User talk:Trycatch

Archives /Archives

Admin for CLindberg

I've raised this question again -- care to comment? User_talk:Clindberg#Admin Question, again      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• It seems that Carl made his choice, so I don't want to annoy him any further about it. It's sad of course -- he would be an amazing admin, but there is nothing we can do. Maybe he has some reason (or maybe not). Trycatch (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

+File:Faivre jardiniere 2.jpg

With regard to your recent message, I was under the impression that the work mentioned above was discussed when it was first uploaded and subsequently allowed. I will look into the others mentioned. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I can't find the discussion. Anyway, I can't imagine how this picture would have been kept -- the photograph of the sculpture is not trivial and is not free. You can't upload other people photographs of PD sculptures (or other 3D objects), see Commons:Derivative works. Trycatch (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

Hello,

The DR was open for one and half month last year, and one month this year, and yet, you didn't care to participate. And 3 minutes after I closed it, you reopen it with the same arguments. This is at the very least very disruptive of the deletion process, and it is not acceptable. You must not do that. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are also wrong on the bottom on the issue, and I will explain it there. Yann (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I cared to participate in the discussion, but it seems you didn't care to read it. It was a very easy DR, almost speedy deletable case, of course, I was very surprised when you kept this hopeless picture (especially considering you already voted  Keep in the discussion) and reopened that DR on sight. "You are also wrong on the bottom on the issue, and I will explain it there." -- well, I would be happy to hear from you arguments instead of accusations finally, so I am all ears. Trycatch (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, you've "explained" my mistake closing this that DR again, while you still didn't read the discussion and still don't understand in the issue a thing. Well, I have to bring your pathetic behavior to COM:AN. Trycatch (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for closing the discussion on the AN. Yann (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi!, thanks to you too. I have made a mistake not discussing the issue with you from the beginning. Sorry, if I was too harsh or rude -- no offense meant, I just had been very tired for some days because of RL. Trycatch (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Emile Friant Brittany Women.jpg

File deletion warning

File:Emile Friant Brittany Women.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 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!

  Innisart (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Way of responding to DRs

Hi, normally if some one responds to a DR, e.g. showing that a person is in scope if the nomination reason is scope related, I take appropriate action, often by canceling the nomination and sometimes also by adding the image to an article. But the non-constructive way you use to respond to my DRs, like here and here, doesn't invite me to take a look at it. If you wish me to act on provided information, please post it in a constructive, or at least neutral way. Ices2Csharp (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Invite you to look at the DRs? Hmm? Well, I actually don't care if you will look at the DR or not, but I want you to stop these bot-like careless nominations. If you can't or don't want to do your work with quality -- don't do it all. Quite frankly, why other users should clean up after you? You was warned multiple times by other users & even blocked for disruptive nominations, but you continue the thing. You has the photo of an elderly person with description in two languages, indicating the name of the person, and that the person was a writer. You nominate it as "Unused personal picture." What the hell you are doing? Why in the world did you think it was a personal picture of the user? People make mistakes occasionally, but you are making them all the time, you systematically nominate images with detailed descriptions as "unused personal picture" or "out of scope". --Trycatch (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being so open about your attitude. I will not spend more energy on you. Ices2Csharp (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. Spend some energy on your DRs instead. Trycatch (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)