User talk:Pi.1415926535

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

Question

You have mentioned "I have also emailed T&S" in one of your intervention. What is T&S ?

Pierre cb (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: The WMF Trust and Safety team (the emergency@wikimedia.org email address listed in the edit notice on the noticeboard). Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eberswalde Zoo 12-2017 img2 (cropped).jpg

Hello Pi.1415926535,

With all due respect, I find the outcome of the discussion above rather surprising.

Unless I am mistaken about the procedures on Commons, I did not think that someone could both participate in a discussion and close it themselves. If you were opposed to keeping the file, why did you not express your view beforehand and leave the closure of the discussion to another administrator?

The file remained unused simply as a precaution until the discussion had been closed. Otherwise, I would have run the risk of adding to Wikipedia a file that might ultimately have been deleted. Apparently, I was mistaken.

Furthermore, the claim that the crop is "unneeded" is not substantiated and seems rather cursory.

Kind regards, Ellicrum _{{bablute [...]}} 11:09, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ellicrum: I did not participate in the discussion. Leaving a closing statement is standard when closing DRs. Very often that is just "per nomination", but in some cases like this it is better to clarify.

In general, making minor crops of an image is not useful unless there is a specific use for the cropped version. It adds extra maintenance burden to synchronize changes to categories, descriptions, etc between the two versions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank's for these clarifications.

In that case, since there were only two differing opinions, I am all the more surprised that the discussion ultimately resulted in this outcome.

My intention was to use this crop to illustrate, among other things, regional faunal lists (for example here, where I also created the lists for most European countries), but I will have to resort to another alternative instead.

As for the maintenance issues you mentioned, they appear to be an inherent limitation of CropTool itself. Perhaps it will eventually be able to synchronize such changes automatically. Ellicrum _{{bablute [...]}} 19:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ellicrum: If you're going to put the image in use immediately, I can undelete it. But when I closed the DR, the image was unused and there was no obvious need for a slight crop of a perfectly good image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

File:Ré fotografiado en el 2025.png

I have my doubts about this being a copyvio. I certainly was not able to find the image anywhere else online. Right as I was going to mark it as needing a proper DR, you deleted it. Did you have more basis than the nominator's assertion and it being a small file without EXIF? - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I'll undelete so you can file a DR. I was mostly basing it on the long history of copyvios, but happy to defer to you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't have the "long history of copyvios" part, I was just looking at the image in its own right. That exactly the "more basis" I was missing. Feel free to go ahead with the deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Trains at train stations in Florida sub-categories

Do you still need to be reminded that there are Tri-Rail and Brightline stations in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and West Palm Beach, Florida, hence the non-conventional naming conventions? --DanTD (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@DanTD: There's no reason to invent your own naming convention here. The enwiki articles and the parent categories use the non-parenthetical name for the Amtrak/Tri-Rail stations and the parenthetical disambiguator for the Brightline stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

We used to have parenthetical disambiguators for both stations because of this. This is why I fought tooth and nail to keep the leniency that used to exist with naming conventions. --14:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

re: your deletion-s

hi, in this deletion debate here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Brand_Addiction_Adicci%C3%B3n_a_las_Marcas_(3152511010).jpg

there was ONLY the nominator, & 1  Oppose , mine. so how do you end up with a decision to delete exactly? instead of 'no consensus'. please explain?

if you supported deleting, then it would have been appropriate to add your  Support to the discussion, rather than to close as delete.

& if you had no strong opinion, & still wanted to close it, then it should have been 'no consensus'.

it is not appropriate to just ignore the state of the DD when you close & just apply your own personal decision. that is not good admin-ing. Lx 121 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

you also don't seem to put any effort into your close notes? at all. just an endless c&p of 'Deleted: per nomination.' literally, i am looking down the long long list of your deletions in contrib history, & i cannot find a single case where you bothered to add any specific comment? it looks like a bot.

ALSO, you do not seem to have understood this DR? (which you kept) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/User_talk:Pkowoe - the user/author/uploader is seeking the deletion of their very limited contribs to wmc. did you not understand the request?

and when you closed it as 'keep' you LEFT the dr template on the page you had decided to 'keep. which is at least kind of untidy. Lx 121 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Lx 121, please remember that DRs are not votes. I recommend reading Commons:Deletion requests#Overview, particularly the paragraph starting with The debates are not votes... In general, DRs on Commons (unlike deletion discussions on most wikis) are not closed as "no consensus". When there is not a clear consensus, especially on DRs like this one where there had not been any additional comments in >90 days, the closing admin has to weigh the arguments to reach a decision. In this case, this was an unused personal artwork with no realistic utility. Being vaguely similar to a certain style does not render an artwork useful. I have expanded my closing statement to indicate that.

Most of my DR closes are done on mobile, so I largely close discussions with few or no comments other than the nomination. Most of them are basic copyvios or spam, or nonsense nominations; there's also a significant number of procedural closes where someone else has already (typically speedy) deleted the file. Per Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions: In many cases, where there is little discussion and no disagreement with the request, no details are required. I don't tend to close many of the complex DRs with lengthy discussions that need a highly detailed closing statement.

I've deleted the one file by that user (the DR had been accidentally broken by the nominator, so it didn't appear properly) and removed the DR template from the user talk page. Thanks for catching that I hadn't removed the template - I'm used to files where the gadget automatically removes it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of “File:La Fouine in a gym with boxing gloves and four other people in Paris Region France.jpg

Hello Pi.1415926535,

I would like to revisit the deletion of the file "La Fouine in a gym with boxing gloves and four other people in Paris Region France.jpg," which was deleted on September 3, 2026, on the grounds that it was allegedly an AI-generated image.

I would like to clarify that this image was not generated by AI. To verify this, I submitted the file to an AI image detector available on TruthScan: https://truthscan.com/ai-image-detector

The result showed a confidence score of 57%. In my view, this result does not allow for a definitive conclusion that the image is AI-generated.

Furthermore, the file has characteristics that may be worth considering: it is a particularly large file—approximately 29 MB—with a resolution of 8160 × 6428 pixels. These specifications are consistent with a high-resolution photograph and do not, in themselves, reflect the typical characteristics of an image simply generated and then exported at a standard resolution.

I would therefore like to know exactly what evidence led to the conclusion that this photograph was AI-generated. If there are visual anomalies, metadata, or other technical details that establish this, I would appreciate knowing them so I can understand the decision.

If the deletion was based primarily on a suspicion of AI generation, I would be grateful if you could reconsider the case or advise me on the procedure for requesting the file's restoration.

Thank you in advance for your reply and for reviewing this information.

Best regards, ~2026-39838-78 (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The AI artifacts were blatant and unmistakable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. @Pi.1415926535 However, I do not believe that simply stating the "AI artifacts were glaring and undeniable" is sufficient to establish that the image was generated by AI.

This is a serious factual claim; I would therefore expect it to be supported by precise, objective, and verifiable evidence. Could you please identify the specific artifacts you observed and explain how they demonstrate AI generation rather than photographic or image-processing artifacts?

For instance, if there are identifiable visual anomalies, inconsistencies, metadata indicating AI generation, or other technical evidence, I would appreciate it if you could point them out specifically so that they can be subjected to independent review.

As it stands, the explanation appears to amount to a conclusion ("glaring and undeniable") without providing the factual and measurable basis for that conclusion. A strong conviction based on a visual impression does not, in itself, constitute evidence that can be independently verified.

I therefore ask again what concrete evidence prompted the removal and whether the file can be re-examined in light of these details. ~2026-39838-78 (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

COM:UDR is thataway, but they're not likely to have any more sympathy for your chatbot than I am. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Please undelete

• Category:Five letter combinations including H
• Category:Five letter combinations including W

(not empty anymore) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I've done so. In general, for categories with no significant edit history (especially ones like these that are just a single template), it's easier to just recreate them rather than wait for an admin to reply. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

You did delete several files of mine

The comment is only „per nomination“. In the general discussion are several arguments why these filed are necessary and no violations. Isn’t it usus to describe what are your arguments, WHY you did follow this nomination? It’s a too simple way? Wortulo (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The nomination is very clear and no further comment was needed. Please refrain from uploading AI junk. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I argued that this is not ai junk but demonstration for a

new project in German Wikipedia. What’s next step here, when I totally disagree? Thanks for information about this way Wortulo (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

COM:UDR Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)