User talk:Multichill/Archives/2008/November

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Weet jij dit toevallig?

Hallo Multichill - ik had een vraag op mijn overlegpagina waarop ik het antwoord niet weet. Wellicht dat jij (met wat meer technische kennis) hier wat licht op kan schijnen? Het gaat erom dat bepaalde afbeeldingen niet worden weergegeven na het zoeken. Alvast bedankt! User talk:Deadstar#Thanks / more help needed please -- Deadstar (msg) 15:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Misschien heeft mijn gebrek aan reactie al een kleine hint gegegen: ik weet het ook niet. Multichill (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

BotMultichill great improvement

The temporary addition by BotMultichill of references to where the image is used is a great idea and implementation. Should considerably facilitate recategorisation job without increasing maintenance burden. Example. Neat job indeed. --Foroa (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Now that User:Multichill/Category suggestions is reduced a lot, it was time to improve check categories. I'm checking the old ones and when that's done, i'm going to work on Category:Media needing categories again. Multichill (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Timing accident? see history of Image:Buitenwegse Molen Oud-Zuilen.jpg‎ -- Havang(nl) (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, i'm running on Category:Media needing category review as of 16 August 2008 atm to add extra info. Multichill (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Still inserting repeated/redirected categories and Category:German biologists. See User:RussBot/category redirect log for frequently inserted redirects. --Foroa (talk) 06:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Because the page uses {{catredirect}} and not {{Category redirect}}. Multichill (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dizionario Araldico Ufficiale Italiano

Hi, I'm Giorgio and, among others, I add caategories to "uncategorized" pictures. Yesterday I fixed some pictures related with heraldry and after that the uploader, an italian guy, contacted me about those pictures. The user is User:Massimop. Because he couldn't properly explain himself in english, he asked me to refer you this message. It seems that there is a problem with your bot. All the 400 pictures he uploaded coming from "Official dictionary of italian heraldry" are labeled with PD-DAUI that automatically releases the pictures in public domain and adds the category "Dizionario bla bla bla". But, it seems, your bot doesn't recognize the template and marks all the pictures as "uncategorized" or as "needing category review". He asks if you can do something about that. Here one of those pictures: [1]. Thank you.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories included in templates are not versatile. In this case, the overall Category:Dizionario araldico ufficiale italiano is a PD-category, but doesn't specifie the heraldic categories these images have to be in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havang(nl) (talk • contribs) 13:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
^^. Multichill (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat(s) 2

Hello, I don't speak or read Dutch ot German, so I could be asking a question that somebody already asked you. But how many people are actually adding categories besides me? ----DanTD (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi DanTD, no problem. I have a babel template on my user page to show which languages you can use. You might want to include one too. Not really sure how much people are working on it. A lot i guess, but a lot of work to do too. You might want to enable hotcat, it makes categorization way more easier. You can find it under Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> Tools for categories -> Hotcat. Multichill (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hit a couple of times this one, and you will see that underneath its surface, Commons is a very busy colony. --Foroa (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

category

Hi you edited some pohotos yesterday that didn't have and put "Uncategorized|year=2008|month=November|day=2" and wrote a comment: "(Please add categories to this image)" but these photos are already in a gallery. So my question is: does every single pohoto that is in a gallery on commons, have to be in a category too? and who decide which photos from a category can be or shuold be in a gallery? thanks Olympic1981 (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In a word, yes. While a gallery is a nice way of displaying your images, it makes it very difficult for other editors to find them. With a category, the metadata is stored on the image and stays with it- with a gallery the data stays on the gallery page which may subsequently be edited and the image link removed. So why have galleries? Take the example of a village- you can group all the images of the church together- then all the images of the market place- then vistas and add some text to each image. You can just display the high resolution shots. Look at Machu Picchu- this gallery really helps an editor on a new wiki in a small language to write a text article in that language- but categories are essential in case this page is ever deleted.-ClemRutter (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding ClemRutter. Multichill (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
There is also this to say about it: Images are send to the right adresses by their category labels. Thanks to all users who give images parent-category labels, one is able to label them with lower categories and subsequently bottom categories (category refinement). The refined category links horizontally to the right gallerypage, so this gallerypage can be filled gradually by incoming images. In this process one keeps intact the refined category labels to avoid repeated cat-processing and to garantee other moves. Reason: The categorizing process has uncategorised images as input. Uncategorising an image puts it back on the input side - a contraproductif edit loop. -- Havang(nl) (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Hoi hoi,

Kan jouw bot een lijst maken van alle redirects en de locaties waar ze naar toe verwijzen?

Ik zou graag zo'n lijst willen van alle redirects op incubator.

Is zoiets mogelijk? Groetjes, Sterkebaktalk 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

O, ja hoor. Welke incubator? Multichill (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ik ben met onderhoud bezig op http://incubator.Wikimedia.Org en daar word van alles hernoemd en verplaatst en der blijven van allerlij soorten redirects over die er niet moeten zijn. Zo'n lijst kan je evt wel in mijn gebruikersruimte zetten. Sterkebaktalk 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maar zou je zo'n lijst kunnen en willen maken? Ik weet dat het een grote lijst zal worden. Groetjes, Sterkebaktalk 08:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Is dit wat je zoekt? Multichill (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-Meyers-pages

It looks like there is about 20,000 images using this template that have been marked as missing categories. However, the template provides the categories. I've noticed that user:Red Rooster is listed as our biggest "offender" but it's actually not the case. --J.smith (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, noticed that too. Looks like i have some cleaning up to do. Bot is running now. I removed it more than a month ago, but it seems like i forgot to clean up. 20.000 less uncategorized images, great! Multichill (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
My bot had a field day, it's cleaned up now. Multichill (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Civertan

We will keep in mind, what you wrote. Thank YouCivertan (talk)

Great! Multichill (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Cat(s)

Ik stuitte net op de volgende categoriseringsactie van de Multichill bot, [2], wat mij nogal een schrik aanjoeg. Ik ben de afgelopen maanden beziggeweest om allerlei heel specifieke categorieen te defineren. Met deze categorisering lijken ze te worden volgezet met allerlei.... ongerelateerde zaken.

In de afgelopen tijd ben ik wel bezig geweest categorieen op te schonen, maar nu kwam ik er in de category Category:Nolan charts zo'n 80 afbeelingen staan die hier niet thuis horen. Ik vraag me echt af of dit ermee te maken heeft, dat die ene bot actie de afbeelding in zo'n 30 categories stops... Zou je hier AUB naar willen kijken-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Het lijkt erop dat je het zelf hebt veroorzaakt door de categorienachtmerrie op Chart. Waarom heb je in hemelsnaam die gallery in zoveel cats gezet? Multichill (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hier heb ik mijn redenen voor. En ik heb dat met enige andere categorieen ook gedaan.... en dat wil ik best uitleggen. Kennelijk gebruikt jou bot de categorieen van de chart-gallery. Maar dat kan je mij toch niet verwijten?? Wat is hier eigenlijk aan de hand. Waarom is jouw bot op hol geslagen door deze categorizatie en wat kunnen we daar aan doen. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. En de reden...: Die gallery geeft een overzicht van 30 types charts, die elk een afzonderlijke categorie hebben. Nou heb ik die gallery in al deze categorieen gestopt, zodat ieder vanuit die category precies kan zien in welke galleries dat onderwerp verder besproken wordt. Ik heb er natuurlijk nooit bij stil gestaan, dat dit jou Bot zou beinvloeden. Met het creeren van allerlei (sub)categorieen ben ik de boel flink aan het differentieren. Juist die galleries bieden dan weer overzicht.
Hoi Mdd, ik geef je niet de schuld, ik vertel je alleen hoe het zover heeft kunnen komen. Ik denk beter dat je op elke categorie een link naar Chart kan maken, wellicht in een standaard sjabloon voor alle Chart categorieën. Het gaat om zo'n 80 afbeeldingen zo te zien. Zullen we allebei de helft doen? Dan zijn we zo klaar. Het is gewoon klikken op Check them now!, alle niet relevante cats eraf slopen en dan opslaan. Multichill (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Bedankt. Zo'n sjabloon is wellicht een goed idee. Als het "maar" om 80 afbeeldingen gaat dan wil ik die graag nalopen (ik heb al enige 1000 afbeeldingen ge(her)categoriseerd hier). Voor mij is het onduidelijk of deze 80 niet het topje van de ijsberg zijn.
Het lijkt me ook zaak, dat dit niet verder escaleert. Die zgn "overcategorisering" (category madness) heb ik ook in de galleries plot, Mathematical diagrams en General diagram types aangebracht. En misschien moeten we dit ook (even) verwijderen? Dat kan jij overzien?
Zoals gezegd heb ik de laatste drie maanden zo'n 200 nieuwe categories aangemaakt, en ben ik de laatste tijd bezig hier meer dwarsverbanden aan te leggen: Vooral met artikelen als Network diagram en Cluster diagram, hier en op de Wikipedia. Eigenlijk ben ik van plan dit met alle genoemde types in de nieuwe General diagram types te doen. (Ik breng hier als het ware een tussenlaag, om het "fenomeen diagram" inzichtelijker te maken. Uiteraard zoek ik daar voor de Wikipedia artikelen ook de betreffence literatuur bij). Nu levert dit een extra categoriseringsdimensie: Alle diagrammen met een "netwerk vorm" categoriseer ik onder "netwerk diagram". Denk jij dat deze extra categorieen hier misschien ook een probleem kunnen gaan vormen voor de bot?
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ik heb nou 20 afbeeldingen nagekeken, en heb nou 20 keer een soort gelijke tekst verwijderd:

  • {{Check categories|year=2008|month=October|day=31 |lang1=es|wiki1=wikipedia|article1=Arivechi_(municipio) |lang2=ru|wiki2=wikipedia|article2=Аривечи_(муниципалитет) |gallery1=1932 |gallery2=México |gallery3=Chart |gallery4=Sonora }}

Ik vraag me nu af hoe het komt dat de chart gallery hier als "automatische" suggestie uit de hoge hoed is gekomen. Kunnen termen als diagram, chart, plot, graph hier niet van gevrijwaard worden?? of ligt dast allemaal niet zo simpel!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ik heb de Category:Nolan charts opgeschoont. Ik hoop dat jij me kan vertellen, hoe we dit verder kunnen voorkomen. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoi Marcel, was het je opgevallen dat als je op het linkje (Check them now!) klikt dat dan het sjabloon meteen verdwenen is? Deze manier van categoriseren (bot + Commonssense) is een afweging. We hebben op het moment zo'n 250.000 afbeeldingen in Category:Media needing categories. Een category bij een afbeelding zoeken is een stuk makkelijker als je suggesties hebt. De kwaliteit van de suggesties verschilt helaas nogal.
Alle categorieën moeten logisch geordend zijn in een boomstructuur. Afbeeldingen en galleries moeten daar weer op een logische plaats ingehangen worden. Het is niet logisch om een gallery op talloze plaatsen in een boom te hangen. Als je deze logica aanhoudt dan gaat het over het algemeen goed met m'n bot. Je kan de resultaten van m'n bot vinden in Category:Media needing category review. Je zou iets met sjablonen kunnen doen zoals bijvoorbeeld ook bij planten gebeurd. Multichill (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Bedankt voor je toelichting. Ik zal dit nog eens overwegen, en een andere oplossing zoeken. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please

take you're fingers out of the picture region depending ancient ceramics an vase-painting. You don't have to destroy the structure there. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

P, P PP ppp ppp pottery pottery? Multichill (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WH

Just so you know, I nominated his pictures on Commons as well, after cleaning up nl-wikipedia. You can find them on Commons:Deletion requests/Images of WH: I think I've got them all. Ciell (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Bots/Requests#Replacing accents in Category:Files moved from fr.wikipedia to Commons requiring review

Hello,

Regarding my request over there, do you think your bot could do these accents replacements ? There doesn't seem to be anyone else responding on the bot requests page unfortunately.

Thanks, le Korrigan bla 10:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot changes to snake articles

Hi Multichill, I noticed your bot's recent changes to a series of snakes articles and am, unfortunately, not very pleased will all of them. In particular, I would like you to now move articles to categories with the same name. Example: Amphiesma beddomei moved from Category:Amphiesma to Category:Amphiesma beddomei. First of all, there is no guideline that encourages any particular approach, and secondly doing it the other way has a few advantages that you may not have considered. 1.) Overview and maintenance. If you consider Category:Viperinae, for example, you can see in a single glance that there are currently matching articles for all of the existing subcategories. If any were missing, it would not be necessary to check each individual subcategory. 2.) Easy to create more pages. To create a new category or article, all you have to do initially is copy the contents of the one to the other and add or remove a gallery section. No need to change the category tag. 3.) The taxnav. You may not know this, but new taxnav functionality makes placement of an article unimportant: to get from the category to the article and back, just click on the name of the article or category in the taxnav (colored blue if it exists). This means it's no longer necessary to search for the matching article or category. 4.) Logic. If it is considered logical to place a category for a taxon in that of its parent taxon, why treat the matching article any differently? At best, this is only a matter of taste. In conclusion, I would therefore appreciate it if you could have your bot undo these particular changes. Thanks, --Jwinius (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When I create a new category that corresponds to a gallery, I keep the higher level category as not to destabilize the TOL people. For some reason, some people are convinced that a gallery can only point to its own category and not to a higher one, so they change my edits. I think that this should be discussed with the TOL people, but maybe broader too. For example, If I want to see the Presidents of Absurdistan, I want to see all the categories and all the galleries inside that category. Categorisation logic is different from browsing and inspection logic. --Foroa (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Half of the people do it one way, the other half the other way. It's one big inconsistent mess. I tested it on several categories and I now removed the gallery part. Please fight out somewhere how it's going to be. Multichill (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
But didn't you notice the (1P, xF) adiitions to the categories? This is an easy check for knowing if there is a page related to the category. This defines also for the imaages in a category, in which page it has to be put. By appliing the horizontal linking, there is much to win and just an habit to loose. A double list (one for categories, one for pages) is no longer needed, which is also a simplification. And all is better suited to automatisations. I am enthousiastic' about the progress induced by the Multichill-bots, even if now and then something goes wrong also - but I have seen proof that several watchers follow these bot's doings, including myself. -- Havang(nl) (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"... Half of the people do it one way, the other half the other way. ..." Then please don't make things worse by taking sides and enforcing your own point of view. I just do snakes. I inquired into this before I started my work and was assured there was no standard, so I had to make a choice. Since there's nothing wrong with that choice, I'm asking you to kindly not interfere and please put things back the way they were. --Jwinius (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I've gone ahead and done it myself. Thanks. --Jwinius (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Naval ships of the United States

Category discussion notification Category:Naval ships of the United States and Category:United States Navy ships have been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

-- Jmabel ! talk 06:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

automatic categories

Hi. Why are these pictures Image:3-fas-effekt.svg, Image:3-faskopplingar.svg, Image:3-fas-spänningar.svg in Category:Thermodynamics? Does the bot work correctly? --Jx (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The path seems to be sv:Trefassystem -> sv:Kategori:Elkraftteknik -> sv:Kategori:Energiteknik -> sv:Kategori:Termodynamik -> Category:Thermodynamics. If every category suggested by my bot would be correct i would not tag these suggestions with {{Check categories}}.Multichill (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I haven't noticed the "Check categories" inside. --Jx (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused

BotMultichillT added Image:William welch deloitte small.jpg to category Category:People by alphabet. As the category page explains, it is only meant for categories and galleries, not for images. Also, what's the gallery suggestion good for? The image is listed in that gallery already. What am I missing? Rl (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you are missing the banner "The categories of this image should be checked. Check them now!" ? le Korrigan bla 09:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you should stop automatically categorising

Hi,

This latest idea of yours, of automatically inserting tentative categories, is, I think, a very bad idea. I suppose it might be okay if errors were rare, and only slightly wrong, but the ones I'm seeing are right royal screwups. e.g. the vast majority of categories you put here are inexplicably bad. I think you should stop. You're doing more harm than good.

Hesperian 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Some images don't get categorized in the right categories straight away, i dont like that either, but the error rate is acceptable. Multichill (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:DHS W.gif

Hi Multichill! Sorry to bother you again. It looks like {{PD-USGov-DHS}} is not being recognized as giving a category. Not sure how many images this impacts, but I don't think it's too many. --J.smith (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a licence template, should not add a topic category. It should just add Category:PD US DHS. Multichill (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough... I didn't set it up. --J.smith (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I changed the category structure to get it in line with the other PD US categories. Multichill (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Articles to be merged

Can I request again the bot not to insert the Category:Articles to be merged in the images as that makes no sense. Thank you. --Foroa (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Foroa, that category is supposed to be blacklisted. Strange, i'll look into it. Multichill (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, found the bug and fixed it (might take some time before my bot notices it). Do you have more categories to be blacklisted? Multichill (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Check categories

How do you remove that thing? It messes up every page it gests inserted into six ways to sunday. Destroys wikilinks and everything.

It would really be good if you stopped that bot too. It tags pages that are already catted correctly. Already it has created months of needless workload for human editors to correct.

And bluntly - "no more images in galleries" - NO. NOT NEGOTIABLE. Categorically. You have missed out the discussion on the Tree of Life project (can't blame anyone for not getting into that epic flamefest...) - in a nutshell, Commons does not function properly on a category-only basis here. Everywhere else, it might. But not here. For ToL, we can get rid of categories, but we absolutely and uncomprisingly need species gallery pages.

There is no Project consensus on how to resolve the issue (the discussion is running since years now), but it is Project consensus that such wholesale work as of that bot cannot be allowed; any such changes may only be made manually by human editors and after diligent consideration of the effects on useability. We are already working overtime to keep the entire biodiversity content categorization from collapsing over our heads. For any non-editor with professional scientific training, Commons has simply become too screwed up to be worth using already. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked several of you contributions ([3], [4] & [5]). It looks like a case of PEBKAC. You didnt remove the template, just parts of it. You might want to click Check them now! to correctly remove the template and set an edit summary (something you don't seem to have discoverd judging from your contributions). Talking about consensus, the consenus is that every image should be categorized and galleries are no replacements for categories. Check my archive for pointers. Multichill (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not a Commons-wide consensus. 87.79.82.198 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is, see Commons:Categories and Commons:Categories vs Galleries. Multichill (talk) 09:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

surprising BotMultiChill intervention

Hi! I was surprised of this modification [6]. This image was actually already correctly categorized and most of the added categories are redundant or concern the artist category and not this image. By the way, it's not the first time, I saw a similar case with another image but I can't remember now which one it was. Best regards Vonvon (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I compiled a list of 50.000 uncategorized images which are in use at enwp. I compiled this list last week and my bot has been working on it all week. This image was on the list so my bot tried to categorize it. I compiled a new list now (32000 images). Will try to keep it up to date. Multichill (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok! Maybe naive question: couldn't the bot check if the file was in between time categorized? Vonvon (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Not naïve at all. I was already thinking about adding a flag to the bot to only work on uncategorized files. Multichill (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

google

Done :-) --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 13:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've rollbacked some edits... --Filnik\b[Rr]ock\b!? 14:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2 photos

Dear Multichill, I've send you an e-mail today. Now, I have responded to the first request as you can see with history of the following link here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:469px-Dilwheel.jpg I wish it works well, please tell me.

As for the second request, I would need a form to feel, and send it via e-mail, but I will need some time. Can you see if this request can be delayed? Thanks --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:GYALWA KARMAPA-HST-80x80-IV 08.jpg This image have been deleted, whereas I was in the process of consulting the procedure, as I have indicated above. Can you please undelete as requested here ? I have now sent the copyright form to "permissions-commons wikimedia.org" e-mail address concerning this file. Thanks in advance. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done. Multichill (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Undefined

I've closed this, and will leave it to you to empty the cat! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, i cleaned out the category and deleted it. No new images after half september. Multichill (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Odd diff

I thought you might like to know that it would seem your bot added a rather odd Category to this military portrait shot - Category:Sexology! I hope I've read the image history correctly, and wondered why that might've happened! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ah - p'raps I spoke too soon... it's been pointed out to me, on my en talk page, that 'He's a medical man with some apparently rather peculiar views on the nature and origins of homosexuality, so actually "sexology" (the study of sexual interests, behavior, and function) would sound not inappropriate to me' - me neither! Otoh, I think on balance I agree with the removal of the category, but the bot was clearly smarter than I gave it credit for :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Le pont de Lézardrieux, answer

Thank you for your message. It seems I am not able to edit this picture ! Why ? You can delete it, a quite similar already exists in the category Pont de Lézardrieux. --Barbetorte (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied here, please keep the conversation in one place. Multichill (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Internationalization

Hi Multichill, I've started working on your internationalization project. Would you mind adding {{/lang}} to the following edit-protected CC licence templates? BY-1.0, BY-2.0, BY-2.5, BY-SA-1.0, BY-SA-2.0, BY-SA-2.5. Cheers, Pruneautalk 17:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Multichill,
Thanks for your great big array!
I'm ready to update {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} with the autotranslating template, but before doing that I'd like some help to find and fix current calls to Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. The first parameter is about to have its semantic changed (see Template talk:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 for the proposed changes).
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Grenoble disturb

Bonjour,

Depuis des années, tout allait bien dans Category:Grenoble jusqu'à votre intervention de ce jour.

Pourquoi avoir supprimer category:Diversity of Grenoble ?

Cela crée une centaine de photos mises en vrac dans la page principale.

Regardez le désordre que vous avez mis. Dans quelles catégories va t-on reclasser ces photos ? Qui va reclasser ces photos ?

Certainement pas moi si vous venez tout casser ensuite.

Dans l'attente d evotre réponse.

Milky (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Milky, please read rama's response at Category talk:Diversity of Grenoble and Commons:Categories. The category was killed because it doesn't confirm to the Commons category structure. You should move the images to the relevant subcategories of Category:Grenoble if you think this category is too crowded. Multichill (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Russian category

Any idea why the bot added this russian redirected category ? --Foroa (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It used a redirected template not in my list. It looks like more cats use this redirect. Multichill (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Image Deletions

Hello.

I have already discussed the 'legality' of these images here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Herbythyme#Image_deletions

These images are NOT screen shots and should therefore be treated as lists more than anything. They are word/text documents that were changed to jpeg format for ease of posting.

Please let me know if there is anything else you think I should do to make sure I can post them.

Thanks,

Phat Lemur —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phat Lemur (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)