User talk:Wutsje

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Other talk pages:  fy:wiki · meta · nl:wiki Archive

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You are a fucking loser

You son of a bitch.-BirdImportant2022 (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a compliment. Thank you very much. Wutsje 18:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Soft Girl Article

I need your help with my article every time I keep giving the original author credit, you keep denying my uploads for no reason whatsoever. If you have any better ideas, please let me know asap. I already gotten the permission of the Instagram user to use the photo. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Soft_girl.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandavisionvixen101 (talk • contribs)

Hi Wandavisionvixen101, all you need to know and do has been quite adequately explained on your talk page. Just follow the instructions. Thanks in advance and regards, Wutsje 18:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 20130608 Coulonhûs (Fryske Akademy) Leeuwarden NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect duplicate?

Beste Wutsje, Klopt het dat bij deze File:PM 089492 B Lessines.jpg nog geen redirect is gemaakt naar File:Lessines NDame a la Rose PM 089492.jpg? Ik dacht dat dat standaard gebeurde bij duplicates, of vergis ik me? Vysotsky (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Vysotsky, dat laatste meende ik ook. Deze heb ik nu opnieuw aangemaakt, maar ik vrees dat het vaker mis is gegaan. Wutsje 09:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dat zou heel vervelend zijn, omdat die doorverwijzingen nodig zijn voor verwijzingen buiten Wiki. Gaat het in de toekomst wel goed? En kan je aangeven bij hoeveel bestanden het ongeveer fout is gegaan? Vysotsky (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rond de honderd, schat ik. Die ik allemaal zal herstellen. Wutsje 09:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geweldig. Dank voor de moeite. In principe zet ik relevante informatie altijd over naar de te behouden afbeelding, maar ik kijk niet of de afbeelding in gebruik is op Wiki, omdat ik weet dat dat met een redirect altijd in orde komt. Vysotsky (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vysotsky: klaar. Koekje 11:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! 20100418 Nieuwe Kerk Groningen NL.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

Good afternoon. I did not quite understand why you want to re-install an empty cat.

See Category:De Havilland Canada DHC-8 in Greek service, which is still in service, but according to ICAO is counted as DHC-aircraft (not the later manufacturer Bombardier).

Please enlighten me, thank you. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-8_in_Greek_service. Regards, Wutsje 15:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erection development

Hi, you deleted the file File:Erection_development_2.jpg. This file was in use on nlwiki. I think this was a mistake as I could not find a reason. Could you revert this? Hannolans (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Hannolans, de reden was: Personal photo by non-contributors (F10): see also COM:PENIS and COM:PORN. Het bestand was afkomstig van iemand die hier intussen voor onbepaalde tijd is geblokkeerd (overigens niet door mij), zie hier en ook hier). Mijn neiging om het terug te plaatsen is niet groot, al kan dat anders worden indien mocht blijken dat er écht geen alternatief voor is (wat ik gezien het enorme aantal dikpiks hier betwijfel). Met vriendelijke groet, Wutsje 18:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ja ik zie het. En er werd ook geplugd van beeldmateriaal waarvan de herkomst ook dubieus is. COM:PORN lijkt hier overigens niet van toepassing, daardoor lijkt het op een kuisheidsactie. --Hannolans (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Achteraf begrijp ik dat, maar daarvan was dus geen sprake. Het ging om een hele serie plaatjes en de verwijderreden was one size fits all. De uploader weet denk ik prima wat bij wat hoort. Wutsje 22:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, different name

Hi! I saw your notice here, so I thought you might be interested in this. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers, yes, indeed I am. I deleted both images and warned the uploader not to reupload them, or else. Thanks for the notification. Regards, Wutsje 22:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I seem to failed to notice these two when I was writing the above. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purge of images in use in several projects

I did not know that "(Personal photo by non-contributors (F10): see also COM:PENIS and COM:PORN)" was used as an excuse to purge images that someone does not like, even when they are in use.

You deleted imagery of genitalia with that excuse, like File:射精.jpg, File:男性器 2.jpg, File:射精.jpg, File:男性器.png, File:Comparison of male genitalia 男性機の比較.jpg, File:射精.png, File:Description of the penis.jpg, File:The nature of the penis.png, File:男性の生殖器.png, File:Ejaculation.jpg.

Well, the fact is that lame excuse was used yo purge several files in use like File:Erection development 2.jpg (previously kept in a deletion request( and in use in it.wikipedia.org Prepuzio, ja.wikipedia.org 勃起 and 仮性包茎, tl.wikipedia.org Paninigas at pagtayo ng titi, www.wikidata.org Q133993 and zh.wikipedia.org 勃起.

So you purged a file in use (and so automatically in use per Commons:Scope you unilaterally went against a deletion request that kept the file. "Good" to hear that administrators can unilaterally and at thir one pleasere overturn community decisions.

But this purge of files in use does not stop here:

2 - File:射精の過程（外観）.jpg in use in ja:射精

3 - File:Erected clitoris.jpg in use in bn.wikipedia.org ভগাঙ্কুর উত্থান, fa.wikipedia.org نعوظ, fr.wikipedia.org Gland (anatomie), ro.wikipedia.org Erecția clitorisului

4 - File:仮性包茎の包皮.jpg in use in ja:仮性包茎

5 - File:女性器の変化.jpg in use in ja:陰核.

So, against the rules, deleted several images that were in use, were previously kept in deletion requests. Your purges editorialized other projects, also something against Commons rules. Other users have complained about the same fact. Also Commons does not delete images by uploader just because said uploader was blocked.

So, now, it doesnt matter why did you deleted this images (prudish zeal, administrative overzeal), you should undelete this images and, if you still think this images should be deleted open a proper deletion request, instead of acting unilaterally. Tm (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tm, deleting images that were in use was an error, mainly due to a lack of research, so I restored those. As for the other ones: it's not a matter of what I like or not like: Commons really has many, many personal images of human genitalia, especially of own dick picks. The uploader and their sock puppets have treated this project as an amateur porn site for several years now and I see no reason why that should be facilitated. Regards, Wutsje 13:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

Thank you,

VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Kuijpers bust in Gra Ligia.jpg

File:Paul Kuijpers bust in Gra Ligia.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

ǁ ǁǁǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hello. Do you think all these files should be deleted? I think they are subject to speedy deletion under criterion F10.

I batch uploaded these images nearly a year ago (via #flickr2commons) because there were many beautiful scenic pictures posted on this Flickr account. It turned out that this user also uploaded quite a lot of personal photos. This seems to be a private image collection, and I think it is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. These photos fall outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons, and they are also not used in any projects. Ltn12345 (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ltn12345, sorry for the delayed response. I fully agree, so I deleted the lot. Thank you for drawing my attention to these images. Regards, Wutsje 05:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello, Please can you explain where in use? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please take a look under File usage on Commons on the file page. COM:CSD#G7 does not specify where the file in use. Again: please file a regular DR. Regards, Wutsje 03:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This in not in use in the official sense. See Commons:Project scope#File in use on Commons only -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing there about quality images. Wutsje 03:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
COM:INUSE A QI does not become "in use" just because it gets the label. It's written on the page A file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons. A template added somewhere does not change anything either. Don't confuse "quality image" and "already in use" -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You may have missed the word solely there. This is a quality image, so it has an educational purpose by definition - and it is in use. Wutsje 03:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This file is potentially "educational", of course. But it is definitely not "in use", right now. Your own interpretation of "in use" is wrong in my opinion. We don't call "in use" all the thousands of files that are somewhere hosted on Commons. Even if their upload is (fortunately often) legitimate. There's a good reason why COM:INUSE redirects to "File in use in another Wikimedia project" -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now you may have missed the quality image part. Please, just file a regular DR, as has been made clear to you several times now. Wutsje 03:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wutsje, you're claiming that the file is "in use", while it is currently not in use outside of Commons. Above you're writing "There's nothing there about quality images", then later "you may have missed the quality image part" (without quoting anything). Yes please we would like to hear where on Commons it's written that "any QI is declared IN USE simply because it's a QI" . Is it necessary to discuss this point in the Village Pump? I have no problem to start a regular DR for this image when the time comes. However if the {{Speedy}} is legitimate there's no reason also to revert. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Hallo Wutsje, ich schreibe auf Deutsch und hoffe, das ist in Ordnung.

Du hast die Hauptkategorie Category:Grégoire Sport gelöscht. Mit der Begründung C1. Die Anleitung schreibt dazu: Falsch benannte Kategorien können schnellgelöscht werden, nachdem ihr Inhalt in eine richtig benannte Kategorie verschoben wurde.

Die Kategorie ist nicht falsch benannt! Das Fahrzeugmodell heißt Grégoire Sport und nicht anders. Siehe de:Grégoire Sport. Es ist kein Einzelstück und wurde sogar in 2 verschiedenen Karosserieversionen (Cabriolet und Coupé) hergestellt.

Die Existenz von separaten Unterkategorien für einzelne erhaltene Fahrzeuge ist kein Problem. Aber das darf nicht die Hauptkategorie für das Fahrzeugmodell ersetzen. Die Folge der Löschung ist, dass man über de:Grégoire Sport#Weblinks Commons nicht mehr zu den Fotos auf Commons kommt. Über Wikidata auch nicht. --Buch-t (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Buch-t, Entschuldigung für die späte Antwort, ich war zwei Wochen nicht da. Mir war nicht klar, dass es zwei verschiedene Grégoire-Autowerke gibt (gab). Ich werde darum den alten Zustand wiederherstellen. Grüße, Wutsje 19:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schön. Das gleiche Problem besteht auch bei Category:Grégoire R. Ebenfalls von mir angelegt, passend im Artikel de:Grégoire R eingebunden. Dann folgte ohne Diskussion:
Der de-Artikel beschreibt die komplette Baureihe Grégoire R, nicht nur das erhaltene Exemplar in der Cité de l'Automobile. Daher brauchen wir eine Hauptkategorie Grégoire R. Die Unterkategorie für das Fahrzeug in der Cité kann weiterhin existieren.
Weiteres Beispiel: Category:Bugatti Type 28. Das ist ein Prototyp, aber das ändert ja nichts an der Sache, dass das Fahrzeug offiziell so genannt wurde und eben nicht "Bugatti type 28 torpédo 1921 (Cité de l'Automobile)".
Es gibt noch mehr solcher Fälle vom selben Benutzer. Ich finde es ärgerlich. Ich diskutiere schon längere Zeit mit ihm, aber das ist schwierig. Gleich folgt ein längerer Beitrag auf seiner Diskussionsseite. Vielleicht schaust Du mal rein. Gruß --Buch-t (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meerdere accounts?

Ha Wutsje, Zijn er voor Commons andere regels dan op de encyclopedie w.b.t. meerdere accounts te hebben door een gebruiker? Waarom vraag ik dit, omdat ik een vermoeden heb dat acht nieuwe gebruikers die pas actief zijn op Commons en die aan de lopende band veranderingen aanbrengen die veelal op elkaar lijken ik mij daarbij afvraag of het niet een en de zelfde persoon betreft. Dat had ik al toen het er nog maar twee waren, maar nu zijn het er inmiddels acht die praktisch de zelfde handelingen aan de lopende band verrichten waarbij ik mij zelfs afvraag of het niet een bekende van vroeger is? Omdat ik weet dat jij je hier geregeld mee bezig houdt vraag ik het daarom aan jouw. Maar mocht op Commons hier geen regels voor zijn, beschouw dit dan als niet geschreven! Vr. gr. Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 17:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Antoine.01, sorrie voor de late reactie, ik was er even tussenuit. De regels op Commons zijn inhoudelijk hetzelfde als op en:wiki (en nl:wiki): meerdere accounts gebruiken is op zichzelf niet verboden, maar die misbruiken wel (blokontduiking, dubbel stemmen, discussies beïnvloeden, et cetera). Zie en:abuse of multiple accounts. Mogelijke gevallen van foute sokpopperij kun je aan de orde stellen op het Administrators' noticeboard (onder Other). Als daar blijkt dat er daadwerkelijk sterke aanwijzingen voor een probleem zijn, dan komt Requests for checkuser in beeld. Zie laatstgenoemde pagina voor meer informatie over het beleid en de procedure. Groet, Wutsje 19:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Wutsje, Bedankt dan ga ik daar een kijkje nemen! Dit gezien er inmiddels nu acht accounts zijn aangemaakt waarvan ik sterk het vermoeden heb dat deze door een en de zelfde persoon zijn aangemaakt omdat het de zelfde soort bewerkingen zijn en het ook steeds de zelfde onderwerpen betreft op Commons en ze allen recentelijk zijn aangemaakt. Want waarom heb je hier acht account voor nodig daar je die bewerkingen toch ook met een account kan doen. Maar mogelijk gaat het hier om een blokontduiking daar ik anders niet de logica hiervan kan inzien om er zoveel accounts op na te houden!? Vr. gr. Antoine.01overleg(Antoine) 10:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AI

I would appreciate if you would give your input on the talk page of Commons:AI generated media Trade (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trade, I just did. Thanks for drawing my attention to that discussion. Regards, Wutsje 23:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might wanna tell the uploader not to upload more images like this until we get a response from the legal team Trade (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without jumping to legal conclusions (not my call) this should be enough. Wutsje 01:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, you might wanna look at the age in the description here. I can't believe this somehow managed to get even weirder. Suffice to say it's either the same person behind both accounts or there's some meatpuppetry going on. @Wutsje: --Trade (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, another user--Trade (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another one--Trade (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally a child corpse... --Trade (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the above corpse is based on the child victim of a serial killer--Trade (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the lot and blocked the uploaders. Thanks for the notification. Wutsje 03:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this one and this one--Trade (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Hedinger cropped.jpg

Hello - there IS a permission - look here: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Josef_Hedinger_(cropped).jpg_and_File:TRIBBS_Polish_music_producer_(cropped).jpg and ask the one who got permission. Myan1948 (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that this image is a derivative file of File:Josef Hedinger.jpg, an image that was deleted as copyvio. I don't know why that one wasn't undeleted too. I left a message at Polimereks talk page, see here. Wutsje 12:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wutsje&oldid=745620265"