——————————————— Archive, March 2012 ———————————————
Please have a look at your request in the Illustration workshop.there is a link to the sketches for the logo. -LadyofHats (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for your notification. I anticipate your uploads. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed a few problems.
Sometimes the rename suceeds but the code is unable to carry on the last two steps (removing the template, posting on commonsdelinker). This happens when the target rename is filtered, ie how .JPG becomes .jpg
The code then complains how it cannot move page onto itself like here: [1]
Also consider the case where a page is moved but the template wasn't removed. There should be a button to remove the template and check if entry was posted to commons delinker and post if it hasn't been. [2]
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I don't know why you're asking this to me but I can't help you with that. You should ask your question on the talk page of the template. Udufruduhu (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I thought you were maintaining the template but ok. I will do that. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I created the template. You need a redesign? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The template was modified to add categories for featured pictures etc, then modified again to include categories for "formerly featured" pictures as well. The problem is that discussion pages that display examples of the template and its usage are included in those categories. Of course those pages do not belong in those categories, so of course it would be best to only add the category for pages in "File:" namespace. It is fairly simple to do this, but the originally straight foward code of the template is starting to look very cluttered (need to put a test around every instance of "[[ category:"). It would have been cleaner before the "formerly featured" categories were added because prior to that the categories were added in a seperate section at the bottom of the template, and so could have been excluded with one surrounding test condition. There are also categories added by other sub-pages as well (eg POTY winners). So rather than hacking at the code, I thought it would maybe a good time to look at the structure to see if it could be done more elegantly. I think maintainability of the code is more important than compactness or efficiency unless the template is for use on a huge number of files. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The issue can be addressed with a few clever If/Elses for the relevant conditions. Could you link me to a few of the files/categories involved? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The pages which started this request are Commons_talk:Quality_images and Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 2. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Could you demonstrate the problem if possible? Where does the template not work properly. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- It adds categories to non file pages, eg for Commons talk:Quality images, there is Category:Former quality images, and hidden categories:
- Featured picture of the year (finalist)
- Quality images
- Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons
- Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds
- Which are the right categories if it was an image in "file:" namespace, but not ok for other pages. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ah I see. You want a namespace check if it is in file namespace or not. I will work for this end now. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I believe what you wanted is now coded in. I am thinking of simplifying this templates code by moving content to sub pages as auto-translate is rather difficult to follow in code. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work :-). But there are still further categories that the template adds, eg for page Commons_talk:Quality_images there are "Former quality images, Featured picture of the year (finalist), Quality images, Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons, Commons featured widescreen desktop backgrounds". Most of these are hidden categories and are added by code on sub-pages. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I noticed that too. I do not immediately see where the category is in the template. I will look though. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Found it. I am unable to edit Template:Assessments/temp though. Some prick protected the page. :( -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have added an {{Edit request}} to unprotect the page as I don't see why it is protected and other sub-pages of the template are not. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- It is because I protected all of them due to heavy use. They should remain semi-ed IMHO. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
{{Assessments/temp}} is now semi-protected, so maintenance can resume :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Should be OK now I think. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Before you go classifying a ton of things, you might want to note this: Commons:Village pump#An Afghan copyright law. Dragons flight (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for the heads up. I was actually classifying really low quality images, images in the public domain for other reasons and images clearly not covered by afghan laws. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Your change of the licences at the file pages of the numerous afghan flags and emblems do not really solve the proble we've got now with the new copyright law. Of course, those files are created by non-afghan wiki-users, but their files are still deriavatives of the original graphics, which are now protected by copyright.--Antemister (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Certainly. Their licensing of PD-Afghanistan was bogus from the start. All I claim is they are anything but PD due to the original conditions of PD-Afghanistan. They need to be handled like every other image. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, the images had been in the PD from their creation until 2008, the year the copyright law came into force, so at that time the licence was correct. Your edits now "hide" the problem of the copyright status, a problem we have with many images of flags where we do not know the status of copyright protection in their home country.--Antemister (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I do not believe anything is hidden. Category:Historical flags of Afghanistan has all the files you seek. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is the fact that the CC-licences can only apply to the files the wiki-user has drawn, of course it does not apply to the original flag. The SVG files are all deriavatives of the original flags, which had been in the PD at the time the SVGs were drawn, so those files were, according to the uploaders, CC-licenced deriavatives of the original PD-flags. But now the original files are protected, so the CC-licence will be a copyvio.--Antemister (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Not necessarily. The source could be treated as PD-Ineligible. I do not see it clear cut basically. COM:DEL is the avenue for them I wager not speedy. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
May I call your attention to a COM:AN discussion, please?[3] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am concerned over several aspects of your recent nomination -- Commons:Deletion requests/Very low resolution images in Category:PD Afghan. I am leaving you a note here on your talk page, rather than in the deletion discussion, to reduce the embarrassment for you.
The boiler plate of the instantiation of the standard heads-up you left on my talk page advises me not to take the nomination personally. The text of your nomination, however, personally calls me out. The standard heads up is correct, we are all volunteers here. Unless you have a specific reason to name a contributor whose actions triggered your concern, like that they have a history of disruption, bad faith, or failures to comply with policy, why would you specifically name another volunteer? Why couldn't you say, "all these images were uploaded by a single contributor"?
We all have a limited reserve of good faith. I suggest it is a mistake for any of us the unnecessarily use up other contributor's reserve of good faith through carelessness -- as I think you did here. Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Actually. I do not believe you are at fault here. When you uploaded these images in good faith they were in the public domain. That does not seem to be the case anymore. I am sorry if you feel singled out. It is just a deletion nomination, not the Spanish inquisition. I have traditionally established the uploader of mass nominations as often the commonality is the uploader. I have removed your username from the nomination per your request, however. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 20:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering when everyone will vote on the Strategy wiki's logo. I saw your logo request on Meta-wiki and then saw all the wonderful logos made on Wikicommons. They're so cool!! --129.107.45.186 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Voting is at m:Logo for Wikimedia Strategic Planning wiki. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, the template has an additional parameter now. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- The hell is that for? DS (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- To establish the criteria so you do not even need to type in a rationale. A value between 1 and 7 corresponding to the criteria. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ugly, lacks transparency, assumes user is innately familiar with the criteria code and that all possible instances have been taken into account. Should have an option for "left blank; full criterion added instead". DS (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Transparency? It links to the policy page. In the past it was mere text which was far worse not better. This way the rename action itself links to the policy for people reviewing. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Right. And the other comments? DS (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- They will still show. Parameter 2 used to be the comments, now parameter 2 expects a number as input corresponding to the criteria. Parameter 3 is for the comments like before. So instead of using it {{rename|Filename.ext|text}} it is {{rename|Filename.ext|3|text}}. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you insist on not using the number parameter? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 17:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you think "No valid reason stated". Thanks. Americophile 23:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Images with copyright issues shouldn't really be nominated for page moves until that is resolved. I do not want to move images if they are going to be deleted anyways. I accidentally clicked the button (I accidentally hit enter while reaching to the keyboard) too early so I apologize for that reason as I was not able to input my rationale. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- It seems logical. Thanks for clarification. Americophile 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Glad a source was established. I was going to rename it for you but it seems like someone has beaten me to it. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I see you replacing meaningful names. Do not do that, keep to the instructions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Where do you see that? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- You should remember what I mean. You renamed file:Seven sisters mountains.jpg. There are many more such cases. Please read Commons:File renaming#What files should not be renamed? (And there is no need to copy this to my talk page.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- There are multiple objects with the same name so I think it falls under COM:FR #3 based on the request of the file rename rationale. Is this incorrect? Should I reject entries unless a specific (numbered) criteria is inputted to the template? There still is some discussion on that end. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do not confuse file names with descriptions. You are moving files in far too many cases. Keep to Commons:File renaming#What files should not be renamed?, it is policy. Or I will request that your filemover bit be removed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Linking me to the same policy where I specified a rationale I think this falls under is not much of an explanation. Either explain me the problem or your comment will be completely disregarded.
- I do not respond kindly to threats. Do not do that again to anyone. It creates an hostile environment, demoralizes editors and overall is a very dicky move.
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I always copy the discussion I am involved with to the talk pages of everyone. To date in the past 7+ years of my contribution only one individual has complained about this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It is clear to me that you do not want to listen. You did not listen to objections in history. I announced what I would do if you kept ignoring policy, and leave it for others to decide. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Ah so it is a turf war. I complied with a rename request you rejected which is why you are so pissed off about it. It falls under criteria #3 as far as I care. I will continue to make such renames unless you can tell me the actual problem. Randomly linking to policy is no rationale. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
|
File:Star Trek Film OF11.png 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!
| Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I see so you will focus monitoring an analyzing all of my edits now on. Good luck with that. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
|
|
File:Star Trek Film OF3b.png 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!
| Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
|
|
File:Ethiopia African potrayal of Jesus.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!
| Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
| العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−
|
|
| This media was probably deleted.
|
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Electric razor transparant.png, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ( [[:File:Electric razor transparant.png]]).
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you! | Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
|
|
File:Steve Wozniak.png 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!
| Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
Rd232 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
|
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A_Scallop_Fragment_and_Precipitates_on_its_Edge_inisde_One_of_Screw_Hub_Holes_seq-05_(DSC_6520).jpg&oldid=67811977){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFormer_Terash%C5%8D_Station.jpg&diff=67811982&oldid=67810139){kind=link}
