User talk:Be..anyone/2015

Are you porting Commons documentation system to Meta and MW?

Just wondering... it possibly helps me to better understand the issues you are trying to address. -- Rillke^(q?) 01:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to fix Patrick's old m:tdoc (simplified vintage 2010 c:Documentation) using the 2014 c:Documentation, and ended up with something still broken, but better than it was, not more almost all templates tracked in "redefined parameters". I'm not looking at missing modules (= don't know scribunto yet). continued on Template_talk:Documentation/layout… –Be..anyone (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kuiper_belt.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ich habe das beobachtet

dass Code einen Disput mit Livioandronico hatte. Dieser ging über einige Zeit. Es ist in QI üblich, dass derjenige, der eine Diskussion mit jemanden beginnt, diese - solange sie nicht im Diskussionsabschnitt steht - auch selbst durchführt. Es ist immer unangenehm, wenn hier Überstimmungen vorkommen. Dafür hat man ja die spätere, nachfolgende Option der Diskussion. Aber eben nicht auf der ersten Ebene. Bitte halte dich daran. --Hubertl (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Worum geht's? Das Radikalste, was ich auf der QI-Seite in 2015 gemacht habe, war ein ansonsten harmloses {{Unsigned}}, was den Bot verwirren wird. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Es war bei der Nominierung des Kreuzganghof-Brunnens. Code hat dich eh darauf aufmerksam gemacht, aber offenbar nicht angepingt. --Hubertl (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Die village pump am 9.1.? Ich habe keine Referenz in einer guten halben Stunde gefunden, auch nicht auf w:it:, also gut genug wie von Livioandronico2013 erklärt, oder ein Fall für "discuss", wenn code was diskutieren will. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Non favello il tedesco,dunque non intervengo...--LivioAndronico talk 11:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I only wrote that I agreed with your judgement in my promotion. But "Kreuzganghof-Brunnen" sounds very good for a German description. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Confusing

Steve Comisar has many educational images from fraud prevention appearances on national television programs. Can these images be used on Wikimedia even if they are published elsewhere on the internet? Is the Wikimedia licensing/copyright policy the same as for Wikipedia? There are a lot of people's photos on Wikimedia that are all over the internet. This is so confusing. How do I get Comisar's photos on Wikimedia? Suggestions? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauzlynn77 (talk • contribs)

I've never heard of that guy. On the English Wikipedia you can upload small pictures as "fair use" for an article (= page) using this picture as illustration. That's allowed, because your freedom to report something is more important than copyright. On commons (here) "fair use" is not good enough, all media here must be free for (almost) any purpose (incl. commercial use.) For File:Steve_Comisar_Profile_Photo.png here I doubt that it's okay, "photo was taken by me at home" sounds like TV-screenshot or similar (with a copyright by somebody else.) –Be..anyone (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Es ist nicht die feine Art

einen Kollegen zu overrulen, wenn er gerade eine kleine Änderung anfragt, der Fotograf aber noch nicht reagiert hat. Ich hab deine Pro-Entscheidung auf Discuss gestellt. Eigentlich unnötigerweise, denn das hätte mit einer kleinen Änderung durch X-RAY erledigt sein können. Es gibt viele Bilder, welche noch niemand angegriffen hat. Viel Raum für deine Entscheidungen.--Hubertl (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bearbeitungsgeschichte: promo (edit conflict, only support) File:Dülmen,_Lüdinghauser_Tor_--_2014_--_2881.jpg. "Wer zuerst schiesst, blockiert alle anderen" kann auch nicht gut sein. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Es hat niemand geschossen, es war eine konstruktive Anfrage an x-Ray, die üblicherweise und auf freundlichem Weg ohne Bewertung abgehandelt wird. Das erspart dann in Folge einen 8-tägigen unnötigen Diskussionsprozess. Ziemlich sinnlose Aktion von dir, völlig undurchsichtig und völlig jenseits dessen, was der übliche, ständig genau in dieser Art durchgeführte Vorgang ist. Wie ich bereits schrieb: Es gibt ausreichend zu tun, aber misch dich nicht in bereits bestehende Beurteilungsprozesse ein. Wenn X-Ray die schiefen Bereiche geklärt hat, dann wird Dnalor - so wie bereits beschrieben - die Sache positiv bewerten. Wenn du die Regeln/Abläufe nicht durchschaust, frag einfach auf der Disku.--Hubertl (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW: was bitte, meinst du mit:spent days for this POV? Das versteht keiner und deshalb auch mein Eingreifen!--Hubertl (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In der Kategorie, Bilder von diesem Tor mit diesem Blickwinkel über drei Tage. Wenn ich mehrere Minuten lang ein Bild beschnüffelt habe, und es gut finde, werde ich das auch weiterhin sofort so sagen, bevor ich vergesse, wann und wo das war, und nicht auf vollkommen sinnfreie {{Not done}} o.ä. warten. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Scallop diagram vote?

Hi, I noticed your Oppose vote to my nomination of my scallop diagram for featured picture (Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scallop Diagram2.svg). The image now passes validation, and I have discussed the usage of numbers and language neutrality in the nomination discussion. Today is the image's last day for consideration— if you and one other voter switch your votes to support, the image will pass! Without these things, it looks likely to fail. Having addressed the validation issue, do you think you'd be willing to switch your vote before time runs out?? I hope so! Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your SVG is already legendary, it crashed the validator if called with the "show source" parameter, also when it was still Invalid. I'm at modem speed at the moment, Chrome refused to download the SVG, some Microsoft Download Manager, well, managed this. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Templates

Hallo, wie du sehen konntest vertrete ich die Maxime "keep it simple" - für den Anwender; auch wenn das gelegentlich komplexe Vorlagen erfordert. Ich finde nun mal, eine Vorlage und deren wenige Editierer sollen sich anstrengen um Dinge für alle anderen komfortabel zu machen. In diesem Zusammenhang hast du sicher auch Einwände oder Befürwortungen zu Template talk:Vector version available#Improvements, du hast dort ja schon gelegentlich was geposted. Gruß sarang♥사랑 08:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Blu ray 3d (logo).svg

Hi, when you upload files from local Wikipedia, your must add the original upload log, (you can use CommonsHelper to generate the log) and the original source. Thanks. Thibaut120094 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IIRC I used some wizard in the past for two other transfers, and didn't now because fair use on w: to PD textlogo on c: isn't "normal". I forgot the name of commonshelper and that it doesn't care about license issues. Thanks for fixing the info. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Deine reverts

Ich würde es viel mehr schätzen wenn du es erst mal mir mitteilst womit du unzufrieden bist, anstatt meine edits zu revertieren. Fände ich besseren Benutzerstil. sarang♥사랑 10:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Gestern ging die Galerie noch, heute war sie kaputt, und die letzte Änderung war Dein neues {{Ifimt}} mit diversen Unter- und Nebentemplates. Da ist "zurück auf funktionierende Version" das Mittel der Wahl, ich habe keine Ahnung, wann Du online bist, und ob Du das flicken willst, wirst, oder kannst. Ich habe auch keine Lust, verwirrende Templates zu verstehen, wenn sie nicht funktionieren, der Notflick von {{Valid SVG}} wegen Validator-Crash hat mich mehrere Stunden gekostet. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Timestamps JFTR, Talk:Ifimt 09:46 vs. 10:07 Ifimt/doc. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

My talk page

Please do not post on my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer that this won't be necessary again. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Pushing this policy into full effect

Hi. I think you're misunderstanding the proposal (or I'm misunderstanding your comment). There is absolutely no change to the templates used to tagged for speedy deletion. All those will be left exactly the way it is. Can we discuss here (to not make that thread a mess)? Rehman 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Replicas of the Statue of Liberty

Check out: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Replicas of the Statue of Liberty Thanks. Evrik (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for info, FWIW I added a  Support to your request, the deletion rationale was seriously odd if it was intended as an admin decision. Otherwise users who happen to be admins MUST NOT implement their own IAR ideas if that requires elevated rights. ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/151649030/151682461

Hm?    FDMS  4    18:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Valid HTML5, très chic. I could find my complaints against keeping <u> while deprecating <tt> years ago on WhatWG and W3C lists, and after that didn't help my complaints against following HTML5 wrt this nit here on the Village Pump some months ago, but folks want the valid stamp. Don't worry about it, maybe pick <mark> for a more interesting effect than code or good old and sadly dead teletype. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

So … will browsers soon no longer understand <tt>? And, what effect does using <kbd> and <samp> have – the same?    FDMS  4    20:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Browsers will forever understand everything we learned ten years ago, nobody is going to fix billions of old pages. But new pages won't get a "valid HTML5" by the validator if they use align="center" (example) or <tt>. Unless tidy (used by MediaWiki) fixes it on the fly before the validator sees it. In theory (and only in theory, they intentionally arranged things different in practice) HTML5 elements have a "semantic" meaning, and kbd means "keyboard input". Visual browsers of course show it as monospace, just like tt for "teletype output". But the latter is evil, because it's not semantical, but presentational, and presentation is the job of CSS, not tt elements.

They did some salto mortale to justify "small" or "u" or "b" or "i" as semantical, of course all lame excuses to keep those presentational elements anyway. But they killed "big" (good riddance) and "tt" (sadly.) With Chrome "kbd" is not the same as "samp" (sample, example, whatever meaning as long as it's no keyboard input ;-)

HTML5 is in parts fairly ridiculous, or asinine, as the author of the URL standard put it, when HTML5 decreed that i18n URIs (IRIs, stuff with raw UTF-8) are the same thing as ASCII URLs (percent-encoded UTF-8 working with old software.)

HTML5 is nice for browser developers, "treat US-ASCII like Latin-1, and Latin-1 like Windows-1252, because that's what it presumably is, anyway". Perfect. But no fun for authors who know the difference, because real US-ASCII could be also interpreted as valid UTF-8, or as valid Windows-1252, as needed, and lumping US-ASCII and Latin-1 together loses this flexibility. Sigh... it still upsets me. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting (seriously)! But why don't we just let tidy fix it? And what are the exact definitions of <tt>, <kbd> and <small>?    FDMS  4    21:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/152822412

You're right, PD is not a license, but PD (a status) also wasn't the exact content of the licensing section. You could see PD-self as a short (and therefore probably less universal) version of CC 0. However, the UploadWizard also places PD-old tags in licensing sections, which can only very indirectly be considered licenses (by legislation?), so please establish consensus first before making such purely taste-related edits again. Also, do you agree or disagree with including the VP/P discussions in the community tabs div?    FDMS  4    17:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think at some point a bot should get rid of pointless "license" sections for public domain files, because folks add non-translated nonsense like "PD" in the permission= row of {{Information}} when they feel like it, or even have a permission=something and a "license" section saying something else, which will cause havoc for COM:MRD.

So when I stumble over such cases while doing something else—at the moment I check that all test SVGs in the librsvg gallery are valid and have an {{Igen}} tag for this business—I just fix it per SoFixIt. If you think it's an interesting question maybe start a poll somewhere: {{Cent}} with only one old entry really needs new topics before it dies. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Repeating myself: PD-self is a license. Also, the only filedesc pages I can remember seeing permission=[plain text] on were those of bot-wiki-transferred files – usually, inexperienced users just pick a license in the UW which is placed in the licensing section and ignore the permission field ("PD" isn't exactly "permission" either, just a status). It is your "right" to make cosmetic changes as part of edits that also definitely improve something (such as SVG documentation); I'm asking you not to make "standalone" cosmetic changes, as they should indeed be done by a bot, if there is consensus in favour of them.    FDMS  4    01:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Geodata for Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia

Hello Be..anyone, I just added the geodata, you can just ask me directly whenever you feel that it is necessary, regards, Poco² 10:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was kind of grumpy about the weird FPX. Some of the mysteries are now clearer, it's a historical place for folks on Iceland, that's why they have those odd wooden roads, bridges, and what else in what appears to be the midth of nowhere. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Starting conversion of LiquidThreads to Flow at mediawiki.org

Hi Be..anyone. I'm posting this here, as your usertalkpage at mediawiki.org is a redirect here. I'm sending this to you, because you've been one of the top 50 users of LQT on mediawiki.org over the last 360 days,[1] and I wanted to make sure that you'd seen the announcement at Starting conversion of LiquidThreads to Flow at mediawiki.org. There are links in the topic-summary at the top, for other discussions (wikitech-l and Project:Current_issues), and a link to the planned process and timeline (scheduled to begin April 6, with smaller conversions at first). Please do test Flow out at mw:Talk:Sandbox if you haven't tried it recently, and give any feedback/suggestions/requests at that main discussion location. Much thanks, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Tango-Lizenz

Hallo Be..anyone, du willst doch jetzt nicht jede einzelne Datei (so fast 400) einem Lizenz-Review unterziehen (nur weil in den Dateien der einzelne Author mit der alten Lizenz steht)? Ich verstehe deine Skepsis nicht, der Fall ist doch klar!? Bis später, LG ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nein, das fiel mir nur gerade auf, weil ich meine Beobachtungsliste alt nach neu abarbeite. Der Ping kam etwa gleichzeitig mit meinem Dank für die Prüfung von System-users.svg an Thibaut120094, was ich warum auch immer auch beobachte. Vermutlich die beiden einzigen Tangos, beide mit glasklarem PD von oben, und ebenso klarem CC BY-SA 2.0 in den Metadaten. Sollte eigentlich geflickt werden, das ist etwa wie Exif hü und Dateiseite hott. Bockmist für Weiterverwender, die PD runterladen, als PD weiter veröffentlichen, und plötzlich als gewöhnliche CC-copyvio Diebe enttarnt werden. Klein gedruckt "zuunrecht enttarnt" schafft nix weg. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Alles klar, nichts fur ungut, ich habe noch mal beim System-user geantwortet. Im Prinzip müssen dann alle alten Versionen durch die Revision "tango-icon-theme-0.8.90" ersetzt werden!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wenn das nicht manuell war, hast Du scheinbar ein gutes Entmüllungswerkzeug. Die Autorennamen waren in beiden von mir betrachteten Fällen gut, also auf der "Tango-Leute-Seite" gelistet. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wie meinst du das? Tatsächlich stehen auch noch in 230 Dateien ein Author (und ich kann jetzt gar nicht sagen wieviele Dateien es genau sind, allein "Jakub Steiner" hat 188). Du meinst alle Authoren müssen in der Datei erhalten bleiben und/oder auf der Dateibeschreibungsseite gelistet werden? Und ja ich verwende ein Tool, es heißt "SVG Cleaner" ^^ (aber wie gesagt verstehe ich grad nicht den Zusammenhang den du meinst). Bis später, schön Abend noch. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Müssen muss da gar nix, ich habe keine Ahnung, was Du da wie im Detail machst. Aber die Autoreninfo wäre bei Aufwand unter fünf Minuten erhaltenswert, andernfalls nicht. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hej, also die OptimierungsTools sind schon ziemlich anpassbar. Ich habe mal ein Bsp. hochgeladen. Neuerdings kann Inkscape tatsächlich seine alten Ellipsen und Circles in entsp. echte native SVG-Opjekte wandeln (daher es geht keine Information verloren). Das kannst du beim Abspeichern in Inkscape unter "Optimiertes SVG" einstellen (Metadata behalten). VG ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  06:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Die Genauigkeit habe ich auf 5 gestellt (normal 4, ab und zu verwende ich auch 3 und selten 2). Trotzdem sieht man einen Unterschied bei dem Bsp. (wenn man ganz genau hinschaut). Das liegt daran das die Pfade ebenfalls "gestretcht" waren (also eigtl. ein Fehler im Original, die tatsähclich nicht selten vorkommen). Vgl. dazu (den Mund).

PPS: Wenn gewünscht könnte ich per AWB alle Autoren der Dateien aus den Metadaten eintragen!? ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  06:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  06:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Vergiss bitte, dass ich das erwähnt habe, Du hast jetzt schon mehr als 5 Minuten dafür verbraucht. Wenn ich Erbsen zählen will, darf ich, aber ich kann nicht andere damit nerven. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia-screenshot

Hello,

I don't know what's going on or if there's any consensus for what you did, but the redirect is not working.

Regards, Thibaut120094 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, looks like someone fixed it. Thibaut120094 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange, looking at {{Wikimedia-screenshot}} my last edit was and still is 2015-04-03 01:15, and the redirect now also working for you was 02:36. The French version has a 01:43 timestamp on the wikimedia side, and the redirect (=move) from the French wikipedia side was at 2015-04-02 23:35. Chronologically all as it should be, but now that you've said it, no, I did not purge all language versions explicitly, this could be a cache issue, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: File:Classic smiley.svg

Hi! Yes, it's me. I had draw it using CorelDRAW! and proudly it is now used heavily on the Internet. --FML ^hello 00:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: it is because I did it on PNG when Wikimedia didn't support SVG yet. Someone erased the old picture I had uploaded before and uploaded this SVG version. --FML ^hello 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And yes, the licensing is a little confusing. I can't remember why this is like this, but I'm pretty sure I published it originally in public domain, so actually you can apply any license over it, it is public domain anyway. If you want to fix that, feel free. --FML ^hello 00:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated {{igen|U|v|+}} to {{igen|D|v|+}} for corelDraw instead of Unknown, but I don't think that wikidata uses the "tool" info for COM:MRD yet. I'm not going to touch your license, it's your subpage, you're alive and kicking, you can fix it as you see fit. Not necessarily in this decade. –Be..anyone (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

TUSC

Hallo Be..anyone. Nachdem die Diskussion archiviert wurde, halt hier. Magst du unter User talk:Magog the Ogre#Problem with Creation of a TUSC Account vorbeischauen und es nochmals versuchen? --Leyo 09:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for info, but as the user put it, I cannot be "arsed" to test this tool, I was only curious what the apparently obsolete documentation tried to say. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ussr-userbox.png

You can speedy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cccp3 (talk • contribs)

File:CC no rights reserved.svg

File:CC no rights reserved.svg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Elvey (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

File:CC no rights reserved.svg

File:CC no rights reserved.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Elvey (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)