User talk:Tuvalkin

Category:ÖBB_logos_(“ပ́ʙʙ”)

ÖBB logos (“ပ́ʙʙ”) 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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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!

Taste1at (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Pallavi singh(4,6°).jpg

File:Pallavi singh(4,6°).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Yann (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t upload this image and have nothing to say about its copyright status. My name shows in its history because I helped disentangle an incorrect overwriting of it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Guard fitness program shows results 140523-Z-ZZ999-011.jpg

Hi Tuvalkin, this comment was unnecessarily rude without adding anything constructive to the discussion. Please consider COM:CIVIL. This applies also to those who do comment using an IP address. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

What was rude about it? Do you mean the wording I used was rude? — however I merely reused it («incredibly weak») in response to the previous comment that contained it… Or do you mean that what is rude my opinion, by itself, that unlogged users have no place in Commons discussions? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Tuvalkin, the concern by the IP that the name of the depicted person was still in the version history was an important point. Describing this valid concern as “incredibly weak” in combination with your remark against the participation of IPs was indeed rude. See COM:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, point 1d, “belittling a fellow editor”. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, @AFBorchert: I presumed my points, meant as constructive, to be clear and obvious. Let me try again:

1. The name of the depicted person still in Commons being an issue, it should be fixed, as suggested, by deleting the revisions still holding it, not by deleting the file. This is akin to ask for deletion of a file because it is miscategorized or lacks a description. A weak argument indeed.
2. The name of the depicted person being available in archived pages, both ours and the original military website’s — well, also not a reason to delete, then, as it wouldn’t accomplish the desired disappearence. Another weak argument.
3. The name of the depicted person in this filepage being an issue, yet it is visible in other photos from the same source (both in Commons and in the original military website), as reported in the DR. However, nobody is asking for its removal there, too (yet). Is it beceause this is just all about acquiescing to the loud (and very rude) o.p.?, or because nobody on the deletion side even noticed? Again — weak argument.
4. Does terming some argument «incredibly weak» constitute a case of sanctionable rudeness? I’m sure you find much worse every day in Commons discussions: do you go to the talk pages of all those involved admonish about COM:CIVIL?
5. I repeat that the phrase «incredibly weak» was first used in this discussion not by me but by the IP I was replying to. If you really think it’s rude — are you going to warn similarly the one who first uttered it? No, you’re not — you cannot because that person is not logged in and IP addresses are volatile. And that leads to the crux of the matter:
6. Who is a «fellow editor»? Can an IP be one? Even if the same IP address is consistently used throughout a specific discussion, how can dialog be mantained? There is a lack of guaranteed persistence, and there is the matter of legibility — IP numbers, either hex or dec, are not use-friendly handles and would not be acceptable as a user name. Furthermore, when IP addresses exhibit knowledge of the project’s work as done behind the scenes, such as DRs and indeed most discussions and talk pages, “fellow editors” experience that uneasy feeling that one might be interacting with an experienced editor, otherwise unlogged — and therefore incurring in abuse of multiple accounts and playing everybody for fools. As an admin, doesn’t this worry you? That was my point when questioning the legitimacy of the comment I was answering to — I’m sorry that it come out as a personal attack, but how could it not, even if I had used the mildest of wordings?
7. But could I have used a phrase milder than "put up with"? I could and I should, and I would if I were to do it again. It wouldn’t change the matter at hand, though — that the mere presence of IPs in a discussion is a source of mistrust and uneasiness, no rudeness required.

I appreciate your input. (I will add points 1-3 above to the DR, since I was not clear about what I think are the «incredibly weak» arguments.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I make it short as the discussion about the DR belongs into the DR. Adding actual reasonings as you did here is fine and was exactly what I was missing in your initial reply. Thank you for this. All comments in a DR should add something constructively to the discussion. Just saying “weak argument” without rationale but with an argument against the poster (in this case the poster being an IP) appears to be rude. Yes, IPs are allowed to comment in our DRs. Propose a policy at COM:VPP if you want to block IPs from commenting in DR discussions. The hint by the IP that the name is still visible in the revision history was not “weak” but an important point which caused me to check this and to hide those revisions. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)