User talk:TeleComNasSprVen

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
alt= link=
Archives
Archive 1

File recently deleted as copyright violation[edit]

You nominated File:It's showing sigh sing out loud to the world- Couse she inspered me to sing as well outher singers- 2014-01-03 22-44.jpg for deletion, asserting it was "a possible copyright violation".

I request you spell out exactly why you suspected it was "a possible copyright violation". Geo Swan (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought the link provided in the deletion summary was pretty self-explanatory. Is this not the picture? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I note also that you implicitly accuse me on Jcb's talkpage of biting her, when in fact I nominated only one of her pictures for copyvio and attempted to help her rename the other one to a more appropriate title, rather than sending it to DR for "out of COM:SCOPE". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about File:Ben Affleck 2009.jpg[edit]

You nominated File:Ben_Affleck_2009.jpg for deletion. In my keep I called your nomination "a clear failure", as it was clearly credited to the wikipedia -- proving it was not a copyright violation, as you claimed.

Could you please be more careful? Geo Swan (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How? I noted that the copyright was different from what the Flickr page for the picture states, and that was the main reason I wanted to bring it to the greater community for re-review. That's why I had the "even if" clause, because I suspected it would not be. The first part of my statement is irrelevant to the focus of the discussion now, but since you so insisted, I will strike it out. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Exact means exact[edit]

Your request [1] is declined. Exact means exact copy. We can have multiple images of the same thin, it is no issue. In fact it is good as it gives the world choice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah no problem then. It's a learning experience for me, like everything on this site, finding my myriad way wading through copyright nuances and all that. In retrospect, perhaps I should have asked on the Village Pump instead so as not to offend the uploader. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

R: Categories[edit]

Answer in my talk page. Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell or Tel[edit]

Hi, Please read the articl Tell here. The spelling Tel is also correct. You change the name of the Category and breake the Link to the article in He:wiki. This is not good. Hanay (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It was asserted to be noncontroversial maintenance at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, based on this discussion. You can revert my edits and post to the village pump about your concerns, or perhaps we can use {{category redirect}} if you are concerned with it breaking hewiki. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The page you refer to is already in archive. I Know Orrling very good from He:wiki, where he was declared as a troll from many reasons. He always things that he is right. As you saw the 2 spellings are correct. You should not change names of categories for such a reason and break the links to the articles in many wikipedia. This is realy wrong. Commons need to serve the articles. That is why people upload pictures. That why I am doing it. I hope you will stop this renamed of categories. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you also explain to me why Category:Ma'agan Michael Ship is wrong and you change it to Category:Ma'agan Michael ship
and in the same time Category:Pyramida art center was wrong and you change it to Category:Pyramida Art Center. Is it make sence to you? I do not understand it. they are both names. Hanay (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Orrling is citing the Commons:Language policy for his proposals to move each category, the reasons for each are given at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. If you believe they need discussion, you can move each proposal down to "needs discussion" section. If you think the other name is an appropriate link for hewiki, you can recreate it using {{category redirect|link to the new category name}}.
Reasons for the moves: based on this comment from Orrling, the proper name of the ship is "Ma'agan Michael" and the ship part is just a noun. Barring evidence to the contrary, I had no reason not to believe him. On the other hand, "Pyramida Art Center" is the full proper name for this particular building, on the wikipedia article for Avraham Eilat, there is mention of "Pyramida, Centre for Contemporary Art, Haifa" all capitalized, which suggests this variant is correct. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You are so wrong about the ship. Look at the article in en:wiki en:Ma'agan Michael Ship. look also here This is an ancient ship .There is a Kibbutz calld en:Ma'agan Michael. Orrling has no knowledge about archaeology, and made a lot of mistakes in the past. I am an administrator in he:wiki and I wrote a lot of articles about archaeology. I am also an OTRS volunteer. I do not have the time to spent here to fix all the mistakes, especially his. at least when you change the name of category, please do not delete the former category so the link to the article will not break. And about the Pyramida center you should look here. Hanay (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm sorry, but what do you want me to do? That's an issue with Orrling putting the links on CommonsDelinker's talkpage, at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. If I had not done it, the bot would have carried it out all the same were it not in repairs right now. Please take the time to review all of the rename links located at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands and comment on whether or not they're appropriate. As for the ship, I have recreated the page with {{category redirect}} so it is not a redlink anymore. But please discuss this either with Orrling or at Commons:Village Pump if you want to reverse the decision. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: POTY Vietnamese translations[edit]

Chào anh! Các bản dịch của anh không có vấn đề gì cả. Tôi đang tiếp tục dịch phần nội dung POTY, mong anh cùng dịch giúp. (Tiếng Việt của anh rất tốt, ngoại trừ chữ "đườc" nên là "được".) PrennTalk 04:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate means exact[edit]

To do a speedy delete using {{duplicate}} the files need to be exact. If a file is cropped, it is not exact and needs to go through a standard deletion process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't notice it was cropped for whatever reason. Thanks for the heads up, as always. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Really sorry about it, I know you tried to notify me like above. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ![edit]

Hi TeleComNasSprVen. Thank you so much for your great work on moving cat Ancient Greek to ancient Greek categories !! Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: more: my answer in Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/02/Category:Art in Greece too. Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, @DenghiùComm, glad to have been of service. You've made some interesting points in that discussion, and I think you might be right and I've conflated the purposes of the categories, but let's hear about what some other commenters have to say; I think it'll be kept as is though. Can you also take a look at the discussion for Category:Women in Ancient Greece when you have the time? [ ✓ Done --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC) ] If it is decided to be kept, I'll revisit it and change it to "Women in ancient Greece". Cheers! TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

about Cat-a-lot YES ! SO IT WORKS !!! Thank you so much TeleComNasSprVen ! When Cat-a-lot became crazy and doesn't ricognize the files, it's necessary to clean the cache. After it works. Fine! Wonderful! Thank you very much again ! Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ma'agan Michael Ship[edit]

Hello. Will you care to clarify why this, while indisputably a badname, was restored? (it has recently been repaired into an uncapitalized "ship" per the fact that the latter noun is not part of the ship's name) Thanks. Orrlingtalk 13:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hanay requested it so, citing Ma'agan Michael Ship on the English Wikipedia showing that 'ship' is part of the proper noun. I hope this answers your question. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Not that I know who you or what you point at, but no, you can't comply with private/personal requests that override public procedural move assignments as administrated at the catmove bot page Orrlingtalk 21:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm talking about Hanay (talk · contribs) and I've already given a link to part of the discussion on your talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If that is the source of the restoration, I have to say I'm afraid that approach indicates a possibly wrong conception of the essence and role of the movecat list feature. Apart from the fact that that page is a final stage collecting moves that are and have proved uncontroversial, it appears you confused that specific user messaging you off-board as a valid 'objection' that should be considered while evidently he was using the communication with you to explicitly try to allure you against editors, and not less bad - against established procedures, which can't possibly be mixed as something you'd count, not to mention that his/er level of English in that session alone obviously disqualifies him/er from constituting any weight on questions of renaming around here. Also, trying to account for issues of he:wiki linkage isn't within Commons activity; we, the editors of he:wiki are the only ones responsible for links with Commons and mixing relevant factors with irrelevant ones for Commons work isn't a good idea. Our important routines like the move-command page shouldn't be made a laughingstock; if anyone fails or doesn't want to follow guidelines they cannot come and criticize you as the bot operator. Altogether I'm concerned by the sight of you with this well-done job and great motivation possibly mistaking a sock bullying you as an equivalent of an effective voice, making you doubt the collaborative process of the move page. Please don't let it happen again. Cheerz. Orrlingtalk 22:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for understanding. Perhaps we could work out a solution at the Village Pump. After all, this move request is inconsequential enough that if there was found a consensus on what name to choose for the ship, I could easily reverse the move request. Of course, I'd appreciate some discussion before engaging in a 'move war', so to speak, even with a sock. I could just as well bring the matter to COM:AN, and let the administrators deal with Hanay or the category's name however they like. I'd very like to wash my hands clean of this by now. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Village Pump is a good station for collecting opinions on managing the catmove procedure. As you said enough well, this one specific category is inconsequential and it isn't bothering me as much as does the broader idea of undermining existing well-working mechanisms such as the catmove (even they may be imperfect) and harassing you on alien foundations. Orrlingtalk 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also why was Category:Association football teams by country restored now? Category:Sports clubs by country and Category:Sports teams by country show a clear difference between clubs and teams, therefore Category:Association football teams by country is a legitimately separate topic that should remain redlinked until somewhere fills it with actual teams categories and not clubs categories. Per Commons:Rename a category#Should the old category be deleted.3F 'clubs' and 'teams' are not synonymous to warrant {{category redirect}}. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

First upload (File:WindowsLibrariesForOs2.png) – need help[edit]

Dear TeleComNasSprVen, thank you for your copyright hint. I saw this file File:Dw370german-screenshot.png, which is also a screenshot of an IBM product and wanted to upload a screenshot of extinct software, too. What do I have to do/write to solve the copyright problem? Also, (while im asking) how do I link to a de./en.WP page in the description? Thanks :) --Eliza Winterborn (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to pull the copyvio tag for now because I'm unsure about the copyright status for Solitaire. According to Commons:Screenshots however, screenshots of Windows software, which is copyrighted, are treated as derivative works, and derivative works of copyrighted material are not allowed on Commons. However, since the copyright status for the Solitaire program itself is kind of murky, I'll ask at Commons:Village Pump/Copyright. Also, if a file gets deleted, I'm happy to save it and reupload it under fair use on one of the wikis. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, the linking to en/de.wikipedia is unnecessary, since that's already at File:WindowsLibrariesForOs2.png#globalusage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response, I understood and chimed in at Village Pump's page. Also, I changed the license to CC-0 in case it may stay. ;) --Eliza Winterborn (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, if you want to use links anywhere in the wiki, even though I originally said they were unnecessary for the file, you can always use the {{w}} template, like {{w|Microsoft|3=de}} if you want to link to Microsoft on the German Wikipedia. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Thanks for your support in this, and of course your nomination. I won't let you down. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Spiral of silence" diagram[edit]

"File:TR spiral-of-silence-communication-theory.jpg" → Thank you very much indeed for your endeavour. I know that there is still a gesture of goodwill in the community. --Toksoz (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 01:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Congratulations, Dear Reviewer[edit]

If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-

Hi TeleComNasSprVen, thanks for your application to be an image reviewer. The application has been removed as successful, and you've been added to the list of reviewers. You can review all kind of image licenses on Commons. Please see Commons:License review and Commons:Flickr files if you haven't done so already. We also have a guide how to detect copyright violations. Backlogs include Flickr review, Picasa review, Panoramio review, and files from other sources. You can use one of the following scripts by adding one of the lines to your common.js:

importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.

You can also add {{user reviewer}} or {{user trusted}} to your user page if you wish. Thank you for your contributions on Commons!--Steinsplitter (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter Can you please explain to me how to use the upload_by_url userright? That does not seem to be documented anywhere on Commons as far as I can tell. Do I put the URL of the file I want uploaded where I would normally put the location of the file on my hard drive? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Works only for withlisted urls (flickr (...?) atm) in UploadWirzard. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Administratorship[edit]

Hello TeleComNasSprVen! I hope that you are joking. I thank you heartily, but I think that you're really mistaken the User! I haven't commented in a lot of requests for adminship discussions for other people (just two or three, but in the past)! So I'm sorry but I don't accept. Have a nice day, Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the reply! TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Deletions[edit]

hello, is there any way for the photos that i uploaded be deleted immediately? Pediapediahan (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Pediapediahan: I find your request a little surprising, but if you want your own uploads to be deleted, just replace the {{no permission since}} template with a {{speedydelete}} template. I could do it en masse using a script if you allow me to do so. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Elly Trần 7am.vn (35).jpg[edit]

What should I do now? I feel like I've been cheated because this image shows "Cc-by new white.svg".--Liji (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

evidence from Anais' official website or the photographers involved declaring release under an acceptable free license.[edit]

Hello,

I am Anais Chaine, photorapher and would like to confirm that I release these files to wikipedia. Also can these be linked to my website?

Thank you Anais Chaine

Files uploaded by Anais21 (talk · contribs)

Needs OTRS evidence from Anais' official website or the photographers involved declaring release under an acceptable free license.

   File:Kimbra Auckland New Zealand Anais Chaine Photography.jpg
   File:Tchangodei-portrait by anais chaine photography bec de jazz france Lyon croix rousse.jpg
   File:Tchangodei-montage-by-anais-chaine-photography Bec-de-jazz France.jpg
   File:Tchangodei-piano by Anais Chaine photography france.jpg

AUM[edit]

Hi, I'm having trouble with this file you just flagged;

   File:Anxiety-Uncertainty Management Theory - Graphical Representatiom.svg

I want to get the information in the original source into an article I'm working on with a group for university, so I'm redesigning the diagram in its entirety. What lengths would I have to go to in order to get it included in wikipedia without infringing copyright?

Thanks Kaolincash (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for notifying me. I believe that the English Wikipedia can use the fair use doctrine in order to host reduced resolution images without breaking copyright rules. If you still retain a local copy on your hard drive, you can upload it to English Wikipedia by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Upload; note that this wiki is called Wikimedia Commons, which is distinct from Wikipedia and does not allow copyrighted media content. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I have also saved a local copy in case you lost yours, just send me a message on my English Wikipedia talkpage and I'll get right to reuploading it there if you want. Cheers, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, since it looks like you came up with the SVG program yourself and it might be sufficiently original from the version on the PDF document I'm not comfortable with calling it a clear cut violation. So I suppose it can stay as it is for now. Cheers, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Images from Fotopolska review needed[edit]

Declined the speedy in preference to a redirect, in my experience these categories are used for bot categorisation, unless you can find the bots that it will affect and convince the operators to modify the bots to retarget the sorting, it would be unwise to delete or nom for deletion such categories.--KTo288 (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for notifying me. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@KTo288: I've checked a large number of files in the category Category:Reviewed images from Fotopolska and it seems that they were added by only one bot User:YarluFileBot, maintained by User:Yarl, working on files from Fotopolska, but that bot has been inactive since October 2012. Other than that however I'm pretty sure any template layout bots would use {{Fotopolska review}} which automatically adds the categories, and I've changed the category from within the template already anyway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks for doing the legwork on finding the bot, do you want to drop the operator a message.--KTo288 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI, I've done it at User talk:Yarl#YarluFileBot. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

KTo288, TeleComNasSprVen: Hi, sorry for long time waiting for answer. Yes, this category was used by bot, of course I have nothing against changing name but please don't delete it, I'll need it in the future. Yarl 21:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, I'll leave the redirect.--KTo288 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

License review for Korean images[edit]

Hello, in regard to Category:License review needed for the Korean images from http://toto1024.tistory.com, I think the copyright notice is only applies images posted since June 11, 2013 (otherwise licensed under CC-BY), see this talk page. the notice seems to be once modified (간단한 규칙(수정), in English:Simple rules (modified)), but CC-BY license at the bottom of the posted page is not revocable. --Puramyun31 (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from toto1024.tistory.com‎ and there you can clarify to me what you mean by "modified". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I commented. --Puramyun31 (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/121140747[edit]

… why? Please explain …    FDMS  4    19:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

They're minor cosmetic improvements in the wikicode, plus I like to give as clear attribution to the original authors as possible by taking advantage of the first parameter of the license. It's not harming anybody, and attribution is always nice, so why not? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In my eyes, the attribution paramater implies that the value is the exact attribution the copyright holder requests, which is not the case with Kipling's TOL uploads. Anyways, it is in my eyes not improving anything, and if the comunity feels the attribution parameter should be used as often as possible it could f. ex. simply make it a requirement for new uploads. If I removed the spaces between all == and heading texts on your user talk page this would neither "harm anybody", but I do not think you would like it (me neither).    FDMS  4    22:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
While it's not important and I perhaps would not mind for the sake of consistency, I would prefer you do it in conjunction with another important edit so as not to trigger the new messages banner. You'll notice in that diff I made a significant number of other changes as well, so it is not an isolated change by itself, which would be unimportant in its own right for me to undertake. It might not be "improving anything" to a reuser, but when I handle this kind of wikicode for the 10000 files on Commons the layout becomes a strain on my eyes, and the spaces at least alleviate some of the readability in it. The layout is also supported by the community, and you can prove this just by running VisualFileChange.js on some of your images.
Regarding the attribution requirement, if we wanted to follow an author's exact attribution requirement I believe we would be required to supply a customized attribution template specifically for the file. The attribution typically makes it easier for reusers to print the license on any reuse case and automatically fulfill the conditions by referring back to the author. Though it's unlikely they might take legal action if we omit the name in the template parameter, it's best practice to encourage giving reusers as much legal safe room as possible. You can see here for example some of my uploads were modified by an administrator's bot, even if they were only cosmetic changes. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh last thing, if you want your files formatted a certain way, just drop a note on my talkpage and in the future I'll skip your files or format them the way you want them to be formatted. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You made a significant number of changes in that diff, but all but one only affected the source code. Although I personally prefer syntax with 1= in templates only where it is needed, I would not mind if you made changes of that kind in a diff with another change that is indisputably an improvement (per any Commons guideline or obvious community consensus). Why do you think that adding the attribution parameter to licenses makes fulfilling license requirements easier? If reusers really print out a whole Commons file decription page they have the information box displaying the copyright holder (author) to attribute anyway. In my eyes, the attribution parameter should only be used when the requested attribution differs from the given author value (f. ex. when I set author to FDMS4 (talk · contribs) but still want to be attributed with my full name) and when the uploader wants to have it, otherwise it is just placing additional (unnecessary) reuse instructions on the file description page. I already had to revert some of this semi-automated kind of edits from that user on files I am the uploader of. You can make the same changes you do to files of which you are not the uploader to files I am the uploader of, in case I do not like them I can easily revert them as I am not that shy on Commons anymore.    FDMS  4    18:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the changes had included specifying the attribution= parameter of the CC template as a significant improvement, but it looks like we might have to agree to disagree on this. I think in cases where the author is not specified or in some other unforeseen circumstance the parameter would be left blank, but in general it seems good practice to me to fill it out when the author is known. But it's not something to be strictly enforced if some uploaders either forget, or as in your case explicitly don't want to overuse it; it's a sufficient but not necessary attribution condition. In the rare use case someone might use an image and only link back to the template pointing the deed, without for some reason including the information box, my change might be warranted but even those are rare use cases. And in my opinion, "when the requested attribution differs from the given author value" we would be required to supply a different attribution requirement altogether instead of using the template. Do you want to take this to the larger Commons community at Commons:Village pump to see what others think? I'm thinking of taking the issue there myself, but I want to stay mellow here on Commons and I don't want any fights with you; you seem well intentioned and this is something I won't spend a lot of time rigorously enforcing.
Though until this is set in stone, it is likely I would continue enforcing my view of how Commons file description pages should be structured for the particular set of files I work on, and respectively you would enforce your view of how Commons file description pages should be structured for the particular set of files you work on. In the unlikely instance we meet each other like this and have different opinions about say whether or not to specify attribution= you can revert me and leave a short explanation in the edit summary, and I would not consider revert warring over a trivial change like that. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure there would be a much larger audience if we brought this to the VP? I am considering starting a RFC at Template talk:CC-Layout (the audience would be at centralised discussion). Your last paragraph is something I can agree on. Thanks for the detailed reply.    FDMS  4    18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the clarity on this pump question. I always ponder why people fuss so on the OTRS requests, it's barely a minute to fill out and send the form, versus sometimes hours of back and forth at the pump and UNDEL. Thank you for the answer and thank you for all your hard (volunteer) work for the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

{{AudioBiology}}[edit]

Hello,
I saw you modify {{AudioBiology}} to add Category:Pages with incorrect biology template usage.
There are now 130 calls detected as faulty. Do you want some help to correct the calls?
First step would be to improve the documentation.
Truth is I dont understand the description of the first two parameters. I think you missued the term rank that should be replaced by Taxon.
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Due to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:AudioFamily a lot of templates have been replace by {{AudioBiology}}, but I think the parameters are not filled correctly. Could you please correct them? HenkvD (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I can do that. But I need to understan the template first ;-) Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Liné1 and HenkvD, and my apologies for the template being formatted incorrectly, but I originally wanted to carefully replace the other templates with this one unifying template I had created. It looks like in the deletion discussion a bot had gone through most instances of the other templates and replaced them with incorrectly formatted versions of my template, but at least I put up large warnings/errors for others to see. And I would love it if any of you wanted to help me correct the formatting for the template calls. Feel free to be bold and improve the documentation for me; I've been busy of late, and it's not up to par anyway since I am no biologist. In any case the merged template syntax is like this: for Category:Audio files of Sus (see Wikipedia:Sus) it would be {{AudioBiology |1=Suidae |2=Sus |rank=genus }} Hope that helps, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Oulala. There seems to be a conflict between Category:Sounds of birds and Category:Audio files of Aves. The same with Category:Sounds of Passeriformes‎ and Category:Audio files of Passeriformes‎.
This conflict is explained here.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about pictures of waterfalls[edit]

Hallo!

The files:

   File:Trongfossen.jpg
   File:Dalelvo.JPG
   File:Ørredalsfossen i Øystesevassdraget.jpg

are tanding on the list of images that are in conflict with copyright regulations. Despite the fact that I know that the following e-mail was sent to you from the Norges naturvernforbund, which has the copyrights:

info-en@wikimedia.org
Hei Wikimedia
Naturvernforbundet gives hereby Wikipedia commons license to use pictures of the following rivers: Godfarfossen.jpg, Trongfossen.jpg, Dalelvo.JPG, Ørredalsfossen i Øystesevassdraget.jpg og Fyljesdalsånå.jpg. The license to be used is: Creative Commons Navngivelse-DelPåSammeVilkår 3.0 Unported.
Med vennlig hilsen
Honorata Kaja Gajda
rådgiver i naturmangfold

Can you please look at this matter so that I can put the pictures again.--Frankemann (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)