——————————————— Archive, July 2012 ———————————————
白ねこさん。Demin File:Zaro Agha. (ca. 1923-1939).jpg yükledim. NYPL dosyası olduğundan PD sandım. Ama emin olamadım. Kontrol edersen sevineceğim. Takabeg (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- buradaki fotolar nasıl ? PD olarak yükleyebilir miyiz ? Takabeg (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hayat + 70 yıl dersek... 2012-70=1942 bence kurtarıyor. Yüklenebilir. Yanlız watermark sorunu var. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- まぢで？よかった。ありがとう。Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- それと、白ねこさんのボットでは、{{Commons'a taşı}}の作業は実現できないの？Takabeg (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commonsa taşımak için hazırda bot kodum bulunmamakta. Bunun için toolar var gerçi. Örneğin http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php :). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
A complaint has been made here on your recent actions using the Assessment template. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say:
To everyone who may be mad at とある白い猫: I've always received very good help from とある白い猫 at IRC - very good indeed. Please just tell とある白い猫 not to do anything that the whole community doesn't like or else you'll boot him out.
とある白い猫: Please don't do anything that the whole community doesn't like because then you'll get booted out. Please just do only things that the whole community likes.
Love, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I want to improve this template and a few users are constantly interrupting this. I can either disregard them or cease working on the template entirely. I do not like either option.
Users demand I gather consensus prior to making changes to the template without stating any clear reason why they are opposing to the improvements (in general). One of them even stated their opposition is over procedural reasons and that they do not really have a preference on which template is used (in the case of Wallpaper). User's interest in the template dissipates when I cease editing it.
Whenever this issue ({{Assessments}}) is brought up to the attention of the general community, it is promptly ignored. Few people care which template is used. Fewer people care if one or the other is deprecated. The community-wide vote in 2008 had fewer votes than what would be required for a single featured picture to pass. My conduct back then was less than perfect but some of the current opposition to the template is from back then.
My improvements to assessments template has a point. I want to classify featured pictures in particular as a preparation for Commons:Picture of the Decade and for Commons:Picture of the Year/2012 (POTY 2012). Keeping track of which files are considered wallpaper, featured, as well as other criteria... which files have not been considered for a POTY are important to this end. This would require no toolserver queries for these tasks and would save everyone a significant amount of time.
I do not want to bring something as unimportant as the wallpaper template to a community-wide general vote. I do not want to be the person that interrupts the entire community over issues that do not require the opinion of everyone. The people opposing deprecation (of wallpaper template) should at least provide a reason why such a vote is even needed, especially when they bring people other than me to User Disputes for using Assessment template to tag wallpapers. I do not believe any of the users opposing the merge have ever used {{Wallpaper}}.
How would you recommend I deal with this dilemma I am having?
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi とある白い猫,
- Sorry for beeing so late in answering, and sorry in advance for my poor english.
- I think you understand now very well where the issue is.
- The issue is not about your template or your improvements (btw, never forget that "you think" they are improvements...), but about the way you tried to implement them in the structure.
- "Wikimedia" in general, (and "Commons" in this case) is something very special, and unique in the world. As it is built since the beginning, IT CANNOT WORK !!
- But the miracle is that IT WORKS !!
- Why ? Because of the "consensus".
- Everything new here must be accepted by the "community", or the majority of users.
- So you have a double job to do.
- First, you must make your idea interesting for the more of users possible, and it is very hard. Mobilize ! "I want YOU for
US Army my new template" !
- Second, you must be followed by a significant vote, with enough "pro" opinions.
- Both are very difficult, because it is easier and more "charming" and "sexy" to discuss hardly or vote for a ban in COM:AN/U, or assess with only one vote for a Quality Image, or for the FP page...etc etc... And not easy to make people "move" about "difficult" stuffs.
- But what is sure (and you are experimenting this today), is that the "community" (I dislike this word very much, because it is an american concept, wrong for the ensemble of "Commons" users, well, no matter...) will strongly react against, if you try to change something important alone. Be careful: because men are men, the reaction against your idea may possibly change in a reaction against you... Even if I "personally" have nothing to say against you as person or user !
- You think your new assessment template is better than the older one ? OK, why not ? Maybe you are right !
- Try to convince me, Slaunger, Alvesgaspar, and many other users "first" !
- What I write here is almost the same as said by Slaunger just above (in better english...)
- Cheers, from Paris.--Jebulon (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merci for the response,
- The thing is, I still do not believe anyone cares about the template itself ({{Wallpaper}}) which is why I am not inclined to mass revert the bot.
- The change of {{Wallpaper}} -> {{Assessments}} happened naturally in the past 3 years. My deprecation had a three year delay. Opposition to such a slow transition should come with logical reasons and I am not seeing this.
- When I created an idea (now discussed category feature) in sandboxed form (it is not used anywhere), people still complained. Consensus cannot be established when I am expected to avoid demonstrating it.
- It is very hard to convince someone whom presents no logical reason for the opposition, offers or takes no compromise.
- Konnici wa from Brussels!
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi とある白い猫,
Just FYI, I have raised a question, which relates to when bots can be approved to edit at higher than normal edit rates. Since I have used your latest bot approval as a specific example in the question, I thought I would inform you as a courtesy. --Slaunger (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for notifying me, I have remarked on the page. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi White Cat, regarding your thought whether this thread is dependent or not on the COM:AN/U thread, I can say that the COM:AN/U thread has certainly triggered it. Once I realized your bot has been approved to run at x10 faster edit rates than policy, I redacted my claims that you had edited faster than you were allowed to and said "sorry". If you feel I have overlooked something in my redaction concerning edit rates, do tell me and I will consider that. I was very surprised that the bot was approved to edit so fast as it was in conflict with written policy. My objective for opening the bot thread was and is only to gauge my understanding of the written guideline, as either the guideline was wrong, the approval was wrong, I misunderstood something, or something in between. So, if the policy is outdated, it should be updated, to avoid future confusion. I have tried to do my best not to mix that with the COM:AN/U case. I had to link to the bot though as it was the only example I knew of where a bot had been approved to edit at such high rates. I was surprised everyone started commenting on the operations of your bot instead of addressing this discepency between practise and guideline. I state very clearly in my replies in that thread, that your edit rates are within the limits of what it has been approved to, I am just questioning/gauging if a much higher edit rate is sensible. I am not trying to corner you in that thread. I try my upmost to be fair and factual in that thread. Try and read again word by word what I write there. I am not attacking you there. I do not have some sneaky agenda with it either. Oh, and please do not copy this thread to my talk page, I am watching yours. Cheers --Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an old habit of mine to copy the thread to both places. I remember now you asked me not to do this before. I apologize. I'll try to remember but old habits die hard. :(
- I am aware you are NOT acting with ill intent and are NOT trying something sneaky (you even notified me). But I also feel under pressure from multiple threads about me/my bot going on at the same time. If I am being overly defensive, I apologize. Under similar circumstances I suppose anyone would be acting in a similar manner though.
- I am trying very hard to convince enough people already that I should be spared an indefinite block. When you advertise the AN/UD thread in more places I feel under even greater pressure even if this isn't your intention. Issues can be discussed one at a time perhaps?
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, yes I could have waited to intiate that thread, and maybe I should considering that you do seem to get very defensive in these situations. My apologies for putting you under further distress albeit that was not the intention. But I am happy about what you write about my intentions. I am glad you see it that way. You know, on the bot thread, you are actually the only one who has linked to the COM:AN/U case.... Concerning the link I gave on Rocket000s page, this was just a normal courtesy link to tell him I had quoted him. It had nothing to do with advertising.
- Do you think it was inappropriate to quote him? I mean, he came fresh back after three months away, had not been involved (probably did not know about the COM:AN/U case), and he is not on anyones side. Furthermore he knows what he is talking about as an extremely proficient template coder. He gave you some feedback on what he thought about the template as it is right now. He mentioned good things (I also agree the internationalization has improved), and he mentioned things he would advice not to do such as the content categorization and giving it too much responsibility. And he did so in a mellow way.
- Now, I see that Rd232 has editprotected the template. Trust me, I do not perceive the editrpotection as some personal victory, on the contrary. We have all lost in our failure to reach consensus without the need of admin brute force interference. I had so hoped that you would suggest yourself to always await for consensus prior to making new major changes to the template considering it is transcluded on +10k pages. Anyway, this is just a wiki. Enjoy real life and the summer in Brussels. Best wishes from Denmark --Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hard not to be defensive when you are placed in AN/UD where one user proposes your block or demotion and taunts you to obey him or else. I increasingly feel that user cannot be reasoned with.
- Unless used as evidence, I think it is best to ask people to comment rather than copy paste their remark because you may not grab the essence of their comment that they intended for the reader. That way people can trim or reword their comment as they feel is needed.
- I feel you are spending too much time on the categorization thing. It's sandboxed. It is unusable in the main template. Adding it in would require modification to multiple nested templates at a minimum. Among other people I too do not necessarily feel it is a good idea to be added in - particularly in it's current form. It can be discussed (much) later or completely scraped. That piece of code was meant for me to blow off some steam by distracting me from everything else I am doing (in the process being productive without bothering anybody else). In that regard it was a complete failure.
- To be honest, I haven't made any major functional changes to the template in the last month plus. I am not trying to be dense but please consider the following:
- Featured picture status on commons, wallpaper, quality images, POTY, POTD, valued images, featured picture status from wikipedias, and etc was always part of the code. POTD, valued images isn't meant to be used and the code they run does not function properly. In the code I want to keep place holders for features that have a potential to be implemented in in the near or distant future.
- I have moved code around as it was an utter and complete mess due to the auto-translate templates I have not added in. Even I, a seasoned template coder was unable to read them.
- Since 2008 the only "new" feature in the code is the WMF blog thing. Any other change is aesthetic or superficial in nature. I realize aesthetics matter and I do care about it, but I care more about the functionality (how it handles categories, how being in one assessment influences other). Aesthetic changes like hiding text and logos such as the case of pure candidate POTY is well within what I would consider acceptable - though I may raise reservations (doesn't mean I will try to enforce said reservations). But no aside from me suggested this. Everyone was complaining about the parameters which can be hidden but it seems like people are more concerned about the templates appearance.
- In the past month+ the only thing I suppose modified that affected functionality was the category structure of POTY as I renamed the category scheme of POTY a little to organize it. No one objected to it so I suppose it is an improvement everyone likes.
- I honestly do not see templates existing code to be too problematic. Am I wrong? Should the code really be completely reverted?
- I think the complaint arises more from my bot use. I used my bot to handle {{Assessments}} coding three times.
- Rename the parameter names.
- com1,com2,com3,com4 was confusing even to me. I do not believe anyone opposes this
- Deprecation of Wallpaper template
- To be honest I do not understand why people oppose to this shift. {{Wallpaper}} isn't exactly that important and hardly anyone (if anyone at all) uses it anymore. It isn't like Valued Images, Featured Pictures or Quality images that have votes and/or detailed criteria for the selection. I did not expect the immense opposition few users put on the issue. That said files tagged by this maybe be important for Commons:Picture of the Decade. Something I think of implementing (by just adding invisible code) is to have a generated list of candidates (for example files that are featured on commons, tagged with wallpaper that are used in other wikipedias) using assessments template. I did not made any coding effort or even begun a discussion on that end because it is still very early to tell how Commons:Picture of the Decade will turn out. This is why I want to have "wallpaper" tagging ready. There only is 1.5 years to the event and that is a deadline I would want to meet.
- Tagging of POTY candidates from previous years.
- I honestly thought no one would object to this since over a month no one objected to the idea (or even remarked on it) in the mailing list. IRC discussions suggested no one opposed either. The thread on the talk page of POTY game the the final reinforcement for me to run my bot. I was again not expecting opposition. Tagging of POTY candidates as I mentioned before would allow the generation of POTY 2012 candidates through a process of elimination.
- In all cases I ceased bot run after complaints as I noticed them.
- I am explaining rationale behind my actions in detail not to patronize you and I hope you do not interpret my remarks as such. Since you have been sincere and open to me, I want to be sincere and open to you. I hope I didn't labeled anything incorrectly, feel free to correct me. I realize this is a borderline novel right now :(
- -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
白猫さん。Template:Attribution-TurkishNavalForces 作ってみました。チェックしてくんなまし。Takabeg (talk) 06:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Birde o şablonun eklediğinde kendiğinde Category:Images from the Turkish Naval Forces kategorisininde eklenebilmesi için ne gibi işlemler gerekiyo acaba ? Takabeg (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hali-hazirdaki sablon "Category:Images from the Turkish Naval Forces" ekler. OTRS izninin sablonun icine eklenmesini oneririm. Bunu botla yapabilirim. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- ありがとうございます。Bot でやってほしい。Takabeg (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Attribution-TurkishArmedForces も作った。Takabeg (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there OTRS permission for both? Can I have the ticket number for that one too? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- TSKのは "ticket #2012071110005537" あるね。Takabeg (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:TSK-emblem.svgで使ってみたけど、カテゴリが変なところに出て来ちゃうよぉー。Takabeg (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have renamed, updated and propagated {{Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy}}. I have not yet started a TSK one since I am waiting for OTRS confirmation and scope. I want to know if it extends to all branches of the military or just the TGS website. I just want to verify all info to avoid possible future problems. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your Bot (ja:多脚戦車)'s contribution. 土語は大変なことになってしまったみたいですね。 Takabeg (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
İkiside mükemmel Beyaz Kedi. İngilizce konusunda bişi diyemiycem ama bilet numaraları doğru. Ellerine sağlık. İyi çalışmalar --taysin (message) 06:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Taysin ile Kediciğe: Selam arkadaşlar. Yukarıdaki şablon için teşekkürler, fakat Sahil Güvenlik fotoğrafları için bunları kullanamayız sanırım. Zira Sahil Güvenlik bir kuvvet komutanlığı değil, İçişleri Bakanlığı'na bağlı. Onun için ayrı bir şablon oluşturmakta fayda var. Sevgilerimle. --Bermanya (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Köy çeşmesi varmis. Yeni ogrendim :) Takabeg (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you look at recent edits regarding {{Attribution-TRGov-Military-Navy}}, watermarks and other adjustment by the bot. Is this an acceptable edit speed or was it too fast.
Also I replied to your post on my talk page. I realize it is lengthy but I wanted to give my complete perspective.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 06:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I am on vacation (see note above) and right now using an expensive, time limited connection. Will get back on this in a week or so. -Slaunger (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With only two edits per minute your recent bot edits are certainly not putting any noticeable strain on the servers, so I have no concerns regarding that at all. In fact I am currently uncertain which edit rates are of concern. I plan to do a bit more analysis and look for time periods where several bots have been editing concurrently, to check if there are periods, where the user edit rate seems to been coordinated with bursts of bot activities. If such trends can be seen it could indicative of what kind of bot edit rate are acceptable. --Slaunger (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. The issue I always have with the entire edit rate thing is I ideally do not want to spend more time than necessary waiting. A timer complicates the code as well. Also for some scripts I use, a 30 second wait would be problematic. Like for instance flickrripper, that uploads about 1 image per minute which is the amount of time for it to read the information, process it and upload it. My point here is that the actual time difference between bot edits aren't easy to determine as some tasks (like double redirects) can be handle faster than others. In the process I of course do not want to break commons either. I am looking forward to your analysis. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 14:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have come further with the analysis scripts. So far it indicates that the user productivity is not affected by a single bot running at 60 edits/minute, but need to see more data to get a comlete picture. Working on it right now. --Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be most fascinating if we know exactly how many edits is too many for the site. If it is a very high number we can rest easier. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 05:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Russavia adli kullanicinin gorusu Ilgilenirseniz sevinecegim. Takabeg (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw 白猫さん, OTRS uyesi degil miydin ? Takabeg (talk)
- Yok. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- まぢで ? It's clear that permission were given, and it's very different from fair-use. Because in the case of "non-free fair-use", we use images without knowing the will of copyright holders. Which copyright tag is appropriate to this situation ? Maybe we'd (Bermanya) sent this tag to the copyright holder and ask whether they approve or not. Is this good idea ? Takabeg (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The safest route is to ask Turkish Military to accept creative commons license (cc-by or cc-by-sa) similar to New Zealand Defence Force or release the works to the public domain (kamu malı) similar to US Military/US Federal Government. "Attribution" admittedly is a difficult license to work with. Russavia got Kremlin to release content with a free license so it can be done. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 10:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi とある白い猫
When renaming files, please make sure that the reason matches ones of the agreed ones on Commons:File renaming. "More descriptive filename" is not included there. -- Docu at 19:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you object to an actual renaming? If not we are done here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 11:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
- You can't rename files with this explanation. Please refrain from doing so in the future. -- Docu at 18:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure I can, as long as the actual move itself meets one of the criteria. I will not quote the exact rationale each time as this is not required and I cannot be bothered to type a long reason or remember what the numbers meant. Had the move screen offer me a drop down box, that would be helpful. I do not have this. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 08:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
白猫さん, rica etsem bot ile bu dosyalarda yer alan "Great National Assembly of Turkey" ifadesini "Grand National Assembly of Turkey" olarak düzeltebilir misin ? Takabeg (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Search bir ornek dahi vermiyor. :/ -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 07:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Mesela
gibi. Toplam 165 dosyada aynı hata yaptım. Takabeg (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Çox teşekkür ederim. Çok oturgaçlı görütgeç değil çok bacaklı zırhlı savaş aracı (多脚戦車)'ya selam söyle. Takabeg (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
