User talk:Athaenara

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see the Meta page about rollback. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Huib talk 04:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. — Athaenara (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving photos to Commons

→ [copy of part of a discussion which was on Wikipedia (version link)]

  * File:Joanxxx.jpg
  * File:MartinBaylessByPhilKonstantin.jpg
  * File:MichaelMedvedByPhilKonstantin.jpg
  * File:MickeyJonesByPhilKonstantin.jpg
  * File:MikePiazzaByPhilKonstantinPublicDomain.JPG
  * File:ShaunToubByPhilKonstantinPublicDomain.jpg
  * File:StedmanByPhilKonstantin.jpg
  * File:SurfarisByPhilKonstantinPublicDomain.jpg
  * File:SuzanneSomersByPhilKonstantin.jpg

I could find none of them on Commons with the same filenames. If the images are there, could you locate them and retag the local files to specify the Commons filenames? Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to move these photos to Commons using someone's coding which I found on Wikipedia. I have no idea how long this will take, or if I did it correctly. I could not find any specific instructions on how to do this. The names should all remain exactly the same.

Philkon (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Phil Konstantin

File:Carl XVI & Silvia at White House.jpg

→ in re: this edit and en:Wikipedia file log — Athaenara (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara, thats not necessary. The image was also, independently uploaded to en.wp, but it was also uploaded to Commons by somewhere else. The image was not first published at en.wp and the license (pd) not requires a version history, so adding it is only work, I dont even like it because it addes information to the meta information that noone is interested in. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking files moved from Wikipedias

When you check file moves from Wikipedia it would be good if you tried to update the source and author paramters in the information template. Just saying that the source is an image page in Wikipedia is not the most useful information, since image pages are usually deleted so that only Wikipedia admins can see them after the file is moved to Commons. The source should tell were the image came from before it was uploaded to Wikipedia. That can be an url to a website, "own work by uploader", information about that the image was scanned from a book, or something else. And author should tell who is the author of the image, not just who uploaded it to Wikipedia. If the file was uploaded by its author you can often just change "Uploaded by User:X at en.wikipedia" to "User:X at en wikipedia". /Ö 19:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I do quite a lot of that checking and verifying. If you specify files where essential information was missing I may be able to re-check them. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉ 20:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed File:WoldemarVoigt.jpg on my watchlist when you added English Wikipedia as source and the uploader there as author, even though the image description clearly said that the source is http://www.theorie.physik.uni-goettingen.de/ueberuns/Geschichte/index.en.html and there was no author mentioned. This is not about any specific files. I recognised you username and I think I have seen other edits by you were you removed the botmove templates without changing Author field from "Original uploader was ...". So I thought it would be good to remind that Author and Source usually needs to be updated when checking moved files. /Ö 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My single edit there retained the source link while adding the original en.wikipedia upload date, file log, and uploader (diff). As you subsequently removed that information (diff diff), I restored the original Wikipedia file (log) and tagged it NoCommons. – Athaenara (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Geograph

Re this edit. The {{Uncategorized}} tag should not be removed until the image has been placed in an appropiate non-hidden category, eg. category:Torridon for this one. Also images should never be placed directly into Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project. Always use a template, usually {{Geograph}}, so that the correct sortkey is generated. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear and good advice, which I would not have needed had I read the first paragraph at the top of that category page. – Athaenara ✉ 23:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:DeepImpactTempelCrater.jpg

→ in re: this edit (file history)

Hi, I was just looking at your cleanup of this file information after it was moved to Commons. I think that I should explain the purpose of the {{Original caption}} template. This template is to display the literal content of the picture's original caption, whether that was something written across the image, or the caption on the source from where it was obtained. This is just for documentation purposes it is not necessarily what Commons needs for its image description (it may not even be correct, eg the scientific name of a plant may have changed, or the plant may have been mis-identified). The title of the template "Original caption" is automatically translated, but the contents a rendered as the literal original text. Our image descriptions {{En}} etc may base their content on the original caption, but in general are unlikely to be exactly the same. Maybe an {{En}} description isn't needed if everything is in the original caption, I don't see it as a problem even if the {{En}} duplicates the {{Original caption}} content either. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Anything I should change? Athaenara (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I just put the {{Original caption}} template back. I think that in general we should have our own succinct {{En}} caption rather than just copying text from the source (perhaps easier to translate too). ... but I haven't added one ... yet :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just stole (but attributed by edit comment) the caption used on the three en:wiki pages that use this image: "'Before and after' comparison images from Deep Impact and Stardust, showing the crater formed by Deep Impact on the right hand image.", sounds fairly concise :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP 85.132.27.130

Salam. Mən və User:Vugar 1981 və digər bəzi iş yoldaşlarımız eyni IP-dən istifadə edirik. EnVikidə Vugar 1981-nin bloklanması nəticəsində bizim IP-də bloklanmışdır. Sizdən blokun götürülməsini xahiş edirəm. Və yaxud da mənə Ipblock-exempt istifadəçi hüququ verməyinizi xahiş edirəm. Təşəkkürlər! Hörmətlə, Cekli829 (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What? Sorry, I can't read that without translation into English. Athaenara (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to IP block exempt en.wikipedia.org. Please... Thanks, --Cekli829 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That IP's block log is empty. Athaenara (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bot move checked"

→ in re: File:Eleanor Roosevelt and JFK.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Good day. Pardon, but it looks to me like you sometimes need to take more care in your checking when "Bot move checked". For example, File:Eleanor Roosevelt and JFK.jpg was uploaded to en:Wikipedia with no template. All the needed information was there, but not in a template. After you got done "checking", there was indeed information on the source, but it was not in the "Source=" field. There was information on the date, but it was not in the "Date=" field. You might also have noticed that the image showed more than one famous person, either by looking at the image or reading the description, and added a relevant category for both people seen. I took care of fixing these problems in this case [1]. Please understand that the transfer bots are by nature drudges with zero intelligence. The reason we have templates on their work is because what they do does indeed need to be checked. This requires human intelligence to see what the bot got wrong and fix it. I strongly feel that this is what needs to be done if one wishes to consider a bot move "checked". Thanks much for your work and attention. Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My main concern was that all the necessary information was present, less about whether each item was in a particular field of a standard template. I sometimes add categories, but not always. If a file is uncategorized but lacks the uncat template, I'll subst dated {{Unc}} there. I asked a few months ago here about whether having an autopatroller flag would have what I saw as an undesirable side effect that files I checked would get less attention (which they might very well need) from other editors. I appreciate your interest, and that you added the JFK category to this file. Athaenara (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't care to fix false authorship, false source, and false date misinformation, please stop claiming that the files have in any meaningful way been "checked". I think it is a great embarrassment to Wikimedia to have such intelligence insulting absurdities in image descriptions. Thanks. Infrogmation (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)