User talk:SLV100

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, SLV100!

-- 06:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

{{Signe Hermanns}}[edit]

I am initiating a deletion request on the template. Your tagging all the files individually looks like it will lead to an edit war, and a deleting admin will have insufficient information to make a decision. You are welcome to comment on the deletion request for the template. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 11:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Old maps of Amsterdam[edit]

Converting a DR to a {{Speedy}} is against policy -- in fact, even a file that has had a previous, now closed, DR, is not eligible for speedy deletion. See Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion, where it says:

"Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."

Please don't do it again.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 09:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags[edit]

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Svenska | Українська | +/−

Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from images that you have uploaded yourself. If you do not believe the image deserves to be deleted, then please make your case on the image's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the image. Thank you.

Motopark (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A few tips:
  1. Read warning templates before implementing them
  2. Substitute warning templates
  3. I didn't remove speedy from an image
  4. I didn't remove speedy from a page I created
Thanks! -- SLV100 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 574678b9bda54a193bbccb122965c0b4[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!


Was this your change?. And why did you remove the template from its documentation? -- RE rillke questions? 22:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Which problem are you trying to solve? -- RE rillke questions? 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
{{rename}} is only for moving files. -- SLV100 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes but what's the problem with the old markup? Why are you not responding to my first question and why do you remove LayoutTemplateArgs? And what's the problem having the template displaying an error when it is not used properly? -- RE rillke questions? 19:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Less code is used when {{iffile}} is used. -- SLV100 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
But this is not the answer to my questions. Why do you remove {{LayoutTemplateArgs}}? -- RE rillke questions? 19:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
{{LayoutTemplateArgs}} is restored. -- SLV100 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Communication seems to be really difficult... I still don't know why you removed the template and now restored it. I suggest that you put also the reasons why you do what if it's not obvious into the edit-summary. -- RE rillke questions? 20:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Change to move and rename[edit]

Hi SLV100,

this construction has a purpose. People were misplacing the templates and thus suggested name changes were not processed because the files, cats, or pages were not categorized. Would you please stop changing the system without prior discussion. Cheers --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I will ask you one last time. Please stop changing the central functions of templates like {{badname}}, {{move}}, and "rename" without prior discussion. Please also don't editwar about it. --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

move request[edit]

Your move request of File:Licensing tutorial tr.svg.png to File:Licensing tutorial tr.svg can't be done because the file is a .png file. INeverCry 03:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There must be a way, because this licensing tutorial should be in turkish. -- SLV100 (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've asked an admin about fixing this. See User talk:Materialscientist#file - Turkish tutorial - question. Hopefully he'll know what needs to be done. INeverCry 06:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The way to go is convert File:Licensing tutorial tr.png to File:Licensing tutorial tr.svg. I've tried that and the result is less than satisfactory (my svg editing skills are very rudimentary), but I've asked help at Commons:Graphics lab and hope they'll fix my conversion (they did help me in the past). Materialscientist (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:AlgaeGraphix/BSicon 28[edit]

You have been asked before to leave my pages alone. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−

float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#SLV100. tampering with closed DR. Thank you.

Your account has been blocked[edit]

Please be advised that your behavior is not acceptable and the next time your account may be totally blocked. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: "I'm not requesting a full unblock. I'm requesting that my block be reduced to one week for the following reasons:
  1. The edit that ultimately resulted in the block of my account was a test edit that I forgot to revert. Unlike my previos edits, I didn't remove text from the source code. The text was still visible at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/10/07 and Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/11/03.
  2. After my promise at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#SLV100, none of my edits have removed comments from the source code of pages.
I understand that I should be blocked for the edits I performed before my promise. But can the block be reduced for one more week instead. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)"
Unblock reason: "Block lifted per Com:AGF --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)"

This template should be archived normally.

(Block log)
(Change local status for a global block)

Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | हिन्दी | Magyar | Македонски | Plattdüütsch | Português | Русский | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−

P.S. I was in the middle of maintaining Commons:Categories for discussion when I was blocked. See my move log and:

and search keyword "Housekeeping". There are still many pages to fix. -- SLV100 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Account unblocked. Reason: SLV100 will stay out of archives and will use the sandbox for experiments. Note: Next time there will be no leeway for an admin and the block may be longer. Please be careful with your edits from now on! Thanks! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 months[edit]

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 months for the following reason: Again (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_45#SLV100) pagemove vandalism in Commons:Categories for discussion etc. See movelog and users last edits. See also Hedwig's comment above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC). If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

@Steinsplitter: There was no consensus for reverting my edits in Commons:Categories for discussion. As stated at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_45#SLV100, the edits at Commons:Categories for discussion were for maintenance and not vandalism. The edits on talk pages was also maintenance because {{welcome/zh-hans}} and the other sub templates aren't supposed to be used directly (see the bottom of Template:Welcome/zh-hans). Please share your response below. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't unblock you because you have received enough warnings. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Which discussion has an explicit consensus that says that the pagemoves at Commons:Categories for discussion are vandalism and not maintenance. Please share the link below. -- SLV100 (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
See above. You where asked to don't do so. Please don't try to play a game here. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
That comment is most likely referring to the edits at Commons:Deletion requests that were explicit vandalism (examples: and None of my recent edits have been blunt vandalism like those edits. And no one else has stated that they agree that the pagemoves at Commons:Categories for discussion are vandalism. -- SLV100 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: This discussion needs more input from other admins. Can you invite Hedwig, Tuválkin, PierreSelim, Sven Manguard, Rillke, EVula, Túrelio, Fastily, Yann, etc.?
@Admins: I was standardizing CFDs in these formats (Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/20YY/MM/Category:NAME and Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/20YY/MM/Category:NAME) into Commons:Categories for discussion/20YY/MM/Category:NAME, but Steinsplitter disagrees. The usage of the three formats before my pagemoves was:
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/20YY/MM/Category:NAME was used in 0.248% of CFDs
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/20YY/MM/Category:NAME was used in 6.827% of CFDs
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/20YY/MM/Category:NAME was used in 92.925% of CFDs
Currently, the usage of the three formats is:
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/20YY/MM/Category:NAME is used in 0.000% of CFDs
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/20YY/MM/Category:NAME is used in 5.716% of CFDs
  • Commons:Categories for discussion/20YY/MM/Category:NAME is used in 94.284% of CFDs
To confirm the numbers above see here, here, here and my move log. Feel free to provide your input below.
@Hedwig: If your comment above also referred to pagemoves of CFDs please provide your input below.
Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
SLV100, I am not an admin; stop bringing me over to this matter, or you risk I will offer my unbriddled opinion about this manner. -- Tuválkin 20:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I unblocked SLV100 under the condition to leave archives alone as stated above in bold letters. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Hedwig: The question is do you agree or disagree that the pagemoves are vandalism. Please state your answer below. Thank you. -- SLV100 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said above: Unblocked because you'll stay out of archives. You didn't. The blocking admin must have had a good day, others would have blocked your account longer, some would have thrown the key away after locking. IMHO you should stay low and mellow. Use the time to find out what you want to do here, then find out if it is a) absolutely necessary and b) won't get you into trouble. Currently I don't know how to help you out here. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)