was uploaded as spam – see the quickly-deleted en:Draft:Tayn Castillo by the same user. Note that COM:INUSE is about scope-related discussions and generally is not relevant to G10 deletions.
The Wikidata page should be deleted as well given the lack of notability. The IMDB page appears to be a hoax; I cannot find any evidence that Castillo was actually in any of the productions listed there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right. I proposed the deletion at WD. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abutment construction for Fall Brook bridge, July 2020.jpg

File:Abutment construction for Fall Brook bridge, July 2020.jpg 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!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Leoboudv (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Secondary

It might be a good idea to rename Category:Washington Secondary now that it's ambiguous (and I'm working on an article for the New Jersey line). Incidentally, the USRA final report identifies one other line by that name, ex-Penn Central, in the vicinity of Washington, Pennsylvania. I don't know anything about it. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Good call, it's now at Category:Washington Secondary (Connecticut–Rhode Island). Looks like the Pennsylvania line is one and the same as the en:Chartiers Branch - see here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useful ad

Would it be OK to undo deletion of https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Indian_sandstone_paving_slabs_for_patio_garden.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 ? Or maybe there were deeper unfixable problems?

This file was useful, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:surface%3Dpaving_stones&curid=49376&diff=2701015&oldid=2648116 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateusz Konieczny: The source was given as a commercial site with no indication of a free license there, so it would also be a copyvio. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was not rescuable then (if it would be deleted as copyvio then I would not bother you) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cannot edit own talk page

Hi! I was looking at your block log, and I notice that you almost always block with "cannot edit own talk page". I reviewed a handful of recent cases and did not find any evidence to suggest that "they are likely to abuse these privileges". Could you please help me to understand what I'm missing here? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bovlb: I block a lot of spammers, mostly from monitoring the G10 queue. Spammers have a peculiar habit of adding junk onto their talk page after a block - usually a copy-paste of whatever advertising copy they use in file descriptions - and filing nonsensical unblock requests. I have no tolerance for spamming and no desire for other admins to waste their time, so I preemptively revoke access for blatant spammers who are never going to be productive users. I leave talk page access for other blocks where it's possible they will become productive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that spammers often copy their material into their user talk page. I see this a lot on ENWP and Wikidata. I also sympathize with the desire to save admin time from dealing with spammers.
I have a little trouble fitting your practice into the documented blocking policy for two reasons:
  • I don't think the reasoning that "I have decided that this person is a spammer and spammers often abuse talk page access when blocked" actually provides the evidence that a specific editor is likely to abuse talk page access required to justify a preemptive restriction.
  • I interpret abuse of talk page access as including things like frivolous unblock requests or excessive pinging. Inserting ad copy into a user talk page is certainly not its intended use, but it's pretty harmless on the whole.
Where I'm coming from here is that I block a lot of users, but I would not want to do anything to interfere with an editor's ability to appeal one of my blocks. I am human, and I believe it is necessary that those of us with advanced permissions leave space for the possibility that we make mistakes. Being able to file an unblock request from your user talk page is an important right that a blocked user has, and I would be very hesitant to remove it. Bovlb (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: I see your points; my stance on spam is certainly heavy-handed, though I think it's within the blocking policy. I do consider spam in any namespace as abuse, and thus adding ad copy as talk page abuse. I will try not preemptively revoking talk page access, but if I see frequent abuse I will resume.
Yes, we are all human, but a lot of spam is undeniable. This w is a small sample of what the user who posted on Wikidata was putting in file descriptions: ....with a storied past in risk management within Investment Banking, now deftly pivots his expertise towards leveraging the nexus of Consciousness, Artificial Intelligence, and Brand Management. His seminal book, "Your Mind at Siege," has not only vaulted him to the forefront of thought leadership but has also cemented his status as a sought-after advisor for those intent on navigating the evolving consumer mind share for cutting-edge brand strategies... Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that spam, I think I was the one who G10’d those group of files. Uploaded by PR with Sagar I believe. Absolutely shameless spam. Seawolf35 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm not trying to defend this specific spammer, just questioning the practice of routinely making it harder for users to appeal a block. For me, deciding that a user should lose talk page access should be based on actual abuse of talk page access by that user, not by lumping them in with a group and claiming a general trend. I believe that Commons blocking policy supports my interpretation. I don't think my judgement is so reliable that when I block a user I should also be able to cut them off from being able to make a public appeal. Bovlb (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pi.1415926535&oldid=875176886"