User talk:Pi.1415926535

Archives

File:Puttige.jpg

Hello, this image is located in San Francisco according to the coordinates on the file: 37° 46′ 25.71″ N, 122° 25′ 53.67″ W. Shouldn't you put the image somewhere in San Francisco, if not in the Western Addition? Krok6kola (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: The coordinates of all this user's images appear to be incorrect - the images are of India, but the coordinates are in San Francisco for some reason. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this out

Category:Hua-Zang Si The information comes from [舊金山華藏寺 I am convinced it is in the Mission District, but I'm not sure if the building's name is correct. (I got the name from Google.) Krok6kola (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Krok6kola: Yes, that name is correct. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel inquiry

Hello, Pi.1415926535. Hope all's well. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, would you be able to RevDel this (22:44, 14 March 2017) archived revision of my user page, for privacy reasons? Many thanks for your help. Indefatigable2 (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Indefatigable2: Done. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Much appreciated. However, I find that I can still access the revision while signed out, via the link in my comment. Will this resolve on its own? Thanks. Indefatigable2 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Indefatigable2: Yeah, that's probably just a browser cache issue that will resolve on its own. I just get the standard revdel error screen when I look at it logged-out here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Yes, I get the conventional revdel "Error" screen now, also. It seems to have resolved. Thanks again for the assistance. Indefatigable2 (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1aWIKIAL1,

Hi.

Just in case you missed it, I had a recent interaction with the user you just blocked on User talk:1aWIKIAL1, which may affect your decision. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Thanks for reaching out. I did see that prior discussion. Uploads of fake election maps are a recurring problem on Commons. They're commonly and falsely labeled as "test files", but the actual purpose is for enwiki user sandboxes that are used for off-wiki "alternate history" forums and games. I don't see any reason to let them continue to upload out-of-scope images, but if you wish to unblock and supervise them, I will not object. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zisan Mridha.jpg

Kept on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zisan Mridha.jpg and was it then unilaterally deleted by you, or did someone put speedy deletion tags on it on the sly? Either way, very problematic procedure. A great portrait photo is still a great portrait photo, even if it was originally intended as an advertisement, and deletion isn't the only way to make it no longer function as an ad on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I encountered it in the G10 (spam) queue; looks like the tag was put on by Trade. Personally I agree; we have no shortage of high-quality portraits of notable people, and there's no reason to keep this one of this "digital marketer". More importantly, though, is copyright: there is a very good chance that the subject of the photograph (who appears to be the uploader) does not own the copyright. Unless we have proof that the photographer transferred copyright to the subject, we cannot host the photo regardless of whether it is in scope. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. If there's a copyright issue, I have no argument with deletion, but I definitely disapprove of any deletions of excellent portraits just because the subject (or photographer) is not well known, and I'm still not happy with the lack of additional discussion before a photo kept in a deletion request was deleted. Portraits don't and shouldn't have to meet Wikipedia notability criteria to be of educational value as great portraits. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons gets an enormous volume of spam - typically several hundred images per day. The vast majority of that is copyvios, and a significant portion is portraits just like this one. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are probably not unusually good portraits, but I take your point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valenzuela400's block

Hello. I have seen you blocked User:Valenzuela400 on February 3, with the reason Long-term abuse. He has also been blocked in Wikipedia as a sockpuppet of Florentino floro/Judgefloro. I understand that he (Judgefloro and his alternative accounts) have uploaded several images that were poorly categorized and have generic names and descriptions, which is why I have since October last year, began exhaustively focusing on refining the categories of Judgefloro and his alt. account's uploaded images. As I have been monitoring Valenzuela400's actions in the past several weeks, I noticed that his uploaded images had descriptive filenames and descriptions, unlike his past accounts'/Judgefloro's generic file naming pattern. As the Commons:Blocking policy states that "blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one", I believe Valenzuela400 should not be blocked since his recently uploaded files are properly formatted and named, and I have seen he is exerting effort to conform with the policies as seen in his discussions in his Talk page. Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanglahi86: The block was for repeated sockpuppetry (long-term abuse), not for actions by this individual account. Per the blocking policy, sockpuppet accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way for @Judgefloro: to have a Clean start? Through observation, I deduce that he was compelled to create those alternative accounts to continue contributing to Commons. And his editing patterns and file uploads have seen much improvement than his past accounts. Additionally, several of his files are currently used in numerous Wikipedia articles, so it is a wonder why his main account, Judgefloro, isn't given a chance to start anew. His actions in the @Valenzuela400: account show that he is trying his best to learn from his past mistakes and comply with the Commons policies. Sanglahi86 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was not "compelled" to create sockpuppet accounts. He chose to do so because he was blocked due to behavioral issues. A clean start is for users who are not under active blocks and want to start fresh, not users who want to evade blocks. If he wishes to contribute positively, he needs to demonstrate changed behavior (typically by at least 6 months of no sockpuppetry, and positive contributions on projects on which he is not blocked) before an unblock would even be considered. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Category:Pullman-Standard_Red_Line_number_2_cars 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 [[{{{2}}}|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!

беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ македонски ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 吴语 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

4300streetcar (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of File:Chas_A._Stevens_Interior_Window_Display.jpg

Hi, sorry I didn't notice this discussion, I hardly ever login to Wikipedia but I did to upload the photo so thought if there was a problem maybe people would email me. I purchased the store display for $10 / panel ($20) when the store shut down, so I thought the fact it was a picture of art I owned (clearly including some personal context) made it allowable, and that it really added a lot to the article and helped retain Chicago history. But I'm not clear on copyright for this kind of thing / derived works. Joanna Bryson (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Humboldtstraße (Krefeld)

Hello,
this is the second user who has deleted one of my (currently still empty) articles....
To prevent this, I have added an explanation (in German) at the top: "This article will be filled as quickly as possible".
Please note this and do not delete articles from "Category:Streets in Krefeld" again.
Thank you
Rudolfo42 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small addendum:
In another wiki (Olypedia.de) there is a category "Do not delete" - would be helpful here ;-)
Thanks
Rudolfo42 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudolfo42: Empty categories are routinely speedily deleted under criterion C2; the only exceptions are maintenance categories. You should not create a category unless there are already files that belong in it or you are about to upload some. Categories are not articles; their purpose is to contain files and subcategories, not article text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad....
But since we plan to fill all of these categories gradually, I will save the short content and links of the empty categories in the next few days.
So please give me a little time.
We shouldn't create articles here either - we never intended to.
This is a project where pictures of the streets of our city can be posted. We have taken on the part of the current pictures (over 60% already done) and the creation of the categories (100%).
The first historical pictures are already available (while respecting the rights). And colleagues from neighboring cities have also joined in.
So much for the explanation.
Best regards
Rudolfo42 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki abuse

Hey Pi,

A longtime disruptive editor from enwiki which you're probably familiar with has been harassing me on Commons. I let it go the first time back in January [1], but it happened again today: [2]. Could you take action against this editor? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Looks like AntiCompositeNumber beat me to the punch. I'll keep an eye out for any further issues. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File removal

Hello there! I noticed that the file Breno Mendes.jpg was recently removed from Commons for being classified as a personal photo. However, the image was uploaded for further use in the graphic materials of "Projeto Mais Teoria da História na Wiki," a History project focused on expanding discussions on underrepresented topics within Wikimedia projects. Breno will be the executive coordinator for one of our upcoming events, “Mais Negres em Teoria da História na Wiki”, and we require his photo to be used in event promotion and other related materials, all of which will be uploaded to Commons with proper attribution for derivative works. Could you kindly reconsider the removal of this file and restore it to Commons? Best regards, Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+) (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+): I understand now what you wish to use it for. However, I have copyright concerns about the image. Who was the photographer? We will need the photographer - not the subject of the photo - to release it under a free license. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When we request personal photos for our materials, we always make sure to explain the platform's rules to our collaborators, emphasizing that they can only upload images they have taken themselves. Breno, in particular, has worked with the platform before and was the one who took his own photo. Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+) (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+): Thanks for the clarification. I've undeleted the file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your support. We truly appreciate it! Best regards, Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+) (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 Is there a reason why the page went down again? I was about to categorize it when I noticed it was missing. Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+) (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest apologies, the page went down again and when reading the file's page I've got confused for a second. It was another user who deleted it. Again, thank you so much for you help. All the best. Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+) (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+): My apologies - I forgot to remove the speedy deletion tag when I restored it previously. I've re-restored it and removed the tag. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 No problem! Ana Vitória Farion (Projeto Mais+) (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMATA map

Can you please send me a copy of WMATA Metrobus Map March 12, 1995 part 1-47.jpg, which got deleted? I uploaded these photos a long time ago but am unable to retrieve them. Can you make them temporarily available for me to download them on my device as soon as possible?

Thanks, Doctor of Directions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor of Directions (talk • contribs)

Not done The files are copyright violations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1920s NHL publicity photos

Would you please reconsider these closures: (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Browne.Cecil.img582 - Copy (2).jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charley Rabbit McVeigh.jpg)? Both are clearly publicity photos, and publicity photos are published by their nature. The precautionary principle talks about significant doubt. There is not a significant doubt that that these are in the public domain. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IronGargoyle: I originally deleted them because the total lack of provenance from the uploader, which gave me doubt that they had been published. Upon further look I've found them elsewhere on the web, so I'll undelete them. Please correct the licenses, and find sources if you're able. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! IronGargoyle (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]