Hallo Queeg, please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#protected_template_edit:_motd_thumbtime for info. I have seen that you did insert the full length of the videos in the thumbtime and did include s and m units. Those units do not work. And the full length would be not useful. The "thumbtime" is the time from which a thumb should be displayed. See the today's lightning video. Now we have a nice thumb. Without thumbtime it would be simply black. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was completely and simply without understanding of what the template does! And more: I was beginning to experiment here with making the first frame of the video to be my choice for the thumbnail. You have saved me a lot of time. Thank you.
Do you know if there are any existing methods or plans to display images that are included with audio files? File:Boswell Sisters-Old Yazoo.ogg contains a 12x12 pixel thumbnail, a 320x320 pixel image and an additional 120x120 pixel image -- the last I included to see if I could get it to display here.
Caught! I "repaired" my errors quickly -- too quickly to get on with something else I was doing.
I did really think (originally) that it was a way to tell how long the video or audio lasted so that people viewing or listening would know how much time to commit. Perhaps I will make this part of the description as this information really did seem useful to me at the time I got that templates function wrong.
I see that the template dislikes "08" and it breaks with ":08"! I ended up just converting all of the times into seconds. -- Queeg (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, put some info on the templates talk page. I guess it will work with 0:08. But not with :08. I am not totally overwhelmed by your idea to include the duration in the caption. But I am also not against. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to share my thoughts: For todays MOTD File:Dixiefried.ogg it would be nice to have the record File:Dixiefried.jpg as small image on the main page. Maybe the templates should be extended to have an option for a addition image for audio files. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The file includes a 320x320px version of that image of the record, a 32x32px version (both filling a pre-defined image type that was mentioned in the metaflac documentation) and another 120x120px of the same image which I assigned "type 0" to in the case that the commons software could already display it -- "0" is "other" (http://flac.sourceforge.net/documentation_tools_flac.html#flac_options_picture).
I was surprised that the software here did not already handle this and would be less surprised if it turns out that it was that I did not put the dedicated image into the right type or that I just have not yet discovered the proper template for it.
I have also kept this idea that the included image could be displayed in the back of my mind to see if a method of how to display it would surface eventually. Perhaps seeing how the software digs a frame from a video file would help with my thinking about this.
Something that I have found since I uploaded those files is software that checks to see if the audio file has exceeded some sound boundries. Several "high quality" music files I downloaded for personal use were "clipped" by sox "play" which seems to be quite sensitive to that kind of thing.
Perhaps I should have checked the Dixiefried ogg before its big day arrived!! I like it when the software is a little more sensitive than me for listening problems. sox was willing and able to adjust volume, bass and treble up to ten places behind the decimal! I gave up "fine tuning" before it did; my goal had been not to lose too much of the original file(s). -- Queeg (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that the file includes an image - but the software is not using it. Even if the software would - it would not help for most files as most do not have an image included. There needs to be a template modification if there is consensus to enable thumbnails for sound files on the main page. However, I do not have time to do/prepare it.
Another thing, I am quite confused about the copyright release in the "liner" of the record as the file's description page says. Is this usual, that record companies give away their copyright? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not believe nor disbelieve the "Permission" claims of the file here; having observed the wikimedia copyright machine, I feel that if the file is here then it is allowed to be here. Perhaps if this copyright checking machine (by machine I mean mechanism and people using the mechanism) were used to investigate uploaders and not files, I should be more suspicious of the files that are available here. It would not serve the stated goals and purposes of this and similar wikimedia projects though, I think, to investigate people and not files.
The file has been here for almost two and a half years! Do you really think it would be here that long without its permission to be here being checked? -- Queeg (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am an active part of this "machine" and I can definitely tell you: yes - sometime we even have files olders than 2,5 years that need to be deleted. Some files are just not in use long time, are not a "stupid" copyvio on the first sight or similar. I do not see this file as a high risk file - but if the permission (copyright release) would be documented better (e.g. at least by a full quote of the text in the liner) it would be nice. I think I will try to ask the uploader... Sometime people are just making false assumptions. One example is press materials by companies: some people think that it is public domain which it isn't. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My respects to a member of the machine then. If I remember correctly, the Sun Records audio files that are here were all of "traditional songs". The uploader seemed to think that if the song writer was unknown (due to the song being an old folk song) that it was fine to upload.
I have actually been recently more watchful for fakes being introduced into the files I have been getting for personal use. I bought a Boswell Sisters vinyl record in the 1980s and some of the files that were/are on that Rhino recording are also available at archive.org. However, at least one of them was different than what had been on my vinyl. Then I looked at a list of Boswell sisters recordings and at least one of the different sounding songs had only been recorded once. There is a Boswell sisters tribute band on youtube and it just seems that the two facts, the "different sounding" recordings and the existence of a tribute band go kind of well together.... Later, when I was making my collection into an "album" with replay-gain, the software refused to work with a few of the files because they were with 2 channels and the most of the files were appropriately mono (single channel). I deleted all of those 2 channel files from my personal collection. One of the files I deleted from my personal collection is here: Old Yazoo. False advertising is not a copyright violation, but it seems like it should be a good reason to delete a file.
I am so bored with copyright problems and eh, originally only became very very interested because of two friends. One of those friends gave me a "throw out" image that was interesting and cool but considered to have no commercial value to put on my web site and when it got an audience there it was taken back in an action that is far more serious than any government law -- something we used to call "indian giving" back in the 1960s when such terminology was not considered to be as politically incorrect as the action it describes (when you give something and then take it back). Another copyright nut insisted that I take a photograph down from my site, and respectfully, I did this -- along with an apology. Later, the first friend was screaming at me all of the time for no reason that I knew of and the second banned me from an irc channel for no good reason. Even my first and only dip into the creative commons was such a very very bad experience -- I am sorry that I did not keep that mail to show now as good reason to stay the hell away from that bunch. This is perhaps not evidence of boredom, but of the futility of my caring about it.
Delete what you will, you will find no argument from me; caring about it has been the source of my biggest and most unexplainable problems. If I disagree enough, I have other options for online locations of these files and enough real concern for the commons credibility -- both its real credibility and the "machines" feeling/self-perception of credibility.
Please delete that one file! It is not that I think that the sound of the tribute band is bad; it is that I don't want to be included in the false advertising and I don't think the commons should be included in it either. I don't know of any policy that covers this kind of problem.
Perhaps all of the Boswell Sisters songs I uploaded should be deleted, actually. They have a PD license at archive.org but I have no idea if their idea of PD is the same as commons idea of PD for this kind of file. If you could wait to delete HeebieJeebies though, until the day after tomorrow (to me it follows the giant bug very nicely for media of the day and it sounds PD and is perfectly politically incorrect enough to land it in the public domain. -- Queeg (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You find a good summary of what would be PD on the deletion request page by me for the HeebieJeebies below. I do not know why it is marked PD on archive.org. Maybe the person who did did simply not know the law? Or they know more than we. But I guess the assessment there is not done by copyright professionals. I am sorry for your hassle and problems with the copyright/licensing at Commons. For sound files it is really complicated.
Why I care for elemination of copyright problematic files is that our project's aim is to provide free content. If people cannot be sure to a specific degree that the files here are really "free" then it harms the project.
People who take the time to care about copyright gotta do what they gotta do. That it is not such a terrible experience for you as it was to me would be my wish for you.
I don't think that it is their voices doing the singing in that file -- it is a doubt which is hovering between reasonable and a hunch. If I could have deleted it from here, I would have done just that. I am interested in not becoming involved in a fraud -- the internet sometimes makes this to be a challenge.
Heh, speedy. Thank you. That was really bothering me and now it begins to not bother me. About fraud and me, not willingly here and in other places and times, I would have to really look at the definition of this to answer honestly.
Thanks for being nice to communicate with about all of this. More reading of public domain rules for sound files before any more uploads! -- Queeg (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :-) I am glad to help. Feel free to ask. I will put the other sound files you have mentioned on my todo list and will get back to you if I need help in the topic of music. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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!
Ooops - honestly, I did not see what you wrote just some minutes ago here. I had translated the file's descriptions and then (stupid) looked at the licensing. Then I discussed it shortly with user:ZooFari at 02:29 (UTC) and came to the conclusion of above. I have not read your long comment above as i have to go to bed now - it is really late here. I will respond tomorrow and help to find a new file if you have not found a new one then. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my lengthy comment (perhaps made longer than necessary due to being a little slap happy from having watched an hour of television with the most concentrated violence and sexism I have ever seen -- 1950s,60s and 70s toy commercials) I expressed a concern about the file Old Yazoo which might be the product of fraud.
In the world of crime, a copyright violation starts with a warning and a request for removal but FRAUD has been placed on a completely different level and is less prone to warnings and is assigned a far greater punishment? Right and wrong might be "black and white" but criminal actions have been ranked and given different degrees of criminality. Copyright is probably closer to a civil infraction and fraud is probably more like a misdemeanor or felony. -- Queeg (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Axes Shuffle I was going to put this file there but someone else has put a Ronald Reagen (yawn!) file there. He is credited with being a great speaker, however, I was never able to make it through one of his speeches.... -- Queeg (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"1.6" means: 1.6 Seconds. You can find those nice still images only by looking at the approximate time in a player and then play around a bit with using the preview mode of an edit window. Only 0.1 fractions work currently. Other values are rounded to the next 0.1 fraction. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better thumbnail. It is good to know that the preview will work to get the right frame.
I missed this when you posted it and I have yet to try it out. An unfortunate oversight which is even worse than it seems. User_talk:Queeg/sawhorse and not only is this template kind of awesome, but it really shows just how incredibly dull some videos here are :)
Thousands of versions of the real Queeg are spinning in their DVD Jackets as I fumble around with this nick. I really thought I could pull it off. -- Queeg (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Queeg, however no description will ever be the same as seeing the episode. That being said, it is probably a good idea to see the first and second season (series) -- at least until they get Kryten and then the next several series episodes can be viewed randomly without too many problems.
The Jane Austin piece in the MOTD is completely a reference to this series: (season 7 episode 6), btw and at least for me, some of the en:wikipedia politics and ways and fantasy-like solutions there of.
Some episodes are better than others, my DVD of the first season shall be linked forever with Vonneguts Cat's Cradle as the perfect "pick me up" for when I am feeling down and needing some intelligent re-shaping of my thoughts. -- Queeg (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooookay, thank you for this long explanation! :-D Sadly, I still do not understand what you wanted to tell me with the Queeg sentence above. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the point now, isn't it? Queeg was efficient and the last word on how things are supposed to work. It's a very cool nick, you should be using this nick. -- Queeg (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give up and go to bed. :-) However, feel free to ask me if I can help you with using this template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in need of comment from you on this -- just returning the correction of error. However, if you have a comment, feel free to leave it on my talk page. -- Queeg (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I was very puzzled by your comment on my talk page. I know what a video is (since the 80s). So today I read our discussion again and I think I figured out what our misunderstanding is, (and there is no doubt that I should have made my point clearer and more understandable. It is not a trivial topic.)
I may have given the impression that the categories are: “video” OR “animation”. But that is not the case, both terms belong to different domains.
VIDEO is a technical term. Roughly it means “a motion picture processed electronically”, this separates it from for example “Film stock”.
Hence all motion pictures on commons are electronical, all are videos. (To quote Commons:Video: "Wikimedia uses Ogg Theora and GIF for video because…")
Hence we only have videos on commons, here "animations" are a subset of "videos". Please note that the file-format has nothing to do with both definitions.
Some examples:
"Electronical motion picture": -> it is a video "Computer animation": -> it is an animation
"Electronical motion picture": -> it is a video "Computer animation": -> it is an animation
"Electronical motion picture": -> it is a video "hand-drawn animation": -> it is an animation
"Electronical motion picture": -> it is a video no hand-drawn animation no Stop-motion animation no Computer animation: -> it is not an animation
If there are flaws in my (simplified) statements above please let me know. If there are still questions please refer to the Wikipedia articles or do no hesitate to ask me. I hope I could clear things up. Greetings Jahobr (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:
I don't know if this is relevant to this discussion or not, but I failed to get my gay card yesterday. I really really wanted this in my list of credentials.
It doesn't matter to me, in fact, I find the whole discussion to be indescribably dull but I think that your video is not even allowed to be here, but most certainly people are not just looking at the files I suggested and will find this and make a determination of it. Interestingly enough, the files I have had deleted were deleted due to having potential commercial life left in them, but this file is still here in spite of not having a license (dull and even duller). I enjoyed physics, yet still say this about the video. File:Denavit-Hartenberg Tutorial Video.ogv$ sign crossed out in the little icon at the lower portion of the frame has the same meaning as "This video should not be here".
If you think that http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Queeg&oldid=54818801 is a discussion that I am having with a person who understands the difference between 1)a file and a category and 2)an animation and a video -- you should probably get some more experience with simple English and know that I only really know English and probably don't know it very well. I understand that there are layers of meanings especially when imagery and words get mixed and then used as a means to send a message. If this is what you were doing, perhaps I got the message but at the same time I decided (and rightfully so) that you are in need of some very basic instruction.--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still enjoying the challenge of the limited collection of sounds and video here. I think that when I started to "help" with the MOTD, the people who had been maintaining it were looking like they were a little bored with the task. Some of them were working on far greater contributions here, etc. I am always glad for the assistance and you will be the first I go to when I get confused between the differences between animation and video. In the meanwhile, I will wonder what possible reason you had to make the decision to assist me with this? And lastly:
Do you know of a video of a bus sliding sideways down an icy road? That is really the "video" I had wanted for June 30.
Hello Queeg, looking for categories for this video I noticed that you have moved religious videos into Category:Videos of events. In my opinion that is no good idea. For a lot of people all over the world religion is a very important part of personal identity and much more than a event only. Also the influence of religions (and religious feelings) is very present in politics and a strong motivating force of social life in most countries and societies in the world. Because of its great social importance, I think it would be a good idea to create an explicit category for this kind of videos as a direct subcategory of "Videos by subject" (containing categories of the different religions). Regards, --Pristurus (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a good idea, however, not very many of the videos here necessarily identified themselves that well. -- Queeg (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was filled with two very different kinds of videos -- videos of architecture and videos of rituals -- a building is more of a product of religion and people often go to them not for the religious experience. Perhaps I made a mistake splitting them. Most of the files that had been in Category:Religious videos can now be found in Category:Videos of religious events (currently containing 4 files from Religious videos) or Category:Videos of religious rituals (currently containing 36 files and 2 sub-categories from Religious videos) or Category:Videos of religious buildings (currently containing 27 files from Religious videos).
If you think that this video belongs among a bunch of tours/pans of religious buildings, the commons might have an undo bot and that category can be repopulated.... One of the english phrases within that slideshow (an interesting blend of images of sacred and ritualistic photographs with ((I think)) a game image) was a url whose name is "islam occasions" which is not unlike "events". Out of respect for the hadj, I would remove this video from here or at the least put it into Category:Videos of religious rituals. -- Queeg (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Queeg, @Template:Motd/2011-07-01 (de) "translating software used for this, a native speaker should probably review and edit": please do not do it if you cannot correct on your own. Such translations could be are bad and misleading / wrong. A red language link for the de description shows better that there is work to be done. If you create it it looks finished - until someone reads it (and corrects it - which I did now). ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speedydelete - but do not forget to put <noinclude></noinclude> tags around the speedy tag as it is an included template. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you want a video with no explanation of who made and how and when? And you want him to not credit the music in the video? Are you telling me to delete all that because "you don't like it"?
No, there was nothing about deleting it. My first instinct was to remove it from its position to be on the Main Page -- instead of doing that, I opted to discuss it with you.
A video without watermarks. Mention in the description page is fine -- just like image of the day.
pt is your second language? This answer seems more defensive than the question I asked deserved. I was thinking it would be nice to have pt represented on more than just "talk" pages here. Perhaps a clear statement on your talk page that claims/explains a/the sensitivity to being asked to write in pt? I really had no intention of offending and certainly not to touch a sensitive subject.... -- Queeg (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem is here Queeg. It has credits, proper licensing. If you are objecting to a watermark, you can vote against it when it goes up for POTD. Also, you can't demand translations from volunteers. Theo10011 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try to do something: Pass a movie in a teather and don't place it who created the movie, and wait for the Law suit... :) All those places says is who is the owner of those movies. All movies have. If you don't like is only your opinion. And please be kind with all users - his opinion matters as much as yours do. Béria Limamsg09:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been kind. It is a discussion between me, a person with one opinion and you a person with another opinion.
Your talk page is filled with little awards for being a productive woman here. It is long past the 1960's and I believe that any person should be able to have a discussion about something like this without the "intervention" of a third person. I am going to ask kindly that if you and eh, paramours wish to have a little romantic drama, that it 1) does not include me and 2) does not involve the Main Page here.
About your suggestion. Do you think that the images that are here and have the permission in the page and not embedded in the image should not be here? -- Queeg (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err....I actually found that video and asked Beria's help to get it on commons. Sorry, if that's not a good enough reason to intervene when you object to it, I feel partially responsible for it. With that said, I can understand if you want the conversation to be between you and her. Apologies for butting in. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since - as you said - we left 1960 way back I feel i'm the right to say that I don't want, and most of all, I don't need to hide myself behind ANY man. If, when, where with who I sleep or have "a little romantic drama" is MY PROBLEM and MY PROBLEM ONLY. I would be very glad if you remove any sexist comment in our talk or i will stop talking with you about that.
Certainly, you call me dear and I will call you it. No sexism is just a rule for me?
We can chat as much as you want or need to about this. The chat without what it was I asked for is: you fill in this word (personally, I would avoid words like "useful", "equal to"). I asked simply that you show me the acceptance of a watermarked POTD at Featured Pictures.
Creative Commons has its own collection and method of showing its finest? Perhaps they need a person who can (if in the mood) volunteer to write pt, assign otrs or simply chat about how great cc licenses are and how attractive they are as watermarks.
Hello Queeg, I noticed that you recently was very busy with my videos...,my respect for a lot of work, thank you! To help you a little bit I have moved the videos from Category:Asilidae films to the new Category:Videos of Asilidae (to get a uniform nomenclature). I think the now empty Category:Asilidae films can be deleted. An other little issue: your templates (created for me and working fine) should better use the Category:Videos from Hesse (a existing and more exact subcategory of Videos from Germany). Are you able to resolve this minor problem? Thanks again, --Pristurus (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tidying up the videos (which were and still are a mess) is not that fun. Having them tidied up is kind of a nice feeling, though. That you have uploaded so many videos here is probably good enough reason to not need to thank me for re-arranging them. Permission to make and use the templates was enough -- it eased this task by several magnitudes.
It seems to me that if every person would just do what they are good at, then the commons -- and even the rest of the internet (since this is not the place for people who have certain expectations) would look, function and be as great as your videos.
The templates were changed. It might take some time for the changes to "propagate" too the videos that are using the template.
The only part of this that really matters: if your videos were not taken in Italy then they were always taken in Hesse? -- Queeg (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are 3 files from Italy only (holiday videos). The others are all taken in Hesse where I am living. So it will be no problem for me to categorize these few files by hand. An other issue was noticed by User:Dysmachus: using the family or genus template place the file always in the respective (main-)category. However in many cases there exist subcategories of the type "unidentified taxonomic level" (e.g. Category:Choerades). Would it also be possible to proof the existence of such a category (if exist "unidentified taxonomic level" then use it else use the main category)? Regards, --Pristurus (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding this question, perhaps.
The decision to use family was because it is usually the best -- not because it is perfect. Then, class because almost everything which is not an insect is something in Chordata.
Example of what I think you are talking about here: I just found an audio file of a marmot. I had to make Unidentified Marmota category for it and the audio family category.
If you had an unidentified species before these templates, did you ever make a category for it? Perhaps not. Your video files are particularly good for construction of a taxonomic tree here due to the fact that so many of them have been identified.
This seems to be the thing about commons -- when the proper category exists, uploaders simply tend to use them....
Sometimes I have created new categories for a species and sometimes I was to lazy to do so. Let me try to explain my little problem (in my poor English) based on File:Chcopula-2011-06-29-(12).ogv. I know the animals are members of the genus Choerades but I don´t know the exact species. So I have to use the genus template. Now the file is categorized in Category:Choerades. This category contains subcategories for different species and also another Category:Unidentified Choerades (members of this genus without determination of the species level). Choosing a category by hand I would select this one and not Category:Choerades. So in the moment I have to proof the existence of a Category:Unidentified (whatever) and where appropriate to replace the genus template manually by categories. It would be a "nice to have" to automatize this process: if a (sub)category:unidentified exists choose this. If there is no (sub)category:unidentified choose the (normal) genus category. Sorry for my poor English, --Pristurus (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You write in two languages and should not apologize to any who write in only one (like me).
I think the new templates I left on your talk page should fill the need you articulated here. Some could have been combined; you should let me know if they help with this problem or if something different is needed. -- Queeg (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new templates. Still yet they are working well for me. As suggested by Saibo on my page I will use your templates with the "subst"-argument. Regards, --Pristurus (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest with you, I am of the mind that any idiot can do this and that it is more or less a matter of those few idiots who can and will do it. I am one of the later.
I also think it is in the long term interest of the commons to make it easy for the uploaders of the really great images, videos and audio to do so and be a nice place to put their media.
But to be honestly honest, I am really on a search for a specific video; perhaps you have encountered such a moving image! A video of a bus, sliding sideways on a somewhat busy urban street. Everyday I consider a new place it might have accidentally landed; today for instance, I was searching through videos of ice hockey as it might have found its way (unwittingly) into what should have been categorized as "team sports".
Well, not many people have a quick grasp and long term view on category naming and structures as you have, otherwise you would not to have spend hours in restructuring and naming categories. Once we can get the basic right indeed, they grow organically in the good direction and it becomes more easy for uploaders.
Sorry, but I hardly look to the pictures themselves, let alone videos. I will try to be more careful, but chances that I stumble on your video are dim. --Foroa (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Organic" is probably a more accurate word. "'Like' gently changing the course of a river" was the best idea I had before reading that.
I found a very refreshing video here today. Some might consider it to be dull but maybe you would enjoy it (I certainly did):
I enjoyed it. It touches the problem of subjective video categorisation that will appear sooner or later, such as long country road journeys, endless journeys (could be looped back I guess), quit driving, long lane drives, ... --Foroa (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the videos in Cycling videos was a video photographed from a bicycle and never actually showed other bicycles. Video can and often does add at least one more dimension to describe.
Just getting them to live in the existing structure is challenge enough for today and the next few days though. -- Queeg (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Queeg, I`ve just uploaded File:Zc-2011-07-04.ogv. Feel free to try it yourself.
The correct template (before ID) "subst:VideoPristurusFamilyUnidentified|2011|Zygaenidae"
. Place the template into the file and save it. Then open it again and see what happens... Regards, Pristurus
Hallo Queeg, today I have added the "subst"-parameter to the templates of my existing files by hand (I hope to all..). So I think this issue is solved for you and me. --Pristurus (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo,
kannst Du mir erklären, warum Du bei etlichen meiner Videos die Reihenfolge meiner Angaben umgestellt hast? Ich glaube, dass Du das getrost mir überlassen kannst, wobei ich versuche, die wichtigsten Informationen zuerst anzugeben. --R. Engelhardt (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From software translation:
I have been renaming and reordering the categories for the videos here.
Ich habe Umbenennung und Neuordnung der Kategorien für die Videos hier.
The new categories are somewhat based on Categories.
Die neuen Kategorien sind etwas über Categories basieren.
The new categories are what is important to me; the order that the categories appear in on the File page are not a priority to me.
Die neuen Kategorien sind das, was mir wichtig ist, die Bestellung, dass die Kategorien erscheinen in der Datei Seite sind keine Priorität für mich.
Unrelated to the categories, your videos were some of my favorite.
In keinem Zusammenhang mit den Kategorien, waren deine Videos einige meiner Favoriten.
Hi, I think, You did not understand me well. To correct the categories or change its order is ok. But I dont't agree, to change the order of my description, for example the length of the video and the location above the filedescription.
The order of the categories is trough afterwards alterations often not so good. I will undo Your modifications and then can You (or me) can organize the categories.
Oh! Sorry about rearranging your information. The reasons for this was
I was considering using some of your videos as Media of the day,
it is a personal preference of mine that the Information template appear first. I say it is a personal preference of mine because I do not know of or care to impose any rule that this should be an enforced standardization and
I have the perception that the Information template is a standardization of the File pages and sometimes I move things around for that while I am thinking about if the video would be a good MOTD or not.
On many of the File pages I viewed and re-categorized, I changed the format of the date. The wiki software will convert YYYY-MM-DD according to each users preferences and language. That is the only kind of change I made to any files that I would spend any time defending. All other changes, if they are unwanted as the changes I made to your Files are, I ask your forgiveness and understanding and will not interfere if they are changed back.
The new categories are recommended, however.
The translation provided by the software was bad, good, great or something else?
I would like to be sorry about my lack of a user page but I am not actually sorry so I won't say that.
Also, once again I would like to say that after seeing so many videos of level crossings and the sides of trains moving by, those festival videos were wonderful and very good for reminding me of my happy enough childhood. I am looking forward to 2013! -- Queeg (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my English is not so good, that I understand all You said, but I think it is ok now. The Date I always write correct, I think and often I correct it on other media.
I have bookmarked several files for MOTD, at least one of yours is in that set.
The new file is also very nice.
My message was mostly about how you should make your file pages as you want to, it is not what I care about here. Then I mentioned the few things I thought about when moving the page information around.
One important thing from this experience perhaps is this fact. There were so many little images and redundant information on your file pages that I did not see the request to not move those things around. In the United States, there is a saying "a picture can be equal to a thousand words" (I rephrased this some). So the little ogg image is kind of redundant since there is a really large button at the lower part of the image frame to start the video with. I spent time thinking about the flags and how the United States civil war used their own version of the British flag and then about how much I do not like using political flags to distinguish languages.
I don't have time or desire to author the 7000 words needed to equal all of the redundant or what I consider to be unnecessary or even (perhaps) rude or wrong little images on that page. The important fact is that I did not see the more important message about not changing the page which was amid all of the little images.
I will continue as I do since 5 years: First the image or video, then the most important informations: Location, filedescription and so on. With other media I for myself miss often more informations. Not even the country is often designated. If anyone wishes no further informations, he looks at once the video and all is ok.
No, I am not an iphone seller, I am a dental surgeon, and if You looks to my earlier videos, You can see, that I have used several cameras. All best, --R. Engelhardt (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, are you saying that I could add that to the exemptions?
More importantly, if that video had performed a traditional song (very old and author forgotten or never really known songs), it could have stayed here? -- Queeg (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could try to add - but I do not want it and I think it will be reverted in some hours.
If the song is in the public domain (strictly according to our rules it should be explained why it is) then there still could be rights of the performers/singers. Maybe they do not have such rights in some countries. But, strictly, it should be explained why there are no performer's rights to obey. But the composer's and texter's rights are most important. So I would probably not have nominated a folk song for DR and taken it off the main page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consider this. There are new folk songs and there is, in my opinion, a very big problem with describing a song (the notes and the lyrics) with a genre. More than just my personal ongoing bad experience trying to find specific music in any venue (retail, resale or informative display) where the selection has been sorted by genre -- ongoing since mid-1980s(!!) -- to decide if a particular sound is eh, relatively free or not by the styling of the sound is kind of dangerous if you are looking for potential problems.
"traditional" is the author whose works are always free. Those notes and lyrics can be presented in any style and with any instrument or voice quality (A cappella should not be an exception).
Additionally, I admit, I cared enough about this video and with the knowledge that Elvis did not write very many of his truly popular works and (such a pity) the authors of this song were born well after 1923. I would have considered fighting for it had I had been certain I would win. I am now wondering if there is a way to contact those authors -- surely by now this song has provided its share to the commercial community. (I know enough not to upload Jake and Elwoods version, for instance).
Saibo, you are too cool to be stuck in or caught by the genre scam/problem. Actual music genre only exists at some extremes and I can prove it with just a few examples. -- Queeg (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Queeg! Does File:Holst_The_Planets_Mercury.ogg (tomorrow's MOTD) play for you? For me: it does not play with the embedded player in firefox or opera. It does in VLC. I guess it is due to the sample rate of 22kHz - but I am not sure.
Hmm, it goes through the motions of playing, but it does not actually play. I think I downloaded this and played it -- oops. I can fix it and will do so right now. Thank you for checking on these things. -- Queeg (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: the today's MOTD is a bad choice ;) but: I have to blame me for not looking at it earlier. :D It is blurry, not really useful, not interesting (for me). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its blurry and there are many many problems with it -- but I thought it was really cool. What it lacks in photographic esthetic it makes up with being very funny. At least I thought this when I put it there. Thank you for not checking this one! -- Queeg (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, taste depends. ;) At least we do not have a blank main page thanks to your work! :)
Is there a common German phrase like our "Baby talk"? Here it is a method of speaking to young children. The phrase is not often used to describe positive communications with children -- like not using overly large words or too many adjectives. It is a phrase more often associated with raising the pitch of the voice, talking too slowly and cute and using nonsense words like "kitty cat" instead of "cat" or something worse like "num nums" for snack or treat instead of the word that the child should be learning.
Like, perhaps this happened when Americans were trying to describe a television to the Brits and that is the reason they now call this modern device a "tellie". -- Queeg (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I re-encoded it and it is (should be) uploading now. That was a good observation by you about the sample rate. I don't ever look but will be starting to now. -- Queeg (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is quite wrong, thank you for finding it. I think that the novae I found that had been categorized here under Category:Nova was far worse :). Another embarrassing problem I almost created started as a paste from Category:Aircraft maneuvres.
For non-controversial category changes, you can follow the instructions at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. For the Nova category, I'm unsure if it would fall under non-controversial, so I would let the discussion you started continue; if no one else voices a dissenting opinion, it'll typically be carried through. — Huntster (t@c)07:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hoi Queeg, many thanks for reorganizing this category! But please note that not every horse-drawn thing is a rake, and that not every sort of harvest is haymaking ;-) See here. Greetings --:bdk:03:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh -- I suspect this problem occurred because of that melon -- sawhorses, "hung like a horse", horse and carrot -- somewhere in my minds eye, the people and the horses became interchanged when remembering the contents of the video I had just viewed. That most of the thousands of videos that are hosted here fall on the "not a complete waste of my time" side of the boring or interesting scale does not always help to keep my mind clear.
Exactly the reason I chose this and I see that you either completely or almost completely "get it". I think of it more like a medical therapy though. I am unsure of the terminology for it -- where you "sicken" the host enough so that a persistent parasite will leave the body. It is only a metaphor and not a perfect one because this "therapy" does not hurt the host nor the parasite (the medical therapies cannot make this claim) and it is not completely like sisyphus either because with the exception of a cataclysmic change here (which might happen but in probability won't) my work here introduces an organic change which for the most part will stay in place -- new uploads will "tend" to go into the new tree.
The actual structure is unlike sisyphus or the first biographical instance of this kind of problem. L. -- plants and animals are so much more fluid than even fluids -- to try to categorize them in a lasting snapshot.
It could be much worse. This is simply and delightfully bad enough. btw, are you watching me for perhaps uploading more copyright violations? It takes a mightily strong annoyance to make me purposely upload such a thing -- such annoyances are extremely rare or they would no longer be annoying. I only ask because I am sorry for you if you are "watching for this kind of criminal behavior", it takes a miracle and I had one of these very recently. More for the "if", the *bookmark* message you left for me was quite chilling. I am still very impressed by that as it was hidden behind such banality. -- Queeg (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Tonka did not prepare me for commons categorization....)
Nah, I'm not watching your uploads, just noting some of your edits once in a while (when you change something that's on my watchlist, and that was the case with the agri* stuff).
Hmm, which "bookmark message" do you refer to? Did I left one anywhere? Well, I hope you don't mean the "deterrent effect" translation variant of the word "chilling" – I didn't intend anything like this with the above notes. Or did you mean the word sisyphean? If yes, I only linked it because I repeatedly made the experience that some English speakers don't know the story of Sisyphus. It's probably more common to European users – dunno where you are from, can only guess that you're not from the British Isles because of the z in categorization ;-) – and it's a good phrase to express "never ending" issues or "permanent work in progress" (none of the Wikip/media projects will ever be really finished, I guess – it would be boring if they were). --:bdk:08:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to feel badly about that file for a long while, I think.
Yesterday I was trying to find a different branch of physics for each variation of nebula -- which is not realistically possible. Today has been all about "is it a tool or is it a machine" and being glad that common names for plants have persisted here at least for the difference between crops and I guess, weeds. I quit when my brains get soft or when I start getting paranoid.
Sisyphus was a great metaphor but far from perfect for this situation, probably. I have encountered enough little messes of almost good ideas here to know that categories persist. And there is also the category scheme (which has its problems) and any user who is allowed to delete things who is deleting things that are in line with that scheme should be stopped. Which is simple enough of a guideline.
It is like a dump that is filled with a measurable percentage of jewels or some other metaphor for items of great value. The videos even more so. I suspect that the ratio of good videos to average or poor videos here is much greater than the ratio on other sites. I am surprised by how entertaining many of them have been. Perhaps the agricultural videos are the perfect example of this -- I would not have watched as many of them, or even any of them as I did. They were much better than I would have ever imagined. Commons videos contain a really good outline of their evolution, I think.
A better metaphor would be to have Sisyphus doing something more enjoyable, entertaining and mentally taxing than rolling a rock up a hill -- and doing this in a strong retreat, if those words can ever go together.
First and foremost, I enjoyed this new set of videos very much. This is the second time I get the opportunity to mention this :)
The Lake Powell videos -- that is apparently a mistake I have made. For certain, File:1993-06-08-Jeep-Safari-bei-Moab-(Utah).ogg and its lower resolution counterpart need to be wider. Jeeps are not that narrow. Perhaps the image needs to fill the frame?
The other videos from the trip to Monument Mountains, another mistake. Dreadful. Please accept my apology. I guess that I must have batched them up due to the brokenness of the one -- I try not to do that.
I have removed them from the category and perhaps I shall attempt to repair the two that have the resolution problems? No matter what company is manufacturing Jeeps, they are off-road vehicles and designed to have a lower center of gravity than your videos give them. -- Queeg (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, first the videos should be cropped and then resized. It is possible to do this steps within the compression process by using ffmpeg via command line. But do not try to do this with files previously compressed in the ogv formate, please use your mpg2 (or vob) originated from the DVD recorder. If you need any help feel free to contact me (gern auch in Deutsch). Gruß, --Pristurus (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Pristurus, Du hast Ergänzungen zu diesem Abschnitt vorgenommen. Leider ist mein Englisch nicht so gut, dass ich alles von Queeg verstanden habe. Ich habe die Videos in zwei Auflösungen hochgeladen, weil bei File:Grand canyon.ogg jemand anderes damit angefangen hatte und mir in einer Diskussion geraten wurde, das auch bei meinen anderen Videos zu machen, um kürzere Ladezeiten zu erreichen. Ich wollte aber keine OGV-Dateien sondern lieber OGG-Dateien. Was soll ich denn jetzt machen?
OK, auf Deutsch (in German): "Bei den Lake Powell Videos habe ich offenbar einen Fehler gemacht. Ganz sicher müssen jedoch File:1993-06-08-Jeep-Safari-bei-Moab-(Utah).ogg und sein Gegenstück mit der geringeren Auflösung breiter sein (Anmerkung: im Verhältnis zur Videohöhe, du kennst als Extrem sicherlich die Eierköpf, wenn man einen 16:9 Film im 4:3 Format abspielt). Jeeps sind nicht so schmal. Vielleicht sollte das Video den ganzen Bildbereich füllen." Benutze möglichst, falls noch vorhanden, deine ursprüngliche DVD-Aufzeichnung, sonst geht unnötig Videoqualität verloren. Schneide dort den Rahmen weg und skaliere das Video dann wieder auf die entsprechende Maße (640×480 bzw. 320x240), dann dürfte der unerwünschte Effekt verschwinden. Das kannst du in einem Videoprogramm (dann mit einem verlustfreien Codec z.B. Lagarith als Avi zwischenspeichern) oder auch einfach beim Umwandeln mit ffmpeg2theora machen. Wenn du weitere Hilfe benötigen solltest, melde dich einfach nochmal auf meiner Benutzerseite. Gruß, --Pristurus (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of China and The Battle of Russia were already subcategories of the parent Why We Fight category, so I undid these, as this was over-categorization. Also, some of the additional categories you added to Why We Fight were too narrowly focused on China only - the entire series covers all theaters of World War II and is not just limited to China, so most were removed. BrokenSphere (Talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used a search -- I was trying to find videos of the whole series -- I was surprised by the number of screenshots from the movie series that are here.
I had put more than half of them into the main category for the film series when I realized two things. That the film series had individual names for each section and more importantly, that your uploads had been categorized very sensibly.
Also, it should be evident that I did not watch the videos, another serious error on my part. The Chinese categories were a paste of a reduction of categories which were found on the series segments that were here that also have the Chinese subtitles.
Moving the videos of balance boards into a category of their own was a good idea. Maybe it will get people to contribute some and even shoot some. In that category's page ("Category:Videos of balance boards") there seems to be a problem with the edit syntax because that page doesn't appear on the page of the "Balance boards" category. I'm not familiar with the piped syntax and word order of the "Category:Balance boards| Videos of" double-bracketed tag, which appears on the Category:Videos of balance boards page.
Thanks for your work on this and Media of the Day.
Try holding the shift key down while reloading the page; it sometimes takes a while for altered pages to render and/or the page has been cached somewhere between the host computer and what your browser displays. (That cache could be a proxy or even your browser.)
The pipe syntax makes the category sort with whatever follows the pipe ("|") instead of the name of the page. I leave a space there for media or special format items which include audio, video and animation files. The space there puts them first in the listing which I prefer because "Videos of" is not a type of balance board. The types of balance boards, the actual subcategories of them, will still be displayed alphabetically with the first initial as a heading.
Commons has a lot of really great or great in their own way videos which are not also found at other video hosting web sites. I am not sure what the reason is that they were not often used for MOTD here -- probably something as simple as the few people who were putting videos there were also too busy to investigate what is here. I have been surprised at how much I enjoyed and/or learned from the videos which are here.
Was that you on the balance board in the park from last month? I have on this very page called that video "dull". I liked it because it is somewhat dull and for the artsy types here, a look into a reality where real people "master" challenges without a bunch of hoopla or pageantry or melodrama/farce.
Thanks for explaining the sortkey and the cache. That video of balancing in a park is boring, but it's drama for viewers with some kinds of training. The person in the video didn't want to be named. David Maisel (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems with equivalent categories for men. I just can't do everything alltogether at the same time ! But yes I claim theses cats are not useless or whatever. It's anyone's own business to judge if a picture or a cat is good or bad. The categories are describing what one can see on the files, it's not a question of mentality or moral issues. Actually it is a bit, let me explain : when you have for instance a picture with a nude person holding a Coca-Cola bottle, it would be logical to categorize the file in the Coca-Cola bottle category (after all, anyone who's looking for a file on a subject should find easily all the connected files) but it's far better to create subcat "nude person with..." in order to prevent unexpected viewing of nude/erotic/sexual material. Therefore the creation of theses categories have guided by this mission : making the files accessible and "protect" Commons userq from unwanted/unexpected viewing of nude files. In any case, nudity has to be treated almost the same way as any subject and I ask you not to judge me by the only fact that you see such contributions in my history. It's anyone's business to contribute for what they want. I don't judge you if you have a problem with nudity (maybe you don't, I don't care...). Last thing : if you think there's some kind of machism/sexism because I mainly contributed for nude women cats, let me be honest : 1) there are more female nudes than male nudes on Commons and it's not my fault ; 2) I am indeed more attracted by female nudity (not only because of my sexual orientation but also because I find it aesthetically far more interesting) ; 3) I have done some contributions about male nudity too (less, I admit, but I did) and I truly want to contribute for those categories later ; 4) if anyone contributes about churches categories, would you ask him to make some efforts with mosques or synagogues ? (yes, I like sarcasm too sometimes...) Thanks for your comprehension and regards. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...11:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on so many points! I asked an uploader of yet another erection photograph (COM:YAEP?) to consider getting on with life and enjoying other areas which are available to be enjoyed. My problem is not about the nudity photographs but about putting women who are known for other accomplishments into "women with red hair".
I would rather communicate with the uploader of the YAEP than with the uploaders of photographs of cultivated roses also.
I can tag.
How can just photographs of people who would like to be known for "wearing glasses" or "having red hair" be the only photographs that are in those cats? -- Queeg (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm can be funny but not always constructive.
I don't have answers for you about how useful all those cats can be. I just presuppose what users can do with Commons. If there are categories of women by hair color, there's no reason not to include nude pictures linked to those categories (again the same logic as explained above). And then there's a logic of category tree that leads to creation of topless subcats etc. Same logic with objects. I have to say I don't know why or how someone would search/need for instance a naked picture of a woman with a drinking glass. But again if a cat "People with drinking glasses" exists, why wouldn't we propose (at least indirectly in subcats) naked alternatives ? We also have to think about another hypothetical logic : nude categories would be overpopulated if subcats didn't exist and if one needs a nude photographs, one might have some more specific criterias than just "I need some nudity". Category trees on Commons exist to help people find what they are looking for, whatever they are looking for and whatever their purpose is.
I lost my sarcasm when you answered so quickly. I have forgotten my previous password, so I attempted to "remake" myself with a new nick. I seem to be encountering the same people, however and on occasion, like this one, they have the same nick and the same personality. I am a little remade with the new nick so, allow me to be glad to be communicating with you and I will allow you your skepticism and whatever your new opinions are.
Perhaps if the categories could start at Category:Models (people). "People by occupation" contains subcats of people and their hobbies or people doing things that they would like as an occupation but perhaps it is not their "employment". I am now a little confused about what "occupation" means now....
I am not "into" censorship. I was censored here, btw. More like "Tritismed" (they removed the words "shooting, skinny dipping" -- I can provide a link if you like.
I really don't understand what you're talking about with my "new opinions" etc... Anyway...
I don't understand your idea about a start at "Models (people)" ! Among nude pictures, many (I'd say most of them) are not models...
As you may see in my contribution history, I'm now trying to fix the unevenness between male and female categories. It's a long long work to make the category tree logical and easy... I actually think I'll soon stop for today (and maybe for a quite long moment because my holidays are finishing very soon...) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...12:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the nude photographs here are not of people who were "modeling" and perhaps of people who were not aware of the camera or did not want their photographs taken?
I was just thinking that if the categories that are about the physical parameters of a body and not about something else -- that they could start at "Models (people)" which would put them under people by occupation and not "people".
I am not going to look at your contributions with any amount of making you stop or start anything. Perhaps I will restart those categories at models (people) -- they want to have those photographs taken of them?
Funny/witty well-adjusted people are often just that. Certainly, you could prove me right or wrong on this point. Was it the "cultivated roses" comment that tweaked a nerve? I meant literally just that floral phenomena. -- Queeg (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment the parts that I believe useless (including the strange funny guess about my personality...)
There's a big difference between being aware of and modelling.
Those (many) nude subcats are objective describing cats (anatomy description and/or physical and/or attitude, etc). This doesn't presuppose any occupation. The question of occupation is a different matter, but of course, when it may seem useful or logical, one can create crossed nude/occupation cats. I had already created cats like Category:Nude porn actresses for instance, or Category:Nudist men. I guess you could create Category:Nude models too but of course that wouldn't include all the nudes of Commons ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a lot of categories for videos here. I found a video of a craftsman working with tin. He had a workshop and could lecture (for too long, as it was not in my language). I found another video of children working with tin in some classroom or similar. They both go into the same category. It is simple like that and has to be simple like that. It is also what I really really like about the commons collection. Truthfully, those little kids were doing as nice of work as the demonstration people at the museums but they were more cute while they did this work.
I don't know how far the comparison between being nude in a photograph and metal work can go -- probably not too far but the point is that eh, the commons collection is far from "professional" in any category that you care to look into with some occasional astoundingly professionally accomplished web page media (image, video, pdf, etc).
I don't want to think about the "nudes of commons" most of them are probably typing that way and not uploading images of it....
Saibo calls his subject "models". And it is nice to have some bacon and onions in the bean soup. Salt, pepper a bay leaf or two and an ingredient that I will keep secret. -- Queeg (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not going to stop removing them. Being a politician is not a gender specific thing and I find it easier to remove them -- both on my mind and as far as the task goes -- than it would be to find all of the male politicians and cat them that way.
The first time I saw this category, it was a woman who had been the first woman in her country to be in that role. It was six--ty to seventy years ago. What is that in "internet years"? The category scheme unfortunately does not allow for "First woman" categories or "First monkey in space" or "First general motors accident". So, I guess that old broad is just going to have to be happy with being considered a "politician" now.
I love the differences in the genders; I might even have problems where I prefer or trust one over the other -- but not having the problem has to start in our open and collaborative and public works. I celebrate them and always always want them to exist. But the roles are not gender specific any longer. -- Queeg (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you something : Commons is a community. If you think such a category tree is not normal or unnecessary, you have to discuss about it before. Commons is not YOUR project. You MUST NOT decided things like that unilaterally. So discuss, give your arguments, but don't decide by yourself and accept the decisions. Those cats have existed for a very long time so you can't question them so easily and with arguing. So yes, you MUST stop and respect the rules of Commons. Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...13:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. With one problem -- the coffee I just drank. With the exception that it should be interesting to see who has a problem with the removal of the cats -- perhaps I will just wait to see who has a problem with the removal of the categories.... -- Queeg (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been far more clever to create "male politicians" categories instead of removing "female politicians" ones ! I see that you definitely have some kind of frustration about the way men and women are treated, which is fair but you can struggle differently. Be constructive, not destructive ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...14:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be singled out. It is one of the simpler ideas here. I removed "Single women" categories from several also. It is wrong, rarely is it so clearly wrong. Hell, half of those cats were made in 2010 but a person whose user name is Wikix, so I don't know if you are really up on the details of those categories. -- Queeg (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's another issue... (and I quite agree with you for that "single women" cat).
But we do have logical separate cats such as sportsmen and sportswomen. There are also cats by country (women from France and men from France for instance). And I see no problem a all with that (at least as long as we have both or if there's a logical reason to have a female cat - because of obvious differences etc) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...14:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
France wants to stay in the 13th century -- are all of its Male politicians categorized? I still claim that it is easier to just put them all together.
Do you know what I am really sorry about. Really really sorry -- to the point where I almost can't stand it? That I have to wait for about 10 internet years for this. -- Queeg (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well why don't we also put altogether the politicians of every parties and delete "policians by party" cats ? Oh and let's destroy the whole category tree after all ?
Political parties are an entity -- they meet, they try to work together. Political gender is not an entity that I know of. -- Queeg (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove content from the female politician categories. If you believe that the categories are innapropriate, continue to pursue the issue at the Village Pump, or nominate the category tree for deletion. In the meantime, do not empty out the subcats. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you have been tired by some annoyances. Here is some baklava for you! For your hard work on commons. Nevits_292 gradients are by me. But the site is not mine. I uploaded the first version of gradients for GIMP 1.x to ftp.gimp.org (2001) I updated the file to be compatible to changes in GIMP 2.x bu ftp no longer accepted the file. So I put it on Deviant art. The file can be a mirror of original version or updated version. Commons do not accept zip, but a version for Inkscape is available File:Gradients.svg on commons. Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance at commons:Deletion policy#Duplicates recommends that we not delete redirects where the image has been removed; and that is less with regard to internal linking, and more for the fact that the files may be externally linked, which is allowable. Such that we would generally only delete recently uploaded files, or files that are demonstrated not to be used on the web. — billinghurstsDrewth01:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to argue against this thing that you call policy and I call tendency but I am failing to find an argument with this one exception: If I were displaying an image from this web site on a web page that I made, I think I would prefer that the image disappeared rather than become all of a sudden 10 to 100 times larger.... -- Queeg (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, deletion requests are not votes. If you just say "delete" without mentioning why, you are wasting your time, because your 'vote' we be completely ignored. Jcb (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I need to "paste" something like "as per nom" for my simple vote to be meaningful and counted? What would be the difference? -- Queeg (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would ignore your 'as per nom' as well, but others maybe not. If somebody just pastes 'as per nom', for most closing admins it will depend on his experience with the user who posts it. For example if I see an 'as per nom' from Jim or Túrelio, I will not easily keep the file, because they are very experienced and respected admins. Jcb (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really look into an image before I suggest deleting it. That statement is true most of the time. I would be very happy if the what or who that I failed to find before I nominated an image for deletion was revealed within a vote contrary to my nomination. On voting for the deletion of images, perhaps I research them less but it is the contrary vote which to me, has meaning other than the more simple agreement.
There is already such a struggle to not become automatic; to require that simple agreement become abnormally complex does not help. The deletion of images is either yes or a qualified no, very factual and not inventive. -- Queeg (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About the owners license plate, I am curious if one model has more value than another model. I double checked myself, not for that reason, but for other reasons. The 62 Series of that year did have the fender skirts and it still looked to me like (after the double check) that this was one of the details that made the Eldorado different from the 62 Series, which it was only different from with a few details. The double check was to see if perhaps it was the 62 Series from 1953, but its got that plate on the dashboard. BTW!!, my compliments to the photographer. Seriously. The other problem that this vehicle has for being a 1953 Eldorado is the fins. They became "bulbous" in later models.
Then, and now, a third check. I have been downloading brochures and information -- anything that I can find, I sorted that whole category which had a weird "off by 3" error (a phenomena which does not exist naturally) and had to make decisions on a few of these vehicles and started a gallery whose purpose is to help to identify Eldorados. Cadillac Eldorado I discovered the fin and fender problem when I was putting that together.
I would not object to help to verify all of this. Eh, car companies are not innocent about this kind of thing either. I was told once that the factories will shut down the production line, change the trim somewhat and then restart making a vehicle which costs a couple of thousand dollars more than the first trim schemed vehicle.
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!
UYou've been around long enough to know that your comments on my talk page were far beyond the line of civility, and crossed into personal attacks. If you would like to have a civil discussion, that would be nice, but if you cannot leave the ad hominem attacks out of your discourse, perhaps it would be better not to continue. Courcelles (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what ad hominem means. Can you provide a definition for it especially in the context which you are using this phrase?
Was it the fae comment that so deeply offended you? what is your problem and I will apologize or find a suggestion for "qualified people" to avoid it.
Pushing a button that triggers a script that undoes a persons contributions -- are you apologizing for this? I should know what ad hominem means. I will continue my uploads (you know, what we are doing here when we are not pushing little buttons that mindlessly prevent that) and you can explain how I offended you more clearly and how your conduct is good in a situation where a lot of people are working together. -- Queeg (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to remind you about personal attacks, only to find (just above) that you had been warned about personal attacks about a day before! This is unacceptable, you must not make personal comments about other users. Because you have continued to do so after fair warning, I have blocked you for three days to give you time to cool down. --99of9 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.
Request reason: "Not providing a valid reason to rename a file which obviously requires a renaming should be accompanied by a valid reason to not rename it. The reason provided was that I did not express myself according to their list of acceptable replies. I hold a great belief that administrators should be constantly able to proof their own humanity. Providing a reason to take the action that has been requested is one of those things. Please be real."
Decline reason: "This block is not to do with file renaming, it is to do with civility. Humanity is a two way street: you are insulting humans, and Commons does not tolerate users who insult humans with personal attacks. --99of9 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
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!
Hi Queeg, I'm just wondering the logic behind the defaultsort for categories like Category:AS-202. Are they the order in which particular missions launched, or is there another logic? Are these written down somewhere? Where would AS-209, which did not launch and is sitting at the KSC Visitor's Center, fall in this sorting? Thanks. — Huntster (t@c)01:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Audio_files_of_1848 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!
Category:Audio_files_of_the_1840s 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!
Template:AudioFamily 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 template, 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.
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!
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!
Category:George_W._Bush_on_20_July 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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
File:DeepElmBlues.ogg 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!
"Electronical motion picture": -> it is a video
"Electronical motion picture": -> it is a video
