Hi,
You renamed my works. For example: File:Army-HUN-OF-09.svg Please, restore them! My image collection is in a name scheme. The army, fire department and police ranks will scattered on my collection. Before it, all ranks was in one.
Bye,
Madboy74 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am renaming all NATO ranks and insignia following ISO and NATO standards. File:Army-HUN-OF-09.svg was labeled as "OF-10" (File:Rank Army Hungary OF-10.svg) which is a wartime only rank (5 star general). File:Army-HUN-OF-09.svg is a Full general rank (4 star general). If the problem is categorization, I can fix that but you need to be more specific as to what is broken. Thanks. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, did you draw all of these? Simply amazing! :) I would ask you to convert some non-svg insignia displayed on the below template to svg form. :)
I am working on standardizing rank names for template use (w:Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army). I am thinking on working on all rank insignia for every country. Where do you encounter the problem. I need to see the problem to better understand it.
Sorry for my English! If you see the images in category view, (for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pictures_by_Madboy74&filefrom=Coa+Hungary ) every categorized image in one block. My file naming idea: Category (Coat of arms) - Country (here is Hungary) - Subcategory (Country, County, Family, Town...) - Name - Other important information (History, Actual; Date...) At the ranks: Rank - Country - Which formal (Fire department, Police, Border guard, Army...) OR/OF-X... If i use this form, we can see the ranks and others in one block: Ranks countries all forms in one. These images that you renamed are on other place in the list. Not visible with all other ranks. I sort the images by name, not category! It's faster and easier for me. In the future i will draw more then 1000 images... It's will be a nightmare, when somebody wants to seek a picture.
I can't understand, the google translator wasn't good. Do you need svg from non-svg images? When yes, i can draw few images for you. Bye, Madboy74 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I or you can modify the category tagging of the rank insignia so that they show up where you want them but before you do that please consider my naming scheme which is based on international standards. The convention I use for ranks is branch (Army, Navy, Air Force), three letter abbreviation (HUN for Hungary, FRA for France), STANAG 2116 grade (OF-7, OR-5). So a 4 star US general would be File:Army-USA-OF-09.svg likewise a 4 star French general would be File:Army-FRA-OF-09.svg. I think this naming scheme would be less confusing. Category:Military rank insignia of the Army of Hungary documents the rank insignia.
Are you having problems with the order they appear? Because that can be fixed but I would suggest re-categorization of rank insignia based on branch.
The three letter abbreviation was a big dilemma for me. I use my standard for my ALL images. I drawn historical coat of arms. These countries have now abolished. For example Byzantium, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and other. Here the three letter abbreviation not good idea. The NATO ranks are just a little parts of my works. I'm a Hungarian soldier, and i drawn Hungarian ranks. Police, army, fire department and other. Not for NATO, just for my country. Here is an naming idea:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:WikiProject_Heraldry I think, there aren't too many different in my naming system.
Believe me, it's the best for us. Who ordered pictures from me, that man in searches in my works. If you're scatter, it is difficult to find.
I am sorry but Commons is a free image repository for all human knowledge, not just for Hungarian Government, Hungarian military or NATO. The standard you came up with mislabels rank insignia in a manner that is confusing for the reasons I have mentioned above. The standard I am using for rank insignia equivalence (STANAG 2116) was ratified by all current NATO members including Hungary. As for the 3-letter ISO standard, that is also widely used even by international bodies such as the UN.
I do not see how files are any more difficult to find. I can make them appear inside the category like before if that is what you want to see happen. Do let me know if this is what you want.
My renames are within policy as I am trying to harmonize all rank insignia particularly for template use.
Here is the Hungarian ranks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ranks_of_Hungary It's the CORRECT. In Europe EVERYBODY uses this. I'm a soldier eleven years ago, but i never seen your rank table. Maybe standard, but nobody uses. There is a table in every office. This table contains every army's ranks, thats in this mission. If you give me an e-mail address, i can send it to you.
Please recover my image names! We need it. If you want, you can make an other version for yourself, but don't change our images.
Bye: Madboy74 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody in NATO uses NATO standards (which is most of Europe). The page you liked has the NATO standards I mentioned. See how full general is OF-9 and not OF-10. You can also see how Ezredes (ezds) (colonel) is an OF-5 not OF-6. Also notice how there is no OR-10 rank for Non-commissioned/enlisted ranks. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The images not successful, because the room was dark. If you want, you can see that the names that i given is correct. The figure shows the rankings are old versions, but the new ones differ only in shape. Remember, this picture made by the NATO, for NATO soldiers! Maybe there is a standard that you referenced, but here nobody uses them. I take personal offense that I am member 11 years ago of the Hungarian Army, and you think, i don't know our ranks. Our leadership isn't stupid they're known the NATO standards. I really hope that does not fall into this trap. I think, you are an outsider, and you don't know nothing about the Hungarian Army.
Please restore the old names, because we don't use other version. Madboy74 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking at the NATO grades comparison chart created for the NSA (NATO Standardization Agency). The image is clearly labeled as "NATO Ranks/National Grades". I have seen it at the wall of NATO HQ as well. As you can see, Hungary does not have an OF-10 equivalent rank. Hungary has 4 star general (OF-9) as the highest rank. I am trying to explain you something present in the file you linked to me. Just look at the picture please. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think, you can't understand me! Don't do it! Please recover them to my old image names! I will ask to the administrators, because that you do its a typical vandalism!!!! Madboy74 (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to be hostile. You have not expressed any reason why there is a problem at all. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
My English isn't enough. It's unfair. I wrote my all problems for you. We are in fair, when you use a translator.
Google translate is good for you:
Szét fog hullani az egész kategória nézet. A katonai rendfokozatok külön válnak a többi, nem katonaitól. Sőt, a jövőben a régi, nem NATO rendfokozatok is meg lesznek csinálva. Így meg főleg rossz lesz, ha az egyik fele itt van, a másik meg ott. Tehát: Kategorikusan RAGASZKODOK a név első feléhez!!!
(Rank_Army_Hungary_) A másik felével azt csinálsz, amit akarsz. A jövőben kérlek ne csinálj semmit az én munkáimmal. Túl sok időm ment már el felesleges hülyeségre. Sok képet kell még megcsinálnom és nincs rá időm. Nem értem, te miért ragaszkodsz ennyire az elképzeléseidhez, amikor egy percet se töltöttél a megrajzolásukkal. Határozottan nem szeretem, ha valaki ilyen módon nyúl bele a munkáimba. Ezek a munkák nem a Commonsnak készültek első sorban. Ajándékba kaptátok, csak hagyjátok békén, mert más meg használja. Ha ez így nem megy, akkor sok képtől szabadítod meg a Commons közösségét, mert más helyre fogom feltenni!!! Különben is, a névadás szabadsága engem illet: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming#What_files_should_be_renamed.3F A közepe táján lesz, ami ide vonatkozik. Jó szótázazást, ha már az angolomat nem érted meg.
That is a fair point. Thank you for posting this in your native language. I will try to seek a translation for you. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I modified categorization of 4 files (General ranks). Is this what you want? You can see the change here. If this is what you want, I can apply it to the rest of the files. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Almost good, but I can't understand why makes pain the first tag on the name for you. The last tag not enough for you?
My original tag are cleanest. I'm happy, because you understood my problem! My English is so bad?
I realize you are upset. I really do not want to upset you. I am trying to fix the issue in a manner that would make both you and me happy. Your English isn't bad I just want to fully understand your desire so that I can find the best solution.
I have applied the change you wished for to all of the insignia. Hopefully this is what you wanted. Let me know if there is a problem with it in terms of categorization. We can also discuss other aspects you want fixed.
The reason why I renamed the files is for their use on Wikipedia projects. I want to make it so that people will see the correct Hungarian rank insignia when they read about Hungarian officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel. This is very hard to do if everyone prefers their own standard.
I do not understand the reason why the whole is more important to you than me. We're just a little bit country, with a small army. What do you find an interesting energy to pity him so much?
Stay, if fanatical, or mine, but only on condition that they will stay out of my works. It has long been supposed to be ready for the next job, but I'm preoccupied with the messages. I do not want such a case again, because it really will be notified of the problem.
This I consider the whole matter is closed Madboy74 (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was hoping the rename would satisfy the discussion with the user as he indeed identified an error with the classification I conducted. The disagreement seems to be unresolved despite my efforts. I am unable to understand the users concern as I have made my out most best effort to understand what the problem really is. My guess is perhaps external use but I have no way to assert this. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I see. But I am sure you understand no file mover or admin can satisfy both of you at the same time. I love to be courteous, non-meddling and helpful in this case but these three are not exactly at peace with each other. For the time being, I declined all three upstanding rename requests in this regard until the dispute is resolved, either through talk or a third opinion; although I do not persist. (After all, you are a file mover yourself and I also do not want to wheel war.) I might participate in the discussions but I have neither been to NATO HQ nor have served 11 years in the Hungarian army. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly fair. I do not want to wheel war either.
I would like to note that the only outstanding problem currently is File:Army-HUN-OR-04b.svg which should be File:Army-HUN-OR-03.svg because it is an OR-3 rank not OR-4. I propose a rename to OR-3 for the time being (as this is the only image that doesn't follow the format all other variants follow). It can be renamed later if there is a need for it. Would renaming that one file for the time being be OK for you?
Comment we have category schemes (Category:Commons category schemes), but not file naming schemes. Maybe such naming schemes could be part of a relevant category scheme, or maybe we could have Category:File naming schemes. These things can also be documented as part of a WikiProject, if there is a relevant one. Certainly, Commons:File renaming point 6 permits renaming for a standard scheme; but we need to agree on a standard scheme. White Cat's NATO/UN/ISO scheme makes sense for modern/current files, but does it (should it, can it) apply to historical files (files where countries don't exist or otherwise don't easily fit into the scheme)? Anyway, maybe it would be best to move the discussion to the Village Pump, to get more input on the question of which schemes to apply where. Rd232 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS Madboy74's original post said The army, fire department and police ranks will scattered on my collection. Before it, all ranks was in one. - that points to issues of schemes overlapping. Maybe that can be solved with file redirects, so a file is within both naming schemes? Again, that would be a question for wider discussion. Rd232 (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Currently, I know of no formal file naming scheme, and I will oppose most of them as they tend to be country specific and it only leaves the place for one specific image file with one specific resolution. File renamings to fit templates should in most cases not happen: it is easier and more flexible to redirect the specific wanted file name to the file that provides the right content. So indeed, in the case that a file naming standard would be absolutely needed, it has to be formally defined and agreed. The file renaming rules should be probably sharpened for that as I have seen already many for and backward renamings as many people try to push their (undocumented) personal file naming standard. --Foroa (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than willing to discuss the filename convention, is there a specific location you would like to discuss this?
This standard can only be applied (officially) to NATO member states as NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) #2116 only covers ranks for NATO member states and only for military ranks (Army, Navy, Air Force, Gendermerie, Marines, etc.)
Like flag naming scheme it would make a lot of sense if we followed a standard naming scheme for all rank insignia and related symbols. On a related note, I am unsure how to handle historic files as I have no reliable source for NATO equivalence for starters.
While some rank equivalences are straight forward where a 4 star general is a 4 star general for every country (except France whom have a 5 star general that does what 4 star general does (France has no 1 star general)). It gets especially complicated in OR ranks (Non-commissioned/Enlisted officers) where for example a "Belgian Corporal" ranks below most other corporals having an equivalent rank to a "US private first class". Or consider how Turkish corporal equivalent rank has only one symbol unlike many other whom have two or more symbols. Dutch warrant officer rank insignia is used for 3 ranks (OR-8, OR-9, OF-D/1). More examples can be observed at w:Template:Ranks and insignia of NATO/Generic/Army.
When I look at a rank insignia filename I would want to be able to tell if it is an equivalent to a colonel or sergeant, what country it is from, and what branch of the military it is from.
Maybe. Our tradition is very different. The Hungarian army ranks older then all NATO... So, there are ranks, that not correct in your table. My names was correct. I'm now in a NATO mission. Here is a sample: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendfokozat
My OR-3 friends was very happy, because in your table they are OR-4. I will scan an ID card for you, if you don't believe me. I wrote, we are in a NATO mission. Not we made our IDcard. Madboy74 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hungary is a signatory to NATO STANAG 2116 and has accepted this equivalence as a standard. If you are in armed services you should be able to acquire the STANAG 2116 document (it is a NATO Unclassified document). Every country has their own ranking system which is precisely why the NATO STANAG exists. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rd232 and Foroa above. I think the "harmonize" justification of rename should be used sparingly and only when all concerned parties agree. Moving this discussion to Commons talk:File renaming may encourage broader participation and make it easier to locate in the future. --Walter Siegmund(talk)16:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe Commons talk:File renaming is the right address for this kind of discussion. This is a user/content decision not a policy-level decision. This affects perhaps fewer than 2500 files which hardly requires a commons-wide discussion. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It is the place to have the discussion of the scope of the "harmonize" justification of rename. It should be apparent to you that a consensus on your proposed rename of 2500 files is unlikely. I think you would be well-advised to revert your attempt to rename these files without consensus. --Walter Siegmund(talk)16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have any more moves in either direction until we've had a chance to clarify consensus on these naming schemes. I will start a new thread at COM:VP. Rd232 (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will make no renames of rank insignia whatsoever until a consensus is reached. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump#File_naming_schemes. Please heed the warning there: I want to use the present case as an illustrative example of the general issue of file naming schemes, and not make the entire thread about the clash between White Cat's and Madboy74's naming schemes. Feel free to comment there, but please bear that in mind: we want to not just solve this particular problem, but figure out how to handle these issues better in future. Rd232 (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jagielonska with "one L" is very very bad (see polish orthography). The street name "Jagiellonska" is for polish dynasty of Jagiellon with dubble "L". Only with one "L" is very very bad. 77.187.241.6019:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing this refers to the File:Jagielońska 3 in Katowice.JPG file, I have renamed it after reviewing edit history. Please use {{Move}} with the proper parameters in the future. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I messed up a file name with an unintended extra (Dutch) description sentence in the name. The rename was refused as no valid reason. Come on! I agree that "To long a Name" is not a valid reason, but junk in the name is.
I believe you have incorrectly piped the {{Rename}}. I have corrected it but I think you should still define a better rationale per rename criteria. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Normally I would wait for an explanation. But since speedy deletions can be speedy I am going to change these to a regular deletion discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are copyrighted files as far as Afghan law is concerned. This was discussed. Most of the files under PD-Afghanistan needs to be deleted per Afghan law. I am going to be blocked anyways so feel free to revert or disregard my very existence. I am unwelcome on commons clearly. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 day for the following reason: {{{2}}}.
If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.
The whole discussion was going no where, it was turning into a battleground with uncivil comments coming from both directions, however you undoing the close is pure disruption and you have blocked since you threatened to continue to undo it. You will be unblocked if you agree not to continue to be disruptive on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously considering a 2 year break (I am fully convinced actually). This guy has been attacking me for 2-3 weeks and I am not even allowed to file a complaint at ANB. He has disrupted my normal edits to commons. All I wanted to do is harmonize a few rank insignia. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Clearly no one is listening. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
He is clearly stalking. Multiple people explained this. My suggestion would be to contact Russavia. He has also reverted the entire French OR file range by the way. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 01:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You are of course allowed to file a complaint at ANB, but it is important to retain the ability to differentiate between topical discussions and personal issues. If you cannot do that then a break is probably a good solution. --Dschwen (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so for the past 2-3 weeks. The thread is there. All you need to do is read it. I have presented objective evidence as well. Last batch was removed by Bidgee. I am not implying malice, it is merely the end result. This person will revert my contribution first and then ask why I made the changes I made. This person has been consistently attacking me. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In recognition of having to put up with extreme image stalking and an immature Wikimedia Commons environment that does not protect the targets of uncivil behaviour. Hopefully after a wiki-break you will feel like you can cope better with such hostile behaviour again. Fæ (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think this is helpful? White cat has a problem. The interaction with PK consumes him completely. He is not open to reasoning and discussion of his action once PK is involved the lightest bit. It suddenly is all about "stalking" and the possibility that he actually did something wrong does not occur to him at all. I'm terribly sorry about the entire situation, but his behavior is starting be become a problem for commons. Handing out cute kittens just reinforces his attitude. White cat is probably a really nice guy IRL, but I think he needs a break, before this situation breaks him, and commons is collateral damage. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I may screwed up from time to time and I am more than willing to acknowledge that. I am more than willing to discuss to reach a consensus.
However, that becomes a different story when the same user also
Orders me around
Floods my talk page with problems when not interested in resolving them
Butts in to my own talk page on a discussion he isn't a party of disrupting the pre-existing conversation.
Insists on continuing behavior he is clearly told is considered offensive such as a derogatory attitude towards non-latin text/username/signature.
Object to non-issues for the sake of objecting in a manner that is not constructive such as reverting file uploads and then pretend to discuss.
All this is what I have been dealing with in the last 2-3 weeks. The problem here is not my attitude. Then again you are the person that said "I do not give the littlest crap about your beef with PK" so I suppose you do not really care.
Sigh, it seems that I have difficulties getting my point across. I'll blame it on the language barrier. Let me spell it out again: Being stalked by someone does not absolve you form acting in a responsible and courteous way on commons. Full stop. You need to get out of this mindset that you are always right, just because you are the stalking victim. It will not do you any good here (obviously, since as a result you are currently blocked here). Absurd paranoid talk, like commons is run by PK will not gain you any sympathies. It's the cold hard truth. --Dschwen (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no language problem here. If Pieter Kuiper does not need to be acting in a responsible and courteous way on commons, why should I be expected to do so? I acted in a responsible and courteous way on commons on making my original post on the ANB. You can see the thread and how it proceeded.
There would not be problem of any kind if Pieter Kuiper disengaged and adjusted his tone. This IS my complaint. I complained about Pieter Kuiper's conduct and ended up getting reverted and then getting blocked for it. When people are undermining his bad conduct I only feel Pieter Kuiper is running the show.
Please do not be stupid about this. If you think someone "has broken the rules" and is not being blocked for it the answer is not breaking the rules yourself. That should be obvious. As I stated above, feeling violated in any way does not put you above commons "law". "Somebody got away with murder" is not a "license to kill" for you! PK has been discussed many many times, and yet there has not been a substantial block I can remember. His "putting people under the magnifying glass" after a run in with him has annoyed many people, and I'm sure he would have been blocked, if he wouldn't be right most of the time. It happened to me as well (remember the Matzos, Pieter?), but in the end commons is better of having a problematic image altered or deleted than having a copyright violation slip through undetected. So, try and pop the bubble you are currently trapped in and try to at least consider the option that you might have done something wrong with the rotaton/crop and renaming of insignia. I mean, come on! People are leaving you messages about it on you talk page! Do you think Pieter sent them here?! --Dschwen (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of rank insignia,
Pieter Kuiper's complaint about Hungarian ranks did not improve the situation. I was already discussing it with another person when he declared the discussion "concluded" and ordered me to move the files back to how they were. The issue was in discussion before Pieter Kuiper had taken charge and disrupted it.
Pieter Kuiper considers me a file move activist that needs to be gotten rid of. As a result Pieter Kuiper was advised to steer clear from me which he chose to mass revert the french rank insignia rotations. My rotations and move of rank insignia was done in good faith. His rotations are clearly motivated for different reasons.
It is very hard for me to "defend" my actions when I am in the middle of a discussion about them. I have made quite a number of renames and rotations and no one objected to them. I have done my moves slowly to give time for people to object if they have a reason to object. Clearly people have concerns and these need to be addressed through consensus. In the meanwhile files should be left as they are. In fact this was something I was quick to agree. There is no emergency to move or rotate rank insignia provided it does not affect the local wikis.
People are of course entitled to disagreeing with each others actions.
Under normal conditions people would be more than happy to discuss issues seeking consensus/compromise when one is needed. That becomes a different issue when people feel under fire by someone they feel is trying to get rid of them.
"Putting people under the magnifying glass" can be considered harassment. People should not be annoying others. Period! Causing others intense stress has no benefit to the project.
If someone is getting annoyed with your conduct you want to explain them the problems or at least discuss the problem, NOT order them around and/or agitate them further. This is how people acting in a responsible and courteous way on commons discuss issues.
You were lying and your remark (18:00, 18 March 2012) was racist (or at the very least very derogatory at best) which you continued to make after you were told they were perceived as racist. In fact you made the same remark (19:51, 4 April 2012) with the goal of trying to upset me. You have refused to copy paste the unicode or refer to me in a manner that is acceptable. You have went commons-wide to find every opportunity to oppose/object whatever I am doing making me spend most of my time trying to counter your complaints. You are trying to keep me at defence at all times commons-wide. For instance:
21:25, 5 April 2012 - You reverted my upload from days ago,
For gods sake, I gave a WikiLove banner and this is the grief you want to load onto a blocked user? You have no idea of the email conversation I have had with とある白い猫 before leaving a message. Grow up and stop this nasty case of grave dancing. Further, the next person who deliberately does not call this user by their chosen name of "とある白い猫" is being blatantly racist demonstrated by their choice and action in my opinion. --Fæ (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or too lazy (me) or too forgetful (me) or too stupid (me, too) to copy paste とある白い猫 everytime. I actually used とある白い猫 before. Took me a few seconds to figure out which part was the username (looking at the source code of the signature). In any case, dont mistahe stupidity for malice (and certainly not for raceism). This is hopefully not grave dancing either. I cannot take the "retired" message seriously. Looks like a typical case of door slamming (got you my attention at least). --Dschwen (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem if you call me White Cat. I would however have an issue if you called me "#€%&€##€". Pieter Kuiper went great lengths to refer to me in a manner that is derogatory. Mocking other peoples language or writing style is a racist act and should be avoided at all times. I am not saying Pieter Kuiper is a racist. I am saying the way he mocks other people's language is racist.
People can of course act in a racist manner even if that is not their intention. In such a case normally people consolidate with something like "I am sorry I mocked that language but that was not my intent" and carry on. He has not done this and instead refereed to me as "#€%&€##€" after being told that was offensive.
My only hope is him disengaging from me. I do not take pleasure in other people getting blocked. Do read my reply to you above. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the advice of Dschwen (at the top of this section) is both helpful and well-intentioned. Some of us have watched とある白い猫 in his/her various incarnations for at least six years. This latest reminds me a bit of a 2006 discussion on our sister project, for example.[1] I think とある白い猫 has become substantially wiser since then, but s/he would do well to give Dschwen's advice the consideration it deserves. --Walter Siegmund(talk)23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2006? Really? The issue with Elaragirl is old history. It was resolved back in 2006. Are you claiming Pieter Kuiper is without fault?
Pieter Kuiper is stalking me as far as I care and needs to stop. He is only managing to stress me out. If there is a problem with something I am doing it can be handled through alternate means (means not involving Pieter Kuiper demanding me do things or else he reverts my edits and etc) such as someone other than Pieter Kuiper explaining me the problem. I also think 15 days is a good cool-off period for all involved parties. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, no disagreement from me here. If Pieter could use his time productively and to the benefit of commons without pissing off other contributors he should certainly do so. And I have a feeling that he could very well keep himself busy in other corners of commons. So, yes, let's hope this can all cool down now. --Dschwen (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use this bot to upload images from Flickr together with your Flickrreview tag - the Flickrreview bot will detect this as invalid review tag. Please use a blank flickrreview template instead or add your review tag manually after upload. --Denniss (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to stop the bot but I will review them all once the process is complete. What exactly is the problem? Upploader and username should match? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
So all I need to preform is a null edit? I can make the review be marked as the bot reviewing it if that fixes things. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I was unware of this user group. This wasn't an issue when I was an administrator and I had forgotten about it completely. Should I remove entry from all 250 uploads by bot yesterday as well as the files I reviewed while I was an administrator? I have put up a request for this flag. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you should remove it from all 250 uploads. If the bot is trusted for this task it should be allowed to do it itself. But as far as I can see you did not pass our bot-approval process for this specific task. Please announce the new task on Commons:Bots/Requests and tell us which software you're using or which methods to verify the license-status so we can check it. Yes, this seems to be very bureaucratic but this ensures that we can trust the license-reviews of you bot in future. Thank you. -- RE rillkequestions?17:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK. :) I would welcome some cultural input in regards to this phenomenon :) Feel free to fill the Japanese description as well as English and I will copy edit it should you desire.-- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 23:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
incorporate VI in assessments. Discuss first with the VI project. I get some very bad memories from the past of moving too fast without seeking consensus with the projects first, when I see this. --Slaunger (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely making the template capable of handling it for discussion purposes. The sample code would only run on that very talk page. It is difficult to discuss an idea you can't see. Right? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It is appropriate to test proposals using a sandbox approach, rather than modifying a live template. Each time we edit a template the caching of all pages that transclude that template are invalidated and the pages need to be recreated for display (ie all the FPs and QIs that use it). Also the changes need to be reverted if the proposal is rejected (otherwise if its in there someone will use it), and if other maintenance changes are made, intertwined with your changes, it makes it more difficult to unwind those changes. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing wikipedia since 2005, I think I know a thing or two about templates. A sandbox is impossible in this case as the point is demonstrating integration. Nothing needs to be reverted as it is possible to disable code elements from the main Assessments template with trivial ease. Should the code need to be disabled this can be done so by replacing "{{{com3|}}}" references with a 0. Unused code can stay if it has no real impact on performance. I do not see the concern.
Also you did not object when I introduced WMF elements to the said template which was initially more expensive than all the changes I made for the VI code.
I disagree that it is impossible to restructure and test new things and show integration in a sandbox template. Of course it is. You have done more than 30 edits to the live template the last two days. I do not agree unused code should stay in this template. Disabled code sections clutters the code and makes it harder to understand and maintain. A heavily used "production" template is not a testbed. --Slaunger (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might lessen the objections to significant changes of templates (eg recent examples {{PD-Afghanistan}} and {{Rename}}) if they are discussed first and other users are brought onboard. Otherwise each succesive endevour meets more and more resistance, it might take longer but this is a co-operative project. And of course one can make a seperate copy of the template to demonstrate proposed changes, in fact simple mock-ups of the results are probably quite sufficient for demonstating concept. If the sub-project (VI) does not want the changes and you do not have a concensus from the community as a whole to do it, then consider that you might just be spending the credits you get from all the good work that you do, by pursuing something that is ahead of its time :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-Afghanistan}} had relic text which is against policy after the establishment of copyright. This has been in discussion in early March. Some users are going as far as suggesting only professional legal advice counts and all volunteer work should be disregarded (paraphrasing). Commons consensus has been consistent in dealing with non-Berne signatory countries and I do not see any consensus that overrides this long-standing established consensus.
I have made a great effort to make the criteria transition at {{Rename}} as smooth as possible. I had discussion that never had a great amount of participation even after the modifications to the template. I do not see a problem there.
The QI and VI discussions are on going and it would be inappropriate for me to comment about them. I already initiated discussion at both projects before you commented on here (or before the modifications to the template).
I am merely trying to help, it is difficult to establish consensus when community ignores posted discussion until template is modified. I feel such remarks are more suitable to email form where it will not be intermingled in a different discussion.
Hi, the code was actually properly categorizing, just spitting the text outside of the box which is probably why I did not notice. This is a very good catch. :) I have corrected the problem. Let me know if you see any other problems. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear White Cat, would you please, please start to listen to the concerns of follow editors regarding restructuring of heavily used templates (see thread above). I would have understanding if you were making trivial fixes, but you are making a complete refactoring. It is like surgery without sedation. Making a refactoring and cleanup is fine and healthy, but it has to be done in sandbox space with a set of clearly defined test cases, which should check out before rollout to avoid these kinds of (unintentional) mishaps. I appreciate and understand that you are trying to help, and I know you are a talented template coder, who knows all the fancy commands, but I fear that your efforts will not be appreciated if they continue this way. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sandboxed it before committing the edit actually. You can see how many hours of sandboxing by checking the layout (13:33) and en (15:06) sub-template before the simplification/rollout (16:25) attempt. If my math is right I spent 2 hours 52 minutes before making a single change that impacted anything. I spent an additional half an hour or so to make sure everything was operating properly.
I thought I considered every possibility but evidently I missed a bug. I actually made the modifications per your comment that the {{Assessments}} was difficult to follow which was true for me as well as the template got complicated quite a bit when I wasn't maintaining it. I was hoping this would make you happier in particular.
I did not follow your work so far that I understood you were actually trying to sandbox your efforts in subpages. But thanks for taking that advice on board. I just noticed a number of edits on the main template, which appeared to be major and risky wrt break of functionality (and apparently it unintentionally introduced at least one bug). I appreciate that you are trying to make the template more maintainable and easy to understand, and it has helped wrt to my critique with meaningless numbers. That is a bold and good initiative if done carefully. Maybe if there was a suite of test cases embedded as a subpage it would be easier to test prior to rollout? --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True Sandbox testing (where all the code is copied elsewhere) isn't really that helpful in this case because I am not really changing the code all that much. I am just migrating it or merging templates so the code running is no different than before (code logic is retained). It is a matter of controlling how data flows from one template to another. I do preview-tests on the main template and try to break the code by considering all options before rolling it out. This tends to work better in catching bugs because even a single misplaced { or } can break the entire code causing all sorts of weirdness. I also do not have a compiler either so I cannot really see errors.
The main problem I see with the current template is that auto-translate makes it very difficult to actually translate when the template has a billion sub templates full of code. It may look like I am doing the opposite with what I am doing (I created a sub template for every wikipedia assesment) but this made it possible to losslessly remove the complication off of {{Assessments}} so I can actually figure out what this code salad did.
A lot of work remains to merge all non-commons assessments into one sub-super template. I would be pleased if you would help with this task. All that needs to be done is all the code from sub templates be copied to Template:Assessments/wikipedia. This template isn't used anywhere so it would have no impact on the site until the changes are rolled out on the main Assessments template. Once the copy paste is done I will try to generalize the template so that it is simplified even further.
I did make the changes already actually. I would not consider it complete enough to go live though. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 19:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I did make adjustments and went "live". As you may observe all changes so far made the code more compact and readable. I think the bulk of the modifications are complete. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it looks much better and more maintainable now. Thanks for doing that effort and for taking my concern on board. Unsurprisingly, I think it could be made even tidier without the VI (and QI) functionality. --Slaunger (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe VI/QI parameters would complicate code at all. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If you use the helper-the scripts, you will find the links next to the search box (vector) or as single tabs (monobook). They are named license+ and license-
importScript('User:ZooFari/licensereviewer.js'); // stable script for reviewing images from any kind of source OR
importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); // contains also user notification when review fails, auto blacklist-check and auto-thank you message for Flickr-reviews.
Wow, you just wrote a post for me, and shortly thereafter you archive the thread, just after I had taken the time to write an appraisal of your latest endevours (whereafter I got an edit conflict). Why so eager to archive discussions which are still active? --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have de-archived per your request. I am not eager to archive. I think I have highlighted too many sections. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not talking about a five year old bot request, but the current one that I linked to where you obtained a bot-bit. Most bots restrict their edit rate for non-urgent tasks to avoid unnecessary load see Commons:Bots#Bot_speed, you are running this bot at a speed more than ten times the speed you specified in the bot request. Sounds like a problem to me. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the bit where I have all edits except one? Does the bots activity interfere with any of your activity? Do you normally regulate bot activity? In any case the bots find and replace task is complete. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 02:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
No I am not a bot herder, but when 19 consecutive edits by the same usercode appear on my watchlist (with nothing in between even) I am a little alarmed! --Tony Wills (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't have appeared on your watchlist. If that was the problem, you should have said so from the start. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The line on this talk page "adminwarn=If you are here about an administrative action that I have taken, please read this page before posting." appears to imply that you are. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the page that is on is protected by me. I am too lazy to fix it. I used to be an admin and I resigned on my own accord. Also people can object to my past admin actions so that message still has a point. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There are some pages within my userspace I protected as an admin. I have not requested their unprotection and do not want to see this. I am not convinced that there is a problem at all. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 22:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
As your bot has not done any trouble (the template is/was broken, not the change made by the bot), I've unblocked it. Best regards --PierreSelim (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While trying to correct some typos, the abuse filter prevented me from saving my edits.
I reported that here. Are you able to allow anonymous editing of that subpage ? -- Anonymous German User 91.52.172.18620:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to do this directly, but I will ask for assistance. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 20:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Does this cover what you intended? I am unable to see why you would not be able to edit. :/ Page does not appear protected either. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 04:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I have removed rtl elements you have introduced and introduced rtl elements to the root template. I hope this is an improvement. Please let me know what you think.
Also are there other rtl languages aside from ar, he and fa? None comes to my mind. Please feel free to reply at Template talk:Assessments so everyone is inside the loop.
Hi. That`s much better than what I did. Thanks a lot. ar, he and fa are the main widely used rtl, in addition there is Urdu, N'Ko, Maldivian, and Syriac which I don`t see templates for them in the translation task. Please feel free to post this on the discussion page if necessary. --Ciphers (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regex for AWB: (\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)([\|]\s*)quality(\s*=\s*[^\|\}]+)(?=\s*(\||}})) would pick up the quality parameter in the assessment template if the template exists. {{Assessments}} is typically single lined when used. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 11:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Is the regex understandable for you? -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Pheeewww.... this would match the parameter (including the = sign) in $3 (the third brcket set). Why is there i need for the second bracket set? Is the whole expression a no-match if the assessments template does not exist (i.e. if the first bracket is a no-match!) ? Would I just replace the whole thing in case of a match with "$1$2quality=1$4"? Thanks --Dschwen (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a disclaimer-ish remark is necessary at this point. I am merely trying to discuss the technical aspects. You are a fellow bot operator and I will acknowledge that it more than sucks to be asked to change the code out of the blue. I am in no way trying to force you to change the code or anything the sort. I am merely discussing ideas in case you want to volunteer to change the code and if there is consensus for said change. I was merely trying to understand the problem and would like to apologize if I had sounded forceful.
The regex will indeed not match at all if assessments template isn't present at all. The regex above is searching for a valid "quality" parameter. This can be used to check to see if someone has already put the value in manually. A simplified version can be used to check if assessments template is present at all. I try to break apart my regex queries to avoid unnecessary complexity. I found it much more easier to have multiple simpler regexes to run checks rather than have one massive one. I am unsure what you mean by the "second brackets" but if you mean the closing brackets, it is vital to only check within Assessments template so as not to interfere with other content which may legitimately use identical parameters somehow.
I used the regex ((\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)([\|]\s*)com2(\s*=\s*[^\|\}]+)(?=\s*(\||}}))) and matched it with $1$2quality$3 to replace all instances of the parameter "com2" with "quality" on the assessments template. I did not add any new "quality" uses, just renamed the existing uses. There are currently 970 uses of the "quality" parameter and about 10,000 total uses of the assessments template.
If you wanted to change the value of the quality parameter from whatever it is to say 2, all you'd need to use is the regex posted on top of this section and match it with $1$2quality=2. I realize this is unimportant for quality images as there is only one type of them but it is meant to be an example.
If you wanted to add "quality=1" to the existing assessment template you would use the regex (\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)(?=\s*(\||}})) with $1$2quality=1 to match.
If you wanted to remove "quality" parameter all together you'd use (\{\{Assessments[^\}]*?)([\|]\s*)quality(\s*=\s*[^\|\}]+)(?=\s*(\||}})) matched with $1. Not sure if we would ever want to do this for any parameter.
So this single regex is pretty robust in handling different situations with simplification. If I needed to change two parameters I would have used the regex multiple times as needed.
On a related note I am also trying to find a reliable regex to place Assessments template after the information template. I have not found a reliable regex so far for this as Information template often has templates passed to its parameters or even entire tables passed in so it is quite messy.
If you're going to change the assessments template on so many files, and specifically the enwiki part, why not use the simpler parameter "ennom=" instead of "enwiki-nom="? I often add the assessments template to files for English Wikipedia featured pictures, and always use the ennom shortened syntax. Julia\talk22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I merely removed the resplendent references to "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/" which is handled in the template end. Not all templates had this. In fact vast majority did not directly link to the enwiki FPC page.
"ennom" parameter was the secondary parameter for the value with primary parameter being "subpage" both were superseded by "enwiki-nom=". ennom is confusing because it doesn't explicitly specify the source. subpage links were like-wise confusing. This change happened last week or prior. Changes were part of the massive {{Assessments}} overhaul that repaired many of the broken aspects of it.
Thanks for explaining. I hadn't realised that enwiki-nom superseded ennom. Thought all this time that ennom was preferred. Oops. Julia\talk09:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not at fault. The template was quite messy and documentation was far from being accurate. It should all be better now. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 09:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
To do this, we would possibly need to move all calls to the wikipedia and commons subtemplates into the layout subtemplate (and then maybe wrap the entire thing in a div with the layouttemplate class.
There are over 100 possible parameters. Why cannot the entire main outer div be warped in this code? All translations are under Template:Assessments/translate/xx range. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 00:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand, any content that is in this class will be replaced by the content generated from the API call to Template:Assessments/Translate/xx templates. This means that any styling or code that is common to all the translate/xx templates (and is hence kept out of them) should not be in this class. Basically, all the content in this class is replaced by the html parsed from the template call. Since we don't want all the styling (table, color, image on the side etc.) to dissapear on clicking, we need to place just the translatable content in this class.
That was intended. The second parameter should only be used for the number (corresponding to the rationale) and third parameter for the reason in words. While the use of the number system still remain optional, this would comply people to be using the number system.
I actually want to make the number system mandatory so as to make sure proposals come with the correct intent. Cryptic rationales of people are difficult to understand at times.
It's definitely a possibility. Especially now that the rename script exists (so people can't complain that they didn't know the numbers). I know a certain someone who would get mad, though. ;-) LoganTalkContributions14:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, should I revert your revert? I really want to avoid upsetting people. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure. Maybe bring the issue up at Commons talk:File renaming so some kind of consensus can be formed. Also, did you cause the issue with the stray apostrophes and random bolded text in rename summaries/universal replacement requests? That's something that should be fixed. LoganTalkContributions16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right. I discussed it with a certain person to explain the change with him. I actually think the template should be redesigned a little so that the error isn't carried into the rationale and a drop down box of default reject reasons would be most helpful. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 17:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the →Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 16:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have been updating the assessements template. Another user pointed out that the subpage parameter does not exist anymore, so we are not sure what to use for the FPCBot anymore. You can see the discussion here. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
