User talk:Kanonkas/Archive 7

Twinkle suggestion

Hey, in case you have some free time, it would be great if twinklebatchproject.js could support the new protection level [upload=sysop] and [upload=autoconfirmed]. This would be a great help for reprotecting all those files that are still protected with [edit=sysop]. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey The Evil IP. I'll take a look, but this may take long time. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's not of a big hurry. --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This photo

Dear Admin/Bureaucrat Kanonkas,

I hope I never have to mark another photos like this again. It was definitely stomach churning! Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe :) — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Would you care to make a comment in this DR I filed...as an experienced Admin. The photo is somewhat suspicious unless the uploader is in his/her late 70s or early 80s today. What is troubling is this person is uploading 1940's era printed books and photos but no one knows if they are copyrighted or not. AGF only goes so far. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Little service

Hi there. This picture on en.WP was imported and I deleted it at once as a copyvio [1]. The importer asked me to have the original deleted on WP as well, but I'm not active at all over there. Would you please take care of that? --Eusebius (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Eusebius. I've taken care of the issue. Please ask me if you need any further assistance. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi Kanonkas, would you have a look at this request. As he already did extensive testing, could you flag it? -- User:Docu at 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Docu. I would prefer if we could wait a day or two before proceeding. Sounds good? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok for me (it's not my request). It's just that I wouldn't want him to get discouraged in the meantime. -- User:Docu at 14:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite understandable. I appreciate your time in this area (not many contributors help out in this area). Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW I made a rights request on test. Would you have a look at it? -- User:Docu at 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Took care of it yesterday.  Done. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Again my bot

Hello! I would like to ask you if it could be possible to make a little modification to my bot. I talked with this user, who is taking himself the hard work of organizing the categories about Italian administrative entities (regions, provinces and comuni). He asked me to give to the categories of comuni only the name of the comune without the province (e.g. Category:Venetico), instead the pattern you suggested me (e.g.: Category:Sesto Campano, Isernia), because:

1. It would make easier the search of a category by the comune name, because not always people knows which province the comune belongs to;
2. There is a proposal, made by the Italian Government, to abolish the province institution, leaving only regions and comuni. If such a thing would happen, indicating the province a comune belongs to would become quite useless.

Can I modify my bot in order to create the category names only with the comune name? I don't know if such a little thing should need another approval, but in doubt I asked you... Thank you for your attention, best regards. -- Vonvikken (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. No approval needed for that. Just be sure that it's the proper way to categorize. Multichill can probably help you if you need any. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Have a nice day! -- Vonvikken (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Eagle closeup.jpg

File:Eagle closeup.jpg should probably be deleted. It seems to be a copy of en:File:Eagle closeup.jpg (no source). -- Common Good (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done by PeterSymonds (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes). — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit question

Hi. I don't know what this is all about. What's the situation? Wondering, cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Infrogmation. Please see your inbox. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Parque das nações lisboa portugal.jpg

I don't know why this is still not deleted. There is no evidence the uploader knew the right license. Uploader's talkpage revealed other copy vios. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You should tag it with {{copyright violation|your reason here}} instead of taking it to DR. It speeds up the process. Turelio took care of your request. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your point above Kanonkas. As an aside, does this photo look like a copy vio from the supertiny resolution here It is very noticeable and suspicious. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Noted. It looks suspicious indeed. I'll take a further look later on. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 07:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks. This is another image by the same uploader. Same problem: supertiny resolution and zero metadata. It looks like another copy vio sadly. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged the two uploads with no permission. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• OK, Thanks for addressing the problem. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This DR

Can you make a response to this DR and this DR by me....as an experienced Admin. I can't tell if its a street scene or a modern building. I think its more of the former but am not certain either. I personally dislike FOP issues since they are complicated. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to abstain here. I think someone with more knowledge on FOP ought to comment. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I wish there was an expert on FOP that one could ask here. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bduke

Hi Kanonkas, it seems problematic to include his vote in the RfA as he hardly has any contributions. This even more if it tips the count in favor of another not really active user. -- User:Docu at 11:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dreadstar seems just as problematic. -- User:Docu at 11:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Docu. I didn't just look at the raw numbers when making the decision. RfA is not a numerical measurement. I took into account the strength of their arguments/opinions, experience and knowledge of the commenting users. Most importantly: I use my judgement, so their is no "clear cut case" on discounting votes. The two users in question passed the above, hence why I didn't nor see a reason to discount their votes. I don't plan on discounting votes based on activity or contributions here. I look for what I said above. The community made their opinion very clear regarding discounting votes based on activity and/or contributions. See Commons:2008 Election suffrage poll for the community's opinion.

Short said: it's up to the closing bureaucrat's discretion. Hope this answered your question. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I was convinced that it was an oversight on your side. You didn't mention it at all in your lengthy explanation. I understand that to some extent it is at your discretion, but still closing bureaucrats add a count of votes on top of the page. The poll you mention seems to focus on recent activity while Commons:Administrators#Voting addresses any activity and seems to have remained unchanged.

If you assess based on experience, it seems really odd that you discounted the oppose votes, but took into account voters with virtually nil experience. I think we already have too many such requests for marginally active people that haven't been active since their RfA, so such closings just foster this further. -- User:Docu at 10:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't discount the opposing votes. No votes were discounted. You'll see all of the votes were included. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not numerically that is true. -- User:Docu at 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending bot approval

Hi there. I submitted a request for approval for a program named PDBbot about a week ago. I believe I've fulfilled the suggestions of regular bot reviewers (EugeneZelenko, Multichill and Schlurcher). Could you take a look at the bot request here and let me know your thoughts with regard to its approval status? Thank you, Emw (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Emw. I've approved your bot. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 10:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

en.WP admin needed

Hi there. Two files on en.WP seem to come from a website and to miss an OTRS permission (I have tagged Commons imports). Could you do something about that? I really don't know how it works on en.WP. Thanks in advance! --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional question, how did you add the instructions that appear when editing your talk page? --Eusebius (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Eusebius. I've added the missing permission templates. You can add your own talk page note by editing User talk:Eusebius/Editnotice. See my page for ideas and/or to see an example. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Regards. --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some kind of QuickDelete gadget on en.WP, for tagging files or nominating them for deletion? --Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Use Twinkle in your preferences under "Gadgets". You can then find "missing permission" under the tab "DI". --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. --Eusebius (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Zscout370

I'm afraid that what Pieter says in this DR is quite right. Admin ZScout370 is doing a mass DR on images with old deprecated PD license tags....even though they were correctly uploaded in 2005 and 2006 according to protocol from that time. This is not right at all. I believe one should assume AGF here if the uploader, who has since left Commons, can be trusted.

This is another situation caused by Zscout370. How about this third case? I think pd-self is the best solution--as Nard the Bard suggests--since you are talking about reasonably high resolution images whose only problem is that they were uploaded in 2005/2006 with the old pd template--which did not require an "own work" or "my photo" statement by the uploader. They all date from 2005 and have proper image descriptions. Often times, people just gave a description of what photo they took but we can surely assume it is own work and that PD-self applies? Whatever happened to AGF? If this does not stop, I fear someone (like one of the innumerable uploaders whom Zscout370 has targetted) will file an ArbCom complaint against him. With kind Regards sadly, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv. I've asked Zscout to initiate a thread on AN (link). — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, have made a comment to Zscout370 now. I pray this situation does not blow up into a big mess. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Watermarks

It totally depends on what types of watermarks they are, where they are on the image, and what type of image it is. My experience is limited to removing watermarks from "dead" areas of images, that is, areas that are of fairly uniform colour. In those situations (and note that I use Paint Shop Pro rather than Photoshop), I use the clone brush at different intensities to smooth over the watermark, and occasionally the smudge and push brushes to move the colours around. Do you have an example of a watermarked image you'd like to fix? Also, do you have any experience with making SVG images? I submitted the NASA TV logo to the Graphics Lab (twice, actually), but no one seems to want to touch it. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an example at the moment, sorry. I'll try to find one, which shouldn't be hard :) I've made some SVG maps in the past, but I don't really have vast experience making SVG files. I would consider myself pretty new when it comes to making SVG files. I used Inkscape, which I found confusing at the start. I'll take a look when I have some spare time left for image editing (which may be a couple days - new year and all that). Just note I may not be able to convert or create it, which would be unfortunate. If that happens I'll try to find someone else to help. Happy new year! — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 04:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone else took care of the issue? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Akira took a stab at it. Definite improvement over the fuzzy thing I had before, but still rudimentary. Whenever you have some free time, I'd still appreciate you taking a look (though it really isn't that big a deal). — Huntster (t @ c) 06:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Asked Rama to help out. Here is the SVG: File:NASA TV.svg. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's great. Thank you, and big thanks to Rama. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

mailing list

hi; hope i've got the right user, but this is me, confirming my join to the poty2009 committee's mailing list:

" (Sun Jan 3 05:36:54 2010). "

if not, please disregard, & my apologies for cluttering up your talkpage

Lx 121 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, you've got the right person. Please see your inbox. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Template MANN

Hi Kanonkas. It's correct that you are good in Templates? I have a little / big problem. Can you help me? I began this new year with a big work: since 3 weeks I am working at the transformation in a Catalogue of the Gallery of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples. I made it similar at those which Giovanni Dall'Orto realised for the most important black and white fotographs; but I don't made it strickly by numbers, but first by Museum Collections, and then by inventory numbers. Anyway, my work is finish for the catalogue, not yet for the languages (like you can see). Now, for each picture I want to give the correct and (if it is possible) the complete informations. Luigi Chiesa helped me, he made a Template for my Museum; it is like the Template of the archaeological museums in Rome (e.g. Musei Vaticani, or Musei Capitolini). Now, this Template is very nice, but it's not perfect. I wishes to change the place of the Location and of the Accession number, and then it's necessary the Date for the object like it's given in the Template Paintings (like here). Of course, for an archaeological museum it must be possible not only a year, but a century too. Luigi Chiesa told me that there are some problems to change this Template, because then it's necessary to change all Museums Template in the same way. Short, I wishes that the Template of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples looks like this: 1)Location; 2)Accession number; 3)Artist (with rose background); 4)Description (with rose background); 5)Date/Year (with rose background); 6)Dimensions; 7)Credit line; 8)References; 9)Source; 10)Other versions. I think that this order is better. First: Where is this object? In the Museo Archeologico Nazionale of Naples (frame); in the Farnese Collection, Room 123 (location); with this inventory number (accession number). Second: The object: who made it? (artist); what represent it? (description); when was it made? (date); how big is it? (dimensions); Third: The history of the object: where was it found?, or from which collection it comes? (credit line); who speaks of it? (references); who made this picture? (source); where do you have other similar pictures? (other versions). Do you think that it's possible to give this order? Or it is really impossible or to much difficult? Can you help me to realise this? I will be very greatfull to you! Thank You so much for your answer! Saluti, --DenghiùComm (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi DenghiùComm. Do you still need help? As you can see from my user page, I'm on a wikibreak. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Photoshopping out watermarks

Hi Kanonkas, I wandered across a random question by you on a talk page about removing watermarks. The bad news is this presently requires a fair amount of manual effort - generally you have to go in with a clone brush (sometimes with hard edges, sometimes with fuzzy edges) and use it to copy pixels from a similar region, while carefully eliminating any clear seams between the old pixels and the copied pixels. The healing brush and patch tool are sometimes also useful, but don't always work. The good news is that the technology to do this automatically is being commercialized as we speak, and I'm very excited about this. See [2]. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dcoetzee. Now that's neat! I hope this will be released soon. Though, I have my doubts it'll be released anytime soon. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Long time no see

Hello Kanonkas. How are you doing? Thanks for keeping an eye on my user page. --Kimsə (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Kimse. Sure is a long time since we've talked. It's good to see you back :) Hope you're doing good. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

Do you think you could lift my block on Wikipedia? I've tried contacting Spellcast about this, but all he's doing is ignoring me, despite the fact that it's been proven that I'm not 98E. I was unblocked here on Commons because I proved that I had nothing to do with 98E, but I'm still blocked on Wikipedia. Considering how my block doesn't have any point to it because I'm not 98E, it doesn't make sense for me to still be blocked, and I'll be very grateful if you were to unblock me. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you replied to a comment that was posted after mine, but you didn't reply to mine. Why? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

POTY

Hi, Kanonkas. What shall we do about POTY2009? I tried a little, but creating more than 800 votepages is too much work. And we need AccountEligibility tool, if we are going to run POTY. Or shall we give up POTY?--miya (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Miya. I see Julian has reached your talk page offering to help (thank you!). I've been trying to get help with the IRC bot. No luck, unfortunately. I'm still trying to get help. As for the AccountEligibility tool - Pathoschild was kind enough to create it. See the awesome new tool :) — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, beautiful! --miya (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File:2009-2010 fr tyres.jpg & File:2009-2010 car length compare.tiff

These 2 image appear to be in a bad file format and no one has marked them for 1 long week now. Perhaps it should be deleted...as the photos take up unnecessary space in the human review category. What do you think? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

MGA73 (talk • contribs • blocks • protections • deletions • moves • rights • rights changes) seems to have taken care of the issue. I'm currently on a break, which is why I'm not available as usual. Meanwhile, I'd recommend you to ask other administrators for help. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes MGA73 has taken care of the issue now. Sorry, I didn't know you were away but the problem is now solved. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Hey, could you pop on IRC briefly when you get a chance? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Already there. It seems you didn't spot me :) — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

Thank you for the support on my OTRS application. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing username

Hello, I've updated my username request. Thanks for your attention. --WłosProsiOGłos (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. I've taken care of your CHU request. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Status change

Hello,

What does being an Autopatroller now mean? Thanks. --BrokenSphere 03:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey BrokenSphere. Basically all of your edits are "autopatrolled". More information can be found here. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 08:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the opportunity - thanks for the news... SatuSuro (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mailing list

 Done, BTW. It went into spam, which is why I didn't see it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chronophotography

Please add cat Chronophotography to the main picture of the day. Thank you, --Svajcr (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done. You can use {{editprotected}} for future requests. By using the template you'll likely get a quicker response. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

new patrol error with vector

Hi, New patrol.js give an error with vector:

TypeError: side_col is null
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kanonkas/NewPagePatrol.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript (240)

Could you have a look ? Otourly (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Otourly. The script is currently incompatible with vector. I'll see what I can do, but I don't think I'll be able to fix it. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 11:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I prefer stay on vector anyway so I'll try to have a look on new pages sometimes. Otourly (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Keira Knightley 2005.jpg

Hello! Do you really know the statements of free license such a CC-BY-2.0? Because I have seen recently your admin actions and I don't think so. Look at this and this, and after that boldly say that this photo is the same as the source. In short, you are irresponsible and pervert an admin function. I demand the restoration of the full log. Regards, Patrol110 talk 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I understand you're upset, but I would've appreciated if you did not talk in such a manner. We can communicate without resorting to any sort of name calling. However, as to your concern: at the time we did not have the ability to move files, thus we did it that way. I apologise for any inconvenience it may've caused. We now have the ability to move files, so I've restore the old picture and moved it to the new name. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Alecia Beth Moore.jpg

Hi, do you have any information about the ticket specified on File:Alecia Beth Moore.jpg? Have you sent the email? Unfortunately, I cannot find anything in our system and the ticket id seems to be wrong somehow. Thanks in advance! Cheers, —Pill (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Pill. I'm pretty sure that was the ticket. For some reason the permission from PETA is in doubt, thus the DR. Many images are using the above PETA permission, so I am not sure why it's not on OTRS (not the wrong ticket number either AFAIK). Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, found the ticket now (note regarding potential future uploads: Different from what is stated on the image description pages, 738564 is not the ticket number, it's just some bit of a URL, the ticket number is 2007022810021177). —Pill (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you for dealing with this. It's sincerely appreciated. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 05:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ascended to Commons from the petty en.wikipedia

File:Lonepinemountaindevil.jpg

See? Ugly.

Wow. This place is awfully shiny. I'm a little awed. (Does that count as a word? Meh, whatever.)

I came to ask of favor of you as a Commons administrator- could you delete this image? It was uploaded as a hoax picture for a hoax article and we petty users took care of the articles and blocked the sockpuppets, but the file's here on Commons. A little insignificant (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see. I've deleted it as out of our scope. Thanks for notifying me about the issue (and for dealing with this!). If you need any further assistance, please ask. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Farewell

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

POTY and SecurePoll

Hi, Kanonkas. I wish we could try SecurePoll in the Final, but don't know much about its system. Will you ask Tim Starling to create votes for POTY (setup interface) and make a sample page to show how it works? --miya (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Miya. I'm replying back to your e-mail. No need to leave two notices (on-wiki and e-mail) :) — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 06:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

special request

I have been following Jimbo Wales deletion. However, I only found out now on the news that he is under pressure by the news media to do so.

I wish to do some research. Since you are a bureaucrat, can you temporarily grant me administrator rights for 24-36 hours so that I can view what the fuss is about. I promise, on the threat of a lifetime ban, not to block anyone or assert administrative rights except to do research on the current events. In return, I promise (if asked) to write a neutral report to you on my research findings. Assorg (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, unfortuantly I can't do what your requesting. Promotion to administrator (even temporary) should be done with community approval. Here's a link with more information. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 17:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

PD review

Hi!

I write to you because you are listed here Commons:PD_files/reviewers#List_of_PD_reviewers.

The Category:PD files for review was flooded some time ago and perhaps therefore PD review seems to have stopped. After some discussion on Commons_talk:PD_files#Has_review_stopped? the category has been cleaned up.

Perhaps you would like to come back and take a look at some of the remaining files?

Thank you!

--MGA73 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Newpagepatrol.js

Hi ! Now this tool exist in french version and it works (partially) with vector... User:Otourly/NewPagePatrol.js thanks to User:Dr Brains Otourly (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey. That's nice :-) I'm glad that the tool is being used. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it's an usefull one! Otourly (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Usurpation requested

Is there a special reason for this template? It is not really correct as we don't automatically usurp if the user does not react. -- Cecil (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the user has zero edits, is not SUL-unified, we do so in most cases before 7 days (so that needs to be changed or adapted). See this section of allowable usurpations - "Target account is unused, and has not been SUL reserved". If I'm missing something, please point it out. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As people are using it for the wrong reason, it should be clearly pointed out in the template that this only applies for edit-free accounts. The thing is quite colourful but every time I see it in use it was used on the talk pages of users which had edits. The people using is either are not seeing that it is only supposed to be for editfree-accounts (as the colours are drawing the attention to other areas) or they simply don't read the template at all and try the one that they are used on from Wikipedia. As the same template name delivers a result they don't notice that actually not the same reasons for using it apply. -- Cecil (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just thought that maybe people also set a time-limit to "not used it to edit" and interpret it as used it in the last few years instead of 'at all'? -- Cecil (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've changed the template accordingly. What you think? — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail //

BRD

Regarding [3] you need to do the DISCUSS part of bold, revert, discuss. That's lacking, you just reverted with no discussion. Defend the reversion on the talk page, please. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to pardon me, our ISP had some connectivity issues last night. I've left a comment by now. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 09:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

usurp

I am Inspector from Chinese wikipedia. Could you please rename the existing User:Inspector account?--61.18.170.204 12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please read COM:CHU and act accordingly. Thanks, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 13:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--61.18.170.66 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Hi,

Can you remove this page File:Handel - messiah - 33 lift up ye heads, o ye gates.ogg from your protected page User:Kanonkas/Main Page please. This inclusion prevents me from continuing the storage in the new category, I get this reply (in french... excuse-me for the bad translation... and my bad english): « You are not allowed to edit this page, for the following reason: This page is protected because it is included in the following page, which was protected with the "cascading protection" actived. » [4] ?

Or can you replace yourself the [[:Category:Messiah|33]] in [[:Category:Ogg files of Messiah|33]] ?

Thank you in advance! --Mandariine (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OrphanTalk2

Hi Kanonkas,

From the linksearch I have determined that you previously used Agony's orphantalk-tool. Unfortunately this has been unavailable for some time now because his/her toolserver account expired. It has been renewed once but the tool didn't function (well) because a a few things have changed behind the scenes since it was initially developed.

By great request from several wikis I've decided to give it a shot and develop a new tool to generate a list of talk pages without a subject page.

OrphanTalk2 can be found at the following address:

http://toolserver.org/~krinkle/OrphanTalk2.php?wikidb=commonswiki_p

I'd like to hear from you. Please report any bugs or feature requests on Meta-Wiki by Creating a new ticket. –Krinkle^talk 02:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Megan_Fox_promoting_Transformers_in_Paris_6.jpg

File:Megan_Fox_promoting_Transformers_in_Paris_6.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!

Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hello, welcome back!   ■ MMXX  ^talk  08:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mmxx. Much appreciated and thanks! — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing username

please make me this Usurption as soon as possible --Akhilan (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)