User talk:Mike Peel

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Uncivil comments will be reverted without response. Thank you. Start a new talk topic. If you would prefer to contact me off-wiki, then my contact details and a contact form are available on my personal website.

"we're not there yet"

Hi,

To follow the discussion started on the DR, I agree with you that "technically/tool-wise" we're almost there (and I also agree we should do a diagnostic to know precisely what still needs to be done, sadly I don't have much time right now), but "editorialy/community-wise" I fear there is still a long way (it's laways the longuest part...).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Thanks for the re to Commons:Deletion requests/Creator:D. Benjamin Miller. I agree that community-wise is always the longest part with these sort of tech changes. :-) I also don't have much time right now, but it might be good to find someone who could do that diagnostic/start a community discussion about this (maybe @Jarekt and Multichill: might have thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Some years ago, I was working on migrating most of the data from Creator templates to Wikidata with help of Category:Creator template maintenance categories and I managed to move most of it. Most of the Creator templates now have 100% of data coming from Wikidata with the only purpose of the template itself being easy to remember and humanly readable wikicode. However there are still templates that have data on Commons which is missing on Wikidata, or have conflicting information between the two, and those need to be clean up or reconciled. Ideal state is when all the data is on Wikidata and the template renders properly on Commons. Unfortunately, some templates do not render properly and need local "overwrites", like for example nationality of various creators. Many people are described by sources or in the first sentence of their article as "Polish writer", "Italian painter", etc. but the nationality is currently not stored in Wikidata and sometimes can not be algorithmically determined based on country of citizenship (P27) or ethnic group (P172). Sometimes, person have 50 occupations or aliases on Wikidata while Commons can only display 4 or 5. That is why in small percentage of cases we do need local templates in Creator namespace. --Jarekt (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At New York City 2023 074.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At New York City 2023 075.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Royal Arcade, London 2023 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --ReneeWrites 06:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Congleton railway station 2023 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 11:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Congleton railway station 2023 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Congleton railway station 2023 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Congleton railway station 2023 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Congleton railway station 2023 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 07:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Karoo National Park 2014 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --ReneeWrites 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Chester Zoo 2023 047.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Chester Zoo 2023 048.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! R381, Loxton to Beaufort West, South Africa 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Memorial to the Heroes of the Engine Room.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --多多123 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At San Francisco 2015 040 - Pier 27.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --多多123 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oliver Cromwell statue, Wythenshawe Park, March 2016 025.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --多多123 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oliver Cromwell statue, Wythenshawe Park, March 2016 026.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 21:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Jardin de Cactus 2022 017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 22:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Wollaton Hall 2023 002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 19:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Wollaton Hall 2023 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 21:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Wollaton Hall 2023 013.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Wollaton Hall 2023 014.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 19:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Wollaton Hall 2023 016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 19:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Chester Zoo 2023 044.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --MB-one 16:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Issue regarding QI bot

Hello Mike, Recently,while noticing me about my QI promotions, the bot is writing only " Template:QICpromoted Template:QICpromoted Template:QICpromoted Template:QICpromoted Template:QICpromoted --QICbot (int:Talkpagelinktext) 05:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC) " rather than showing me the pictures that were promoted. I thought it was just a temporary issue, but it has happened 5 times already. Would you mind taking a look at my talkpage? Regards, Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fabian Roudra Baroi: Your talk page is huge! MediaWiki's running out of resources to display it, which is why it's not expanding the templates. You should look into talk page archiving, see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo, and/or the archive code at the top of this page as an example. Once older content is archived, the newer content should display right. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Chester Zoo 2023 043.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! At Ecclesbourne Valley Railway 2023 067.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 21:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

…back

Hey 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:2D 01:12, 22 July 2023 (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!

Affected:

• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 002.jpg

And also:

• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 003.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 005.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 006.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 007.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 008.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 009.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 010.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 011.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 012.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 013.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 017.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 019.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 022.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 023.jpg
• File:Monumento ai Caduti, Lecco, Wikimania 2016, MP 024.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy of a page

Oi, Mike, tudo bem? I’m writing you this message in order to ask you if it’s possible you send me a copy (through email, for example) of a deleted page of mine on English Wikipedia. Getting straight to the point, it’s a copy of this page right before it was deleted by Bbb23. It was deleted as supposedly being a “negative unsourced BLP”. The fact is that everything I wrote can be checked on reliable sources [1] [2] [3] [4] (see also Wikidata:Q118985836), but I usually prefer to write my articles first and just then add references to them. If it helps, one of the sources I have just mentioned is an academic paper by DarwIn. Melhores cumprimentos, RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Oi @RodRabelo7: , tudo bem e você? I've read through the deleted draft (em português), and I have to agree with @Bbb23: . As you wrote it, it is clearly an attack article that is not based on reliable sources. I can't see how you could turn it into an article that could be included on enwiki. So I have to decline your request. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)