User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2008

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
A Certain White Cat
Bilinen Bir Beyaz Kedi

User Page | Office | Talk Page | Bot edits | Sandbox #1 | #2


Hello this is an Archive. Please do not edit. You are welcome to post comments regarding material here at my user talk page.

Always believe in yourserf and your dreams, you have a wing!
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2011 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2007 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2012 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2008 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2013 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2014 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 2015 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
Archive 2008




Ever gone to Scotland? the preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

Sadly I have never been to the United Kingdom. -- Cat ちぃ? 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Did you take Image talk:Mahabad.jpg into account? Code·is·poetry 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Michelangelo Caravaggio 038.jpg

Thanks. MY apology, i didn't read the log carefully. id:User:Bennylin — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) --Bennylin (yes?) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lord Leatherface

Please take a look. Is it spam or article which belongs to Wikipedia? --EugeneZelenko 15:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, need your help again. Is there a quick way to tag and bulk nom images for deletion? This user has uploaded about 25 images and about half of them are copyvios. They are scanned from various newspaper articles, magazines and a brochure that he admits at he didn't author or publish. (He was quoted in it.) He tagged them all PD-self. Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 09:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, there weren't that many, so I tagged each one. Cheers! --Butseriouslyfolks 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the overly delayed response. Dealing with it now. -- Cat ちぃ? 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I only gave you 12 hours, so I guess I can forgive you this time. But don't let it happen again!!! ;-) --Butseriouslyfolks 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Cat ちぃ? 14:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Monobook.js and monobook.css

Hello White Cat, i don't know why my Leandro Prudencio/Monobook.js and Leandro Prudencio/Monobook.css are not working. What's wrong with it? Can i copy the same ones i use at pt Wikipédia? Thanks, Leandro Prudencio 21:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am not really an expert on monobook-related code. You are better off asking someone else. -- Cat ちぃ? 14:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Your bot on Arabic Wikipedia

Hi, White Cat. Your bot is misbehaving when fixing double redirects on the Arabic Wikipedia. It replaces the localized #تحويل with #REDIRECT. Either you use the localized word or stop fixing double redirects. If the bot continues to do so, it will be blocked. Thanks. --Meno25 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What you are asking me is beyond what is capable of. All wikis use the same and even if I stop processing pages as you suggested the problem will not go away. Anyone using will make similar edits. However I am mentioning to the people that wrote I do not have the capability to stop the bot on one wiki (yes I can do it but it is too much work) so I have killed it on all wikis. -- Cat chi? 20:19، 3 فبراير 2008 (UTC)
It should be fixed. -- Cat ちぃ? 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of NATO.svg

I don't think there was an adequate discussion to prompt a deletion. You have deleted it the same day it was nominated. This is wrong. -- Cat ちぃ? 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you nominated and deleted it. [1]. It is important for you to be able to respond to inquires regarding admin actions. -- Cat ちぃ? 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, but I do really think the issue is straightforward. Logos of organizations are usually speedy deleted since they're copyrighted by default. In this case, as it could be (as USA Government material) in the public domain and I hadn't been able to find information about its status, I opened the nomination deletion in order to get further information. Once the information was provided, and as long as the conditions (no commercial use) were not compatible with commons' I simply speedy deleted. Licensing conditions were fairly clear and not compatible. What else should be discussed? How long should the community be spending more time? --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 10:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It is typical to leave it open for a week unless there are obvious reasons to delete such as screen captures of movies. Furthermore we generally do not close our own nominations on commons. It causes various problems. We are particularly slow in deleting heavy use images. Your action has removed the image from many articles - this could have been avoided. If a heavy-use image really needs to be deleted, it could have been done slowly allowing people to upload the image under a fair-use license to the local wikis. There is no reason to rush things unless we are under pressure by the copyright holder - which we are not on the case of the NATO flag. -- Cat ちぃ? 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please fix your Bot (WOPR)

WOPR adds interwiki links which are already in the article, e.g. n:de:Anti-Piraterie-Kopierschutz für hochauflösende Speichermedien möglicherweise gehackt. I believe this is due to the Template „Übersetzung“ which adds a note that the article is a translation and apparently also adds the interwiki-Link. -- Kju (de) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)



Your user name in gl.wp is now White Cat--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Admin mop.PNG

Image deletion warning Image:Admin mop.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

This is an automated message from DRBot. (Stop bugging me!) 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The possible copyright violation images

Hi White Cat!

I just wanted to remind you about looking in Category:Björn Kjellman for more copyright violation images. Thanks, Leo Johannes 11:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Leo Johannes 11:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bot at ka

Hi. To request bot flag at the Georgian Wikipedia (ka.wp), please use this page. Thanks, ka:User:Malafaya 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, your bot ka:მომხმარებელი:კომპიუტერი has been granted bot flag. Cheers, Malafaya 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your bot at lb

Hi. Your bot request has been put on lb:Wikipedia:Bot#Bot_flag_request_for_Benotzer:Computer. Your bot is now in a test phas during which we ask you not to do more then 10 edits a day. while going on with your tests we wuld be very pleased if you could us answer the following questions concerning your bot:

  • How does your bot proceed actually? From which data do you start when running your bot, how often will you run your bot?
  • Are there any known difficulties in your bot and how does it interact with other bots running actually on lb-wikipedia (RobotQuistnix, Robbot, Escarbot, JAnDbot, Thijs!bot, VolkovBot, ...)
  • What will be the added value for lb-wikipedia if your bot runs there? (compared to other bots (especially those running already on lb-wikipedia))
  • Are you ready and able to run your bot for us if we will have a special request?

with best regards from Luxembourg lb:User:Robby -- 10:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category help?

Can you help with some category sorting? What we need to do is rename all of the location/city subcategories of Category:2008 "Anonymous" anti-Scientology protests, placing the word "February" in front of "2008" in each category name. Cirt 09:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot status

Bot status for User:White Cat in Russian Wikisource approved. 19:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

From es:wikisource and es:wikilibros

(Sorry for my english). Hi, you can run your bot on es.wikisource and es.wikilibros. I would prefer that interwikis links to be visible on recentchanges. Wikisource has a lot a pages that are protected (we can do this, in order to keep the grammer, etc., because we work with old texts). In this cases, contact me and I'll add the interwikis. --LadyInGrey 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Chinese Wikisource bot

I have activated your Chinese Wikisource bot s:zh:User:計算機.--Jusjih 04:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Image:United Federation of Planets flag.svg

Given past experience, I'm notifying you in advance of my intention to delete this image as a blatant copyright infringement of Paramount's and CBS' copyright. An example of the infringed work can be see at [2]. We can send this through deletion requests, but it's a blatant case. Regards, --Durin 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why me? -- Cat ちぃ? 12:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Please see User_talk:Siebrand#Commons_Delinker... maybe I should have posted here rather than there. --Dweller 11:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Somebody isn't happy. It would be great if you could address this problem. Cheers, Patrícia msg 10:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To date my encounters with -jkb- had been unreasonably hostile particularly on cs.wikisource where he chose to ban me indefinitely. Not surprising to see him here on my end. If he is willing to talk to me, I am always open to a discussion on my own talk page. I will not seek him out. -- Cat ちぃ? 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh and I am working on renaming barnstar images to something reasonable. We should have done this three years ago. I am working in orphaning old image names. is being a monster. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GFDL with disclaimer

Hi. I noted this edit and I want to tell you that also on many images are "GFDL with disclaimer" (see it:Template:GFDL-con-disclaimer). On 2007 we did a standardization (see it:Wikipedia:Standardizzazione GFDL) and now the GFDL tag is without disclaimer. Here on Commons, {{GFDL-it}} is a redirect to {{GFDL-en}} (see history). So, we should modify {{GFDL-it}} like {{GFDL-ja}} and put it into licenses dropdown box or a redirect is enough? Thanks--Trixt 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made the necesary modifications. Different disclaimer needs a different template. -- Cat ちぃ? 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)



Selamlar White Cat tr:Resim:CheHigh.jpg sil etiketi koyup commonsta silindi demişsin ancak aynı resimler commonsta hala bulunuyor, bilgilendirirsen sevinirim. Teşekkürler. Image:Guevarakorda3.jpg Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg--Machiavelli talk 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied in local wiki -- Cat ちぃ? 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a long-open commons deletion discussion about these: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg. Would you mind looking into that? CBM 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Cat ちぃ? 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was not a copyright violation, and should not have been deleted without discussion or asking for rationale to meet your objections. A 2 year old archived argument that lacks proper facts was incorrect. I have restored the image with additional rationale and it includes all legal justification showing it to be in the public domain. Redthoreau 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that there is a COM:DEL discussion on the matter, I am merely replicating the consensus reached. Images deleted via COM:DEL cannot and should not be reuploaded or undeleted without the necessary COM:UNDEL discussion. If there is a non-controversial and obvious reason why the images should be undeleted, a simple good faith discussion should easily handle it. I do want to note that we will not start a new discussion each time a duplicate of a deleted image is uploaded. Past consensus will apply in the absence of a proper discussion. This is merely the practice on commons. The entire point of this process is to keep commons safe from lawsuits.
As for the spesific matter of the said images, I would be more than happy to reverse my actions in the light of such a consensus. I will in good faith undelete one of the images for the duration of this discussion allowing people to see the deleted image. The image however would be deleted again eventually if not by me then by someone else unless the complex copyright status is clarified.
Seems like you know about the matter better than I so I would like you to start an undeletion discussion on the matter at COM:UNDEL.
-- Cat ちぃ? 09:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
(1) Where is the past discussion on the image at COM DEL ? The link you provided does not contain it? (2) The reason for undeletion is non controversial and obvious ... I have provided all legal rationale for doing so and am familiar with international copyright law. How much more clear do I need to make it? I am willing to provide any information you request. (3) What is the specific rationale you believe for deleting it, I have yet to see that ? (4) In starting an undeletion discussion ... would this be about the image I recently uploaded or the former one ? I would like to stick with the recently added one, as I included further rationale, and believe that it has a more appropriate title (the actual title of the photograph). I would also note that this image was up for "Featured Images" on Wikipedia, and the copyright status has not been an issue for those with knowledge of the contextual background with regards to the image. Thanks. Redthoreau 16:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
IN ADDITION - The issue here is the law ... and the law makes this photo in the Public domain ... hence why it is one of the most reproduced images in the history of photography, and NO ONE has ever been sued for using it, other than smirnoff under "Moral Rights" ... not "Copyright" rights.
- The photo was used for the first time internationally in 1967. It is in the public domain by Decree Law no. 156, September 28, 1994, to amend part of Law no. 14 December 28, 1977, Copyright Act (Article 47) which states that the pictures fall into the public domain Worldwide, 25 years after its first use.
- Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 1997, and this photo was taken and publicized 30 years before that and thus is in the public domain.
- This includes being in the Public Domain in the United States - Since the image was first published in Cuba without compliance of US copyright formalities and used in Cuba before February 20, 1972.
- Of importance yes it is true that Alberto Korda sued that vodka maker Smirnoff based on his "moral rights" (under the belief that Che Guevara wouldn't support alcohol) that are independent of copyright status. Although "moral rights" are not recognized in the U.S. - they are recognized through most of the World and part of international copyright law. Moral rights are included in Berne Convention, so if the photographer is still alive, he still can sue, even if the picture is public domain. However, the moral rights are not transferable, and when Korda died 2001, no one can control the use of the picture anymore under that premise.
- Moreover, Wikipedia allows for the use of "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." [3]. This image meets that criteria based on the fact that the Maryland Institute College of Art proclaimed this picture "the most famous photograph in the world and a symbol of the 20th century."[4] while The V&A Museum declared it "the most reproduced image in the history of photography."[5]Redthoreau 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Redthoreau 16:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is Wikimedia Commons and not Wikipedia. en:Wikipedia:Non-free content (fair use) are entirely unwelcome on commons.
I will not hesitate to redelete the image in the absence of a conclusive COM:UNDEL discussion suggesting a restoration. Your justification on why these images should not be deleted should go there to COM:UNDEL. I will not overrule past consensus on the matter on my own. Even my undeletion of the images was rather rouge as they should be speedy deleted as is per past consensus.
Above you referred to the past consensus as a "2 year old archived argument that lacks proper facts" and this is an opportunity for you to set the record straight. Please do not make my good faith go to waste.
-- Cat ちぃ? 13:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Responding to your message on my talk page. At Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Guevarakorda2.jpg, I give a reference to a published legal analysis that says the images are not public domain in the U.S. Do you have a published analysis that it is public domain, or only your own analysis? In the latter case, I think the published analysis should be given preference. But if there is actually a consensus that the published analysis is wrong, I will abide by it. I just want to see the situation clarified and all the license tags correct. In any case, I think you really should start an undeletion request if you wish to keep the images on commons. CBM 16:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to rely on Sarah Levy, "A Copyright Revolution: Protecting the Famous Photograph of Che Guevara", 13 Law & Bus. Rev. Am. 687, 2007., then the onus is on you to provide this in Pdf or a link to where it can be accessed. I have provided my rationale, and a copy of the convention. All you have done is stated a sentence from an article, that can't be easily located. Redthoreau 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is copyrighted, so I can't post it publicly online. You can get the full text on Lexus-Nexis or any similar database, if you have access to a university library (that's how I found it in the first place). I realize this isn't an optimal situation. CBM 22:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have looked for this article under JSTOR, Lexis Nexus, and all over the internet to no avail. I have even had a friend who is a professional researcher try to dig it up, who couldn't. Where exactly did you read it ? Where did you find it ? And where can I specifically find it ? Also can you email me the PdF or link to it if you have one? It should not be this difficult to locate a source and I believe that if it can not be located, then it should not be considered. Redthoreau 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I will access it and have a look. I will let you know my thoughts once I have looked it over. As of right now, my impression is that it was her opinion that Korda's descendants "Could" attempt to establish copyright ... and not that they "Have". Am I incorrect in this initial assumption, having not read it yet? If this is the case, then do you dispute that potentiality does not equate to actuality, thus still rendering the photograph PD until such legal basis is ruled on in international court ? Redthoreau 02:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that, since the family has not tried to get copyright affirmed in a US court, the analysis has to be provisional. But I think that if there is a significant chance that the images would not be declared public domain, we shouldn't treat them as if they are free. We can still use the photos in articles, we just have to upload them on English wikipedia as nonfree images.
About a week ago I sent an email to the Wikimedia lawyer, Mike Godwin, to ask about these photos. He hasn't responded. Maybe you could email him as well?
There is another issue complicating the legal analysis: the standards enforced by the courts may not agree with the way that others interpret the copyright law. I learned this from footnote 12 of the Cornell public domain table. Apparently, publishing in a foreign country without a copyright notice is not enough to guarantee something is in public domain in the US. Also see footnote 10 there. I can't say that I understand what's going on. CBM 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is how I can find the article; I just did it again to make sure it works. Open LexisNexis Academic and go the the Easy Search page. Enter the search terms guevara korda levy. Select the Legal box below and run the search. There will be only one result, which is the correct one. I think I once found the article in another database as well, but this one works for sure. I can email you a PDF (generated by LexisNexis) if these steps don't work for you. CBM 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have downloaded and found the article ... thanks. I will painstakingly review it tomorrow in good faith and let you know my views on its contents and post relevant parts of the article that I believe support a decision, one way or the other. Redthoreau
  • Whitecat, I have done what you asked me to do. REPORT ..... Redthoreau 08:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I thank you very much for your understanding and cooperation. I hope I have not stressed you out too much. If I have I apologize. I want a stable solid conclusion to all of this as much as you. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I commented there. It appears to me that you and I simply have different opinions about how conservative to be about the undetermined copyright status. I take Levy's sentence that the photo "should" get copyright protection in US courts as a key conclusion. I do wish Mike Godwin would give us a legal opinion on behalf of Wikipedia. CBM 10:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"Brilliant Idea" barnstar

Hey White Cat, I found you uploaded Image:"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png which was already on here as Image:Barnstar-lightbulb3.png (The same name as en.wp's version). I wasn't sure if this was the beginning of renaming it or you just didn't know about the other. Anyway, this image was recently changed as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Barnstar-lightbulb3.png. I figured I'd let you sort this out because I know you've been renaming barnstars lately. Cheers, Rocket000 06:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually am not sure what is the right name for these barnstar images. I would welcome some assistance. I can use my bot to help relink images. I do not want to abuse commonsdelinker. There is an insane number of barnstar image usage. -- Cat ちぃ? 19:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea since they can be used in different circumstances, like the "bright idea" has also been used for technology-related things (but I think the name you pick is fine as that's what it's mostly used for). I spend a lot more time here on Commons (where barnstars aren't as prevalent) than Wikipedia, so I'm probably not the best person to ask anyway. There's also the multilingual thing to consider. Some of those barnstars really need to be renamed though.
I actually had another question for you. I love what you did with combining the various FP templates. They were starting to overwhelm some image pages. My question is should the other templates be removed if the new one accounts for it. For example: Image:Broadway tower edit.jpg. You left the {{POTY 2007-winner}} and {{Featured eswiki}} templates on there. Also see Template talk:Featured picture mul. Thanks! Rocket000 19:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The purging of eswiki had to wait because first I needed to restructure how eswiki was naming their nominations. Merging entries on Template:Featured picture mul is a slow process. I haven't processed most wikis and real-world issues will probably keep me busy for the next 3 weeks. We should probably abolish ro deprecate the unneeded "featured" templates. But they should not be deleted. -- Cat ちぃ? 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. If there's anything you would like me to help you with, I'd be glad to. I got a bot who's looking for some work. :) Rocket000 05:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FPC flooding

Hi. I don't think it is a good idea to flood FPC with similar images. The only thing that will probably happen is that people get bored and don't vote, or alternatively votes might be spread over all the images and none of them may reach FP-status. Could I kindly ask you to remove those noms and nominate them one by one (say one a week)?. Thanks Lycaon 07:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have spent days asking around over this. No one raised objections and now I deal with this. It is kinda frustrating. I will remove all deep space ones for now except the main poster per below. However I will not spend the next 61 weeks nominating these one by one. That is not very reasonable. Don't you think?
I would however do not object if you took over the nomination thing. I simply do not want to spend so much time on the page. :)
-- Cat ちぃ? 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi White Cat. Please just nominate two or three of your favourites at a time. FPC is not really usable with umpteen similar pictures nominated. I removed them for now. --norro 08:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You do NOT remove someone elses nomination like that. I am very irked. Do not do it again. -- Cat ちぃ? 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You have recentely nominated in COM:FPC 60 images of coliding galaxies. I suggest you to keep only the poster (which has them all), as there is no way each of the pictures can have a fair and accurate evaluation from the usual reviewers and they disturbing the normal working of the page. Alvesgaspar 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See above. -- Cat ちぃ? 08:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Lycaon 09:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So what do you think of my request? -- Cat ちぃ? 09:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it, but I can't promise too much: I only nominate image which I'ld support myself ;-). Lycaon 09:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Combined logos


Take a look at Image:Quality valued logo.svg, Image:Quality valued featured logo.svg and Image:Valued featured logo.svg, and check if this was what you had in mind. As I commented before, I think most of these combinations are not likely to be used, but then again, I may be wrong. Cheers, Patrícia msg 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Greeness in Image:Quality valued logo.svg and Image:Quality valued featured logo.svg almost completely covers the "valued" coin. If it (greenness and hence the featured star along with it) were to be made slightly smaller it would be better.
Also Image:Valued featured logo.svg and Image:Quality valued featured logo.svg both have some whitespace on the sides.
-- Cat ちぃ? 05:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi White Cat, What is your objective for making the combined logos? Are there any benefits (I only see drawbacks and they are eyesores IMO, thus my question) -- Slaunger 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image talk:Featured Quality logo.svg. Rocket000 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi-purpose award template

Hi White Cat, What is your objective for wanting to put all awards into one single template? As I see it there is no benefit in doing this, the template logic will be more complicated and harder to maintain than several individually maintained award templates, bot assisted operations on award templates will have to be changed and they will inevitably be more complicated to implement and test. For instance, to demote a VI it is by far the easist to just change a template from {{VI|...}} to {{VI-former|...}}. With the present template the VI params would have to be taken out of you multipurpose template and a VI-former template would have to be added. Cheers, -- Slaunger 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is trivially easy to demote images via bots. It is still a basic find and replace operation. rather that replacing {{VI}} you would replace "|com3=1" to "|com3=2" for example. The actual code used in the templates isn't really complex either. I just used a few basic parser functions for convenience. Code could be made simpler.
I do not have objectives. While I was tagging images that are featured on other wikis I noticed that some images had a decent amount of clutter. I basically noticed a problem and came up with a solution. Then I decided, why shouldn't POTY be incorporated into this template? Then I decided why shouldn't Quality image be incorporated into this template and so on. I slowly came up with the idea on managing all awards via a single template. On the long run it makes it easier to maintain.
For example when you create a new award type, say "Valued Image" or "Picture of the Decade" (I just made this up) you can create a full functioning template by adding a single line.
-- Cat ちぃ? 13:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Multi FP template

Hi witte poes, I have a comment on your template. It gives a non existent page for the german wikipedia, e.g. on Tibia insulaechorab .jpg, while my own box has the correct reference. Could you please look into this? Thanks. Lycaon 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware. We had a similar problem with Spanish wikipedia after a rather brief discussion adopted a standardized scheme. I will compensate with code if doesn't agree. -- Cat ちぃ? 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, then that will be solved eventually. thanks. Lycaon 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, your computer bot is now even double tagging... Lycaon 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware. It is easier to tag first and then deal with duplicates by hand or software. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit disconcerting though, as those edits all show up in my watchlist. Lycaon 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You should not see my bot's edits. Its a flagged bot. It may be a setting issue. You are welcome to help deal with duplicates :) I am kind of holding back from that task because I want to process all wikis first so as not to wate time with duplicates. I have processed,,, and so far. -- Cat ちぃ? 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Please stop removing The QualityImage template until the discussion has settled. Currently the consensus seems to be agains such a move. --Dschwen 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am creating a few examples to demonstrate. I am capable of completely replacing every use of the quality image logo in a matter of an hour with my bot. Your panic is unwarranted. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not about the logo. It is about usage of the template! I'm asking you to please stop immediately. One example is perfectly sufficient. You are acting against community consensus. --Dschwen 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you might not have read my reply doe to the weird duplication of the discussion. I saw you reverted me on on of the pics. Fine. Let's keep this your example. But let me make it a bit more clear. I'm not acting out of spite, or because I love the QI template so much. We have scripts running for data extration, statistics, and geocoding, which currently rely on the existence of the QualityImage template. If the diecussion turns out in favour of a replacement I'll rewrite those scripts. But I'm not willing to have the data extraction broken for days just for you to make a point. --Dschwen 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me reveal you a "secret". It is trivially easy to figure out which images are using {{Featured picture mul}} for quality images. Those images are POTY ones. Plus one exception Image:2529a - München - Olympiaturm from Olympiastadion - Genesis.JPG (as a stand alone example). It is vital to demonstrate what the template does for people to get an idea. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 14:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it is even easier, as you add a category too. You can have your example, but one is enough. Consensus is consensus. Full stop. Once you sway the opinion I'll be happy to modify my scripts. Until then the case is crystal clear. No more {{QualityImage}} removal. --Dschwen 15:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop ordering me around. -- Cat ちぃ? 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your conduct

Please stop interfering with my work [6]

I have spent the last hour trying to figure out what wasn't working in the template. Stop wasting my time. Please!

You have any idea how frustrating this is?

-- Cat ちぃ? 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Three things would help here: Respecting consensus, discussing major changes beforehand, and assuming good faith. --Dschwen 02:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not your pet. Do not dictate what I can and cannot do. I made no major changes. That is only in your mind. Assuming good faith... That would be a novelty on your part... -- Cat ちぃ? 09:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Sorry for the rollback, but please add big chunks as these in separate files, and take a look at collapsible nav frames. Generally such big changes to the javascript should be discussed first. --Dschwen 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I copied that from English wikipedia. I know it works. What is there to discuss? Can you please let me work? -- Cat ちぃ? 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you please let the javascript work? Rocket000 14:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, disregard that. Rocket000 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 :o -- Cat ちぃ? 14:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm restoring this thread to answer. There is a lot to discuss. First of all commons is not en.wp, and the requirements for JS are different. It is not about working or not, it is about bloating our JS. A change which increases the commons.js size by a factor of 1.5 and which has questionalble merit (where are those tables on commons?) should at least be discussed beforehand. Can you please let me work? Ok, that sounds like you think I'm stalking you. I can assure you, this us not the case. Common.js is a pet peeve of mine, check out its history, and you'll see that I spent countless edits on this page to bring it into a consistent maintainable clean form. --Dschwen 01:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have resigned my adminship, what more can I do? Do not ask for my opinion, it isn't like anyone bothers to pretend listening to what I have to say. I will not argue about it. If you desire to remove them, feel free to. If you desire to make it work, feel free to. -- Cat ちぃ? 09:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. So what did you add the collapsible table script for? I'm could most likely just add that functionality to the existing hide-div code, avoiding a large code duplication. --Dschwen 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I intended to use it with {{Assessments}}. POTD & MODT get rather long. A hide/show mechanism would help in that area. Template:Featured picture mul/com/POTD is where I have the rather experimental code. Most of it is a copy of the existing {{Picture of the day}} which itself could make good use of "hide/show".
hide/show mechanism would also help with license templates. I had been experimenting with them for a while. Of course you will not see it "working" since the code was removed.
If you look at en:Magic Knight Rayearth (an anime series, but no mater) there is an "Other networks" entry on the info box. If you click "show" you get to see a full list. This saves space. That was the intended end product.
-- Cat ちぃ? 12:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Any opinions? :/ -- Cat ちぃ? 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion about it. You envision it to be collapsed by default, I suppose? I do not see the problem of a long, verbose template on a few image pages. After all, it is a minor fraction of the image pages, which would have so many awards. I could be an idea if it is expanded by default. But if it is decided to do that I propose to coodinate the implementation with Dschwen such that the collapsability is implemented in a manner which best fits into the current codebase. But for me it is really a nice to have and not as important as many other functional properties os the Assessment template. -- Slaunger 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection of heavy use templates

You have practically unprotected every page under {{Featured picture mul}}. Please stop unprotecting pages I protect like that. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop unprotecting license templates and rediretcs. What you are doing can have serious legal implications. Recall the disclaimer thing and GFDL template? -- Cat ちぃ? 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Holy crap. I was just writing you a message about the same thing. I think you're over-doing it with the page protection. Preemptive protection is not justified at all. There was no vandalism or edit-wars. So you have no reason. Heavy use is 100s of thousands (even millions), not 500 or so. Please stop locking down Commons. This isn't Wikipedia. And no. we don't protect things just because they're licenses. That's nearly all our templates. Rocket000 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at Special:MostLinkedTemplates to get an idea of how things are here before applying what you're use to. Rocket000 11:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you even check the usage!? You fully protected Template:Dp twice. It had no transclusions/links at all. It was a redirect to a semi-protected deprecated template. Wow. Rocket000 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes and we would be forced to bay third parties money or deal with an unnecesary disclaimer if we do not protect license templates. We protect templates used to tag images because they have legal implications. If you do not like the level of protection, feel free to file your case on the villige pump or admins noticeboard. Heavy use is transclusion in over "50" pages. "Heavy use" can also mean very visible pages such as templates used on the main page.
You shouldn't lecture me weather or not this is wikipedia. I have been around on commons for well over 3 years now.
-- Cat ちぃ? 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop wheelwaring. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:Dp is a heavy use license template with many transclusions on french wikipedia. It redirects to "Domaine public" on fr.wikipedia [7] which is also under heavy use. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Um.. So what? Rocket000 11:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you even know that images on other wikipedias are actually uploaded to commons? -- Cat ちぃ? 11:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know other projects can't transclude our templates? Rocket000 11:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure they can. When an image is moved to commons that is exactly what happens. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
When a image is moved to Commons, it's then on Commons so they aren't transcluding anything, we are. If they do {{dp}} on fr.wp our template won't show up. So zero links means zero links. Also, it's deprecated. It's good to clean up what's not being used. People shouldn't be using that license anymore, so where's the need for a redirect? Rocket000 12:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That is up to fr.wikipedia not you and me. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
No. If it's on Commons, then it's up to us. If it's not on Commons, then fine. But still, what purpose does a redirect serve? Rocket000 12:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It serves to establish the license when images are moved from French wikimedia projects. I regularly process such redirects converting them to the commons name. Underuse of some such redirects including template:Dp is a result of my work. Such redirects are sometimes created in dealing with typos. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

White Cat, I'm sorry. I don't like arguing like this: COM:AN#Full protection of every license template and anything that's used more than 50 times. What you're saying goes against so many things. Rocket000 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible for me to compromise from a stance that puts commons and wikimedia at a legal risk. So I do not see what good my participation in such a discussion do. Others will probably tell you what I have been saying all along in a better way. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to confess to being extremely uneasy about any licence template being unprotected, there's no reason for anybody to ever edit a licence template, and the consequences of a licence template being altered (and this includes a redirect which could be changed to read something legally problematic) must be very seriously considered. Vandalism at Wikipedia is a minor inconvenience which rarely presents legal problems, but vandalism here, especially on a licence template has all manner of legal implications. Nick 12:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Got some back up, huh? "there's no reason for anybody to ever edit a licence template" This is a wiki. There's always edits to be made. If not we'll edit anyway. This is why we're here. And if some changes it illegally, you simply revert. It's in the history anyway. If anyone can upload files with what license, or go to the image's page and change it, what's the difference? Rocket000 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a war. You cannot simply revert a change on a license template. All uploads using the template while the template is vandalised still has legal implications. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
For example I could add a binding legal note that states "that every person uploading a work under the GFDL license are required to pay me 100$ service fee". If anyone uploads their own work with that change in present it would be legally binding. Or if the wording in the license is removed the work would not be freely licensed at all. Consider Image:License vandalism.png. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
And I could say anyone who edits this page is required to pay me 100$ service fee. Things don't work like that. Seriously, I'm done. Rocket000 13:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no you can't. MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning is the only thing legaly binding when "save page" button is clicked. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Whatever else I do not want to see en wp style wheel warring here. I am quite prepared to take action towards both of you if you cannot interact in a collaborative way. I understand Nick's point which seems to me well made. Let's take this to an appropriate community page so that others can have their say. --Herby talk thyme 12:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 :( Rocket000 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comments to Rocket

Please do not try and pull rank on any user here - how long you have been here is of interest. However equally you have been here long enough to know than length of service does not equate to being senior in any form. If you disagree take it to an admin board or other forum. Do not wheel war here on Commons - I assure you it will be unwise --Herby talk thyme 12:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He was the person pulling a rank on me lecturing me that this isn't wikipedia. Removing protection from license templates have legal implications, everyone knows this. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. Rocket is one of the most active admins currently. Have a dialogue in a moderate form. Try and work collaboratively. If you can't manage that take it to a public forum.
The statement You shouldn't lecture me weather or not this is wikipedia. I have been around on commons for well over 3 years now. looks to me as though you are implying either power or seniority. Please do not do that - I have a feeling that the community would not be happy --Herby talk thyme 12:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep up the one sided warnings, see where that will take us. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Back off please - I was writing something for Rocket's page but was interrupted - take it to the community now please --Herby talk thyme 12:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Back off to where? If a single vanal is reading this we may be looking at a possible real-world legal dispute. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
As is often the case your approach comes over as rather aggressive to me and in this instance towards me. I advised you that length of time in Commons does not equate to being senior in any way - you are well aware of that. So you then have a go at me (while I am typing something up for Rocket's page). Please assume good faith & keep en wp ways out of Commons.
I have said already - take it to a public board to get the input of others. You & Rocket don't agree - don't war - get some other input --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Aggressive? I wasn't the person removing protection of other people without a discussion. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Your tone to me is aggressive in your interaction with me when I am merely try to get some discussion going. Bear in mind it is not how you see yourself but the impact you have on others. You are welcome to confine this discussion to your talk page as I am obviously watching it however I am will not be online now for a while & feel that your efforts would be best directly to solving the problems that we have rather than anything else - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am "aggressive" in a sense that I do not want the foundation sued over a mere temporary disagreement. Issue can be discuss while we are not in such a risk. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


I hope this issue did not stress you too much. I apologize if that had been the case. It is just that I am very sensitive in issues concerning copyright. -- Cat ちぃ? 13:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A little. But I understand. It's just I'm very sensitive to issues concerning page protection. :) And thank you for apologizing. I do too. It was absolutely nothing personal. Cheers, Rocket000 14:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We have our sensitive sides conflicting! :D
I actually agree with you on the matter of page protection. It should be done on as fewer pages as possible. :)
I look forward in working with you and I hope this issue we had does not leave any scars. :(
-- Cat ちぃ? 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
And I'm sorry if it felt like I was lecturing you about this not being Wikipedia. That wasn't my intention. I know you're a very experienced editor. I look forward to working with you too. :) Rocket000 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

On being uncivil

Hi White Cat, I am writing to you because I am frustrated by our recent award discussions. I am writing to you on your talk page (don't copy to my talk page please, I am watching this) to avoid further spamming of project content discussion pages by personal quabble from both sides. I am writing to you because I feel our communication is most unconstructive. And you recently expressed that you felt that in a previous post of mine I was being uncivil and that I was assuming bad faith. I am very much affected by such a statement. I do not recall anyone has ever called me incivil nor has anyone ever stated here that I was assuming bad faith before. I take such comments very serious and I have reflected on what I have written to see if I could recognise that description. The part about assuming bad faith is not one I can see. In basically every post I have written in response to your work on making a multi-purpose award template I have started out the thread by stating that I think "you have good intentions", that you are only trying to do good, and In the post where you called me incivil I even started out appraising that now I felt you had listened to some of the well meaning advice that had been given. You write that it is as if I consider you as an invasion force. Concerning that part of it, there is some element of truth in that, although I would personally use a more toned down word like "invasive". Yes, that is still not a very positive view on another user, and if that somehow is evident that I feel that way from my post, which makes you conside me as incivil, well then be it. I have used a tone in my threads with you which are less friendly than normal. That is because I have felt very much annoyed by how you have interacted with the project with repect to the deveopment of the multi-purpose template. If you look at my list of contributions here, I think you will see that I am normally a pretty restrained and patient editor. What has really triggered me being annoyed is that you have (with what I consider good intentions) very persistently pursued an idea of yours without seeking the needed consensus on the affected project talk pages. I have felt that with the multi-purpose award template you have found a (for you) meaningful task, which would evidently (for you) be of great benefit to Commons. This you have done without proactively seeking input and consensus on this idea from the affected individual projects talk pages. I have felt that you were trying to enforce new templates on the projects without seeking the needed consensus first. On top of that you have repeatedly stated that it is very easy and everything can be done with your bot in no time. You have argued that you are a long time contributor on Commons. Well that might be, but I have not noticed you as an active participant on the affected projects except for the recent flood of astronomy related FPCs. It seems for me that for you this is merely a question of cleaning up clutter on image pages wihtout being aware of what other bots do during nomination, how it affects geocoding etc. (I will get back to the geocoding on content pages). You have persistently ignored my concerns as being non-issues. That has admittedly annoyed me. What I would very like like to ask you to do is to slow down. Discuss the issues first on the projects talk pages before changing everything. Please be patient. If you ask first the dialogue will be much more constructive. I can see by looking around that you are having several controversies these days with users I normally consider very experienced, well-behaved and civil. If I were you I would probably take a wikiday off or two. And this is not meant as an incivil request or some kind of insult, it is out of well-meaning concern. -- Slaunger 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to answer your post. I wish you had broken it apart a bit. :)
I dislike being accused of a hidden agenda. I dislike even the slightest bit of implying to that end. That was the intended meaning of the statement I made. It wasn't even an accusation, just a friendly warning. The ":)" was there for a reason meaning it wasn't a big deal.
I have been heavily involved with the commons community for quite some time. I helped shape COM:DEL quite some time ago for example. I helped in other areas as well. I have taken a semi break. You can review my general activity.
FPC is a rather hostile environment. People are often rather dicky on discussions there. Which is why I typically avoid nominating images I upload for "featured status". The 24 April treat (Hubble team published 61 images on 24 April 2008 celebrating the 18th birthday of the Hubble space telescope) by the Hubble team was reason enough for me to make an exception from my personal policy of avoiding FPC. My enthusiasm was name-called as "flooding" (I suppose it was flooding...) which is why I have backed out away from nominating more FPCs.
I am boldly making changes. I will of course not seek community approval for every edit I make. As you may have noticed, I have not mass removed "QualityImage" template and initiated a discussion. I also have not deleted the Valued Image templates. Overall changes I made almost entirely affected featured images. There was no reason for me to seek consensus because featured images from wikipedias were typically not tagged on commons. I am merely relaying due credit to images from non-commons projects for the most part. In the process I am also proposing the merging of other projects to a unified template. So far, the overall opposition was over style issues which are easy enough to fix.
I have not ignored anything. I wasn't told much about Geocoding and would welcome hearing more about it.
I am merely tirelessly working...
-- Cat ちぃ? 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again White Cat. Sorry for not breaking the text down. Yes, I know you have not removed all QualityImages templates, what I was seeking was that you stepped back and proactively discussed if doing what you do (and how to do it) is a good idea on the relevant project pages. You have done that now on both QIC and VIC - a little too late for my taste, but nevermind, let us move on from here. You are not supposed to know everything about how the existing templates are used in behind-the-scenes logic used for prioritizing searched for geocoded images elsewhere and outside Commons name space. Users who are not regulars in those ends of Commons are not supposed to know. That is why I asked to slow down and ask since what one user perceives as a trivial and absolutely "must-do" task may have nuances once other relevant stakeholders get involved. It is not that I expect you to ask for permission to do any edit, but when you start out a quest to fundamentally change all award templates it definately warrants for thorough discussion up front on the relevant and affected project pages as things are never as simple as they seem. I very much respect your work at COM:DEL, which I find you are very competent at. It is a forum I stay away from well knowing my own limitaions in that realm. Yes you are hard working, and I would hate to see all your skill being wasted on the wrong things. -- Slaunger 21:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh I hardly done much on COM:DEL. I merely mimicked the style on Wikipedias AFD.
Right, lets move on. So what should be the game plan. Since my pace is too fast, I hope to follow yours.
-- Cat ちぃ? 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
From my side, not more today, as I am going to bed. Concerning pace I had hoped you could have withheld your trigger finger concerning changing the template you have just made into assesment on all FP pages (which again spams my watchlist). I feel a little more patience and further time for discussion including a post on COM:VP would have been in order. Guess Dschwen will have to change his geocoding scripts again... Sigh. -- Slaunger 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It was his proposal so I doubt he will be displeased... :/
-- Cat ちぃ? 21:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not noticed the post on COM:VP. Persoñally I feel such quite important template renames should be given some more time for discussion. -- Slaunger 05:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
White Cat, Slaunger is one of the calmest and most patient editors I know. I support what he says. Please, please, slow down and discuss these major changes first. However much you think that Commons would be better with your proposed templates, and your proposed protections, please recognise that there are differing views. Does it not give you the smallest pause for thought that you have got into arguments with so many people here, so quickly after starting work on this? --MichaelMaggs 20:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you haven't noticed but I haven't done any major changes whatsoever. -- Cat ちぃ? 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken links to FPC nomination pages on en

Hi White Cat, I have looked at some 5-10 image pages in Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, English and observed that the link to the nomination page did not work on any of them. I do not know why that is? I tried going some revisions back to see if they worked before {{Featured picture mul}} replaced the old en-FP template, but I could not check that as the old template had been deleted. Have you got any idea why the links have gone haywire? Were the out-of-order prior to the template replacements on the image pages? Cheers,- Slaunger 17:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a case where the nomination subpage do not match the filename. The mater was discussed. Those broken links should be fixed soon. You are welcome to help fix them. -- Cat ちぃ? 18:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
But the scheme you suggest there does not work when an edit with a file name different from the original nomination is promoted, does it? As far as I know you had a possibility to specify the nomination page previously. Has all that information been lost in the transfer? There are more than a thousands links to fix... -- Slaunger 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The images in question were originally not tagged at all on commons. That was an addition by my bot. Nominations on en.wikipedia should be moved to match the filename. For example for Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg the nomination page is
-- Cat ちぃ? 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
So you intend to rename >1000 subpages to acheive automated linking? Seems very dramatic. Are you sure that is a good idea? Even if that is a good idea I do not undertsnad how that would help on the following often ocurring use case:
  • I nominate Image:anFPC.jpg for FP on en
  • In accordance to your proposal the subpage w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:anFPC.jpg is then created to store the nomination.
  • In case the original nomination is promoted you can then link to the nomination page from the Image page using w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/{{PAGENAME}}. All good and well and fine default behavior.
  • However, very often it is an edit, like Image:andFPC-edit.jpg whic is actually being promoted. That ruins the link to the FPC nom page using {{PAGENAME}} from Image:anFPC-edit.jpg. Thus, you need to have the option of specifying explicitly the subpage name when an edit is promoted. And since you need that optional subpage parameter anyway, why bother moving all existing FPC nom pages?
-- Slaunger 19:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't as dramatic as you think it is. Such a change was promptly adopted in es.wikipedia. On a good number of images follow filename method. Some noms particularly really old ones don't. Ability to link to them has many benefits and no harm. The title of the nomination page should be changed to the winning image. This is an issue I am working on, I would welcome some help. As you can probably tell the standardization is rather difficult for a single individual to deal with. -- Cat ちぃ? 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you that there are quite some benefits in being able to link to them, but it seems rather clumsy to actually move the subpage name to new one, when an edit is promoted just to enforce the subpage=image name rule. I see it as being just as cumbersome as adding an additional optional subpage parameter to the template in those cases.
  • Another unpleasant side effect is that the moved image subpage pops up in the watchlists of virtually every editor, who has been involved in voting on a particular candidate (assuming most editors watch edited pages by default) during the move. This is a source of "noise". After the move the subpages then dissapear from the watchlists of those editors unless they actively go to the new page and add that to their watchlist (which is unlikely). That means that if someone tampers with the subpage after it is formally closed it is less likely that it will be observed by the usual watchlist stakeholders.
  • I was thinking, could there not be made smarter bot assisted solutions? Like going through the all FP image pages on en, retrieve "what links here", filter out those links which are in the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates name space and infer the subpage name from the link, then use this subpage name to add as a separate subpage parameter to the Assessments template on Commons. I do not know if this can be done with a bot on a daily basis or so, but for me it seems less disruptive.
  • I am sorry that I seem to always oppose your ideas. It is not something I systematically strive to do, although it may appear so currently. It is just that I do not really like all those page moves just to solve a link problem. There must be a better way...
-- Slaunger 21:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing is there are often many different sub pages. If multiple wikis have multiple subpages that would be one possibly extra parameter per wiki. This not only complicates template use but also complicates template code.
  • This is a mediawiki bug that should be addressed at bugzilla. Closed discussions shouldn't be edited though. Edits to these pages should be monitored by the community as a whole rather than by individuals. I will however file a bugzilla entry on this in a few minutes.
  • I wouldn't want a bot to check these (would be too slow an inefficient), but I think a toolserver tool would be excellent for this task. I'll ask around for this. It is important that we have cooperation between individual wikimedia projects on this. In the long term having sub page names that are different from the filename will cause problems. From what I can tell, on subpage names have filename - ext format at times, on occasions its the exact filename.
  • I am glad we are talking about the rough edges. When the oppose is accompanied by a rational reason I actually like it. That way I can think on a problem and perhaps come up with a solution.
-- Cat ちぃ? 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And I filed it to bugzilla, I got distracted so this had taken more time than I anticipated: -- Cat ちぃ? 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FP promotions

Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg , that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Victoria Crater taken by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. These are nice images. I firmly believe that all such PD images by spacecraft should be on commons; your uploading them is a good thing. You once commented about praise where praise is due and I freely offer it. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


The work should have been done, you can delete/redirect/do what you want. Bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Grazie. -- Cat ちぃ? 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

FP template poll

I have cleaned up the FP poll from all previous versions of the templates, that will only serve to make it more confusing for everybody. -- Alvesgaspar 07:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No it demonstrates the power of the tool. Something you do not want to show people. Not only will you not shut down the poll but you will not even allow me to properly express myself. This is to put it mildly unpleasant. -- Cat ちぃ? 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what, I have decided to abandon this project. I am no longer going to be active on commons. People do not listen to me, people frequently insult me, call me names and etc. People will not even allow me to properly express myself... -- Cat ちぃ? 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please understand that it is not our intention to lessen the importance of your work or obstruct your participation. But the objective of the poll is to decide which type of assessment template we should use in the future, not to demonstrate the power of the tool you have created. In due time, whe will have the oportunity to adjust and improve the chosen template. Please don't turn this poll into a one-person show, that will only cause more animosity against your actions. You have already expressed your opinions (I would say in a very eloquent way) and now it is time for other users to express theirs too -- Alvesgaspar 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You really should stop this nonsense. -- Cat ちぃ? 20:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


:( I know we had are differences, but I really hate to see you go. Seriously. Just remember, people are always more willing to give criticism than praise. Those that don't like something speak louder than those that do. Rocket000 11:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind criticism. I do however mind people assuming bad faith all the time. This place became no different from English Wikipedia. I left that place for the most part for this reason. I am leaving here for the same reason. -- Cat ちぃ? 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Retired? (2)

After all the scripts that I made you? You have you pay me back! How can you do it if you are retired?! :P Come back immediately, now! :-) Sorry for your decision, hoping that this will become a right decision, bye, --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


Hey White Cat,

I don't really think it's practical to administer an user page in a dozen of different languages (espacially if you don't speak them ;-) ), but I just had nothing to do, so I tanslated your whole user page to German :)

I've found your page while reading my talk page: User_talk:Sven#Starcraft. I'm from Germany (here in this moment it's 03:26 AM) and speak english (since 9 years), frensh (since 6 years) and spanish (since 5 years). In the next weeks I'll graduate my high school diploma/A-levels.

I can't believe that there are really people which write you such offenses in the wikipedia, but I nevertheless translated everything :)

--Sven 01:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Whity! I totaly agree to your oppinnion about protecting license templates. But many sysops do not, and I belive leaving this great project is not the way I'll choose, but I accept your way. Anyway I'd like to see you back after you took a break! :) :-) Regards, abf /talk to me/ 15:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

...nice to see your retirement was rather short. Your rather aggressive behaviour with regards to how you have edited/moved the FP-template poll/discussion and the way you have communicated since you came back is not helpful to this project though. Please stay mellow, and do not be too bold in taking actions you should now are potentially provocative. I'm not going to revert your edit/move of the poll since that could just make the mess worse. I will however keep an eye on the situation, and prevent editors who deliberately disrupts this project from editing if necessary. Regards, Finn Rindahl 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It was quite a bad move by Alvesgaspar to display the poll for what it isn't. I think my change demonstrates
  • the power of the new template
  • the problems posed by the old one.
These two should be vital for a person voting to consider. The old version makes it look as if there was nothing wrong.
I did create a "vote" subsection to ease voting process. It can be removed but I think a lack of it would make people unhappy. We have a similar subsection on other votes such as COM:RFA
I moved the page after making edits to it because I saw Alvesgaspar's post after words (well same time on a different tab - I was too lazy to reformat it a second time while copy pasting.)
-- Cat ちぃ? 11:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Judging from how Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Computer (de-adminship) was handled. I do not think I will "return" for a while. I may make a few edits from time to time but I don't think I should be considered "active" here. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it went this way. I hope you will return at some stage when you feel more at ease with the community here. Until then, giggy (:O) 11:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first time people forgot to talk to me. This has been made a habit lately. Until thats fixed I cannot be at ease. I do not expect everyone to agree with everything I say, I do expect and require for people to at least show me the courtesy of notifying me in such disagreements. This lack of communication seems to be a continuing trend which seemingly wont be fixed any time soon. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

With apologies

I am sorry that I did not inform you of the deadmin request I made for your bot. I do realise that it was wrong of me - I had taken your "retired" posting rather too literally I think. I regret it. --Herby talk thyme 12:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Can you tell me why you cept both images (Image:Black genitalia.jpg and Image:Black genitalia 2.jpg) ? Commons really need two (almost) identically images ? PMG 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you ask me. I am not an expert on the issue. -- Cat ちぃ? 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
1 and 2 - you are the guy who keept both of them - so i ask you. PMG 09:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I closed com:del discussions because commons is not censored. No vali reason to delete was given. If they are duplicates that can be dealt with separately independent of the bad faith com:del case. -- Cat ちぃ? 20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused Valued image subpages pages created by you

Hi White Cat, Rocket000 has been so kind to help me do a little clean-up in the valued image project before we go on the air. In that process, we have noticed some apparently unused subpages created by you

I think they originate from some experiments by you relating to our discussion about the image-nomination one-to-many relationship, which I argued made it complicated to have only one VI/Assessment template per image page. Since the pages are unused and we have headed for another way to organize the nominations and mark images as VIs I suggest we delete those "lost pages". Do you agree? If yes, would you initiate that? -- Slaunger 13:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete please. -- Cat ちぃ? 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done abf /talk to me/ 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both. -- Slaunger 19:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

bot-status on lb-Wikipedia

By now your bot has bot-status on lb-wikipedia, enjoy the work on lb-wikipedia lb:User:Robby — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) --Robby (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)



well since you have travelled all over the world, why dont you come to also visit sub continent and complete the trail of Vasco Da Gama's voyage of discovery :P . -- 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sub continent? -- Cat ちぃ? 18:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


I have registered user in this wiki but, I changed my name in my main wiki to beeyan, so please change my name in this wiki, but i see this user talk's page that this account has blocked--beeYan 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ball goal (test).png

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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 Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Renaming request on hu.wikip

Done. Dorgan 17:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot status on huwikinews

Hi! I'm an editor at Hungarian Wikinews. You should know that we don't have bureaucrat here, so you'll have to ask for bot flag on meta linking to your local request. Gondnok (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot status on asturian wikipedia

Hi, your bot Computadora has now bot status.Sorry for the delay. Thanks! --Esbardu (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Rename on sqwiki_p

Your request for rename sq:User:Kompjuteri in sq:User:タチコマ robot has been accepted. Regards. --  eagleal  15:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad bot edit

With this edit your bot put the redirect in the category instead of redirecting it to the category. It needs a : in front of the Category. Please have your bot fix all that it has incorrectly edited this way. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A redirect from gallery to category namespace itslef is problematic and should not be ever done as it causes problems like the one you have mentioned. A {{softredirect}} or {{category redirect}} should have been used. This is a user error not a bot error I believe. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What's problematic about such a redirect other than the fact that your bot doesn't understand it? The point is that your bot can be adjusted to not cause the problem of adding redirect pages to categories because of bad assumptions. If a double redirect is ending up at a "category:", simply add a colon before the bot inserted redirect location. Will you not do so? Neither of those templates fit this type of redirect. --Pmsyyz (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly I have indirect control to my bots code. This is because I use the SVN feed. I may point this to the people with SVN access per your request but the below issue still stands I think.
Secondly hard redirects on categories are discouraged. This has been the consensus to my knowledge. For categories we use soft redirects (ex Category:Car).
-- Cat ちぃ? 13:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture categories

Hi White Cat, it was nice to meet you in Alexandria. Now, down to business. I am not too convinced that your work with Category:Featured picture of the year and its child categories is a very good idea. Category:Featured picture of the year (candidate) is going to be more or less exactly equal with Category:Featured pictures (no wait, now it's Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons thanks to you...! Not good to break long-existing convention like that you know!), and the other subcats are so sparsely updated that they are better suited as galleries. Did you discuss any of these ideas anywhere before implementing them? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 19:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it was nice meeting you too (although it was rather brief :)).
I do want to point out I have pretty much completely abandoned commons. You are free to revert anything and everything I made thus far if you desire. I wont object. I do not see Category:Featured pictures or POTY or any other "quality" metric we have here as anything remotely useful anymore.
I did my best here at commons as per COM:MELLOW#Remember... but I received hostility in return. Hence why I decided to leave commons until it is repaired back to how it used to be. This community has became more hostile than en.wikipedia.
I am sorry if this wasn't a satisfactory answer but I am sadly really tired of this project.
-- Cat ちぃ? 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That said... If you need technical help, I can provide that. I have a bot after all... -- Cat ちぃ? 10:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your request on lb-wikipedia

Hello White Cat,

concerning your request on lb:Benotzer Diskussioun:Briséis#Computer → タチコマ robot I just want to take your attention to the point that User:Briséis is for months not active on lb-wikipedia and that there is for the moment no bureaucrat on lb-wikipedia. So I guess It might be more useful to adress your requesst to one of the stewards e.g. User:Thogo

with best regards from lb-wikipedia lb:User:Robby — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) --Robby (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)



White Cat,

Ben kızılsungur. Benim MG-3 ile olan bir iki fotoğraf var. Onları silebilir misin?

İletişim için e-posta adresimi kullanabilirsin.

Kolay gelsin. :)


Size email yolladim. Cevaplamanizi bekliyorum. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Image deletion warning Image:Baj1.png and other Bajoran Insignia have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these images, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Powers (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Did you notice? Nice photo. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

O_O; -- Cat ちぃ? 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
At this rate I will be a celebrity... Do you have any pointers to handle fanatic fans? -- Cat ちぃ? 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any fanatic fans, so no. But then, I haven't had the magic touch of a photo with Jimbo, so who knows? Maybe soon you can give me pointers. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh that particular photo op was not my first. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way you have gone very silent about the "#Featured picture categories" matter. I hope I did not offend you. -- Cat ちぃ? 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't offend me. I just don't have much energy for it. As dumb as moving a humungous category unnecessarily is, moving it back is nearly equally dumb, when the name is acceptable. And I try not to rise to poor-me bait. The usual. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... Okay. :) -- Cat ちぃ? 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's make a deal…

Hey there,

I saw the link above to 'mellow' and looked again and found

specifically the part about disputes from other wikis.

One of the DR things we've not done well at is talk, so I thought I would give it another go. I have focused on other things these last few months; things like id and jv navboxes and moving images to here. I will soon have (as 'Jack') as many edits to non-en:wp as I have to en:wp[8] [9].

The very name of this project is per the idea that all the others meet here. I've done a fair number of things here, as have you, so I'm posting this here (the other idea was meta).

I would like to see the drama and aggressive dialogue dialed-back. What would you like? We obviously disagree on a number of points, but it certainly can't be universal. I've seen your bot do things that have saved me effort; mebbe I could seed stuff for it to work from — such as getting it to propagate better inter-wiki links. If it were to inter-wiki link my user pages, I'd be pleased. And do send it on another pass across id:wp and jv:wp; I'm certainly tired of changing 'Kabupaten' to 'Kabupatèn' in iw links to jv.

It's getting late here, so you (and anyone else) have better than 12 hours before I'll see where this goes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is the dispute? It is important to identify the source...
As for the other point... I'd be happy to provide technical help concerning IW links. I do routine scans of individual wikis - that is I check the IW link on every article on a spesific wiki which I compare with all the linked wikis. Bot synchronizes the IW links basically. All you need to do is move the page to the correct name. Using the redirects generated by the move the bot will sort everything out.
I have IW linked some of your userpages. I will rerun the bot once it is unblocked on ja.wikipedia. My bot will stay off until ja.wikipedia issue is resolved (I can't be bothered to edit config files over that issue in
-- Cat ちぃ? 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert John Bardo

Thanks for the iwlinks. I didn't know I had a user page at w:sr:Корисник:Jack Merridew. That account was created automatically by my following some link; I've no edits there, but someone plunked a box on the page. I will paste some more user pages onto the wikis that I've made more than a few edits on. I would think that your bot only does userspace when you specifically direct it to whereas with article space it's reasonable to just give it free reign. It wouldn't do to iwlink user pages that are not of an SUL account. Anyway, feel free to point it at my pages anytime.

Would you like me to make some tweaks to your userpage? I have a validator installed and it has things to say.

The iwlinks on the 'pedias are a mess and bots can't fix this; they can only propagate links. The core issue is that the different projects do not have the same article set and there is a lot of ambiguity as to what an appropriate link is. For example, Bali is an island, but is also a province of Indonesia. Some projects will have articles on each subject, some on one, and many on neither. A project with two articles may have both linked to a single page on a project with only one article. While I'm not aware of actual issues with Bali iwlinks, I've seen a lot of tangles when you get down to smaller geographic chunks; Gianyar is a Regency of Bali and there is a subdistrict of the Regency that is also named Gianyar which in turn has a town by that name in it; it's the capital of the Regency.

On jv:wp, there are a huge number of redirects from the Bahasa Indonesia name for a place to the Javanese name and there are a great many pages that have not been moved to the Javanese name yet. The norm is that pages and templates are copied from id or en and worked on and moved at some point. A scan of id pages looking at iwlinks to jv will find many targets on jv that are redirects to a proper name. Would it help to feed the bot a starting point; i.e. a page like;

Many of the pages linked from there need iwlinks adjusted; there are a bunch of other such pages, too. There's a related issue here;

The preprocessor is maxing-out on template expansion on the page with 116 instantiations of nested templates.

It is not my intent to rehash the nature of our dispute. I see you as having strong biases and an editing agenda driven by them. You have also come down on the include-anything side of the inclusion criteria debate. Think about the term 'editor' for a moment. The job of an editor in the journalistic sense it to cut; to strike inappropriate content with a blue pencil. Overall, I see this schism as being one of quantity vs quality; fluff vs substance.

Have a read of;

The term 'stalking' is a poisonous term that I see as a thinly veiled personal attack. I have debated with you and opposed you on a variety of issues because I disagree with your positions and goals. This has been about content. I see the use of a counter-claim of 'stalking' as an attempt to change the subject (i.e. your editing) to one of you being the victim of a psychopath. I have no interest in finding out personal information about you. I'm not going to show up at your door. You have sought to get me blocked on all wikis. This is exactly the sort of thing that the 'mellow' section link I gave above says to not do; this is what w:en:WP:BATTLEGROUND is about, and this is what I'm asking you to drop as drama and aggressive dialogue.

All the projects meet here on Commons; I'm here to stay and I expect you'll un-retire at some point. You have to stop going ballistic every time you see a post from me. Please take this lightly, but you're acting like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. I fully expect to return to en:wp and I think you know this is inevitable, too. And I have mixed feeling about that place; the other projects a far more civilized.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Please keep this thread in one place, here on your talk page; do not copy everything to my page. We've had this issue before; time to listen

IW links had the issues you mentioned for quite some time. Dealing with them is slow and painful due to user errors (poor IW linking like the Bali example you pointed out). The preprocessor issue is something I am rather familiar with. It was an issue I pointed out to the devs. It was an unintended result as I was requesting the allowance of more nested templates. I will look over the other material you have provided in great detail later.
If you desire to edit my userpage, feel free to do so. I allow any change to my userspace. You can even preform a translation if you like. You are even welcome to use elements used on my userpage if you desire. Anybody is welcome to edit my userspace provided the edit is not intended to disrupt.
The term "stalking" ("wikistalking" as covered by en:Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalking) is what you, Jack Merridew, had been sanctioned from multiple times on English wikipedia. In fact the arbitration case involving en:User:The Recycling Troll (a user unrelated to you and me) and your case had laid the foundations of the term wikistalking. You were involved in practically every dispute or disagreement I got into. You didn't just coincidentally edit articles I edit, instead on occasions you were the source of the dispute. For example, you added en:Category:Kurdistan (via your "en:User:Diyarbakir" account that mascaraed as being a Kurd from Diyarbakır) to various Turkish cities simply to bait me (or so concluded the checkuser case IIRC). You, Jack Merridew, had continued this behaviour for a little over three years I believe. This behaviour was never restricted to English wikipedia. One of your other account here on commons (User:Moby Dick) had received a serious warning (in the form of a block) to this end before. These were a part of the official history. It should be obvious why I would be less than comfortable working with you on a project aside from en.wikipedia. To put it mildly, it would be very unfair to picture me as the source of this issue as you implied.
Consider your behaviour here on commons since you got your commons account User:Jack Merridew... How often has your path crossed mine? You edited templates only I edited just hours after me. That couldn't have been a coincidence. You got very involved just hours after I requested my admin flag back on this very wiki. That couldn't have been a coincidence either. These are just two examples of many I can point out. Can you really blame me for being more than uneasy?
You seem to be a bit too sure about a certain number of things, I would be more modest if I were you. I believe your conduct here on commons will be the factor determining weather or not you will ever get unblocked on English wikipedia. You have to win the trust of Wikimedians for any unblock decision. Time alone is not a guarantee of trust and wining trust is hard. Of course everybody has their own metric that determines the level of trust they feel for others... I just pointed out my metric for everyone else in general.
I am not responding to your every point. This doesn't mean I can't. It merely means I do not feel it is necessary to clarify my standpoint on those issues as they should be more than obvious to you. However feel free to ask any further clarifications.
-- Cat ちぃ? 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nifty corners

I realize that the iwlinks are a long standing issue. People on all projects move stuff quite cavalierly and don't attend to the finer points. And I realize that the number of things to look at in any attempt at sorting such links out is quite large.

I made a few edits to your subpages, but undid them; mostly they were valid corrections, but somewhere in there something interfered with the aligning of cells at all the corners. Check the diffs and use what you care to. FYI, there are pre-existing issues with old IE with the cell joins; lots of gaps and such. Mostly I use FF3.

I have acknowledged my multiple accounts and resolved to not go there again. And as I said, I have mixed feeling about en. The quality of discourse there is getting worse rapidly. Have you forgotten that you've been found to make a great many biased edits? I'm certainly not the only one who's commented in that regard. And that's the root of it. Remove that, and I might have gotten along well with you on subjects such as bots and templates. You effectively can not edit articles such as Armenian Genocide and do too much damage to stuff related to Kurds, at this point, and this is, I believe, the core of your frustration.

I asked you to back-off on the aggressive characterizations and it doesn't seem like you have any interest in deescalating things. You're not going to sell many folks on the idea that you're lily-white. Since you've brought up my block here as Moby, I'll comment; the block was for 'inappropriate editing' which would be these edits; [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17].

If you look at the categorization of those images today, you'll see that the general idea of what I was doing is in place; other editors since (and I've not looked in any detail) have extended the categorization. You must realize that biases such as yours elicit responses from those holding other views. You might as well try to turn back the tide with a bucket. You've certainly run into opposition from users other than myself. Have you looked at the Armenian Genocide article lately? I hardly ever edited that page; mostly I was on the talk page. And the article today is vastly better that what we first argued over.

It should be obvious why I don't see you as appropriate for the mop-bit. Recall;

It's the same non-mellow issue I opened this thread with; cross-wiki conflict, with the bit.

You seem to have had other arguments about stuff with folks. If you can adjust your attitudes some, I believe you can avoid the Wiki-Deceased fate that I see you posting at the top of this page as I compose this post. Please go read 'mellow' again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is not weather or not I made biased edits - that is an entirely different issue involving my content related conduct. The issue was your non-content related conduct on that wiki. I am merely trying to say is that you have had a history with me in the past. This history is the source of my current reservations. Please do not expect me to forget everything that has happened. I can only lift my reservations once I get to trust you. Please do not get the wrong idea, I will go out of my way to cause you problems. That's not my style. That's the style I was forced to put up with. That's the style I detest.
The COM:DN complaint you linked to above was filed by Karl Meier (Steriotek) - a user that was also sanctioned for stalking me on the first arbitration case. Since then he has disengaged aside from that particular incident you have linked to. User:SAJordan that made the bulk amount of comments there is still indef blocked from this wiki as he has "exhausted the patience of the community". I was kindly asked not to edit pages like your former userpage where there was room for disagreement on possible COI issues. Since marking your userpage wasn't all that crucial and since I hate drama I agreed with that. This was not an acknowledgment of guilt or anything of the sort. The complaint was filed after I reverted my own action within minutes of the original edits I made. No one saw the edits unless they were looking at the RC feed, page history, or various relevant logs. By no means was I abusing my tools. You sure you want to bring this up? This is an example of why I have the kind of reservations I mentioned above.
I have a clean history of my use of admin tools. I have not made any controversial edit with my admin tools. The only major disagreement of my use of admin tools was my protection of license templates. I protected several license templates over legal concerns and still believe that is good practice. I never seen that disagreement as a major issue. I was however fed up with people reverting my protections without bothering to notify me. I do not like people covertly reverting my edits you see...
Cat ちぃ?--14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It's all of a piece. And it is getting late here, so I'll be brief. The dispute thread involved Cary characterizing it as an error of judgment and you apologized and called it an error. I expect you're right that one of those users was Karl; and if you're wondering, SAJordan was not me; I've no idea who that was, but agree with what he had to say.
I've said above that it is not my intent to rehash old stuff; the peanut gallery is surely sick of all that. What I want is a deescalation, a reduction of the drama, and I ask, again, what do you want? Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about what I want. This is more about what I don't want. I do not want to be in a situation where all/most/some of my edits are regularly contested habitually by the same user. Basically I do not want to see any more wikistalking, trolling, or any forms of disruption. Aside from that I do not want anything else from you or anybody else. I do not believe I am asking for a lot...
You do talk about mellow a lot but your complaint over my request of adminship wasn't very mellow. All I am trying to say with this is that you should live up to the expectations you have for others.
-- Cat ちぃ? 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


I've agreed to avoid 'your' articles and that certainly maps to avoiding things like whatever the issue with 'assessments' is here on Commons. And I'm asking you to cease maligning me with terms such as 'stalking' and 'troll'; and I certainly can't hold a candle to your disruption. Ya, the en:ac called it wikistalking; that 'finding of fact' is their opinion, not a hard fact. And it's over there, not here under the purview of 'mellow'. Know what I'm reading at the moment? Papillon (and I read it once before).

As I see it, you are the one attempting to maintain the drama at a shrill level. You seek a closure of this along the lines of me being banned WMF-wide and to present yourself as an innocent. It's not going to go that way. You have been found to be highly biased in much of your editing. Your overall dynamic of interaction with any editor who does not see things your way is one of consistent aggression. 'Jenny' once told you that you needed to 'listen' and that's good advice that I don't see you taking to heart three years on. Time to change that. I've taken events in stride; I've explored other projects and am much appreciated. There's been no drama. You seem to find drama on most all projects. Your bot's blocked here and there and is far from universally appreciated.

Can you bring yourself to deal with me? I'll work with you on things we can agree on; I'll likely continue to disagree with you on the usual things, but hey, you could moderate some of your views. While I do see some value in what your bot gets done, it should be fairly obvious that I'd be fine with you 'retired', 'wiki-deceased' or (offers) 'wiki-catatonic'. If you can not cope with users such as I who do not see issues such as Kurdistan as you do, you'll never do well on projects such as these. You should read Lar's comments again.

No, I don't see you as an appropriate person for adminship, but it's not up to me (and it's not up to Cary). If the Commons community agrees to revest you with a mop, I would suggest that you keep it far from me; should some issue arise, there are other neutral parties about. Did you note that my post to Cary consisted of my quoting Patrícia's comments about you? There were a mere eight words of my own gluing them into context. You can't have missed her comments, yet you sought to get a friend to summarily restore the bits. FWIW, I'm still a bit concerned about his reference to 'bureaucratic intervention' which would seem to allude to overriding the broader community. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So long as you fail to accept that you had been effectively wikistalking me for the past three plus years you can't seriously expect me to agree with anything. To put it bluntly, I do not run into controversies so long as you do not escalate things. Most of the difficulties I faced in the past three and a half years were crafted by you. Not by third parties. Excluding those I do not believe I have ran into difficulties any more than the next user. But thanks to you I have to deal with random nonsense from ill informed people because of your past involvement with me. I strongly advise you to change your tone on the matter. You will most certainly get blocked everywhere if you intend to maintain that past edit behaviour which English wikipedias arbcom sanctioned to be wikistalking (something you consider as a mere opinion). You stated that you wanted to put the past behind you so maybe your tone should reflect this intention of yours. You are the person that should start listening to others.
My bot is blocked here and there because of technical issues. It isn't a big deal for a bot to get blocked. I explicitly create a "block this bot" on most of my bot userpages should it not function properly. Consider looking over my bots userpage on this wiki, it has that giant red shut off button that would block the bot if clicked over by an admin. Why do you think I put a giant notice like that? Block is effectively a "shut off button" in case of emergencies where I cannot be contacted immediately. After all I do not have direct control over the individual edits of my bot on every wiki just like any other bot operator. While my bot operates properly 99.99% of the time it may break down that .01% of the time like any other bot. My bot deals with mindless tasks a lot of people do not even care to look at... My bot is most certainly appreciated on hundereds of wikis or else it would be blocked on those hundereds of wikis particularly on the largest wikis. For example, I just got a bot flag on pt.wikipedia and sv.wikipedia just weeks ago and already have a total of 5k edits since. My bot has well over 378 thousand edits. So to put it mildly your accusation is unwarranted.
Firstly I do not stalk you so I have no clue who you are talking to and what you said to who. I am in fact rather uncomfortable in clicking any of the links you have provided. Secondly Patrícia has a mouth and if she feels like speaking up, I am sure she does not need your help. What makes you think she maintains the same exact position? It is possible that maybe (just maybe) she changed her mind. If you feel her input is necessary you can ask her to comment on the matter. Weather I am worthy of adminship on commons is an decision entitled to b'crats on commons which of course includes the Wikimedia Foundation staffer cary who also happens to be a b'crat here. B'crats may request community opinion in the form of an RFA but that's not required. B'crats are trusted users to this community probably more than a lot of other users.
I cannot understand why on earth are you asking me to keep an admin mop far from you. It isn't like I have a history of stalking or harassing you. If you violate any policy on commons I am sure some other admin would notice it and react to it before I even know about it. That is if I ever know about it. I do not regularly RC patrol on any wiki at the moment.
-- Cat ちぃ? 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I certainly reject the term 'stalking', 'wiki-' or otherwise. It is a wholly inappropriate term for use on these projects. I accept that I've evaded some of the intent of the en:ac. I've apologized for that; it's been sitting on my en talk page for some time and has been stated in emails, as well. The core of the dispute we've had is a content one and the general consensus on subjects like the mass murder of some folks and the encyclopaedicity of subjects such as the indigenous inhabitants of 'Kurdistan' has arrived where I though it should go.
There are some cases of serious harassment that I've seen hints of; Newyorkbrad, for example. The details are, quite appropriately, kept close. These would seem to be of the real-world sort; the showing up at the door kind, seeking personal information and leveraging it. Real harassment. There's a world of difference between that and my having noted an appalling amount of biased editing by you.
Do you seriously believe that you can put all of the controversies you've been involved in on me? I don't even know the broad outlines of whatever your 'assessments' dispute here was and I don't know the participants, other than you. The thread I gave above concerning your views on Kurdistan here on Commons had no involvement from me. I only dredged that up recently. Same for the dispute concerning your bot on the various wikisource projects; and do recall the comment there by Aphaia calling your bot a nuisance on ja:wikinews and AndreasPraefcke's comment about your childish behaviour of the worst kind — then he basically called you a troll. I have not crafted your difficulties for you and neither have third parties.
There is a consistent theme in your disputes. Bias. Arrogance. Not listening to the concerns of others. Poor communications. Trying to aggressively out-edit the other participants. Immaturity, and (I'll retract this if anyone objects) a snotty attitude. I have listened to others, many times, and not just recently.
I recall seeing the big red switch on your bot pages. You really don't need to detail things like that; I see such things readily enough and you know it. You really think you do yourself any credit by pointing out the obvious to an experienced editor? Why did you feel the need to give an example of a third level header?
When you get all the disparate names of the bots changed yet again all over the wiki-verse, you'll get an even larger collective edit-count.
Patrícia does not seem to have edited in several weeks and I saw nothing to indicate that Cary was aware of her past comments. And I've no idea if she participated in what ever 'crat-chat went on or if her opinion has changed. I was pleased to see several editors comment to you that they saw nothing inappropriate about my post to Cary.
You might want to consider whether it would really be appropriate for any 'crat to bit you if the Commons community expressed opposition.
I would like to refocus on working out an arrangement of some sort with you. This bandying about of our history amounts to venting and really is not productive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikistalking is a commonly accepted term. Please pull the other leg. Your contribution history coincided with me over articles like Valkyrie (disambiguation)...
Off wiki harassment is a different criminal offense particularly in California. The issues you are telling me about are the ones I am quite familiar with. Not committing off-wiki stalking is not a license for on-wiki stalking. I have no idea how that off-wiki stalker relates to your case.
Do I seriously believe? Oh yes. So long as you do not escalate things. I will show no tolerance whatsoever if you show up on disputes concerning me again. That should be obvious to you. I have never been in front of arbcom on a case that does not involve you. You had been the core of most of my problems.
  • The time stamp of the thread you linked to last had active discussion between 26 February and 31 March 2007. I do not believe you could have gotten involved. Your Moby Dick account was warned (blocked) on commons on 18 January 2007 for "I will keep blocking you here if you keep making edits here that only in some way relate to Cool Cat" (see User talk:Moby Dick). You were stalking me on English wikipedia (baiting) by the use of your User:Diyarbakir account which had no edits here.
  • Am I on trial here? Your involvement with the meta case on -jkb- case is the dictionary definition of interwiki stalking given your past history. You are seemingly going out of your way to monitor my activity on every wiki I edit. This needs to stop. I have not slipped the -jkb- issue, I merely do not care about cs.wikisource that much. I do not pick fights and fight to the bitter end. If me arguing doesn't have a net good effect to the project as a whole I disengage and do something else. I may always return to that topic later. There isn't half the controversy you claim to be there.
No, you are describing your own self. That has been your consistent edit behaviour. If I am anything aggressive it is because you contesting each and every edit I make from time to time. I am not the person in trial here. Please save me the personality analysis.
The templates I use on my bot pages ({{Bot}}) are often required and I like the big red button. It is polite to point out even the most experienced editors what you mean clearly so as to avoid a confusion. I can order a bot to more easily process a third special level header that only contains the tasks it needs to preform.
Oh not at all. My bots edit count is not increased with my username rename requests. Those take 1-5 edits. If you do the math that's 5editsx200wikis = 1000 edits max. And those are credited to my human account not my bot account. Why do I get the feeling next thing you will attack is my bot accounts... Seriously drop the bot issue.
And you have taken the liberty to talk behalf of Patrícia? You need to go an apologize to her if you ask me. Even if Cary wasn't aware (I seriously doubt that - there was a off wiki b'crat discussion) that is of no concern to you. I am very displeased that some editors lack the common sense to object to your constant wikistalking. This is exactly why you consider your edit behaviour justified or at least why you claim it is. See how things get out of control when you stir it up? I stand corrected.
Stop talking behalf of the commons community. I am not on trial here.
I disagree. You have been consistently accusing me of things here. So please stay the heck away from me for an indefinite period of time. You have shown no interest in stopping to stalk me since your block on English wikipedia for stalking me. You will not even acknowledge that you have stalked me and your edit behaviour and comments clearly show you have no intention of stopping. I know it was my fault for trying to reason with you but I will not continue making the same mistake.
-- Cat ちぃ? 08:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

new user pages

nb: I created user pages at ca:wp, pl:wp, and vi:wp and propagated the iwlinks about. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh you only need to put IW links on one wikipedia page. For example you can put them on your id.wikipedia userpage. My bot would detect and synchronize the relevant IW links for you. About a much earlier point. I generally run my IW bot on the article namespace. I very rarely give spesific non-article space IW checks. -- Cat ちぃ? 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Consider pointing it at template namespace. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Template namespace is problematic because the IW links are placed inside noinclude tags. Interwiki bots cannot handle those well yet. -- Cat ちぃ? 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
A pity; it would seem a parsing issue. I'll paste more user pages; I'll focus on making the ones here on Commons the 'master' ones. I assume the bot will add any missing iwlinks out there and remove any mistakes. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It would work better if you can create a list on this talk page as a separate section. That way I can avoid making mistakes. Feel free to use a third level section (=== Title ===). -- Cat ちぃ? 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, when I've a few more done, I'll give you a list, in another section. Saw you added the 3 to en; thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew


nb: I've adjusted the indenting for clarity; please don't keep messing with it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider the following.
  • On wikis it is common practice to copy paste entire threads back and forth between talk pages. That way you generate a "you have got a message" notice on the person you are talking to. This is considered polite as you are giving the courtesy of notice to the other person. You objected to the common practice for whatever the reason and I played along (compromised). I was merely trying to be polite to the person I was responding to whom in this case is you.
  • On wikis it is common practice to increase the indent if you are responding to a post by someone else. Each top level indentation (no indentation) is typically treated like a new thread rather than a response to the previous post. This way confusion over who is responding to who is avoided. It gets very confusing if a third person decides to respond to something any of the parties said earlier for example. It also helps anyone to read the archived thread. It is polite to everyone following the thread (including the participants) to keep it readable. Now you are objecting to this too. :(
Granted none of these are a rule or anything of the sort. On the contrary it is the exact opposite. It is just how I and most people voluntarily use to communicate. Adopting these as a principle may help you to avoid an unnecessary friction between people you are trying to communicating with.
-- Cat ちぃ? 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got to go soon; so brief. I'm familiar — in this case I'm quite aware that we have a thread going and do not feel it appropriate to copy everything to my page. Many users prefer to keep discussions in one place. Thank you for not continuing to cross-post. As to indenting, I'm obviously familiar with indenting practices. In the case of two participants, I think this format is quite clear. See? I expect others have looked at this, but are staying out of it as long as it goes well-enough. Should others chip-in, we'll adapt. Third level headings are fine; I'll add some. Jack Merridew 11:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't follow the thread as is with ease. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It's your talk page; if you like, restructure it as you will. I'll not fuss over it and will follow your preferred format. See here where you first chose to indent my second post to this thread for me. Déjà vu all over again;
Anyway, you suggested further sections and that is a good idea. I'll pick-up some of the topics above in new sections below.
Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop posting comments on my talk page. Seems like you will go out of your way to dig up any negative comment (that case was over the now indef blocked Fadix) about me on an edit by edit basis. -- Cat ちぃ? 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll consider these threads closed. Jack Merridew 09:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Fadix is not indef blocked. VartanM (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh... 1 year arbcom banned and ban was reset multiple times due to abusive use of sockpuppets... And why exactly are you commenting on my talk page on this thread? -- Cat ちぃ? 10:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Because I can, and I hate seeing someone make comments about something they know nothing about. BTW if you're ever up for another RFA I'll support it only if you promise to treat Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Moldovaian, Kazak, Kyrgyz, Tajik, and Uzbek images the way you treat Armenian ones. Thats a lot of images to delete isn't it? VartanM (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
You do realize Fadix was sanctioned for stalking me as was Jack Merridew (several times). This is a bit uncomfortable in that context. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. No reason to be paranoid. :)
You mean about the non-commercial licenses? I vaguely remember a few images concerning a memorial of some sort. I used to shoot those as I found them. I'd still do had I had sysop tools. I believe my delete log can demonstrate this easily (oh the former PD-Soviet template). I have no issues with Armenia or Armenians if that is what you are implying. Wikimania should be the proof of that. I do hate the Armenian copyright law though since it is too restrictive.
-- Cat ちぃ? 20:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed being paranoid and you are wrong again, You were the only user that was sanctioned[18].
You mean you don't remember how you deleted en:Armenian Genocide memorial images? Even going as far as having images from Argentina deleted[19]. How can Wikimania be a proof that you're not a genocide denying, Armenian and Kurd hating Turk? VartanM (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek#Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs). You manage to read proposed decision and not the decision... Thats beautiful.
Copyrighted images of any kind is unwelcome on commons. If you do not like Armenian copyright law that prevents commercial use of such images go complain to the Armenian parliament. This applies to derivative works as far as Argentina due to the Bern Convention which Armenia is a signatory. Go ask any long term user on commons.
Also, thank you for showing your true colors. I guess I was naive in assuming a level of good faith with you.
-- Cat ちぃ? 07:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh and with your analogy User:Anonymous Dissident is a Bajoran hating Cardassian. -- Cat ちぃ? 08:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Commonscat progress

Hi White Cat, you can view the progress here, you can leave comments here. Multichill (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 months

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 months for the following reason: User request . If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

--ShakataGaNai 00:52, 19 August 2008‎ (UTC)

Block reversed -- Giggy 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)



Image deletion warning Image:Wikimedia-logo-meta.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 image, 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.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
-Nard the Bard 13:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I am quite speechless... -- Cat ちぃ? 13:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Editors Barnstar.png

This copy appears to be gone due to Commons:Village pump#Massive image loss. I see you were the initial uploader of the image, perhaps you could reupload another copy? Cirt (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I renamed the image. My sysop flag was removed since so I cannot access the deleted copy. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, the deleted copy was not actually deleted, it was lost in some sort of server hiccup. Where did you rename the image? Couldn't you just upload a better version over the current version at Image:Editors Barnstar.png and I could then delete the lower res versions? Cirt (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I really do not remember. I am completely disoriented on the matter. -- Cat ちぃ? 22:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
✓ Resolved  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Mike.lifeguard (talk · contribs) ! Cirt (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Where did you get this image, and can you re-upload it? It no longer works, the thumbnail displays but the real image does not. PatPeter (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it myself and re-uploaded it. PatPeter (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get the Warrant Officer images anyway? Do you remember? Did you add the green background and the badge yourself? PatPeter (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)




Interwiki bot call

Dear Whote Cat,

I'm OrbiliusMagister from it.wikisource. I'm writing to ask if it's possible to have a big refresh of our interwikilinks on it.source. I added a lot (hundreds) of them manually to synchronize translation and original texts, and I thought it should be useful to help your bot to spread from it.source many missing links worldwide, and gather on it.source many links missing since a bot visited us months ago (Help-template-project namespaces need such a refresh). Is it a lengthy process? I have no idea. Anyway, if you could unleash your computer interwiki bot I'd be delighted and wikisource would be a better place to navigate :)

Edoardo. 15:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was told not to use on wikisource. is incompatible with wikisource - or so I am told. :( -- Cat ちぃ? 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 1187e9cc5e177f812094427caa0bf03a

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! -- Cat ちぃ? 21:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

images lost


due to a software problem the following image which you uploaded was lost on Wikimedia Commons (maybe except for a preview image):

If you still have this file on your hard disk or if you can recover it from other sources please upload it again. If this image was transferred from a local Wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons it can be even recovered by an admin on the local Wikipedia.

Best regards, -- Ukko-wc (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)