User talk:Cwbm (commons)/Archive1

File:Chlorfenvinphos-2D-skeletal.png

Hi Cwbm,

Thanks for letting me know about this disputed image.

What exactly is the problem with it? Is it the double bond? This notation simply means unspecified stereochemistry (could be cis (Z) or trans (E) or a mixture of the two).

The same notation is used in the literature on chlorfenvinphos: see this screenshot.

There is another way to denote the same thing, using a wiggly bond to one of the substituents on the double bond.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ben,

I meant the double bond. I've never come accross this notation. But you are probably more expert than me, so I gonna remove the tag.

Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Crystal structures

Hi again Cwbm,

I saw this edit of yours. Why do you think the image should be replaced by a crystal structure?

You made the same remark about File:Ammonium-nitrate-2D.png, but there already is an image of the crystal structure of ammonium nitrate. The two images are found together at en:Ammonium nitrate.

I respectfully disagree that structural formulae of ionic compounds should be replaced by images of their crystal structures - both types of image have their benefits.

Nevertheless, I've started a discussion on the English Wikipedia's Chemistry WikiProject, so if you'd like to propose any new policies or just give an opinion on how ionic compounds are represented in Wikipedia, I'm sure your input would be very welcome.

Best wishes

Ben (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Categorization chemical structures

Hi Cwbm,

just saw that you recategorized the images i categorized to Category:Organic chemistry. Since i did first categorization and am not that a chemistry expert, is it OK if i continue sorting such images to Category:Organic chemistry to play them to your hands? -- Turnvater Jahn (talk)

If you stumble about the pictures, that's fine. Alternativly use Category:Chemistry (unsorted). If you go through uncategorized pictures systematically, it would be nice to categorize more accurately. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cwbm, you might be interested in adding Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Categories (and Commons:WikiProject Chemistry) to your watchlist. --Leyo 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'll use Category:Chemistry (unsorted), since i've not that a good chemistry knowledge. Thanks, -- Turnvater Jahn (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the chemical structure Image:Oxycodone 001.png is disputed

Hello. Ok. No problem. --Pixeltoo (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

File:AlkylPolyGlycosid.png

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Nikbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Nikbot (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Meclizine.svg back to second revision

Hello. SVG images created with ChemDraw are better compared to those made with BkChem so I reverted the image back to my version. Regards, Harbinary (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you User:Harbin? --Leyo 10:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry (unsorted)

Recently, a move request has been requested, uncontested, granted and executed to move "category:Chemistry (unsorted)" to unidentified chemistry. This in the context of uniformisation of a wild range of names such as unidentified, unknown, unsorted, unclassified, ....

If you disagree with that afterwards, the procedure is to issue a move request of COM:CFD. --Foroa (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you link the diskussion, please. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in here, the standard move procedure has been followed. Note that in category naming harmonisations, the standard procedure is often shortened or even bypassed. --Foroa (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty steep to tell me I should issue a move request, if you haven't issued one in the first place. Unidentified is not unsorted. Therfore I would appreciate if you would stop redirecting the categories wrongly. If you think the cat is unnessesary you are free to put the cat to discussion. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The original move procedure has been issued in february and completed according to the rules. Again unknown, unsorted, unclassified, miscellaneous, various, ... subcategories tend to be dustbin categories that attract all the difficult cases. The commons approach is either to indicate the items as unidentified (with a uniform naming rule) or just leave them in the main category. --Foroa (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a link to this discusion? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The {{move}} request can point to a discussion, but by default, it is on the talk page of the item to be moved. If there is no discussion, then the move proceeds. --Foroa (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hi Cwbn, Comments like these aren't particularly helpful, neither is posting stuff that obviously isn't vandalism at COM:AN/V. Please file and/or participate in relevant discussions at Commons:Categories for discussion. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You want _me_ to start a discussion while others create facts. Thanks for that advice. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:PD-UN

Hi, thanks for your message. I fixed the category inclusions. Sorry for the big mess... -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unknown vs Unidentified

Category discussion notification

Unknown vs Unidentified has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Kategorisierung

Hallo Cwbm. Ich sehe zwar den Grund schon, finde es aber trotzdem nicht wirklich sinnvoll, Bilder in Hauptkategorien einzusortieren (Beispiele: [1], [2]). Wieso verwendest du nicht {{Query chemical}}, wenn du gerade keine passende Kategorie findest? --Leyo 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Auch hier wäre {{Query chemical}} sinnvoller. --Leyo 13:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Query chemical}} ist nur bei kniffligen Sachen sinnvoll. Gruß --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Das war es doch offensichtlich. IMO sollten Strukturformeln nie direkt in Chemistry eingeordnet werden. --Leyo 15:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Siebrand#SieBot_Vandalism

Hallo Cwbm, deine Beschwerde mag berechtigt sein, sie ist aber an den falschen Adressiert. Jeder Benutzer kann an SieBot Vorschläge zur schnellen uUmkategorisierungen machen, dies geschieht auf User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Jeder Administrator ist berechtigt, diese auszuführen. Siebrand hat damit in 99% der Fälle nichts zu tun. Zumindest der erste Fall wurde von Infrogmation ausgeführt, siehe Commons:Village pump#Deborah or Debbie Harry?, den zweiten Fall kannst du irgendwo in der Versionsgeschichte von User:CommonsDelinker/commands recherchieren. --Martin H. (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bitte mäßige deine Wortwahl. Du hättest fragen können, wie man etwas am besten rausfindet statt es gleich zu beschimpfen. Du hast doch die Uhrzeit der umkategorisierung, SieBot arbeitet die Aufträge meistens binnen Minuten ab, also einfach bei der entsprechenden Uhrzeit in die Versionshistorie der Benutzerseite des Delinkers schauen. Bitte beachte, dass es sich bei der Umkategorisierung auch um einen Fehler handeln könnte, z.b. das Ziel und Ursprungskategorie vertauscht wurden. Du solltest also erst fragen statt gleich zu schimpfen. Grüße, --Martin H. (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Und p.s.: da ich auch neugierig war: Die Verschiebung von Category:18th century architecture by year wurde von SieBot am 14:35, 25 April 2009 ausgeführt, der entsprechende Eintrag wurde hier eingetragen - da sich auf der Diskussionseite vom Delinker kein entsprechender Gegeneintrag um diese Uhrzeit findet könntest du Forora fragen, warum er das getan hat, ich kann es dir aber auch sagen: User:G.dallorto hatte in der Kategorie Category:18th century architecture by year am 18 April 2009, um 01:48 geschrieben: {{move|Category:18th century buildings by date}}. Das ist das ganze (offene) Geheimnis. --Martin H. (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Meine Wortwahl ist so, weil ich stinksauer bin. Erst mußte ich feststellen, dass man ohne Diskussion Kategorien umbenennen kann, wenn man nur "move" einsetzt. Dabei werden nicht nur Einssprüche für die man die kurze Frist von zwei Wochen hat geflissentlich ignoriert, man muss die entsprechenden Kategorien erst einmal finden, was ziemlich unmöglich ist, da es keine Tagesseiten gibt. Dann stellt sich heraus, man kann Kategorien auch einfach so innerhalb von Minuten umbenennen; mit Hilfe eines Bots tausende Dateien bearbeiten lassen ganz ohne Diskussion, indem man es beim Commonsdelinker einträgt (darauf muss man auch erstmal kommen). Weder der Admin, der den Eintrag von der Disk überträgt, noch der Botbetriber sind verantwortlich. Den Verursacher findet man nur nach aufwändiger Recherche in der Versionsgeschichte zweier Seiten. Und was Commons dann endgültig zu einer der schlimmsten Bananenrepubliken macht, ist die Tatsache, dass völlig unkontroverse Umbenennungen, die der brave Benutzer bei den CfD eingetragen hat dort ewig rumgammeln und teilweise schon ihren zweijährigen Geburtstag feiern. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ja, so ist es leider, für Kategoriesierungsdiskussionen fehlt es auf Commons schlichtweg an Mitarbeitern und noch mehr an Interesse. Selbst wenn sie von jemandem gestartet werden der sich in einem Bereich stark engagiert und auf die Diskussion aufmerksam macht finden sich kaum Leute die dran Teilnehmen. Die Statistik spricht Bände: 17 Benutzer haben sich in diesem Monat pro Tag die Seite Commons:Categories for discussion angeschau, wie hoch ist wohl die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass einer davon das Wort "Saurornithes" überhaupt schonmal gehört hat? Wie du ja selber feststellt: Kategoriendiskussionen vergammeln, keine Beteiligung, keine Moderation, keine Aufmerksamkeit Seitens der Admins. Einen Vorwurf kann man nicht machen, die Admins die aktiv mitarbeiten arbeiten hart, sind aber damit beschäftigt neuen Benutzern zu erklären, was eine freie Lizenz ist und dass man das hier nicht einfach alles hochladen kann was man mit Google findet - auch wenn man behauptet man sei der Autor. Urheberrechtsprobleme sind einfach das größere Problem von Commons, und selbst die haben wenig Aufmerksamkeit - der gestrige Löschlog Commons:Deletion_requests/2009/04/25 wurde immerhin 131 mal besucht, erfahrungsgemäß wird er aber auch nur noch heute ca. 50 mal besucht werden und dannach wird das Interesse auf ca. 3 Besucher pro Tag reduzieren. Das sind dann Admins die sich den Kopf zerbrechen was man mit dem LA anfangen soll oder ob sie mit dem Fall zufällig etwas anfangen können.

Die minutenschnelle Umbennenung kann auch genauso schnell und ohne Arbeit wieder Rückgängig gemacht werden. Aus persönlicher Sicht bin ich daher ganz froh, wenn sich für Teilbereiche kundige Mitarbeiter finden und für Ordnung sorgen. Wenn sie zu voreilig Vorgehen, Fehler machen, etwas übersehen oder eine falsche Namenskonvention durchzusetzen versuchen ist das wie gesagt schnell wieder zu beheben. --Martin H. (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Delinker / Immune systems

Hi Cwbm - as per the above discussion with Martin H - without the DeLinker we would never get anything done. Admins like User:Foroa who execute move requests are already overloaded trying to find a common ground on those category rename discussions where there IS discussion (often HEATEDLY between 2 or 3 people who can't agree but don't have enough other people joining the discussion to achieve something you could call consensus). If we had to discuss every simple singular-plural change, we indeed would get nowhere.

So if changes go against your grain (I have explained the "Immune system / Immune systems" issue on my and on Foroa's talk pages), the best thing to do is politely contact the person who changed it or requested the change, and say why you would prefer it to be undone. We may have done a mistake (we do hundreds of such moves a month, some may really be off) or we may be able to tell you why. As Martin H said above - if it is really wrong, it can be undone pretty much as easily as it was done initially, so no reason to feel like anything was destroyed or damaged. Cheers and happy editing. Ingolfson (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Was soll das?

Warum untagst du meine speedydelete requests? Diese Bilder sind a) in mieser Qualität b) nicht mehr in Gebrauch und c) es gibt bessere Versionen. Was dazu führt, dass diese Bilder eh kein Sau mehr nimmt und hier nur Übersicht und Platz wegnehmen. Außerdem ist es sehr merkwürdig, dass du schlechte wikipedia.de-Bilder Naloxon.png hierher transferierst. Die sind a) in mieser...usw. usf. (siehe oben). Bist du überhaupt bewandt in Chemie/Biochemie? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ein svg ist keine andere version eines png. Es ist ein anderes Format. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Du hast meine Fragen aber nicht beantwortet, oder? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Ich habe eine andere Einstellung zu diesem Projekt. 2) K.K. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Catequina.jpg

Hello, I restored it. Please provide a description, a source and an author, otherwise it will be deleted again. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Hafnium_crystal.jpg

File:Hafnium_crystal.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Meselson-stahl.jpg

Hallo, warum hast du den Baustein entfernt? --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 13:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Weil ich dagegen bin, dass das Bild gelöscht wird. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Solange eine Grafik in Benutzung ist und es keine Alternativversion gibt, wird sie nicht gelöscht. --Leyo 13:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nachtrag: Es ist vorgesehen, dass der Baustein auf der Bilddiskussionsseite besprochen bzw. Einspruch dagegen erhoben werden kann. Ein Entfernen ohne jegliche Angabe in der Zusammenfassungszeile ist „suboptimal“. Bei solch komplizierten Grafiken füge ich übrigens den Baustein normalerweise nicht ein, besonders wenn sie nicht auf deutsch sind. --Leyo 14:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Das Problem ist, dass ihr regelmäßig das Bild einer Giraffe als Alternative zum Bild eines Elefanten verkauft. -- Der Zustand der Benutzung ist ja bekanntlich änderbar. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No comment. --Leyo 14:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Das ist eine sehr ernste Anschuldigung. Ich bemühe mich stets, nur adäquate Bilder als Alternativen anzugeben. Wenn mir dennoch ein Irrtum unterläuft, kann man mich jederzeit darauf hinweisen und ich korrigiere ihn. Dein Verhalten, kommentarlos Bausteine zu entfernen, die der Verbesserung der Qualität dienen, finde ich äußerst kontraproduktiv. Im Übrigen kann ich nur Leyo zustimmen: Bei den als "low quality chemical structures" markierten Bildern wird nichts gelöscht, solange keine adäquate Version zur Verfügung steht und das zu ersetzende Bild überall ausgetauscht wurde. Vielmehr besteht der Sinn des Bausteins darin, die Ersteller auf das Problem hinzuweisen, damit sie geeignetere Versionen hochladen können bzw. andere Benutzer darauf hinzuweisen, dass für diese Bilder hochwertiger Ersatz benötigt wird. Ich werde die Bausteine nun wieder einfügen. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 15:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Es wird niemand innerhalb eines Monats eine png-version des Bildes hochladen. Damit bleibt das Bild entweder ewig in der kat, oder wird entlinkt und dann ersatzlos gelöscht. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Die Monatsfrist gilt nur für eindeutig falsche chemische Diagramme (Baustein {{disputed chem}}), nicht für qualitativ schlechte. Im Zweifelsfall bleibt das Bild für längere Zeit in der Kategorie. Das schadet doch nicht. Es kann ja weiter verwendet werden, bis eine bessere Version existiert. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 18:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nach einem Monat landen die Bilder bei expired. Die Bilder werden dann gelöscht. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(BK) Die Monatsfrist bedeutet bei beiden Kategorien, dass nichts vorher gelöscht wird, auch wenn (korrekte) Alternativen verfügbar sind. Einige Bilder sind/waren über ein Jahr als „low quality“ getaggt.

Ich habe etliche neue Grafiken gezeichnet, um schlechte Bilder in der „Expired-Kategorie“ zu ersetzen. Die Kategorie war vor einige Monaten noch bei ~350, jetzt – auch dank anderen und den Botaktivitäten – knapp unter 30. Bei PNG- und SVG-Grafiken lade ich die neue Version einfach drüber (dann muss nichts gelöscht werden), bei JPGs und GIFs ist das natürlich nicht sinnvoll. --Leyo 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Das Bild ist einmal eingebunden. Warum sollte man irgendwelche Resourcen darauf verwenden, wenn es tausende dringendere Fälle gibt? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Dieses Argument tönt in diesem Fall (weil mir persönlich das Neuzeichnen zu schwierig/aufwändig wäre) eigentlich ganz vernünftig. Von mir aus könnte man die Grafik auch mit {{Convert to SVG|biology}} oder {{Convert to SVG|chemistry}} taggen. Bei simpleren Grafiken wie Strukturformeln oder Reaktionen ist für mich aber allein die Qualität und nicht die Anzahl Nutzungen entscheidend. --Leyo 19:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Zunächst mal muss ich zugeben, dass ich bei meinem letzten Beitrag ein bisschen was durcheinandergebracht habe. Um meinen Punkt klar zu machen: Mir geht es um eine Steigerung der Qualität der Bilder, die Commons zur Verfügung stellt, und ich denke, mit dem Anliegen bin ich nicht allein. Mein Ziel ist keinesfalls, alle JPG-Grafiken oder -Strukturformeln um jeden Preis zu löschen. Wie bereits erwähnt, soll der Baustein auf das Qualitätsproblem aufmerksam machen, damit die Wahrscheinlichkeit steigt, dass es behoben wird. Mit dem Vorschlag von Leyo kann ich mich daher gut anfreunden, schließlich wird dadurch derselbe Effekt erzielt. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

SVG, coat of arms

Hi Cwbm, I understand, that their is more specific category for images uploaded by me, but I don't understand, why you have deleted categories? It will be better, if you will change to more specific, or leave it as it is. In my point of view deleting category without adding more specific could be found as vandalism (because maybe category is not perfect, but works - check McSush contribution)

So if you wish to edit descriptions of my files, please change their category (change, no delete) or leave it how it is now, please

--Magul (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because you want these images to be converted, so it is your task to put them in the correct category, not me. More than 8000 completely different pictures make the category unusable that's why the category has to be cleaned up. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand, that it's not your task, but removing category from image page take exactly the same time than adding "coat of arms" to category "Convert to SVG", so what's the problem for you to stop removing unperfect category and start adding this 3 words to make it perfect? And in my previous post you have an example, that images uploaded and categorized by me have been converted. --Magul (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like you to remove the files from the main cat, because I would like to use this cat to find images of interest and put them in the right subcategory, which is a painfull process, if one has to browse through 8000 (40 screens) files each time. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but as I wrote before the amount of time needed to remove main category and add three words to put this images in perfect category is exactly the same. And I guess that you know, to which category this image need to be put. And really if you remove that template, how anyone else could find the images needed to be converted, but without template, because you have remove it? So, please, add these three words or do nothing.--Magul (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Magus has asked me to check with you guys. I completely agree. Magul wasnt fully correct not adding precise category, however you didnt have to remove it completely, cos amount of time to fix it is almost the same with time needed to remove it. I've already explained Magul to be more precise, so since now, everything should be all right. Thx for noticing it! Masur (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to start a conflict with you guys but to me the situation is like the following. You order wood for the winter but the driver delivers it to the wrong house and dumps it into the driveway of your neighbor’s. When your neighbor now asks you to remove the wood you say: Well, I’m willing to walk the extra meter each time I need wood so I don’t care. Then your neighbor starts to throw the wood into the street to clean his driveway you go: Hey why do you do that? Your driveway is right next to ours. So you could as well throw the wood onto our driveway. – Therefore my question: Are you gonna help clean the driveway or not? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

erm. You are wrong. Beacause when these images are in not excactly precise category they make no harm to anyone (no neighbours...). This is the first point. And many other images are in wrong categories (not precise) and no one is removing cats. completely. Second of all, de-categorazing takes the same amount of time as proper categorizing. One click to be precise. And as we said, next images will be for sure in the proper category for vectorizing and I'll try to get some bot for proper categorazing them. And pls, keep your tales for some other occasions, cos they are not a good example here. We have no victims here. No wood making driveway impassable. Masur (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Betain-Valin.png

Hallo Cwbm, der Ersteller selbst hat die Datei hier bei Commons hochgeladen und dabei die PD-Lizenz gewählt. Du hast inzwischen weitere Lizenzen aus der de-Wikipedia nachgetragen [3]. Ist das in diesem Fall wirklich erforderlich? --Birger Fricke (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Imho schon, aber andere sehen das genau anderes [4]. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorize and CatDiffuse

Please take part at this debate: Commons:Village pump#Categorize and CatDiffuse. --ŠJů (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reason?

Hello. No reason at all here. I simply forgot to do it. Avalokitesvara (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that you've done it for me. Thanks a lot:) Avalokitesvara (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Another issue about coat of arms

Hi, I have a question about Yours edits, for example. The question is, what does it mean proper source? Is this Wikipedia standard, or is only judged by You? Could You show me any commons page with this standard?

Best regards. --Magul (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And next question: What do You think about Convert to SVG template? Does it need proper source on commons to be used? Or this template should occur on every image, that should be aviable in svg?

--Magul (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: the "convert template" is to prioritize which images to convert. One criteria is if the image has an external source like here [5]. The template should not be added to all convertible images. This position is not from me, but was expressed here for example. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wappen Ennepetal.png

Hallo Cwbm, kannst du mir bitte freundlicherweise sagen, was dieser dein Edit vom 2009-10-06T08:30:09 soll, zu dem du gleichzeitig auch noch irreführenderweise als Zusammenfassung „recat“ angegeben hast. Vielleicht war dir bislang noch nicht bekannt, dass „recat“ für recategorisation steht, also für eine Änderung der Kategorien einer Datei. Aber mit dem oben genannten Edit hast du ja in keiner Weise etwas an den Kategorien geändert. Statt dessen hast du den (abgekürzten) Hinweis {{Svg}}, der sich korrekterweise in der Rubrik „|other_versions=“ der Dateibeschreibung befand, gelöscht und den (ausgeschriebenen) Hinweis {{Convert to SVG|coat of arms}} ganz oben noch vor den Beginn der Dateibeschreibung gesetzt.

Als jemand der sich ständig mit der korrekten Kategorisierung insbesondere von Wappen und Flaggen befasst hätte ich ja nichts gesagt, wenn du den abgekürzten Hinweis einfach an gleicher Stelle durch die von dir gesetzte Langform ersetzt hättest. Dein Verhalten bedeutet nun für mich ein wirklich sehr großes Ärgernis. Denn wenn ich eine Dateibeschreibungsseite aufrufe, dann interessiert mich wenn überhaupt erst an zweiter oder dritter Stelle der Hinweis, dass diese Datei vektorisiert werden soll. Und um die für mich relevanten Informationen erfassen zu können, muss ich erst umständlich und zeitraubend nach unten scrollen. Ein genauso großes Ärgernis ist für mich übrigens auch der Hinweis {{Vector version available}} — abgekürzt {{Vva}} — an der selben Stelle. Letztgenannter Hinweis ist, wie aus dem Text des vorgenannten Convert to SVG hervorgeht, an dessen Stelle einzusetzen, sobald eine entsprechende SVG-Datei vorliegt. Wie aus dem Namen der letztgenannten Vorlage vector version available = „vektorisierte Version verfügbar“ hervorgeht, gehört sie eindeutig in die von mir oben genannte Rubrik other_versions, übersetzt „andere Versionen“, der Dateibeschreibung.

Du kannst nun mir und vielen anderen hier die Arbeit wesentlich erleichtern, wenn du meine obigen Ausführungen beherzigst und Informationen zu einer Datei, und schon gar die welche nicht die wichtigsten sind, jeweils an die dafür vorgesehenen Stellen setzt, anstatt sie wie einen Block vor die Dateibeschreibung zu setzen.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen und auf gute Zusammenarbeit --ludger1961 (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Der Convert-Hinweis gehört nicht unter den Punkt andere Versionen. Ich setze ihn an den Anfang, weil manche ihn sonst übersehen und werde das auch weiter so handhaben. (gleiches gilt für vva) --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wie kommst du darauf, dieser Hinweis — egal ob {{Convert to SVG}} oder {{Vva}} — gehöre nicht unter den Punkt andere Versionen? Was macht ihn in deinen Augen so wichtig, dass du ihn unbedingt vor alle andere Information gestellt sehen willst? Deine Argumentation leuchtet mir nicht ein. Was ist in deinen Augen so tragisch daran, wenn dieser Hinweis nicht beim ersten Blick ins Auge fällt? Wie weiter oben dargestellt sehe ich mich durch dein Verhalten in meiner Arbeit hier behindert. --ludger1961 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"links to files with very similar content". vva ist also an der Stelle grenzwertig, aber der Hinweis sollte wirklich oben stehen damit man ihn nicht übersieht. Aber letzendlich solltest du dich darüber mit den anderen Kollegen, die sich um Wappen kümmern, unterhalten, die setzen die Hinweise nämlich genau an die gleichen Stellen wie ich. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wenn andere — bei weitem aber nicht alle — Benutzer sich genauso verhalten wie du, fühle ich mich durch ihr Verhalten genauso gestört und behindert wie durch dich.

Mir leuchtet im übrigen immer noch nicht im geringsten ein, was an dem Hinweis so bedeutend ist, dass er auf keinen Fall übersehen werden soll und deiner Meinung nach noch vor allen anderen Informationen stehen sollte. Darüber hast du dich bislang noch mit keiner Silbe ausgelassen, obwohl ich dich wiederholt danach gefragt habe. Dass dieser Hinweis deiner Meinung nach nicht übersehen werden sollte, hast du ja hinreichend dargelegt. Ich frage dich also nochmals: WARUM?

Gruß --ludger1961 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Damit die Leute die Vektorversion auch verwenden? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Und natürlich damit man beide Dateien direkt vergleichen kann. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don’t understand

Hi,

I’m sorry but I dont understand what you do. Why did you revert ma {{Svg}} add ? Like here but not there ! So I put {{chemical}} on the other files, is that correct ?

Moreover, pay attention for the File:Isomerie Butan-Pentan-Hexan.png dupe, you had forgotten the file: prefix. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 08:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I reverted because the file is not in use. Second question should be answered if you read the documentation of the template. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in use ? And what did that change ? Moreover, File:C4H4Oisomer.png and I dont see why it is not suitable for conversion. So I revert you (again, sorry), please, dont revert me before giving clear explanation.

I read the documentation of {{Duplicate}}, you actually forgot the prefix file: (that why it was a red link instead of a good blue link). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 08:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all deleting a gif because a jpg is available is not covered by our rules as far as I know. Second Category:Chemical images that should use vector graphics. I'm gonna revert that sooner or later anyway. In my eyes this is just spam. Sorry for that expression. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

And you could tell my what the purpose is of marking an image. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No it’s maybe not explicitly in our rules but revert a template is not in the rules too. I’m not sure that policies talk about gif (the critical point was png/svg, see Commons:Superseded images policy). Moreover, there is allways w:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

What is your second point ? (it seems it miss the end of your sentence).

It not spam (maybe it’s look like but it’s not) but just sorting, this file must be convert so why not saying it ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read Category:Chemical images that should use vector graphics. The file does not have to be converted because due to it's size this is going to be a lot of work and it propably won't render properly. Not every file that can be redrawn has to be redrawn. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms rename request

I've added to many files of coat of arms of german Army units rename request. The new name follows the sound name conventions of German Army. I proposed the official abbreviated form. You should know Geman of course and some basics about theses naming conventions to understand it fully. Thus, categories in commons list these coats of arms in a meanigful way without using sorting keys. Thus making it easier to finde coats of arms and actaully use them in the wikipedia. I hope, now you get along with this.--TUBS 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I know why you proposed the renames. They still are either unnessecary or make it harder to find the images. Plus image names should actually say what you see in the picture. So if you rename them you should include "COA" or Coat of arms or Emblem or something else in the name. Without looking I konw that you have already reverted my changes. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Comment my rename request. I'm OK with that. I didn't remove your comment. But please don't hinder admins to decide about (includes deleting the renaming request and its template) it by manipulating this template using the nowiki format. Using nowiki-format means that no Admin will ever know that there is a name request.... Thx.--TUBS 13:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

May I add something else? Well, I kind of created de:Liste der Panzergrenadierverbände der Bundeswehr and some other lots-a-like articles and trust me, new sound consistent filenames were useful to me, at least. So please understand my request. If an admin is willing to do the work we shouldn't complain. If the admin judges like you, I'm of course fine with that, too. I just wanted to undestand why I proposed it. If you have an better idea how to name these files better, please let me know and help me...--TUBS 13:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I just started this Commons:Village_pump#Suggested_rename_of_some_COA. Well even if I'm an admin I do not know German naming conventions so I would prefer that there is some sort of agreement before files are moved (or not). I hope you would comment it (or copy paste arguments). --MGA73 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's what I wanted to tell you just about now ;-) Ok. Thank you for taking the discussion to that central place. I stated their some of my arguments. Hope we find an acceptable solution for all of us. Thank you for your help. --TUBS 10:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Erwin started to reupload the files under the "preferred" filename you probably just should rename the files. Discussion futile. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Front cover Organic Chemistry.jpg

Hallo Cwbm. Kannst du nochmals einen Kommentar abgeben? Gibt es Gründe, die nun noch gegen ein Keep sprechen? --Leyo 10:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Ethylenoxide-2.svg

Hallo cwbm. Kannst du bitte selbst eine korrekt angezeigte Version hochladen? Danke. --Leyo 14:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hallo Leyo, zum eine wurde die Graphik korrekt angezeigt, als ich sie hochgeladen habe. Zum anderen sehe ich nicht ein, warum ich Arbeit für ein Probelem investieren soll, was ein Softwarebug ist. Bugs sollten gefixt und nicht umgangen werden. Außerdem halte ich die Umwandlung von Text in Path generell nicht für sinnvoll. Zum einen ist mit einem "H" in Formel tatsächlich der Buchstabe H gemeint und nicht ein Graphik, die so aussieht wie ein H. Zum anderen erschwert dies die Weiternutzung, da man weder die Schriftart einfach ändern, noch einfach Buchstaben gegeneinander austauschen kann. Die ganz SVG-Geschichte gehört mit zu den peinlichsten Dingen in diesem Projekt. Meine Meinung. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mir wäre es natürlich auch lieber, es gäbe den Bug nicht. Wenn man eine neue Version mit Pfaden drüberlädt, so ist die alte Version ja nach wie vor zugänglich.

Da mit File:Ethyleenoxide.png eine Alternative besteht, wäre ggf. auch eine Löschung möglich. Ich würde aber das Hochladen einer neuen Version bevorzugen. --Leyo 11:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Magnesiumcitrat.jpg

File:Magnesiumcitrat.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--Yikrazuul (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Maps by country subdivision

Cwbm. Please see Category talk:Maps by country subdivision. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Portulaca gen.jpg

Hallo Cwbm. Reicht diese Erklärung? Bitte auf der CDR-Seite antworten. --Leyo 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Maps of mountains

Cwbm. Please see Category talk:Maps of mountains. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting other users

When you revert other users like you did here [6] it would be nice if you told why in the "Edit summary". That way they (and others) could see why. --MGA73 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to know why a rename request of mine was reverted. Rjwilmsi 12:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The renames violated the guidlines. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cwbm, please read the guidelines before reverting others. Any non-basic ASCII character is not a "funny" symbol. -- User:Docu at 14:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If the file was uploaded without funny characters it would not need to be renamed. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's for sure, let's fix it then. Besides, we don't want to correct it later once more, because it would be misspelled. -- User:Docu at 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here, as Rjwilmsi said, you should leave edit summaries. And if you are going to say other users "violated" (heavy-handed wording, which is not assuming good faith) some policy, then it is up to you to cite the relevant policy rather than having them guess. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion requests/Template:States of Germany (dynamic

Hello cwbm. Was it a  Delete or a  Keep? Regards 217.233.81.78 23:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's not clear from what I have written does it really matter? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Texas_FM_2094.png

This file already exists as File:Texas_FM_2094.svg. Is the SVG format not preferred over the PNG format? Also, I am the author of the PNG file, but not the SVG file. --nsaum75^¡שיחת! 22:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The SVG is preferred but that does not mean that the pngs have to be deleted. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:UncategorizedTemplates

I see you're doing good work over there! I'll dig up the bot to categorize the potd templates, that should make the list much shorter. Multichill (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would be good if you could do the motd templates as well. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Motd? Never touched those. Potd is all cleaned up again. I do plan to make a simple bot to keep the potd templates tidy. Remind me if I don't get that working in a month ;-) Multichill (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Commons Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work categorizing templates! Keep up the good work. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Careful with the unpaid help

Hi Cwbm, this edit of yours to {{→}} broke {{Benton1959}}, which is used on 55 pages. Thanks for categorizing, but please make sure to introduce no whitespace when tagging. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And on {{Benton1959/de}} and {{Benton1959/en}} you forgot the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. Hangover? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You did it again. For exactly this reason you can't use HotCat on templates: It's way too easy to break a template. Please remember: Absolutely no whitespace whatsoever in templates. Ok? Paradoctor (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank God HotCat's now disabled on them. People would always do that. Worse than whitespace, the categories weren't being noincluded! Rocket000 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the whitespace. But since that was the last uncategorized template of that series, I hope I won't bother you again to soon ;-). --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Babel box

Cwbm (commons); The Commons community values the contributions of editors who speak many different languages. Please consider adding Commons:Babel boxes to your userpage. They may help others communicate with you. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reason for adding rename templates; please write edit summaries

Please give a reason when adding the {{rename}} template: especially when you are using it to replace the {{duplicate}} template. Similarly, when doing this, please state the reason why you feel {{duplicate}} should be replaced by {{rename}} in the edit summary.

Also, why did you do this? I can see a reason in Commons:File renaming that would justify your edits. The standard way to remove duplicate files is with the {{duplicate}} template. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is to keep the version history of the file. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Oronoco School

Hello. The reason I used the badname template on File:OldOronocoSchool.JPG is that it is completely incorrect and should be deleted. The categories you reverted to are not correct: it was not built in 1875, and so forth. All the elemements of that description apply to another building entirely, seen here: File:1875OronocoSchool.JPG. Jonathunder (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I not only change the misnomer.

I not only change the misnomer. Also I improve the quality. Please not to make difficult. To thank. --Starscream (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now this file is only a garbage

File:Mural at Long Street 4 in Gdańsk 2.jpg because the elevated quality File:Mural at Długa Street 4 in Gdańsk 2.jpg --Starscream (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive note of Cfd

Please when you remove Cfd-template, don't forget to insert a note in Archive box at the talk page. --ŠJů (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop

Please, stop to make difficult to me. My method not only changes irregular names. There improves also the quality of files without unnecessary garbages. Your actions one removed the good file and one kept bad. --Starscream (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If the software says it's a duplicate it is not an "improved version". You gonna stop uploading duplicates just to make cosmetic changes to filenames. And you could also stop to blank pages. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All right. You win. I will stop to do empty pages, when add ′′badname". But Your method is less effective. The more free method which leaves garbages. I do the rise of the level of the quality. I have yet a lot files of my own authorship which I must so make. I implore. Do not hinder. "Rename" is less effective. Greetings from Poland. --Starscream (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is {{Rename|New name.jpg}} less effective? --Leyo 17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please to restore

Hello!

Please to restore File:Poland national Karate Fudokan team at III Meeting of Fans of the TV series 'M jak miłość' in Gdynia 2009 - 10.jpg which is a correct name of File:Poland national Karate Fudokan team at III Meeting of Fans of the TV series 'M jak miłość' in Gdynia 2009 - 11.jpg. This second please to remove. So that all the category be chronological. Greetings from Poland. --Starscream (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please just move the file so maybe starscream realizes what happens when you rename files so that he stops uploading duplicates just to make cosmetic changes to filenames. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done renamed 11 > 10.--Bapti ✉ 09:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Starscream

no problemo :) Masur (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Muchas gracias. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Badname

Hello.

Thank you for your advice.--Ten-nen 08:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Map problem

Hello Cwbm. Could you check File:Greater Latin America (orthographic projection).svg regarding the an "Inaccurate-map-disputed" template. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't say more than just to state the obvious. Btw these templates are not meant to stay permanent. For example maps that are wrong should, after some time, either be corrected or deleted. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Images with possibly useless annotations

Wouldn't it be easier if you simply deleted useless annotations when you come across them instead of categorizing the images in this category? This just creates triple work: first, someone needs to check the files, then someone needs to remove the useless note, and then the category has to be removed from the image again. Why such a convoluted process? Lupo 07:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do remove a lot off annotations directly. The category is to get a second opinion especially if the note is in another language. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PD Colombia

"PD Colombia" redirects to "PD-Colombia", and it is correct that it does so. We should not have 2 different templates with so similar names, that would lead to confusion. Belgrano (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was gonna convert the tempalte into a redirect. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Licencing templates should only be edited directly for trivial changes, such as something related with the format, the image employed or small grammar corrections. If you want to reformulate what a license says, or relace one with a different one, you should discuss it first at act upon consensus. The talk page of the licence itself is a good place to start, but later you should take the issue to a bigger audience at Commons talk:Licensing Belgrano (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to reformulate the template. There were two templates for the same purpose. Thus I wanted to switch the templates because the older one did not contain a hyphen like the other templates usually do. Now the younger template needs to be moved back and be converted into a redirect. Thus the redirect that is now in that place needs to be deleted first. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:PD Colombia

Deletion of this template seems controversial, so please open a DR instead of insisting on having it speedy deleted. It will give everyone a chance to present their point of view in a more productive manner than through edit summaries. Thanks. –Tryphon^☂ 22:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did you just not delete the redirect and move the tempalte. Is it so hard to understand. What a waste of time. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What's hard to understand is what you're trying to do. You want to delete a redirect Template:PD Colombia so you can move Template:PD-Col2 there, which is also a redirect to Template:PD-Colombia, so you can then turn it into a redirect to the same template... or did I miss something? Rocket000 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I wanted to swap the two templates because the older one had no hypen. And I would like to keep the other (newer) template as a redirect for documentation. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"redirect for documentation" Huh? Right now both Template:PD Colombia and Template:PD-Col2 are the same thing, both are already redirects to Template:PD-Colombia... In fact, Template:PD-Col2 can be deleted since it's not used. Is it the history or something you want to keep? BTW, can we get a source for "Nevertheless, its author and source must be acknowledged."? That's the opposite of the definition of PD... maybe it's some other protection, but that wouldn't apply for other countries (at least I know it doesn't in the US). Rocket000 (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, history. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, right now we have the history of both templates/redirects.[7][8] and since you mentioned where your changes came from in the edit summary, why not leave both? Rocket000 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this an honest question or just one to "find a solution" i.e. make me shut up? I created the "PD-Col2" by moving. You are now the 4th one not to notice that. If I hadn't run into an incompetent admin for my second deletion request this whole discussion would never have happened. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah,  Done. Sorry about that. Rocket000 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs

Category discussion notification

Category:Bicycle road signs, Category:End of bikeway signs have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which they should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

--ŠJů (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You can has user problum

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Wikistalking by Cwbm (commons). -Rocket000 (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at File:FunanMap001.jpg

Your behaviour is already under discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Wikistalking_by_Cwbm_.28commons.29 for stalking. Do you think that edit warring like this is really a wise move in these circumstances? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Convert to SVG category change

Hi, Cwbm. I don't understand why you're moving images from Category:Chemical images that should use vector graphics to Category:Chemistry images that should use vector graphics. For example:

• Diff: File:RNA NC 003540 RZ+.png (October 2010)
• Diff: File:2sistemas.JPG (August 2009)
• Current usage:
  • 1,933 in "Chemical" (correct)
  • 1,245 in "Chemistry" (incorrect)

The template itself, {{Convert to SVG}} lists "chemical" as the proper listing. Also, your edit summaries are listed as "Undo revision <xxxx> by <username>" which is misleading. Please stop moving categories for no reason, or at least explain why we might need the different categories on Commons. Thanks, LobStoR (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't you see the difference? Chemical is for chemical structures (chemicals), whereas Chemistry is for other chemistry-related images. --Leyo 09:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Leyo. LobStoR is the matter clear now? Otherwise would you please clarify what is unclear. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Using {{Information}} without any information

Hi Cwbm (commons). I don't quite understand the benefit of replacing Category:Template information missing]] with {{Information}}, but not adding any information to that template, even if it's available on the file description page (e.g. at File:1808-miseries-life-catsitting-I-Cruikshank.jpg). Can you explain?  Docu  at 17:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In principle you are right. But as long as empty fields are autocategorized and the template is not used for anything else ist does not really make a difference. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the autocategorization of the empty field is that it's erroneous. You should attempt to complete the fields of the templates when adding it.

Besides, adding just {{Information}} and not the cut-and-paste version at Template:Information#Usage doesn't help as people can't add missing elements easily.

Another problem is that the presence of {{Information}} prevents people from adding it with the relevant tool (gadget in Special:Preferences).  Docu  at 11:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Airplane rudder engines.JPG

The conversion request to SVG was reverted by you with the reason »(revert, accuracy dispute needs to be resolved before conversion)«. However, with SVG it'd be trivial to change the text within the image. In fact, much easier than in its current JPEG form so I don't think that should stan in the way. Ideally the SVG version should use numbers anyway to allow easy i18n. —Johannes Rössel (talk) 11:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't spend effort converting this rubbish to SVG, we should just delete it. Beyond an aircraft outline (which is copyvio-dubious anyway) there's nothing in it of encyclopedic value. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the light of your comment below I guess »of encyclopedic value« is also not a reason to not convert it, right? —Johannes Rössel (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I apparently suck at mind-reading, could you please explain further?

That image, even as a jpg, has serious problems and ought to be deleted anyway (see its tags). There's no point in us keeping it, let alone putting further effort into rasterizing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The (possible) problem seem to be with the text. If it was an SVG changing the texts would be very easy. It would also be possible to translate the texts. // Liftarn (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the text, the concepts behind the text, and the likelihoood that the image behind the text is a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you think it's a copyvio you can open a deletion request for it. That you don't like it is not a valid reason for removing proper tags. // Liftarn (talk)

We have an ongoing problem with this particular editor regularly producing bad images, then wasting the time of people at Graphics Lab etc. reworking their presentation. That's unfair to them, and we should try to avoid wasting their efforts like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

SVG version

Please do not remove the SVG template from File:Poolsclosed.jpg as it is an image that should be better in SVG format. That it is unused it of no relevance. // Liftarn (talk)

To make one thing from the beginning crystal clear I will keep removing the tag from unused images. Secondly, it is not only not beneficial to tag unused images it is harmful. I would expand on this point, but this [9] edit indicates to me that you don't even understand how the system works. So unless you can give me a good argument, to tag unused images we won't get along. And by good argument I mean not statements like the one above. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. You seem to think that this is just the library back-office for Wikipedia, however it's far more than that. Resources here comprise a media repository for anyone to use, whether they're at Wikipedia where the "This file is used at en:" 'bots can see it or not. "That it is unused it of no relevance." is a very important principle for Commons, because we don't know whether these resources are really unused or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all you suck at mind reading and secondly commons gives a flying shit about who else is using our pictures. That is clear from the various policies that are in place here that basically serve to piss people off that use any image hosted here. But that's just a side note.--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you are new to Commons, but you have to understand that removing proper tags is a form of vandalism. Please stop doing that. // Liftarn (talk)

Another unjustified assumption, but anyway. I consider you adding the template without good reason as vandalism. So stop that. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw. Do you know what hidden categories are? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I use it with good reason. I use it on images that would be better as SVG files. Like line art and such. // Liftarn (talk)

We have already estabilshed that this is not a good reason. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that you don't like an image is not a valid reason. // Liftarn (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said that, and I warn you if you keep reverting my edits I will take action. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have stated above that "I use it on images that would be better as SVG files. Like line art and such.". As for action I have taken it to Commons:Village pump#Removal of .7B.7BSVG.7D.7D.3F. // Liftarn (talk)

I have noted that you have not stopped with your pointless removal of valid templates. You have also not replied at Commons:Village pump#Removal of .7B.7BSVG.7D.7D.3F. // Liftarn (talk)

Texas FM

BTW: There is a SVG file that could serve to create a SVG version of the file mentioned above. --Leyo 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you have the font used. it could possibly also be done using a script if you're good with that sore of things. // Liftarn (talk)

You could ask Xavax to determine the font used. He/She is really good at this. Unfortunately, I am not good in scripts. It might be worth asking at COM:BR. --Leyo 12:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It turns out the work was already done. They simply were listed in a different category. Now if only Cwbm spent as much time fixing that instead of pointless removals it would be much easier. // Liftarn (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Elegantere Lösung für Template:PD-1996/de?

Hallo Cwbm; der Hinweis "Sofern der Urheber dieses Werkes nicht mindestens 70 Jahre tot ist..." in der von dir angelegten deutschen Fassung Template:PD-1996/de ist natürlich völlig korrekt - allerdings irritiert dieser rote Hinweis bei Urhebern, die durchaus seit mehr als 70 Jahren tot und deren Werke in DACH ganz unproblematisch gemeinfrei sind, doch etwas. Vielleicht würde es irgendwie eleganter gehen, z.B. mit einer Option "70y=yes" oder so ähnlich, mit der man den Hinweis bei bekanntermassen lange genug verstorbenen Urhebern ausblenden lassen könnte? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dafür wäre es vermutlich am besten, wenn du dich an die Vorlagenwerkstatt auf de wendest. Gruß --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Danke, ich habe dort nun mal eine Anfrage gestellt. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorization error

Hi. If you made this change, you should also add the category Category:Requested moves (all) and change the documentation of the template and add reason and date parameters and categorization by request date. --ŠJů (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing ifc tags

Can I ask why you removed a bunch of {{Ifc}} tags I just added, without so much as a comment [10]? Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Because these files should be renamed rather than overwritten. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Media needing categories as of XXX

Perhaps an example will help, if I want to search for uncategorized images with a particular keyword in the description (eg userpage) I can use a search like:

"userpage incategory:"Media needing categories as of 6 September 2009"

except that doesn't work for templated categories. But

"userpage incategory:"Media needing categories as of September 2009"

will give useful results. :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If there are other means to achieve the same result, I'd love to here about them. Especially a search facility that would allow anyone to search for keywords down a whole category branch. "Incategory:" can only find files at one category level, but not under sub-categories. Tools such as catscan can search many levels (and for templates), but I don't know any easy way to filter the results by keyword (and the output can't be directly used by cat-a-lot). So for the time being the method I am using is really only useful for uncategorized files (otherwise I might end up placing files in a less specific category than they are already in). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

removing file from image cleanup category

Regarding File:1805-Lawrence-Marchioness-of-Ely-AnnaMariaDashwood.jpg‎: I added it to the category "Images for cleanup" because it is an image that needs cleanup, and the templates I found when searching for the proper usage put it in a higher-up category, even though its instructions said that "Images for cleanup" was the correct category. It was not because I was "playing with the file." My understanding is that more specific categories are better than general ones. If I made an error while trying to get the file in the right place, perhaps you could explain it to me on my talk page instead of making snarky comments in the file's history. Or better yet, fix the instructions so that they match the categories and so won't confuse new users. Thanks. Laura1822 (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Short Note: I think you mean COM:OVERCAT. -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 19:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Some of your edits are disruptive. It may help you to read this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia SV1XV (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And stop fucking call my edits disruptive. You bloody name caller! --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. You are now a candidate for the 2011 Foul Language Barnstar. SV1XV (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a fucking shit. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You tell to you all by yourself.--Trixt (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 308f4b389d7f092c8678bde3681a7ea4

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-Portugal

Hi Cwbm! Auf der Suche nach Lizensierungsmöglichkeiten für Portugal (Commons:Licensing schweigt sich für Portugal nämlich aus) stiess ich auf das obige template... und auf Deine Bearbeitung. Ich fand den Hinweis vor Deiner Bearbeitung sehr nützlich und habe deswegen die vorherige Version wieder eingestellt - auch weil ich keine Begründung für den redirect sah. Vielleicht kannst Du das hier nachreichen. Das Gleiche gilt auch für Template:PD-PT. Grüße. --Gunnex (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Es handelt sich, wie der Text bereits sagt, nicht um eine gültige Lizenz. 2) Lizenzvorlagen dienen nicht dazu zu erklärem, welche Möglichkeiten es gibt, sondern sollen den konkreten Grund nennen. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands

Hi Cwbm (commons). Requests like these and these on User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands are useless, because CommonsDelinker automatically removes deleted images of articles crosswiki. See the user page on Commons, the one on Meta and the documentation for more information about the bot. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As can be easily seen the CommonsDelinker has not done so as of now. So why is the request useless? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Categorization problem

Please be careful when changing categories for license tags. Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission is a Public Domain template, not a Creative Commons template - I've re-changed the category appropriately. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't put templates with attribution design into PD cats. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, looks like I did have a contradiction between the format of the template and the categorization, though the text of the template (the important part) was right. You're right, it isn't really PD (though it isn't Creative Commons or attribution, either). What I wanted was "copyrighted free use," but we don't have a category for copyrighted free use templates, so I categorized it to Public Domain as the closest category I knew of while retaining the copyright symbol to show that it hadn't been explicitly released into the public domain (and, to my knowledge, the larger-resolution versions of the images haven't been released at all). I've since discovered that we have a PD-like category that's being used for that purpose, so I converted the template accordingly. I'm still not sure where you got the Creative Commons from, though, since nothing about the template indicated that that organization or its licenses were involved ... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 12:16, 18 September 2011 (UT

écrIVEZ MOI uniquement EN FRANçAIS SVP

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ByacC (talk • contribs) 08:10, 21. Sep. 2011 (UTC)

File:Anilingelb.svg

File:Anilingelb.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Leyo 21:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Litte Hint

I reverted your edit because the jpg file seems valid for me. --McZusatz (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Alpha-Glucopyranose_Fischer_Haworth_Chair.png

File:Alpha-Glucopyranose_Fischer_Haworth_Chair.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Yikrazuul (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Superseded?

[11]: why do you consider the alternate version to supersede? It is true that this version has some distortion issues at the center, but it is a tremendously sharper scan at a higher resolution. Someone with Photoshop skills should be able to turn my version into something much better than the version you marked as superseding it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I consider it superseded because all the problems you had with it were fixed. You have waited for _four_ years for somebody to fix it. And the first who tries to fix it uploads a new scan. So I suggest you find somebody with these photoshop skills to fix the image and then you can mark the other file as superseded. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But the problems are not fixed. The new scan is very poor. Neither of these should supersede the other. They are simply two differently flawed scans of the same underlying image. And mine, unlike the other, is capable of being cleaned up. The other cannot be, because it lacks detail, which cannot be added by any technical means. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I essentially added the superseded because I removed the ifc. I will still remove the ifc and I already said why. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

About File:Blason fam de Schwarzenberg 2.svg

Look at the talk about this file. Sincerly,--Jimmy44 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Phenolphthalin und Phenolphthalein

Hallo Cwbm! Ich habe Deine Änderung an der Datei Phenolphthaline.svg rückgängig gemacht. Die Struktur von Phenolphthalin weist keine Ladung auf. Ich vermute Du hast Phenolphthalin mit einer deprotonierten Form des Phenolphthaleins verwechselt. Daher war die Kategorie Triphenylmethane für diese Verbindung mMn ebenfalls korrekt gewählt. Ob jedoch eine Einsortierung in die Kategorie Phenolphthalein sinnvoll ist oder nicht – darüber lässt sich in der Tat streiten. Herzliche Grüße, --Sponk (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:AIBN.jpg

File:AIBN.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Leyo 13:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:FoP-Mexico

Template:FoP-Mexico 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, 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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop

This category is problematic. Please don't remove tags. Is there tags for categories ? The purpose is to notice users problems. Takabeg (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Category for discussion}} cfd.--Cwbm (commons) (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Generalgouvernement fur die besetzten polnischen gebiete.png

Hi, you posted a dispute on this map on the grounds the language use is mixed German/English. The map is English - title and common English names (countries etc) are in English. The names for the districts in the General Government only had German versions as it was a creation of NS Germany and was not recognised outside of the axis. That is the reason they are in German. So where exactly is the mixing? XrysD (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I also had difficulty seeing it but all of the map is in German except for the three coutries at the bottom: Slovakia, Hunagry, and Romania. Should be Slowakei, Ungarn, and Rumänien. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh! I see where you are coming from now. It's not quite as clear cut as that because as the map is on English wikipedia, the convention is to use English names where they exist and are appropriate (WP:COMMONNAME). So for the surrounding countries there are established English names which is why I have used them. For the General Government itself though, the administrative areas only have the German names. There are no equivalent English names although some are related to similar entities. For example, while the capital of Poland is known in English as Warsaw, this map doesn't show that. It shows the NS Germany administrative area of Kreis Warschau, which is not the same. A general non-administrative map of the area could show a city at that location and call it Warsaw, but that is not the same as what is shown on the administrative map. Some of the other areas of Greater Germany shown on the map (Prussian provinces etc) do have anglicised versions which were in common use (e.g. Brunswick = Braunschweig). So I could replace those for consistency. I could also produce an all German version for use on other wikis. XrysD (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but the Rest of the map is in German: "Generalgouvernement für die besetzten polnischen Gebiete" is not English. Krakau is in English Krakow and so on. So if you change the three countries at the bottom and the "General Gouvernement" at the top into "Generalgouvernement" then you would have a complete German map. And then it would be nice if you would upload a complete English map under a new name. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am creating an all German version for other wikis that wish to use it. But as I stated above there are no valid common use english names for the administrative areas in the General Government. One could invent names based on cities and areas that are similar, but that would be WP:OR. The source maps I used only show the German names (and these are not necessarily German maps). And to re-iterate, the district marked Krakau is not the same as the polish city of Krakow. It is an administrative area created by the NS State and does not necessarily even coincide with the admin boundary previously used by the Polish state. The German names are listed first in the article text (with translations) so anyone interested in what cities/counties are roughly equivalent to them can find out. I will remove the German translation of General Government as that is present in the article text so is not needed and change the German province names to common use Engish equivalents where they exist. But for the reasons listed above I do not believe it is correct to change the names of the cities/counties/districts of the General Government. XrysD (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading a pure German version. I guess the issue is now solved. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Bad name translations

I noticed that you took out a lot of the translated text and put a newer template in. I have no problems letting people know of the new template to use, but taking out of the translations is very strange and I kindly ask you to not do that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the text because it was wrong. You can now rename files without reuploading them. It makes no sense to encourage people to do so. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Ok, carry on. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Ununnonium

Ununnonium 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 gallery, 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!

84.61.149.75 10:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Biogas Entstehung b.jpg

File:Biogas Entstehung b.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Yikrazuul (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Biogasentstehung.svg

File:Biogasentstehung.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Yikrazuul (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Acetone.svg

File:Acetone.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Addihockey10 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Spam?

Hi Cwbm (commons). You tagged a lot pages for speedy deletion. The {{Speedy}} tag in itself is good, but not everything is spam. Some is vandalism, a test etc. Trijnstel_talk 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad SVG - traced COA

Hallo, in several files like File:DEU Langendreer COA.svg you extracted the raster. With these actions the white background is missing and we have transparent areas within. The other useless color layers are still in place. Is there any specific idea behind this? --Maxxl2 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm just not that apt in creating svgs. When I realized that the backgrounds were transparent I went back to the files and filled the white space where necessary. I might have missed some. Sorry --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't that familiar with SVGs, no problem. If you ever find a COA, banner or flag-file created by Juergenk59 which doesnt match the standards, just add the Bad-SVG-template and we'll do the rest. Otherwise things are confusing and may show bad images. --Maxxl2 (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding the templaze "Bd-SVDG" is in my POV not a minor edit which is disregarded in the watchlist default settings. That was the reason in the past why your helpful judgement wasnt indicated here to have follow-up action. --Maxxl2 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done now with marking Jürgens files. The ones I had fixed before myself can be found in my recent uploads. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Tilde

Hallo cwbm. Bei mir führt deine Änderung zu einer ungewollten Tilde (siehe beispielsweise Commons:Signatures). --Leyo 12:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Leyo, ich habe es mit verschiedenen Einstellungen versucht, aber ich sehe keine Tilden. Laut Vorlage:LandSwitch sollte die Tilde gerade nicht dargestellt werden und soweit ich das sehe funktioniert das auch!? --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ich sehe sie dort mit ?uselang=de, ?uselang=fr oder ?uselang=als, aber nicht mit ?uselang=en. --Leyo 19:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Eukaryote DNA-en.svg

in the file Eukaryote DNA-en.svg you said you have removed raster graphics but there is again jpeg pictures in your file line 81 and 84 and a png picture line 3141. I upload a new file without this raster graphic elements (and with correction to pass SVG validation test). Please tell me if there is something wrong with my corrections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger66 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 September 2012‎ (UTC)

I think you did not purge the cache (fr:Aide:Purge du cache du navigateur). That's why you still had raster graphics in the file when you checked it. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Solar spectrum ita.svg

[12] you had to explain, why you removed a specific {{Translate SVG}} template. The {{Translation possible}} does not imply that the requested translation is namely to English. This is wrecking, not "fixes". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

An English version of this file _is_ available! It is actually linked to on the file description page. If you want an English svg then produce it yourself! Don't impose trivial copy and paste on other people. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi Cwbm (commons), you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

Trijnstel_talk 20:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

File:DL-Galactose num.svg

Hallo cwbm, ich verstehe nicht ganz, was du da meinst. Grüße, NEURO — Preceding unsigned comment added by NEUROtiker (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry, dass ich jetzt erst antworte. Ich habe nur die image note in die Vorlage übertragen. Wenn du denkst, dass die Nummerierung richtig ist, dann kannst du sie denke ich einfach entfernen. Grüße --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad svg template

Hello. I saw that you put "bad svg template" on these files: File:WikiProject Peru Logo mk.svg, File:WikiProject Macedonia Logo mk.svg, File:WikiProject Bolivia Logo mk.svg, File:WikiProject Bolivia Logo.svg, File:WikiProject Mongolia Logo.svg and File:WikiProject Mongolia Logo mk.svg. I opened them and I could not find which elements were raster graphics. Maybe it's the top layer, the transparent one? Everything else is vectorized. --Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 08:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes - the transparent top layer is a 329x329px bitmap to be deleted. --Maxxl2 (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove the the top layer of all logos. Best--Никола ^{Стоіаноски} 11:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing Adobe metadata

Hi, you added the following message to a file I recently updated : [13]. I will be glad to remove myself those metadata if you tell me how to proceed. Regards--Kimdime (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Maxxl2 and I removed some metadata. I tagged a few of your images because I was hoping that an expert would remove the superfluous stuff since I'm not that apt. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)