User talk:Prototyperspective

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Prototyperspective!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Global Methane Budget 2017.jpg

File:Global Methane Budget 2017.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyright at source Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:Early succession of the Cinder Cones methane seep.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Early succession of the Cinder Cones methane seep.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Ytoyoda (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the {{No permission since}} note you added:

1. it does have license description and is not missing permission information 2. the license is Commons compatible and is CC BY 4.0 3. the pdf and html of the link in the source have this copyright information clearly visible 4. if for whatever reason a deletion is requested nevertheless please create a request for deletion

--Prototyperspective (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I somehow missed it when I checked the link. Ytoyoda (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, the possibility to overwrite files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. rubin16 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User finds lots of “porn”, uncategorizes. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Topless is not "Nude"

Please note that there is no nude person in photo File:Body painting - border-radius.jpg. Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ups, sorry. Thank you. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Also dont remove categories from a file just yu because think that an simple nude image is porn. Move it a lower category or create a lower one instead of removing valid categories from a image like you did to hundreds of images in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology), especially when they have been dicussed to death in more than 50 pages in all of it´s aspects. Tm (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Nude portrayals of Fake news like this, instead of removing valid categories. Tm (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules (promotional posts are allowed and have a dedicated tag on rOpensource).png

File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules (promotional posts are allowed and have a dedicated tag on rOpensource).png 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!

Tet (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories like "Statistics until 2022" (etc)

I'm unsure of the value in adding a category that shows the final year shown in a chart. Such a category would require continual vigilance on the part of uploaders as the charts are updated. For example, File:20201211 Billion dollar events related to climate change - U.S. -en.svg will be updated every year, making its inclusion in Statistics until 2022 stale and inaccurate. Also, the inclusion of File:1960- Groundwater loss - depletion - Central Valley of California.svg in Statistics until 2020 is inaccurate, as it already contains data for 2021. I plan to delete those designations in those two files, unless you can explain why they should remain. RCraig09 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

How is it not valuable? What you described is the purpose of it: this way you could more easily find (via petscan or other means) which charts need updating. You can also use it to find the most-up-to-date chart(s).

Once a new version of a chart is uploaded, the category is changed. The until was meant as an inclusive until, so this is something to clarify anyway: does/should "until" mean 'data until year x' or 'data until including year x'? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see the value in such categories, though they would require uploaders to be vigilant to change categories with each update.

Maybe a better title scheme would be Category:Charts showing data through 2022. The word "through" is less ambiguous than "until". RCraig09 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, however other people can update the category as well if they don't do so themselves and most people don't update the statistical images that they upload (and if they do, it's likely they also are usually quite vigilant to change the category).

Good idea, that was one reason for why I kept it a redcategory – the other reason is that many charts of OWID and from other sources are missing there. I don't think a script could solve this so this would require some effort to categorize the charts appropriately. The earlier this is done – once implemented new charts would likely get quickly categorized into these, enabling users to refine search-results or make novel query...for example to filter out charts that are outdated by more than a decade.

The issue with "through 2022" is that it kind of reads as if the data was from start to end of 2022 but not from some point in the past to end of 2022. Do you have another idea or should there be a discussion at some WikiProject-like place on WMC? The images can be easily recategorized once a better name is found. I thought "Statistics" would be better than "Charts showing data" since it's shorter and more easily found since people likely enter Statistics into the HotCat input-box. What do you think about something like "Category:Charts showing data up to and including 2022"? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the category would contain images of (visible) charts rather than (abstract) statistics, I think the best solution is to retain the word Charts. (I don't think most uploaders even use HotCat; I don't even know how.) Also, ...through... is appropriate, as it covers both charts starting in 2022 and charts starting before 2022—both interpretations are correct. (You may be confusing through (which is OK) with throughout (which is not OK).) I don't think others will share our enthusiasm for the idea, to the extent that we need to get wider input on minor issues like naming. I'm strongly leaning toward Category:Charts showing data through 2022. RCraig09 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move them to the category title you suggested. I'm not a native English speaker and when reading that title would think of the chart possibly being about 2022 only, not up to and including 2022 – however, maybe that's just me and it should be clear from whatever chart the cat is set on anyway. I'll add some category description that makes it clear. Thanks for your feedback! Prototyperspective (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

— Now I'm worried that too many charts will be placed into these categories. I would plan to put my 200-300+ charts into such categories. But if other editors put charts in these categories, there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of them—making the categories less useful (too big to manage).
— I'm considering user-specific categories, like Category:RCraig09 charts showing data through 2022—to keep the number of category members manageable. Do you know if there is any rule against making user-specific categories? RCraig09 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This problem exists for countless categories – it's a general WMC problem.

• That problem should be addressed by developers by adding features like enabling easily searching within a category, showing top or most recent charts at the top of the page, and so on.
• It can also be addressed by simply making subcategories. The latter can be easily done with the cat-a-lot tool. It would be really nice if you could add your charts to these categories, I just haven't gotten to doing so. There can be multiple types of subcategories like "Environmental charts..." within "charts...by topic" and user-specific categories within "Charts showing data through 2022 by source". There are many user-specific categories (example 1, example 2).

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll be adding my own user-specific sub-categories, then. You don't need to add my charts to the super-categories, as I will only change the file pages later. RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Communication-censorship on Twitter (preventing messages for no good reason).png

File:Communication-censorship on Twitter (preventing messages for no good reason).png 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!

Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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!

Affected:

• File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules 01.png

And also:

• File:Semi-censorship on Twitter ("Show more replies").png
• File:Semi-censorship on Twitter (hiding non-offensive content under "Show additional replies"); Cropped and light theme.png
• File:Semi-censorship on Twitter.png

Yours sincerely, Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Non-governmental_Internet_censorship_in_non-authoritarian_countries

Non-governmental Internet censorship in non-authoritarian countries has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Dronebogus (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Fictional book cover for scifi children's book "13th prophecy" by Valentine Ermatinger (post-apocalyptic AI art).jpg

Yo, do you mind telling me how this is supposed to be fan art? Trade (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I thought it was because it was intentionally relating to the contents of the book. It intends to depict imagery of the book and is visually and conceptually somewhat similar to the actual book cover. However, I wasn't sure if that's fan art too. I'll just remove the category for now, somebody else could readd the category if it indeed is fan art which I'm not sure it is. "Fan art or fanart is artwork created by fans of a work of fiction [...]" matches the image but it does not display a character of it and is not unambiguously related to the book. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The entire reason i created the category was to help people to keep an eye out for potentially derivative works. Adding images of fictional characters created by the uploader largely defeats the purpose Trade (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Or at last use Category:AI-generated fictional characters instead Trade (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

About Category:Energy supply and the category structure of Category:Energy

Before we start an edit war about overcategorization (Category:Energy is a great-grandparent of Category:Energy supply, so your edit should be reversed again), perhaps we might discuss the broader problem with the category structure of Category:Energy: that subcategories are too hard to find, which might be the underlying problem you encountered and reacted to. Would you like to join the discussion on Category talk:Energy supply? Perhaps you have ideas to make the structure less complicated? JopkeB (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It is only a great-grandparent to Energy supply via "Energy economics". However, Energy supply & distribution including Category:Energy transportation like physical power lines are not only related to it in terms of economics.

I thought that was quite obvious so didn't explain it in the edit summary. I don't think people consider it to not also be an issue of infrastructure and many other things so I don't think I need to elaborate further and probably the Wikipedia categorization got this right too. I also still think Category:Energy transportation should be directly in category Energy, not buried deep down in some nested subcategory, I added it to its parent category because you reverted that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is best to copy your objections to the Talk page so that others can give reactions too. JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)