User talk:Be..anyone

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Hi, this is my talk page; I've archived some old stuff manually: 2014, 2015. Feel free to add a comment to a section indented with an additional colon below an existing paragraph.
You can start a ==new topic== with the new section button, or do it yourself at the bottom. Please sign your text with ~~~~ or similar.

Es ist nicht die feine Art[edit]

einen Kollegen zu overrulen, wenn er gerade eine kleine Änderung anfragt, der Fotograf aber noch nicht reagiert hat. Ich hab deine Pro-Entscheidung auf Discuss gestellt. Eigentlich unnötigerweise, denn das hätte mit einer kleinen Änderung durch X-RAY erledigt sein können. Es gibt viele Bilder, welche noch niemand angegriffen hat. Viel Raum für deine Entscheidungen.--Hubertl (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bearbeitungsgeschichte: promo (edit conflict, only support) File:Dülmen,_Lüdinghauser_Tor_--_2014_--_2881.jpg. "Wer zuerst schiesst, blockiert alle anderen" kann auch nicht gut sein. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Es hat niemand geschossen, es war eine konstruktive Anfrage an x-Ray, die üblicherweise und auf freundlichem Weg ohne Bewertung abgehandelt wird. Das erspart dann in Folge einen 8-tägigen unnötigen Diskussionsprozess. Ziemlich sinnlose Aktion von dir, völlig undurchsichtig und völlig jenseits dessen, was der übliche, ständig genau in dieser Art durchgeführte Vorgang ist. Wie ich bereits schrieb: Es gibt ausreichend zu tun, aber misch dich nicht in bereits bestehende Beurteilungsprozesse ein. Wenn X-Ray die schiefen Bereiche geklärt hat, dann wird Dnalor - so wie bereits beschrieben - die Sache positiv bewerten. Wenn du die Regeln/Abläufe nicht durchschaust, frag einfach auf der Disku.--Hubertl (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW: was bitte, meinst du mit:spent days for this POV? Das versteht keiner und deshalb auch mein Eingreifen!--Hubertl (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
In der Kategorie, Bilder von diesem Tor mit diesem Blickwinkel über drei Tage. Wenn ich mehrere Minuten lang ein Bild beschnüffelt habe, und es gut finde, werde ich das auch weiterhin sofort so sagen, bevor ich vergesse, wann und wo das war, und nicht auf vollkommen sinnfreie {{not done}} o.ä. warten. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Blu ray 3d (logo).svg[edit]

Hi, when you upload files from local Wikipedia, your must add the original upload log, (you can use CommonsHelper to generate the log) and the original source. Thanks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IIRC I used some wizard in the past for two other transfers, and didn't now because fair use on w: to PD textlogo on c: isn't "normal". I forgot the name of commonshelper and that it doesn't care about license issues. Thanks for fixing the info. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Scallop diagram vote?[edit]

Hi, I noticed your Oppose vote to my nomination of my scallop diagram for featured picture (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scallop Diagram2.svg). The image now passes validation, and I have discussed the usage of numbers and language neutrality in the nomination discussion. Today is the image's last day for consideration— if you and one other voter switch your votes to support, the image will pass! Without these things, it looks likely to fail. Having addressed the validation issue, do you think you'd be willing to switch your vote before time runs out?? I hope so! Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your SVG is already legendary, it crashed the validator if called with the "show source" parameter, also when it was still Invalid. I'm at modem speed at the moment, Chrome refused to download the SVG, some Microsoft Download Manager, well, managed this.Classic smiley.svgBe..anyone (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Deine reverts[edit]

Ich würde es viel mehr schätzen wenn du es erst mal mir mitteilst womit du unzufrieden bist, anstatt meine edits zu revertieren. Fände ich besseren Benutzerstil. sarang사랑 10:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Gestern ging die Galerie noch, heute war sie kaputt, und die letzte Änderung war Dein neues {{Ifimt}} mit diversen Unter- und Nebentemplates. Da ist "zurück auf funktionierende Version" das Mittel der Wahl, ich habe keine Ahnung, wann Du online bist, und ob Du das flicken willst, wirst, oder kannst. Ich habe auch keine Lust, verwirrende Templates zu verstehen, wenn sie nicht funktionieren, der Notflick von {{Valid SVG}} wegen Validator-Crash hat mich mehrere Stunden gekostet. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Timestamps JFTR, Talk:Ifimt 09:46 vs. 10:07 Ifimt/doc. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Please do not post on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer that this won't be necessary again. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Hallo, wie du sehen konntest vertrete ich die Maxime "keep it simple" - für den Anwender; auch wenn das gelegentlich komplexe Vorlagen erfordert. Ich finde nun mal, eine Vorlage und deren wenige Editierer sollen sich anstrengen um Dinge für alle anderen komfortabel zu machen. In diesem Zusammenhang hast du sicher auch Einwände oder Befürwortungen zu Template talk:Vector version available#Improvements, du hast dort ja schon gelegentlich was geposted. Gruß sarang사랑 08:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Pushing this policy into full effect[edit]

Hi. I think you're misunderstanding the proposal (or I'm misunderstanding your comment). There is absolutely no change to the templates used to tagged for speedy deletion. All those will be left exactly the way it is. Can we discuss here (to not make that thread a mess)? Rehman 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/151649030/151682461[edit]

Hm?    FDMS  4    18:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Valid HTML5, très chic. I could find my complaints against keeping <u> while deprecating <tt> years ago on WhatWG and W3C lists, and after that didn't help my complaints against following HTML5 wrt this nit here on the Village Pump some months ago, but folks want the valid stamp. Don't worry about it, maybe pick <mark> for a more interesting effect than code or good old and sadly dead teletype. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So … will browsers soon no longer understand <tt>? And, what effect does using <kbd> and <samp> have – the same?    FDMS  4    20:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Browsers will forever understand everything we learned ten years ago, nobody is going to fix billions of old pages. But new pages won't get a "valid HTML5" by the validator if they use align="center" (example) or <tt>. Unless tidy (used by MediaWiki) fixes it on the fly before the validator sees it. In theory (and only in theory, they intentionally arranged things different in practice) HTML5 elements have a "semantic" meaning, and kbd means "keyboard input". Visual browsers of course show it as monospace, just like tt for "teletype output". But the latter is evil, because it's not semantical, but presentational, and presentation is the job of CSS, not tt elements.
They did some salto mortale to justify "small" or "u" or "b" or "i" as semantical, of course all lame excuses to keep those presentational elements anyway. But they killed "big" (good riddance) and "tt" (sadly.) With Chrome "kbd" is not the same as "samp" (sample, example, whatever meaning as long as it's no keyboard input ;-)
HTML5 is in parts fairly ridiculous, or asinine, as the author of the URL standard put it, when HTML5 decreed that i18n URIs (IRIs, stuff with raw UTF-8) are the same thing as ASCII URLs (percent-encoded UTF-8 working with old software.)
HTML5 is nice for browser developers, "treat US-ASCII like Latin-1, and Latin-1 like Windows-1252, because that's what it presumably is, anyway". Perfect. But no fun for authors who know the difference, because real US-ASCII could be also interpreted as valid UTF-8, or as valid Windows-1252, as needed, and lumping US-ASCII and Latin-1 together loses this flexibility. Sigh... it still upsets me. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Interesting (seriously)! But why don't we just let tidy fix it? And what are the exact definitions of <tt>, <kbd> and <small>?    FDMS  4    21:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/152822412[edit]

You're right, PD is not a license, but PD (a status) also wasn't the exact content of the licensing section. You could see PD-self as a short (and therefore probably less universal) version of CC 0. However, the UploadWizard also places PD-old tags in licensing sections, which can only very indirectly be considered licenses (by legislation?), so please establish consensus first before making such purely taste-related edits again. Also, do you agree or disagree with including the VP/P discussions in the community tabs div?    FDMS  4    17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think at some point a bot should get rid of pointless "license" sections for public domain files, because folks add non-translated nonsense like "PD" in the permission= row of {{information}} when they feel like it, or even have a permission=something and a "license" section saying something else, which will cause havoc for COM:MRD.
So when I stumble over such cases while doing something else—at the moment I check that all test SVGs in the librsvg gallery are valid and have an {{igen}} tag for this business—I just fix it per SoFixIt. If you think it's an interesting question maybe start a poll somewhere: {{cent}} with only one old entry really needs new topics before it dies. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Repeating myself: PD-self is a license. Also, the only filedesc pages I can remember seeing permission=[plain text] on were those of bot-wiki-transferred files – usually, inexperienced users just pick a license in the UW which is placed in the licensing section and ignore the permission field ("PD" isn't exactly "permission" either, just a status). It is your "right" to make cosmetic changes as part of edits that also definitely improve something (such as SVG documentation); I'm asking you not to make "standalone" cosmetic changes, as they should indeed be done by a bot, if there is consensus in favour of them.    FDMS  4    01:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Geodata for Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia[edit]

Hello Be..anyone, I just added the geodata, you can just ask me directly whenever you feel that it is necessary, regards, Poco2 10:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was kind of grumpy about the weird FPX. Some of the mysteries are now clearer, it's a historical place for folks on Iceland, that's why they have those odd wooden roads, bridges, and what else in what appears to be the midth of nowhere.Classic smiley.svgBe..anyone (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting conversion of LiquidThreads to Flow at mediawiki.org[edit]

Hi Be..anyone. I'm posting this here, as your usertalkpage at mediawiki.org is a redirect here. I'm sending this to you, because you've been one of the top 50 users of LQT on mediawiki.org over the last 360 days,[1] and I wanted to make sure that you'd seen the announcement at Starting conversion of LiquidThreads to Flow at mediawiki.org. There are links in the topic-summary at the top, for other discussions (wikitech-l and Project:Current_issues), and a link to the planned process and timeline (scheduled to begin April 6, with smaller conversions at first). Please do test Flow out at mw:Talk:Sandbox if you haven't tried it recently, and give any feedback/suggestions/requests at that main discussion location. Much thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)