User talk:99of9

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
I respond to messages left on this talk page here, not on the talk pages of the users who left them.
If I wrote on your page, I am watching it, so replying there is probably best.
Time to talk.
99of9's Archives

Image reviews 1
Image reviews 2
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5

Note that I have blocked GifTagger[edit]

Hi. I have within the past while blocked the bot User:GifTagger. I have left a note about why at User talk:GifTagger#Blocked GifTagger for the tasks that it is doing has not been communicated with sister wiki that it is affecting. In short, I believe that it is operating outside the community scope as applies to sister wikis, outside of the deletion policy, and outside of the request scope of which it was granted to run.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Language templates with no text displayed[edit]

The above files have some issues and show up in Category:Language templates with no text displayed category. I think it is some issue with User:99of9/SLNSW_metadata_template. Do you think you can edit files or the template to remove the warning. --Jarekt (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - apparently the html scraping didn't work properly for those, I'll fill them in manually. --99of9 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello 99of9, I don't know the procedure on Commons, so I will try it this way. In the beginning of 2014 you gave my bot MeerderBot permission to run: Commons:Bots/Requests/MeerderBot. As I don't want to run this bot any longer and changed my password to something random, I don't have any access to this account anymore. Could you please remove the botflag/status or tell me what to do? Thanks --Meerdervoort (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC) @Meerdevoort: ok, I have removed the bot flag. Thanks. --99of9 (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Meerdervoort (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I have found a problem here:

It has the category "International boundary of Israel".

The area is between the occupied Golan and Lebanon and is obviously not an international boundary of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The double categorization you have done looks fine. But please don't remove the "boundary of Israel" cat. --99of9 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Pushing this policy into full effect[edit]

Hi. I just thought that keeping those open like that would only confuse new readers, and would eventually just swamp the discussion with unnecessary comments and explanations... But yes, I agree with your point. Kind regards, Rehman 10:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It might confuse some, but if you directly answer simply and clearly, they should understand. --99of9 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
True... Rehman 10:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It's just getting weirder (my reply). Can I ask you to restore the collapse templates please? Any fresh person reading the discussion wont bother thinking deeper with all those meaningless for-sake-of-pile-on opposes... Rehman 01:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
No, sorry, I can't - that is not how policy discussions on commons go. FWIW both the wikitable and the early implementation did have codes in them. If you don't want them in, then you should make that clear under the table, or modify the table itself. --99of9 (talk) 09:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The wikitable and the recent modification to the link you provided were not created/done by me. The wikitable was a quick thing LX made to illustrate the content (s/he used the codes just to match the entries). Where as the diff you provided was reversed by the same user. Rehman 11:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but the table is part of the conversation, and the oppose is fair enough if the table is the current example implementation of the proposal. The diff was only reversed because I *uncollapsed* the opposes. That's exactly why we should not collapse them - to ensure that implementation does not happen until everyone is on the same page about what/whether it will be implemented. --99of9 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions![edit]

Hi Toby,

I'm listening right now to your narration of the Zinc article. I'm curious, what drives you to put such tremendous effort into contributing to Wikipedia?

Thank you, Dandv (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dandv: You're welcome. It comes down to loving my neighbour, here through sharing my education, and Wikipedia allows that on quite a large scale. The spoken articles were an experiment for me: I can see that they may be of value especially to the vision impaired, but I was concerned that the articles would change too much with time to justify the effort of recording a single revision. But I figured it might be worthwhile on an important and stable Featured Article. In the end it gets a few hits a day (~1 in 500 readers), so I guess it is useful to some degree. --99of9 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Oulactis muscosa.jpg[edit]

Hi, The description on en:Oulactis muscosa suggests to me that your photo is actually of Oulactis macmurrichi rather than Oulactis muscosa, what do you think? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)