User talk:DoctorWhoFan91

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, DoctorWhoFan91!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. Abzeronow (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Possible answer

Dear DoctorWhoFan91, Thanks for your question. As I don't know much about your interests (apart from chess), I thought I might best give you a list of interesting image collections in Commons. Mr.Nostalgic is a prolific uploader to Commons (>1M), but isn't very much occupied with adding categories. You might find a lot of files that could use categories or files needing more specific descriptions in this list. --- Vysotsky (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Unidentified maps

Could you please invest a little bit more time, when your're working on this category. Chucking everything into the national top level category is a bit underwhelming. Try to have an eye on map themes as well. We've got a lot of very differentiated map categories, please use them. Hinnerk11 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm planning on doing that later- I actually do put more effort when the subcategory is obvious enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I wish I could believe that. You added "Maps of Korea" instead "Maps of Gyeongbokgung" to the file "Keihukugu 1946.png" just 7 minutes later. Why not do it correctly right away? The name of the place is in the file description.

Yes, so that me or someone else could put even more categories on it. The description is not always correct. And as for "Why not do it correctly right away"- why don't you do it right away, instead of adding "Unidentified maps" as cat? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I add "Unidentified maps" to all the unsorted map files I find in the category "All media needing categories as of 2025" with cat-a-lot. This makes it easier to notice groups of maps that can later be moved in bulk to the correct categories. The description is not always correct? Weird reasoning, just look at the map, it tells you the place, that's their sole reason of existence. --Hinnerk11 (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Mass "categorization"

Can you explain [1]? It's nowhere near Europe.

(Besides, Category:Unidentified locations in Europe is only very marginally more useful than no category at all.) -- Gauss (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Must have slipped through- I checked like 10-20% of the categorised images.

It is more useful bcs a specific category is more likely to be seen by people(I had just categorised a few dozen files from there to their specific countries)- I myself was gonna go through it in a few days time; also, the location are given for all of said images, so it just needs a pair of hands. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Miss you!

Was randomly visiting perm pages & saw your request there. It's good to see that you haven't left all of the Wikimedia projects .We really miss you on English Wikipedia. Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 17:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Patroller!

---

Counter Vandalism Unit

Hi DoctorWhoFan91,

You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.

As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.

We could use your help at the Counter Vandalism Unit. For example by patrolling an Anonymous-edits checklist and checking a day-part.

If you have any questions please leave a message on the CVU talkpage or ask for help on IRC in #wikimedia-commons.

Bedivere (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello

Hello friend! Are you interested in requesting file rename for Category:Parahucho perryi? I'm glad to know you at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/04/Category:Leopardus guttulus in Parc des Félins. Good luck! Henrydat (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you think it should be renamed to? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I merged 2 categories. I mean files in category should be renamed. Henrydat (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of files, so I think it should be fine to keep as is, as the names are common synonyms. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You right. But one of them was renamed File:Parahucho perryi juvenile.jpg. Maybe for use of it on other wiki. I will consider them. I had a suggestion rejected, I think you will have better luck. I hope to see you often at cfd. It looks like you are less active. Henrydat (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll see when I get the time. Yeah, I haven't been active at cfd much- bcs basically nothing that takes more than a quick yes or no is there for most/all categories. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm closing them, it doesn't sound right. Henrydat (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi DoctorWhoFan91, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Abzeronow (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hi. If you don't mind me asking, who's your favorite Doctor? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Peter Capaldi- Twelfth Doctor. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Capaldi's good. I'm a big Tom Baker fan myself. I stopped watching the new series halfway through David Tennant's run though. So I never really watched Capaldi.

Random side thing, and why I'm replying to this 5 days later, but I'm going through a similar situation to what you mentioned on the proposal page with Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maximum cards of India. Some of the images are clearly copyrighted, but the DR was closed as keep by Abzeronow because supposedly they predate 1958. Even though at least some of them clearly don't. I then asked him to reconsider it on his talk page, which he wasn't willing to do. So I renominated the images for deletion. Leading to Krd closing the second DR as keep because he didn't think the first discussion was worth overriding. Even though there was clear agreement in the second discussion, including by Abzeronow, that some of the images are copyrighted. So now I have to grovel to Krd to reconsider his close. Renominate the images for deletion yet again for a third time if he won't, probably just to have yet another administrator close it as keep "per prior discussions" or some nonsense Etc. Etc. The whole thing is a massive dumpster fire. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Tom Baker's cool too. Yeah, RTD can be an acquired taste at times, so makes sense you might have left halfway through.

Yeah- probably all of them are copyrighted in the US- given US copyright laws- no offense, but things became much more clear after thinking of it independently, as your nomination statement was kind of a dumpster fire. I would recommend searching the dates for them, waiting some time, and nomming again based on US copyright only. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I looked into the photographs before nominating them for deletion and there aren't exact publication dates from what I could find. At least in my experience it's nearly impossible to have an image deleted on here purely because of US copyright, unless it was originally published there. But a lack of clear original publication date should have been enough to justify deletion based on the PCP anyway. Per Commons:Hirtle chart the copyright term for unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship) is 120 years from the creation date. So either they are copyrighted because of first being published after 1958 or are copyrighted due to not being published. I don't know. I don't care, but the process to appeal bad closes needs to be changed anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, we were able to find dates for atleast three of them. And if US copyright isn't enough for deletion, then the files won't be an issue, because they almost definitely are pre-1964 images.

Though yeah, the process has got to change. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Re Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by BellaOfc

Hi! In the future, please don't embed a speedy deletion template in a regular DR. You can either just tag the file for speedy deletion, or just type out "CSD F10 or G10" in a regular DR without putting it in a template, but having templates inside templates causes weird issues. Thanks! The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

PS, I fixed the issue with the tl template. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry, I didn't know- I have done so before (and seen other people do it), and never seen any issues- I'll do as you say and do it without the template from now on. Thank you! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Poulithra coast.jpg

Hello. To see where this picture was taken from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Poulithra_coast.jpg

Go to google maps and find location 36.6858812,23.0483429 then watch the street view. It is around that spot. This is Monemvasia, not Poulithra. Αρκάς (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I did- I still think they are very different looking with only superficial similarities. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Just an elaboration I didn't get to post

Regarding your ANI report[2] I just wanted to elaborate on what made the report problematic:

• Abzeronow's closing argument was that it is in scope because they illustrate concepts with Unicode. Categorization needs tightening up because some categories violate principle of least surprise. - the first part is a matter of fact — there's Unicode illustrated in the image. The second part actually acknowledges that there's still an issue that needs to be addressed.
• You asked at first In what way does emojis on naked women illustrate emojis/unicode? This question is easy to answer, because there is, objectively speaking, in fact an illustration of Unicode in that image. That's just a fact. One may disagree with the way that the Unicode is illustrated, but one simply cannot argue that there is an illustration of Unicode in that image, so Abzeronow observation in the closing comment is correct "they illustrate concepts with Unicode". By asking about the women part you are making the question about something that was not actually part of Abzeronow's closing rationale, so the question can appear loaded because you are asking Abzeronow to explain something that they didn't actually say.
• Your second attempt of asking was I want an answer- what the fuck made you say a bunch of unicode on a naked women is illustrating the concept well. First of all, there's an issue with your tone that makes things appear very loaded at this point. Second of all, you're again asking them to explain a comment that they didn't make, because nowhere did Abzeronow say that his closing rationale had anything to do with women, nor did they ever claim that the image is "illustrating the concept well", they only said that it does illustrate the concept (which is objectively true), and, in fact Abzeronow acknowledged that the way that the concept is being illustrated is rather problematic than "well"; that's what the second part of their closing comment was about.

You are not doing yourself a favor with this report. And it's probably also counterproductive for the cause of righting great wrongs regarding the objectification of women. I mean, I'm also not a fan of Panteleev's work (and how it appears in categories where you don't expect to see naked women), however, it's still impossible for me to argue that the image in question is illustrating Unicode, but that's what you did in your request to Abzeronow to explain themselves. Nakonana (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Note, the present tense in You are not doing yourself a favor with this report. is an artifact of me writing the above while the report was still open. Nakonana (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• No, that part of the sentence is different- the scope part comes from the circular reasoning that it is in scope, because it is in scope
• But that's not the same thing- like take my analogy of air, or the fact that we delete images of faces and dicks using F10- they also illustrate things? You can also look at Abzeronow's close of any other DRs- the fact that some concept is illustrated is not brought up, only a good explanation of concepts is sometimes brought up.
• See above

Again, saying something illustrates something on Commons in a DR or any such place always means it illustrates it to a sufficient degree, because everything can always illustrate something. I would understand that perhaps he used the phrase incorrectly(one can't always be in "Commons mode"), but he should atleast explain- it's not good for an admin to keep a sentence which can be constructed as misogynstic so easily unchanged and not even explain it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

We do accept a lot of suboptimal illustrations for one reason or the other. Panteleev's work could easily pass as "Unicode in art" for which we don't even seem to have a category for so that Panteleev's works might be the only illustrations we have of "Unicode in art" and that is usually a common reason to retain illustrations even if they are not ideal representations. I think Abzeronow was really just trying to avoid to make his closing rationale about anything that makes Panteleev's work so controversial or to get into yet another debate about the controversialness of Panteleev's work. Nakonana (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

As in, I don't think that Abzeronow made that comment in bad faith. Nakonana (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

It really can't- there is illustrations of unicode on Commons. That wouldn't make sense- as saying they are in scope is the controversial part, which he repeated in all Exey related closes- so that's not a way to avoid controversy. May Abzeronow didn't make it in bad faith, but I asked him twice to explain it- the right thing to do would be to explain it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)