User talk:Senator2029



Senator2029





Thanks for the barnstarEdit

Thank you for giving me a barnstar. I really didn’t think it would, but it means a lot to me! Ariadacapo (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 AnnouncementEdit

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 AnnouncementEdit

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results AnnouncementEdit

Picture of the Year 2013 ResultsEdit

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Senator2029,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrationally large SVG imageEdit

Hi Senator2029, you have marked my image “Welcome in sixteen languages.svg” as being “irrationally large.” I understand this and other drawbacks of the method used by me, and would really like to use the SVG <text> element thus reducing file size, making text searchable, etc.

On the other hand I want this image to look exactly as it does now and therefore cannot rely on the Wikimedia SVG fonts. The following fonts would be needed but aren’t present: “Gentium Plus” (or some other version of “Gentium”) for Latin and Cyrillic text; “FZKaiS-Extended” for simplified Chinese; “全字庫正楷體” for traditional Chinese; “EPSON 正楷書体M” for Japanese; and “Symbola” for the hand. (“Scheherazade” for Arabic is there.)

The SVG solution with the <text> element would be to define an SVG font in the same file using the SVG <‌font> element and its sub-elements (<glyph>, <hkern>, etc.). This is certainly feasible, but it would take me a long time to get it right — what is most difficult is to exclude redundant font information from the original fonts while retaining everything that is required for this image. As I do not want my efforts to be a waste of time my question is: Does the current MediWiki rendering software display embedded SVG fonts correctly? —LiliCharlie (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-35Edit

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-36Edit

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-37Edit

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-38Edit

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:Security Now.jpgEdit

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Sicilianu | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Security Now.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Security Now.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Leyo 09:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-39Edit

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-40Edit

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-41Edit

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42Edit

08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43Edit

13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-44Edit

05:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-45Edit

17:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-46Edit

15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories removed from File:Brokaw Bullet.jpgEdit

Hi, thanks for your comment on my talk page. First, my edit to the image file followed the categorisation of two additional images of the Brokaw Bullet, that were previously only crudely categorised as "Aircraft". I assume that you are already familiar with the Wikimedia Commons policy article on Categories, in which the section COM:OVERCAT is located. The article explains how the primary purpose of categorising here is to facilitate the finding of files via a hierarchical schema (as opposed to a flat keyword schema). In the case of the subject image, Three-wheeled motor vehicles is inappropriate, because the Brokaw Bullet (eventually) comes under Aircraft, which already comes under Vehicles, and an aircraft is not classified as a motor vehicle anyway. Vehicles in Florida is inappropriate, because the image is already categorised as a type of vehicle, and the location is in a category under Florida. Blue and white aircraft is inappropriate, because it does not satisfy the aim of being able to find files; if that category is ever populated with all blue and white aircraft images (many thousands), it would not be easy for anyone to find what they might be seeking. In this case, and in the next few minutes, I plan to categorise the three Brokaw Bullet images into the more precise method we use for most aircraft images, and if you apply Category:Blue and white aircraft, I doubt that it would materially help anyone without the knowledge already contained in the category tree, such as aircraft make/model, configuration, registration, and exact location. Many people apply the categories of colour to aircraft images, and we often tolerate them to avoid conflicts, but the above parameters for aircraft makes colour redundant. If the subject were an item with no other useful context (eg blue and white balls), they might have a purpose, but not for aircraft in a highly defined schema for aircraft images. I hope this helps you understand my rationale. There are many aircraft images needing basic or comprehensive categorising, and I'm sure we would all welcome your assistance in categorising, eg all those that (should) come under Florida Air Museum.PeterWD (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-47Edit

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-48Edit

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

An update on the File metadata cleanup driveEdit

Hello Senator2029,

I wanted to thank you for offering to help with the File metadata cleanup drive on Commons. We now have numbers to measure the amount of Commons files missing machine-readable information. Most of the files here have a license template, but there still about 500,000 remaining files (out of 24 million) missing an {{information}} template, and that's where your help would be invaluable.

We're currently trying to find groups of files whose description pages are alike, so that we can use bots to automatically take that information and put it into an information template. If you still want to help, it would be great if you could look at the list of files and see if you can find such groups. You can also use the no_information tool to limit the results by uploader, or the first characters of the file name; this can help identify batch uploads.

Once you find groups of files with information in the same order or format, you can add a section to the bot requests page, so that a bot can go through them and fix them all automatically (or you can do it yourself if you have a bot, or with VisualFileChange).

In 10 days, we've already managed to add information templates to over 10% of the 500,000 remaining files. I'm hoping you can help us keep this momentum and get through the rest so we can get rid of this backlog once and for all :)

Thank you, and I wish you happy end-of-year holidays if you celebrate them! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


File:Ben Carson, MD.jpgEdit

File:Ben Carson, MD.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 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pdxuser (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories for File:Gtech.jpgEdit

The file is in Category:Office buildings in Rhode Island, which is a subcat of Category:Buildings in Providence, both technically (the cat tag in the former) painfully obviously in concept. It seems like a fairly blatant an example of what COM:OVERCAT tells us not to do. Could you clarify your reasoning here? DMacks (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open!Edit

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Senator2029,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Seminole Towne Center logo.svgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Seminole Towne Center logo.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Usc1010250 145.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Usc1010250 145.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Stihl logo.jpgEdit

File:Stihl logo.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 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 | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Techtri (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Senator2029".