User talk:Rd232/Archive 4

Active discussions


Do you IRC? Because I would like to discuss Pieter Kuiper's current conduct with you. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't do IRC. If you're asking because you'd like to discuss it in private, feel free to email. Rd232 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up

Just a quick heads up that I have suggested an amendment to the editing restriction on FtO, and have made a note of it here. I am advising you as you have provided an opinion in that thread, and may wish to take this into account if any concerns you may have raised are addressed with it. russavia (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please remove my rollback rights

Hey Rd232,

Would you be so kind to remove my rollback rights? I never use it intentionally, and I have now two times used the feature unintentionally using a touch device. Thanks in advance, --Slaunger (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem.   Done. If you change your mind, just let me know. Rd232 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift service . --Slaunger (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected template

Hi Rd232, would you mind to edit template {{User}} replacing its content by

[[:{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}:}}User:{{ucfirst:{{#if:{{{User|}}}|{{{User}}}|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|example}}}}}}|{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{User|}}}|{{{User}}}|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|''Example''}}}}}}]] ([[:{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}:}}User talk:{{ucfirst:{{#if:{{{User|}}}|{{{User}}}|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|example}}}}}}|{{int:talkpagelinktext}}]]{{·}}[[:{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{{3}}}:}}Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:{{#if:{{{User|}}}|{{{User}}}|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|example}}}}}}|{{int:contribslink}}]])<noinclude>

It is well tested. Like almost all the other templates, it (1) works around the failing pipe trick, (2) allows using a nickname and (3) internationalization.
Every transclusion works with the altered code as it did before.
As soon it is replaced, I shall complete the documentation. sarang 사랑 12:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  Done. I hope I understood the changes and that everything does work as intended :) You did say it was "well tested". Rd232 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Danke, leider muss ich bei geschützten Seiten immer jemand Privilegierten bemühen. Wenn ich darum bitte habe ich bereits alles ausführlich getestet, alle Fälle und Kombinationen. Wir wissen dass dennoch was schiefgehen kann, aber soweit irgend möglich suche ich die richtige Funktionalität zu gewährleisten. Jetzt passe ich die Doku an, damit auch die Erweiterung beschrieben ist. sarang 사랑 17:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Need help with move

Sorry to bother. I've botched a move. Could you please revert it over redirect here. A brief explanation is here. Thanks in advance. Materialscientist (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Fhit happens. :) Rd232 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for reverting this vandal action. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The contributions of that rather odd vandal were full of that sort of thing... Rd232 (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Another protected template

Ha Rd232, may I ask you once more? When categories become too crowded it seems a good thing to open a diffusion. The edit request is such a thing, because military contains 1500 files, and a subcategory is existing. When the new parameter expansion is done I can continue with the corrections. sarang 사랑 17:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Rd232 (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for swift help sarang 사랑 20:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Eben sehe ich, da ist was schief gelaufen. Ich bemühe mich das schnell zu finden und die Reparatur vorzubereiten. Tut mir leid, war diesmal wohl nicht ausreichend getestet. Ich gebe dir Bescheid wenn ich soweit bin sarang 사랑 20:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now the edit request is repaired; seems I lost brackets when copying after test. Sorry. Following new tests it works now as it should; please replace template coding by the modified coding from the talk page entry. sarang 사랑 21:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK,   Done. Rd232 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Djvu thumbnails troubles

Dear Rd232, as I see you've been engaged into the issue of thumbnails purging of multipage image files (djvu).

While working at multipage djvu files for it.wikisource, it happens that we are forced to re-load new versions of the file, since some lacking pages are found when proofreading only the book. It's almost immpossible, sometimes, to purge thumbnails, and for long time (weeks-months) old, wrong thumbs are presented.

Curiously enough, it happens that jpg thumbs in edit view are right, while jpg thumbs in view mode are persistently wrong. You can imagin how much confusion can come out in inexperienced user, or in visitors.

Can this issue be definitively fixed? Thanks! --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 13:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

hm, honestly, I don't remember anything about djvu thumbnails specifically. I presume you're doing what Help:Purge suggests? If not, this may be the Bugzilla31680 problem. Rd232 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yo're right, I picked up your nick from Help:Purge page, where there's no mention of djvu files. I activated Extra Tabs2 and I "purged" File:Il Principe.djvu but it seems without any result. Do you know any user with a specific knowledge about djvu files, and their relationship with proofreading extension for wikisource built by ThomasV (I presume)? My idea is, that the issue is hidden in the interface Commons/proofreading extension. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could try asking for help at COM:VP, but to be honest I doubt that it's anything to do with the proofreading extension. I would think it's the Bugzilla31680 problem. You could try reporting your problem there (as precisely as possible). Rd232 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news: some thumbs are effectively purged with the thumb.php link (i.e. I used this one: to effectively purge the 700px "persistent" thumb). If the trick runs in other pages too, the issue is solved, even if not in a "clean" way. Thanks for your suggestions. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 15:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The April Fool's connection

In this comment you queried the April Fool's connection. Uploader's claims that it was not a gang tattoo were made late on the night of March 31st, and I read them on April 1st. The caption they added, and let stand for over four years, and the denial I read on April 1st are inconsistent. One of those claims has to be a hoax. Hence the April Fool's explanationI suggested.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. The timing of the denial is surely a complete coincidence. It makes zero sense for there to be any Fool connection. Rd232 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
PS: You really over-use the word "hoax", and I'm not sure you're using it as most people do. Rd232 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gadget for opening search results and suggestions in new tabs

I proposed a gadget for opening search results and suggestions in new tabs. I suggested using your JavaScript:

OK, thanks for letting me know. Maybe we should do that here too. Rd232 (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there a place just to propose gadgets on the Commons? Where would be a good place to propose this? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd say COM:VPR, perhaps with advertising at MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition and COM:VP. Rd232 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. I started a section on COM:VPR:
Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Open search results and suggestions in new tabs --Timeshifter (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). I also proposed it on the Wikipedia Village Pump:

I noticed they recently approved and added another great gadget:

OK. ReferenceTooltips looks good but isn't needed on Commons. Rd232 (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I know, I just pointed it out as a hopeful sign that the search tool might get noticed and implemented on Wikipedia as a gadget too. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I moved Village Pump discussion to the technical pump:
en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Gadget for opening search results and suggestions in new tabs --Timeshifter (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). I advertised at MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition and COM:VP. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Where would I propose that the MediaWiki software incorporate this as a preference or gadget? This way it would be useful on all kinds of wikis. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Gadgets aren't part of MediaWiki; each project needs to implement that individually. To propose adding it as a preference to MediaWiki, use Bugzilla. (But you may well be told that it's fine as a gadget - developers have more than enough on their todo list.) Rd232 (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, bugzilla it is. I have commented there before.
This is something that has bugged me for years. Why are there never enough paid developers? There have been surpluses of millions of dollars the last few years in the WMF. Why don't they hire more developers? Why does the WMF keep hiring non-technical people that do what? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Dunno. Try filing a bug - "More paid developers required" :) Rd232 (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). I started this Bugzilla thread:

Village Pump post

I suggest the posting to be prematurely closed. It can be discussed later once the issue has cooled. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 18:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion is going OK so far. It can be hard to get discussion going, so I wouldn't close it at this point. Rd232 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


I read the policy correctly. This file is in use in English Wikipedia, and according with the policy (you only quoted the first half): "by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of another project is allowed". Second, if the user is blocked in other project, isn't commons problem and doesn't change the analysis. Béria Lima msg 19:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You're arguing backwards towards your conclusion. It's blatantly obvious that the policy is not intended to cover this scenario. Rd232 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, COM:PS says any use that is not made in good faith does not count. For example, images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted. The WP block is relevant because in part it was based on the view that the userpage image use was to make a point. Rd232 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit war

Deutsch  English  français  italiano  magyar  português  sicilianu  русский  +/−

You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.
/Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
LOL. That's funny! :) ... I should point out that I was about to go to AN to discuss the matter - I wouldn't have reverted again. Rd232 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey, that template is supposed to be subst:ed! Rd232 (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
...because if you don't subst: it, the resulting section edit link takes you to the template, not the user talk section. Rd232 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Also, there should be room for a parameter, I think, to indicate the file the dispute is about. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
There is - look at template:dont editwar. Rd232 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I missed that. But under usage it should say something about substing. (Unless I missed that too). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not under "usage" - but there is a big notice at the top. (I've made it more obvious now by hiding the unnecessary TOC.) Actually, it would be nice if {{TemplateBox}} could show the usage correctly for such templates... so I've gone off and added a parameter to it, mustbesubst, now visible at {{Dont editwar}} for English language interface (updating all the subpages will be an extra chore). Take a look. Rd232 (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  Done all other templateBox languages. Rd232 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Oops! -- sorry, apparently, I cut some code from here, when I intended to copy -- re: collapse template ("click here") ~Eric F 18:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)(Talk)
click here

Sorry. I had since deleted whatever used to be in here. -- Btw, this doesn't work on WP.

Beta M subpage

Please stop blanking this, as is discussion ongoing on a related subject. I believe that earlier on that page we argued to not blanking, and keeping it as a subpage for future reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hum. Actually you said in that discussion Let's delete this page and go on with our lives. ... it was your idea! Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Geni's_allegations_against_Beta_M#The_End. Responses were: 1 delete, 1 "weak oppose deletion / don't really mind", 1 "delete, blank, or at least noindex", 1 oppose blanking, 1 oppose deletion, and ... that's it. I make that blanking as an acceptable compromise, since it leaves the discussion just an extra click away for those that want to refer to it (via the {{Courtesy blanked}} template). Rd232 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Str index/getchar/doc

May be a bit too succinct. - Amgine (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help with that. The original English Wikipedia template doesn't have any documentation either. Was there some particular reason you wanted to understand the template? Rd232 (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/ObiWolf Lesbian Images

Please note that I have undone your unilateral deletion of these images. Such deletions are not conducive to the goals of this project, and off-Commons crowd-sourcing is not going to have any bearing on this project and its goals. The images have been discussed on 5 previous occasions, and some form of consensus has been formed on-Commons. If you believe that another discussion is needed, or warranted, then please do this the correct way, instead of acting in a knee-jerk way. Only by discussion, and application of our policies, can we as a project survive. russavia (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was on Commons-l mailing list, and you're one to talk of following policy - straight undeleting against COM:PEOPLE instead of going to COM:UDEL. Rd232 (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Mailing lists are not on-Commons, and very few of our contributors and editors actually read it. Discussion needs to occur on-Commons, not on some mailing list, or other website, or indeed another editor's talk page. On-Commons is where it needs to be. It is possible that the images will be deleted, but on-Commons consensus needs to be formed on such matters. russavia (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In relation to Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images#ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_.286th_nomination.29 it has been brought to my attention that this nomination is not showing up in the current deletion requests, thereby the community-at-large is oblivious to it's existence. Can you please:

  1. Create a subpage for the 6th nomination
  2. Although the nomination was on 12 April, it would be pertinent to add it to Commons:Deletion requests/2012/04/14 as this is the most current date, and it will ensure that DR regulars who look at listings chronologically are able to see it
  3. It might also be pertinent to mention that this was discussed on commons-l mailing list at the head of the listing, so that others, and closing admin have some background to the influx of "voters" when the DR wasn't listed properly.

russavia (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Create a subpage? I don't understand that. If you know what needs doing, can you just do it please? Sorry for overlooking that. Rd232 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
A subpage is needed due to it requiring to be transcluded at Commons:Deletion_requests/2012/04/14#ObiWolf_Lesbian_Images_.286th_nomination.29. I think I've made all the necessary fixes, etc. I'll drop a note at the top of the nomination as well to explain the 2 days difference -- so I guess this will be a 9 day long nomination in order to give the rest of the community time to see it and provide input. Yadda yadda yadda. russavia (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now I see - we want to avoid transcluding the previous discussions. I've not seen this situation before, and the 5th one was in the same page. Rd232 (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Derivative images

Thanks for the note about the problem with File:Egilsay Orkney.svg and others. These are derivative images, but the relevant Helper tool has stopped working properly, so the tags have not appeared. From the last few I did, I think it is something about it not working with Windows Internet Explorer (the most popular browser in the world!) I am going to replace all the Orkney ones in any case as I am getting through drawing better .svg images of the islands. Hogweard (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. Is anyone working on fixing the tool? Rd232 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your contributions to Commons

NB: Rd232 is another user who has contributed nothing to Commons, except his own special approach to wiki-lawering. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I lol'd. If only they knew all the coding, template, and cleanup you've done on Commons. Even though I may not always agree with your methods, thanks for helping Commons out. Definite plus! Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, and for saying so. :) Rd232 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I just like to emphasize what Killiondude said. Of course I would appreciate more help with js and less long discussions on COM:AN. But as I previously said, your contributions are appreciated; I also respectfully appreciate all the professional work Saibo has done. I think if he decided to retire, we should at least give him a (last) thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 09:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Saibo has done a lot of good work and we should acknowledge that. Rd232 (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit dropdown

Das magische Bearbeiten-Menü gibt es jetzt für Vector.

First I'd like to thank you for the correction of in the last time.

Damit Dein Deutsch nicht einrostet :-)

Ich finde solche dropdowns wirklich sehr "usable" und "intuitive" auch wenn es noch verbessert werden könnte. Danke für den Vorschlag im VillagePump. GPaumier hatte wirklich gute Ideen; leider hat die "einfachen" Dinge keiner umgesetzt. Stattdessen haben sie UploadWizard geschmiedet, den einen Ring...

Evtl. magst Du ja testen?

Ein Beispiel ist in MediaWiki:Gadget-editDropdown.js genannt. Per copy&paste kann man es einfach in die eigene JS setzen.

Sollten keine größeren Probleme bekannt werden, werde ich den "request-rotation", und evtl. den crop-link (zum cropbot) dort hinzufügen.

Man könnte natürlich auf ähnliches mit dem "Lesen/View"-Link machen und die ganzen Slideshow-buttons und den Purge-Link dort hineinstecken.

Grüße -- RE rillke questions? 17:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Super! Echt super. :) Das kann bald so toll sein, dass es eigentlich teil von Vektor sein sollte, damit alle Projekte es verwenden können. Aber: ich hab's importiert, und nichts ist passiert. Ich dachte dass ich auf einer File:-Seite ein reupload-link kriege. Kann wieder ein Caching-Problem sein... Oder wie kann ich es sonst testen? Rd232 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, so wird's gemacht (sinnfreies Beispiel vom @example-Teil, das einen Toolserver-Link erstellt):
     mw.loader.using('ext.gadget.editDropdown', function() {
			"Toolserver. Driven by Wikimedia Germany"
User:Rillke/SlideRotator.js und MediaWiki:Gadget-editDropdown.js kannst du rausnehmen.
mw.loader.using sorgt dafür, dass das gadget (nur einmal, sicher) geladen wird und alles innerhalb der funktion wird erst ausgeführt, wenn das Laden abgeschlossen ist.
mw.libs.commons.ui.addEditLink verhält sich genau wie addPortletLink. Mit der Ausnahme, dass man die PortletId nicht angeben darf und dass es bei Erstaufruf das Dropdown erstellt (d.h. vorher gibt es das nicht). Grüße -- RE rillke questions? 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Super! Es klappt! Sehr gut. Ich weiss nicht, ob ich selbst etwas damit basteln kann, aber ich werd's mir ueberlegen. Rd232 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for consistently being a much-needed force for common sense on Commons. :-) Eloquence (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - given recent brickbats, this bouquet is much appreciated :) Rd232 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Protesting Greg's block

Really terrible. Greg was simply speaking the truth, and protesting against those who suppress the truth in the name of supposed 'harassment'. Could you do anything about this please? Peter Damian (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is Greg? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Greg Kohs Gregory Kohs - User:thekohser. Rd232 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you do anything about this please? - probably not, in the present atmosphere. On the face of it it seems a ridiculous overreaction to that one aside, and seems to ignore the prior comments about Kohs before he commented. It may be more justifiable if Kohs can legitimately be given sufficient responsibility for some of the worse things done on those sites (I don't know if that's the case, but that's clearly part of the reasoning). Rd232 (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disclosing real identity at each possible (or even impossible) instance

I thought, I read something about this but since you are the master of discussion currently, you might better know how to deal correctly with such cases. I have the feeling it is added just to provoke, not as a point. Thanks -- RE rillke questions? 18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a normal part of the conversation to me. And revision-deleting an identification publicly acknowledged by the subject as part of an official statement is hard to justify, whilst doing so when the same info is still on the page two paragraphs up is completely ridiculous. Frankly, Commons at the moment resembles an angry drunk being told that he's perhaps had one too many. Rd232 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
If I missed it elsewhere I apologise, in the words of en.wp, {{Sofixit}}. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The only fixing I would do would be to remove the unwarranted revision deletion. Rd232 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Keeping to my word.

I've resisted the urge for too long, but PU1JFC‎ (talk · contribs) is just not getting it. He either doesn't have the first idea about copyright or he just doesn't care. Ordinarily I would report this at AN/U, but me being a good little boy and all that...

He has been repeatedly warned, and as you can see from his talk page he doesn't seem to care. All he seems to care about is putting his username on every file he uploads. And a strange collection of uploads it is too. He's like the ADHD poster boy for uploaders. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#User:PU1JFC. If there's any info that needs adding there, let me know. Rd232 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi, just wondering, what was illegal about this file? I haven't looked at it myself, was just curious. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't view it either; someone pointed it out to me. Uploader is likely the subject, and uploader is likely to be under-age. Given the subject matter, I make that likely illegal. (There are also privacy issues, since the account name is probably the uploader's name.) Rd232 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Righto. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick Question?

My picture has been taken down and I thought I put it under a license. The license I would like to use is {{Copyrighted free use}} - Copyrighted, but the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose. I have written permission to use the picture from Mr. Bill Lang as long as he was credited for the work. I made sure he was credited when I uploaded the photo and a credit in the description under the page. This is for a capstone project for college and that photo is valuable to the page because it shows one the the main reserves the Act established along with the divers species of birds it protects. The file in question is File:Avian Diversity -2010 12 09 Bayou Savauge LA.jpg. Evidently I'm not savvy enough to properly use the license, could you help please? Thank you so much for you time.Smorris80 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The template you applied was actually {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}, without specifying what "that" (the conditions) were. Also, since you're not the author, you need to show that you've got permission from the author. If this permission is not public somewhere, you can use OTRS to confirm permission by email. If you have any more questions, try the Help Desk, as I may not be around for quick replies. Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry...forgot to sign the page *sigh*

Sleep deprivation...wowSmorris80 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's OK... :) Rd232 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much

I forwarded the e-mail to the OTRS, thank you so much for your help. Smorris80 (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi Rd232, I repeat my request to you here. By both being an active contributor on Wikipediocracy and taking administrator actions on Wikimedia Commons in response to those also highly active in canvassing on that same forum, and in some cases similar active canvassing on Wikipedia Review, your actions may be called into question as to the necessary need for such actions to be seen as independent. I have a great deal of respect for your track record, so I am puzzled as to why you cannot see the benefit of being seen to take the most ethical path on this one. Thanks -- (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop trying to bully me into doing what you want. Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, here are the four threads I've participated in on Wikipediocracy:

  • One that begins with discussing an action of mine: [1]
  • One where in the middle I responded to explain an action of mine: [2]
  • One that prompted me to raise a legal issue still under discussion at COM:VPC: [3]
  • One where I gave some information, and defended a Commons user: [4]

Please stop imagining that this amounts to a conflict of interest, especially given the attacks that have been levelled at me on those sites in the past. Rd232 (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel I am bullying you, that must be an awful experience. Happy to avoid discussing this if it is too emotional for you. Thanks -- (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to continue discussing it; it is not a matter of emotion for me. What I want for you is to stop trying to bully me, by using the cudgel of your own emotions, and those of others, on this topic. If you can't look neutrally at the facts, and you clearly can't, then the problem is yours, not mine. Rd232 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Normally folks that complain of bullying (I can't remember doing this myself) are affected emotionally. Personally I think I have been subject to malicious and sustained personal harassment and intimidation at a high level for 5 months, not necessarily the same thing. Thanks for raising the RFC in this area, it is a good step forward. Obviously, I remain disappointed that you are not prepared to consider recusing yourself from areas that I, and probably others, would see you as being involved, regardless of your good intentions of how you want to use Greg Kohs' thekohser's forum rather than dealing with Commons issues on Commons. I'll try not to pester you about it too much, though I do feel I ought to point out future actions where there is conflict of interest in line with my own good conscience, let me know at that time if you think I'm being unnecessarily pointy and you have already got the message. Cheers -- (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that you still don't get it... (Should everyone who's ever contributed to en.wp recuse themselves because the site allowed the en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ mess?)... Why do you keep going on about Kohs, like he's some sort of Bond villain? I believe he owns the domain name, but there are plenty of others involved in setting up and running the site, and he's already said he wants to set up a foundation. Beyond that, I don't know what blame you assign him for the troubles you've had, or why. Rd232 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll pause here, there is obviously a gap in your knowledge that I hope will rectify itself without me delving into Kohs' background in public. Thanks -- (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks...

...though I try to pay attention this happens to me way too often. Thanks for noticing and fixing. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)



please note the annoying syntax error at the tail of this page (an extra single quote+semicolon. i presume you really meant to put there </pre> or somesuch).

peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - fixed (I hope). RTL languages are very confusing for people not used to them... :) Rd232 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Killiondude/deletion backlog

My neat page doesn't work anymore. :( I don't use it too much, but would you happen to know why it's not working? I usually poke MZ about these tech things but I feel like I might be wearing that connection thin. :) Killiondude (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a look, but I can't figure out why. Sorry. Rd232 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Code looks normal, should be doing everything it's supposed to. The template does not report a backlog because there is no backlog at the moment. -FASTILY (TALK) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Hurr. Thanks. I forgot that part. Killiondude (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


No, I did not talk to the blocking admin regarding this. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I guess it's moot now, since the blocking admin doesn't seem to want to pursue it. Rd232 (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Understood, but I still think regardless of what I said or done, someone wanted to try and gun for my flag once I did the unblock. But oh well, issue solved. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 14:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Compressed version

Hello Rd232, ich habe gerade bemerkt, dass Du einige Templates in dieser Vorlage zusammengefasst hast. Dabei ist jedoch teilweise der Sinn der anderen Vorlagen verfälscht worden (um nicht zu sagen verloren gegangen). An sich keine schlecht Idee, nur frage ich mich ob es darüber eine Diskussion gibt. Denn, um es kurz zu machen, eine (widersprechende) beschränkende Regulierung auf das JPG-Format kann und sollte es nicht geben. Daher würde ich vorschlagen dieses einfach auf "smaller version" abzuändern. Grüße -- πϵρήλιο 21:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nee, da war keine Diskussion, ich hab's einfach gemacht. "Denn, um es kurz zu machen" - wohl zu kurz, denn ich verstehe nicht, was du meinst. Willst du einfach die Vorlage umbenennen? "Compressed" ist genauer als "smaller"; meinst du, dass die Vorlage auch fuer kleinere Versionen verwendet wird, die nicht "compressed" sind (z. B. kleiner durch weniger Bildaufloesung)? Rd232 (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


Hello Rd232, what I am doing wrong with MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation and MediaWiki:Sitenotice? I don't get the notice in German. Thanks in advance. -- RE rillke questions? 10:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! But why did it work during MyUploads-poll? -- RE rillke questions? 10:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I haven't fixed it :( ... I can't get it to display in English now! I don't know what's going on... Maybe a MediaWiki update broke something. I had the same issue with the Offsite discussion RFC notice, but I assumed it was just a caching problem and ignored it. Rd232 (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what's going on... maybe it is a caching issue. I can't get the es version to display either. And I still got the de version after briefly removing it... Rd232 (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
But now I've got English, despite uselang=de (after switching back to English in preferences, and getting the English message)... some caching strangeness, I think. Rd232 (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hm, I've made MediaWiki:Sitenotice transclude MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation, which makes the relevant code in MediaWiki:Common.js pointless. I don't know if this is necessary or even if it really works as intended for all cases... :( Rd232 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
... but, looking in Common.js I discover ?action=render&uselang=, and that makes the thing display in the expected language, so that's cause for optimism. Rd232 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. Learned something new. I guess the server caches only one version. -- RE rillke questions? 12:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
&Done. Thanks for the pointer to the common.js || The text can be simply wrapped in a <p>-tag and then will be replaced by JavaScript while loading. I guess the sitenotice-cache does not distinguish languages. -- RE rillke questions? 13:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, great. So was the answer to remove the formatting? Rd232 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It was wrapping the content that should be replaced by Script in a <p>-tag. Because it's causes less traffic, I've put the text only in p-tags and removed the styling from MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation. Everything inside the p-tag will be replaced by the rendered version of MediaWiki:Sitenotice-translation on page load. -- RE rillke questions? 20:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see. Very good. Be sure to document this on the talk pages, so that the new approach doesn't get forgotten/broken for the next time. Rd232 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:W

Template talk:W 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 template ⧼pageinfo-talkpage⧽, 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.

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!

Perhelion (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Motivational Barnstar

  Motivational Barnstar
You may not have meant to, but your creation of Category:Templates related to the United States prompted me to finish populating Category:Templates related to Iowa. Good work! Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
heh, thanks. Well, this may inspire me to go off and to some more country-oriented tidying :) Rd232 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you’re okay with that…

…I think it may be preferable to remove my comment on the VP. It is not as if it actually helps with an otherwise perfectly valid discussion. Apologizes for reacting with what can quite clearly be labeled as “trolling”. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Cross-posted on User talk:LtPowers

Well, if you want to remove it and my reply, I'm fine with that. It's true it's not a good start to the thread, but I thought it an understandable reaction. Rd232 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Went ahead and removed it. There is indeed a lot to be said on that topic, but not necessarily in that thread, and certainly not is these terms. Will do better next time :). Jean-Fred (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. It is a topic I've wondered about... it's clear to me why Wikimedia projects prefer completely free content (but some nonetheless choose to use content under Fair Use); it's clear to me why Commons would encourage people to license content as freely as possible; it's not clear to me why Commons bans NC-only content altogether. Rd232 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Archive searches do not open in new tabs

Concerning MediaWiki:Search-results-new-tab.js

Try the archive search forms found on these pages:

They open in the same tab. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well they would, it's not the Search box. I think it would be unexpected if they did. Rd232 (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. Is there a way to make them open in new tabs? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
It has class name searchbox. If you add that into the script code (copied to your user JS), it should work for that as for the other boxes. Rd232 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand a little CSS, but no JS. Could you add it to MediaWiki:Search-results-new-tab.js? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(unindent). Well, I finally got around to guessing its placement in the JS code. This works:

$(function () {
    $('#searchform, #search, #powersearch, #searchbox, .search-types, #search-types').attr({ target: '_blank' });

Thanks! --Timeshifter (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Rd232. It looks like you are off wikibreak. Could you update the JS at MediaWiki:Search-results-new-tab.js? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Done. Rd232 (talk) 07:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Commons_talk:Child_protection – I know that you don't own the page, but can you please examine some of the proposed changes and make changes to the proposal. Some users are upset that the proposal isn't being updated ("All helpful comments have been ignored"). If I were to make any changes to the proposal, it would probably be interpreted as Wikipediocracy interference, so I feel that it's best if you were to handle it instead. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've almost given up on it, but I reviewed recent discussion and made some changes. Rd232 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was concerned about the level of frustration on the talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Rd, you were an admin on English wikipedia for a few years and now you are an admin on Commons. So maybe you'd be able to respond my question: Arbcom re-blocked me, and so called community banned me from English wikipedia over an absolutely valid RFC I filed on Meta. They did it to me in violation of each and every blocking policy. They did it to me after I have been under a self-requested block for 6 months! So what is the difference between my banning on English wikipedia over an absolutely valid RFC I filed on Meta and me discussing English wikipedia matters on Commons by the way with WMF staff members that have no borders I assume? It is just a rhetorical question, but maybe you and others who're reading this post would be interested in trying to respond it...

Anyway, I actually came here to thank you for closing the thread. I did retire, and I am not planing to contribute to Commons any more. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems on one site should not be imported into others; that was the root problem with the Meta RFC and its the same here (only worse, because Meta has a certain meta function Commons doesn't). The best thing you could have done in response to the ban proposal is to reaffirm your retirement and not say a word in response to Beeblebrox, but that ship has sailed. But you can still respond to AFBorchert's suggestion at COM:AN/U. Rd232 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Images without apparent relevance?

Hi Rd232, I have a question, Images without apparent relevance?. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"relevance" isn't an issue. The images seem within COM:SCOPE (assuming you mean that) and look OK, apart from the bad names and lack of description and categorisation; I've fixed a bit and left a note to the uploader. The second one I've deleted most of the related uploads as copyright violations and removed copyvio text from the remaining one. Rd232 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

Hi, I've done your requests, but you should know that {{tl|editprotected}} doesn't categorise into Category:Commons protected edit requests, which is the main point of the template. Use {{editprotected}}. (I saw your request because I was watching the page from answering previous requests.) regards, Rd232 (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Thanks for the information. After that will be mentioned. Best regards, --►Safir yüzüklü Ceklimesaj 12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Massenänderungen bei Briefmarken

Hallo Rd232, bitte schau genau hin, bevor du Massenänderungen vornimmst. Dies, das und jenes ist nicht sinnvoll und muss jetzt alles repariert werden. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wir haben zehn-tausend Dateien in Category:German stamps review. Mit Help:VisualFileChange.js kann man viele aehnliche Dateien auf einmal "reparieren"; jede Aenderung vorher anzuschauen ist einfach zu ineffizient. Die Fehler die du gefunden hast sind nicht gravierend, die Lizenz und Kategorisierung stimmt, und dass hat hier die Prioritaet. ... Trotzdem werde ich versuchen, vorsichtiger zu sein. Rd232 (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
And I can't say I appreciate the edit summary "repairing nonsense". Apart from anything else, something more descriptive of the error correction would be more helpful for anyone else looking at the situation. Rd232 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Dyer is a sculptor rather than a sculpture, it may be better to swap to nouns for the person, or qualify your bracket comments to make it clearer that they relate to the object, or some of the objects in the photograph. Thanks -- (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

the term refers to the relevant image aspect of which Dyer is the author; "sculptor" would risk going off on a tangent describing the creator of the aspect instead. I think it's pretty clear what's meant; how would you make it clearer without needless verbosity? Rd232 (talk) 09:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Insert the word 'of' or 'for' perhaps? -- (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me. You want "creator of sculpture" (and "creator of photo" for the photographer)? ("sculptor of sculpture" would be silly). Rd232 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The pages currently read as Author Dyer Sculpture and Author Fae Photo. Neither I or Dyer are authors of anything. I suggested 2 or 3 letter words to be added, not "sculptor of sculpture". I am finding hard to understand why changing Author Dyer (Sculpture) to the equivalent of Author Dyer (of Sculpture) is such a headache to accept as an improvement to attribution. It would have been ten times more efficient to make this simple addition of a 2 letter word, rather than make a case out of it, particularly for those photos where I have the right of attribution.
By the way File:Denmark Hill wolf.jpg has the author line with my linked account name twice, an error introduced by your use of automation with VisualFileChange.js. You may want to double check your other contributions using this script. Thanks -- (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops. I'm still getting used to the script. Rd232 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"Author" is from the template, so I don't think we're changing that. So the question is whether "of sculpture" (implicitly, author of sculpture, from the template) is better than "sculpture" I don't think it is, because the template formatting doesn't make it read like a sentence, so the "of" hangs without being "of" anything very naturally. Standalone "sculpture" is clearer (nobody is going to think Dyer is a sculpture), but "Creator of sculpture" would be really clear, if that seems necessary to you. Also standalone "sculpture" links with the licensing of {{Copyright information}}. Finally, if we can't agree, maybe we should go to COM:VP, since there doesn't seem to be a standard way to handle multiple authorship and it doesn't seem to be as obvious as I thought. Rd232 (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect good practice for this needs definition as you say. I need to focus on Wikimania for this week, maybe after that. -- (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Löschduskussion File:Eisl.ML1982.jpg

Hallo Rd232,

Du hast eine Löschdiskussion zur Datei File:Eisl.ML1982.jpg gestartet. Zum einen ist das nicht meine Datei sondern die von Karlarndthans, zum anderen hätte es für diesen Fall gereicht ein Template:Duplicate zu nehmen. Für solche Standardfälle muss man keine Löschdiskussion bemühen.--Trockennasenaffe (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Der "Löschung vorschlagen" link benachrichtigt den, der die Datei hochgeladen hat. {{Duplicate}} hatte ich in Betracht gezogen, aber ich war mir nicht sicher, da die Dateien aehnlich sind, nicht identisch. Rd232 (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Ich benutze Template:Duplicate nur noch in den seltesten Fällen uzw. wenn es sich wirklich um die gleiche Datei handelt. Es ist leider so dass es hier so sture bzw. penible Admins gibt. -- πϵρήλιο 19:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Das liegt wohl an den sturen Nutzern: Durchsuche einfach mal Special:Permalink/72493420 nach "dupl". Wer hat schon Lust ständig angerempelt zu werden? -- Rillke(q?) 20:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Village Pump discussion

Please see:

I was wondering what to add to the JavaScript in order for Cmd-click (on Apple keyboards) and middle-click to open search in a new tab. That is what some others want added.

I really like Ctrl-click for opening search in a new tab. Much better than having all search open in a new tab. Especially when I do multiple searches at Special:Search. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Commented at VP. I may stick with auto-opening though, I've got used to it now! Rd232 (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethics of medical publication in educational works from Wikimedia

There is a proper ethical issue here, that professionals who do the stuff that we do in non-free-content works have long since had to deal with, years before Commons even existed. Whether such things should be deletable on sight at the discretion of a single administrator is a side issue, and misses the mark somewhat. The considerations of the ethics of publication of medical information in educational works most definitely should be in Commons deletion policy, and our standards here should be no lower than those of the professionals (both in the state of Florida and around the world). Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Which was moved?

Which discussion that I was in was moved to pump/copyright as per your note on my talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Found it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

thumbnail purging

Rd232, you seem to know something about thumbnail cache purging. Can you take a look at File:Carmelbranchlibrary.jpg, it seems to be a stubborn one. Ghouston (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I tried the advanced method of Help:Purge, and it made no difference (even different size thumbnails get the stripes, like 121px). Is it a CMYK jpeg or something? Rd232 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Curious, so it's a thumbnail generation problem instead of a cache problem? I don't know much about the image, but there doesn't seem to be anything unusual about it and it was part of a batch of similar images which are all fine (the others in its category). Ghouston (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a whole cateogory of images with the same problem: Category:Bug 24854 fixed temporarily. I should be able to fix it now with this work-around - save it in Gimp and upload the new copy. Ghouston (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Aha, yes. I've added a note to Help:Purge. Rd232 (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

One of the things that I've always loved about our projects is that you can still get work done even if you don't know how to do every element due to the disparate skills of our community and our general commitment to collaboration. I just wanted to thank you for having skills and sharing them in the creation of Template:WMF-staff-upload. :) Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks / you're welcome. :) Rd232 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Enforcing license terms

Hi Rd232, just wanted to thank you for cleaning up and expanding my explanation on enforcing license terms and moving it to its own page at Commons:Enforcing license terms. I definitely agree it was a digression in the old page and it looks nicer. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It was always a bit misplaced there (and I should know, I added it in the first place... :) ). What do you think of my radical rewrite of COM:REUSE? Rd232 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a great improvement, more organized and less overwhelming. It gives help in the places where help is evidently most needed (license compliance, contacting users) and not in the areas where people don't really need help (how to download a file, etc.). Dcoetzee (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

VP naming discussion

Since you participated in the CfD that led to this, you may be interested in Commons:Village_pump#Mass_renaming_needed_for_.22d._.C3.84..22_articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Rd232/Archive 4".