User talk:Nilfanion/Archive/2007/Mar

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

flicrkrreview[edit]

Why your bot adds "review" tags to images with {{flickr-change-of-license}}? They've been already reviewed... A.J. 10:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem with that, I'll do reviewing. A.J. 10:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

flickrreview (again)[edit]

Hi Nilfanion. Your bot has tagged several of my images with {{flickrreview}} and I guess it's because it has detected the link to flickr used for geocoding through the {{flickr map}} template. These images don't need reviewing, as they dont come from flickr, they have been uploaded to Commons and flickr by me. guillom 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki DYK?[edit]

Could you do me a big favor? I started a couple of articles and submitted them for DYK? over on Wikipedia. The pics I found for them haven't yet been checked to make sure they comply with the rules of creative commons. I was told they have to be checked if they are going to be elgible to be put on the front page of Wikipedia with the DYK's, so could you check them real quick and give them the approval? They're flickr pics and licensed fine it should only take one minute:[1][2][3][4] Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 09:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind they've been checked. Quadzilla99 18:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bot error[edit]

Hi Nilfanion -

This edit made by your bot was in error, since permission for that image was given via OTRS. (Bastique removed the flickr review template a while ago.) Maybe it should ignore any image that has the OTRS permissions template or something like that. --Kzollman 07:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject OP[edit]

I noticed that you are trying to start a chapter of Meta:OP here. If you need any help let me know. Geo.plrd 18:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, STOP tagging daplaza's pictures[edit]

Hello, your bot continues tagging my pictures. Ok, I have some more of MY pictures on Flickr But, fisrtly, the pictures your bot tags don't come from Flickr and, secondly, I am the author of those. Thank you in advance. Daplaza 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FlickrLickr picture review[edit]

Why are you tagging pictures uploaded by FlickrLickr? My bot automatically verifies that they are using the correct license.--Eloquence 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the Template:Flickrreview a bit to avoid a situation where a sysop sees an image, sees the review template, clicks through to Flickr, sees a different license, and immediately deletes the pic from Commons.
Template:Flickr is fine for any image from Flickr, whether it went through FL or not, though it was "invented" for FL and I'd like to keep the explicit reference to it.--Eloquence 23:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Use the Category Tree before you revert my edit, please[edit]

Be specific as possible. All of those are redundancies. Commons:First steps/Sorting Good kitty 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, because the names of those categories are matched to the articles. You can create subcategories for the impact pics for each storm, but your point that the subcategories should not be included in the main storm category is not true, because it would make it difficult for people to find those images. Unless they already know where to look. Good kitty 14:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No I am not misunderstanding it but I believe you are. The categories match to articles because that is the easiest way to label them. Those categories were created to collect the various media with which to create articles for. Ask Hurricanehink how he meant to use it when he created it. I am aware of the fact that images not related to "impact" (which is an interpreted term in this case) can be found alongside others. You should probably create impact categories for each storm if you think that distinction is important. However they should not found in multiple branches of the category tree. Your reverts back placed all those images in the same category twice. Individual pictures should not be placed in it because there are far too many. You used as an example. That one is untenable and should not be duplicated. Good kitty 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PtePrat.JPG[edit]

Hello, single it wanted to know because you erased the image PtePrat.JPG of commons if and myself it takes the photo and I raised it?. if you want I give the model you of my cellular one (SONY ERICCSON K-310a). It excuses my English badly salutes to you --Hernaldo (dime) 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

IP block[edit]

Hi - you placed a block on an IP here (User:71.234.9.178) - I've come across the same one on Wikibooks and blocked them there. I just looked at [5] which gives a very clear view of their record - I am tempted to extend (or possibly indef) the block on WB and wondered if you had any views? Thanks and regards --Herby talk thyme 09:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected[edit]

Nilfanion, please see my talk page, David is giving more advice. I'm perhaps not the right person to take the lead on changing the referenced page... the one on enwp: w:MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected is gnarly! ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wikisource-trans 135px ohne text.png[edit]

Image deletion warning Image:Wikisource-trans 135px ohne text.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. 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 | 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 BryanBot. 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.177.68.38[edit]

Can you review this block? It looks to me like it's a dynamic roadrunner IP so it could be a different user from the one you had meant to originally ban. Thanks, Yonatanh 05:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Flickr reviewers[edit]

Hi, a few weeks ago, I set up this page Commons talk:Flickr images/reviewers where users could request Flickrreview status. As you are the one who originally proposed this, you might want to look there. -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned deletion request?[edit]

Hi, I was looking through my contribs to Commons and found this discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Azeris2.jpg. It is no longer listed at Commons:Deletion requests but no action seems to have been taken in respect of it. Should it be relisted? I'm not sure what the correct procedure on Commons is... WjBscribe 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind- discussion has now been closed and the image deleted. WjBscribe 03:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)