User talk:Fæ: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Tom Morris (talk | contribs) →Kevin and Aren: Fæ, a plea for sanity. |
|||
| Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
Seriously Fæ, go ask some wikifriends offline to review your comments in the last few days. You need some friendly advice. Take a break. The more you write, the more of a complete ass you are making of yourself. I'm not a person who bears grudges. If you take some time-out and take a reality check, then I hope to see you back again at FP and I'll be sure to review your nomination fairly. I know you do a lot of great stuff for Commons. I'm just really disappointed at your attitude here. Nothing you say about me is true. Not one thing. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
Seriously Fæ, go ask some wikifriends offline to review your comments in the last few days. You need some friendly advice. Take a break. The more you write, the more of a complete ass you are making of yourself. I'm not a person who bears grudges. If you take some time-out and take a reality check, then I hope to see you back again at FP and I'll be sure to review your nomination fairly. I know you do a lot of great stuff for Commons. I'm just really disappointed at your attitude here. Nothing you say about me is true. Not one thing. [[User:Colin|Colin]] ([[User talk:Colin|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
:You may wish to step back and follow your own advice. Your action to censor a photograph from an established gay photographer was not supported by the community and yet you fail to recognize that your unilateral approach to suppressing an image you found distasteful from FPC discussion was not acceptable. Using offensive language to marginalise my concerns is not helping your case. Until you come around to realize that your behaviour here has been a problem and not supported by guidelines or policy, please do not write on my talk page again, it can only serve to cause more stress. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
:You may wish to step back and follow your own advice. Your action to censor a photograph from an established gay photographer was not supported by the community and yet you fail to recognize that your unilateral approach to suppressing an image you found distasteful from FPC discussion was not acceptable. Using offensive language to marginalise my concerns is not helping your case. Until you come around to realize that your behaviour here has been a problem and not supported by guidelines or policy, please do not write on my talk page again, it can only serve to cause more stress. Thanks --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ#top|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Fæ, I have to agree with Colin here. This is getting absurd. The argument made regarding this image is clear as day: full-frontal nudity, male or female, is something that other contributors could potentially find issue with when it comes to editing Commons at work. I work in an open plan office and opening up the 'Kelvin and Aren' picture in the office would be highly problematic. It's nothing to do with the fact that the image is male rather than female nudity, nor around how it depicts LGBT subject matter. (My colleagues are extremely accepting and welcoming of LGBT people and I am out at work.) |
|||
:I'm writing this from a commuter train on the way home from my job. If I were to open up the image on my laptop, my fellow commuters may get rather a shock. There are no children in the vicinity of my laptop. If a policeman were on the train and saw my laptop, I may be considered to be breaching the peace, or far worse. This isn't the attitude of a censorious mind or the mind of someone who is either intent on suppressing LGBT-related content or homophobic (and I'd like to think I'm not self-hating). |
|||
:Let's stop the panic now. Homophobia exists. I had some idiot on the train shouting homophobic abuse at me over the weekend. Having someone make the good faith suggestion that it might be nice to not have full-frontal nudity appear on their work computer is not a good reason for working up this kind of lather about how FPC isn't "LGBT friendly". It serves no purpose except to make LGBT contributors—and those contributing on LGBT-related topics—look like drama queens. —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 20:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== File:Plate with fresh meat.jpg == |
== File:Plate with fresh meat.jpg == |
||
Revision as of 20:05, 5 November 2013
 | .jpg) Faebot is alive in different places, not tied to any specific kit, so some tasks running on Labs have proven stability and carry on regardless of whether human me is still around. However tasks running from my local desktop may pause when my home machine is off for safety reasons. A few tasks run on a headless Raspberry Pi, which should be more resilient it can continue unattended. --Fæ (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Spring migration. Due to deciding to finally abandon Python2 based Pywikibot scripts, it may be that old housekeeping might just stop. With a focus on new projects, moving some of the older tasks to Python3 may either stay on the uncertain volunteer backlog for a very long time or will remain permanently under the watermargin. --Fæ (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
If you want to see Python source code that supports some of my projects, go to Github and help yourself. The code is not written with reuse in mind... --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
If you are concerned that a category gets flooded with automated uploads, check that a template like {{Disambig}}, {{Photographs}}, {{Categorise}}, {{CatDiffuse}} or {{CatCat}} has been applied before complaining. In the case of my batch upload projects, any category marked this way will not be added to new photographs. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 |
Fæ's upload of the month 2013
-
March (Norden) -
April (DoD)
-
June (DoD) -
August (MoD) -
September (DoD) -
October (MoD)
_miljominister_och_minister_for_nordiskt_samarbete_Danmark._Studiebesok_Energi-_og_Vandvaerkstedet_2010-03-23.jpg)
Hidden cat problem
Hi Fae, I've encountered a problem with the Geograph backlog, and wondered if you could saddle up one of your bots to run a fix?
At present if someone uses hotcat to add a category to a geograph image then the template goes away as if it is now categorised, even if the category is a hidden one. Could that be changed or the template reinserted? I fixed one here and have come across several others where the only category we now have for the image is the photographer. I know you have a way to run bots that adds photographer cats without losing the uncategorised template, so you'll appreciate the problem. Obviously when I find them I can sometimes fix them, but it would be much easier if they were in the category for that geocode so I could just pick them up with Catalot. WereSpielChequers (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's possible. One solution would be to pick up all children of Category:Photographs by photographer (which is where all such category ought to be listed, if not the the Geograph photographers category I set up last year), then run through the 1.8 million Geograph images (luckily this can happen using a local cache from a large USB stick
) checking whether images with no visible cats use {{Chc}} or the Geograph specific version of it, or whether there is only one category and it happens to be one of the photographer cats which is not marked to be hidden. - I'm looking at something for Wales right now (which, behind the scenes, was rather harder than I expected), as well as juggling the Airliners project with my other hand, but this looks like something I could knock off, reusing some existing scripts I have around, in a week or two. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would be brilliant, thank you very much. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pondering this, a subtle solution would be to re-instate a removed check-categories template by checking through past version histories. This would have the benefit of restoring a past date rather than resetting the clock. Probably more intensive in terms of resources, so might take longer to run, and for me to write, but exercising interesting techniques. --Fæ (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- The date makes no difference to me, but it might for others. And yes in principle, since the template should't have been lost it is best to put it back as before. WereSpielChequers (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pondering this, a subtle solution would be to re-instate a removed check-categories template by checking through past version histories. This would have the benefit of restoring a past date rather than resetting the clock. Probably more intensive in terms of resources, so might take longer to run, and for me to write, but exercising interesting techniques.
- That would be brilliant, thank you very much. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(1_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
{{Autotranslate|1=File:Kristen Gille helps load items belonging to her co-worker, Victoria Manning, and Manning's husband, U.S. Army Sgt. Jonathan Manning, into a rental truck May 25, 2013, in Moore, Okla 130525-Z-BI488-123.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Commented. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Autotranslate|1=File:Big Bend National Park PA272546.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Noted. Could you fix whatever tool you are using to avoid the extra section title being created? --Fæ (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. I actually did it manually, which created the problem. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- You may want to play with the standard tools, they do this stuff reliably. I was actually referring to the extra section on this talk page.--Fæ (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know what you're talking about, and I know what it is that I did wrong. Should have just left the subject/headline field blank. Thanks. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- You may want to play with the standard tools, they do this stuff reliably. I was actually referring to the extra section on this talk page.--Fæ (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. I actually did it manually, which created the problem. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Autotranslate|1=File:Family enjoying outdoors.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw}} McZusatz (talk) 10:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Commented. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Hi, the nomination of the additional files was not valid for the following two reasons:
- The files were not tagged for deletion
- The files were not listed in the DR
The file description page must link to the DR with the deletion template and the DR must link to the file. Feel free to create a new DR for the remaining files. I am already going to delete some, in relation to an OTRS ticket. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- The effective norm for Commons bundled DRs where all of an account's uploads are under review is to link to the upload list. In an attempt to comply with your reading that a list is needed I added a list. The user was notified that the DR was a bundle DR relating to all these images and tagging every image seems excessive, it can be done, but the easiest thing for me would be to raise separate DRs and this gets a bit silly for a large bundle of DRs. --Fæ (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted descriptions in Images_from_ReusableArt
Hi Fae,
As the uploader I wanted to alert you of a discussion I posted on the Copyright Village Pump regarding a large upload of images you did in March. Let me know (either on wiki or off) if you have any questions or issues. Jalexander--WMF 23:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Followed up there, batch fix underway. --Fæ (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
What did you mean by this, "Blurred Lines, you may wish to avoid being drawn into discussing personal information any further."? Blurred Lines 21:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just the normal practice of DENY, nothing deep. BTW if you have issues related to personal information it can help to discuss how best to handle it by email with an admin you trust. Fæ (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I said it befor, now the second and last time: STOP spamming this stupid template! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- For an admin of this project, you manage to be remarkably rude to those attempting to contribute in good faith and firmly within project scope. If you think I am spamming, please provide an example that I can review to see whether it complies with community consensus or not. I actually don't think anything I have been doing this week introduced the chc template, but I might have overlooked something. If you continue publicly to defame me as a spammer, I shall ask for advice on COM:AN on how best to handle your claims. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Fæ's upload of the month for November 2013
Part of the Airliners project—uploading 100,000 photographs of aircraft.
Question
For a user that has been here since 2010, and already has more than a million here on Commons, have you ever thought of becoming a administrator or a bureaucrat? Blurred Lines 14:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- LOL, yes. Not being an administrator significantly hampers my abilities to do useful work here, including the work I do behind the scenes as an OTRS volunteer. See Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ3 for my most recent admin request. --Fæ (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(1_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
Dear Fae, Someone filed a bunch of speedy deletes on this image and other images that you uploaded. Do you know what is going on? Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- No idea. Looks like nonsense to me. :-) Fæ (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Hopefully this is not the work of a vandal. I filed a speedy on one image and then saw these other valuable images uploaded by someone I trust (you). Hopefully, the person here will cite the claim behind this speedy delete or someone will dismiss the speedy tag. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- The IP is in Los Angeles, so this might be LACMA, but they would do better to raise a DR or just use my talk page to explain the problem. Fæ (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fae, the whole series of images are not historically correct, the Museum failed to update the images by mistake, when they realized that the armor in question had been displayed incorrectly they took measures to restore it, this armor has now been restored to its historically correct condition and the museum is in the process of replacing the current images with the new historically correct images. These images are of absolutely no value as they now appear to anyone with an interest in Persian armor, it would be in everyones best interest if these images were deleted. Here is a discussion on this armor which may help explain the problem. I ran into this image of a Persian mail and plate shirt and I had to laugh, this is in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldantiques (talk • contribs)
- Interesting. I would say this makes this small series of images within project scope as an example of an incorrect reconstruction and display of an artefact. This will be doubly so when there are corrected images to compare to. I think these should go to a deletion request where this can be discussed. As for being misleading, that is easy to fix, we just change the text of the descriptions and the file names. --Fæ (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I am a bit busy this weekend, so just in case these get deleted without discussion completing, here is the reference list:
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (1 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (2 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (4 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (8 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (9 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Mail-and-plate dizcek (cuisse or knee and thigh armor) 6 LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (7 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Mail-and-plate dizcek (cuisse or knee and thigh armor) 7 LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (6 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (10 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (12 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (13 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (14 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (16 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (17 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (19 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (20 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (21 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (22 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (23 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (25 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- File:Zirh gomlak (zirah baktar-bagtar) a mail and plate shirt LACMA M.73.5.729a-j (27 of 27).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(1_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(1_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(1_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(1_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(1_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(2_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(2_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(2_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(2_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(2_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(2_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(4_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(4_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(4_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(4_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(4_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(4_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(8_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(8_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(8_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(8_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(8_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(8_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(9_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(9_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(9_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(9_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(9_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(9_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_6_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(7_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_6_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(7_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_6_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(7_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(7_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_6_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(7_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_6_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(7_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_7_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(6_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_7_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(6_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_7_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(6_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(6_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_7_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(6_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_7_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(6_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(10_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(10_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(10_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(10_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(10_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(10_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(12_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(12_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(12_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(12_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(12_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(12_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(13_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(13_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(13_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(13_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(13_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(13_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(14_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(14_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(14_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(14_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(14_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(14_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(16_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(16_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(16_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(16_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(16_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(16_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(17_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(17_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(17_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(17_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(17_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(17_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(19_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(19_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(19_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(19_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(19_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(19_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(20_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(20_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(20_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(20_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(20_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(20_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(21_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(21_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(21_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(21_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(21_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(21_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(22_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(22_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(22_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(22_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(22_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(22_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(23_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(23_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(23_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(23_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(23_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(23_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(25_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(25_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(25_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(25_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(25_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(25_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(27_of_27).jpg){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(27_of_27).jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(27_of_27).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(27_of_27).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(27_of_27).jpg&limit=999){kind=link}
_a_mail_and_plate_shirt_LACMA_M.73.5.729a-j_(27_of_27).jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
I'm presuming that the missing numbers from the sequence were due to duplicate or incorrectly allocated images in the LACMA catalogue. --Fæ (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is not an historical incorrect reconstruction, some museum employee recently put knee armor on the shoulders and took a picture, the misrepresentation is when people look at these images and think that this is the correct way that armor of this type actually looks, as for changing the text description and file names, this has been done already but people have already passed these images around as legitimate images, they serve no purpose as an historical artifact.samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
"Happy Diwali!"
Kevin and Aren
I hope you understand my edit here isn't out of personal prudishness or some anti-porn crusade. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, I have responded there. --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- We've got on well in the past. Please don't make this a battle. It isn't about censorship at all. I just plain can't participate at FPC if such images are on display 5"x5". My morality has nothing to do with it. I have no problem with the image. Colin (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, however I fail to understand how your comments about morality which you chose to introduce to that discussion, do not relate to your understanding of morals. It reads as an attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with your actions as having inferior morals. I am happy to write this off as a misunderstanding of English, however I can only go by what has been written. --Fæ (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- We've got on well in the past. Please don't make this a battle. It isn't about censorship at all. I just plain can't participate at FPC if such images are on display 5"x5". My morality has nothing to do with it. I have no problem with the image. Colin (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Fae, I prefer to comment here rather than on the nomination or the FP talk. Hiding the image preview on the high traffic page is a fair practice followed by us, especially in FPC. People voluntarily do it; or an experienced editor does it as a moderator. I think you take it personal, as you are not very common there. (You may ask Howcheng or Crisco 1492 in case of a doubt.)
- We review FPCs in our free time; sometimes at home, or at work. So chances are people around us, including children. We’re not expecting a restricted content on a page like the main page or FPC. If it is only a link, we can take precautionary measures prior to explicitly opening it. I think, that is what Colin said. Keep nominating if you wish so; but give only links, please.
- As I said earlier, I sympathise with the discrimination and difficulties faced by the LGBT community; and I appreciate your works for them.
- I remember Colin nominated a few of your works at FPC earlier, even though not succeeded.
- [Offtopic: IMO, it is good for commons to keep such works away from the front pages, as a precautionary measure to not fall into the eyes of local governments. As a user from India, I can’t view the original sources page in Flickr. (Note: If your login ID is based in Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Korea, Taiwan or with Maktoob.com you will only be able to view safe content based on your local Terms of Service (this means you won’t be able to turn SafeSearch off). If your login ID is based in Germany or Romania you are not able to view restricted content due to your local Terms of Service.) So chances that such Govts compel WMF also to take such measures.]
- So I suggest you to undo that revert, respecting the feelings of him (and many others, including me). JKadavoor Jee 07:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am afraid this does just look like prudishness. There is no oppressive government to worry about with regard to this artistic photograph, it has been on public display by the artist in New York with no complaint or protest from anybody. If yourself or Colin wish to establish a special practice of censorship on FPC, then please do run a RFC to establish a consensus for doing so which includes an unambiguous description of exactly what is to be censored. There are past examples of artworks featuring (non-gay) nudity which were not censored, so this should be discussed by the community to ensure consistent practices for censorship that can be seen to be fairly applied and that have an independent process of appeal should there be a challenge.
- Yes, the LGBT community does routinely suffer discrimination in many forms, both overt and covert censorship of gay artwork has a very long history and continues to happen today in ways that would not apply to "normal" artworks. One of the things I love about volunteering my time to support Commons is that artists like Kargaltsev are not suppressed here.
- If we are in the position that explicit homoerotic artworks such as the Warren Cup can be put on public display by the British Museum, in full view of children (more than that, the display was even lowered to make it wheel-chair friendly, without worrying that children could then see the detail of the homoerotic artwork), yet on Commons any gay related nudity would be censored, then the Commons starts to look more oppressive than most governments. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is bad to take different stands for homoerotic and erotic works. But artworks and works depicting real people are different. Works showing genitals of real people are generally considered “restricted contents”, semi-nude without showing genitals are considered “moderate “. I’m against displaying “restricted contents” on front pages. We usually cover our genitals in front of public to show our respects to them, am I right? Take it or not; this is only my friendly suggestion. I agree we (the new generation people) are losing self and mutual respects day by day, nowadays. :) JKadavoor Jee 09:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, I like this picture; very emotional without any nudity. But not enough technical quality for an FP; as Colin said below. JKadavoor Jee 09:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- So I suggest you to undo that revert, respecting the feelings of him (and many others, including me). JKadavoor Jee 07:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
You say "I fail to understand how your comments about morality which you chose to introduce to that discussion". Please indicate which of my comments represent me introducing my morality into the discussion. Right from the first statement, I've made it clear I have no problem with the image and that any image that fits Commons policies has a right to be FP. I'm disappointed you continue to use the "censored" word and that you choose to ignore my request to not inflame this into a battle over censorship. I'm disappointed you are trying to turn this into a Gay-rights issue when there's not even the slightest hint that is the problem here (I'd most certainly do the same for a similar image of two women, or man and woman). I'm disappointed that my attempt to find (on your request) a neutral definition of what kind of image might cause problems (from Flickr) was mocked by you in your response ("Thanks for your concern for my family..."). I am rather astounded that you think this image might actually be safe for work, because it has been on display in a New York gallery, say. I'm disappointed you use hostile language to me ("Rubbish...") rather than being mellow. I'm disappointed an experienced Wikipedian doesn't know the definition of edit warring. I'm disappointed you are putting words into my mouth ("please do not assume your morals are superior") and trying to score points by setting up a straw man to take down.
Fæ, I respect your morals and the right to host and possibly feature this image on Commons. I have in the past argued strongly for displaying difficult pictures (e.g. Smallpox on Wikipedia) but appreciate the need to show editorial judgement. I'm simply asking for some respect in return. I don't see why using a courtesy link rather than displaying the image in the FPC list is some great censorship issue. As my Mum said, pick your battles -- this really isn't one we need to fall out over. Choosing to use a link isn't a slippery slope towards censorship on Commons, and would be a great example of being mellow and trying to get along with one's fellows. I have started a discussion on talk-FPC. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you made a mistake when you stated "the kind of morality views at Commons", being the first point anyone mentioned morals in that discussion and in the process appearing to set yourself against or above the rest of the Commons community's "morals", then please do go back and correct your statement.
- I am the co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT and Commons is my primary project. You can expect me to ask questions and to be concerned about use of Wikimedia projects where gay subjects are being suppressed or where LGBT volunteers are having problems contributing. Whether this was your intention or not, if this non-sexual photograph is suppressed, then Commons would appear to be allowing the censorship of a gay artwork. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Read the whole sentence. This isn't about me vs community "morals" but about people I have no control over such as my colleagues, my personnel department, my in-laws, etc. I can't dictate to them that they should be mellow and respect my wishes to view genitals in my lunchbreak. That you have misinterpreted it reflects you knee-jerk reaction.
- I think perhaps you are unfamiliar with the (often over)-high standard that FP expects of studio photographs. There's a bit of a bias against them to be honest. A lot of amateurs are unfamiliar that professional photographs often look crap at 100% 20MP but just fine when printed or displayed on the web. Many reviewers obsess with pixel-peeping (see my other FPC comment yesterday). Perhaps it genuinely does have focus issues but I haven't reviewed this image in detail (didn't get an opportunity yesterday). You may be interpreting the negative voting for some anti-LGBT conspiracy but this not the case. Colin (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- As an example, look at User:Colin/Norden. All the images with a "*" against them are ones I think are contenders for Featured Picture. But I'm reluctant to nominate them because of the issues I note above. Colin (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whether this photograph will be voted through as a FP is not the issue, the issue is censoring the image from even being displayed as part of the FPC discussion. Frankly if the FPC process is to censor selected images then I believe it would be better to disallow censored images from ever getting FP status; precisely the same reasons for censorship should apply as a photograph does not stop being NSFW just because it becomes FP, if anything if there is a problem then it must be considered a magnitude worse for FPs due to the far higher level of exposure and views they will then receive. If there is to be an RFC on FP censorship, then I think it ought to apply for all the community, not the handful that vote at FPC discussions. As you seem reluctant to do so, I am thinking of creating the RFC myself, just to ensure the community consensus with regard to this type of censorship is completely clear in the future. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Done RFC created at Commons:Featured picture candidates/RFC: Censoring NSFW photographs. Please add past examples, noting that the example of the suppression of File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg was on the English Wikipedia rather than on Commons and so is not a valid example. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)- Well I certainly don't think FP should be censored so if you frame your RFC that way then it will deservedly crash. Perhaps that's your intention. I would strongly oppose such a proposal. I continue to press you to stop with the "censorship" stuff. Use that word and any RFC will fail -- that's why I called it the "C-word". It just hits an emotive button that people are unable to get beyond. Like the "a free licence is a free licence" issue I faced on the "Appropriately licensed" discussion. You'll just get a hundred "Commons is NOT CENSORED" votes and absolutely no sensible discussion.
- Although Commons is not censored wrt hosting, I think there is room for the community to ask for some editorial restraint wrt difficult images being included on general community discussion pages such as the FPC list. Is this too much to ask? Apparently so.
- Ah, I see someone has started already with the "NOT CENSORED" mantra on the FPC talk page and included a nude photo just to make their point. Well I'm off then. Great result. Colin (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you did not want to force a community discussion to reach a consensus on this point, then you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me without discussing it with the community first. Concern created from your threats to leave should not supersede or override having a real consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- No I'm not threatening to leave the project (but can't say I'm on a wiki-high just at present) just that discussion has now been spoiled by Ralf. I've never found Ralf to understand a word I say (major language issues) and to always oppose everything I do so I'm not surprised at his reaction. I see you've posted a request to not do that, but can't bring yourself to "censor" it yourself. Why is it you think it reasonable to show some restraint on that discussion page but not on the FPC page? How nasty for Ralf spoil a discussion I started in a way designed to make it less likely I will want to participate further. That's just not fair.
- Your Centralised discussion says "whether censorship of photographs at Featured Pictures is supported by the community". This is absolutely not what the discussion is about. I would strongly appreciate you rewording your RFC. This isn't censorship.
- As for me needing to discuss this first, or taking into account you and this particular image's sensitivities. What a lot of crap. Links are used by editors on Commons as a courtesy. This is not uncommon. I have treated this image no differently to that of any image of any sexuality by any Commons user. I am disgusted that you think you deserve special treatment. Colin (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- From the start you have accused me of edit warring (when I only made one edit) and called me out here as not being mellow for using the word "Rubbish" when refuting your claim. At the same time you appear to believe that your moral views should have priority for FPC and that a community consensus is a bad thing, while you reduce my viewpoint to "a lot of crap" and claim that I am expecting special treatment.
- I think a pause for at least a day on this discussion would be sensible, so that is what I am going to do rather than respond to what appears to my eyes to have become a rant that would be better off not published on Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Where have I indicated "my moral views" should have any say whatsoever? Where have I said community consensus is a bad thing? Really you are just putting words in my mouth. Like the whole gay agenda nonsense. Fæ, as far as I'm concerned, you are a guy who uploads a lot of photographs for the benefit of Commons, who I've worked with in the past and added hundreds of them to Wikipedia. I couldn't and shouldn't give a damn what your sexuality is and what kind of image you want featured. Your comment "you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me" is essentially I picked the wrong fight with the wrong guy. I was under the impression we were wikifriends, hence my friendly note to you. You've just escalated this to some major battle about censorship and suppression of gay artwork, and been quite horrible to me. A break would be very good for you, perhaps you'll get some perspective and calm down a bit. Just a wikilink? Not the end of enlightenment. Colin (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you did not want to force a community discussion to reach a consensus on this point, then you might have been better off not suppressing an obviously gay artistic image proposed by someone as openly gay as me without discussing it with the community first. Concern created from your threats to leave should not supersede or override having a real consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Seriously Fæ, go ask some wikifriends offline to review your comments in the last few days. You need some friendly advice. Take a break. The more you write, the more of a complete ass you are making of yourself. I'm not a person who bears grudges. If you take some time-out and take a reality check, then I hope to see you back again at FP and I'll be sure to review your nomination fairly. I know you do a lot of great stuff for Commons. I'm just really disappointed at your attitude here. Nothing you say about me is true. Not one thing. Colin (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- You may wish to step back and follow your own advice. Your action to censor a photograph from an established gay photographer was not supported by the community and yet you fail to recognize that your unilateral approach to suppressing an image you found distasteful from FPC discussion was not acceptable. Using offensive language to marginalise my concerns is not helping your case. Until you come around to realize that your behaviour here has been a problem and not supported by guidelines or policy, please do not write on my talk page again, it can only serve to cause more stress. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fæ, I have to agree with Colin here. This is getting absurd. The argument made regarding this image is clear as day: full-frontal nudity, male or female, is something that other contributors could potentially find issue with when it comes to editing Commons at work. I work in an open plan office and opening up the 'Kelvin and Aren' picture in the office would be highly problematic. It's nothing to do with the fact that the image is male rather than female nudity, nor around how it depicts LGBT subject matter. (My colleagues are extremely accepting and welcoming of LGBT people and I am out at work.)
- I'm writing this from a commuter train on the way home from my job. If I were to open up the image on my laptop, my fellow commuters may get rather a shock. There are no children in the vicinity of my laptop. If a policeman were on the train and saw my laptop, I may be considered to be breaching the peace, or far worse. This isn't the attitude of a censorious mind or the mind of someone who is either intent on suppressing LGBT-related content or homophobic (and I'd like to think I'm not self-hating).
- Let's stop the panic now. Homophobia exists. I had some idiot on the train shouting homophobic abuse at me over the weekend. Having someone make the good faith suggestion that it might be nice to not have full-frontal nudity appear on their work computer is not a good reason for working up this kind of lather about how FPC isn't "LGBT friendly". It serves no purpose except to make LGBT contributors—and those contributing on LGBT-related topics—look like drama queens. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
File:Plate with fresh meat.jpg
Hi Fæ ,
THanks for your comment. I'm sorry - I don't know the name of the candy, please move it to a name you consider appropriate.
regards, Gveret Tered (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a surf around later today and think of a better file name. --Fæ (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Now raised at Commons:VP#A candy challenge for Halloween