User talk:Odder

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Bot re-flagging[edit]

Hi Odder, was traveling these past few months and I just saw your message on my talk page about my bot. Coincidentally these past few weeks I have been working on reworking the code and parameters for my English Wikipedia version of the bot (it has a similar task there). I understand I missed the window for comment on the inactivity deflagging but was wondering if it would be possible to have the bot flag reinstated here (even on a temporary basis) on Commons so I can try and recommence its operations. I appreciate any help you can provide. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mifter: Please request the return of the flag at Commons:Bots/Requests. The process there takes much less time than it did a couple of years ago, so with good communication it should only be a matter of days to get the bot flagged again. Thanks, and I hope to see more of you around here! odder (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, its great to hear that everything has been streamlined. Best, Mifter (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

move[edit]

Hello Odder,

Can you please move these?

Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: All done. odder (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks odder. Please also delete those redirects. First one is written wrong and has no need, Kartuli and Mtiuluri can also be other things like houses and clothing etc. Jaqeli (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Those categories have existed for too many years for me to simply delete them. There might be many places linking to those categories, and the space is cheap, so I wouldn't want to delete the redirects if I can avoid it. odder (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Not even Category:Sukhishvili Ensmeble? It's written wrong :) Jaqeli (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Odder, please move this one also:

Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Odder, can you please delete this category?

Khinkali is a Georgian dish and no such thing as "Azerbaijani Khinkal" exists. Jaqeli (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: There are still files left in that category, so no, I cannot delete it at this time. Please move the files to a different category, if any, and then I'll delete (or redirect) it. odder (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the files to the Cuisine of Azerbaijan. Please now delete it instead of redirecting. Redirecting would mean that such dish like "Azerbaijani Khinkal" exists which is nonsense. Jaqeli (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: The category is now deleted. odder (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks odder. Jaqeli (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Odder, please also move these 2:

Thanks again. Jaqeli (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Both done, and redirects are left in place. odder (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you odder :) Jaqeli (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi odder, can you please review this image? I think the flickrbot got asleep :) Jaqeli (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Jaqeli (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests/SamoaBot 4[edit]

Hi! You closed that request <duration-months> ago, but now the Assessments module is almost ready (see Template talk:Assessments#Scribunto) and I've written a Python script for that task (see this test edit) which will be published soon. --Ricordisamoa 18:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Ricordisamoa; I just re-opened that request. Please do feel free to comment there; further test edits would be especially important & informative for us. Thanks! odder (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and a question[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you've granted me "autopatrol" rights; thanks for the trust that it implies. When reviewing and classifying aircraft images I've noticed that some file names are plainly wrong, while others are not self-descriptive. What can I do to change or improve these file names? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@DPdH: You are much welcome; thank you for your contributions to Commons! As for changing file names, you can use the {{rename}} template for now or enable the RenameLink gadget in your user preferences. When you gain some experience in renaming files, please apply for the filemover right at Commons:Requests for rights (or you can do it right now if you feel so). Thanks! odder (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Odder, may I also ask you for filemover right? Jaqeli (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Please request it at Commons:Requests for rights. Thank you! odder (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought I could directly ask you. As just there are so many Georgian-related images with messy filenames :( Jaqeli 14:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: You could, but I generally prefer that all requests for rights be made publicly (that is, to say, not on a user's talk page) and properly archived. I am sure that one of the administrators who follow that page will be more than happy to grant you the necessary permissions. Thanks again! odder (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please delete these 2 redirects? this and this. I want them deleted to make a way for a file move. Jaqeli 17:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks odder. Do you know by chance where can I see those file rename requests the users have to help them out if I can? Jaqeli 17:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Sure! All files that require renaming can be found in Category:Media requiring renaming. Thank you for volunteering to help with the backlog, and good luck! :-) odder (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
So I would need to get back to that category all the time to check if there's new requests? Isn't there a tool I can watchlist new requests coming without getting into the category itself all the time? Maybe watchlisting is possible? Jaqeli 19:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: There is no possibility to watch the request that I know of. The best and easiest way is to follow Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Media requiring renaming or, more directly, follow the Atom feed in a web reader of your choice (see sidebar for that). odder (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll go in the category directly I think :) Jaqeli 19:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
odder, please also delete this redirect to make a way for filemove. Jaqeli 21:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jaqeli: Done. odder (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again :) Jaqeli 22:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Salty chips and
... a sweet cake to nibble while reading.

Hello Odder! I should have thanked you already a long time ago, but better late than never. This article is for you as a souvenir. I hope you will read it with interest. I would also like to wish you long, sunny and joyful summer holidays. Seleucidis (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Wow! I'm so flattered, thank you so much, @Seleucidis! It's a great, very interesting, and very detailed article; well done! Thank you for the kind wishes: I hope the summer won't be too hot, though — I prefer mild climate, preferably somewhere between –15°C and 25°C (so Köppen Cfb, Cfc or even Dfc) :-) odder (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for the increase of my status! Mykola Vasylechko 15:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Микола Василечко: You are welcome! Будь ласка! Thank you for your contributions to Commons, and happy editing :-) odder (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Still argue that ...[edit]

I would still argue that we are developing a "Disclosure policy" that would address what we wish people to disclose, and at this stage that contrary to ToU, there is no requirement for disclosure whether they are paid or otherwise. It means that if we have anything around CoI, etc. that they can be added. I think that having a "Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy" just a tad weird.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I quite disagree. The Terms of Use amendment is very specific as to what kind of disclosure is required, ie. only for paid contributions, so if anything, I think the policy should be named Paid contributions disclosure policy (and say that no disclosure is required, if the proposal passes) — but still, that's just details.

The most important thing right now is to have the community agree that we want to continue with the status quo and have the new policy linked from Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies on Meta as required by the Terms of Use amendment.

I understand that the title of the RfC might be a bit misleading (though, truth be told, it is an alternative policy to what the ToU currently require), but I don't think it needs changing. odder (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't an alternative policy, it is our policy, in response to the ToU. It isn't a paid contributions disclosure policy, as we are saying that you don't have to disclose. So if you want to talk about paid contributions, for us it then would have to be a "paid contributions non-disclosure policy". From meta, it has to be that generic, as the communities can cover the spectrum of restrictions to none. (D|Non-d)isclosure policy is neutral to the what.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@billinghurst: I apologize, but I don't understand what the paragraph above even means. Please rephrase your thought or try using a simpler language when writing to us non-native speakers of English. Thank you! odder (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Balls, First Class[edit]

Yoshitoshi tanuki.jpg The Barnstar of Balls, First Class
I, hereby, award you, Odder, The Barnstar of Balls, First Class for this closure of a contentious cross-community issue. It is surely going to upset some, but in the long-term interests of our projects it was the right closure to make, and here's hoping that the issue will be put behind us, and relevant interested parties can work towards a solution that is inline with, and in the interests of, our long-stated mission. russavia (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, @russavia; this made chuckle real hard :-) odder (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi, Just noticed that you've granted me "autopatrol" rights; thanks for the trust :) //Joshua (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua: You are welcome. Thank you for your contributions to Commons so far, and happy editing in the future! odder (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. For my part, I noticed the same message today. Thanks for it. Akela3 (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Akela3: Not at all. It is I who should thank you for the hard work you've been putting into making Commons the awesome place it is—so thanks, and good luck with your work in the future :-) odder (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

My position on close of Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA is well known, and so that I, or anyone else for that matter, do not miss-interpret your close of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle at a later stage, can you clarify what your view on this change remaining on COM:L and or this on Commons:URAA-restored copyrights, given your close of Commons:Review of Precautionary principle, specifically should both be reverted to their pre-Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA wording ? LGA talkedits 06:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@LGA: The outcome of the precautionary principle RfC, in which the community rejected the proposal to relax that policy to allow hosting URAA-affected files, stands in direct contradiction to the outcome of the URAA discussion. Given the supposed supremacy of Commons policies, I believe that both those edits should be reverted. odder (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification; would you mind making what ever edits you feel are appropriate to both of those pages to reflect your close. LGA talkedits 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
@LGA: I'd rather not do that as I do not want to be dragged into a wheel war. I will ask Michael — who started the precautionary principle RfC — to do it in my stead. odder (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
See this too. :) Jee 12:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Hi Odder, can you delete this self-made flag? The user has upload this nonsense file without giving any link for reference. This flag has been used by a media. I'm afraid "it could send a wrong message to them". Thanks! :) — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ranking Update: I'm not familiar with the subject to make any judgement calls on it, so please nominate the file for deletion the regular way, that is through Commons:Deletion requests. Thanks :-) odder (talk) 11:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

-- Colin (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I have. odder (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. -- Colin (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete...[edit]

Hi odder,

Please delete these my pages:

Thank you. Jaqeli 18:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jaqeli — all deleted :-) odder (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :) Please also delete those above :) Jaqeli 19:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Done, too :-) odder (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Please if you can also remove my Caucasus category from User:OgreBot/gallery. I will no more use it. Jaqeli 19:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jaqeli: Sure — just removed it. Thank you for your work on patrolling those images! odder (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks odder. Jaqeli 19:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OTRS flag[edit]

Hey mate, please remove my OTRS flag. russavia (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@russavia: Done. Thank you for your invaluable service on OTRS. odder (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please come back...[edit]

We miss you on IRC. Pls drink some Mint tea and move on. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirects and category redirects[edit]

There is a reason for the double redirect. The #REDIRECT will, of course, send anyone typing a category name into the search box to the new category, however it will not correct the category when adding cats using HotCat. On the other hand, the "category redirect" will yield the correct category with HotCat, but will not redirect the user to the correct category. Therefore, until the functionality of these two are in some way combined, both are necessary in order to get both a redirect and a correct category when using HotCat.

Please give this a try yourself. Create a new cat, then move it to a new name, generating a #REDIRECT. Now, add the old category name to some image and see if HotCat corrects to the new name. My experience is that it does not. If that's been fixed, then I'd like to know about it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

Hi odder, thanks for following. I want to gain access rights to the GLAMwiki Toolset. Currently I'm performing a wikipedist in residence in Museo Soumaya of Mexico City. In the next weeks we will upload a bunch of images, and I want to use this tool. Regards, --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@ProtoplasmaKid: Thank you for the clarification. I have now added you to the gwtoolset user group. Good luck with your project, and happy editing! odder (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Tomasz, see you soon. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Max Slevogt - Der Faun und das Mädchen.jpg[edit]

Hi, could you please restore previous file - File:Slevogt Faun and a girl.jpg? As far as I remember it was much better, although lower resolution and in use in several pages here and in en.wiki. Besides the file name is more adequate (source in Polish, harmonized with file names in the National Museum in Warsaw category), therefore I don't understand the rationale. Vert (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vert: The other version of the file was just 769 × 484 pixels, while the current one is 1,555 × 977 — that's much better quality. I left a redirect in place, so no links have been broken, and as far as I can see, all information from the old file description page has been preserved in the new description. odder (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is a good practice to discusse such changes, as de facto you have deleted other file. Would it be possible at least to restore previous file name? Vert (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
@Vert: I don't understand what you mean. Why would I restore anything? As I said, File:Slevogt Faun and a girl.jpg is now a redirect, there's no need to do anything about it. odder (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

File:President Yar’Adua’s official visit to the UK (2759714832).jpg[edit]

I'm confused by the above upload: the license given at the source (flickr) is cc-nd. How can we host this no-derivatives image? DrKiernan (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: Did you even read the terms of the license here? odder (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course I did. That's the problem: the license on the file page says we "are free to adapt" but the license at the source says we are not. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This was covered at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Foreign and Commonwealth Office Flickr stream. However, in this case the copyright holder is the Press Association and I have deleted that particular image. russavia (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I Odder. At IRC, Russavia say me you maybe can run your bot to categorise all of my uploaded into "Category:Files uploaded by User:Bernard" :). Thanks a lot. Regards, Bernard (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bernard: Indeed! The bot is filling the category right now.

However, there are 11 files first uploaded by different users which you have subsequently overwritten, and I'm not sure what to do with them. The files are as follows: File:Andenes.jpg, File:Camera.jpg, File:Coat of arms of Mexico (1821-1823).svg, File:Estação de Fuentes de Oñoro (3477673885).jpg, File:Estacion Daimiel - Spacelives.jpg, File:Estación de ferrocarril de Avilés.jpeg, File:Estación RenfeAletas.jpg, File:Gabriel Calderón.jpg, File:Lorena.jpg, File:Martelo Galego (3776065312).jpg, File:Yunquera de Henares Railway Station .JPG.

I think it'd be best if you make the decision whether to include them in your category or not. Thanks! odder (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Communities will never agree for this."[edit]

Hi Odder.
Your comment on the new super-protection feature did not go unnoticed. Thank you for your voice of reason! ---<(kmk)>- (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@-<(kmk)>-: Thank you for your kind words. I am just sorry it was already too late when I saw this patch, and that my comment had no real influence over the situation. I hope the community will be able to force the Foundation to revert this horrible change, and that you — as the German Wikipedia community — will find the courage to stand up for your rights and your values, just as I did a year ago. odder (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tony_in_Devon - Commons name change[edit]

Hi Odder, hope this is place to reply to you.

Answer no - as explained in my request, there's an (inactive) 'Tony French' with an account for en.Wiki (where I am 'Tony in Devon'). And I am also Tony in Devon on Commons. I'd like to become my real name - Tony French - on both. It's a case of what do I do first. I thought try as Commons first.... but you may be implying I should ask for a usurp on en-Wiki first?

Your advice/help would be appreciated. - Tony

Hi @Tony! Yes, this is a perfect place to contact me. I'm sorry to say that under our local username guidelines, I am not able to rename your account to Tony French, as it is a global account which does not belong to you. As far as I understand the guidelines on the English Wikipedia, they do not allow such username changes, either. You might want to try your luck there, but I am afraid your chances are quite slim — it would be better if you just chose a different user name. Thanks, odder (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ta for reply... if this is 'abrupt' then apologies, I just lost more thoughtful comment before posting! If I still feel I want my own name... then I'd better try 'usurp' request on en.Wiki - which I think would work (ypou thought not, but the 'other' Tony French doesn't contribute. Please understand background... when joining and contributing many years ago, a 'username' seemed the norm... now I just want to be myself... nothing to hide! I post poetry on the Internet, sponsor an international competition... refer people to Wiki constantly... enjoy and support the ideals... as I know you do. The mechanics of democracy are so tricky sometimes! Now... if my name was XXZZQQ TWATABOOBOO then I'd probably have no problems. - Regards, Tony French

Deadminship[edit]

Hi; I gave up my admin rights a few months back, so... you know. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 20:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wojciech Pędzich: Whoops! I saw your user name listed in the inactivity tool, and somehow assumed you were an admin here, even though I saw your de-adminship request on Meta back in the day. Sorry! odder (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users[edit]

Dear Odder,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Gmaxwell[edit]

Hi, (@ this) Gmaxwell CU was not removed (see meta), the commons policy is too unclear. Maye you like to comment (or something similar) in your crat role? Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: I believe his checkuser access will be removed in a matter of hours, but feel free to revert my edit if you wish so. I also have nothing to add to whatever the stewards say on Meta. odder (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with your edits :), Thanks! --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I have now reverted my two edits as requested. odder (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I just noticed this. I agree with your right to protest. But note that your contributions are mostly beneficial to the community, not to WMF. So I hope you will reconsider your decision. Jee 02:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

+ 1 & + something sweet as encouragement:-) Pastries100.jpg. Seleucidis (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost two weeks now... I second Jee his comment; please reconsider your decision. (And come back!) Trijnsteltalk 13:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhh, Tomasz...[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Commoner's Barnstar
This is like watching Herby retire! I hope you don't stay gone like he has Tomasz. You do so much for the community, protecting it as an oversighter, and helping to guide it as a bureaucrat and admin. What keeps me here is the opportunity to help others and contribute to a community. I respect your principled protest though, and I know you wouldn't do it if you didn't feel very strongly about it.

It's been good working with an intelligent, steady, trustworthy man like yourself, who really cares about Commons, as I do, (and would be even better to keep working with you). Take care. INeverCry 18:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I like to +1. A BIG +1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Thank you for your kind words. I never expected to come back, but I couldn't stop reacting to the latest decisions of the Foundation. I see things are getting steadily worse around here, which is very discouraging, so I'm unlikely to stay around much longer. As I don't agree with the direction the Wikimedia Foundation is taking us, I will probably silently slip into inactivity, and let other people carry on the tasks I used to perform. odder (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Odder, I was happy when I saw your edit popped up in my watch-list yesterday. In fact I was about to make a friendly note here to appreciate your decision. But then I saw your further comments on BN.
I had already aware of the issue as I read it in the morning when Tiptoety requested to remove the OTRS flag.
I can understand your protest against WMF's actions without community consultation; but here you failed to prioritize things. What more important here is the privacy of individuals. So advanced privileges should be immediately removed (temporarily) when ever such a risk is raised. Otherwise an admin can misuse the hidden information as INeverCry commented at the de admin request. You know only stewards and wmf staff can technically do it, as did here. So the only thing happened "out of process" is the lack of formal intimation to the Commons community. But we can see many Commons admins participated in that meta RfC. From MoiraMoira's comment there, it is clear that Trijnstel is well aware of the incident. So I agree with the opinion of many people in that RfC that such a discussion should be carried out off wiki to protect the privacy of both parties. My understanding is that now the matter is under the consideration of OC; Gnom already acknowledged it. Do we really need to discuss everything publicly? No; I think. Otherwise it will do more harm to the victim and the accused. (Posting here as I don't want to comment further on the existing heated discussions.) Jee 03:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I appreciate your comment, but I quite disagree. We cannot just remove user privileges because there is risk that users might do something bad with it; otherwise we should just de-sysop everyone here as there is risk they might misuse their access. In order to remove admin privileges (in this specific instance), we need to have a discussion that either (1) agrees with the evidence already available on Meta or (2) even when it disagrees with that evidence, it agrees that there has been a breach of trust; and that discussion needs to happen in public, and it needs to happen here, on Commons.

The Meta RfC is quite irrelevant to what happens on Commons, for two reasons: firstly, there was no decision to desysop JurgenNL here, and even if there were, the Meta community does not have the jurisdiction here. We are two independent projects, even though there is some overlap between individual contributors. It is not the Meta community's — neither the Wikimedia Foundation's, for that matter — prerogative to remove Commons administrators; that right lies with our own community. I am glad to see that we are now having that discussion, at last — but it's what should have happened in the first place, without unnecessary interventions from the WMF. odder (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not broaden the scope of this discussion unnecessarily... 1) "the Meta community" has nothing to do with that RfC; 2) the RfC didn't reach any decision, it was killed by Philippe "so that this issue will not continue to divide the community and distract from the important work". There wasn't any community deciding anything here. --Nemo 07:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
… which I brought up above as one of my points :-) odder (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Quick drive-by note: The RFC was closed by a meta admin, not a Foundation employee. Tiptoety talk 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tiptoety for the clarification. So, as I suspected, there is indeed a misunderstanding from Odder's part. He probably thought WMF unilaterally ordered an action which seems not true. Here a meta admin close the discussion waiting for the OC response. And it seems Philippe's suggestion was for a temporarily quick action still awaiting for a final opinion from OC. It is not clear whether Philippe received an advice from the General Counsel or OC; but wording like "Statement from the Wikimedia Foundation" suggests so. Finally stewards acted based on the advice they received. Jee 16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

De-crat procedure[edit]

Hi Odder, this is to inform you that some sort of 'de-bureaucrat' procedure has been started against you: Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat). Apparently it was too much effort for Andy Dingley to inform you about this. Jcb (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about this, @Jcb; I haven't been made aware of the existence of this page before. I am quite flabbergasted to see this procedure being started against me without any sort of previous discussion, warning or notification… but I guess that's a moot point now. I will be a bit busy for the next few days (starting tomorrow), but I'll try to keep an eye on the discussion. Thanks again, odder (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
My apologies. I intended to inform Odder of this but I've just noticed that I'd left that browser tab open and unsaved. Thankyou for notifying him in my stead and my apologies for not having done so myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Left the browser tab open for two hours? sigh. Anyway, the procedure is that you talk with the person *first*, before starting a vote. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

user email question[edit]

I just tried to send a Commons email user:Ronhjones, but the message was returned to me and I do not undrstand why. Has my access to Commons mail been blocked? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm back[edit]

It took a lot of time to think about it and users ask me on Facebook, but I will be back to return to flag drawing and solve any disputes regarding flags. However, I do not think I will ask for the admin flag again. Still pulling 70 hour weeks so it is hard for me to focus on disputes like I did in the past. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Pl-patentowany leń.ogg[edit]

Usuń jak możesz. Źle nagrałem, nie mam teraz możliwości poprawienia. Dzięki. // Bubel (dyskusja) 07:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)