User talk:Lar/Archive 4

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I recognize that this user page belongs to this Wikimedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


This is an archive of threads started in User talk:Lar from about 1 August 2007 through about 1 January 2008. Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at left for the list and to navigate to others.
My archived talk        [+/−]
Archive 1 — start through about 1 Nov 2006
Archive 2 — about 1 Nov 2006 through about 1 Mar 2007
Archive 3 — about 1 Mar 2007 through about 1 Aug 2007
Archive 4 — about 1 Aug 2007 through about 1 Jan 2008
Archive 5 — about 1 Jan 2008 through about 1 Sep 2008
Archive 6 — about 1 Sep 2008 through about 1 Nov 2008
Archive 7 — about 1 Nov 2008 through about 1 Jan 2009
Archive 8 — about 1 Jan 2009 through about 1 Mar 2009
Archive 9 — about 1 Mar 2009 through about 1 Jun 2009
Archive 10 — about 1 Jun 2009 through about 1 Sep 2009
Archive 11 — about 1 Sep 2009 through about 1 Jan 2010
Archive 12 — about 1 Jan 2010 through about 1 May 2010
Archive 13 — about 1 May 2010 through about 1 September 2010


Infrogmation[edit]

Done. -- Infrogmation 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:this image[edit]

(Image:Minneapolis_I-35W_map1.JPG)

Ok I fixed the link. Sorry about that. Let me know on Wikinews if its ok now. DragonFire1024 14:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there, all sorted. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Template:PD-MNGov and all images tagged with it[edit]

Image deletion warning Template:PD-MNGov and all images tagged with it 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 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

---Nard 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for message[edit]

Thanks for leaving your message on my talk page back in May. Hopefully I'll be getting back to full capacity soon...--Nilfanion 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Minnesota_state_seal.png[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 01:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping me Quiet?[edit]

  • First of all, those pictures and their categories belong to all. (not just me)
  • Second, you could never buy me that cheap or that easy. (as you know)
  • I do appreciate your hard work, keep it up! (I know you will)

Epousesquecido 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do ... ++Lar: t/c 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion[edit]

Please, could you give me your opinion about this, and this unexpected threat?

If anybody have the right to revert what I am doing without reason or discussion, I think I have not my place in this project anymore. --Juiced lemon 10:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look. I've been watching from the side but not really closely so I don't quite know what twists and turns have taken place lately. ++Lar: t/c 10:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Many thanks for the fast rename service. Greetz, --S[1] 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm being more active...[edit]

Yay, I just blocked my first person on Commons today. However, I quickly became aware of how few templates I have at my disposal (due to my inexperience with being a Commons admin vs. being an en.wp admin, where I've got a bit more). Is there a Commons equivalent to w:WP:WARN? EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um.... sort of. Laying down heavy smack with templates and no personalised text below them to show you actually have something to say will get you unloved by many admins in a hurry. Nevertheless there are multilanguage messages that are useful. See Commons:Message templates. See also the bottom of my monobook.js, or MediaWiki:UserMessages.js for how to add the most popular ones to your toolbox sidebar so you can lay down heavy smack with one click... If you are going to do actual work though (like noming for deletion, or recategorizing), you'll want to add MediaWiki:quick-delete.js (requires popups, but why on earth would you not be using popups???) and MediaWiki:HotCat.js too. ... in fact see Category:User scripts for more goodies. HTH... There are people far more sophisticated when it comes to tools than me. Ask on IRC... ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, that link (message templates) is pretty much what I was looking for. I realize that Commons requires a somewhat varied approach (not the least of which is the multi-language angle), but in that particular instance, a simple and to the point warning was quite sufficient (very obvious vandalism-only account).
I'm hoping I can swing back towards doing actual work around Commons soon enough; I've been busy with Shakespeare in the Park for the past three weeks (and still have one more weekend to go), and as a result, my wiki time has been confined pretty much to just en.wp. Thanks for the additional links, too; this should be more than sufficient for now. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're any good at languages, you can help translate some of those templates also. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail disabling[edit]

I have an idea what happened, I recently (well, two months ago or so) changed e-mail adress both at no:wiki and here, and the same thing happened there. Seems like I should have ticked the enable button again after confirming the new adress. I just now changed the old adress at en:wiki as well however, and there the box remained ticked. The interface before confirmation was different from what I remembered from no: and commons: though, so maybe there was a bug that has since been fixed? Hope there's any help in this, Finn Rindahl 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images transwikied by BetacommandBot then recategorized[edit]

This category makes me want to stab myself with small needles. Couldn't the properly categorised images simply have the bad category removed? How would this category ever be useful? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images transwikied by this bot are always suspect, in my view. That they've had one pass is goodness but they may still need further review. Moving them to this category is a way to not re-review the same images over and over. If you have other ideas I'm open. It won't be hard to AWB the category right out of the images I just moved in there. Let's discuss further in the right place, wherever that is. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will reply on the bot flag request page. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming[edit]

Dear Larry, please rename me. Now at my russian page there is a confirm. --Ostikhin 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Your efforts whilst performing my usurp request were far beyond what I would expect from most wikis. I am very grateful for your help. Alaisd 01:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure... ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:List of administrators[edit]

Hi Larry. You are aware of the existance of this template? If you promote someone to admin, could you add them to this list? Also, if you added them to Commons:List of administrators by language and Commons:List of administrators by date would be great. Regards, Fred J 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am aware... but I forgot. Let me go review all my promotions to make sure I have properly added them to these three places. Thank you for the reminder. ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC) (perhaps we should modify the mediawiki text on the makesysop page to remind people to do this. Do you offhand know what page it is? it apparently is not this one: MediaWiki:Makesysop ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively maybe we should modify the "congratulations dear administrator" template to ask the newly minted admin to add themselves??? What do you think? ++Lar: t/c 01:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. The text is MediaWiki:Makesysoptext which I have modified, and I changed the english version of Template:AdminWelcome/en although the other languages need changing. I also added TeVe and Kylu, although Kylu needs to update her languages, she's missing a babel box set. Which I told her. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose new admins could be asked to add themselves; I think they wouldn't mind?
Fred J 10:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I modified the Makesysoptext page to remind the 'crat to do it, and modified the welcome template to remind the new admin to do it, so that should hopefully cover it.  :) Belt and suspenders, as they say. Again, sorry I forgot and thanks for the reminder. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What better....[edit]

...than to start my career as commons administrator by asking a stupid question. Which template am I supposed to add myself to, as far as I can see you've added my username, language and all, to the relevant lists?? Finn Rindahl 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just check that I did it right, and that will be that. Good luck. ++Lar: t/c 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists looks good to me. I can't get access to the "bad old one"-tool (whatever that is) however, is it something somewhere that needs updating or something I should add somewhere?Finn Rindahl 23:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what it is either. But see Commons:Tools#Bad_Old_Ones (which page I found by doing a Google search )... It has something to do with deletion, which I don't do much of. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to butt in :) Bad Old Ones is on the toolserver (like many of our tools) so if you find it's not working, check other toolserver tools: if they all don't work, it's probably the toolserver. If only one doesn't work, contact the creator (in this case, User:Magnus Manske, he is quite responsive), or write to the commons-l mailing list.
Bad Old Ones is good for deleting files that have been in particular (deletion) categories for a very long time, like months. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DM-ST-85-10488.JPEG and others[edit]

Hi, with regards to the above image and other Dept. of Defense images, you cited [1] as reason why the image is not really free enough. However, to quote from that page, "The alteration of official defense imagery by persons acting for or on behalf of the DoD is prohibited except as outlined below..." (emphasis mine). I interpret this to mean that it's public domain, but DoD personnel are expected to abide by the rules on the page. Regards, howcheng {chat} 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reading. It also says that an assistant secretary of defense has to approve of the use of any images commercially. Therefore non-commercial, and not free, unfortunately. Should we take this to the licensing questions page? ++Lar: t/c 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. This has the potential to be a big problem. howcheng {chat} 06:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those following along, this was sorted. We decided that these restrictions are not valid and there is no issue. A clarifying template was suggested as a way to address any possible confusion. ++Lar: t/c 14:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defending each other[edit]

Hi Lar, you wrote on JL's talk page that your criticism here is not really very helpful. I'm sorry that you feel that way. Still, I think that even simple members like me are allowed to express their concerns and questions also in disciplinary cases. This is, I think, an acceptable practice of defending each other. Neither of us owns this project. That means also that we have to live with divergent opinions. Regards, AFBorchert 05:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a strong supporter of defendEachOther. I very much think that blocks should be brought into question when they seem questionable. And yet I don't think that arguing against a block on the user's talk page is the right place to do it. The right place is elsewhere, either on the page of the blocking admin, or on the appropriate page in the Commons: namespace. (Defend each other applies to all parties, not just the blocked person.) I also think you haven't done your homework in this matter yet, so while I respect your desire to have a different opinion, I am going to discount it until I think you HAVE done your homework. ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, Lar - in all fairness: SB Johnny wrote this "AFBorchert: if you don't mind, I'd rather discuss this on Juiced lemon's talk page, where he has the opportunity to reply. Please chip in there if you have anything to add." at COM:AN/B... Regards, Finn Rindahl 13:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think compartmentalization is needed and I don't agree with SB Johnny that everything should be discussed there. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mumbleimage.svg[edit]

May I replace the image with this one?
Yuval Y § Chat § 00:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... yours is much better than mine as far as a sample image goes! ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I kept your details for the record ;-) Yuval Y § Chat § 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PH-N User boxes[edit]

refactored to User_talk:Slaunger#The great ph-x debate :-) per my policy ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy delete[edit]

Hello again Lar, I need your assistance with deleting two of my past images which I tagged for speedy deletion. Thanks. FWN 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can look and see if they are eligible, can you give me the links to them? Which ID did them? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Quebec City.JPG‎ and Image:Chateau Frontenac.JPG. P.S. Sorry for the late reply. FWN 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that "I don't want the project to have these any more" is not a good reason for a speedy. I suggest you nom them for regular deletion. We usually arrive at a consensus to delete images not otherwise critically needed that are from contributors in good standing but it makes sense to discuss the request and arrive at consensus. I also have some concerns about the attribution requirements you're placing, they're a bit out of standard practice. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to have them on Commons anymore and I don't wish to share them anymore. It's just a simple delete. I don't want to be forced to keep my images on Commons. FWN 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise but it doesn't work that way. Take them to regular deletion please, and ask. Or, is there any way you could be persuaded to change your mind? Why do you no longer want these images to be used? They seem well made and useful. The attribution can be fixed to make sure you get the credit you want, I am sure. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Commons:Village_pump#My block[edit]

Hey,

Are you sure that the person behind User:Ionas68224 is the same one as the one vandalising as an IP? Isn't is likely they're different people? I had a look in the user's contribs and frankly didn't see anything that justified a week block. Furthermore I think he's quite young (check the upload log for a userpic) so going in heavy on a statement he probably made off-hand seems a bit much. Unless you have some evidence otherwise. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sure, I have evidence on it, and further, I'm sure it's a serious cross wiki problem, not just one here. That page about intent to vandalise is more of an essay/manifesto than an offhand statement, I think, did you look at it? It also relates information about past incidents, some quite serious. If anything, we are being extremely lenient. ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, no, I didn't know about that. (How would I, given that it was deleted so didn't show in his contribs, and Yann didn't reference it?) Naturally that changes my opinion. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ya, maybe everything wasn't referenced as tightly as it could be. But as for seeing deleted things, I find the "deleted edits for example link very helpful sometimes. It's one more thing to remember to check, to be sure. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-MNGov[edit]

Hello Lar-- good to run into you here as well.

I have recreated this template as the the referenced opinion of the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration (who has regulatory authority) clearly states that works which are public by operation of the Minnesota Data Practices Act cannot be copyrighted, absent specific leglislative authority. The state therefore makes data created by its agencies and subdivisions public, and not subject to copyright.

Feel free to discuss on the template's talk page if you wish.

Regards, Kablammo 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'm glad to see it come back... the deletion discussion had me absolutely convinced it was not a legit interpretation. So yaay! Thanks for the spadework. ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note, and the Welcome template (some day I'll have to get around to reading all the stuff on it . . . ) Kablammo 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lar: There is an attorney general's opinion which limits the effect of the opinion of the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration, discussed here. The interplay between the two opinions is not yet clear, as the legislature has not acted and there appear to be no court opinions on point. Given that, the safer course of action would be to deprecate use the template in the absence of an uncontested opinion allowing use of the image or intellectual property in question. As the template's only use is for the Craig mugshot, and as that mugshot is not in use anywhere on Wikipedia that I can tell, the template's removal would not cause any harm. Kablammo 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to the template at this point. But I don't think I want to delete it without consensus. Perhaps just propose it for deletion, I'd support your proposal. ++Lar: t/c 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Administrators[edit]

Looks like there's a couple of candidates need promoting there. Regards, Majorly (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. You can never have too many 'crats, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 13:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Larry ;) Point taken about bureaucrats - check meta rfa. Majorly (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's RFA[edit]

Just on the note of my RfA - I'm going to be away from Wednesday (today being Sunday, my time) until the next Saturday...not sure if you want to take this into consideration when closing... Giggy\Talk 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope this is driven to closure by then... by monday I would think. Thanks for your patience and understanding. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that would be good. As for the patience - no probs, I'd rather this than to pass and be an "illegitimate" admin :) Giggy\Talk 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lar! :) Giggy\Talk 08:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

Could you please check whether there is an OTRS permission for Image:MooreKucinich.jpg? Should be on permissions-en. Thanks! Lupo 12:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OTRS ticket 2007071110016517 but it's not a valid permission, the releaser did not specify a license. There was follow up pointing that out (by User:Krimpet) but no reply. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did the releaser indicate that he waived the NC restriction he put on the image at Flickr? If so, I guess we could go with CC-BY; otherwise, I'll delete it. Lupo 14:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my view... the entire text of the mail is "i have released this image: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Moorekucinich.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/demcomm/581721912/in/set-72157600419852789/ " and the followups asking for a specific license were unsuccessful. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. It's gone. (A pity, though.) Lupo 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS again[edit]

Could you please check what's up with Image:Copertinaaldighieri.jpg? Claims OTRS ticket ID 2007111610012692... Lupo 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of this ticket is in Italian. There are 4 emails total, exchanging information. Trixt was the OTRS user that handled it. I went to #wikipedia-it and asked for help, and User:P_tasso kindly assisted me. There was a permission given but it is not a derivative allowing one, it's "EDP" (see it:template:EDP. It most probably is not eligible for commons, only for it:wp, and could be speedy deleted here (moving it back to it:wp would be nice though?). Piero is going to write the uploader about it. ++Lar: t/c 11:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't have an account at it-WP, so I can't transfer it there myself. Maybe User:P_tasso could do it? I'll let this one rest for a few days before removing it here. If it by then still hasn't been re-uploaded at it-WP, it's probably not needed there, either. Lupo 12:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did write the user, so who knows. You could ask him. :) Ok, fair warning... if the next request from you is regarding a permission written in ughyur, that's it, I quit! :) ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User rename[edit]

Trying to avoid that you quit... This is not a permission request, and you probably can handle this one in English. :-) Since Fred declined, could you maybe help User:Terker to get his account renamed to User:Termer? See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:WiiraltAkt1931.jpg... Cheers, Lupo 08:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grin! We have a page for user rename requests. (Commons:Changing_username) Has the user asked there? Not that I can see The user will want to crosslink if it is a request to get || to other wikis. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian flag[edit]

Hi Lar, thank you for your attention in this strange case. Your idea about writing on the opponent's side is really interesting, and for sure I'll remember it for the future, i.e. in case of conflicts in it.wiki, where I mostly work. Therefore I'm sincerely sorry I am not able to write down what the opponent says, because now the point is about what the law says. I believe that all of us agree on the method of following what law says. I don't want to repeat here my pov (this might be unrespectful, given your proposal :-) but frankly speaking I'm not able to write down the opposite idea leaving aside my bias. I just wanted to tell you that my response cannot follow your indications, but I completely appreciate the sense and the value of your proposal and foremost I am not ignoring it at all. Simply, I am not able to do what suggested. This means that perhaps my bias is too strong for an open discussion, consequently I won't follow in the contrast any further, or practically I'd become a campaigning crusader me too, and this wouldn't be helpful for a neutral solution. So please don't read my answer there as unrespectful towards your proposal. Deep sincere thanks :-) --g 11:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It was a try. ++Lar: t/c 12:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my talk page and canidacy closing. If you noticed, I started several days ago to interact more with the community in the commons space. I will continue to do so. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I did notice, good! I can do the list updates if you want, but I need to know your languages, all of the lists carry the language codes... LMK and congrats again. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 16:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lar, I do know some German, Russian, Japanese and Thai, but can't effectively translate in them--except in German a bit. I'd presume the other languages should be left off, except maybe German. I'll do this lists in a moment and you check I did them correct, okay? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those sound like "1"s to me. German may actually be a 2 if you can translate. I am 1 (self judged) in german and I can't really translate effectively. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go 1 in German only for now, maybe 2. Can you fix my user page? There is a lot of white space with the new boxes. Feel free to be creative. I'll go do the lists now. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cheated, by forcing my gallery to be several short ones (and thus narrower), that let me have a table with the second column of it having all the boxes, contact info, etc.... do you want that sort of effect? I'll give it a brief go but theuser boxes don't always stay where I put them :) ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll mull it over, may try something I use on en.wiki. Thanks for being willing. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying something but I'm getting edit conflicts. well I'll just blow yours away :) you can revert back if it's no good. :)... your list updates look fine to me. Lunch beckons. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the announcements box and three columns, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The announcements box is very handy to stay in touch with what's up. I think Fred J went around and put it on all (then-current) admin's pages when he first developed it. OK, that's it for me, I'm back to fretting about my stewardship candidacy. :) ++Lar: t/c 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC question[edit]

1) Can anyone vote for a steward? 2) Can you answer Commons_talk:Copyright_tags#CC_versions? (answer there). — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Suffrage requirement is that you have had an account for 3 months on some WMF project and that you crosslink that account to your meta account. So no, not anyone, but you can if that is what you were asking. There are lots of candidates that would appreciate your input I am sure :) ... 2) OK. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK so where is the voting page? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
m:Stewards/elections 2007 and the individual subpages. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voted for four people. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ren"[edit]

The page works quite nicely. I did one on Meta after Birdy & I had done that and it looked ok. I thought I'd share it around a bit - cheers (& thanks for the tip!) --Herby talk thyme 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:The bot block[edit]

Oh, there's no need to apologize. No harm was done :-) --Boricuæddie 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Please see Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/Ecemaml. I have presented proof of canvassing and there have been attacks. I find it highly unlikely that such a big number of regular es.wp contributors coincidentally decided to drop by COM:ADMIN and found a known es.wp admin running for adminship and decided to support. Something must be done. --Boricuæddie 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied there. Let's do our best to keep things mellow. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hi Lar, thank you for your assessment in my RfA (and especially for taking the time to read all the stuff; next time I formally promise I won't write so much :-)). And a question. Do you think it would be useful to have, in a similar fashion to already existing lists, one named Commons:List of administrators by adminship status in other Wikimedia projects. Best regards and thank you again... --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and best wishes. (and could we maybe not have a next time? :) As for that list... Yes I do think it a good idea. It seems tough to create though, we'd want to put the onus on admins to maintain it. We can't well ask the closing 'crat to do it! I keep that sort of thing in my Wiki Matrix... ++Lar: t/c 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it shouldn't be the responsibility of the 'crat closing nominations... I can take care of it and ask the administrators to update the information by themselves. I'll keep you informed. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great plan. My wikiMatrix is up to date for me. ++Lar: t/c 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steward[edit]

Let me know the steward results. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a review process for all the votes (they can use (non candidate) help with that) and then it has to go to the board so it may not be known for a while. But ya. most def. It probably will be announced in Signpost I would expect. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SVG vs PNG[edit]

Image:Ruby_logo.svg is tagged as a dupe, but its dupe is png, aren't we not supposed to delete in such a case even if it's a lower resolution? I've mainly been working in the duplicates category. What if they're both the same fmt but one is a lower res? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My views: (may not be official policy but I think it is)

  • Diff fmts == keep both.
  • Same fmt but some non size differences (one is retouched or color/brightness adjusted etc) == keep both.
  • Same fmt and the ONLY difference is resolution, no other difference at all == keep larger.

In my view the way things are tagged now for Ruby.xxx, where the SVG is said to be a better image and use it when it makes sense, but not tagged for deletion, is the right outcome. Well done (if it was you) :) ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(My two cents worth) I agree with Lar. A couple of extra points: first SVG is of course scalable, so 'resolution' isn't relevant (should be scalable to whatever size you want). 2nd there is great controversy about deleting bitmap images that have been 'superseded' by SVGs, see Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Superseded. Third only automatically delete *exact* copies or copies where the only different is that one is scaled down from the other, other cases should go through some notified discussion process as there are often reasons for keeping subtle differences. --Tony Wills 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned talk pages[edit]

On en.wiki a talk page should be deleted if it's main page is deleted. Is that true here? See Image_talk:Boyfriends_work.jpg. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get involved in deletions much so I'm not the best person to ask (ask on VP perhaps?). I'm not sure Commons has a strong well formed policy on this but I tend to think that deletion of the talk is the usual practice. In this case there may be some merit in leaving the discussion in place since there wasn't an IfD discussion (near as I can tell?) and otherwise there's not a record of why the consensus ended up to delete. Again, I'm probably not the right person to ask. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone whacked it, you and that answer the question. Delets can always be called up by an admin. Thanks again. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That text didn't quite parse for me, is there perhaps a word missing?... It does seem a loose end to now have no record of why something was deleted unless you know where to look but that's not the end of the world. I see someone asked V.O. which seems a good approach. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a photo's gone, I don't see much reason to keep the talk page, an admin call always call it up. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nod. This wasn't an earthshatteringly important pic either (not that I actually went and looked at it, oh no... ) ++Lar: t/c 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, from a non-admin point of view, I think all such talk pages should be retained as I'm often poking about following older deletion discussions etc and want to see this sort of discussion. But at the very least a check-usage should be done, and if the discussion is linked to from elsewhere I think it should be retained. --Tony Wills 11:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked from my talk and from Quadells talk, and that's it. I could get behind some sort of archiving scheme I suppose... probably raising this on the Village Pump is the right approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS and checkuser request[edit]

Hello Lar, I ask you for help because you're OTRS member and checkuser.

A few days ago User:GwenStefaniFan has uploaded many copyvios, see [2]. He/she was first warned, and than blocked yesterday for one week. Now, today another user, User:BritneyTV (registered today), has uploaded similar images and again they looks like copyvios. He/she tagged his/her files with https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=910301.

Because the uploaded files are very similar and the user pages too, I presume it's the same person for both accounts. I ask you to ckeck the OTRS permission. Also, please ckeck both user accounts are of the same IP or not. Thank you. --GeorgHH • talk   23:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a valid ticket at that OTRS link, and it relates to this matter. see also (referenced from the ticket) http://flickr.com/photos/36292117@N00/sets/72157600262861809 which however are (spot checked, not all checked) apparently all rights reserved, not CC-By-SA-2.5 ... I have contacted the OTRS agent who handled the permission to comment here. I BritneyTV seems to be likely the same user based on running a CU. Hope that helps. If you need more of a CU check than that, please file a formal request at COM:RFCU ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Steward[edit]

May I present our freshly baken Steward a freshly baken apple pie? Congratulations! Hope you still have time to visit Commons regularly :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As for visiting... I'll do my best (I take it that's why the bat is in the picture??? :) ) ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because apple pie is very American, as is baseball. It's meant to be a picture of Americana. Congratulations, by the way. ^^ Arria Belli | parlami 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it's not the pie that has me worried, it's the baseball bat. Bryan swings a mean bat, I hear. :) Happy Holidays. ++Lar: t/c 20:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rename[edit]

We had talked about renaming my account to Maxim, and I had a confirmation email about it. You told me to remind you if you'd forgotten, you seem to have done so. :-p Can you please do the rename? :-) Maxim(talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes I had forgotten, thanks for the reminder. Just on commons right? ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only on Commons. Thanks! :-) Maxim(talk) 16:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me why we're not just doing this on the regular page for username requests? I think you told me and I forgot. I may just document it there if there is no objection. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the user in question had edits, but he has email confirmed, and I sent him an email and he is O.K. with it. Maxim(talk) 18:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and you forwarded that email to me. Let's document it on Usurp requests just the same but yes I see no reason not to and sorry for dragging my feet. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get the password... :-( Maxim(talk) 20:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And where are my manners? :-p Thanks a lot for the rename. :-) Maxim(talk) 20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the password? I re-sent it but the account has the email you used to mail me with set as the email so if worst comes to worst you should be able to generate a new pw and have it sent to you. Advise if not. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA votes[edit]

See Commons:Administrators/Requests_and_votes#Nick, someone thinks he can't vote due to edit count. I think he's mistaken and a support button should be added to his stmt. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a suffrage policy (which I can't find) but I'm not sure it's active yet. I probably would not be doing any adding of support buttons myself, remember this is not a vote. I am sure the closing crat will take his views into account. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lar/Archive_4&oldid=71026667"