User talk:LX/Archive/2011

Q1

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

Possible sock error

Hello LX, I am an editor at the English Wikipedia who has been advising a new editor there, User:Schulzdavid. I just found out that he is being accused of being a sock, and that you have CSD-tagged the image files he has uploaded. I want to let you know that I am contesting the CSDs. I realize, on looking at the socks listed at the sock investigation, that there is a similarity in the editing styles that could certainly make one suspicious, but I very much believe that this is only a coincidence, and that this editor is simply a new contributor who is being falsely accused. I have not personally inspected the copyright permission, but I have every reason to believe that it is for real, and was provided in good faith. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help clear this up. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the issue of the images, Commons only accepts content that anyone may use for any purpose, including commercial purposes; see Commons:Licensing. There is no basis whatsoever for the {{CC-by-sa}} tagging of the images. According to the statement repeatedly pasted to multiple pages by User:Schulzdavid, "our photos cannot be sold or transferred to other parties and can only be used for the Temple Beth Sholom's Wikipedia page." These are {{Non-commercial}}, {{Wikipediaonly}} and {{Non-free}} conditions that fundamentally contradict the CC-by-sa license. Claiming that these images are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license constitutes copyright violation, and I've restored that tagging.

As for the sockpuppetry issue, it is discussed at Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aju lion. Aside from the behavioral evidence I put forth as basis for investigation, the result of the actual CU was also that the accounts were likely related. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. After reading it, I went back and looked more closely at the permission, and I agree with you that it fails CC-by-sa. I regret that I advised the editor to use Commons for the files, and I agree with you now that the files should be deleted here. But as for the more serious accusation of socking, please note that (as of this time) the Checkuser evidence only applies to the other account, and CU appears not to have been run yet on this user. The behavioral evidence appears to me to be a coincidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad we can agree on the permission problem (as unfortunate as it is that we didn't get an actual usable permission). Regarding the CU case, Magister Mathematicae has checkuser privileges and wrote in the results section of Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aju lion that "I believe there's strong enough correlation to link the accounts." My interpretation of this statement is that a CU was run and indicated likely correlation (such as dynamic IP addresses in the same range). Add that to the overlapping interest in a rather geographically and topically specialized field (cf. Aju lion's log and Southern jew's log), the disregard and lack of understanding of copyright and Commons policies, and the fact that Schulzdavid became active here less than a month after the last known sock was blocked. I'm sorry, but I'm finding it a bit hard to believe that the combination of all those factors are a coincidence. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do feel bad that I advised the user to upload those files without my having first looked at the permission letter myself, and I've deleted the images now from the English Wikipedia. But in the mean time, checkuser Tiptoety reported at the sock investigation that the CU confirms socking by the other account, but seems to indicate that the account I'm discussing with you is unrelated. It really is just a case of a new and inexperienced user who made some beginner mistakes about copyright policy, but did not do so intentionally. And the southern US is a big place. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what to think now with two different CU results contradicting each other. The southern US is indeed a big place (I've traveled through a fair bit of it), but Temple Beth Sholom from Schulzdavid's uploads is less than 2.5 miles from Temple Emanu-El and Cuban Hebrew Congregation from Aju lion's File:Temple emanuel.jpg and File:Cuban Hebrew.jpg uploads. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:DMCA Takedown, NCI Photos

I read the village pump yesterday to know what happened, but thanks for your message anyway :) Lobo (howl?) 12:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Page

Hi, I realize that this is really not important, but could you please post all the block requests on the specific page Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections instead of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard? It could help a little for people who have one page or the other on their watchlists. Thanks. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems a lot of admins are only watching the main COM:ANB. I'll try using the blocks subpage at least for a while and see if response times have improved from my past experiences. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Image of Rk 95 Tp

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:FinFihlman#File:RK 95 TP.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Need some help...

Hi LX! I have a bit of a problem. I uploaded this: File:Umeå studentkårs medlemsantal.svg, and it looked like hell when uploaded (dont know why...). How do I do to delete it? dnm ^{(t | c)} 00:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hej Daniel!

Tråkigt att det inte blev som du tänkt dig. Eftersom filen är nyuppladdad och inte används någonstans kan du förmodligen få filen snabbraderad genom att lägga in någonting i stil med {{speedy|Uploader's request; not rendered correctly}} på filbeskrivningssidan.

Ett annat alternativ är att försöka fixa problemet och ladda upp en ny version av filen. En bit ner på filbeskrivningssidan finns en länk för att ladda upp nya versioner.

Du beskriver inte vad det är som ser fel ut. Jag ser att texten har flutit ihop en del. Om det är problemet kan bero på att du angett en font som inte stöds. På meta:SVG fonts hittar du en lista över vilka fonter som stöds. Annars brukar man kunna få bra hjälp angående SVG-filer på Commons:Graphics village pump. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Łukas Biedny

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Jumpman23. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Massa_critica_pinturas_poa.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Tigre do oeste. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ash Headshot.jpg

Take a look. Thanks. --RanZag (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist, so there's no need to notify me, but I have nothing to add really. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Lepota

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Lepota Kuzmanovic#User:Lepota. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin

Dear LX.
I would - again - kindly ask you to become a sysop again. I know, you had some issues in the past, but that does mean, you are not a fine editor. And by not being an administrator here, you don't change that old licensing-issue. You are filling in so damn many requests on the adminisrator's noticeboard, you really need those tools. Please think about this idea again. If you wanted to, I'd nominate you, of course. Kind regards, abf «Cabale!» 10:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. Since the policy on certain photographs protected by Swedish copyright law remains the same (i.e. that the law should be ignored), I would still be forced to make the same impossible choice between abiding by the laws by which I'm bound and the policies by which administrators are bound. Please understand that my resignation was not a protest, but an action intended to protect Commons. I'm not bitter, I know I'm a good editor, and I intend to continue with that. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you "exclude" decissions on such images from your work as an administrator? abf «Cabale!» 13:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In practice, that would be the same as refusing requests to delete such files, thereby supporting the infringement. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sad but true. :( abf «Cabale!» 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted [1] this category edit - it may have been the case in Britain some 200 years ago, but municipal workhouses in Moscow in the end of 19th century were neither prisons, nor industrial buildings. Rather, they're half way between free municipal housing and almshouses or orphanages. Admission was voluntary, and in some years there was quite a waiting list. The buildings themselves were converted from former upper-class mansions, and located in "ordinary" residential areas - so they're not industrial either. In the beginning (1880s-1890s) they were more like a modern charity-run free hostel, and then degenerated into ordinary filthy flophouses and lost their work component altogether. It just didn't work.

Regards, NVO (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• As an example, see caption for File:Municipal Album 1.126b Sokolniki workhouse.jpg: "Asile des incurables, hôpital boulangerie et hospice" = "Hospice for the incurable, almshouse and bakery". Definitely not a forced labor institution, and yet called a division of the city's workhouse. NVO (talk)

Thank you for explaining the edit – I had just noticed it and was about to ask you about it. Was there a reason why you reverted my entire edit rather than just removing the categories which you think do not apply? In other words, was it your intent to move Category:Workhouses in Russia back to Category:Workhouses rather than the more specific Category:Workhouses by country? Additionally, workhouses were certainly buildings, so I still think that the category should be a descendant of Category:Buildings in Russia in one way or another.

Also, if workhouses were only prisons or industrial buildings in some countries, those categories should probably be removed from Category:Workhouses and Category:Workhouses by country. It seems you are more familiar with the subject than I am, so perhaps you could help? —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct, I moved it into Category:Workhouses by country. The case of buildings is more complicated: "buildings in Russia" will, technically, include the former East Prussian workhouses that were more like British model (and were not part of Russian Empire ever). Perhaps, the whole set of Moscow photographs should be moved into something like "former social services buildings in Russia" (on the same level as orphanages, almshouses and hospices). NVO (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Well, there's nothing in the name Category:Workhouses in Russia to imply exclusion of East Prussia. Perhaps Category:Workhouses in the Russian Empire is needed to make the distinction? That could then be a subcategory of Category:Buildings in the Russian Empire, which could be a subcategory of Category:Buildings in Russia and Category:Buildings by former country. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The last proposal seems unmanageable: there's not enough resources to maintain "by (current) country" categorization. Parallel "by former country" will be, I suspect, stillborn from the start. And a can of worms of all EE conflicts. Perhaps the simplest solution will be to move Category:Workhouses in the Russian Empire to Category:Workhouses in Russia. Already there. NVO (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Granted, national borders changing over time does pose a problem for categorisation (especially for things like buildings, which tend not to move or disappear along with those borders). Suppose we get some photos of workhouses in East Prussia. Where should they go? I still don't see why Category:Buildings in Russia would imply inclusion of East Prussia if you think that Category:Workhouses in Russia does not. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation detection - Could/ Should normal users warn to block?

Hello LX, as I saw, you're looking for copyright violation. But some users prefer not to follow the guidlines (e.g. User_talk:AdryDN2). Are normal users like me allowed to post the "End copyvio" - message on a useres talkpage? (Example here: User_talk:Antmanpym)? Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes :) (it means an admin coming along on the next batch should block not warn) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One of my stalkers :-P has apparently answered the question already, but yes. I'm a regular user too, and I use it. Even if you don't have the ability to block them yourself, I think it's only fair to warn people of the fact that getting blocked is a highly likely consequence of persistently uploading copyright violations.

User talk:Antmanpym has already been given that warning (by Dodo), so there's not much point giving them the same message again. If I notice that a user ignores that warning and continues to upload copyright violations without getting blocked quickly enough for my liking (I'm impatient), I usually leave a note at COM:AN/B requesting a block.

Keep up the good work! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply. I am looking at uncategorized images and there are so many useless images :-( And it seems not to become better. Sometimes up to 30% of the new files are garbage - that's frustrating. --RE RILLKE Questions? 21:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's been a lot of work done to make it easier to upload files to Commons. We broke the nine million barrier in February, just a couple of months after the previous million milestone. Subjectively, it feels like it's getting harder to keep up with new uploads. So the efforts to make it easier to upload stuff to Commons seem to have worked. I'm just not sure that the useful uploads have increased at all. I think a lot of people who find Commons difficult to use do so because what they are trying to do isn't what Commons was intended for. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Q2

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

File:Diego Narvaez Rincon.JPG

I reverted this file and the old one has complete Exif-Data. Do we still need a permission? Thanks --RE RILLKE Questions? 17:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. The user name Artistentertainment implies that the copyright is held by a corporation (probably http://www.aegroup.com.au/), but of course anyone could register an official-sounding user name, so that needs OTRS confirmation from an e-mail account @aegroup.com.au. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of Lampedusa

I have permission for use in wikipedia the image from http://www.lampedusa35.com/ in my e-mail (see information of the my files posted in commons). Andre86 16:27, 2 April 2011

At the top of this page, there's this text:

Important:
I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

And at the top of the page when you're editing, there's this text:

If you are responding to a message or template that I left on your user talk page, respond there

So please do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed and have posted in the image of Lampedusa:

{{Copyrighted free use}}

Please help me... Andre86 16:38, 2 April 2011

I can't help you if you continue to ignore every instruction given to you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

CriciumxJec

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Joaocarlospatricio#File:Tigrexjec.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Thanks! --Cekli829 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Hi! To say the true, i did not know this. Thanks!--Melikov Memmed (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

File:CRLV DETRAN.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Sethemanuel#File Tagging File:CRLV DETRAN.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

about File:Shunde_Rainbow_Bridge_(satellite_view).jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Caiguanhao#File:Shunde_Rainbow Bridge (satellite view).jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict in DR

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kottarathil_sankunni.jpg - Will you able to look into this..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Gutosão copyvios

Hello LX, I saw you marking a series of copyvios on Gutosão photos. Will it be possible to automatically replace the photos in use in wikipedia projects with equivalent versions, when available?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm not aware of any feature like that, and I don't see how that would technically work. It's quite hard to automatically determine if two photos are "equivalent" for a given illustration purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. It would have to be manually, then... I would do it later today, perhaps, if the images would be still there. :S -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, upon closer inspection, File:800px-Palacio da Alvorada Mezzanine.JPG is actually a scaled-down duplicate of File:Palacio da Alvorada Mezzanine.JPG (not sure why Gutosão felt the need to upload that instead of just using the full-resolution version, which has proper source and authorship information). The version uploaded by Gutosão doesn't seem to be used anywhere. Usage information may not be fully up to date at the moment, though. The same applies to File:Alvoradaanoite.jpg (an apparently unused low-resolution duplicate of File:Palacio da Alvorada Exterior.JPG). Other photos of Palácio da Alvorada can be found in Category:Palácio da Alvorada.

The only file that's reportedly in use is File:Theatro Municipal, Rio de Janeiro 2010.jpg. For that, we have several alternatives in Category:Teatro Municipal do Rio de Janeiro: File:Teatro Municipal.jpg and File:Teatro municipal rio de janeiro.jpg are both much better quality than the copyvio uploaded by Gutosão. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Those files were not exact replacements, since the copyvio photo was taken after the 2009/2010 restoration. For the Portuguese wikipedia, which was the only one which used it in that context, I tweaked another Commons file to make File:Theatro Municipal do Rio 22-05-2010-2.JPG (actually, the original photo was taken during a Wiki meeting, just days before the inauguration of the restoration works in the theatre), which may even be more appropriated, since the other photo was apparently from 2009. The uses in other wikis were replaced with the files you suggested. Cheers, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 08:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussions

Maybe we can get a chance to do some content work together. I value the image experts! TCO (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'm all for the different Wikimedia projects working together more. Feel free to chip in over here whenever you see the need. Most tasks are easy to get started with, and there's plenty to do. Cheers, —LX (talk, contribs) 10:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...you know your stuff. I like bringing in the "heavy hitters" so will weedle a bit of image review or other image help next FA/FL I have.  ;) TCO (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Assistance with my uploads

I responded to your comment on my uploads. I am pretty new to commons, so if you could give me some guidance as to the best boxes to check when uploading, or additional information I should provide for any of the specific documents, it would be appreciated. Thanks. MineWatcher (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Graciemeats.jpg

He's done it again. Time for a permablock. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've put up a request at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Underhandedly?

Please refrain from personal attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

un·der·hand adv \ˈən-dər-ˌhand\: 1 a : in a clandestine manner. I stand by my position that blanking out a legitimate problem tag solely on your volition without discussion, notification or explanation of any kind is underhanded. I am sorry if you perceived it as an attack on your person; I solely intended it as what I believe is justified criticism of your actions in this particular case. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the diffs for the explanation; you can read. And in English, to accuse someone of acting underhandedly is definitely a personal attack. "Clandestine" is not much better. Do not use the word again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The information required by Commons policy was not present before your edits, was not provided by your edits, and consequently, was still missing after you removed the problem tags that stated that the information was missing. The diffs did not explain the edits, and you did not discuss the blanking or notify anyone of your actions (whereas the uploader was notified when the problem tag was introduced). In fact, the second time I came across and tagged it, I didn't realise I had already tagged it before, because you removed the tag, well, in a manner that is unlikely to be noticed, whatever you would like to call that. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I gave clear edit summaries, and I made it clear that I saw no problems with copyright, indicating the reasons why. Now remove your gratuitous personal attacks please, if you care for a collegial working atmosphere. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you did not. "Undo revision 40987921 by LX (talk)" didn't really make anything clear. Since I haven't made any personal attacks, I have nothing to remove. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Q3

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

AjaxMassDelete

Hello LX (Alexander), I wonder how you performed the last deletion request that fast: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by PrinceMarciano.

I wrote a handy script (is still in alpha state and will be extended for adding no-permission, OTRS, ...) allowing a mass deletion request. As I think you are able to read and comprehend JS, you might want to test it? You can find it here: User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js. In a few hours there will be documentation on the discussion page.

You can load it for debugging purposes:

importScriptURI('http://www.commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s');

or for usage only:

importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js");

When ready, it will be a snap-in for AjaxQuickDelete. -- RE rillke questions? 15:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just used tabs, copy & paste – no magic involved. :) The script sounds useful; I'll look into it. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Tried it out for the first time yesterday. Seems to work well. I have a few comments. Where would you like me to put the feedback? —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the confidence put your comments here. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 17:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the inconvinience due to the malfunction of this script. (That happens whenever one has no time to test) The errors should now be fixed. Do you want to use my replacement for MediaWiki:Gadget-UserMessages.js ?

If you want to, here is the neccessary code:

importScript("User:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js");
var AxUserMsgPreSelect = 10; // selects end-copyvio

Errors and desires can be put here. Screenshot and documentation will follow.

Have a nice evening. -- RE rillke questions? 18:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's been no inconvenience at all. I appreciate the opportunity to test it; it's already saved me quite a bit of time. I would consider most of the bugs I reported to be feature requests rather than defects. If there were major hiccups, I didn't notice them. What are the benefits of your UserMessages version? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed there were "hiccups". I improved the documentation page. Especially User talk:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js#What has been improved? should be of your interest. Did you ever click on your browser's "back"-button using the old script after adding "... to inform the user"? I did and that's why wrote the new script. (And because it is a good toy for newbies and the forgetful like me.) -- RE rillke questions? 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, accidental extra messages as a consequence of using the back button have happened to me several times – especially before the Quick Delete gadget was fixed. I'll give your User Messages rewrite a whirl too. It sounds promising! —LX (talk, contribs) 21:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

AjaxMassDelete.js - New feature

User manual, requests and known issues

Thanks for trusting in my skills and me.

At this point I would recommend switching to the "load on demand"-feature of this script because it's quite a huge pile of code. This should improve performance and is not mandatory to retain its functionality: It's just a suggestion. This will prevent the interpretation of the whole script if a page loaded on commons. Instead, only if you click on the link, it will load the script.

What you've to do: In User:LX/monobook.js exchange

importScript("User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js");

with

addPortletLink('p-tb', 'javascript:{importScript(\'User:Rillke/AjaxMassDelete.js\'); void(0);}', "Perform batch task", 't-AjaxQuickDeleteOnDemand', null);

That's all. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. FYI, I had some problems with the script the other day where it wouldn't list any files, so I had to resort to creating Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RASECZENITRAM manually. It seems to work again now, so I assume it was a temporary problem while the script was undergoing what looked to be some pretty major changes. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to remove a debug-line (console.log()). A similar problem caused a bug in MediaWiki-Software :) I hope it works now as expected. -- RE rillke questions? 09:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

JSONListUploads

Rd232 sent an enquiry whether I'd like to create a gallery tool from AjaxMassDelete I did and here is what you need to install the script. It adds a toolbar link (My uploads) if you are somewhere in your namespace. Please do not click on it if you are editing a page. It removes the whole page's content and sets up the gallery.

if (-1 != mw.config.get("wgPageName").indexOf(mw.user.name())) importScript("User:Rillke/JSONListUploads.js");

I read about the features you requested at VPP and I will work on implementing the missing ones in both scripts. Kind regards -- RE rillke questions? 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good news: Make and model available. Filter, revision treatment and global usage will follow soon. AjaxMassDelete will adopt this (not yet done because there are some structural changes). -- RE rillke questions? 22:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello.

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:RASECZENITRAM#Do you own a lot of different cameras?. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A tip for you

Here is a tip for you {{Disputed}}. That is for when you want to fix a problem without deleting a file. --MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

1. This template is not autotranslated.
2. Nobody/ only a few people care about this tag. You have to ask or invite everyone in a discussion.
3. Sorry for meddling :) -- RE rillke questions? 15:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's in reference to this comment, and I think you may have misunderstood me slightly. What I meant is this: when adding {{No source since}}, {{No license since}} or {{No permission since}}, I first and foremost hope that the missing information will be provided so that the file doesn't have to be deleted. I still believe – as is our policy – that files which do not provide source, authorship and licensing information as required must be deleted, but it's not an outcome I wish for. I'm well aware of {{Disputed}}. I use it occasionally but sparingly (for the reasons listed by Rillke) – usually in combination with another tag as a means of pointing out where the problem is. It is not a replacement for {{No source since}}-tagging of files sourced only to "Google" and which may or may not be in the public domain. Even the template itself discourages such uses. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wykymania, Please do not remove speedy deletion tags

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Wykymania#Please do not remove speedy deletion tags. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Le tombeau de l'amiral Baste (Brienne-le-Château).jpg

Hi, Exceptionally, I removed your request for the removal of the watermark on File:Le tombeau de l'amiral Baste (Brienne-le-Château).jpg. Because the file is unsourced and a probable copyvio, I believe it may be better to leave the watermark in evidence until the file is deleted (or validated), even if it is not easily readable. Also, if the file is probably to be deleted, it is better to save useless work for a graphist. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll keep an eye on it in case it turns out to be worth the effort to remove the watermark. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Myers.png

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Mi-black#File:Halloween Myers.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, LX!

I read your message. You're right. There are photos in wikimedia commons it no are my own work (sorry, I have not good english). But, the photos taken with casio exilim ARE MY OWN WORK. If you want, delete other photos, but photos with casio exilim not delete, they are of mi own work.

Thanks

In spanish:

Hola, Lx Leí tu mensaje. Tienes razón. Hay fotos en wikimedia commos que no son de mi autoría.... Pero las fotos tomadas con Casio Exilim SON MI PROPIO TRABAJO. Si tu quieres, borra las otras fotos, pero las fotos con casio exilim no las borres, son mi propio trabajo.

Gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.36.211.12 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2. August 2011 (UTC)

At the top of this page, there's this text:

Important:
I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

And at the top of the page when you're editing, there's this text:

If you are responding to a message or template that I left on your user talk page, respond there

So please log in and do that so that I have some chance of knowing who you are and what you're talking about. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this fixing of the COM:VPR header. :) Rd232 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. A related hint: if you want to provide a diff link (or similar) that goes to the right server regardless of whether the reader uses the secure login server, you can use fullurl, like so. Makes the source code more concise too. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually know fullurl (though I always have to look up how to use it), but it wasn't needed here, as you demonstrated, and I don't normally bother with it in discussions, out of laziness :) (BTW I hear the developers are working on making fullurl redundant, so MediaWiki will automatically know where to send the user.) Rd232 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good news: In MediaWiki 1.18, we can simply write Special:PermanentLink/56906117 for an oldID bugzilla:268. The secure server will probably change, too (which can ease writing links: [2]) There are plenty of improvements. :) -- RE rillke questions? 16:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesomesauce! Someone deserves a good beer. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

photo

The owner is allowed to work @ah0ra (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

At the top of this page, there's this text:

Important:
I prefer to keep discussions where they started.
If I left a message on your user talk page, please respond there.

And at the top of the page when you're editing, there's this text:

If you are responding to a message or template that I left on your user talk page, respond there

So please do that. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

photos about board games

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Yoavd#photos about board games. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Tineye / Google Images

Hello LX,

I see that you sometimes use Tineye to identify copyvios. Google is now offering a similar service at Google Images, search with an image. If you don't already know this search option, you might want to try it. You can either enter an URL, upload an image or use drag&drop. The search results are much better than those of Tineye, probably because Google's databanks are bigger. There is also a plugin for Firefox or Chrome which makes searching with images as simple as a right mouse click. Regards --Rosenzweig τ 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: More info at http://www.google.com/insidesearch/searchbyimage.html. --Rosenzweig τ 17:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of it and use it quite a lot. (I have the extension enabled in my preferences.) I find that they complement each other nicely. Thanks, though. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No heading

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Augusto664#File Tagging File:Federal police building.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Epost

Fick du mitt mail? Jag vill inte tjata, men det är kort om tid och är du inte intresserad får jag fortsätta leta. Vänligen--ArildV (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hej! Nej, jag verkar inte ha fått något mail. Hittar inget i spamkorgen heller. Kan du försöka igen, eller posta här om det inte rör något känsligt. Ursäkta att jag inte svarat tidigare; jag var ute i svampskogen hela helgen. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hej! Låter trevligt med svampskogen. Frågan gällde Wiki Loves Monuments där jag är projektledare för den svenska delen och att vi sökte en Wikipedian/Commonsanvändare som var intresserad av att sitta med i den svenska juryn. Trots efterlysningar på bybrunnen både på Wikipedia och här har vi inte fått något napp, och jag tänkte att du kanske var intresserad att vara med i juryn? Det är oavlönat, däremot ska vi kunna stå för eventuella reskostnader för dig till Stockholm. Juryn kommer sannolikt vid åtminstone ett tillfälle sammanträde.--ArildV (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Det var både trevligt och produktivt. Jag åker upp till Stockholm rätt ofta ändå och skulle gärna ha ställt upp, men just under september är jag tyvärr alldeles för upptagen med jobb och tjänsteresor. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Tack för ditt svar.--ArildV (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This DR

I have withdrawn my panoramio pass in this DR after Admin Lupo clarified that pre-2009 images must not have a "for wikipedia" only permission statement/restriction. Please note that the uploader did try to get some form of permission for his uploaded panoramio images but since it mentions wikipedia, it is not acceptable or free enough for Commons....as you noted. It is strange. I did file a separate DR on 1 of his uploaded photos which grew to a mass DR on many of his other images and I agreed to their deletion. The problem was that this old pre-2009 panoramio images can cause problems (with their restrictive permission) since the permission can be vague..if there is no license change. Thanks for notifying me of the problem. Unfortunately, it is usually Dr. Fo who caused me this problem at panoramio! Best Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering and for checking other affected files. It's too bad that obviously well-intending contributors who care enough to ask for permission sometimes don't read up on what kind of permission they actually have to ask for. Sorry for not responding sooner; I was out in the woods all weekend. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sure. I hope there are no more issues with Dr. Fo but I can't be 100% sure. I already have to ask Admin Lupo to delete another 20 images here today from another panoramio account that I passed. Dr. Fo just causes me a headache sadly. But with these old images, there is no bot to review panoramio images sadly and if I make a mistake I have to rectify it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File tagging File:Pirámide de la isla de Jaina.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:El Comandante#File Tagging File:Pirámide de la isla de Jaina.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ljungstream

I just want to say, I am sorry for this. Unfortunately it was not an error I could fix: If you look at MediaWiki_talk:AjaxQuickDelete.js#Handle_server_error_504_and_502, and below, you will see that the API used by this script had serious problems these days because one server was out of sync. This should be fixed by the techs for now. -- RE rillke questions? 09:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I knew I was test driving a work in progress, and I did notice that something went wrong, so it's my fault for not checking more carefully to see which steps were missed. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

File:GERMAN TANK DISGUISED AS AN AMERICAN TANK.jpg

Hello LX!

Thank you for your help here. It is nice to see people who know what valid sources are and that such things are important for Commons. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Took me all of two minutes. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Files

You must be joking, right? Why don't you first consult me? It takes 20 min to upload one file. I don't want to upload them all again, just because somebody cannot read a bracket. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion where it started. I did notify you of the discussion and asked for your comments ("We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion"), so you have been consulted. If the permissions are found to be acceptable, the files will not be deleted. If the permissions are not acceptable and no acceptable permission is obtained, the files will be deleted. If the files are deleted and an acceptable permission is later obtained, they can be undeleted. Whatever the case, you will not need to upload them again. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

How long does the deletion process take? I will need a couple of days for sure. You already knew on 24 August, you could have given me a hint then, instead of immediately plunging into the brute method of mass deletion. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussions run for at least seven days, and usually more than that in cases like this, so there's no need to panic. I didn't actually see the response to my question on OTRS until just now (too many pages on my watchlist, I guess), and I thought it was best to deal with it before it got archived. Commons is big enough a project that messages on user talk pages tend to get forgotten if they go unanswered. Open deletion discussions are kept track of more effectively, which is pretty important for cases like this. I hope that we can resolve it without deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you remove the deletion tag from the files with a renewed permission? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. The admin who closes the request will remove the tags. With an approved OTRS permission they won't be deleted.

If Alex wants to do this before, he can use "custom replace" using RegExp /\{\{delete\|reason\=.+\|day\=5\}\}/ with a space or just nothing. -- RE rillke questions? 21:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for all your work! —LX (talk, contribs) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Bakel plein omstreeks 721 na Chr..jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Bakel123#File source is not properly indicated: File:Bakel plein omstreeks 721 na Chr..jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC) and 14:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

commons helper

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Maher27777#File:Stockholm in winter.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: File:Casadejuntas.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File source is not properly indicated: File:Casadejuntas.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied in my own discussion.--Dagane (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for image review

A cup of juice for you. Sir you are looklike a good image reviewer.So please review my other uploads.

sridhar1000 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I did have a quick look through your uploads when I first discovered copyright violations among them. Are there any particular files that you think may need attention? If you are unsure enough about your uploads that you feel like all of them need to be reviewed, perhaps you should consider asking before uploading next time. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

About an image

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Gino il Pio#File:Ariccia osp Castelli 11 03 11.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Categories needs translation

is a huge page which is not translated to svenska. If you find the time or another volunteer, some users would have it easier. I think the first 3 or 4 sections are the most import ones. I just ask because today, Bo Forslind (talk · contribs) asked on Helpdesk how to categorize. According to CentralAuth he could be a native sv-speaker. -- RE rillke questions? 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've written a reply to Bo, who's clearly a Swedish speaker. I'll see if I can find the time to translate the help page later. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion about splitting that page to make it easier to understand. The discussion petered out (Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/08) but it might be worth trying to pursue this before making the effort to translate the page. Rd232 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Q4

The following discussions from User talk:LX have been archived. Please do not change them. Any further comments, even if they deal with a matter discussed below, should be made at User talk:LX.

licence

Thank you message! The licence is good today! Szajci ^pošta 08:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures Uploaded through Wikipedia Commons

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:CherryGirl22#File:Pangong Tso Range.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Balansören.jpg

Hi Alex, I have some difficulties to find proper attribution info for this image. Could correct them if they are not right? Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 12:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Did the best I could to clean up the file description. I hope that's better. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

A major improvement, thanks. -- RE rillke questions? 15:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for intervention

Thanks for your fast intervention regarding the vandalism of IP No 178.232.124.8 today (multiple requestis for deletion of pictures of Swedish outdoor sculptures). You may have noticed that the person behind was cunny enough to sweep his or her electronic tracks, so this seems to be a sheer vandalism and not an act of an innocent newbeginner. Regards Boberger (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. (It was actually yesterday, though.) They've also edited from the following IP addresses:

• 46.15.5.52 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

• 46.15.68.105 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

• 89.8.160.73 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

• 89.8.242.183 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

• 176.11.170.226 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • tor • RBL • tools • luxo's • crossblock • block user • block log • checkuser)

These all belong to Norwegian mobile operator NetCom AS. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Opmerking bij afbeelding BHIC en BHIC1

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Bakel123#File tagging File:Bhic1.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chinnery.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chinnery.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Eleutherna Bridge

Hello. Concerning the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma, could you please add the License Review template for these two images (File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 02.jpg and File:Eleutherna Bridge, Crete, Greece. Pic 04.jpg), as you already did for the other two (1 and 3). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: Those five confirmed of the Category:Arapsu Bridge (Ticket 2009121210021853) still need this renewal template, too. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

PPS: Plus these 29 pictures of the Category:Eurymedon Bridge (Selge) (Ticket 2009121210021979). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I didn't add {{LicenseReview}} to those images; Adrignola did.[3][4] The purpose of {{LicenseReview}} is that a trusted user verifies licensing information from another site in case the site disappears at a later date. When the licensing information has already been confirmed and archived by OTRS, that's not necessary. If the license can be seen on another website, you can provide more precise source addresses and ask a license reviewer (I'm not on that list) to review the licenses if you want, but again, since the licensing has already been confirmed through OTRS, it's not necessary. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. But, in case of the Eurymedon and Arapsu Bridge, did you change the OTRS to the renewed permission given by Mr Rochow? Just want to make sure that the issue is settled once and for all. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

According to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gun Powder Ma, Adrignola filed the updated permission info under the same ticket ID as the old permission. This means that if someone with access to OTRS looks up these files, they'll find the up to date information. So it's all good. :) —LX (talk, contribs) 08:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

related discussion about donald

I assume you've allready know about it, but related is Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif _→AzaToth 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not. Thanks! —LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Discours_du_18_juin_1940_du_Général_De_Gaulle_à_Londres.jpg

This discussion has been moved back to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discours du 18 juin 1940 du Général De Gaulle à Londres.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

???

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Dagane#File source is not properly indicated: File:Casadejuntas.jpg. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Copyright_violations

Copyright violations 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!

84.62.204.7 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Very funny indeed. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Reactie

Ik heb al dagen geleden gereageerd op Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oude Bakelsedyk.png, maar heb nog steeds geen reactie terug ontvangen! Ik wil graag dat de afbeelding blijft! (Daar heb ik mijn redenen voor!) Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your response. The administrator that decides what to do with the deletion request will consider the comments you made there. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your response! Mvg Bakel123 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (ps. my english is not so good)

Claude PIARD

Excuse my very poor english. I had answer you in "discussion" of the file. Thank you.--Claude PIARD (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Blocage"

This discussion has been moved back to User talk:Claude PIARD#Copyright violations. Please respect my request to keep discussions where they started. Don't continue discussions from elsewhere on this page, as this makes discussions harder to follow. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Alger FSGPF

Hello, LX!

Thank you for your precious, judicious and relevant contributions!

Thank you also for your remarkable improvements relating to the numerous details and protocol regarding the diverse aspects of uploading!

As you seem to be particularly well informed about the various existing licenses, which one would you choose as being specifically related to the aforesaid image, as mentioned in the title?

Thank you in advance for your help!

Vänliga hälsningar!

euphonie ^breviary
02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will comment on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alger FSGPF.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, LX!

Thank you for your message!

I have also posted an additional reply on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alger FSGPF.jpg.

Hälsningar och god natt!

euphonie ^breviary

19:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Gadget Update: UserMessages

Hi Alex!

Thanks for testing, commenting, improving and using AxUserMsg.js . This is essentially important for developers and highly appreciated. The script is now available in your preferences. This will also speed-up page loading.

Please remove the line importScript("User:Rillke/AxUserMsg.js") from your monobook.js before activating the ordinary gadget.

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask me or put them here. Even if you dislike a new feature.

Thank you! -- RE rillke questions? 13:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for the notice! —LX (talk, contribs) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvionote - where to talk

Just if you don't have it on your watchlist: Revision of Template:Copyvionote/en. I think talk should always done on the talk-page like suggested by {{Copyvio}} and like you changed the message. I hope we can avoid a long discussion about this matter with the reverter. Here is a suggestion what to tell him:

Hi Teofilo,

I recognized your change at Revision of Template:Copyvionote/en. While I personally like keeping discussions where they started, I think file-description pages serve only for information purposes: Source, license, author and other essential information about a file. In my view, discussions should take place on the file-talk-page only. The administrator deleting the file has to take care to read the discussion on either place.

I hope you find some more convincing arguments. Thank you. -- RE rillke questions? 15:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for not replying sooner. Unsurprisingly, I agree with your assessment. The place for discussion is on the discussion page. There is no obvious place or established method for "replying" to a problem tag on file description pages, where signatures and threading are typically not expected. A copyvio tag is primarily a notification of a problem rather than the opening argument of a discussion. Unlike a discussion entry, it isn't signed. This can be compared to discussions regarding the appropriateness of {{Fact disputed}} tagging, which should not take place on the file description page, but on the discussion page. In fact, this is how all other problem tags and maintenance tags and their related discussions work on all other Wikimedia projects that I'm aware of. For example, en:Template:POV does not encourage neutrality discussion to take place on the article page itself. If the perceived problem with conducting discussions on the discussion page is that they get overlooked by deleting admins, we can modify {{Copyvio}} with administrator instructions that detect if a talk page exist. Template:No source since/en currently has such a notification. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)