——————————————— Archive, May 2008 ———————————————
Selamlar White Cat tr:Resim:CheHigh.jpg sil etiketi koyup commonsta silindi demişsin ancak aynı resimler commonsta hala bulunuyor, bilgilendirirsen sevinirim. Teşekkürler. Image:Guevarakorda3.jpg Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg--Machiavelli talk 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- Replied in local wiki -- Cat ちぃ？ 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is actually a long-open commons deletion discussion about these: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg. Would you mind looking into that? CBM 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The image was not a copyright violation, and should not have been deleted without discussion or asking for rationale to meet your objections. A 2 year old archived argument that lacks proper facts was incorrect. I have restored the image with additional rationale and it includes all legal justification showing it to be in the public domain. Redthoreau 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand that there is a COM:DEL discussion on the matter, I am merely replicating the consensus reached. Images deleted via COM:DEL cannot and should not be reuploaded or undeleted without the necessary COM:UNDEL discussion. If there is a non-controversial and obvious reason why the images should be undeleted, a simple good faith discussion should easily handle it. I do want to note that we will not start a new discussion each time a duplicate of a deleted image is uploaded. Past consensus will apply in the absence of a proper discussion. This is merely the practice on commons. The entire point of this process is to keep commons safe from lawsuits.
- As for the spesific matter of the said images, I would be more than happy to reverse my actions in the light of such a consensus. I will in good faith undelete one of the images for the duration of this discussion allowing people to see the deleted image. The image however would be deleted again eventually if not by me then by someone else unless the complex copyright status is clarified.
- Seems like you know about the matter better than I so I would like you to start an undeletion discussion on the matter at COM:UNDEL.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- (1) Where is the past discussion on the image at COM DEL ? The link you provided does not contain it? (2) The reason for undeletion is non controversial and obvious ... I have provided all legal rationale for doing so and am familiar with international copyright law. How much more clear do I need to make it? I am willing to provide any information you request. (3) What is the specific rationale you believe for deleting it, I have yet to see that ? (4) In starting an undeletion discussion ... would this be about the image I recently uploaded or the former one ? I would like to stick with the recently added one, as I included further rationale, and believe that it has a more appropriate title (the actual title of the photograph). I would also note that this image was up for "Featured Images" on Wikipedia, and the copyright status has not been an issue for those with knowledge of the contextual background with regards to the image. Thanks. Redthoreau 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IN ADDITION - The issue here is the law ... and the law makes this photo in the Public domain ... hence why it is one of the most reproduced images in the history of photography, and NO ONE has ever been sued for using it, other than smirnoff under "Moral Rights" ... not "Copyright" rights.
- LEGAL JUSTIFICATION:
- - The photo was used for the first time internationally in 1967. It is in the public domain by Decree Law no. 156, September 28, 1994, to amend part of Law no. 14 December 28, 1977, Copyright Act (Article 47) which states that the pictures fall into the public domain Worldwide, 25 years after its first use.
- - Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 1997, and this photo was taken and publicized 30 years before that and thus is in the public domain.
- - This includes being in the Public Domain in the United States - Since the image was first published in Cuba without compliance of US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before February 20, 1972.
- - Of importance yes it is true that Alberto Korda sued that vodka maker Smirnoff based on his "moral rights" (under the belief that Che Guevara wouldn't support alcohol) that are independent of copyright status. Although "moral rights" are not recognized in the U.S. - they are recognized through most of the World and part of international copyright law. Moral rights are included in Berne Convention, so if the photographer is still alive, he still can sue, even if the picture is public domain. However, the moral rights are not transferable, and when Korda died 2001, no one can control the use of the picture anymore under that premise.
- - Moreover, Wikipedia allows for the use of "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." [1]. This image meets that criteria based on the fact that the Maryland Institute College of Art proclaimed this picture "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century."[2] while The V&A Museum declared it "the most reproduced image in the history of photography."[3]Redthoreau 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Redthoreau 16:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia. en:Wikipedia:Non-free content (fair use) are entirely unwelcome on commons.
- I will not hesitate to redelete the image in the absence of a conclusive COM:UNDEL discussion suggesting a restoration. Your justification on why these images should not be deleted should go there to COM:UNDEL. I will not overrule past consensus on the matter on my own. Even my undeletion of the images was rather rouge as they should be speedy deleted as is per past consensus.
- Above you referred to the past consensus as a "2 year old archived argument that lacks proper facts" and this is an opportunity for you to set the record straight. Please do not make my good faith go to waste.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Responding to your message on my talk page. At Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg, I give a reference to a published legal analysis that says the images are not public domain in the U.S. Do you have a published analysis that it is public domain, or only your own analysis? In the latter case, I think the published analysis should be given preference. But if there is actually a consensus that the published analysis is wrong, I will abide by it. I just want to see the situation clarified and all the license tags correct. In any case, I think you really should start an undeletion request if you wish to keep the images on commons. CBM 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to rely on Sarah Levy, "A Copyright Revolution: Protecting the Famous Photograph of Che Guevara", 13 Law & Bus. Rev. Am. 687, 2007., then the onus is on you to provide this in Pdf or a link to where it can be accessed. I have provided my rationale, and a copy of the convention. All you have done is stated a sentence from an article, that can't be easily located. Redthoreau 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it is copyrighted, so I can't post it publicly online. You can get the full text on Lexus-Nexis or any similar database, if you have access to a university library (that's how I found it in the first place). I realize this isn't an optimal situation. CBM 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked for this article under JSTOR, Lexis Nexus, and all over the internet to no avail. I have even had a friend who is a professional researcher try to dig it up, who couldn't. Where exactly did you read it ? Where did you find it ? And where can I specifically find it ? Also can you email me the PdF or link to it if you have one? It should not be this difficult to locate a source and I believe that if it can not be located, then it should not be considered. Redthoreau 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I will access it and have a look. I will let you know my thoughts once I have looked it over. As of right now, my impression is that it was her opinion that Korda's descendants "Could" attempt to establish copyright ... and not that they "Have". Am I incorrect in this initial assumption, having not read it yet? If this is the case, then do you dispute that potentiality does not equate to actuality, thus still rendering the photograph PD until such legal basis is ruled on in international court ? Redthoreau 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the issue is that, since the family has not tried to get copyright affirmed in a US court, the analysis has to be provisional. But I think that if there is a significant chance that the images would not be declared public domain, we shouldn't treat them as if they are free. We can still use the photos in articles, we just have to upload them on English wikipedia as nonfree images.
- About a week ago I sent an email to the Wikimedia lawyer, Mike Godwin, to ask about these photos. He hasn't responded. Maybe you could email him as well?
- There is another issue complicating the legal analysis: the standards enforced by the courts may not agree with the way that others interpret the copyright law. I learned this from footnote 12 of the Cornell public domain table. Apparently, publishing in a foreign country without a copyright notice is not enough to guarantee something is in public domain in the US. Also see footnote 10 there. I can't say that I understand what's going on. CBM 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how I can find the article; I just did it again to make sure it works. Open LexisNexis Academic and go the the Easy Search page. Enter the search terms guevara korda levy. Select the Legal box below and run the search. There will be only one result, which is the correct one. I think I once found the article in another database as well, but this one works for sure. I can email you a PDF (generated by LexisNexis) if these steps don't work for you. CBM 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have downloaded and found the article ... thanks. I will painstakingly review it tomorrow in good faith and let you know my views on its contents and post relevant parts of the article that I believe support a decision, one way or the other. Redthoreau
-
- I thank you very much for your understanding and cooperation. I hope I have not stressed you out too much. If I have I apologize. I want a stable solid conclusion to all of this as much as you. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I commented there. It appears to me that you and I simply have different opinions about how conservative to be about the undetermined copyright status. I take Levy's sentence that the photo "should" get copyright protection in US courts as a key conclusion. I do wish Mike Godwin would give us a legal opinion on behalf of Wikipedia. CBM 10:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey White Cat, I found you uploaded Image:"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png which was already on here as Image:Barnstar-lightbulb3.png (The same name as en.wp's version). I wasn't sure if this was the beginning of renaming it or you just didn't know about the other. Anyway, this image was recently changed as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Barnstar-lightbulb3.png. I figured I'd let you sort this out because I know you've been renaming barnstars lately. Cheers, Rocket000 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually am not sure what is the right name for these barnstar images. I would welcome some assistance. I can use my bot to help relink images. I do not want to abuse commonsdelinker. There is an insane number of barnstar image usage. -- Cat ちぃ？ 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea since they can be used in different circumstances, like the "bright idea" has also been used for technology-related things (but I think the name you pick is fine as that's what it's mostly used for). I spend a lot more time here on Commons (where barnstars aren't as prevalent) than Wikipedia, so I'm probably not the best person to ask anyway. There's also the multilingual thing to consider. Some of those barnstars really need to be renamed though.
- I actually had another question for you. I love what you did with combining the various FP templates. They were starting to overwhelm some image pages. My question is should the other templates be removed if the new one accounts for it. For example: Image:Broadway tower edit.jpg. You left the {{POTY 2007-winner}} and {{Featured eswiki}} templates on there. Also see Template talk:Featured picture mul. Thanks! Rocket000 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The purging of eswiki had to wait because first I needed to restructure how eswiki was naming their nominations. Merging entries on Template:Featured picture mul is a slow process. I haven't processed most wikis and real-world issues will probably keep me busy for the next 3 weeks. We should probably abolish ro deprecate the unneeded "featured" templates. But they should not be deleted. -- Cat ちぃ？ 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. If there's anything you would like me to help you with, I'd be glad to. I got a bot who's looking for some work. :) Rocket000 05:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't think it is a good idea to flood FPC with similar images. The only thing that will probably happen is that people get bored and don't vote, or alternatively votes might be spread over all the images and none of them may reach FP-status. Could I kindly ask you to remove those noms and nominate them one by one (say one a week)?. Thanks Lycaon 07:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have spent days asking around over this. No one raised objections and now I deal with this. It is kinda frustrating. I will remove all deep space ones for now except the main poster per below. However I will not spend the next 61 weeks nominating these one by one. That is not very reasonable. Don't you think?
- I would however do not object if you took over the nomination thing. I simply do not want to spend so much time on the page. :)
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi White Cat. Please just nominate two or three of your favourites at a time. FPC is not really usable with umpteen similar pictures nominated. I removed them for now. --norro 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You do NOT remove someone elses nomination like that. I am very irked. Do not do it again. -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You have recentely nominated in COM:FPC 60 images of coliding galaxies. I suggest you to keep only the poster (which has them all), as there is no way each of the pictures can have a fair and accurate evaluation from the usual reviewers and they disturbing the normal working of the page. Alvesgaspar 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. -- Cat ちぃ？ 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Lycaon 09:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do you think of my request? -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll look into it, but I can't promise too much: I only nominate image which I'ld support myself ;-). Lycaon 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Take a look at Image:Quality valued logo.svg, Image:Quality valued featured logo.svg and Image:Valued featured logo.svg, and check if this was what you had in mind. As I commented before, I think most of these combinations are not likely to be used, but then again, I may be wrong. Cheers, Patrícia msg 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Greeness in Image:Quality valued logo.svg and Image:Quality valued featured logo.svg almost completely covers the "valued" coin. If it (greenness and hence the featured star along with it) were to be made slightly smaller it would be better.
- Also Image:Valued featured logo.svg and Image:Quality valued featured logo.svg both have some whitespace on the sides.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 05:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi White Cat, What is your objective for making the combined logos? Are there any benefits (I only see drawbacks and they are eyesores IMO, thus my question) -- Slaunger 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image talk:Featured Quality logo.svg. Rocket000 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi White Cat,
What is your objective for wanting to put all awards into one single template? As I see it there is no benefit in doing this, the template logic will be more complicated and harder to maintain than several individually maintained award templates, bot assisted operations on award templates will have to be changed and they will inevitably be more complicated to implement and test. For instance, to demote a VI it is by far the easist to just change a template from {{VI|...}} to {{VI-former|...}}. With the present template the VI params would have to be taken out of you multipurpose template and a VI-former template would have to be added. Cheers, -- Slaunger 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is trivially easy to demote images via bots. It is still a basic find and replace operation. rather that replacing {{VI}} you would replace "|com3=1" to "|com3=2" for example. The actual code used in the templates isn't really complex either. I just used a few basic parser functions for convenience. Code could be made simpler.
- I do not have objectives. While I was tagging images that are featured on other wikis I noticed that some images had a decent amount of clutter. I basically noticed a problem and came up with a solution. Then I decided, why shouldn't POTY be incorporated into this template? Then I decided why shouldn't Quality image be incorporated into this template and so on. I slowly came up with the idea on managing all awards via a single template. On the long run it makes it easier to maintain.
- For example when you create a new award type, say "Valued Image" or "Picture of the Decade" (I just made this up) you can create a full functioning template by adding a single line.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi witte poes, I have a comment on your template. It gives a non existent page for the german wikipedia, e.g. on Tibia insulaechorab .jpg, while my own box has the correct reference. Could you please look into this? Thanks. Lycaon 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I am aware. We had a similar problem with Spanish wikipedia after a rather brief discussion es.wiki adopted a standardized scheme. I will compensate with code if de.wiki doesn't agree. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK, then that will be solved eventually. thanks. Lycaon 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your computer bot is now even double tagging... Lycaon 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I am aware. It is easier to tag first and then deal with duplicates by hand or software. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is a bit disconcerting though, as those edits all show up in my watchlist. Lycaon 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not see my bot's edits. Its a flagged bot. It may be a setting issue. You are welcome to help deal with duplicates :) I am kind of holding back from that task because I want to process all wikis first so as not to wate time with duplicates. I have processed de.wiki, tr.wiki, es.wiki, and en.wiki so far. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing The QualityImage template until the discussion has settled. Currently the consensus seems to be agains such a move. --Dschwen 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am creating a few examples to demonstrate. I am capable of completely replacing every use of the quality image logo in a matter of an hour with my bot. Your panic is unwarranted. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is not about the logo. It is about usage of the template! I'm asking you to please stop immediately. One example is perfectly sufficient. You are acting against community consensus. --Dschwen 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, you might not have read my reply doe to the weird duplication of the discussion. I saw you reverted me on on of the pics. Fine. Let's keep this your example. But let me make it a bit more clear. I'm not acting out of spite, or because I love the QI template so much. We have scripts running for data extration, statistics, and geocoding, which currently rely on the existence of the QualityImage template. If the diecussion turns out in favour of a replacement I'll rewrite those scripts. But I'm not willing to have the data extraction broken for days just for you to make a point. --Dschwen 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me reveal you a "secret". It is trivially easy to figure out which images are using {{Featured picture mul}} for quality images. Those images are POTY ones. Plus one exception Image:2529a - München - Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion - Genesis.JPG (as a stand alone example). It is vital to demonstrate what the template does for people to get an idea. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know it is even easier, as you add a category too. You can have your example, but one is enough. Consensus is consensus. Full stop. Once you sway the opinion I'll be happy to modify my scripts. Until then the case is crystal clear. No more {{QualityImage}} removal. --Dschwen 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop ordering me around. -- Cat ちぃ？ 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop interfering with my work [4]
I have spent the last hour trying to figure out what wasn't working in the template. Stop wasting my time. Please!
You have any idea how frustrating this is?
-- Cat ちぃ？ 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Three things would help here: Respecting consensus, discussing major changes beforehand, and assuming good faith. --Dschwen 02:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not your pet. Do not dictate what I can and cannot do. I made no major changes. That is only in your mind. Assuming good faith... That would be a novelty on your part... -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the rollback, but please add big chunks as these in separate files, and take a look at collapsible nav frames. Generally such big changes to the javascript should be discussed first. --Dschwen 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied that from English wikipedia. I know it works. What is there to discuss? Can you please let me work? -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Can you please let the javascript work? Rocket000 14:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, disregard that. Rocket000 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- :o -- Cat ちぃ？ 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm restoring this thread to answer. There is a lot to discuss. First of all commons is not en.wp, and the requirements for JS are different. It is not about working or not, it is about bloating our JS. A change which increases the commons.js size by a factor of 1.5 and which has questionalble merit (where are those tables on commons?) should at least be discussed beforehand. Can you please let me work? Ok, that sounds like you think I'm stalking you. I can assure you, this us not the case. Common.js is a pet peeve of mine, check out its history, and you'll see that I spent countless edits on this page to bring it into a consistent maintainable clean form. --Dschwen 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have resigned my adminship, what more can I do? Do not ask for my opinion, it isn't like anyone bothers to pretend listening to what I have to say. I will not argue about it. If you desire to remove them, feel free to. If you desire to make it work, feel free to. -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. So what did you add the collapsible table script for? I'm could most likely just add that functionality to the existing hide-div code, avoiding a large code duplication. --Dschwen 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I intended to use it with {{Assessments}}. POTD & MODT get rather long. A hide/show mechanism would help in that area. Template:Featured picture mul/com/POTD is where I have the rather experimental code. Most of it is a copy of the existing {{Picture of the day}} which itself could make good use of "hide/show".
- hide/show mechanism would also help with license templates. I had been experimenting with them for a while. Of course you will not see it "working" since the code was removed.
- If you look at en:Magic Knight Rayearth (an anime series, but no mater) there is an "Other networks" entry on the info box. If you click "show" you get to see a full list. This saves space. That was the intended end product.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Any opinions? :/ -- Cat ちぃ？ 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I do not have a strong opinion about it. You envision it to be collapsed by default, I suppose? I do not see the problem of a long, verbose template on a few image pages. After all, it is a minor fraction of the image pages, which would have so many awards. I could be an idea if it is expanded by default. But if it is decided to do that I propose to coodinate the implementation with Dschwen such that the collapsability is implemented in a manner which best fits into the current codebase. But for me it is really a nice to have and not as important as many other functional properties os the Assessment template. -- Slaunger 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have practically unprotected every page under {{Featured picture mul}}. Please stop unprotecting pages I protect like that. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stop unprotecting license templates and rediretcs. What you are doing can have serious legal implications. Recall the disclaimer thing and GFDL template? -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Holy crap. I was just writing you a message about the same thing. I think you're over-doing it with the page protection. Preemptive protection is not justified at all. There was no vandalism or edit-wars. So you have no reason. Heavy use is 100s of thousands (even millions), not 500 or so. Please stop locking down Commons. This isn't Wikipedia. And no. we don't protect things just because they're licenses. That's nearly all our templates. Rocket000 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at Special:MostLinkedTemplates to get an idea of how things are here before applying what you're use to. Rocket000 11:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you even check the usage!? You fully protected Template:Dp twice. It had no transclusions/links at all. It was a redirect to a semi-protected deprecated template. Wow. Rocket000 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and we would be forced to bay third parties money or deal with an unnecesary disclaimer if we do not protect license templates. We protect templates used to tag images because they have legal implications. If you do not like the level of protection, feel free to file your case on the villige pump or admins noticeboard. Heavy use is transclusion in over "50" pages. "Heavy use" can also mean very visible pages such as templates used on the main page.
- You shouldn't lecture me weather or not this is wikipedia. I have been around on commons for well over 3 years now.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stop wheelwaring. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Dp is a heavy use license template with many transclusions on french wikipedia. It redirects to "Domaine public" on fr.wikipedia [5] which is also under heavy use. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um.. So what? Rocket000 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you even know that images on other wikipedias are actually uploaded to commons? -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you know other projects can't transclude our templates? Rocket000 11:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure they can. When an image is moved to commons that is exactly what happens. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- When a image is moved to Commons, it's then on Commons so they aren't transcluding anything, we are. If they do {{Dp}} on fr.wp our template won't show up. So zero links means zero links. Also, it's deprecated. It's good to clean up what's not being used. People shouldn't be using that license anymore, so where's the need for a redirect? Rocket000 12:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is up to fr.wikipedia not you and me. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- No. If it's on Commons, then it's up to us. If it's not on Commons, then fine. But still, what purpose does a redirect serve? Rocket000 12:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It serves to establish the license when images are moved from French wikimedia projects. I regularly process such redirects converting them to the commons name. Underuse of some such redirects including template:Dp is a result of my work. Such redirects are sometimes created in dealing with typos. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
White Cat, I'm sorry. I don't like arguing like this: COM:AN#Full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times. What you're saying goes against so many things. Rocket000 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not possible for me to compromise from a stance that puts commons and wikimedia at a legal risk. So I do not see what good my participation in such a discussion do. Others will probably tell you what I have been saying all along in a better way. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to confess to being extremely uneasy about any licence template being unprotected, there's no reason for anybody to ever edit a licence template, and the consequences of a licence template being altered (and this includes a redirect which could be changed to read something legally problematic) must be very seriously considered. Vandalism at Wikipedia is a minor inconvenience which rarely presents legal problems, but vandalism here, especially on a licence template has all manner of legal implications. Nick 12:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got some back up, huh? "there's no reason for anybody to ever edit a licence template" This is a wiki. There's always edits to be made. If not we'll edit anyway. This is why we're here. And if some changes it illegally, you simply revert. It's in the history anyway. If anyone can upload files with what license, or go to the image's page and change it, what's the difference? Rocket000 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a war. You cannot simply revert a change on a license template. All uploads using the template while the template is vandalised still has legal implications. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- For example I could add a binding legal note that states "that every person uploading a work under the GFDL license are required to pay me 100$ service fee". If anyone uploads their own work with that change in present it would be legally binding. Or if the wording in the license is removed the work would not be freely licensed at all. Consider Image:License vandalism.png. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I could say anyone who edits this page is required to pay me 100$ service fee. Things don't work like that. Seriously, I'm done. Rocket000 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no you can't. MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning is the only thing legaly binding when "save page" button is clicked. -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever else I do not want to see en wp style wheel warring here. I am quite prepared to take action towards both of you if you cannot interact in a collaborative way. I understand Nick's point which seems to me well made. Let's take this to an appropriate community page so that others can have their say. --Herby talk thyme 12:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- :( Rocket000 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try and pull rank on any user here - how long you have been here is of interest. However equally you have been here long enough to know than length of service does not equate to being senior in any form. If you disagree take it to an admin board or other forum. Do not wheel war here on Commons - I assure you it will be unwise --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He was the person pulling a rank on me lecturing me that this isn't wikipedia. Removing protection from license templates have legal implications, everyone knows this. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't Wikipedia. Rocket is one of the most active admins currently. Have a dialogue in a moderate form. Try and work collaboratively. If you can't manage that take it to a public forum.
- The statement You shouldn't lecture me weather or not this is wikipedia. I have been around on commons for well over 3 years now. looks to me as though you are implying either power or seniority. Please do not do that - I have a feeling that the community would not be happy --Herby talk thyme 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep up the one sided warnings, see where that will take us. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Back off please - I was writing something for Rocket's page but was interrupted - take it to the community now please --Herby talk thyme 12:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Back off to where? If a single vanal is reading this we may be looking at a possible real-world legal dispute. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- As is often the case your approach comes over as rather aggressive to me and in this instance towards me. I advised you that length of time in Commons does not equate to being senior in any way - you are well aware of that. So you then have a go at me (while I am typing something up for Rocket's page). Please assume good faith & keep en wp ways out of Commons.
- I have said already - take it to a public board to get the input of others. You & Rocket don't agree - don't war - get some other input --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aggressive? I wasn't the person removing protection of other people without a discussion. -- Cat ちぃ？ 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your tone to me is aggressive in your interaction with me when I am merely try to get some discussion going. Bear in mind it is not how you see yourself but the impact you have on others. You are welcome to confine this discussion to your talk page as I am obviously watching it however I am will not be online now for a while & feel that your efforts would be best directly to solving the problems that we have rather than anything else - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am "aggressive" in a sense that I do not want the foundation sued over a mere temporary disagreement. Issue can be discuss while we are not in such a risk. -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope this issue did not stress you too much. I apologize if that had been the case. It is just that I am very sensitive in issues concerning copyright. -- Cat ちぃ？ 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- A little. But I understand. It's just I'm very sensitive to issues concerning page protection. :) And thank you for apologizing. I do too. It was absolutely nothing personal. Cheers, Rocket000 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have our sensitive sides conflicting! :D
- I actually agree with you on the matter of page protection. It should be done on as fewer pages as possible. :)
- I look forward in working with you and I hope this issue we had does not leave any scars. :(
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm sorry if it felt like I was lecturing you about this not being Wikipedia. That wasn't my intention. I know you're a very experienced editor. I look forward to working with you too. :) Rocket000 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi White Cat,
I am writing to you because I am frustrated by our recent award discussions. I am writing to you on your talk page (don't copy to my talk page please, I am watching this) to avoid further spamming of project content discussion pages by personal quabble from both sides. I am writing to you because I feel our communication is most unconstructive. And you recently expressed that you felt that in a previous post of mine I was being uncivil and that I was assuming bad faith. I am very much affected by such a statement. I do not recall anyone has ever called me incivil nor has anyone ever stated here that I was assuming bad faith before. I take such comments very serious and I have reflected on what I have written to see if I could recognise that description. The part about assuming bad faith is not one I can see. In basically every post I have written in response to your work on making a multi-purpose award template I have started out the thread by stating that I think "you have good intentions", that you are only trying to do good, and In the post where you called me incivil I even started out appraising that now I felt you had listened to some of the well meaning advice that had been given. You write that it is as if I consider you as an invasion force. Concerning that part of it, there is some element of truth in that, although I would personally use a more toned down word like "invasive". Yes, that is still not a very positive view on another user, and if that somehow is evident that I feel that way from my post, which makes you conside me as incivil, well then be it. I have used a tone in my threads with you which are less friendly than normal. That is because I have felt very much annoyed by how you have interacted with the project with repect to the deveopment of the multi-purpose template. If you look at my list of contributions here, I think you will see that I am normally a pretty restrained and patient editor. What has really triggered me being annoyed is that you have (with what I consider good intentions) very persistently pursued an idea of yours without seeking the needed consensus on the affected project talk pages. I have felt that with the multi-purpose award template you have found a (for you) meaningful task, which would evidently (for you) be of great benefit to Commons. This you have done without proactively seeking input and consensus on this idea from the affected individual projects talk pages. I have felt that you were trying to enforce new templates on the projects without seeking the needed consensus first. On top of that you have repeatedly stated that it is very easy and everything can be done with your bot in no time. You have argued that you are a long time contributor on Commons. Well that might be, but I have not noticed you as an active participant on the affected projects except for the recent flood of astronomy related FPCs. It seems for me that for you this is merely a question of cleaning up clutter on image pages wihtout being aware of what other bots do during nomination, how it affects geocoding etc. (I will get back to the geocoding on content pages). You have persistently ignored my concerns as being non-issues. That has admittedly annoyed me. What I would very like like to ask you to do is to slow down. Discuss the issues first on the projects talk pages before changing everything. Please be patient. If you ask first the dialogue will be much more constructive. I can see by looking around that you are having several controversies these days with users I normally consider very experienced, well-behaved and civil. If I were you I would probably take a wikiday off or two. And this is not meant as an incivil request or some kind of insult, it is out of well-meaning concern. -- Slaunger 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to answer your post. I wish you had broken it apart a bit. :)
- I dislike being accused of a hidden agenda. I dislike even the slightest bit of implying to that end. That was the intended meaning of the statement I made. It wasn't even an accusation, just a friendly warning. The ":)" was there for a reason meaning it wasn't a big deal.
- I have been heavily involved with the commons community for quite some time. I helped shape COM:DEL quite some time ago for example. I helped in other areas as well. I have taken a semi break. You can review my general activity.
- FPC is a rather hostile environment. People are often rather dicky on discussions there. Which is why I typically avoid nominating images I upload for "featured status". The 24 April treat (Hubble team published 61 images on 24 April 2008 celebrating the 18th birthday of the Hubble space telescope) by the Hubble team was reason enough for me to make an exception from my personal policy of avoiding FPC. My enthusiasm was name-called as "flooding" (I suppose it was flooding...) which is why I have backed out away from nominating more FPCs.
- I am boldly making changes. I will of course not seek community approval for every edit I make. As you may have noticed, I have not mass removed "QualityImage" template and initiated a discussion. I also have not deleted the Valued Image templates. Overall changes I made almost entirely affected featured images. There was no reason for me to seek consensus because featured images from wikipedias were typically not tagged on commons. I am merely relaying due credit to images from non-commons projects for the most part. In the process I am also proposing the merging of other projects to a unified template. So far, the overall opposition was over style issues which are easy enough to fix.
- I have not ignored anything. I wasn't told much about Geocoding and would welcome hearing more about it.
- I am merely tirelessly working...
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again White Cat. Sorry for not breaking the text down. Yes, I know you have not removed all QualityImages templates, what I was seeking was that you stepped back and proactively discussed if doing what you do (and how to do it) is a good idea on the relevant project pages. You have done that now on both QIC and VIC - a little too late for my taste, but nevermind, let us move on from here. You are not supposed to know everything about how the existing templates are used in behind-the-scenes logic used for prioritizing searched for geocoded images elsewhere and outside Commons name space. Users who are not regulars in those ends of Commons are not supposed to know. That is why I asked to slow down and ask since what one user perceives as a trivial and absolutely "must-do" task may have nuances once other relevant stakeholders get involved. It is not that I expect you to ask for permission to do any edit, but when you start out a quest to fundamentally change all award templates it definately warrants for thorough discussion up front on the relevant and affected project pages as things are never as simple as they seem. I very much respect your work at COM:DEL, which I find you are very competent at. It is a forum I stay away from well knowing my own limitaions in that realm. Yes you are hard working, and I would hate to see all your skill being wasted on the wrong things. -- Slaunger 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I hardly done much on COM:DEL. I merely mimicked the style on Wikipedias AFD.
- Right, lets move on. So what should be the game plan. Since my pace is too fast, I hope to follow yours.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- From my side, not more today, as I am going to bed. Concerning pace I had hoped you could have withheld your trigger finger concerning changing the template you have just made into assesment on all FP pages (which again spams my watchlist). I feel a little more patience and further time for discussion including a post on COM:VP would have been in order. Guess Dschwen will have to change his geocoding scripts again... Sigh. -- Slaunger 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#rename_Featured_picture_mul_-.3E_Assessments
- It was his proposal so I doubt he will be displeased... :/
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed the post on COM:VP. Persoñally I feel such quite important template renames should be given some more time for discussion. -- Slaunger 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- White Cat, Slaunger is one of the calmest and most patient editors I know. I support what he says. Please, please, slow down and discuss these major changes first. However much you think that Commons would be better with your proposed templates, and your proposed protections, please recognise that there are differing views. Does it not give you the smallest pause for thought that you have got into arguments with so many people here, so quickly after starting work on this? --MichaelMaggs 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you haven't noticed but I haven't done any major changes whatsoever. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi White Cat,
I have looked at some 5-10 image pages in Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English and observed that the link to the nomination page did not work on any of them. I do not know why that is? I tried going some revisions back to see if they worked before {{Featured picture mul}} replaced the old en-FP template, but I could not check that as the old template had been deleted. Have you got any idea why the links have gone haywire? Were the out-of-order prior to the template replacements on the image pages? Cheers,- Slaunger 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a case where the nomination subpage do not match the filename. The mater was discussed. Those broken links should be fixed soon. You are welcome to help fix them. -- Cat ちぃ？ 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- But the scheme you suggest there does not work when an edit with a file name different from the original nomination is promoted, does it? As far as I know you had a possibility to specify the nomination page previously. Has all that information been lost in the transfer? There are more than a thousands links to fix... -- Slaunger 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The images in question were originally not tagged at all on commons. That was an addition by my bot. Nominations on en.wikipedia should be moved to match the filename. For example for Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg the nomination page is
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you intend to rename >1000 subpages to acheive automated linking? Seems very dramatic. Are you sure that is a good idea? Even if that is a good idea I do not undertsnad how that would help on the following often ocurring use case:
- I nominate Image:anFPC.jpg for FP on en
- In accordance to your proposal the subpage w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:anFPC.jpg is then created to store the nomination.
- In case the original nomination is promoted you can then link to the nomination page from the Image page using w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/{{PAGENAME}}. All good and well and fine default behavior.
- However, very often it is an edit, like Image:andFPC-edit.jpg whic is actually being promoted. That ruins the link to the FPC nom page using {{PAGENAME}} from Image:anFPC-edit.jpg. Thus, you need to have the option of specifying explicitly the subpage name when an edit is promoted. And since you need that optional subpage parameter anyway, why bother moving all existing FPC nom pages?
- -- Slaunger 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't as dramatic as you think it is. Such a change was promptly adopted in es.wikipedia. On en.wiki a good number of images follow filename method. Some noms particularly really old ones don't. Ability to link to them has many benefits and no harm. The title of the nomination page should be changed to the winning image. This is an issue I am working on, I would welcome some help. As you can probably tell the standardization is rather difficult for a single individual to deal with. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there are quite some benefits in being able to link to them, but it seems rather clumsy to actually move the subpage name to new one, when an edit is promoted just to enforce the subpage=image name rule. I see it as being just as cumbersome as adding an additional optional subpage parameter to the template in those cases.
- Another unpleasant side effect is that the moved image subpage pops up in the watchlists of virtually every editor, who has been involved in voting on a particular candidate (assuming most editors watch edited pages by default) during the move. This is a source of "noise". After the move the subpages then dissapear from the watchlists of those editors unless they actively go to the new page and add that to their watchlist (which is unlikely). That means that if someone tampers with the subpage after it is formally closed it is less likely that it will be observed by the usual watchlist stakeholders.
- I was thinking, could there not be made smarter bot assisted solutions? Like going through the all FP image pages on en, retrieve "what links here", filter out those links which are in the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates name space and infer the subpage name from the link, then use this subpage name to add as a separate subpage parameter to the Assessments template on Commons. I do not know if this can be done with a bot on a daily basis or so, but for me it seems less disruptive.
- I am sorry that I seem to always oppose your ideas. It is not something I systematically strive to do, although it may appear so currently. It is just that I do not really like all those page moves just to solve a link problem. There must be a better way...
- -- Slaunger 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is there are often many different sub pages. If multiple wikis have multiple subpages that would be one possibly extra parameter per wiki. This not only complicates template use but also complicates template code.
- This is a mediawiki bug that should be addressed at bugzilla. Closed discussions shouldn't be edited though. Edits to these pages should be monitored by the community as a whole rather than by individuals. I will however file a bugzilla entry on this in a few minutes.
- I wouldn't want a bot to check these (would be too slow an inefficient), but I think a toolserver tool would be excellent for this task. I'll ask around for this. It is important that we have cooperation between individual wikimedia projects on this. In the long term having sub page names that are different from the filename will cause problems. From what I can tell, on en.wiki subpage names have filename - ext format at times, on occasions its the exact filename.
- I am glad we are talking about the rough edges. When the oppose is accompanied by a rational reason I actually like it. That way I can think on a problem and perhaps come up with a solution.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I filed it to bugzilla, I got distracted so this had taken more time than I anticipated: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14144 -- Cat ちぃ？ 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations. These are nice images. I firmly believe that all such PD images by spacecraft should be on commons; your uploading them is a good thing. You once commented about praise where praise is due and I freely offer it. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work should have been done, you can delete/redirect/do what you want. Bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Grazie. -- Cat ちぃ？ 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the FP poll from all previous versions of the templates, that will only serve to make it more confusing for everybody. -- Alvesgaspar 07:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it demonstrates the power of the tool. Something you do not want to show people. Not only will you not shut down the poll but you will not even allow me to properly express myself. This is to put it mildly unpleasant. -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know what, I have decided to abandon this project. I am no longer going to be active on commons. People do not listen to me, people frequently insult me, call me names and etc. People will not even allow me to properly express myself... -- Cat ちぃ？ 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please understand that it is not our intention to lessen the importance of your work or obstruct your participation. But the objective of the poll is to decide which type of assessment template we should use in the future, not to demonstrate the power of the tool you have created. In due time, whe will have the oportunity to adjust and improve the chosen template. Please don't turn this poll into a one-person show, that will only cause more animosity against your actions. You have already expressed your opinions (I would say in a very eloquent way) and now it is time for other users to express theirs too -- Alvesgaspar 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You really should stop this nonsense. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:( I know we had are differences, but I really hate to see you go. Seriously. Just remember, people are always more willing to give criticism than praise. Those that don't like something speak louder than those that do. Rocket000 11:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not mind criticism. I do however mind people assuming bad faith all the time. This place became no different from English Wikipedia. I left that place for the most part for this reason. I am leaving here for the same reason. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
After all the scripts that I made you? You have you pay me back! How can you do it if you are retired?! :P Come back immediately, now! :-) Sorry for your decision, hoping that this will become a right decision, bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey White Cat,
I don't really think it's practical to administer an user page in a dozen of different languages (espacially if you don't speak them ;-) ), but I just had nothing to do, so I tanslated your whole user page to German :)
I've found your page while reading my talk page: User_talk:Sven#Starcraft. I'm from Germany (here in this moment it's 03:26 AM) and speak english (since 9 years), frensh (since 6 years) and spanish (since 5 years). In the next weeks I'll graduate my high school diploma/A-levels.
I can't believe that there are really people which write you such offenses in the wikipedia, but I nevertheless translated everything :)
--Sven 01:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Whity!
I totaly agree to your oppinnion about protecting license templates. But many sysops do not, and I belive leaving this great project is not the way I'll choose, but I accept your way. Anyway I'd like to see you back after you took a break! :) :-) Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...nice to see your retirement was rather short. Your rather aggressive behaviour with regards to how you have edited/moved the FP-template poll/discussion and the way you have communicated since you came back is not helpful to this project though. Please stay mellow, and do not be too bold in taking actions you should now are potentially provocative. I'm not going to revert your edit/move of the poll since that could just make the mess worse. I will however keep an eye on the situation, and prevent editors who deliberately disrupts this project from editing if necessary. Regards, Finn Rindahl 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was quite a bad move by Alvesgaspar to display the poll for what it isn't. I think my change demonstrates
- the power of the new template
- the problems posed by the old one.
- These two should be vital for a person voting to consider. The old version makes it look as if there was nothing wrong.
- I did create a "vote" subsection to ease voting process. It can be removed but I think a lack of it would make people unhappy. We have a similar subsection on other votes such as COM:RFA
- I moved the page after making edits to it because I saw Alvesgaspar's post after words (well same time on a different tab - I was too lazy to reformat it a second time while copy pasting.)
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Judging from how Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Computer (de-adminship) was handled. I do not think I will "return" for a while. I may make a few edits from time to time but I don't think I should be considered "active" here. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry it went this way. I hope you will return at some stage when you feel more at ease with the community here. Until then, giggy (:O) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't the first time people forgot to talk to me. This has been made a habit lately. Until thats fixed I cannot be at ease. I do not expect everyone to agree with everything I say, I do expect and require for people to at least show me the courtesy of notifying me in such disagreements. This lack of communication seems to be a continuing trend which seemingly wont be fixed any time soon. -- Cat ちぃ？ 11:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry that I did not inform you of the deadmin request I made for your bot. I do realise that it was wrong of me - I had taken your "retired" posting rather too literally I think. I regret it. --Herby talk thyme 12:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me why you cept both images (Image:Black genitalia.jpg and Image:Black genitalia 2.jpg) ? Commons really need two (almost) identically images ? PMG 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you ask me. I am not an expert on the issue. -- Cat ちぃ？ 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- 1 and 2 - you are the guy who keept both of them - so i ask you. PMG 09:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I closed com:del discussions because commons is not censored. No vali reason to delete was given. If they are duplicates that can be dealt with separately independent of the bad faith com:del case. -- Cat ちぃ？ 20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi White Cat,
Rocket000 has been so kind to help me do a little clean-up in the valued image project before we go on the air. In that process, we have noticed some apparently unused subpages created by you
I think they originate from some experiments by you relating to our discussion about the image-nomination one-to-many relationship, which I argued made it complicated to have only one VI/Assessment template per image page. Since the pages are unused and we have headed for another way to organize the nominations and mark images as VIs I suggest we delete those "lost pages". Do you agree? If yes, would you initiate that? -- Slaunger 13:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete please. -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done abf /talk to me/ 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both. -- Slaunger 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By now your bot has bot-status on lb-wikipedia, enjoy the work on lb-wikipedia lb:User:Robby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.222.33.181 (talk • contribs) --Robby (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AAll_Gizah_Pyramids.jpg&diff=11528262&oldid=11526062){kind=link}
