User talk:Andre Carrotflower

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Andre Carrotflower!

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) 01:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your contributions of Buffalo, New York images to the "commons". I have found a few of your images quite helpful towards improving the quality of several Wikipedia articles. Fortunate4now (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. More to come!

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:20181013 - 17 - Montreal (Plateau).jpg

File:20181013 - 17 - Montreal (Plateau).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:20181013 - 18 - Montreal (Plateau).jpg

File:20181013 - 18 - Montreal (Plateau).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Jewish

Neither of the two delis pictured at File:20181013 - 35 - Montreal (Plateau) - "Flavours of the Main".jpg are Jewish, or ever were. See: https://www.montreal360virtualtour.com/portfolio-item/charcuterie-hongroise/ as well as https://www.yelp.ca/biz/charcuterie-fairmount-montr%C3%A9al-2. The latter gets rave reviews for its pork products. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal - Thank you. I stand corrected. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andre Carrotflower,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andre Carrotflower,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of File:2014BuffaloSnowStorm.jpg

I removed the rename request on this file. The reason is that w:Western New York covers a far, far larger area than w:Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area where this image was taken. w:Town Line, New York, where the image was taken, is part of that statistical area, and it is more precise to note that it is in that area than to indicate Western New York, which covers an area of 15,000 square miles, which is 10 times the area of the Buffalo metro area. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, I wish you had proposed a different alternate name rather than simply removing the rename request. Whatever the geographical size of Western New York (and the November 2014 storm affected all of it, along with much of the Great Lakes region), the fact remains that Town Line =/= Buffalo. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Town Line is part of the statistical area of Buffalo-Niagara Falls, just the same as Amherst, Cheektowaga, Snyder, etc. I don't think the name needs to be changed, though it has been. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Andre Carrotflower,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled rights 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, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. - FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hoyt Lake bike trail.jpg

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

A1Cafel (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:20180525 - 40 - Boston, MA (Roxbury).jpg

File:20180525 - 40 - Boston, MA (Roxbury).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Century Atlas of Greater Buffalo categories

If you would like, I can use AWB to more quickly move the images into the categories for you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Hello!

If you want to delete something. Just place the deletion template at the top. Don't delete everything else, please. Regards, Jonteemil (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

Please don't edit war. Main Street is depicted in this image, and placing it in that category strictly because it's mentioned in passing in the address of a business in the advertisement is helpful to users looking for images of Main Street in Buffalo to know which business was at this adress. And it is usual at Commons, it belongs to the history of the street. -- Kürschner (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

العربيَّة ∙ Deutsch ∙ español ∙ English ∙ français ∙ português ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（中国大陆）‎ ∙ 中文（台灣）‎ ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hi Andre Carrotflower, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

.- FitIndia ^{Talk ✉} 20:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock City Park - 20170518 - 77.jpg

File:Rock City Park - 20170518 - 77.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

DalefromCleveland (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Yes, some parks are indeed "built". Central Park in Manhattan in one examples, as is Fort Tryon Park. Prospect Park in Brooklynm is another. The "Emerald Neckalce" parks in Boston, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. All parks, all most definitely built. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as needless hair-splitting. Whatever grading and landscaping was done at Fort Tryon Park, and whether that technically qualifies as "building", is beside the point. "Built in New York City in (year)" categories are daughters of Category:Buildings in New York City by year of completion. Parks may contain buildings, but surely you're not going to argue that a park itself is a building? Or that we should be wasting the time of readers who are filing through subcategories of Category:Buildings in New York City, the large majority of whom are looking for images of buildings, by directing them to images of parks instead? -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Please don;t make edits based on your ignorance, only on the basis of what you actually know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do not know who I am offwiki or what my knowledge base is, ergo you have no basis to call me ignorant or claim I don't know what I'm talking about. Now perhaps you'd like to dispense with the personal attacks and actually address the points I made above? -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:20181013 - 11 - Montreal (Mile End).jpg

File:20181013 - 11 - Montreal (Mile End).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:20181013 - 15 - Montreal (Mile End).jpg

File:20181013 - 15 - Montreal (Mile End).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:34 - 20180728 - Indiana, PA (cropped).jpg

File:34 - 20180728 - Indiana, PA (cropped).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:34 - 20180728 - Indiana, PA.jpg

File:34 - 20180728 - Indiana, PA.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Andre Carrotflower, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! -- CptViraj (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both! I'm happy to be on board. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Byrne Dairy

BTW, in case you get the urge to revert me again as far as I know the grass is part of their property there's a Byrne Dairy sign half visible behind a power line. The picture was literally taken on their property and shows their property. Both of those should be more then enough to justify the file being in the Byrne Dairy category. It doesn't matter that it's only half the picture or that the sign is partly obscured by the power pole. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than splitting hairs, how about putting yourself in the position of someone who is searching through the category for media related to Byrne Dairy. The photographer may well have been standing on Byrne Dairy property when taking the picture, but the only part of the property that's visible in the image is an anonymous patch of grass that's essentially identical to what you'd find along any roadside. And not only is the sign you mention only half-visible, but indeed the telephone pole obscures the entire business name save for the letter B. In short, no one would have any reason to connect this image with Byrne Dairy if the text description of the photo hadn't said as much. It wouldn't be usable in a Wikipedia article on Byrne Dairy, for instance, nor for any conceivable offwiki usage of our material e.g. a newspaper article about Byrne Dairy. So including this media in the category is pointless and wastes our users' time, and yes, your reversion was reverted for that reason.

To your point about "blue sky by country" categories, you're correct that there's nothing depicted in those images that pertains to any particular country, and the only reason why we know the location where they were taken is because the descriptive text and/or camera metadata indicates as much. For that reason, I question the usefulness of those categories at all. In a hypothetical debate about whether they should be eliminated, I would be in favor of doing so, but that's not the issue we're dealing with here.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting some no permission since files

Hello Andre Carrotflower, Hope you're having a nice day.

I am requesting you to please delete these no permission files which have been given notice <7 days earlier. These photos qualify for speedy deletion under CSD Criterion F5.

1) File:"Цветы зла. Глава II".jpg
2) File:Baker at a Kettlemans Oven.jpg
3) File:Amy Marie Yeary (Fond du Lac County Jane Doe).webp
4) File:Adesanya-avm.jpg
5) File:राधिका मुखर्जी.jpg
6) File:राधिक मुखर्जी २०२०.jpg
7) File:মিজানুর রহমান আজাহারী.jpg
8) File:Карасёв Григорий Иванович.jpg
9) File:Каролин Одас.jpg
10) File:Бузинов Михаил Михайлович.jpg
11) File:Tommy Otto Jones (guitar virtuoso) in 1984.jpg
12) File:Tigran-Sargsyan-Aleksander-Lukashenko.JPG
13) File:Z2031373650711 eaca58ea99e998fc21ccb813c726df33.jpg
14) File:Laptop-820274 960 720.jpg
15) File:5bed7248d9594.0cdd56c605cf4d062373155090596378.jpg
16) File:BandoPop.jpg
17) File:Bivash.jpg
18) File:Baby Blue (group) Sweet Talking Sugar.jpg
19) File:Emmett Kelly Jr..png
20) File:EŠD694 Cerkev sv. Pankracija 13.jpg

Thanks in advance for deleting these files. --Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 16:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andre Carrotflower, Hope you're having a good day,

I want to request to you that request to delete these picture I am listing below under Criterion F5.

1) File:Zhangzhehan 05152021.jpg

2) File:Semenikhin Artem.jpg

3) File:P. Ambrosius Leidinger Jugendfoto.jpg

4) File:KKCG Borislavka.jpg

5) File:Брошнівський професійний лісопромисловий ліцей.jpg

6) File:Ю́лия Алекса́ндровна Ольхо́вская.png

7) File:מיקי חן.jpg

8) File:180703-instagram-removal-image-men-kissing-feature.jpg

9) File:1630999992066kimyoojung.jpg

10) File:Ari-gameplays.png

11) File:Maana2021-1130.jpg

12) File:Images before and after correction 2.jpg

13) File:Images before and after correction 1.jpg

14) File:Excellent pretty cat 1.jpg

15) File:Erjona Ala.jpg

16) File:Eric Chaisson.jpg

17) File:Chipi en el Bailando 2017.png

18) File:ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ.png

19) File:女性器を開き膣内を見せる女性.gif

20) File:Manuel Cardona.jpg

Thanks in advance for deleting those files. Contributers2020^{Talk to me here} 07:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will delete these files when I have time, if someone else doesn't get to them first, but please be aware that repeatedly pestering individual admins on their talk pages with assignments of tasks to complete is highly unusual and frankly, comes off a bit rude. As an admin, I do what I can when I can to help Commons run more smoothly, but in the end, I'm just a volunteer. At any given time, I may be (and, in fact, generally am) busy with other tasks either on- or offwiki. If these files are categorized in a way that indicates they should be deleted, some admin will eventually get around to deleting them, and it's not the end of the world if they end up lingering in the "no permission since" categories for more than the allotted seven days. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Hi, I normally don't mind being notified about things, but flooding my notification bell with 200 or so mentions in edit summaries is really unnecessary. Please consider using a friendly talk page message next time. Thank you. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh - My apologies. I noticed that it had been a few months since you uploaded those files and I wasn't sure whether or not they were on your watchlist, so I called you out by name in those edit summaries just in case you happened across any of those files' revision histories at some point. But I had no idea that linking a username in an edit summary (as opposed to on an actual page, e.g. at the beginning of this message) caused that user's notification bell to be pinged. I will keep that in mind from now on. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Date categories

Please accept this as a response to your confusingly hostile message left on my talk page this morning. I see now that one revision was made by you to an edit of mine about a week ago but this is the first notice I've received on my talk page that anybody had any problem with my date categorization. I have never previously been made aware of this extremely minor, esoteric, technical "policy" to which you have failed to link. Please, belatedly, take note of how to properly notify users of perceived issues with their editing before making threats and flinging insults. --Denniscabrams (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several such revisions. I'm not going to expend huge amounts of time combing through my very lengthy contribution history looking for them, because you acknowledged there was at least one ([1]) and, candidly, there shouldn't need to be more than one. Every time one of your edits is reverted, you are notified by the red bell icon at the top of your screen. It's your prerogative if you choose not to follow up on those notifications to learn the reason why you were reverted - which should be, and was, clearly spelled out in the edit summary - but in that case you run the risk of being left exasperated messages on your talk page when the error recurs. Again, please be more heedful in the future, and I'm going to consider this matter closed now. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Category

Andre, I notice that you removed the Category:Buffalo River (New York) from the File:President Lyndon Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson, Gov Nelson Rockefeller, Stanley Spisiak in Buffalo, NY.webp In your edit explanation you stated that the photo does not depict the river, however the photo is about President Johnson's visit to the river. The photo was taken aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Ojibwa, while Spisiak was giving LBJ & Lady Bird a tour of the Buffalo River. The bucket in the photo was a bucket of sludge taken from the river. I used the photo in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Spisiak You can also see more here: https://www.pbs.org/video/if-our-water-could-talk-stanley-spisiak-voice-water/ Thank you for all you do for wikipedia and wikimedia. BuffaloBob (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BuffaloBob - I do understand your reasoning. For me, the importance of proper curation of categories becomes evident upon looking at the issue from the point of view of the end user; in other words, what would be useful to the average person combing through our categories looking for content related to the Buffalo River. For instance, the image you cite clearly depicts the people you mentioned by name, so it's not a matter of controversy that it belongs in the categories connected to those people. But, conversely, it's not obvious from just looking at the photograph that it was taken on a boat, nor that the content of the bucket is sludge from the river, so the usefulness of the picture vis-à-vis Category:Buffalo River (New York) is much more narrow - in fact, essentially limited to those who were already aware of the meeting and what it concerned and who were looking for images of it specifically (and who, therefore, could just as easily have searched for and found the image in Category:Lyndon B. Johnson, Category:Nelson Rockefeller et al.) For anyone else looking for Buffalo River imagery, it's more likely just another piece of irrelevant clutter to scroll past. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Logo

Hello,

I am messaging you because a contest for a sound logo for Wikimedia is being developed and your opinion as a Wikimedia Commons admin is appreciated. My team would like to know if it is possible for the top finalist sound logos in the contest to have attribution temporarily hidden from public view until all the votes are final? The idea is to let the public judge the sound logo contestants based on the merit of the logo, not the person or people who made it. Again, any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Glen Park

If the park is in two counties, then it should be placed in both categories, instead of none, right? --Enyavar (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The park is split between two municipalities, not two counties. Admittedly, it's rather complicated. New York State law distinguishes between incorporated cities and villages (Watkins Glen is a village) and unincorporated towns (Dix is a town). A village is defined as both a stand-alone entity and an integral part of the town or towns in which it's physically located. Therefore, Watkins Glen State Park is located partially within the village of Watkins Glen but wholly within the town of Dix, and if Category:Dix, New York existed, would belong there. Unfortunately, the last time I checked, there was not really enough material on Commons to warrant the creation of a separate category for Dix; it would be rather pointless to create one for the sole purpose of containing Category:Watkins Glen, New York and Category:Watkins Glen State Park, nor at any rate would that solve the problem of clutter within Category:Watkins Glen, New York as it would still be necessary to specify which individual images are in the incorporated village and which aren't. I agree that the status quo is not ideal, but I'm struggling to figure out an alternative. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are at least two things that belong together in a category, a new category is absolutely what I would do in your stead. Relevant manual page I'd quote to support that is here. For just four pictures, I just created Category:Bosque Las Petras because these pictures were split between three different categories before (where each of them really belonged, so this is just an additional cat). If that town of Dix has a few inhabitants and a few buildings, I think the chances are quite good that at some point in the future someone will make the first picture of that town that belongs into the town's category, but most users don't dare to create categories, so such pictures will remain un-/miscategorized. There is this rule of being bold. All the best! --Enyavar (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

The problem is that Category:Watkins Glen State Park is in Category:Watkins Glen, New York because part of it is in Watkins Glen. So you can't have images of the park in both category. Otherwise, your abusing the guidelines for how to categorize files. It's not like it really matters anyway since there's no way to tell what image is of the part of the park in Dix versus Watkins Glen and there's no category for Dix either. Plus that's how things are already done. For example Category:Lassen National Forest is in like 5 county categories. Literally one gives a crap. In the meantime it would be completely ridiculous and redundant to have all the images in Category:Lassen National Forest in both the parents and child categories. Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is factually inaccurate to claim that Watkins Glen State Park is located wholly within the village of Watkins Glen. That's not a matter of debate, it just is. So the park category doesn't belong in the village category, period. As I said in the above discussion, if a Town of Dix category existed it would belong there, but that still wouldn't preclude those photos taken within both the town and the village from also being placed in the village category.

Secondly, if you had waited until I was done reverting your erroneous edits before leaving me this message, you would have seen Category:Watkins Glen State Park taken out of Category:Watkins Glen, New York.

Thirdly, all of those images are geocoded, and there are online sources that indicate where the village's boundaries lie, so it's easy to determine which of the photos were taken in the park and which weren't. How do you think I did?

If Lassen National Forest is in five different county categories, then yes, individual files belong in the county category to which they belong. This aids our end user who may be looking for imagery to add to, for instance, w:Tehama County, California. "Literally [no] one gives a crap" is quite a bold assumption to make, and an incorrect one.

As I said in the talk page discussion directly above this one, there's no ideal solution but mine aids the end user more than yours.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually inaccurate to claim that Watkins Glen State Park is located wholly within the village of Watkins Glen. Where did I say Watkins Glen State Park was wholly within the village of Watkins Glen? I brought up the example of Lassen National Forest and the way it's categorized for a reason. I really don't appreciate you making up things that didn't I say. Please stick to addressing the actual points being made, instead of making up crap.

you would have seen Category:Watkins Glen State Park taken out of Category:Watkins Glen, New York What exactly is wrong with Category:Watkins Glen State Park being in Category:Watkins Glen, New York since it's partly located there? Is there some rule that if a park is located in multiple administrative boundaries that it can't be in the categories for those boundaries or is this whole thing just your personal preference? (I've given one example where it's been done. I'm sure I can find plenty more).

it's easy to determine which of the photos were taken in the park and which weren't. I'm not sure what your talking about since I assume all the images titled "Watkins Glen State Park" are located in Watkins Glen State Park. Otherwise, you should change the titles. That's not really my problem though.

individual files belong in the county category to which they belong. Again I'd like to see some evidence that's how things are done and I'd like to know how that would jive with how files shouldn't be in both the parent and child categories. You can say it's a wrong assumption that literally [no] one gives a crap all you want, but I'm making the assumption because of the guidelines and the fact that at least from what I can tell literally none of the images in Category:Lassen National Forest are in Tehama County, California or any of the other county categories. How the hell does all the images only being in Category:Lassen National Forest make me wrong that people prefer it that way?

There's no ideal solution but mine aids the end user more than yours. Sure dude, whatever you say. "I'm right because my solution aids the end user" is a completely meaningless response. Even if your "solution" did aid the end user more then mine, I don't think that's an excuse to protect the files and accuse me of edit warning in the process just so you can get your way. To be honest, your behavior about this really just comes as petty abuse of your admin privileges. Reverting someone once isn't edit waring. Nor is making up that I edit warred you a valid reason to protect the images so you can get your way in the dispute. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same reversions were made three times (or four, in the case of the files you reverted twice) in the space of two months, including twice (or three times, in the case of the files you reverted twice) in the past ten days, by editors who've failed to read the earlier explanations for having things the way they are and, except for Enyavar, failed to even attempt to engage collaboratively and collegially toward finding a solution that's superior to the status quo. Add that to the fact that you've left me several snarky talk page messages and clearly signalled your own unwillingness to collaborate (i.e. in the case of the files you reverted twice) and maybe that's not the exact definition of an "edit war", but of all the options on the drop-down menu, that one came the closest. Now I've got a lot to do both on- and offwiki and I'm sick of going back and repeatedly correcting this issue, so yes, I pulled the sysop card and temporarily protected the files, and I stand by that. A look over Commons:Protection policy doesn't indicate that anything I did is an abuse of my admin privileges. If you'd like to use those two weeks of protection to help think of some way to accurately convey the location of the images within Category:Watkins Glen State Park without cluttering up Category:Watkins Glen, New York, that would be most welcome. Or perhaps you'd rather just let the whole thing go; that would also be most welcome. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was unaware that I'm not the only one who has changed categories around here. I only changed the categories (on the fly, while sorting maps as is usually my business here) as a service because in my opinion, all images that are taken in a certain State Park (or otherwise have the State Park as a subject) should be categorized in the same State Park's category, and not in some other categories like the categories of municipalities in which the State Park is sitting. As I'm not a local, I shied away and didn't have a particular opinion besides that principle.

So, now I checked the map of the area, and found that Category:Watkins Glen International seems to sit inappropriately in Category:Watkins Glen, New York. As I said: please create the Category:Town of Dix as a subcategory of Category:Schuyler County, New York, and then both the State Park and the International Airport should be moved into that new category, where these two categories would sit next to "Watkin's Glen, New York", and all other images of the area that are taken within Dix, but outside of the Glen village. If someone wants to really split hairs, they can sort the images that overlap in the Venn diagram of "State Park" and "village", into both these categories, but the former should take precedence over the latter. I hope this advice can solve your dispute - all the best --Enyavar (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please create the Category:Town of Dix as a subcategory of Category:Schuyler County, New York, and then both the State Park and the International Airport should be moved into that new category. I agree with that as an option to resolve the dispute. Although it doesn't seem like Andre Carrotflower will accept it as one. As a side to that, Andre Carrotflower I wasn't aware of the past dispute between you and Enyavar since I used Cat-a-lot to move the files and didn't look at their edit history before doing so. The fact that Enyavar and I both independently came to the same solution to the issue should be an indicator that your the one who is in the wrong here and your unwilling to collaborate. Not us. There's nothing collaborative about protecting files to maintain your way of doing things against the wishes of multiple editors. Nor is it very collegial of you to tell us to just get over it and move on instead of implementing our suggestion. Personally, I suggest you do what Enyavar suggested and then start a talk page discussion about it if you still think it's an issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enyavar, thank you for bringing that information about Watkins Glen International to light. I have not yet had the chance to create Category:Town of Dix but will do so at my earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, that still leaves the question of what to do with the files within Category:Watkins Glen State Park that also belong in Category:Watkins Glen, New York. Thus far, I have resisted the idea of anything like a Category:Watkins Glen State Park (Village of Watkins Glen portion) as an unwieldy solution that's even uglier than the status quo, but if there's such an opposition to having the files individually placed in Category:Watkins Glen, New York then that might be the only way to do it.

I hope you also understand that I was not impugning the motivations behind your reversions, nor would I characterize the exchange between you and me a "dispute", as Adamant did. Incidentally, this is why I felt "counterproductive edit warring" was a better justification for the protection than "excessive vandalism" as vandalism is inherently disruptive in intent, while the edits to the Watkins Glen files, with the exception of the second reversions of the ones Adamant reverted twice, were at least intended constructively.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nor would I characterize the exchange between you and me a "dispute", as Adamant did. Just to clarify what I was referring to being a dispute was you falsely accusing me of edit waring and then protecting the files instead of leaving things alone until we had come to an agreement on your talk page about the best way to move forward. Since like I said it just came off as a petty attempt to "win" through dishonesty and miss-using the admin tools. Reverting someone isn't necessarily a dispute on it's own though. The bad faithed way you about it made it one. Really I probably would have let the whole thing go and moved onto other things awhile ago if it wasn't for that.

that still leaves the question of what to do with the files within Category:Watkins Glen State Park that also belong in Category:Watkins Glen, New York. You still have yet to provide a reason why Category:Watkins Glen State Park and the files within it can't or shouldn't go in Category:Watkins Glen, New York. IMO that would be best way thing to do it. Especially in absence of a legitimate reason why it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:Watkins Glen State Park is a subcat of Category:Watkins Glen, New York, that implies that every photograph on Commons, and every photograph that hypothetically could be taken within the park, was also taken within the village. As we've already established, that's not always true nor even true in the majority of cases, as only a small part of the park lies within the village borders. I'm really trying hard not to be a stickler about this and it's fine with me to fudge things to a certain extent, but when it comes to objectively misleading our end users as to in what municipality a photo was taken, I don't know how that can be justified. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Category:Watkins Glen State Park is a subcat of Category:Watkins Glen, New York, that implies that every photograph on Commons, and every photograph that hypothetically could be uploaded to Commons, that was taken within the park was also taken within the village. Not it's also in a category for the town of Dix. Nothing says images can't be in two different jurisdictions/categories. It happens all the time with natural features, parks, administrative boundaries, Etc. Etc. Really spin the wheel. In 99% of cases there is no Category:Whatever in so and so to separate images taken two inches across the imaginary line from ones taken two inches across the other side of it. No is out there like "screw this site. They said this image was in Watkins Glen but it's one step over in Dix. Liers!" Most of the time you can't even tell. In the meantime, Watkins Glen State Park is in it Watkins Glen. It's stupid to not have that shown in the category tree. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if 95%+ of the State Park's area is not within the village though, while all of it is in Dix. Also, not everything needs to be sorted into a strict orthodox hierarchy, the cat-hierarchy just exists to help all users. As long as a picture of some State Park bridge is sorted into the park-Category, it can also be placed in the village-Category, if the bridge stands on the park territory within the village. But, is such a bridge more "part of the village", or "part of the park"? I'd argue the latter. And if a large amount of the stuff in the village-category is basically an overlap with the Park-Category, I would either introduce an unwieldy category as a subcat to both (not my favorite, but very orthodox). OR I'd make a category definition to announce something like "This category is about the village. Despite a partial overlap of the areas, please categorize all images about the adjacent State Park into that other category here." in the category description. This division between park and village would deviate from the administrative hierarchy, but it would make intuitive sense for all users who aren't administrative nerds. That could also discourage people to place all the park-categories into the village-category (like I did in my ignorance earlier this month). It's all about practicality: what is the easiest way to browse to the picture you hope to find, while also having the category tree as consistent as possible. (@Adamant1, you might want to be a little less adamant in asserting "right" vs. "wrong" when it's all about making convincing arguments so that all sides can agree on the same structure. The category tree isn't obviously transparent in all places, that's why there are CfDs all the time.) All the best, --Enyavar (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In descending order of my preference, I would be agreeable to any of the following resolutions: 1) the status quo ante bellum, 2) creating a Category:Watkins Glen State Park (Village of Watkins Glen portion) category that would be a subcat of both Category:Watkins Glen State Park and Category:Watkins Glen, New York (i.e. the option Enyavar describes as "very orthodox"), or 3) placing a note at the head of Category:Watkins Glen, New York defining it as excluding the state park (i.e. Enyavar's other proposal). In the meantime, I've created and populated Category:Dix, New York. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if 95%+ of the State Park's area is not within the village though. Wrong. Most or all of the park is in Watkins Glen. All the entrances are. The official addresses for the park are in Watkins Glen. Nothing having to do with the park, official or otherwise, to do with Dix. Hell, Watkins Glen Internal Raceway, which is south of the far west side of the park is still in Watkins Glen. Check out Lake Country Kennel. It's south of the raceway and like 2 miles south of the east side of the park, but it's still in Watkins Glen. Even Van Zandt Hollow, which is a nature preserve about a mile west of Watkins Glen State Park, is in Watkins Glen. So I'm not really sure what your talking about or where you got the idea that 95% of the park is outside of Watkins Glen. Let alone what Dix even has to do anything. Again, it would be completely ridiculous not to put Watkins Glen State Park in Category:Watkins Glen, New York when that's literally where it's located.

There is a "right" thing to do here, and the "right" thing to do is to put the category for the park as a child of the category for where it's located, Watkins Glen. Maybe the category tree isn't "obviously transparent in all places" but it is pretty transparent that when something is located somewhere we put it in the category for where it's located, like is the case here. Full stop. There's zero ambiguity about it or that the category for the state park should be in Category:Watkins Glen, New York. The problem here isn't the category tree's lack of clarity, it's that your sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to what people are telling you. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a side to that the official website for Dix says the address for the town of Dix is 304 Seventh Street, Watkins Glen. All the town board members addresses are in Watkins Glen. Even the Dix Highway Department is located in Watkins Glen. In fact I can't find any evidence that Dix isn't just Watkins Glen. Even the official Schuyler County says Dix is located in Watkins Glen. So the whole town of Dix thing appears to be a completely made up, non-exiting town on it's face. It should really go without saying that Watkins Glen State Park can't be located somewhere that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boundaries of the Town of Dix, New York (land area 36.71 square miles, population 3,864 as of 2010 per Wikipedia)

Boundaries of the Village of Watkins Glen, New York (land area 1.94 square miles, population 1,859 as of 2010 per Wikipedia)

QED.

Incidentally, it's really ironic how earlier in this discussion you presupposed that "it doesn't seem like Andre Carrotflower will accept" as a solution one of Enyavar's proposed compromises that you agreed with, yet now that he and I have come to a compromise you don't like, you're the one obstructing. Perhaps you need to work on learning how to lose an argument gracefully, because you're really not coming off well the longer you attempt to draw this out (and retroactively proving why the temporary protection of those pages was a good idea).

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boundaries of the Village of Watkins Glen, New York (land area 1.94 square miles, population 1,859 as of 2010 per Wikipedia) I'm aware of what the boundary supposedly is, but I've provided multiple examples of places located outside of the alleged boundary for Watkins Glen, that should be located in Dix if it's boundary was correct, but actually have addresses in Watkins Glen. Not Dix. So either hometownlocator.com and Wikipedia are wrong, or the people who own/run the race track and Lake Country Kennel don't know where the hell they are actually located. There's actually many places in what hometownlocator.com/Openstreetmap says is the boundary for Dix that have Watkins Glen addresses. Seriously, who do you think would know where the race track, kennel, and many other places the area are actually located? hometownlocator.com's OpenStreetMap derived boundary information or the people who actually own/run those places? If your answer is hometownlocator.com then your clearly just being bad faithed and there's zero point in discussing this any further. Otherwise, if Watkins Glen International is in Dix (not Watkins Glen) then why does their website say they are located in Watkins Glen? Same for the kennel. The kennel and hundreds of websites that say it's located in Watkins Glen not Dix must all be wrong, but hometownlocator.com and OpenStreetMap are 100% completely correct. Sure dude. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the spurious CfD nomination you posted, Watkins Glen's ZIP code covers most of the town of Dix. I'm guessing (hoping) that you live outside the U.S. and weren't aware that, especially in rural areas like Schuyler County, mailing addresses and municipal boundaries can differ and sometimes ZIP codes route mail to the nearest place with its own post office. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure your aware I responded to the post office thing the CfD. It's to bad you decided to report me to ANI over nothing instead of responding to my message since I felt like we were finally getting somewhere with the discussion. Oh well. Such is life. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the park is located in both locales, it should be categorized in BOTH categories. Please do not remove either Dix OR Watkins Glen, as they are both relevant - the park does not need to be wholly in WG, nor does the fact that it's mostly in Dix preclude it from being in the WG cat. This is standard geographical categorization procedure. chedk the categorization of Atlanta, which is in both DeKalb and Fulton Counties, and is categorized that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dix,_New_York

Dix, New York 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!

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

Adamant1 (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locations along (highway name)

While the Locations along (highway, road, street, etc. name) does include cities and towns along the route, it also includes any structure, place, etc. that is indirectly related to the highway, road, street, etc., but that is not directly related to the actual highway, road, street, etc. itself. Editor Famartin probably explains it better by asserting "Content within this category [highway name] should be restricted to media related to the actual roadway. For media related to locations adjacent to the roadway, please use "Locations along [highway name]". This would include buildings along the highway.
The "Locations along..." categories were created, in a large part, to for populated places, structures, etc. that are related to a roadway, but are not actually part of the roadway itself. These subcategories allow for a connection to the roadway, without overloading the main category for the roadway or overloading the category for the city, building, etc. with images not directly related to the same.
Regarding the file referenced (First Commonwealth Bank building, Greensburg, Pennsylvania - 20220710.jpg, the overwhelming focus of the image is the Commonwealth Bank Building, which is not part of the actual roadway (like a bridge along the roadway would be), so the building itself should be included in the Locations along U.S. Route 119 in Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding, the image in question does include some of the roadway (though an insignificant portion) so it is mostly a matter of opinion as to whether there is a sufficient portion of the roadway to justify being included in U.S. Route 119 in Pennsylvania or not. Obviously, your opinion differs from that of this editor and, as such, this editor will differ to yours in this case.
On a slightly related issue, there should not be a "Locations along Main Streets in (state name)" as the term "main street" for a given city often refers to the buildings, shops, plazas, etc. that compose the Main Street area, as well as the roadway itself (similar to, but not the same as the term "downtown"). An Errant Knight (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Errant Knight - The problem with defining buildings as "locations" for these purposes is that, in the vast majority of cases, the end result is an overcategorized file. For instance, the First Commonwealth Bank image at issue above belongs to Category:Greensburg Downtown Historic District, which in turn is a subcat of Category:Greensburg, Pennsylvania, which in turn is (or should be) a subcat of Category:Locations along U.S. Route 119 in Pennsylvania. Per COM:OVERCAT, files should generally never be placed in "multiple levels of the same branch in the category tree... [for instance] files in Category:Black and white photographs of the Eiffel Tower should not also be in Category:Paris, files in Category:Albert Einstein should not also be in Category:Physicists from Germany, and so on." Given that the vast majority of images of buildings would belong in a city, town, or at least a county category, this in practice relegates "Locations along (highway name)" categories to the status of metacats for whatever cities/towns/counties the road passes through. You are correct that the reason why the First Commonwealth Bank image belongs in Category:U.S. Route 119 in Pennsylvania is because the road itself is visible in the image. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that the "Locations along..." categories are ideal, just that the are a major step in addressing the issue of separating media that is related (but only indirectly) to a road from the media that is directly related.

While there is a lot of validity to your explanation, it has a major assumption that is substantially incorrect. The presumption is that the "vast majority" of the buildings in a given community are located along a road that would have a "Locations along. . ." subcategory. While this may be correct for some communities (particularly very small ones), most communities have multiple roads, streets, etc., but only one or possibly two of them are highways that would actually have a category, let along a "Locations along..." subcategory. All buildings in the community that are not located along the route(s) should not be in a "Locations along..." category, but should still be included in the appropriate community category (which, in turn, should be in one or more "Locations along..." category).

The "rule" that files should never be placed in multiple levels of the same branch in the category tree is an ideal concept (and a very good one), but it occasionally, if strictly enforced, defeats proper categorization. Your given examples are situations where the guideline works as desired, but take the case of File:10 Quantum Mechanics Masters.jpg. The image is properly categorized as Category:Albert Einstein (as he is one of the ten quantum physicists pictured), but it is also properly categorized as Category:Quantum physicists (as there are also nine other such physicists pictured, a few of which do not have their own Commons category). However, Category:Albert Einstein is also (properly) a subcategory of Category:Quantum physicists. So in this case, the "never place multiple levels of the same branch in the category tree" would prevent the image from being properly categorized.

Like all categorization, it is an on-going process, to which this editor is open to improvement (even imperfect ones--at least until a better method is developed). An Errant Knight (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Errant Knight - The question I would ask, then, is who decided in the first place that it was necessary to separate media related to buildings along particular roadways from that related to the roadways themselves? Is there a community consensus behind that decision, some written policy you could point me to, or is it simply one editor's personal opinion? It seems like unnecessary hair-splitting to me. Upon seeing an image of a row of buildings, or even a single building where the surface of its façade facing the street is evident, and upon then noticing that it's placed in a street or road category, any reasonable person is going to conclude that the depicted building is located along the road, whether or not the road itself is visible. Furthermore, I've very rarely seen a street or road category that's so massively overpopulated that further subdivision is necessary, and when subdivision is warranted, there are more intuitive ways to do it (e.g. Category:New York State Route 5 in Erie County, New York as a subcat of Category:New York State Route 5).

I would also dispute the idea that a building qualifies as a "location" just because it occupies a certain patch of ground. By that logic, you and I are also "locations" as we are both standing somewhere on the Earth's surface. Rather, a building is an object, with myriad other physical qualities besides just location: height, purpose, age, construction material, architectural style. Contrast this with cities, towns, counties, countries, etc., which in their essence are simply patches of ground, albeit with buildings and infrastructure on top of them, with their own governments, etc.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the "Locations along..." categories were derived from a discussion amongst several editors (including this one). The original purpose was two fold

1) Create a connection between communities along the roadways. If the communities were subcategories of a roadway, that seem to indicate that the entire community is related to that particular roadway. However, if the roadway was a subcategory of the community (which, in some cases, they actually are entirely within a single community), then it would seem to indicate that all of that roadway is related to that particular community. The "Locations along..." categories allowed a logical connection between the roadway and the applicable communities, without the two aforementioned issues.

2) It seems reasonable that when most users search a roadway category, they would be looking media related to that roadway. However, the question arrises as to how closely related. This editor (as well as several others) agree that an image with one or more signs directly related to the roadway should be included, even if that actual roadway is not shown. This would also apply to bridges and tunnels along the roadway as well. The question then arose, what about items (buildings, other structures, landforms, bodies of water, etc.) that are along, or at least in very close proximity to, the roadway. While some of these should be considered "locations", there didn't seem to be a better subcategory (either existing or suggested) that would allow for a connection (though less direct) between the roadway and the item. Furthermore, there are situations were the distinction between a "location" and a "building" is not entirely clear. For example, a historic district, is it a building or a location?

The focus of the "Locations along..." subcategories is more on reducing the number of items included in the main roadway category (by separating the indirectly related items), rather than focusing on what qualifies as a "location". Again, no editor has or is suggesting that the "Locations along..." categories are ideal or without issues, just that they seem to be the best option suggested so far. If perfectly defined categories are the only ones used in Commons, editors would spend the vast majority of their time defining categories, rather then using possibly less than perfect, but still very useful, categories that benefit the end users. Perfectly defined categories would also necessitate too many categories to be useful to the end user.

As for a "community consensus", this editor is unaware of a community wide discussion regarding the matter, but, if necessary, would encourage one. Having no community wide consensus, there would be no policy in regards to these categories. However, as previously mentioned, the use of these categories is not limited to just "one editor" and their opinion, but was the "personal opinion" of several editors. It seems as if the "hair-splitting" has not been an issue as (so far as this editor is aware) all editors using the "Locations along..." categories would consider any image that shows more than a very limited and incidental part of the roadway should be not be included in the "Locations along..." subcategory. (For example, an image of a building that also includes a foot [or meter] or two of the edge of a roadway should belong in the "Locations along..." subcategory.)

Regarding your assertion of having "very rarely seen a... roadway category that so massively overpopulated that further subdivision is necessary", this editor can only be left believing that either you are not familiar with the roadways that are part of the Interstate Highway System or the United States Numbered Highway System (not to mention many state highway, such as the example you mentioned) or that you don't realize that subdivisions of these roadways already exist. (For example, while Interstate 215 in California is not the same roadway as Interstate 215 in Nevada, Interstate 90 in Washington [state], Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York [state], and Massachusetts is the same roadway, but is subdivided by state, and often further subdivided by county.)

Finally, if you have a better suggestion regarding a subcategory that addressed the aforementioned issues, please make it, rather that continue your aversion to an existing practice that been used (without substantial issue) for nearly five years. An Errant Knight (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tioga County Courthouse

Salut, André! I do understand you don't want parts of the building to be cut away. On the other hand, I would like to have a photo really centered on the façade, no additional and disturbing parking car in front of it, and no dirt and snow on a street. I know, that's life: in February, there's dirt and snow on the streets. But there can easily both versions, a full and a slightly cropped one. I really appreciate your picture, don't want to criticize it, therefore I slightly cropped this pic and didn't just take another one. Now everything should be settled. You see, that only these days the pages of the Esperanto Wikipedia about the state of New York are filling a bit, by me, as apparently upto now no other editor bothered to do so (of course there're many editors, more than for many European languages, but you can't force anyone what to edit). I could as well invest my spare hours into pages about communes of France, but I decided to invest some hours into the state of New York. Je suis un collègue, pas un adversaire. Cheers ThomasPusch (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasPusch - No problem at all! Also, feel free to take a look over my own personal categories, which contain a lot of images from around New York State that may be of use to the Esperanto Wikipedia: Category:Photos taken by Andre Carrotflower in New York (state). -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the end of the road at Wikivoyage

Hi, my friend. I'm writing you here because I'm just letting you know how that site is lurching toward self-destruction and why I'm very likely to resign as admin/bureaucrat there. See en:voy:Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion#Lermoos if you like. Or maybe don't. To be honest, I also feel very ambivalent about treating travel as normal right now, while people are pretending the pandemic is over, global warming gathers pace and leaves a path of destruction everywhere, and all those with Medieval mindsets continue to attack scapegoats instead of facing facts. At least photos can preserve beauty in the future, if there are still people living inland who still have technology when New York and other cities are under water. Sorry about the dark thoughts; I thought you'd understand.

All my best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek - I wish I could say I disagreed with you. But as you may have guessed from my continued silence at Wikivoyage, the reason for my inactivity there goes deeper than just the uncertainty surrounding COVID (in fact, that's no longer even the primary one; I must confess that I don't share your pessimistic view of the current state of affairs), and although I initially envisioned returning to full activity someday, I'm far less sure of that now. To be sure, there are many reasons: for one, the rapid rush of closures, changes in opening hours, etc. at businesses around town led me to realize just how enormously overstuffed with listings the Buffalo articles were, and that rectifying that problem would be no smaller a task than writing the articles in the first place; two, I've pretty much fallen out of love with Buffalo and am seriously contemplating moving elsewhere (there was a shooting outside my house a few nights ago not to mention a terrorist attack three blocks down the street earlier this year, plus the levels of political corruption and cronyism in local government are absolutely astounding; if you followed the most recent mayoral election at all, that was just barely scratching the surface); three, my interests were beginning to drift elsewhere anyway (for an early example of that, see voy:User:AndreCarrotflower/Modern architecture in Buffalo and vicinity, the bulk of which is meaningless to anyone who isn't a hardcore architecture or Buffalo history buff).

But above all, that discussion at voy:Talk:Clothes and now the one you've linked here are both perfect examples of how thankless a task it was becoming to be a Wikivoyage sysop. My primary goal at Wikivoyage was never anything other than adding content, and my sysop duties were only ever supposed to be secondary to that. But as handy as it was to be able to do things such as edit the Main Page, take meaningful action against vandalism, delete files I uploaded mistakenly, etc., the nonstop bickering just made the whole experience a total drag, to the point where I would avoid logging on even to work on an article for fear that I'd get sucked in to whatever the latest dustup was. And it wouldn't even have been so bad if it was a linear process of the community learning from its past mistakes and evolving better ways of doing things, but what struck me in those recent discussions is what a lack of respect there is among the newer sysops for the hard-won learned experience of those who've been active longer than them. They act as if their first edit is the Big Bang that marked the start of Wikivoyage history, and anything that happened before that may as well never have happened at all. And then there are users like Pashley who throw out nonsensical contrarian opinions like cherry bombs seemingly just for the fun of watching conversations get derailed. Him in particular, I remember being stuck in the dilemma of wanting to call his behavior out for the trolling it obviously was, yet also knowing that would only further inflame an already overheated situation.

What also struck me, particularly with the issue of antisemitism that comes into play in the latter discussion, is that we're going to have a broken system unless and until the WMF understands that there are certain issues too serious to leave in the hands of local sysop teams, and they need to get more comfortable with pulling rank and overruling bad decisions on the local level. There is no scenario in which we should have to be convincing people, other sysops especially, why a user with a long history of spewing bigotry shouldn't be allowed back into the community. It should be self-evident that such a user stays banned, regardless of the quality of the other content they add. To the WMF's credit, it seems they are beginning to understand this - w:WP:FRAMGATE being a prime example; initially I was sympathetic to arguments that that was an abuse of power on the part of the WMF, but as time went on and I learned the full context of the situation, I found myself vehemently agreeing with the ban - but I'm afraid the gears are turning too slowly to salvage any future I may have had at Wikivoyage, at least as a sysop.

So, to sum up, I wish I had some reason to give you for why you shouldn't give up on Wikivoyage, because it's certainly going to be a poorer community for your absence. But, in the final analysis, they made their own bed and that's really all there is to it. I don't have any ill will and I wish the project well, and I still reserve the right to have a change of heart, but right now and for the foreseeable future, it's not a community in which I find it worth my while to invest time and effort.

I hope you'll at least stay active at Commons, though. It's a lot more pleasant here. Plus, with a larger editor base, people with bad takes are far more handily outnumbered and far less likely to swing consensus in bad directions.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, my friend. I'm sorry about the shooting, and of course I'm very much aware of the terrorist attack and did follow the mayoral election. I plan to continue to spend some time here, but I'm also glad not to be an admin here. There have been scary crimes in New York City, too. I think that down the line, it's likely to be discovered that post-COVID changes to people's central nervous systems predisposed some people to violence, much as there's strong evidence that the much more severe crime wave from the 70s to the early 90s was in major part due to lead poisoning, but only time will tell, and there are other factors always. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A postcard for you!

	A postcard for you!
	A postcard for your hard work involving copyvio patrol and categorisation. Netha Hussain (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You left me a note about copyvio. Please elaborate?

I have never uploaded someone else's pics. I see you are talking about the buffalo bill wrapped truck image. I have uploaded over 450 images to commons and once in a while an image like this will be uploaded. You could see that only a handful of my images are deleted and those deletions were open to debate and not hostile. Why do you assume malice? You say "You have done so despite requests from editors not to do so, and despite their instructions". What are you on about? Thanks. Kiran891 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the template is not an assumption of malice. It is simply a way of stating that yours is a repeated pattern of behavior and that you need to be more heedful of other users' warnings than you have been because, as the template states, not doing so could result in your account being blocked. If you think the template is worded too harshly, fine, but I didn't write it; I only copypasted it.

Secondly, it bears repeating that this is a pattern of behavior. As you've noted, there are numerous entries on your user talk page documenting instances where you have uploaded files that were later deleted as copyvio. You describe those as "open to debate", but deletion discussions are not necessarily debates. Yours in particular seem like pretty cut-and-dried cases that could have been speedy-deleted rather than put through the regular process. You should have used those instances to better familiarize yourself with our licensing policy, which goes deeper than simply "only upload photos you took yourself". I invite you to do so now.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are other templates that are worded with appropriate harshness and you didn't feel like finding the correct one and just went with maximum strength one. Not ideal to discourage regular editors with such extreme treatment. Surely you didn't write it, that would take too much time and inconvenience your quick tagging.

I disagree with your characterization of my contributions. You can't just say " numerous entries " when there are literally just 4! None of my uploaded images have been subjected to speedy deletion. I haven't deleted any messages on my talk page so here's a rundown of what has happened so far.

There are 4 images (of 450 total !!) that I uploaded has been been nominated for deletion. All 4 were regular noms and I had the given the correct best available copyright details when I uploaded them. The admins decided, in all of them after multiple comments, that such tags didn't work for commons as they were mischaracterized on their original source (2) or incorrect de minimis application (2), so they were deleted and if you read my comments I was totally gracious about those deletions. One section is about an image I cropped, so it isn't my upload and you can't hold me responsible for that.

Again, 4 out of 450 !!!!.

As a long time editor on enwiki (~25k edit over all wiki portals), I expect some grace in assuming my behavior. Way to go on discouraging devoted contributors. Be more reasonable! Kiran891 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my earlier statements and am going to consider this matter closed now. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yay Admins!! That's just lazy way to respond to a rebuttal. I guess, I'll have to consider this matter closed now. Kiran891 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kiran891 here. Of the two speedy warnings on their talk page, File:Ramkrishna Baba Patil headshot for Lok Sabha Profile.jpg contained a good-faith assertion of {{GODL-India}}, and File:Carnahan (cropped).jpg was just a crop of another Commons image. A final warning was definitely uncalled for. Also, regarding the most recent truck image, note that photos taken in a public place may not be nominated for speedy deletion (unless the photo itself was copied from somewhere). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reply and a comment

First of all, thanks for the kind words on my enwiki talk page. I'm a Lutheran pastor here in WNY. As such, while you've gotten the outsides of many of our church buildings, I might be able to, over a period of time, get on the inside!

Just a note on File:St. Stephen's United Church of Christ (formerly St. Stephen's Evangelical Lutheran Church), Clarence, New York - 20201005.jpg - German churches such as these which merged into the United Church of Christ were never Lutheran per se. They formed out of unionistic trends in Germany, including the Prussian Union, and generally eschewed the name Lutheran and were not part of Lutheran bodies in the United States. Rather, the vast majority, including St. Stephen's, were part of the Evangelical Synod of North America, which merged into the Evangelical and Reformed Church which, finally, merged into the UCC. These German Evangelical churches would generally have been known as Deutsche Evangelische "X" Kirche, as is the case with St. Stephen's, while their Lutheran counterparts would have been known as Deutsche Evangelische Lutherische "X" Kirche

I don't know if this file name could be changed (I haven't spent a great deal of time on Commons until recently, so I don't know the logistics of this), simply omitting the word Lutheran, but, in general, what I've stated above is true of UCC churches of German Evangelical origin. Of course, if your research says otherwise in this particular instance, please revert my edit on your description!

Again, thanks very much for your work! Schetm (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Andre, can you let me know why this image, and potentially dozens like it by that author, were deleted? Is there a rationale somewhere that I am missing? Thanks, $ɱ$ (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I am out of town at the moment and don't have access to the Internet except via mobile. Give me a couple days and I'll see what happened here. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk)

Thanks. I have been Internet friends with this photographer for years. He is an immense asset to Wikimedia and to global knowledge, and a nice person. See Category:Files from Warren LeMay Flickr stream, and contact him personally too on Flickr or Facebook or Instagram if you wish. See also User:W lemay, though I don't believe he uses this account anymore.

ɱ

(talk) 21:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I was able to take a moment to look this over more closely and see what this relates to. I can't speak to the situation in other cities, but historical research regarding Buffalo, New York is the basis of my offwiki career, and I have made maintaining our coverage related to that city the primary focus of my work on Commons for pretty much the entire time I've been active here. And speaking in those capacities, there are three pretty major issues with these uploads.

One is that the filenames and captions are riddled with inaccuracies, ranging from misspellings, incorrect dates, misidentified architects and other details down to basic facts such as incorrect neighborhood names (including some that were obviously blindly copied from the notoriously inaccurate Google Maps) and buildings mistaken for other buildings. Now of course Commons is not Wikipedia, and it's not strictly necessary to provide a lot of well-researched factual background along with the material uploaded here. But some users, self included, do freely choose to include such information. And when that information is included, it's needless to say that it should be accurate, and it becomes a disservice to our users when it's inaccurate.

The second: again, this may or may not apply to other places, but speaking specifically about Buffalo, it is a city whose architecture and built environment are already exceedingly well covered on Commons. A look through Category:Architecture of Buffalo, New York and its subcats demonstrates this; it's no exaggeration to say that combing through them thoroughly would take you hours. It would be fine if the uploads at issue depicted subjects that hadn't yet been included in our coverage, or if they had depicted some new angle or aspect of an existing subject, or if they were of markedly higher quality than the existing images. But the fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of these images are identical, both to each other and to preexisting images on Commons. That doesn't serve our users; in fact it does them a disservice. When categories are stuffed to overflowing with largely redundant material, it overwhelms anyone trying to search through them and makes it more difficult, rather than easier, to find what they're looking for. And again, in the case of multiple images that are identical or only slightly different from each other, there becomes no way to break up the categories into more fine-grained elements.

The third is the sheer volume of these images that are flooding in to Commons: hundreds and hundreds just of Buffalo, let alone the other cities covered in the original Flickr folders. Under ordinary circumstances it would be no problem for the files to be addressed individually. But a deluge of this magnitude is effectively impossible to curate. It would take literally months to go through and correct all the inaccurate names and facts, and to place them in the proper categories and so forth. And then even if someone were to do that, the question would be what good does it do the end user? Again, I can't speak to the situation in other places, where there may be little or no coverage of the local architecture and perhaps even imperfect information is better than none at all. But as for Buffalo, we simply don't need dozens and dozens and dozens of new photographs of buildings that are redundant to the dozens and dozens and dozens of photographs of the same buildings that Commons already has. As I said above, that overfills the categories, and ultimately, the end user who comes here looking for an image depicting a certain subject is now overwhelmed with too many choices. And then what is the option - to pore over each individual one of these thousands of files, determine which add something new to our coverage and individually nominate for deletion the ones that don't? Now we're back to the prospect of a monthslong task. So while none of what I have said is a discredit to the photographer personally, to the good faith of him or the uploader, or to the quality of their work in other contexts than Commons, the fact remains that from the point of view of the end user (which is what ultimately matters) deleting the uploads, at least those of Buffalo-related material, is what best serves.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I skimmed through that wall of text. Are you familiar with the Commons:Deletion policy? If I am to take your rationale as your honest opinion, you have no business holding administrator powers.

ɱ

(talk) 22:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how many other photographers' photographs you decided qualified for your personal deletion policy simply because you believed they cluttered up a category or had some inaccurate information.

ɱ

(talk) 22:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're implying that there is no problem when the information on Commons is inaccurate, or that there's no basis in policy for why categories should not contain too many items, you are wrong on both counts. Now, you wanted an explanation and you got one. I'm sorry if you found it dissatisfactory but it covered my entire rationale for deleting the files and there's no further explanation forthcoming. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the deletion policy and point out -anything- that supports your actions. And please again, tell me how many other photographers you've done similar actions to.

ɱ

(talk) 22:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/U

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

$ɱ$ (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin box

Hi, Please add the admin template on your user page. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such template on your user page, but the point may be moot now. As you said, it may be best for you to resign, to avoid a de-admin vote. So please request the removal of your admin right on meta: m:Steward requests/Permissions#Removal of access. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the template to my userpage and then removed it when I tendered my resignation, at which point anything regarding the actual removal of my user rights, procedures that need to be followed etc. stopped being my problem. As I said, I don't intend to contribute any more here - my only activity since tendering my resignation has been responding to messages on my user talk page, which I only know exist because MediaWiki sends me emails - so whatever else needs to be done on your end is your business. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, if you wanted to resign as an admin, it is your responsibility to request that on the appropriate pages. In this case, COM:BN or m:SRP#Removal of access. SHB2000 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can continue to contribute

While we have our differences, I hope you feel welcome enough to continue contributing, photographing, and editing. I have admired your tenacity and eloquence, you definitely stick to your principles. I know we'll never see eye-to-eye about what is best for a Commons category, but I will welcome any and all images you add. Hope you can see past this issue and keep going. $ɱ$ (talk) 23:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ: Thank you for this kind message. It does make me think twice about leaving permanently. At the very least, I am going to take a break for a few weeks and focus on cross-uploading the material I have already added to Commons onto my Flickr account (which is not a spite project; I had been planning on doing that even before this incident, and the files there will be CC-licensed just as they are here). Beyond that, we will see what happens. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was unnecessary, unwarranted, and improper; I'm surprised you're still at it with attacks. For the record, this content is immensely valuable to me as an article creator, and has an immensely high quality. Better than many photographs I've taken and certainly better than you can do. I don't know how you're the only one who can't see that. The slight errors in text or headings is irrelevant to successfully using his photos in projects. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its content, not image captions. I think there is some pride impeding you. I am aware that plenty of the content I write has inaccuracies, as do many of the sources I use. Humans will never be perfect.

ɱ

(talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a shame that you can't see this issue except through the lens of your own personal friendliness with the photographer. I've got nothing against the guy; he and I seem to share a lot of the same interests, and I'm sure we'd get along great if we ever met in person. But none of that changes the fact that he's a sloppy researcher. The decision of whether to host particular content here should be based on the merits of the content, not whether the creator is a nice guy or a jerk. If that weren't true, I wouldn't have wasted so much time perfecting my own contributions. I stand by every word of the statement you linked. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:20160228 - 36 - eyes wide open.jpg

File:20160228 - 36 - eyes wide open.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adelaide Street, Eastern Market, Detroit - 20201215.jpg

File:Adelaide Street, Eastern Market, Detroit - 20201215.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:PennDOT Road Sign Sculpture Garden - 20200216 - 01.jpg

File:PennDOT Road Sign Sculpture Garden - 20200216 - 01.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:PennDOT Road Sign Sculpture Garden - 20200216 - 04.jpg

File:PennDOT Road Sign Sculpture Garden - 20200216 - 04.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. at Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, Buffalo, New York - 20191221 - 02.jpg

File:Bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. at Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, Buffalo, New York - 20191221 - 02.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in/contribute to a photo contest

English

Dear Andre Carrotflower,

We’re excited to share with you our first-ever art and photo contest for this year’s #VisibleWikiWomen, on Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports!

We’re inviting submissions of photos, illustrations, and other forms of art depicting womxn and non-binary people in sports — as athletes, fans, cheerleaders, referees, journalists, and much more. Our #VisibleWikiWomxn contest celebrates the bodies of womxn in sports by centering their voices, images, stories, and experiences in all their diversity, plurality, and glory.

You can find all the information on our landing page: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports

Spanish

Hola Andre Carrotflower,

Queremos invitarte a participar de nuestro primer concurso de arte y fotografía "Cuerpos plurales en el deporte" en el marco de la campaña #VisibleWikiWomen de este año.

Estamos convocando a presentar fotos, ilustraciones y otras formas de arte que representen a mujeres y personas no binarias en el deporte - atletas, personas aficionadas, animadoras, árbitras, periodistas y personas ligadas al deporte en todos los aspectos. Nuestro concurso #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra los cuerpos de las mujeres en el deporte centrándose en sus voces, imágenes, historias y experiencias en toda su diversidad, pluralidad y gloria.

Puedes encontrar toda la información en la página del concurso.

Portuguese

Olá Andre Carrotflower,

Ficamos felizes em convidar você a participar de nossa primeira Wiki-competição de arte e fotografia, como parte da campanha #VisibleWikiWomen deste ano, sobre "Corpos plurais no esporte"!

Estamos recebendo fotos, ilustrações, e outras formas de arte que retratem mulheres e pessoas não-binárias nos esportes — como atletas, torcedoras, juízas, jornalistas, e muito mais. Nossa competição #VisibleWikiWomxn celebra os corpors de mulheres e pessoas não-binárias e coloca ao centro suas vozes, imagens, histórias, e experiências em toda sua pluralidade e glória.

Você pode encontrar todas as informações necessárias em nossa página: Unpacking Body Plurality in Sports.

Sunshine Fionah Komusana (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:20180526 - 09 - Boston, MA (Downtown Crossing) - "The Quickest Route to the Soul of Boston...?".jpg

File:20180526 - 09 - Boston, MA (Downtown Crossing) - "The Quickest Route to the Soul of Boston...?".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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ooligan (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Foggy night, Witmer Road, North Tonawanda, New York - 20220113.jpg

File:Foggy night, Witmer Road, North Tonawanda, New York - 20220113.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ooligan (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laurel Street during December 2022 Buffalo, New York blizzard - 20221224 - 03 (night).jpg

File:Laurel Street during December 2022 Buffalo, New York blizzard - 20221224 - 03 (night).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Ooligan (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I stumbled upon your fabulous photos on Flickr, and have added a few of them to various articles. Also, I took liberties with one image and brightened it a bit. If you're not ok with that, please revert and I'll upload a different file. Thanks again! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Hi there, and thank you for the appreciation! For various reasons, I am no longer an active contributor to Commons, and I am currently in the middle of a major project of cross-uploading my Commons content over to my personal Flickr account where I can maintain full editorial control over the material. Therefore, most of what you see on my Flickr that is dated previous to April 2023 already exists on Commons. However, any post-April 2023 material is still CC-compatible, so feel free to upload that here (with proper attribution, obviously) if you find it useful. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a perfect example of why I walked away from Commons, look no further than the bullshit VfD directly below. Luckily that particular file is already safely transferred over to my Flickr. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad things are working out, and thank you again for your fabulous photos. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potter's field monument at City Honors High School, Buffalo, New York - 20200707.jpg

File:Potter's field monument at City Honors High School, Buffalo, New York - 20200707.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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

SnowyCinema (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:20181013 - 34 - Montreal (Plateau).jpg

File:20181013 - 34 - Montreal (Plateau).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 ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

A1Cafel (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corning Museum of Glass - 20220312 - 30 - Sulphide plaque of Empress Josephine of France (Louis Jean Desprez, c. 1820s or '30s)

Hi Andre - The file "Corning Museum of Glass - 20220312 - 30 - Sulphide plaque of Empress Josephine of France (Louis Jean Desprez, c. 1820s or '30s).jpg" is a great picture of a beautiful piece of art. I am using it in a Wikipedia article called Sulphide portrait glassware. I see you have identified it as a product by Louis Jean Desprez. He died in 1804, making it doubtful that he is the artist. I know CMOG says it has DESPREZ on the back. It was probably made by Barthélemy Desprez Sr. or Barthélemy Desprez Jr. They were making that type of art during the 1820s and 1830s. I have added similar comments to the file's Description. TwoScars (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Andre Carrotflower

Barnstar!

Not Jewish

Community Insights Survey

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Rename of File:2014BuffaloSnowStorm.jpg

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Autopatrolled rights given

New Century Atlas of Greater Buffalo categories

Deletions

Answer

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

Your edits

Administrator

Byrne Dairy

Deleting some no permission since files

Notifications

How we will see unregistered users

Date categories

Removal of Category

Sound Logo

That Glen Park

Reverts

Locations along (highway name)

Tioga County Courthouse

Looks like the end of the road at Wikivoyage

A postcard for you!

You left me a note about copyvio. Please elaborate?

A reply and a comment

Question

COM:AN/U

Admin box

I hope you can continue to contribute

Invitation to participate in/contribute to a photo contest

English

Spanish

Portuguese

Thank you

Corning Museum of Glass - 20220312 - 30 - Sulphide plaque of Empress Josephine of France (Louis Jean Desprez, c. 1820s or '30s)

Navigation menu

Search