User talk:Mike.lifeguard/Archive 7

Edit warring

You told Adambro and me to stop bickering, but you did nothing to correct the categorizations and revert Adambro's aggressive action against a consensus reached in a legitimate discussion. Ara you going to do something about it? Drork (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not until the bickering stops. For now, it is protected appropriately.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The person who changed the categories is Adambro. He is the one you should addressed if you want some peace and quiet. There was a long discussion, a decision was reached, but Adambro decided to violate it. Liftarn joined the "party" and tried to add some irrelevant categories to another of Latuff's cartoons. This "Latuff coalition" is not funny anymore. I know we are not in the best terms, and we have profound disagreements, but I trust you are honest enough to take care of this problem. Drork (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. So stop making the problem worse - back off and I will do what I can.  — Mike.lifeguard 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove irrelevant categories (namely all those categories not in consensus, namely all but "Latuff") and you can forget about me for a reasonable period of time. Drork (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cats

In such obviously-contentious cases, you really need to discuss category changes ahead of time. This is a wiki and we work through consensus-building, not by fiat. You need to work with other editors. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Already done so at File talk:WekillforFUN.gif#Categories. // Liftarn (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mike, I am still waiting for your action on another of Latuff's cartoons improperly categorized against the consensus that was reached in a discussion. Drork (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyfraud?

Comments about copyfraud in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rudolph Ackermann.jpg are without merit; the photo is clearly not free in the country of origin. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why that'd be the case.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:PD-Art#National Gallery claims copyright on photos of paintings- Ignore them? I suggest you retract your accusations of copyfraud. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I was referring to "no merit"... that there is an argument to be made suggests there is merit. The word "copyfraud" has a specific meaning; that meaning is what I meant. There is no basis in US law for such claims; US law applies to servers hosted in the US; thus those claims are copyfraud. Whether we allow such claims under Commons policy (which I think we ought to - we should be bound by source-country law, even if we don't happen to like it) is an entirely different matter. If you wish to continue quibbling over semantics, please don't involve my time in doing so.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing your history

Where ist your history of this file? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:No_Israel.svg&diff=next&oldid=17091735 85.181.181.156 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page for that image, all is explained there.  — Mike.lifeguard 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is only one edit. Before there were at least 50 edits, most of them by you 85.181.181.156 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong.  — Mike.lifeguard 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, my mistake. I have found it 85.181.181.156 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:69.181.3.156

If Mbz1 is going to edit then it would be much better for him to do so under his username. I was hoping that I might be able to resolve that issue by discussing it with Mbz1 but that obviously isn't possible now if he's unable to edit this talk page. Adambro (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. It was a single message, themn upset at having the person the message was about block them over that message - a bit small to merit a block, particularly such a strong one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing images of equations

I am attempting to rewrite the article on Kinetic Theory of Solids. But you have deleted all of the equation images that I had created, claiming that you have re-written all of them in Wikipedia math markup language. If this is true then how can I get access to them ? -- Logger9 (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You should use <math> markup instead of creating images.  — Mike.lifeguard 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is fine -- but in the meantime, I paid to have those images created and can practice with them before making the crossover. Has the markup been completed ? -- Logger9 (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

en:Kinetic Theory of Solids was deleted as a copyright violation, but User:User A1 replaced logger9's images with math code in en:Spinodal decomposition. This shows how math code is used. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Mike. I'm helping logger9 rewrite the article in his userspace, but at the moment, the images issue is actually causing a bit of a problem. I was wondering if you would be willing to undelete the images for a while (say one to three days) so that I could convert them all into the <math> syntax for logger9. Thanks, NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, let me know when you're done. Note they're still marked as speedies and could get deleted at any moment.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, NuclearWarfare got in touch with me about this. For technical reasons it really isn't practical to convert these files that format. A couple of guys gave it their best shot. If someone wants to take the initiative and try again at a later time that'd be great. Since these are obviously useful and PD am updating the PD designation and removing speedy tags. Regards, Durova (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be sure to record deficiencies with math markup in bugzilla? Thanks.  — Mike.lifeguard 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit tardy with followup because am uncertain how to answer that request. Since my own education in math stopped after one year of calculus, and I have no familiarity with the markup you wanted to use with this, I cannot report on any bugs that may exist. So if you'll excuse the limited understanding, what it did look like was that a group of encyclopedic images had been slated for speedy deletion over an issue that does not qualify for speedy, and then an ambitious markup task was assigned to the individuals who protested the speedy. These two editors were concerned to maintain the morale of the scholarly (but not very wiki-savvy) volunteer who had originally contributed the images. So they took several hours away from other commitments in an attempt to satisfy everyone, but either due to limits in their their coding or mathematics understanding they decided that marking up a set of five dozen really wasn't feasible at all. If the markup is possibly also buggy, then perhaps they would have considered that angle before giving up. They've both made a prior commitment to me for another undertaking, which seems to be higher priority and which not many people can do. So if you don't mind I'd like to keep them. ;) Durova (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly care (though we do have math markup for good reason!), but you did use the words "technical reasons"... if people have difficulty using math markup they can ask for help, but that's by no means "technical reasons"  — Mike.lifeguard 01:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what the nature of their difficulty was. That's too far outside my knowledge to assess. If you know someone who's experienced with math markup and likes to do it, this would be a good project for them. The two fellows who gave this a go had prior commitments and other responsibilities. Durova (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Then you should have said that instead of inventing something else.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Please withdraw that unwarranted accusation. Durova (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You implied there were technical reasons when either there weren't or you didn't know.. Please try to take care using words; text is a low-bandwidth mode of communication and I took "For technical reasons" to mean there were technical reasons. Instead of saying you didn't know or that they were too busy to do it, you led me to suggest something irrelevant which has wated both your time and mine. As I say: Please take care so such miscommunications are minimized.  — Mike.lifeguard 02:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be a good idea if you took your own advice. You led two volunteers to believe that it was imperative that they interrupt other work to convert five dozen equations into a different format using a markup script with which they were unfamiliar, in order to avoid losing the material to speedy deletion. In fact the nominations were invalidly tagged. In every interaction since, you have appeared to presume that people were obligated in some way to follow up and do more (report bugs, seek help, etc.) when in fact nobody wanted or needed to perform that task at all. And although I did provide caveats about the limits of my own understanding from the beginning, you accuse me of deliberate fabrication. Your tone and manner of interaction, thoughout this episode, is unbecoming of your status as a functionary. Durova (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any miscommunication on my part, though your inferences may be erroneous. To be clear, nobody is under any obligation to do anything in this situation, and I've never suggested otherwise.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Most people take a very light touch with you because of your ops. These were your words, though. "Done, let me know when you're done. Note they're still marked as speedies and could get deleted at any moment." Of course that implies urgent work is necessary. You neglected to mention that there was no valid basis for speedy deletion. It has in fact been exasperating for several people who were trying to please you and be polite, more so because at no point have you acknowledged that your own unreasonable communication was the primary source of the frustration. You won't get many who tell you this straight up, but I'm one of them. And I'm still waiting for you to withdraw the accusation of deliberate fabrication. Durova (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall using the word "deliberate" and in fact, I implied the opposite by using the word "miscommunication". If you didn't get it, that's me saying "I don't think you did it deliberately"

If people are intimidated because I have adminship and/or CU on this wiki they (and perhaps you) will be interested to know I'll probably be leaving within the next month.  — Mike.lifeguard 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you'd rather act defensive and leave than improve your communications with other people, that's on your shoulders. All things being equal, I'd prefer if you accepted feedback and improved. None of us are perfect. But most of the people I've known who have interacted with you have been frustrated by the experience. I've spent enough time behind the scenes repairing the damage to morale that you've caused, and would primarily like to use that energy toward more productive purposes. Durova (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you've again made incorrect inferences.  — Mike.lifeguard 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't care about your personal plans. I do care about the effect your manner has on the morale of the people I work with. You step on toes a lot; you step on them hard. And you wear large shoes. And when people murmur 'ouch' you basically tell them they shouldn't have put their feet in your way. Would rather walk away from this conversation with some kind of mutual understanding. But if the understanding is that you won't be causing much more in the way of hassles because you're leaving, then that's satisfactory. You obviously do a lot of good somewhere in order to become a steward, but danged if I've ever seen it. Durova (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you noticed I didn't say why; excellent. My contribs and logs are mostly public, as you know. If you care to examine my work, and can't or don't see it, please refer to the election where you'll find comments explaining why people supported me. As for Commons, I do realize that my participation is not perfect, and I've always been happy to explain myself, sometimes at great length, whenever anyone approaches me taking issue with my conduct. Feel free to pass that along to your colleagues whose toes still hurt, I'd he interested to hear from them.  — Mike.lifeguard 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Based upon your aggressive responses to feedback here, I really don't care to invite other people to the same experience. And as for why you got where you are? A lot how I paid for graduate school: apply for one scholarship even if it's small; keep working, apply for another. Let the thing snowball. Pretty soon people give you more because you already have 'em. Makes a person look like a star even when they aren't. As you probably know, most of my work cannot be done on-wiki. So I'm going to head back to Photoshop and finish up the ten hour project on the screen, then get back to a bigger one that's been going for a week, because that work is going somewhere and this conversation isn't. Durova (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If logger9 cannot write math code after having been shown how to do it, I am surprised about his statement that he is an associate professor in physics. Durova: math should not be displayed as images. For many reasons. For example: use of numbered images for formulas makes it extremely difficult to understand the source text in editing mode. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He claims to have paid to have the images made for him. I'm not sure I buy that all physics profs can do even this kind of simple TeX markup, but I'm providing markup for them now (a few using \sum I can't get quite right, but that's why it's a wiki and why we don't use images for equations).  — Mike.lifeguard 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

LangSelect

Nice idea. But couldn't the same effect have been achieved using {{LangSwitch}} without any JS at all, and automatic at that? (True, LangSwitch has no option to show them all. But otherwise it seems to do the same, and even has sensible fallbacks.) Lupo 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - I didn't know that template existed, and I don't know how it works. Since we do need to find a unified solution for (semi-)automatic localization, I'd be very interested to learn how that one works, and your thoughts for what would work as a single solution.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything exploiting bugs is a bad idea, and passing parameters around between templates and parser functions (especially through multiple levels) is also a bad idea. Such kludges are a sign you're doing something wrong. The js solution shifts burden to client, and is rather more customizable: you can see everything, or any available language at will, and it supports tracking out-of-date localizations. Unfortunately, fallbacks haven't been implemented yet, but that's certainly a possibility. I think using javascript is a much better solution for the near- and long-term future than exploiting bugs in the software.  — Mike.lifeguard 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's exploiting a bug? Where? Is there a bugzilla report for it? Lupo 18:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The {{int:}} thing is a bug last I checked: [1]  — Mike.lifeguard 02:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Reading the discussion, I get the impression that while it may have been a bug originally and maybe even still be one technically, it may be considered a "feature" by now. That bug report has been open for more than a year without having been fixed, and without having caused serious problems. Brion at one point even said "people *do* like to put little UI thingies in their pages, and it is useful, so I don't want to break it just yet." Since then, this unintended and not quite correctly implemented feature has seen wider use: just consider all the autotranslation stuff that's been installed here recently. I'd say it's here to stay, or if fixed, there will need to be some properly implemented functional equivalent for it. Lupo 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, there is a "properly implemented functional equivalent": the js you asked about. Granted, it should be integrated into MediaWiki, and it still lacks sensible fallback languages, but it is the right approach. {{autotranslate}} et al is not the right way to do it, even though it may work, and has been popular in these past several months. I've always said when asked that using this is wrong through and through, and I still think that. I would love to see it entirely replaced by javascript for the aforementioned reasons.  — Mike.lifeguard 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:VI.com images (tag isn't updated)

There are files in it. Delete or relicense they firstly. Alex Spade (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand you. You're asking me to delete those images?  — Mike.lifeguard 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Email

Just a note to say that I just sent an email to you. NuclearWarfare (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

template rename

I am not sure I agree with [2] ... it seems rather adversarial to allege "fraud" when the template itself acknowledges that there may be jurisdictional differences. Would you consider undoing this change? ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, which I explained to the user when I made that change. It is adversarial (and problematic in several ways) and we should therefore not use it.  — Mike.lifeguard 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the template is totally different, so I'm moving it back now.  — Mike.lifeguard 18:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. You renamed something to a name you didn't agree with? Why? Why not ask for more discussion first instead of carrying out a rename? If you did, I may have missed it. ++Lar: t/c 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Steward criticism

Hi Mike,
was your comment "Lar, doesn't "your capacity as a steward" also .." really necessary and at the right place? Critizising (however well deserved) from steward to steward shouldn't happen at the village pump, IMHO. --Túrelio (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask why you think such comments shouldn't be made in public? I should also point out that I'm not criticising this action as a steward, but actually as a user just like any other. Everyone has an interest in ensuring policies are followed; thus everyone has an interest in either seeing such discussion or participating. This is why after consideration I chose to both make a small comment in public and further comments on Lar's talk page. Thanks for clarifying your reasoning for me.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment (...action on your home wiki? This isn't the first time...) seems to refer to past similar event(s) on another wiki, at least this is what is suggested, though the placement and missing indenting of your comment doesn't really make very clear to what you are referring - I assume the temp. adminship-removal of Dcoetzee. As we don't care too much what a user does (or is said to have done) on another wiki, this should be the same for stewards.

not criticising this action as a steward - well, you are a steward and, whether you like it or not, I think you are seen as such. But to your real question: I think stewards are actually seen as a sort of morally higher instance on Commons (I know that's not their defined function), and, at least in my way of thinking, one should first try to "admonish" for an allegedly wrong or unwise action via direct contact, that would less harm the other one and make it easier for him/her to admit to him/herself any wrong-doing and eventually correct it. --Túrelio (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, Lar has desysopped Commons users before; those are the previous instances that I was referring to. Apologies for the lack of clarity. I'll add something to that effect now.

As for being some kind of "morally higher instance": I think it'd be healthy to avoid such connotations. However, if I were some morally superior being (ha!)... since I've criticised others for similar actions in the past I couldn't then temper my comments without being a hypocrite. And again, I point out that this has nothing to do with me being a steward - any other user who takes issue with violations of steward policy can and should do the same. I don't do this to somehow embarrass him in public, but instead because in this instance I believe the action was in violation of policy, and I think the community has the right to hash it out in public.

In fact, making such comments privately could imply that this is personal, which is most certainly is not. This isn't about Lar as a person, but instead about his actions which directly implicate the community, and as such are best explicated publicly in an open forum where stakeholders are present, and in a way which directs attention to the actions, not the person.  — Mike.lifeguard 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the judgment required of being a steward is to know when things should be raised privately, and when they should be raised publicly. I believe you may have misjudged this situation, perhaps because you do not have all the facts, some of which are private and should remain so. ++Lar: t/c 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Math conversion

Hey Mike. I remember you conversion into the math code was really helpful for logger9 and I. Do you think you could write out the appropriate <math> code for File:Math035.gif? Thanks,NuclearWarfare (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course.  — Mike.lifeguard 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! NuclearWarfare (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wish someone had asked up front for help instead of the nonsense above.  — Mike.lifeguard 02:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism in my userpage. --Meno25 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Halifax Explosion

I made that change because the Halifax Explosion wasn't really a war-related event. Yes, it was caused by a ship carrying explosives for the war, but the war was otherwise pretty peripheral to the event. It was an accident/disaster that happened to occur during wartime, but that's about it. I checked the en-Wikipedia article before I made the change, and that article isn't included in the Canada and World War I category. I'm not terribly fussed if you want to add it back, but honestly I just don't really think it belongs in a war category. At a minimum, though, I'd think it belongs in the home front category, because it hasn't much to do with the conduct of the war.--skeezix1000 (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the war is relevant both to the wider context and to understanding the naval issues of the disaster. Furthermore, it was a critical event in WWI for Canada, and users looking for media should find it in sensible places. I'm going to add it back.  — Mike.lifeguard 02:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but none of what you have just said is in the article. But that's fine, I'd rather err on the side of overcategorization if there is an issue. But as I said, it belongs in the home front subcat. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess the article needs to be fixed!  — Mike.lifeguard 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You would need sources for the claims you are making. I'm not saying they're incorrect, just that the standard of proof is greater than "fixing" the article because you are "pretty sure". --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll note I do not edit Wikipedia. Someone who does should fix the article.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It may not be broken. It's a little presumptious to start criticizing the work of others, to suggest it needs fixing, solely on the basis on the basis of your own personal world view.--skeezix1000 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the issue is not my "world view" but rather the article.  — Mike.lifeguard 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But why...

[3] :'( I hope that doesn't mean you're leaving us. Rocket000 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As much a reply to Rocket as the others asking why: It does mean that. My contributions here have always been mainly administrative and without the tools I have little to do - the point is that I no longer wish to contribute. I have been enjoying my participation on Commons less and less over the past four to six months, and I don't believe Commons (as a project and as a community) is moving in a direction I care to follow. I've relinquished the tools because I am no longer interested in slogging through the dirty laundry of a project I no longer love. I have plenty of work elsewhere where I do still love the communities and projects. Perhaps in the future Commons will come back to a path I wish to join.  — Mike.lifeguard 22:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the feeling. But there's still hope, I think. In my three years here, I've seen many great users leave, very few new ones come. The ones that get it. Commons definitively has its valleys and its peaks, but I can't say we entered any downward spiral (like another project I used to care about). Yet. Good luck and cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I see things differently, but at present my view of Commons leads me to distance myself. Thanks certainly for implying I'm in the "great users" category.  — Mike.lifeguard 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. Nothing wrong with seeing things differently (although, when you said "Perhaps in the future Commons will come back..." I thought you were implying there's some hope left). You're definitely in the "great users" category, somewhere at the top at that. You have great judgement and are not afraid to speak up when you have to, even if it's not the popular thing. We need more admins like that. Rocket000 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/12

The most usefull filter. I propse to add ("ImageNote" in removed_line) bacause it is redundant to filter 49 and according to already excluded category- and review edits I think the filter is not intended for this sort of edits. I also propose to double the edit number, I dont think the current number is enough to catch a user with realy bad intentions. --Martin H. (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied by email.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 23:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Ánforas

Hi. Could you please have a look? He's a user you have blocked a while ago for abusing multiple accounts. I think he doesn't understand his block, it could be useful to talk to him. Maybe he can be unblocked after an explanation, I don't know. Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they could be unblocked provided someone (you?) is convinced they will follow COM:L in the future.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 17:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll find a Spanish-speaking admin to deal with him. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I'd like to thank you for your kind offline support in trying to arrange a conflict resolution between lycaon and me. It does not matter that your efforts did not produce so much needed result. What matters is that you kindly responded to my request, and were trying to help me out in your own private time. Thank you very much!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to your user page? Why it explodes again? --Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I couldn't help more and that it didn't work out better. If you need anything, I'm still around, just not at Commons. My userpage rotates through several images (look at the wikitext)  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 12:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:11.15.07EllenJohnsonByLuigiNovi.jpg

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:11.15.07EllenJohnsonByLuigiNovi.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Tarawneh (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Abusefilter warnings

Hey, since you have created many good abusefilters, I thought you're probably the right person to answer my question. I've created a warning if people press buttons on the toolbar to tell them they should use the sandbox. I was just wondering: Can they be translated into other languages just like any other MediaWiki message or do we need to use autotranslate for this. I thought I'd better ask before screwing something up. Let me know. Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Autotranslate should never be used, please see my talk page archives for discussion on that. They should definitely never be used in the MediaWiki namespace - the software will take care of pulling the right translation.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 15:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Wikibooks logo

Hello, Mike,

English: First, sorry for my bad English. I think that the old Wikibooks logo should keep because some versions still use it and it's part of the past of the project, and should put on the page of obsolete logos. Can you upload the old logo again? Thank you. --Xavier D. (Messages) 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Español: Creo que el antiguo logo de Wikibooks se debería mantener, ya que muchas versiones como la catalana aún lo utilizan y además forma parte del pasado del proyecto, i creo que se debería poner aquí con los demás logos obsoletos. Podrías encargarte de hacerlo, porfavor? Muchas gracias por avanzado. Atentamente, --Xavier D. (Messages) 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the logo is still in the history, please upload it however you want.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 02:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:3_firefoxes.png

File:3_firefoxes.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

AVRS (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:NOINDEX

Template:NOINDEX 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 template, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

--The Evil IP address (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to have helped, though obviously saddened to see the current state of the wiki  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuing editing here

Mike, I thought I would just be above-board (as usual) and let you know that I am editing here at Wikimedia Commons. It appears that your "global lock" on my account did not extend here, nor did it extend to the English Wikisource. These are two projects where (apparently) my accounts were not unified. If I may ask your opinion, would you agree that the unified "Single User Login" (SUL) is a handicap from the perspective of a dissenter to Wikimedia governance? If someone ever anticipates running afoul of the dictates of Jimmy Wales or his most loyal followers, of what benefit is the SUL? Thanks, and good tidings. -- Thekohser (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Riiiiiight, you've never done anything wrong. As far as I'm concerned, your editing here simply proves the Commons community is incapable of maturity. I hope you can be constructive here, but it is not a realistic hope. I really wish you would leave our wikis, as you've been asked to do countless times.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Govind_Ballabh_Pant-greyscale.jpg

File:Govind_Ballabh_Pant-greyscale.jpg 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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Vssun (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Boy_Scouts_of_America_emblem.png

File:Boy_Scouts_of_America_emblem.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 file, 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. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Gadget850 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-autodel.js

MediaWiki:Gadget-autodel.js 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 interface page, 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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

RE rillke questions? 00:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, there is a de-flag proposal at Commons:Bots/Requests/de-flag which affects your bot. Regards --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called SomeRandomEditor. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name SomeRandomEditor~commonswiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

22:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

nada

	bourahla
	hobi lawal wa lakhar Bourahla.benkhouya (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hob kadab Bourahla.benkhouya (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JarektBot (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)