Last modified on 14 August 2013, at 06:36

User talk:SMcCandlish

  • Discussion
Return to the user page of "SMcCandlish".

Edits to "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands"Edit

Hi! Just a minor comment about your recent edits to "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands". I wonder if it is necessary to suggest to editors that they sign every {{move cat}} request within the template as this will add a lot of additional bloat to the page, particularly if editors' signatures are complex. Isn't it sufficient if editors just sign once at the bottom of a list of requests? — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that is so, but only if someone really does sign every single one in a multi-category nomination. I was operating on the assumption that it would be more, not less, tidy to include the sig with the reason parameter. I think that is still the case unless one is doing a multiple nomination, in which case it would be more tidy to include it only in the last one. In all cases, it's more tidy to include it inside the template instead of outside of it. Not a big deal to me either way. Regardless, the third parameter should begin "|3=" or things are likely to break from time to time, especially when people do sign in the "reason" parameter, because many, many useres have "style=..." in their sigs, and any unescaped occurrence of "=" in a template parameter that is not explicitly names causes template breakage. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's not a biggie for me either. I suspect, though, that if you put in the instructions that editors should put their signatures inside the template, then a lot of them are going to sign all the templates. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Tweaked the wording to suggest not doing that for multi-noms. I guess the bot owner will make the final decision. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

PaumierEdit

Hi! I added some author info to File:Jeu de paume racquets and battoirs, 1772.jpg based on a book which inventories the plates (Schwab and Wren, OUP, 1984). According to Schwab and Wren, this plate appears in volume VIII. The volume numbering is confusing. Also, I'm curious: did you scan this from a volume yourself? Also, Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers#Planches gives the original date of publication for this volume as 1771. Perhaps the volume you used was produced a year later? Is it from a library? If you scanned it yourself, we should make that clear. If not, and its from the web, would you be able to figure out the url, where you found it? BTW, I believe the high contrast (B/W) images on Commons are originally from Gallica [1] (although this is not documented), and were probably made quite some time ago. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it may have been published differently at different times in different languages, using the same plates (thus the volume numbering issues). I'll defer to your judgement on those matters. While I do have and scan such things sometimes (see my semi-recent cat-themed uploads), this one I just found somewhere. I think it may have been an eBay auction for that page from the book. It is the best one I have. The ones I scan myself are much, much better! Anyway, I do not know who originally posted them online. There's some kind of reverse image search site that analyzes image content and tries to find similar images online, but I can't remember what it's called. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol givenEdit

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

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 sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 20:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


File:Chinese Taipei Olympic Flag (bordered).svgEdit

Yes check.svg ResolvedDidn't see it in time to comment. Was kept anyway; the file exists for a reason, like the other bordered versions of mostly-white flag icons.
Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Chinese Taipei Olympic Flag (bordered).svg 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!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Metrónomo (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)