Looking for something that was here? Check the archives: 2010 · 2011: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2012: Q1, Q2, Q3
Fast navigation: Commons
A few points of interest:
|
Quick Link Bar | |
---|---|
Monitor | |
File Mover Permission Requests | |
File Size Reduction Requests | |
Rename (To Do): IMG · PIC | |
Backlog board | |
Work | |
Rename (Doing): PICT · Reqs (C) · Reqs (IC) | |
Chinese Dynastic Period Article Improvement |
File:A Wild Hare Original Title Card.jpeg
It looks like your FFD nomination at File:A Wild Hare Original Title Card.jpeg ran into a script error, and was never listed at FFD. Monty845 05:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Wonderful.... thanks for letting me know. I'm going to go down the dungeon in the basement and beat Twinkle for this outrage. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like twinkle needs another beating: File:Thad and Adrianne mid-show promo 2006.jpg. Monty845 18:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This image DR
I thought I should perhaps notify you about this image deletion you filed. A number of users have criticised your nomination but I am neutral. Anyway, I thought you should be told as a courtesy. Regards from Western Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah. Well I wasn't an attack against TT (whom I've largely forgotten about), I stumbled on it while searching for another image that started with tt, File:TTA-35.jpg, as part of a research project into NFCC 3a abuse, saw TT's images, placed them up for deletion, and kept going. I didn't realize that he was still active despite the ban, and I regularly place images up for deletion when they're no longer in use and have little prospect for future use. I suppose it was a mistake to put TT's images into that category. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of that page though, at least now I understand why this happened. I suppose that I'll let it run since it's largely decided anyways. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- That OK then. I thought with all these users seemingly critising you that you should be told. At Commons, images from a banned user face a higher chance of being deleted but this image appears to be in the public domain. Oh well. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
prod used as merge
While I don't disagree with several of the merge suggestions, needless to say using prod as a merge template is inappropriate. Just as AFD is not cleanup, by extension, neither is PROD.
Rather than just remove the Prods, however, if you perform the actual merges (copy the text over, etc., though only on the unsourced or stubbed episodes, I'll gladly wait instead of immediately removing. - jc37 01:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I should have been clearer in the statement; I think that the content that needs to be there is by and large already in the season articles. I will double check though, and get back to you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- How is it now? Less botched? :D Sven Manguard Wha? 02:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I found a reference for let bartlet be bartlet.
- But that aside, these aren't something someone made up in school one day. They're episodes of an emmy award winning TV series.
- There is no deadline, so there's no reason to not let the normal editing process continue as normal. - jc37 20:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Most television shows have a small number of notable episodes (those that won awards, those that were the topic of great discussion) that deserve articles, and a larger number of 'other' episodes that don't. A few shows with very high levels of popularity, South Park et. al., have articles, even GAs, on all epsiodes. I disagree with that basic premise, and think that history will judge the vast majority of those episodes as not notable. There is no reason why we should have one standard for popular shows and another for less popular ones. Therefore, I disagree with your argument. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- First, "notable" is obviously in the eye of the beholder here.
- Second, in the modern era, with 24/7 television, and all sorts of news shows, every episode of any show are talked about in the media. People write articles about them, do interviews about them and so on.
- So I have to disagree with your assertion that these are not referenceable. (as that's what we deal with here, references, not personal judgement to censor.)
- Personally, I think it's far too easy to just claim NN on something when one is really saying IDONTWANTITHERE. Not singling you out for this, obviously, there are plenty of editors with such a bias. - jc37 20:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Most television shows have a small number of notable episodes (those that won awards, those that were the topic of great discussion) that deserve articles, and a larger number of 'other' episodes that don't. A few shows with very high levels of popularity, South Park et. al., have articles, even GAs, on all epsiodes. I disagree with that basic premise, and think that history will judge the vast majority of those episodes as not notable. There is no reason why we should have one standard for popular shows and another for less popular ones. Therefore, I disagree with your argument. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
In regard to...
...this, your response serves to illustrate why I hardly ever file SPI's (I didn't file this one either). Many questions were raised there by various parties, which I think everyone there would agree deserved some kind of answers; but alas there are no answers forthcoming - only an admonition to shut up and go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've reverted myself and reopened the case. If you all don't stop fighting though, I will close it again. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. I'm done fighting it, and have taken it off my watch list. I think some of the others there are worrying about the wrong things. I'm well aware that CU's won't reveal anything publicly about connections to IP's. But they were coming up with stuff I had never heard before: Are you really restricted by somebody's laws from finding out what's going on with a user? Or did they make that up? I always thought CU's had pretty much free reign to investigate, while being duty-bound not to "out" anyone. Maybe I thunk wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're close to the mark. By visiting a website, pretty much any website, you are forking over your IP address and certain other pieces of information, such as your browser, OS, and other non-personally identifying techie stuff. It's already there for the site owner to view. I know the IP addresses of everyone that visits my blog (but I can't connect them to individual people unless I know where those people are located already, and volume from that location is low that day). I don't publish that information not because I legally can't, but because it's bad form. The only thing that ties the CUs hands is the WMF privacy policy, and even then in extreme cases that document is more malleable than anyone should be comfortable with. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Things are much clearer now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that while there was a good deal of debate going on at the SPI, it was still pretty much polite. Compare with this,[1] for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. Things are much clearer now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're close to the mark. By visiting a website, pretty much any website, you are forking over your IP address and certain other pieces of information, such as your browser, OS, and other non-personally identifying techie stuff. It's already there for the site owner to view. I know the IP addresses of everyone that visits my blog (but I can't connect them to individual people unless I know where those people are located already, and volume from that location is low that day). I don't publish that information not because I legally can't, but because it's bad form. The only thing that ties the CUs hands is the WMF privacy policy, and even then in extreme cases that document is more malleable than anyone should be comfortable with. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate that. I'm done fighting it, and have taken it off my watch list. I think some of the others there are worrying about the wrong things. I'm well aware that CU's won't reveal anything publicly about connections to IP's. But they were coming up with stuff I had never heard before: Are you really restricted by somebody's laws from finding out what's going on with a user? Or did they make that up? I always thought CU's had pretty much free reign to investigate, while being duty-bound not to "out" anyone. Maybe I thunk wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't do that
[2] Nothing in that header says "results will be posted on 6 July", does it? It simply says the committee will complete its review of candidates. There are several other steps between the completion of review and the posting of results. Risker (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for editing your header. Since they schedule didn't specify that the process continued after the 6th, and since there was no word from ArbCom about the process, I figured I'd try and be helpful and let everyone know that the announcement hadn't been made. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nathan2055talk - contribs 19:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
ISBN
Let me know the page whereS the problem occurred if you remember it. Many thanks, Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC).
Personality rights/Commons
Hi! You're probably testing the presence of template "Personality rights" in files before adding the template. You probably want to check for "Personalityrights" too. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm checking manually, because my ability with AWB is still kind of meh. Was there something wrong? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm active on Commons, so you can leave messages there too. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I just followed your message on Commons. Re: personality rights, you added the template to two of my pics that had it already (File:Scott LaValla Stade francais 2012-03-03 n02.jpg and File:Scott LaValla Stade francais 2012-03-03 n01.jpg). In both cases the template was called with
{{Personalityrights}}
, not{{Personality rights}}
, so I was wondering. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, OK. I just followed your message on Commons. Re: personality rights, you added the template to two of my pics that had it already (File:Scott LaValla Stade francais 2012-03-03 n02.jpg and File:Scott LaValla Stade francais 2012-03-03 n01.jpg). In both cases the template was called with
- BTW, I'm active on Commons, so you can leave messages there too. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
MTC priority
Hi! Your bot removes the file from the priority category. I asume it is because it is orphan. A link has been added to {{Orphan image}} to make it easier to see where the file was originally used so perhaps your bot could add the template in the same bot run? --MGA73 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed this edit where there was both a MTC and a NowCommons. There is no need to add a priority if the file is on Commons. Just an info - fix or forget. --MGA73 (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Transfer to commons
Your bot is spot-on about transferring the file it marked that I uploaded here. However, I am not able to log into Commons and copy it there myself, as my login credentials don't work there. I've heard about the global account support, but do not know how to activate it so I can help out. --Wrldwzrd89talk 11:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I posted more info about Account Merge and Unified Accounts on talk page for User:Wrldwzrd89.
- Take care, DutchTreat (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Global bans policy discussion
At meta:Requests for comment/Global bans, where you have commented in support of Option 2, a third option has recently been implemented. The first two options did not prove a way for respondents to indicate that they oppose global bans entirely, i.e., that it is not possible to write a meaningful global bans policy that would attract their support. Option 3 is intended to provide that opportunity, and to aid in distinguishing between people who oppose the proposed policy because it requires improvements and those who oppose the proposed policy because no policy permitting global bans should be adopted.
Because the third section was added late by a respondent, it is possible that some people who responded early in the RFC have commented at option 2, but would really prefer to support option 3, or support both. If so, you may voluntarily choose to move your original comment or to or strikethrough your original comment and add new comments. This is a courtesy notice of the change, and there is no requirement that you take any action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
File:High-speed-railway-mapa-.jpg
Hey Sven Manguard, i'm the creator of 100px| English version, not done in svg, there's several copies of this file in Spanish 100px|, that's why in cancelled the Commons move, please let me straighten this out for clarity, in the mean time we should remove Flagging file as potentially eligible for transfer to Commons - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and make the change. You should also add the {{nobots}} tag to the image in question, so that it isn't flagged over and over again. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, i'm overwhelmed by the different versions, shortly ill straighten it up, what should be do with the excess copies? - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The same goes with File:Greater Buenos Aires 5.jpg, this is vintage 2008, i've created updated illustrations and this files should be put to rest, guess i should download updated files in commons, what should we do with older non commons files - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't want it to be around anymore, and you're the uploader, you can add {{db-self}} to the page and an admin will delete it. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The same goes with File:Greater Buenos Aires 5.jpg, this is vintage 2008, i've created updated illustrations and this files should be put to rest, guess i should download updated files in commons, what should we do with older non commons files - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, i'm overwhelmed by the different versions, shortly ill straighten it up, what should be do with the excess copies? - Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The West Wing
I note that you recently nominated 2 West wing episodes for deletion. I've just deletednominated nine more and you might be interested in checking out User:AussieLegend/The West Wing. There are actually about 130 episodes that should be deleted. If you happen to nominate any more, could you please let me know as I'd have to miss a chance to get rid of most of these. Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, it feels like you've got a bit of an agenda, so I'm thinking I'm going to avoid the area for a while. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, no agenda, I just decided to clean up the articles in January because they were a mess. Only the season 6 & 7 article had been created - for some reason nobody had created the season 1-5 articles. When I created the season articles I started looking at the episode articles and found they were horrible. That's why I built User:AussieLegend/The West Wing. 2162 Votes is a great example of the typical problems. It's all plot summary (1,125 words - more than double what it should be) with some OR, no refs and so on. I started fixing the mess with the episode articles but was thwarted at every turn by people who wanted to keep the articles at all costs, but didn't want to put in the effort to improve them at all. In the end I pretty much gave up because I was on my own and having to put up with some rather silly excuses. If I do have an agenda, it's trying to get articles to some kind of minimum standard. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
A puzzle?
Re: File:Ken Smart-WWiA1947pg764.jpg
This file is used in reference 1 in article Edward Smart. However "File usage" says: "There are no pages that link to this file", (and thus your bot has tagged the file).
The Revision history of the file tells an interesting story:
- 09:23, 15 July 2012 Svenbot (Talk | contribs) . . (288 bytes) (+17) . . (BOT: Tagging orphaned free file for maintenance and statical purposes (Bot Build 2)) (undo)
- 09:59, 6 February 2012 Fbot (Talk | contribs) . . (271 bytes) (-18) . . (BOT: Removing Orphan image because the file is no longer orphaned.) (undo)
- 17:51, 8 December 2011 Fbot (Talk | contribs) . . (289 bytes) (+18) . . (BOT: Flagging orphaned free file) (undo)
- 22:28, 8 August 2009 Pdfpdf (Talk | contribs) . . (271 bytes) (+271) . . ( ...
i.e. It seems Fbot went through a similar scenario.
The same chain of events has occurred with File:Ken Smart.pdf
Have you any idea what's going on? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- The reason this would happen is that the file has been used and then at a latter scan was shown not to be in use. The bot will change it when the change is noticed. Piandcompany (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yes. Obviously. The question was meant to imply: Why, at a later scan, was it shown not to be in use? And why, at a still later scan was it shown to be in use? The bot will change it when the change is noticed. What change? Given that nothing has changed, what is the change that the bot notices? What is making what changes, and why, and why is the bot noticing those changes, etc., etc.? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Dear Sven, Is your bot going to work out that these files are NOT orphans, or do I have to manually revert your bot's changes? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The image is not being transcluded to any page on this project. If you're using it in a citation, the bot would have no way of knowing that. In the orphan template itself, and in the thread above, is a code you can put in to make Svenbot not continue to re-add the tag, however I hasten to point out that Svenbot is doing exactly what it's supposed to. Your case is something it would have no way of even comprehending. In fact, consider noting that you're using the image in a citation on the file description page, because there's no other way of knowing that short of seeing it in the article itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- Given that you have supplied a method to avoid Svenbot, and the problems it creates, I thank you for addressing and solving MY "problems".
- However, you seem to have misunderstood my intent, which was to be helpful and draw a problem to YOUR attention. I'll leave it to you as to whether you wish to solve it or not, but I'll be more direct in my description:
- Why is wikipedia saying: "There are no pages that link to this file" when, quite clearly, there are?
- however I hasten to point out that Svenbot is doing exactly what it's supposed to. - I disagree. I agree that "Svenbot is doing exactly what you told it to do". But I dispute and sincerely doubt that labeling a page which, quite clearly, is NOT an orphan, as an orphan, "is doing exactly what it's supposed to".
- Your case is something it would have no way of even comprehending. - If that is indeed the case, how did Fbot work it out, and correctly remove the template?
- Why does "Svenbot" exist when "Fbot" already exists, and seems to do a more accurate job?
- In fact, consider noting that you're using the image in a citation - Good idea! Thanks. Will do.
- Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Sven
It seems too long since our editing paths have crossed. I resolved yesterday, that I should wish you well and that is what I am here to do. If you need anything, and I can help, you are welcome to call on me; anytime! Stay well and remain steadfast, as I remember your fine example. Best - 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikimania Barnstar
![]() |
Wikimania Barnstar |
It was great to see you at Wikimania 2012! -evrik (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC) |
Svenbot
Please mark all your edits on this task minor. They are plugging up my watchlist, and they are certainly minor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll get it done soon. It'll take a while to recompile everything though, and the task that's running now has been running for days, so I'm going to wait for it to finish before I switch it off. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- According to WP:VPT, use of the bot flag is optional. Please add that to your code as well. Also, get a new compiler. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
inappropriate for Commons
Please stop reapplying this. SpinningSpark 22:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Profile Picture
Hi can you please advise what your bot has flagged is appropriate to be moved for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bashir_A._Tahir_Profile_Picture.jpg&diff=next&oldid=501931697 As a newbie, I would appreciate the rationale. Thanks Truealpha (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Concord Picture
As the original photographer and uploader of the image [3] which your bot flagged to be moved to/copied to the WikiCommons, I have no issue with that. NECRATSpeak to me 05:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
svenbot
Why does the bot tag this file with |bot=svenbot
? I tagged the image for moving it to Commons! [4] mabdul 10:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not Sven but I think that the reason is to add the "|priority=true". However if you add mtc manually you could add "|human=Mabdul" to indicate that you have checked the file and found it eligible for Commons and perhaps also fixed the description etc. --MGA73 (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
-
- When I'm updating such descriptions and such things (for the case I know it better), then I use FCTG and upload it directly, but really: at the moment a) I have other problems and b) I'm uploading enough from enwb to commons! Moreover I used TW for tagging and thus I won't reedit the file description page AGAIN only for stupid bots... so either fix the bot or TW! mabdul 11:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not saying you should... I said you could :-) The reason I told you about the human review is that it tells other users that a human checked the file and prepared it for Commons. Fixing the description could be simple things like this to add links and remove unneeded text but it could also be to add more text (from the article where the photo is used). I doubt we could make TW do that. --MGA73 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
-
svenbot tags
Are there any tags that can be used to prevent svenbot from tagging a particular file?--RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- It ignores {{nobots}} Piandcompany (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- What he meant was "It ignores pages with {{nobots}} on them." Sven Manguard Wha? 20:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I think that {{Bots|deny=Svenbot}} is better because {{nobots}} will "kill" all bots. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. That'll work too, and is probably a better option. I can't think of any other bots that work in the File namespace, but I'll update my FAQ with the more specific code. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I updated {{Orphan image}} and some files with a deny=Fbot to deny=Svenbot like here :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure. That'll work too, and is probably a better option. I can't think of any other bots that work in the File namespace, but I'll update my FAQ with the more specific code. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I think that {{Bots|deny=Svenbot}} is better because {{nobots}} will "kill" all bots. --MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- What he meant was "It ignores pages with {{nobots}} on them." Sven Manguard Wha? 20:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Images flagged
Please do not flag again File:ValentinaIgoshina.JPG and File:ClaireMarieLeGuay.JPG to be copied to Commons. Thee quality of the images is not good enough. Thanks. Kraxler (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the thread above. It contains the instructions you need. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Travel guide discussion
Regarding this comment of yours, the RfC is about a proposal to set up a new project, not the behaviour of individual users supporting (or opposing) that proposal. If you have a problem with those users, can I suggest you take it up with them directly?
As it happens, I agree with you that responses within the Oppose section are counterproductive, but the other side of the coin is that if those opposing users do not present their views elsewhere (eg. the Talk page), then it's not really possible to debate them, and that's why people keep replying. Jpatokal (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- To me, the people doing the badgering are the face of the incoming project. These overly aggressive tactics being employed raise concerns about the kind of culture that we'd be bringing into the fold. We have enough problems with badgering and "I'm always right and I'll fight you about it" type personalities already. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Question on CC vs PS license for images from Yale Center for British Art
Message added 09:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Shall I tag you for perpetuating copyright violations or would you prefer to self-revert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've already told you: edit the images at Commons (which you've been doing, albeit while edit warring to get there), don't remove them here. If you remove them again, I'm going to go to AN/I because I'm not going to run afoul of 3RR. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. You can't take the higher ground because the images on the commons have been found to be against copyright but a cabal has been edit warring to keep them in. So you are a vandal when you restore them knowing that they break copyright. And besides, you're also breaking WP:MOSFLAG guidelines, particularly WP:INFOBOXFLAG. But I'm tired of edit warring with you. I'll just report you instead. I added some of them kits in earlier in they day so reverting those doesn't put me at 3RR yet. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- And I'll be happy to defend myself at AN/I and I'll have several supporters from the football project with me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've already told you: edit the images at Commons (which you've been doing, albeit while edit warring to get there), don't remove them here. If you remove them again, I'm going to go to AN/I because I'm not going to run afoul of 3RR. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Green Lantern (film)
The problem is a tag that's supposed to be /ref (with brackets) but is instead ref/ (with brackets). Sorry, I should have mentioned that at ANI. Fix that and the page should return to normal. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A beer for you!
![]() |
I understand what you did was in good faith and I fully understand that. Thanks for maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia in the face of zealots like me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
- Someone updated the kit on a page I watch and pointed-out the docs for kits on the English site: Template:Football kit#Creating and naming a new pattern. You may want to discuss there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
"Travel Guide" on Meta
Hello, Sven Manguard,
by chance you are the first contributor here :[5]; that's why I address just you. Beforehand, I have loads of interests, among others the Bavarian Book Language, a construct intended to unite somehow the Bavarians; so, travel guides are not my major preoccupation.
But, what is definitely important to me, is that such guides would have to breathe something of the spirit of e. g. the German "Kauderwelsch" guides. That means, not just to inform, but also to include the locals, anyhow, anywhere. Well, "Kauderwelsch" is a language guides series beforehand, but this would have to be valid also for our travel rail: Never neglect the local situation! Never forget the local language conditions (and be it, that most chambermaids come from the even poorer xy-Islands and so on)! Never let a tourist return home without having learned something!
So, sorry if I disturbed you, but I just wanted you to explain my vote on Meta on this theme.
--Hellsepp (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Bot bug
See here. Your bot shouldn't ask people to move files without permission to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I will make sure that di-no permission is actually on the blacklist. If it is, then you have indeed found a bug. It might not be though. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, where is the blacklist for the moment? It used to be in Fbot's userspace but the whole userspace was deleted when Fastily decided to retire. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's on Labs now. That does make it a bit more painful to edit, but it's still possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, where is the blacklist for the moment? It used to be in Fbot's userspace but the whole userspace was deleted when Fastily decided to retire. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
DASHBot
On my Talk Page you wrote: Could you please explain why you turned off the DASHBot resize function? Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 14:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I followed a link on an image I had originally uploaded. It -- like many others -- was credited as being uploaded by the person called DASHBot. I wanted to know why he was taking credit for my uploads. The page I found only contained a text message about turning off by changing the "yes" to "anything but yes." I concluded it was a prank page set up but a user and did what it suggested because it said so. I meant no harm. Could see no functionality to it. Sorry if that was not the case. Jason Palpatine (talk) 08:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- DASHBot resizes non-free images that are too large (non-free images really aren't supposed to be larger than 160,000 pixels). The larger version is then later deleted by an admin. That's why you can't see your version. Your edit is still in the edit history though. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Han Duk-Soo
I trust this is better? That got creative in fixing, logs look like heck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This article DR
You uploaded the image used for this person's wikipedia article that someone has now proposed for deletion. Perhaps you would care to give a vote--or comment--to keep it or prefer to stay neutral. Its your decision. I think this person (R. Roddenberry) has general notability in the Star Trek world siince he has done several projects connected with Star Trek. But that's just my opinion. Regards, --Artene50 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)