User talk:INeverCry

This user is currently experiencing health issues that may affect their ability to work on Commons. Please bear in mind that these issues may temporarily affect this user's ability to carry out their usual duties. This user may not consequently be able to respond to talk page messages or e-mails in a timely manner during affected periods, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Archives 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13

Thanks for the nomination and the successful outcome. Green Giant (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to take the plunge. I've had as many say no as yes to RFAs. We'll see if I can get one of these guys to follow your lead. INeverCry 00:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(not creating a new section for this) I think we should add more informations to Commons:Guide to adminship and maybe renaming it to Admin handbook? --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It seems to me that most admins just sit around polishing the tools, or sling them into the closet rather than use them, so what's the point? I did Russian FoP restorations for three days, and when I came back to DR, not a single one had been closed in those three days. The top four admins, Fastily, me, Turelio, and Martin H., have performed over one million log actions; nearly one third of all log actions performed in Commons history. Just four admins out of hundreds! The top thirty or forty admins do good work, but after that we have admins in name only. INeverCry 20:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you are an admin, it is imperative that you check Mansukh.surin.munda (talk · contribs) uploads which include gross copyright violating images and logos of companies. Please delete them. IndianBio (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these are already the subject of open deletion requests. I would suggest you file further deletion requests on any other uploads of this user that you're concerned about. INeverCry 21:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following was sent to Wikimedia Commons but the photo of John de Ruiter has still been deleted. Can you explain why that happened and how this can be undeleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 13:53, October 8, 2014‎ (UTC)

I've removed the email you reproduced here because of privacy concerns. The email will be handled by an OTRS member, and, if everything is in order, they'll make sure the image gets restored. You can ask about progress at the OTRS notice board. OTRS is very busy, so it could take a little while. INeverCry 21:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, images from the Nobel Foundation should not be speedied. Here the caveat is that {{PD-Sweden-photo}} applies to photos first published in Sweden, whoever took them (Commons:Simple_photographs). I guess it would also apply if the Nobel Foundation held the copyright on a photo, whoever took it. A substantiated doubt that the photo was first published elsewhere may be a valid reason for DR; otherwise I see no reason for deletion. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: @Adam Cuerden: I've restored it and converted to DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Faulkner 1949.jpg. INeverCry 00:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's such incredible handwaving about copyright. "It might have been published in Sweden first." is not a particularly well-substantiated claim for someone who did not travel to Sweden until a year later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Downtown Hespeler (6622482049).jpg as delete?

Pierpao tagged it as a copyvio, and I edited it to remove the copyvio elements.

Mattbuck voiced delete "as now being out of scope."

Okay, did you delete as copyvio?

1. If so, is this because you didn't recognize I edited it to remove the copyvio elements?
2. Or is this because you disagreed that I did remove the copyvio elements? In this case can you explain why you don't agree I removed the copyvio elements?

Or did you delete it as being "out of scope"?

1. If Pierpao's opinion doesn't count because the image no longer contained any copyvio elements, then there is my keep and Mattbuck's delete. Why isn't that a "no consensus"?
2. If you are counting Mattbuck's opinion that it is "out of scope", and your own opinion that it is "out of scope", did you consider weighing in with your opinion in the discussion, rather than closing the discussion?

In my opinion, as a historic stone building on a scenic river, the image is in scope. Geo Swan (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this per the vote of Mattbuck, which I agreed with completely. All that was left of the image was a nondescript chunk of stone building with a blanked banner with some plain text in the middle. I should've added an out of scope closing rationale, as you say though. My apologies for the confusion. INeverCry 03:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the article on Hespeler already had a section devoted to the development in this image --Hespeler, Ontario#Riverbank Lofts Development. I uploaded the image to en.wiki to illustrate that section. Would you agree this establishes the image is "in scope"? If so please restore the commons version. Geo Swan (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, I don't think it adds anything. If you had a photo from further away which showed the banner DM, that would be illustrative IMO, but that gray building end could be anywhere, and all that's left of the banner is text, which can be explained using plain text. My word isn't final of course though. If Matt or some other admin/s at UDEL see fit to restore it, I don't object. INeverCry 01:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification please, you initially voted to delete on the grounds the image was a out of scope. Are you now telling me you won't restore this image to the commons on esthetic grounds?

In the interests of clarity let me correct you. You call it a "gray building", it is, in fact a 19th century stone building, rare in Ontario, probably rare where you live too. Geo Swan (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was that I don't think it's in scope because I don't think it really illustrates the subject in a significant way due to the obscuring of the sign and the close framing of the building side. I don't however object to it being restored by others if they feel that it will add to the article and readers' understanding of the subject. I would suggest you file an undeletion request for further opinions. INeverCry 18:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrator, the present flag of Chinese Taipei Football team is actually Chinese Taipei Olympic flag, I showed several references here. Could File:Flag of Chinese Taipei Football team.svg be delete and redirect to Chinese Taipei Olympic flag? Meanwhile, there is already an identical image here. Thanks.--Jitcji (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One version has Olympic rings, and the other has the Yin/Yang symbol, so not the same image at all. you would have to speak to a Chinese-speaking admin, as I don't know anythinga bout these flags/logos, or file a deletion request explaining why the image should be deleted and redirected. The {{Duplicate}} tag can be used in the case of the two images that are the same. INeverCry 09:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rob Ford as Benito Mussolini in 2011 -a.jpg -- nominated because the copyright of a poster in the picture belonged to someone other than the photographer. I've located the artist who created the poster. In order to ask him to agree to let the images be used here, including his posters, I need the original flickr URL of this image. I request you look it up for me. Geo Swan (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielle_scott/6342511744/. INeverCry 19:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you provide links to these (l, 2, 3) Flickr-pages? I don't remember these photos, but sure that they have been done by uploader. By the way, abscence of EXIF is not enough to suspect uploader. --Алый Король (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into these in depth, I have to agree with you that the images look to be legitimate and the Flickr authors are long-time experienced photogs. 2 of these show EXIF at the source, but not here, while the other is no longer available. With that one, the uploader on Flickr is a pro who's been on there since 2007, and I'm willing to trust your review. I've reversed my decision on these and restored and re-closed them as keep. Thanks for bringing these to my attention, and my apologies for not looking closer originally.

We definitely need more admins and editors participating in the DR process, so that more attention can be paid to each individual image. I've started to cut down on how many I do, and will continue this. Finding other people to participate is the hard part though. INeverCry 19:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you know authors of monuments, please also add Category:Undelete in xxxx to requests.--Anatoliy (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off of uk:Вікіпедія:Вікі_любить_пам'ятки/Львівська_область mostly today, and I see only dates for the monuments themselves w/ no author links. I was able to ID the author of a couple Donetsk monuments I did mass DRs for, but he's living. I've added the pending cat to all DRs to make sure these don't get lost. If I find death dates of authors, I'll add the corresponding cat as well. INeverCry 00:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon! (Hope you like tea; the other dropdown menu options seemed less healthy choices for the convalescent…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tuválkin. You're absolutely right; there's not another thing on that list that I can safely touch, though of course I sneak them often enough, and pay for it... The banner above is partly a reminder to myself not to over do it, which I also tend to ignore for the most part... My doctors love me... INeverCry 19:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello INeverCry. see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Moscowstate250.jpg,I support neither act, but it looked the abuse of authority apparent to Yann.I think both are to blame.--Y.haruo (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have no comment on this one, as I could be seen as not being neutral. INeverCry 00:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.--Y.haruo (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted File:Motion detector alarm.jpg because it was uploaded by a sockpuppet of David Beals. There is a new image that was uploaded by a new sockpuppet, File:Wildwood Gateway 26.jpg. GB fan (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:Uw-dttr