|
——————————————— Archive, April 2008 ———————————————
So, White Cat... I have a Shadow Gelert character available. Want him? -(Doofallslya v^_^v) Ékséj 06:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I am sorry, I do not quite understand. What is this about? -- Cat chi? 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, it was an All Fools' Day joke ([1]). In truth, I had no idea you wouldn't respond until now. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 20:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I am sorry I was offline for the most part of the past 48 hours. Could you explain what is this about? Granted the spirit of April 1 is gone but I would like to know. -- Cat chi? 21:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello.
Could you please trim down/refactor your statement on WP:RFA? It currently stands much over the 500 word limit. — Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Are you sure? It looks to be about 50 to me.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I beg your pardon? -- Cat chi? 22:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, he's talking about Wikipedia:RFArb#Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and he's right. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Err, yes. Sorry about that, I hadn't noticed you had two statements in different sections. I was, of course, referring the the long one. :-) — Coren (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I cannot reduce it any more. It is mostly responses which wont be read if placed to the talk page. And I believe this is about WP:RFAR and not WP:RFA. -- Cat chi? 23:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- You may refer to them in the main text, but unless you manage to trim it down to below (or at least near to) 500 words, I'll have no choice but to move things around myself. I'm sure you'd rather make that selection yourself. — Coren (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I have been very patient with arbcom and every wikipedia process. Agonizing me further on this issue concerning Davenbelle will only serve to upset me. Arbcom is mostly ignoring what I tell them on their own talk page. This is the only place I hope they'll pay attention to me. So please leave me some slack here. -- Cat chi? 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- That was... throughly edited. You may want to maintain a summary of your position in addition to the link, however. The point of keeping the statement short is to avoid "tl;dr", which is not good for anyone. — Coren (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- If only people made me not feel ignored things would be simpler. This comment/rant isn't aimed at you as clearly you are paying attention to my comments (at a minimum you are counting the number of words). :) -- Cat chi? 00:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the problem, right now, is that you're taking things way to personal. I would suggest you let sleeping dogs lie; you've been vindicated in your suspicions of JM, and there is little more that can be done, Arbs or otherwise. — Coren (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- When people start not responding to you at all for months while talking to other people things get personal. When arbitrators act this way it is particularly unpleasant. This contributed more to my frustration than every other factor combined. If people (arbitrators or not) wish to ignore me they should show the courtesy of informing me of such an action. It is Davenbelles 6th account so... -- Cat chi? 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I just wanted to point out a follow up. :) -- Cat chi? 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look at that. Seems I was partly wrong, so apologies as far as Merridew is concerned. Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists. Dorftrottel (troll) 11:00, April 2, 2008
- I beg your pardon? -- Cat chi? 11:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- ? What do you mean? Dorftrottel (complain) 12:06, April 2, 2008
- What does "Doesn't however change my attitude towards no-holds-barred fiction inclusionists" intended to mean? -- Cat chi? 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It means that I think e.g. that by far most episode articles are not articles in any encyclopedic way and for a complete and utter lack of available acceptable sources never can be and should therefore be wiped from mainspace. In other words, that content-wise I still agree with Merridew and believe that he did less harm to Wikipedia than the ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing "articles" e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources. But the sockpuppeting was clearly bad. Dorftrottel (complain) 14:00, April 2, 2008
- I guess you are considering me a clown and a troll then. -- Cat chi? 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- That would be original research I guess. Dorftrottel (canvass) 16:50, April 2, 2008
- Excuse me? What original research? You stated "ridiculous clowns and trolls who advocate shit like allowing "articles" e.g. on fictional characters based solely on primary sources" that scope includes me. Why are you so hostile? -- Cat chi? 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hostile? I simply have strong opinions on certain content-related issues. This is caused mainly by two things: 1. The people who are against any encyclopedic standards are in the majority, and 2. those people are gaming the system like crazy. Like you and others do when you talk weird about some deletionist conspiracy when it's in fact the inclusionists who managed to adjust policies and guidelines and information channels to suit their ends. Now, you revived our conversation, could we now end it again? I see practically no common ground, except we both believe what we are doing is in the project's best interest. But that may not be enough. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 17:14, April 2, 2008
- Hello White Cat. So I learn that Jack Merridew really was the sockpuppet you suspected him of being. Please accept my apologies for for my now unwarranted comments that mischaracterised your accusation. I wholeheartedly endorse Dorftrottel's comments above, however, concerning fiction articles and the value of Jack's contributions. Getting rid of this fancrufty rubbish was good work and I am sorry that he has behaved in a way that prevents him from making further useful contributions. Eusebeus (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
All 6 accounts of Davenbelle had been blocked indefinitely here on en.wikipedia. Per the commons discussion on Jack Merridew you have commented on, do you think you can run checks to verify? Mind you that commons:User:Moby Dick's entire contribution on commons was wasting community time. There also seems to be activity in meta... You have checkuser access on all 3 wikis (I think) so you are the best candidate dealing with this issue. -- Cat chi? 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will try to make some time to evaluate this as soon as practical. However I note that the case is closed already. What, specifically, are you asking me to do? What is it you want verified, and why? (what justification is there for each specific check you ask for, that is) Please also keep in mind what you were told by multiple people on IRC regarding this. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Recently Jack Merridew has acknowledged being Davenbelle. Due to the complexities of this case, I want to verify (although it is 99.99% obvious) that commons:User:Moby Dick, commons:User:Jack Merridew, meta:User:Jack Merridew and en:User:Jack Merridew are the same person and not impostors or etc. In addition I'd like the identities of commons:User:Davenbelle aka Jack Merridew and commons:User:Jack Merridew returns clarified. It may be necesary to check if those edits are coming from an open proxy.
- Per past contribution of commons:User:Moby Dick to commons I am not really comfortable at what is going on. For instance he made a big fuss about being called Davenbelle. That was pretty much all his past contribution. About 1 year ago this was is response to an administrative warning.
- -- Cat chi? 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take it under advisement. The user is now saying they are going to try to turn over a new leaf. That's a good thing. Some advice to you, I'd stay away from anything to do with them. Let others handle it, avoid any direct communication, please. ++Lar: t/c 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- If you do not preform this check now you will not be able to do it later as checkuser logs will expire. I am very tired of that happening. I want a verification on who I am dealing with. Is it Jack Merridew? Or an Impostor of Jack Merridew. If it is the latter (impostor) urgent action may be necesary. In this complex case we have Jack Merridew and someone stalking Jack Merridew. I'd prefer to avoid bureaucracy through an out-of-the book check rather than an overly complicated formal one. Such a formal request would stress out all parties and I would really want to avoid dealing with it.
- I am very involved in commons and I will not start a hide and seek game there. I also will make no effort in any way to make Jack Merridew's life miserable there. That is not my style. The lack of confidence I get from you is rather disappointing. Have more faith in me.
- -- Cat chi? 19:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I said I would look into the matter and decide if a check is warranted. Please do not try to chivvy me, that won't work. Again, I point out that the en:wp RFCU has been closed as completed. Perhaps you might place the supporting material you have presented at the Meta crosswiki request page for wider notice, if you feel you're not getting satisfaction. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- This request is an interwiki one. en:wp RFCU has little to do with it process-wise. I am not asking for satisfaction, just verification. :P Please notify me with what you come up with even if you decline my request. Basically just post something on my talk page. -- Cat chi? 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll post something here (see User:Lar/Pooh policy ...) ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Just prod me so I know its ready. I have a very very busy week ahead of me so please leave me some slack just this once. :) -- Cat chi? 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks. :) -- Cat chi? 10:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Umaku narimashta? Moshi shitsuya areba, boku ni kite kudasai. Oshiyete ageru. Mata Ne! Igor Berger (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Konninchi wa. Watashi ni ha wakarimasen. -- Cat chi? 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Watashi wa, Nijongo ga wakarimasen. I am Japanese still do not understand! Crazy language..:) I do not understand Japanese! Igor Berger (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Are you connected with the bot that is leaving red links on user spaces? - House of Scandal 16:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Can you give a diff? The only bot I operate is User:Computer and the only task it is processing (currently) is fixing double redirects. -- Cat chi? 19:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Thank's for the reply. It's "User:CommonsDelinker". I asked because it's trying to use a barnstar image which I think is credited to you. It replaced my barnstars with red links which wasn't so cool. No big deal. I left the operator a message on commons. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Oh That was a newly discovered bug. :) -- Cat chi? 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was the person requesting the rename of various barnstar images. Seems like the rename caused you a few problems. Sorry about that. It seems like template use was causing the issue.[2] I have manually fixed it for you.[3] -- Cat chi? 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Don't understand what went wrong but thanks for fixing. Hope others weren't affected too! --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- If my software engineering instincts are right, bot tried a find and replace and ended up replacing every instance of "Barnstar.png" with "Original Barnstar.png". Avoiding things like this is exactly why I requested the rename. Poorly named images will be problematic in many ways. -- Cat chi? 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar. Nice to see I'm appreciated! ;) Netkinetic (t/c/@) 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi there Mr. Biggleworth. So thats where you got to!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I beg your pardon? -- Cat chi? 20:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please adjust the double redirect fix code and/or stop that function on the Hindi Wikipedia. It is making many errors. Here for example, after a less than helpful user had added #REDIRECT to the top of a legitimate page, your bot came and redirected it to an unrelated page, and mashed up the text that was there. Your bot should always recognize when there is text in a redirect and probably not automatically consider it a double redirect to fix. These types of things shown in this edit are things that should probably be fixed across all languages your bot is run. Thanks for running the bot though. - Taxman Talk 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I do want to note that the bot acts as Special:Doubleredirects (or in your case hi:Special:Doubleredirects) directs it. The bot assumes that the redirectification was properly done (mostly as a page move leftover).
- There is no easy way to check for such user errors or vandalism. After all, people may remove all content and leave a redirect for example among other things.
- I'll look into it, though.
- -- Cat chi? 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- In this case at least, since the words redirect were just added to the top, it shouldn't be too hard to recognize that as vandalism. And specifically in this case no target was even given. I wasn't aware of those Special pages, and still don't know much about their inner workings. Perhaps it is something that needs to be fixed in them, I don't know. But thanks for looking into it. - Taxman Talk 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Hmm, [4] the page in question (vandalized version) was treated like a legitemate redirect by Mediawiki. So if I were to fix this it would break the recognition of other valid redirects. You may want to file this to bugzilla since Mediawiki treats it as a valid redirect so should my bot.
- By the way hi:Special:Doubleredirects contains a self redirect that needs to be fixed. My bot cannot since a human should decide weather it should be redirected to some other page or deleted.
- -- Cat chi? 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Awesome user page. We are having a little discussion at the CVU talk page (link) Our membership has grown since formed in 2005. I proposed that it's time to let CVU members, who don't do vandal fighting, go. Also, out of the concern some editors brought up to the CVU talk page, I proposed to allow users to have a page to post concerns about the behavior of a CVU member when it's not appropriate such as: using abusive language with other editors or biting newbies. Whoever engages in this type of behavior should be let go. Some users feel that because it's not an official WP entity, it's pointless and all it would just be a bureaucracy. Others feel we are NOTHING at WP and thus, there is no need for it. I believe you felt that we are somebody and have a mindset which sets us apart from regular editors. I also believe that as membership grows and some members engage in behaving inappropriately (as it appears they have already) while displaying the CVU label, the community at Wikipedia will look at us as a nuisance and will be frown upon. What do you think? If you think it's time to raise the bar and do without those users who do vandal fighting and are giving CVU a bad name come to vote for Do (something, like the new desk page and rules or whatever). If you think like others it's a waste of time, then don't bother. Jrod2 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Canada_ARMY_Insignia_0.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 02:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Please move such images to commons before seeking their deletion. -- Cat chi? 09:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Archer_with_Porthos.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have tagged Image:Porthos_in_archers_room_in_mirror_universe.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. Project FMF (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for uploading Image:The Forgotten (ENT episode).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Would you please bring WP:CUC to the attention of user:Stavros1. a) He had started to upload to the Commons but seems to have reverted. b) He gets a lot of stick from me, if someone else could confirm the importance, it would help. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Oh I was developing that page, it isn't complete yet. I actually need help in getting it completed. Do you think you can help out? I can then bring it to that persons and general communities attention. -- Cat chi? 11:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think your new page is an unwanted WP:CFORK - we already have Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. How did you intend to bring the page Wikipedia:Commons Upload Campaign to people's attention? That is the important thing.
I suggest that you prepare two templates encouraging people to upload to the Commons. Use one to put on the talk pages of WikiProjects that use photographs, eg. all those listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Geographical/Europe for a start! Use the other to put on the user talk pages of people who have been uploading images here. But I am not sure how one identifies such people! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
The emphasis of the CUC should be on getting people to do their new uploads to the Commons. Moving existing stuff there is less important. Look at Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr see how they have stressed the Commons! Go ahead, be bold, propose changes to Wikipedia:Upload to stress the Commons. For example, you could change "my own work" into a link to an intermediate page which has a big link to the Commons upload and a small link to the Wikipedia upload. They seem to have done that already!
Regarding transferring existing images, as you can see from the comments below there is plenty of scope for improving Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. If you do so and when you copy over your paragraph about freedom of panorama, please explain how it is possible that an image might be OK in a Wikipedia but would not be allowed on the Commons because of freedom of panorama laws. I don't see the difference. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons is more of a "How to" guide. It is also outdated: "If you have used a different name, go to all articles that use the image and change them". That is no longer necesary since we have Commonsdelinker for that.
- The idea behind CUC is to get multiple people working collaboratively to mass move images to commons by paying attention to issues like "freedom of panorama" and "derivative works". CUC is intended to be launched on many wikis so the text on CUC should be brief allowing it to be more easily translated to many languages.
- Things I have left out include the importance of "file history", possible use of bots to assist with this task, complications of some laws such as the Eiffel tower being copyrighted at night and being copyright free during the day.
- -- Cat chi? 08:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Palmiped
edit
- RHaworth suggested I upload my wiki images to commons have tried in the past but gave up, a good idiots guide would help. --palmiped | Talk 11:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
There is scarcely any difference between uploading to the Commons and uploading here. What difficulties have you encountered? Points to note:
- when writing the caption, links to here need :en: at the start and | at the end - see this note
- they do like you to put the image into one or more categories and add it to at least one Commons gallery article, but it is not mandatory.
-- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It wasnt uploading directly to commons but copying from wikipedia to commons. I cannot remember the exact problem as it was some time ago Ive an idea I tried to followed some instructions. --palmiped | Talk 13:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that is quite different! I count myself an experienced editor but even I find Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons daunting. I will try and find time to add a section to for people transferring their own images. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have now created this note on transferring your own images to the Commons. Please change it if it is not sufficiently idiot proof. But please do not feel under any obligation to move existing images to the Commons. But please do upload any new stuff to the Commons. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Why on earth have you been converting jpeg's to PNGs? As a JPG, Image:Kurdishfuneral.jpg was 22k bytes long. Converted to image:Kurdish coffin rally (30 March 2006).png it takes up 103k bytes. Personally, I don't see the point of changing image names anyway. But if you must do it, why not just copy the image? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I think the conversion may have accidental. I do not recall exactly why I made it a PNG. PNG crush would probably reduce the file size. Looking over it's use, I do not believe that fair-use image really adds to the article. -- Cat chi? 08:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a problem with some Shadow8soulz who keeps vadilizing Mikey Simon, Mitsuki, and Lily. Now he's threatening to have me blocked when I didn't do anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.20.69 (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations! Two lists you have been involved with were selected WP:LOTDs for May. You may want to add the {{ListoftheDayheader}} or {{ListoftheDaylayout}} templates somewhere in your userspace. Other template options are at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/templates. Your list will appear as WP:LOTD twice. If you have any date preferences in May let me know by April 25th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Please watch this article per this, thanks! -- Cat chi? 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? Your diff has an error in it. What am I looking for? 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 20:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
- It was deleted. Thanks anyways. -- Cat chi? 04:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
|
){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}