![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nope, sorry. The nomination and promotion both have to be in 2012, and you have to have done "significant work" on the article in that year. J Milburn ( talk) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it required to find proof that image on the mouse pad is free to keep this file? Bulwersator ( talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.
This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn ( talk) and The ed17 ( talk) 17:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sven, hope you're well. A user contested the deletion of File:Don-2-3d-poster-shahrukh-khan-srk-04.jpg on my talk page. Since you nominated the file for deletion, perhaps you'd like to weigh in? Regards, FASTILY Happy 2012!! 10:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Just lettin' you know that I've replied to all of your comments for Typhoon Dot :) Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 22:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sven,
I've transferred some files to Commons today, which are currently listed here. I haven't done much of this before – maybe one or two files – so I'm unsure as to whether or not the transfers are acceptable. Could you check them? (BTW, don't feel bad about Irene; things come and go.) Thanks.
HurricaneFan 25 — 18:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I'd like your opinion of a non-free file I uploaded in May 2011, File:Lansdowne riot.jpg. I uploaded it because I thought it was a unique historic image, and would be appropriate for fair use on an article about the riots. I thought that the low resolution copy would not infringe on the original market role of the copyright holder. After re-reading the non-free content guideline, I am not sure that it is allowable under that guideline. Can you take a look at it when you have time, and let me know your judgement about it. The problem is, that the image itself is not discussed in the content of Lansdowne Road football riot. This is the only non-free image I have uploaded, and looking back, I should have asked more experienced editor about it. Thanks, Quasi human | Talk 18:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I honestly never thought you'd run! I'll do a full review later and will post my vote then, but I thought I'd just leave you a note here wishing you the very best of luck. WormTT · ( talk) 13:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please review WP:SOCK, specifically "...when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or to the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA."
Please confirm that you have notified the entire committee the username of your past accounts. Hopefully an arbiter will be along to confirm the details of your past accounts. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a nutshell version of this? Would it trouble you if he were back, or are there any restrictions on his editing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Were there any restrictions, bans, blocks, anything that I should know about or that he shouldn't be breaching in a Clean Start? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sven, I am in this terribly strange position regarding your RfA. I am, unfortunately, in the opposition but literally 10 cm away from being 100% strong support. I respect privacy in the fullest sense, but you're asking to be put in a place of public trust and the public has a compelling reason to care about the unrelated things you did six years ago. I don't want to know, I honestly don't care, but I feel as though it is in the community's best interest for 'someone' to know, y'know what I mean? Satisfying either condition as I submitted on your RfA would move me instantly to the fullest support imaginable.
And, I have to admit, I admire your bravery and integrity for being frank an open about your previous account. If you hadn't mentioned it, the RfA would pass with near-unanimity, I feel. You deserve to be commended for revealing the account's existence and sticking-to-your-guns concerning your privacy. I firmly hope it doesn't sink your RfA, we need more admins like you. I feel almost guilty that my hands are tied and I can't (yet) support you. But the gumption, the moxie, deserves recognition. For that, you get this:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
per above Achowat ( talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
For everything else you do around the project, I hope you get "The Mop".
Achowat (
talk)
17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Check it, I've sent you one. (though it's just past 5am here so I may not see the reply for an hour or so). Steven Zhang Join the DR army!
That was a very impressive withdrawal statement Sven. [1] Obviously I didn't vote, but I do know what a tough gig RfA can be. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Impressive" is exactly the adjective I came here to use. MF beat me to it. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I also thought about the RFA withdraw, and it was the best choice considering the potential bloodbath. I myself wasn't sure considering Fluffernutter and Fox opposes. Good close, and I'll look forward for your next RFA. Until then RFAs of any candidate that can be considered a bit "controversal" needs to be reformed badly. They seem to be huge bloodbaths recently, for reasons I'm still uncertain looking at the history of RFAs and any potensial controversy with adminstrators though AN/I, ArbCom, etc. Secret account 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all for the kind words. I was avoiding responding to all of this because I thought it might be in poor form to do so. Then I realized not responding probably was worse form. I appreciate it. I plan, for the record, to run again in either four or six months (four months would be at the end of the term I'm in now, and therefore the next time I'd be comfortable starting a process that needs my close attention for a week straight). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. bamse ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're not too busy killing guards (hard, I know), I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anónimo Consejo. I have completely rewritten the article and with multiple new sources I think it passes the GNG with plenty of headroom. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to see that it didn't go as planned :\ At any rate, I hope you found it to be a helpful learning experience. All the best, FASTILY (TALK) 08:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven--
I followed the writing guidlines carefully and submitted an opinion piece for Signpost 10 days ago asking for advice and help. After no response for 8 days, I sent another email and still no response. On the NEWSROOM page for Signpost, it states about this email address: "It is monitored by a handful of trusted Signpost editors."
I'm a newbie, so please forgive me if this lack of response is normal, but it seems to me that at least one of the "handful of trusted Signpost editors" could have responded with some advice/help or a "screw you, your piece stinks". Is this just a busy time for all signpost editors? Have I violated some rule or done something else wrong?
Thank you for your time,
Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 15:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sven, I just wanted to thank you again for helping me improve the Brentwood Academy article. I appreciate giving your time to review it.
I hope your New Year is going well. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Just asking that is it mandatory to have a date in a Commons transfer. But, even if it is isn't it wrong to say that the mover must be knowing the date? Discuss this with Ebe123 too.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 22:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Cover the debacle going on at WP:FAC. You up for a short Discussion report? Res Mar 04:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"09:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC): File:Longhorn RSoD.png → File:Longhorn RSoD.pngRed X.svg Transfer unacceptable - I do not believe that this file is in fact within the public domain, and have placed it up for deletion both locally and at commons." - on commons deletion request was closed as kept Bulwersator ( talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you wrote this to a user "Hello. Yesterday, I transferred a file which you uploaded to Commons. In the future, please upload unquestionably free use images to Commons, unless you specifically do not want them on Commons, in which case you should use a {{ Keeplocal}} tag. Thank you." I find it very good that you ask uploaders to use Commons but adding keeplocal is not a quarantee that the file is not moved to Commons. So I suggest that you concider not to mention that option. -- MGA73 ( talk) 08:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven--
As a newbie who recently tried to submit an opinion piece, I'm still confused about the process:
What's the preferred way to submit a piece, e-mail to you, e-mail to one or both managing editors, e-mail to wikipediasignpost@gmail.com, or some combination of the above or some other way? Will you or the managing editors automatically keep me abreast of the status of a submitted piece? Is it appropriate to ask for the status after a few days? If yes, who should I ask about it? Should I use e-mail or Talk pages? Will you and/or the managing editors routinely monitor e-mail at wikipediasignpost@gmail.com in the future?
Regarding my recent submission: Have you or SMasters cracked the password to wikipediasignpost@gmail.com to get a clean copy of my submission (with italics, bold, and URL links)? What is the status of this piece?
Thank you for your time,
Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sven_Manguard&diff=469744322&oldid=469743173 – I'm interested in learning more about this "recent case". What case are you referring to? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, as you know, I maintain a number of bot-updated database reports for the file namespace in my userspace. I'm thinking about graduating these reports (and also creating more) to a Wikipedia namespace page where they will be more accessible. What do you think? - FASTILY (TALK) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
![]() Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2864 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. |
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I know that you are likely extremely busy, but I was wondering if it was too much to ask if you could get Hurricane Maria (2011) and Tropical Storm Colin (2010)'s GA reviews before the Wikipedia blackout? TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, since you're the person I know who has the most experience with images, are you aware if there are any guidelines regarding the use of {{#switch: {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFEDITS:R}} mod 2}} so that two images, taking up the place of one, can switch? You see. Terminator 2: Judgment Day doesn't have any Commons equivalent since there are only two free files that I have asked from Flickr users available. I'm contemplating the use of the above magic words so that I can use two images without encountering text sandwich; what do you think? -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven! Thanks for all your hard work on Wikipedia. I see your edits and work all over the place. Also, thanks for the message on my talk page and apologies for not replying sooner. I was traveling and have not been able to log into Wikipedia for nearly a month.
In any case, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about File:Movies_es5-20030823.png in terms of the deletion discussion and rationale. The page was deleted before I was able to respond but I think it was in error. As per the deletion review guidelines, I wanted to bring this up with you and the deleting admin first.
I've tried to explain what I think is going on and what I think should be done at File talk:Movies_es5-20030823.png. — mako ๛ 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Why do you want to keep it local? Don't you like Commons? :-D -- MGA73 ( talk) 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I responded on Colin's talk page. You've not forgotten about Maria, have you? ;) You'll find that one in a lot better shape, I believe. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you confirm at [2] that I have understood the request correctly? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you comment over at Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/SreeBot, thanks. ZooFari ( talk) 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I need help with something you uploaded, I used it and now I just need to know who to give credit to thank you very much.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gerrymandering_9-6.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.82.10 ( talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
first of all, i would like to thank you for your cautious work, on ensuring the validity of Wikipedia.... and sadly, i agree that ALL of these uploaded images are indeed need for speedy deletion, i would do it myself, if i was to know how... these images were uploaded by me while i was still unfamiliar with the licensing procedure on Wikipedia, and have failed to delete them... if their is a faster method to delete them, please tell me how... thank you... :) Arab League User ( talk) 11:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)--
Per discussion with Magister Scienta ( talk · contribs), this message has been sent to you, as a concerned editor, in compliance with rules under WP:CANVAS, as a limited extent posting. 70.24.251.194 ( talk) 09:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sven, I've been away for a couple of months due to exams/schoolwork. Just thought I'd drop you a note to say hi again, and was wondering if anything significant has happened in the 'file world' since I've been gone. And how did the trip abroad go? :) Acather96 ( talk) 19:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sven, thank you for helping me with an image used in AgustaWestland AW101. I am hoping you will now help me with a second problematical image used in this article.
This image is a photograph showing the shovel-shaped tip of a helicopter rotor blade. See AgustaWestland AW101#Specifications (Merlin HM1). When I examine the details of the image I see a banner stating that the image was transferred from en.wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons using a bot script. It states that the transfer requires review, and when the review has been made the template should be removed.
I know nothing about these things. Are you able to review the use of this image and remove the template? Many thanks. Dolphin ( t) 03:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 27 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Death By Cube, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Xbox Live Arcade game Death By Cube was one of the bloodiest games to appear at the 2009 Tokyo Game Show? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death By Cube.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Mifter ( talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
...laughed out loud at this. Nice. WilliamH ( talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For your well needed, beautifully worded input at this RfA discussion. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
someone has offered a way to disable the floating "Improve this page" box using CSS. Cheers, Goodvac ( talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Thank you for contributing to the December 2011 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. AstroCog ( talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) |
...so much for weighing in on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_respect_to_the_copyright_of_countries_with_which_the_US_does_not_have_copyright_relations.3F. Your inputs are certainly helpful and insightful. On a personal note, I wanted to pass along my sincere thanks for voicing your opinion with us "little people". It's one of those things you didn't have to do, but chose to do anyway and it's noted.
To clarify your opinion, am I correct in deducing that you propose labeling images as PD in the US but not in the host country and using them IAW our Fair Use policies?
If so, how do you propose treating works protected by Crown Copyright (which protects some files in perpetuity) or those whose copyrights expired in the US, but are still viable in their host country? I don't exactly disagree with your opinion here. It's logically sound within the WP structure, but we haven't treated images this way and it will lead to major changes, if implemented. If implemented across WP, it will lead to even more problems on Commons. I don't mind those problems, but I want to be clear about what you are proposing (perhaps I'm missing what you are saying)
IMHO, this all stems from WP's choice to treat images differently than they are used in the "real world". Fair Use images are used all the time with no credit/sources given. Copyright infringement is also rampant across the web and I'm glad WP took the moral high road with regards to FU images. I think we made a mistake by not using a simple copyright standard (i.e. the US or UK). We could have highlighted this standard in our General Disclaimer (and perhaps we should)...perhaps we should still do so no matter the outcome of this discussion, just to be clear about the situation...
My fear is that copyright enforcement will quickly become untenable as the usual standard of determining copyright will devolve into HIGHLY complex applications of international copyright law (note that even this list doesn't take into account the complexities of US law and other countries are even FAR more complex than the US!).
I'm not really interested in debating the issue here (I'm not trying to fork a discussion), only to clarify and perhaps gain insight on your thought process so we can incorporate your views and that of other senior editors into a final solution that we can all work within. In any case, I really look forward to your answer. I think this discussion has the potential to impact WP for years to come, so I want to make sure we get it right! Buffs ( talk) 05:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There are three factors that need to be taken into account when we talk about images on Wikipedia:
These are listed in order of precedence, although all three should be taken into account. Realize, of course, that all three are subjective.
I'm in the process of polishing a Signpost essay on fair use, so this balance is one that I've given a great deal of thought to. However this isn't the place for me to go into that. Suffice to say that one of the biggest problems with fair use on Wikipedia is that it is highly complex, with multiple competing "right" answers, and an acute shortage of people who have the expertise and desire to maintain the several hundred thousand files we have practical, legal, and ethical duties to maintain. Therefore I sympathize with your concern of letting copyright on Wikipedia become over-complex (assuming, of course, you don't believe that it already has).
In answer to your specific questions, I suppose the simplest way to articulate my beliefs on copyright are as follows:
I hope this dosen't leave you with more questions than answers. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I most certainly hope that "veterans" still come in and participate in community discussions. I'm not really even sure if I'm comfortable with the platform you're elevating me to. I mean don't get me wrong, I like that people assign weight to my opinions, but I'd hope that it's because the logic of my comments resonates with people, rather than because I've just been around longer than other people.
Yo Sven, thanks for the well-wishes, hope you enjoyed the winter break. I'm just catching up on all the excitement afoot while I've been away, can you shoot me an email or look me up off-wiki if you get a chance? Be good to catch-up. Cheers, Skomorokh 17:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010.
Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is
Grapple X (
submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about
The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at
good article candidates. Second place is currently held by
Ruby2010 (
submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is
Jivesh boodhun (
submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sven: Since I was new to the image upload area, I picked a license that looked appropriate. Since I am the creator of the image in conjunction with Tobias Jonsson and he also agrees with using it on the site, any license that is permanent would be appropriate. Do you have any suggestions? Heckendorf ( talk) 15:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
NOT... DEAD... yet!
I got Ventilator-associated pneumonia in July and it hung on until September! Then pneumonia came back around the end of December, and dragged on, almost for the entirety of January. Now, I've (for the most part) won the tough, long slog against the illness.
Now that I'm (slowly) getting back to writing, I hope we can meet in IRC soon, and talk (on-wiki and off) about what we should do about the nascent articles (like the Qianlong palace one) that grew in my sandbox over the summer. NickDupree ( talk) 17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It says that you moved it to Commons, but the deletion script failed to identify you as the uploader. I have proposed it for deletion here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shanghai University title.png. You might wish to comment. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Updated, note that Lake of the Woods is without image (image_lake) but with a map (image_bathymetry) Bulwersator ( talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I responded within seconds of it coming in. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Dipankan In the woods? 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you to bother you again, Sven. For the past while I've been working on collecting all of Wikipedia's featured articles into a book, located at User:Interchangeable/Books/Featured Articles, and I just noticed this MfD. Your main points were that the books were disorganized (that is, alphabetized) and that they would be split if printed.
However, I intended this book for print, and as far as I know most paper encyclopedias are in alphabetical order. Second, splitting when printing isn't really a concern, because true encyclopedias are often multi-volume in nature - I assume PediaPress won't split an article at the end of a volume between volumes. As long as the reader knows the name of the required article, they may search through the volumes until they find the correct range. Volume itself is not a concern; it is only a matter of patience to download the large file.
Furthermore, an online, alphabetical list of the FAs is rather useful; Category:Featured articles isn't always up to date.
I originally created the page at Book:Featured Articles, and then moved it into my userspace. If I want the book to be public (which I do) I'll have to ask that the redirect be deleted, so Book:Featured Articles may still remain a nonexistent page.
One last thing: if you will allow me to make this book public, I fully intend to update it regularly, which was another of your arguments. The FA page is on my watchlist and I'll respond to any new articles that are added or old ones removed. Inter change able| talk to me 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Whatever code you have written for labelling images, please note that high quality associated with British museums (such as the British Library, British Museum, National Portrait Gallery, National Gallery, etc) cannot be transferred to Commons for legal reasons. An example of how articles like that are labelled is given here. [3] Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has 3 screenshots which are copyrighted in it. And none of them really depict anything significantly new, the other ones won't. Do you think they need to be deleted? If so, could you look into the matter? Thanks. X.One SOS 07:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sven. I am not sure what brought you into this debate - presumably the other user involved. However, articles that are specifically chronological in their nature, which includes all Year in Topic articles, are specifically exempted from the de-linking exercise. See also the style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. Deb ( talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is far from perfect - lots of incomplete (and, for all I know, non-reliable) citations mixed in with very good ones, and there may well be POV issues and excessive detail. But I don't see any problem with notability - there have been a large numbers of newspaper articles about Ganguli, for example. (Full disclosure: I re-created the article, with lots of citations, after it was deleted; that's a number of years ago, but I think an admin specifically agreed that the expanded, well-cited article had in fact demonstrated notability and could be moved to mainspace.)
So I invite you to provide more details about your objections to the existing article, on the article talk page (and, of course, to fix it directly), but I do feel strongly that notability isn't an issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Requesting clarification to #4 please. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right - It appeared that there had been some good faith editing prior to the edit-warring, but on further review everything was whitewashing, blanking, or edit warring. I suspect the editor is related to or associated with the subject (or its owners), but that's not an excuse. Thanks for catching that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a first draft available for your review and comments, on the map request page. Keithpickering ( talk) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven,
With regards to this - [4], I thought I ought to point out that George is under "mentorship" at present. I'm one of the people helping out there. One of the things I've been encouraging George to do is discuss things in the right place if he's unsure, and an unpleasant side effect of that at the moment is that he is tending to generate a few maybe unnecessary discussions. He's also recently started to tidy up some old discussions he opened which haven't reached consensus etc, and that was his own initiative, so I'm hopeful this would be a temporary thing. I saw how much work you were putting into closing all those NFCC discussions today, and I can quite understand how it seems. Sorry for my part in causing you extra work. Begoon talk 05:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sven,
The photo I uploaded to [5] and that you had deleted is a photo used as artwork (album cover) from the artist's self-produced album. I uploaded it at the artist's request (the previous person who had done so had not managed to do so without an error syntax appearing above the photograph). It is my understanding that the original photographer performed a work for hire and released all copyright claims to the artist herself, Michelle Shaprow. Please advise as to the steps needed to redress this misunderstanding and avoid such mishaps for future photo uploads to this page. Thanks! Balisani Balisani ( talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
for the help on Frank Bungarten, - maxneo111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxneo111 ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Acather96 ( talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
See if you can find an OTRS user to check if ticket #2011081010008803 would apply to the images at Special:ListFiles/Dmitri1999. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This image should not be deleted as I am the copyright owner - refer to http://www.anuhasan.co.uk/privacy-policy for evidence of this. In any event, I have replaced the image with the original (ie before the website ID was added to it). Hopefully this is sufficient however as administrator/owner of the website I could amend the picture page to acknowledge that the file has been issued into the public domain. Regards, Graham Jay Gjay66 ( talk) 06:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, hope you are doing well. The three files which I had requested you to delete earlier have been contested by a user here. If you are interested, kindly spare a few moments to put up your comments. Thanks. X.One SOS 12:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Good morning, Sven. First, please be aware I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I was asked to fix the McPherson, Inc. page, but it is all very confusing. I work for McPherson, Inc. The images you deleted were taken by McPherson, Inc. They belong to McPherson, Inc. and I'm trying to fix the permission issue, but I can't do that if you summarily delete them without even giving me the seven days that Wikipedia says I have.
I do assure you, McPherson, Inc. has the legal right to use our own photos...that we took with our own camaras...of our own instruments...even on our own website. You even deleted the one I linked last night. You deleted ALL of them and the code on our page that I worked hard to get right. I think you are being unfair.
If you aren't trying to be unfair, than please help. What more can I do than state on the image page that we are the author of the image and give the correct license tag? Thanks in advance and have a great day. - Toni Roberts, Executive Administrator, McPherson, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacuum UV ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven. Thank you so much for your help. I'm having our website ( McPhersonInc.com ) edited to give the permissions. I think I've figured out how to do that...learning curve :) Then I'll also fill out the consent form, too. Anyway, after I've finished that, will I need to upload the images again? I don't see a way to access them or their permissions after they've been deleted. I think I'm signing this one now, too :) Thanks again, and have a great day. (Toni Roberts - Executive Administrator, McPherson, Inc.) Vacuum UV ( talk) 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Banej's talk page.
You said you'd decided not to run. [6] :? Res Mar 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, thanks for supporting Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasi human | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to restore task 1 as Fbot is stoppped? Bulwersator ( talk) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I'm working on bringing the Mongol Empire article up to FA status. I'd like to include the map at File:MongolEmpire.jpg , but need sources if it's going to be in an FA article. Do you remember which sources were used to draw the borders? Thanks, -- El on ka 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Your Command "do not sign..." is I assume pointing out some violation of policy? or do you just like to tell other editors what to do? Yaloe ( talk) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Write article on Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt. ( Patricia Buckley Ebrey and The Search for Modern China still aren't done either, you over-committed fool.) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Since it says that Fastily is currently taking a break and since you also are involved in the {{ Move to Commons}} tagging, I suggest that you take a look at my comment at User talk:Fastily#Fbot and .7B.7BNot-PD-US-URAA.7D.7D. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Signpost Barnstar | |
Thank you for your previous dedication to the Signpost, with your last regular discussion report being here has inspired me to continue your legacy (as well as your awesome formatting! :)). If you haven't already, you can see the new discussion reports that I've been creating since you've left: February 20 and February 27. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was
Grapple X (
submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was
Tigerboy1966 (
submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were
Ruby2010 (
submissions),
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions),
Miyagawa (
submissions) and
Casliber (
submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list:
List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from
Ruby2010 (
submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your bot's indiscriminate tagging. You have labelled high resolution images from collections in Britain, including the British Library. You have been told before that these cannot be transferred to common. If your script has not been written to check this, please could you stop it? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 05:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. No reason has been supplied as to why this file should not be moved to Wikimedia Commons! |
Would this help?
-- Stone ( talk) 08:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. This is not useful for others!! |
It would help if this is stated somewhere that this template is available!--
Stone (
talk) 08:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
--
Stone (
talk)
08:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Sven Manguard, I was curious as to why you are withdrawing yourself from the drive. You've done so much work transferring images. I has my reservations about doing this one as well, especially since the last one (January) was never fully finished. It almost seems like someone is more interested in starting and being the "leader" of drives than to see them through. I was just curious about your thoughts and I want you to know that you have my support in anything you do (for whatever that is worth). -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If you give the bot some oil perhaps it could be so nice not to do this on files with a {{ Now Commons (MtC drive)}} :-) -- MGA73 ( talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Have a few questions regarding more complicated file copyright situations that just seem to go to the nth degree in a legal perspective (that or i'm tired :P). Give me a poke tomorrow when you've got a minute? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate a reply on my last comment there. We should quickly decide whether the March drive should be abandoned if no one is planning on administering it. – Grondemar 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thank you for your contribution to editing articles of Chinese history Geistcj ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey guys!
Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).
In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey all!
Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).
In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!
Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Any idea of how do handle things such as File:Coppacarnevale.jpg which is used in 28 articles but only has a FUR for one article? Any tag which can be used? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 01:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys.
I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.
This is being done through the
Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an
office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).
All the best, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an RFC on whether WP:REDIRECT should contain advice related to Wikipedia books. Since you're one of the most experienced users with books, I thought I'd let you know. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The logos used to represent the clubs of the college cannot be considered as "free" images and hence were uploaded as non-free images, and there is hardly any other better way to represent a club of an institute. Can you justify how is it excessive and unnecessary? Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Jobin ( talk) 05:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For your outstanding thought about our project, I am honored to present you this award. Your works are not going unnoticed. Dipankan says.. ( "Be bold and edit!") 05:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Messages below this point will not be read or responded to in a timely fashion. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, may the sun shine warm upon your face, and the rain fall soft upon your fields, and until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand. --Irish Blessing
Please see Talk:Liao Dynasty#Eight weeks under construction?. Thanks. 72.244.206.138 ( talk) 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well!
Grapple X (
submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in
marine biology and
herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's
Casliber (
submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including
ornithology and
botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
Congratulations to
Matthewedwards (
submissions), whose impressive
File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to
12george1 (
submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on
Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as
recent statistics from
Miyagawa (
submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
April fools jokes perpetrated on any page beginning with User:Sven Manguard or User talk:Sven Manguard will be reverted as vandalism.
You are, of course, allowed to poke fun at me for having absolutely no sense of humor when it comes to April Fools day, as I believe that making factually accurate statements, even ones that are unpleasant to mention, should not be considered as vandalism.
Seriously though, find someone else to taunt. I don't want it here. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I accepted your suggestion about moving most of that to the SCA article, since as I said most of it was sort of a reaction to the thinness of the existing SCA article.
However, re this: I know you have the best of reasons for doing it but, as I've explained here and here I think the underlying policy is short-sighted (and I'm not alone). I had a bit of a related tiff with another editor about this sometime back.
Basically, it looks better and reads better to have images that are most relevantly placed as a section lead image (and, if you're like me and feel that alternating images generally enhance the article's readability) justify both the hed and the text to their right, keeping both together, rather than breaking the intuitive connection between hed and text in order to preserve some notion of the proper way to edit an article (see this diff as well (complete thread here).
I;m trying to adjust the image placement rather than revert, since as you would certainly agree that's not worth starting an edit war over. And it may be less necessary after the edit you recommended. But I just felt I should let you know that this an area of the MOS I believe we can be less dogmatic about. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:
coding
All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.
Stuff to look at
We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.
I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.
I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sven Manguard. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Must say, you're quick reverting vandalism. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 14:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You've got an email, and a talk page message. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please take notice of {{
according to EXIF}}
, which is an internationalized version of something your bot is doing with plain-old English.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Replied to your queries. I won't be online tomorrow; so just notifying you. Dipankan says.. ( "Be bold and edit!") 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Look at it. It's for you. You'd better take this goddamn cat and snuggle its goddamn belly. Boop its little goddamn nose. You'd be doing the world a grave injustice if you didn't. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 14:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You commented at the first FAC, so as a courtesy, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
for heading over to Meta and commenting on the global bans proposal. Much appreciated. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
New England Wikimedia General Meeting | |
---|---|---|
The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
| ||
|
| |
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England! |
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.
I took a look at User:Fbot/Blacklist2 and found some questionable things. Why is {{ ShadowsCommons}} there? The tag indicates that the Wikipedia file is blocking some Commons file, so this would be extra high priority to move to Commons, wouldn't it? You have {{ OTRS pending}} there, so shouldn't {{ OTRS received}} also be in the list? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could find some time to look at this? I think we need to find a solution. -- MGA73 ( talk) 20:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I'm answering your copy-edit request for the above article. Is there anything i need to know? Please feel free to follow my edits and revert or correct if necessary; I usually only re-word prose, remove waffle and restructure when I'm sure of what I'm doing. I do often check sources when I'm unsure. That said, I'm no expert on ancient Asian civilisations, so if I should remove something important please feel free to correct me. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 01:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to leave you a note, given some of our contentious issues. However, you were the image reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over There (Fringe)/archive2 which was promoted to FA on 19 July 2011. This included a review of the infobox image File:Fringe Olivias Fight.png. I am in a debate at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 15#File:Pilot .28The Cosby Show.29 monopoly lesson.png, which is a debate over the infobox image for a television episode. The reviewer believes that the image currently violates WP:NFCC. I was hoping you might weigh in on this debate.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nope, sorry. The nomination and promotion both have to be in 2012, and you have to have done "significant work" on the article in that year. J Milburn ( talk) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it required to find proof that image on the mouse pad is free to keep this file? Bulwersator ( talk) 14:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.
This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn ( talk) and The ed17 ( talk) 17:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Sven, hope you're well. A user contested the deletion of File:Don-2-3d-poster-shahrukh-khan-srk-04.jpg on my talk page. Since you nominated the file for deletion, perhaps you'd like to weigh in? Regards, FASTILY Happy 2012!! 10:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Just lettin' you know that I've replied to all of your comments for Typhoon Dot :) Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 22:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sven,
I've transferred some files to Commons today, which are currently listed here. I haven't done much of this before – maybe one or two files – so I'm unsure as to whether or not the transfers are acceptable. Could you check them? (BTW, don't feel bad about Irene; things come and go.) Thanks.
HurricaneFan 25 — 18:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I'd like your opinion of a non-free file I uploaded in May 2011, File:Lansdowne riot.jpg. I uploaded it because I thought it was a unique historic image, and would be appropriate for fair use on an article about the riots. I thought that the low resolution copy would not infringe on the original market role of the copyright holder. After re-reading the non-free content guideline, I am not sure that it is allowable under that guideline. Can you take a look at it when you have time, and let me know your judgement about it. The problem is, that the image itself is not discussed in the content of Lansdowne Road football riot. This is the only non-free image I have uploaded, and looking back, I should have asked more experienced editor about it. Thanks, Quasi human | Talk 18:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I honestly never thought you'd run! I'll do a full review later and will post my vote then, but I thought I'd just leave you a note here wishing you the very best of luck. WormTT · ( talk) 13:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please review WP:SOCK, specifically "...when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or to the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA."
Please confirm that you have notified the entire committee the username of your past accounts. Hopefully an arbiter will be along to confirm the details of your past accounts. Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Is there a nutshell version of this? Would it trouble you if he were back, or are there any restrictions on his editing? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Were there any restrictions, bans, blocks, anything that I should know about or that he shouldn't be breaching in a Clean Start? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Sven, I am in this terribly strange position regarding your RfA. I am, unfortunately, in the opposition but literally 10 cm away from being 100% strong support. I respect privacy in the fullest sense, but you're asking to be put in a place of public trust and the public has a compelling reason to care about the unrelated things you did six years ago. I don't want to know, I honestly don't care, but I feel as though it is in the community's best interest for 'someone' to know, y'know what I mean? Satisfying either condition as I submitted on your RfA would move me instantly to the fullest support imaginable.
And, I have to admit, I admire your bravery and integrity for being frank an open about your previous account. If you hadn't mentioned it, the RfA would pass with near-unanimity, I feel. You deserve to be commended for revealing the account's existence and sticking-to-your-guns concerning your privacy. I firmly hope it doesn't sink your RfA, we need more admins like you. I feel almost guilty that my hands are tied and I can't (yet) support you. But the gumption, the moxie, deserves recognition. For that, you get this:
![]() |
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
per above Achowat ( talk) 17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
For everything else you do around the project, I hope you get "The Mop".
Achowat (
talk)
17:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Check it, I've sent you one. (though it's just past 5am here so I may not see the reply for an hour or so). Steven Zhang Join the DR army!
That was a very impressive withdrawal statement Sven. [1] Obviously I didn't vote, but I do know what a tough gig RfA can be. Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
"Impressive" is exactly the adjective I came here to use. MF beat me to it. -- Dweller ( talk) 20:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I also thought about the RFA withdraw, and it was the best choice considering the potential bloodbath. I myself wasn't sure considering Fluffernutter and Fox opposes. Good close, and I'll look forward for your next RFA. Until then RFAs of any candidate that can be considered a bit "controversal" needs to be reformed badly. They seem to be huge bloodbaths recently, for reasons I'm still uncertain looking at the history of RFAs and any potensial controversy with adminstrators though AN/I, ArbCom, etc. Secret account 22:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all for the kind words. I was avoiding responding to all of this because I thought it might be in poor form to do so. Then I realized not responding probably was worse form. I appreciate it. I plan, for the record, to run again in either four or six months (four months would be at the end of the term I'm in now, and therefore the next time I'd be comfortable starting a process that needs my close attention for a week straight). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. bamse ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you're not too busy killing guards (hard, I know), I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anónimo Consejo. I have completely rewritten the article and with multiple new sources I think it passes the GNG with plenty of headroom. Nolelover Talk· Contribs 00:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to see that it didn't go as planned :\ At any rate, I hope you found it to be a helpful learning experience. All the best, FASTILY (TALK) 08:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven--
I followed the writing guidlines carefully and submitted an opinion piece for Signpost 10 days ago asking for advice and help. After no response for 8 days, I sent another email and still no response. On the NEWSROOM page for Signpost, it states about this email address: "It is monitored by a handful of trusted Signpost editors."
I'm a newbie, so please forgive me if this lack of response is normal, but it seems to me that at least one of the "handful of trusted Signpost editors" could have responded with some advice/help or a "screw you, your piece stinks". Is this just a busy time for all signpost editors? Have I violated some rule or done something else wrong?
Thank you for your time,
Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 15:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sven, I just wanted to thank you again for helping me improve the Brentwood Academy article. I appreciate giving your time to review it.
I hope your New Year is going well. Best regards, Lord Roem ( talk) 17:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Just asking that is it mandatory to have a date in a Commons transfer. But, even if it is isn't it wrong to say that the mover must be knowing the date? Discuss this with Ebe123 too.-- Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- FASTILY (TALK) 22:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Cover the debacle going on at WP:FAC. You up for a short Discussion report? Res Mar 04:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"09:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC): File:Longhorn RSoD.png → File:Longhorn RSoD.pngRed X.svg Transfer unacceptable - I do not believe that this file is in fact within the public domain, and have placed it up for deletion both locally and at commons." - on commons deletion request was closed as kept Bulwersator ( talk) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you wrote this to a user "Hello. Yesterday, I transferred a file which you uploaded to Commons. In the future, please upload unquestionably free use images to Commons, unless you specifically do not want them on Commons, in which case you should use a {{ Keeplocal}} tag. Thank you." I find it very good that you ask uploaders to use Commons but adding keeplocal is not a quarantee that the file is not moved to Commons. So I suggest that you concider not to mention that option. -- MGA73 ( talk) 08:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven--
As a newbie who recently tried to submit an opinion piece, I'm still confused about the process:
What's the preferred way to submit a piece, e-mail to you, e-mail to one or both managing editors, e-mail to wikipediasignpost@gmail.com, or some combination of the above or some other way? Will you or the managing editors automatically keep me abreast of the status of a submitted piece? Is it appropriate to ask for the status after a few days? If yes, who should I ask about it? Should I use e-mail or Talk pages? Will you and/or the managing editors routinely monitor e-mail at wikipediasignpost@gmail.com in the future?
Regarding my recent submission: Have you or SMasters cracked the password to wikipediasignpost@gmail.com to get a clean copy of my submission (with italics, bold, and URL links)? What is the status of this piece?
Thank you for your time,
Carmen Yarrusso ( talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sven_Manguard&diff=469744322&oldid=469743173 – I'm interested in learning more about this "recent case". What case are you referring to? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, as you know, I maintain a number of bot-updated database reports for the file namespace in my userspace. I'm thinking about graduating these reports (and also creating more) to a Wikipedia namespace page where they will be more accessible. What do you think? - FASTILY (TALK) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!
![]() Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2864 submissions waiting to be reviewed.
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. |
Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I know that you are likely extremely busy, but I was wondering if it was too much to ask if you could get Hurricane Maria (2011) and Tropical Storm Colin (2010)'s GA reviews before the Wikipedia blackout? TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, since you're the person I know who has the most experience with images, are you aware if there are any guidelines regarding the use of {{#switch: {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFEDITS:R}} mod 2}} so that two images, taking up the place of one, can switch? You see. Terminator 2: Judgment Day doesn't have any Commons equivalent since there are only two free files that I have asked from Flickr users available. I'm contemplating the use of the above magic words so that I can use two images without encountering text sandwich; what do you think? -- Sp33dyphil © hat ontributions 06:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven! Thanks for all your hard work on Wikipedia. I see your edits and work all over the place. Also, thanks for the message on my talk page and apologies for not replying sooner. I was traveling and have not been able to log into Wikipedia for nearly a month.
In any case, there seems to have been a misunderstanding about File:Movies_es5-20030823.png in terms of the deletion discussion and rationale. The page was deleted before I was able to respond but I think it was in error. As per the deletion review guidelines, I wanted to bring this up with you and the deleting admin first.
I've tried to explain what I think is going on and what I think should be done at File talk:Movies_es5-20030823.png. — mako ๛ 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Why do you want to keep it local? Don't you like Commons? :-D -- MGA73 ( talk) 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I responded on Colin's talk page. You've not forgotten about Maria, have you? ;) You'll find that one in a lot better shape, I believe. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you confirm at [2] that I have understood the request correctly? — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you comment over at Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/SreeBot, thanks. ZooFari ( talk) 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I need help with something you uploaded, I used it and now I just need to know who to give credit to thank you very much.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gerrymandering_9-6.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.82.10 ( talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
first of all, i would like to thank you for your cautious work, on ensuring the validity of Wikipedia.... and sadly, i agree that ALL of these uploaded images are indeed need for speedy deletion, i would do it myself, if i was to know how... these images were uploaded by me while i was still unfamiliar with the licensing procedure on Wikipedia, and have failed to delete them... if their is a faster method to delete them, please tell me how... thank you... :) Arab League User ( talk) 11:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)--
Per discussion with Magister Scienta ( talk · contribs), this message has been sent to you, as a concerned editor, in compliance with rules under WP:CANVAS, as a limited extent posting. 70.24.251.194 ( talk) 09:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Sven, I've been away for a couple of months due to exams/schoolwork. Just thought I'd drop you a note to say hi again, and was wondering if anything significant has happened in the 'file world' since I've been gone. And how did the trip abroad go? :) Acather96 ( talk) 19:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sven, thank you for helping me with an image used in AgustaWestland AW101. I am hoping you will now help me with a second problematical image used in this article.
This image is a photograph showing the shovel-shaped tip of a helicopter rotor blade. See AgustaWestland AW101#Specifications (Merlin HM1). When I examine the details of the image I see a banner stating that the image was transferred from en.wikipedia to Wikimedia Commons using a bot script. It states that the transfer requires review, and when the review has been made the template should be removed.
I know nothing about these things. Are you able to review the use of this image and remove the template? Many thanks. Dolphin ( t) 03:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 27 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Death By Cube, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Xbox Live Arcade game Death By Cube was one of the bloodiest games to appear at the 2009 Tokyo Game Show? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Death By Cube.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Mifter ( talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
...laughed out loud at this. Nice. WilliamH ( talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
For your well needed, beautifully worded input at this RfA discussion. ItsZippy ( talk • contributions) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC) |
someone has offered a way to disable the floating "Improve this page" box using CSS. Cheers, Goodvac ( talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
Thank you for contributing to the December 2011 Good Article nomination backlog elimination drive. AstroCog ( talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) |
...so much for weighing in on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#RfC:_What_to_do_with_respect_to_the_copyright_of_countries_with_which_the_US_does_not_have_copyright_relations.3F. Your inputs are certainly helpful and insightful. On a personal note, I wanted to pass along my sincere thanks for voicing your opinion with us "little people". It's one of those things you didn't have to do, but chose to do anyway and it's noted.
To clarify your opinion, am I correct in deducing that you propose labeling images as PD in the US but not in the host country and using them IAW our Fair Use policies?
If so, how do you propose treating works protected by Crown Copyright (which protects some files in perpetuity) or those whose copyrights expired in the US, but are still viable in their host country? I don't exactly disagree with your opinion here. It's logically sound within the WP structure, but we haven't treated images this way and it will lead to major changes, if implemented. If implemented across WP, it will lead to even more problems on Commons. I don't mind those problems, but I want to be clear about what you are proposing (perhaps I'm missing what you are saying)
IMHO, this all stems from WP's choice to treat images differently than they are used in the "real world". Fair Use images are used all the time with no credit/sources given. Copyright infringement is also rampant across the web and I'm glad WP took the moral high road with regards to FU images. I think we made a mistake by not using a simple copyright standard (i.e. the US or UK). We could have highlighted this standard in our General Disclaimer (and perhaps we should)...perhaps we should still do so no matter the outcome of this discussion, just to be clear about the situation...
My fear is that copyright enforcement will quickly become untenable as the usual standard of determining copyright will devolve into HIGHLY complex applications of international copyright law (note that even this list doesn't take into account the complexities of US law and other countries are even FAR more complex than the US!).
I'm not really interested in debating the issue here (I'm not trying to fork a discussion), only to clarify and perhaps gain insight on your thought process so we can incorporate your views and that of other senior editors into a final solution that we can all work within. In any case, I really look forward to your answer. I think this discussion has the potential to impact WP for years to come, so I want to make sure we get it right! Buffs ( talk) 05:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
There are three factors that need to be taken into account when we talk about images on Wikipedia:
These are listed in order of precedence, although all three should be taken into account. Realize, of course, that all three are subjective.
I'm in the process of polishing a Signpost essay on fair use, so this balance is one that I've given a great deal of thought to. However this isn't the place for me to go into that. Suffice to say that one of the biggest problems with fair use on Wikipedia is that it is highly complex, with multiple competing "right" answers, and an acute shortage of people who have the expertise and desire to maintain the several hundred thousand files we have practical, legal, and ethical duties to maintain. Therefore I sympathize with your concern of letting copyright on Wikipedia become over-complex (assuming, of course, you don't believe that it already has).
In answer to your specific questions, I suppose the simplest way to articulate my beliefs on copyright are as follows:
I hope this dosen't leave you with more questions than answers. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I most certainly hope that "veterans" still come in and participate in community discussions. I'm not really even sure if I'm comfortable with the platform you're elevating me to. I mean don't get me wrong, I like that people assign weight to my opinions, but I'd hope that it's because the logic of my comments resonates with people, rather than because I've just been around longer than other people.
Yo Sven, thanks for the well-wishes, hope you enjoyed the winter break. I'm just catching up on all the excitement afoot while I've been away, can you shoot me an email or look me up off-wiki if you get a chance? Be good to catch-up. Cheers, Skomorokh 17:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010.
Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is
Grapple X (
submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about
The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at
good article candidates. Second place is currently held by
Ruby2010 (
submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is
Jivesh boodhun (
submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be——Critical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sven: Since I was new to the image upload area, I picked a license that looked appropriate. Since I am the creator of the image in conjunction with Tobias Jonsson and he also agrees with using it on the site, any license that is permanent would be appropriate. Do you have any suggestions? Heckendorf ( talk) 15:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
NOT... DEAD... yet!
I got Ventilator-associated pneumonia in July and it hung on until September! Then pneumonia came back around the end of December, and dragged on, almost for the entirety of January. Now, I've (for the most part) won the tough, long slog against the illness.
Now that I'm (slowly) getting back to writing, I hope we can meet in IRC soon, and talk (on-wiki and off) about what we should do about the nascent articles (like the Qianlong palace one) that grew in my sandbox over the summer. NickDupree ( talk) 17:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It says that you moved it to Commons, but the deletion script failed to identify you as the uploader. I have proposed it for deletion here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shanghai University title.png. You might wish to comment. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Updated, note that Lake of the Woods is without image (image_lake) but with a map (image_bathymetry) Bulwersator ( talk) 20:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I responded within seconds of it coming in. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Dipankan In the woods? 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you to bother you again, Sven. For the past while I've been working on collecting all of Wikipedia's featured articles into a book, located at User:Interchangeable/Books/Featured Articles, and I just noticed this MfD. Your main points were that the books were disorganized (that is, alphabetized) and that they would be split if printed.
However, I intended this book for print, and as far as I know most paper encyclopedias are in alphabetical order. Second, splitting when printing isn't really a concern, because true encyclopedias are often multi-volume in nature - I assume PediaPress won't split an article at the end of a volume between volumes. As long as the reader knows the name of the required article, they may search through the volumes until they find the correct range. Volume itself is not a concern; it is only a matter of patience to download the large file.
Furthermore, an online, alphabetical list of the FAs is rather useful; Category:Featured articles isn't always up to date.
I originally created the page at Book:Featured Articles, and then moved it into my userspace. If I want the book to be public (which I do) I'll have to ask that the redirect be deleted, so Book:Featured Articles may still remain a nonexistent page.
One last thing: if you will allow me to make this book public, I fully intend to update it regularly, which was another of your arguments. The FA page is on my watchlist and I'll respond to any new articles that are added or old ones removed. Inter change able| talk to me 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Whatever code you have written for labelling images, please note that high quality associated with British museums (such as the British Library, British Museum, National Portrait Gallery, National Gallery, etc) cannot be transferred to Commons for legal reasons. An example of how articles like that are labelled is given here. [3] Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has 3 screenshots which are copyrighted in it. And none of them really depict anything significantly new, the other ones won't. Do you think they need to be deleted? If so, could you look into the matter? Thanks. X.One SOS 07:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Sven. I am not sure what brought you into this debate - presumably the other user involved. However, articles that are specifically chronological in their nature, which includes all Year in Topic articles, are specifically exempted from the de-linking exercise. See also the style guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years. Deb ( talk) 17:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is far from perfect - lots of incomplete (and, for all I know, non-reliable) citations mixed in with very good ones, and there may well be POV issues and excessive detail. But I don't see any problem with notability - there have been a large numbers of newspaper articles about Ganguli, for example. (Full disclosure: I re-created the article, with lots of citations, after it was deleted; that's a number of years ago, but I think an admin specifically agreed that the expanded, well-cited article had in fact demonstrated notability and could be moved to mainspace.)
So I invite you to provide more details about your objections to the existing article, on the article talk page (and, of course, to fix it directly), but I do feel strongly that notability isn't an issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Requesting clarification to #4 please. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right - It appeared that there had been some good faith editing prior to the edit-warring, but on further review everything was whitewashing, blanking, or edit warring. I suspect the editor is related to or associated with the subject (or its owners), but that's not an excuse. Thanks for catching that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a first draft available for your review and comments, on the map request page. Keithpickering ( talk) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven,
With regards to this - [4], I thought I ought to point out that George is under "mentorship" at present. I'm one of the people helping out there. One of the things I've been encouraging George to do is discuss things in the right place if he's unsure, and an unpleasant side effect of that at the moment is that he is tending to generate a few maybe unnecessary discussions. He's also recently started to tidy up some old discussions he opened which haven't reached consensus etc, and that was his own initiative, so I'm hopeful this would be a temporary thing. I saw how much work you were putting into closing all those NFCC discussions today, and I can quite understand how it seems. Sorry for my part in causing you extra work. Begoon talk 05:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sven,
The photo I uploaded to [5] and that you had deleted is a photo used as artwork (album cover) from the artist's self-produced album. I uploaded it at the artist's request (the previous person who had done so had not managed to do so without an error syntax appearing above the photograph). It is my understanding that the original photographer performed a work for hire and released all copyright claims to the artist herself, Michelle Shaprow. Please advise as to the steps needed to redress this misunderstanding and avoid such mishaps for future photo uploads to this page. Thanks! Balisani Balisani ( talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
for the help on Frank Bungarten, - maxneo111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxneo111 ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Acather96 ( talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
See if you can find an OTRS user to check if ticket #2011081010008803 would apply to the images at Special:ListFiles/Dmitri1999. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
This image should not be deleted as I am the copyright owner - refer to http://www.anuhasan.co.uk/privacy-policy for evidence of this. In any event, I have replaced the image with the original (ie before the website ID was added to it). Hopefully this is sufficient however as administrator/owner of the website I could amend the picture page to acknowledge that the file has been issued into the public domain. Regards, Graham Jay Gjay66 ( talk) 06:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, hope you are doing well. The three files which I had requested you to delete earlier have been contested by a user here. If you are interested, kindly spare a few moments to put up your comments. Thanks. X.One SOS 12:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Good morning, Sven. First, please be aware I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I was asked to fix the McPherson, Inc. page, but it is all very confusing. I work for McPherson, Inc. The images you deleted were taken by McPherson, Inc. They belong to McPherson, Inc. and I'm trying to fix the permission issue, but I can't do that if you summarily delete them without even giving me the seven days that Wikipedia says I have.
I do assure you, McPherson, Inc. has the legal right to use our own photos...that we took with our own camaras...of our own instruments...even on our own website. You even deleted the one I linked last night. You deleted ALL of them and the code on our page that I worked hard to get right. I think you are being unfair.
If you aren't trying to be unfair, than please help. What more can I do than state on the image page that we are the author of the image and give the correct license tag? Thanks in advance and have a great day. - Toni Roberts, Executive Administrator, McPherson, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacuum UV ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven. Thank you so much for your help. I'm having our website ( McPhersonInc.com ) edited to give the permissions. I think I've figured out how to do that...learning curve :) Then I'll also fill out the consent form, too. Anyway, after I've finished that, will I need to upload the images again? I don't see a way to access them or their permissions after they've been deleted. I think I'm signing this one now, too :) Thanks again, and have a great day. (Toni Roberts - Executive Administrator, McPherson, Inc.) Vacuum UV ( talk) 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Banej's talk page.
You said you'd decided not to run. [6] :? Res Mar 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, thanks for supporting Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Merge, the WikiProject has now been started. You can add yourself to the list of participants if you would still like to join. Thanks again, Quasi human | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible to restore task 1 as Fbot is stoppped? Bulwersator ( talk) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I'm working on bringing the Mongol Empire article up to FA status. I'd like to include the map at File:MongolEmpire.jpg , but need sources if it's going to be in an FA article. Do you remember which sources were used to draw the borders? Thanks, -- El on ka 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Your Command "do not sign..." is I assume pointing out some violation of policy? or do you just like to tell other editors what to do? Yaloe ( talk) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Write article on Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt. ( Patricia Buckley Ebrey and The Search for Modern China still aren't done either, you over-committed fool.) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Since it says that Fastily is currently taking a break and since you also are involved in the {{ Move to Commons}} tagging, I suggest that you take a look at my comment at User talk:Fastily#Fbot and .7B.7BNot-PD-US-URAA.7D.7D. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Signpost Barnstar | |
Thank you for your previous dedication to the Signpost, with your last regular discussion report being here has inspired me to continue your legacy (as well as your awesome formatting! :)). If you haven't already, you can see the new discussion reports that I've been creating since you've left: February 20 and February 27. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC) |
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was
Grapple X (
submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was
Tigerboy1966 (
submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were
Ruby2010 (
submissions),
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions),
Miyagawa (
submissions) and
Casliber (
submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list:
List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from
Ruby2010 (
submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 00:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your bot's indiscriminate tagging. You have labelled high resolution images from collections in Britain, including the British Library. You have been told before that these cannot be transferred to common. If your script has not been written to check this, please could you stop it? Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 05:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. No reason has been supplied as to why this file should not be moved to Wikimedia Commons! |
Would this help?
-- Stone ( talk) 08:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. This is not useful for others!! |
It would help if this is stated somewhere that this template is available!--
Stone (
talk) 08:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
--
Stone (
talk)
08:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Sven Manguard, I was curious as to why you are withdrawing yourself from the drive. You've done so much work transferring images. I has my reservations about doing this one as well, especially since the last one (January) was never fully finished. It almost seems like someone is more interested in starting and being the "leader" of drives than to see them through. I was just curious about your thoughts and I want you to know that you have my support in anything you do (for whatever that is worth). -- Тимофей ЛееСуда. 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If you give the bot some oil perhaps it could be so nice not to do this on files with a {{ Now Commons (MtC drive)}} :-) -- MGA73 ( talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
|
Have a few questions regarding more complicated file copyright situations that just seem to go to the nth degree in a legal perspective (that or i'm tired :P). Give me a poke tomorrow when you've got a minute? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Would appreciate a reply on my last comment there. We should quickly decide whether the March drive should be abandoned if no one is planning on administering it. – Grondemar 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Thank you for your contribution to editing articles of Chinese history Geistcj ( talk) 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
Hey guys!
Thanks to all of you who have commented on the New Page Triage talkpage. If you haven't had a chance yet, check it out; we're discussing some pretty interesting ideas, both from the Foundation and the community, and moving towards implementing quite a few of them :).
In addition, on Tuesday 13th March, we're holding an office hours session in #wikimedia-office on IRC at 19:00 UTC (11am Pacific time). If you can make it, please do; we'll have a lot of stuff to show you and talk about, including (hopefully) a timetable of when we're planning to do what. If you can't come, for whatever reason, let me know on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs so you can get an idea of what happened :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey all!
Thanks to everyone who attended our first office hours session; the logs can be found here, if you missed it, and we should be holding a second one on Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. I hope to see you all there :).
In the meantime, I have greatly expanded the details available at Wikipedia:New Page Triage: there's a lot more info about precisely what we're planning. If you have ideas, and they aren't listed there, bring them up and I'll pass them on to the developers for consideration in the second sprint. And if you know anyone who might be interested in contributing, send them there too!
Regards, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Any idea of how do handle things such as File:Coppacarnevale.jpg which is used in 28 articles but only has a FUR for one article? Any tag which can be used? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 01:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys.
I appreciate this isn't quite what you signed up for, but I figured as people who are already pretty good at evaluating whether material is useful or not useful through Special:NewPages, you might be interested :). Over the last few months we've been developing the new Article Feedback Tool, which features a free text box. it is imperative that we work out in advance what proportion of feedback is useful or not so we can adjust the design accordingly and not overwhelm you with nonsense.
This is being done through the
Feedback Evaluation System (FES), a tool that lets editors run through a stream of comments, selecting their value and viability, so we know what type of design should be promoted or avoided. We're about to start a new round of evaluations, beginning with an
office hours session tomorrow at 18:00 UTC. If you'd like to help preemptively kill poor feedback, come along to #wikimedia-office and we'll show you how to use the tool. If you can't make it, send me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org or drop a note on my talkpage, and I'm happy to give you a quick walkthrough in a one-on-one session :).
All the best, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an RFC on whether WP:REDIRECT should contain advice related to Wikipedia books. Since you're one of the most experienced users with books, I thought I'd let you know. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
The logos used to represent the clubs of the college cannot be considered as "free" images and hence were uploaded as non-free images, and there is hardly any other better way to represent a club of an institute. Can you justify how is it excessive and unnecessary? Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Jobin ( talk) 05:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
For your outstanding thought about our project, I am honored to present you this award. Your works are not going unnoticed. Dipankan says.. ( "Be bold and edit!") 05:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
Messages below this point will not be read or responded to in a timely fashion. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be always at your back, may the sun shine warm upon your face, and the rain fall soft upon your fields, and until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand. --Irish Blessing
Please see Talk:Liao Dynasty#Eight weeks under construction?. Thanks. 72.244.206.138 ( talk) 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well!
Grapple X (
submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in
marine biology and
herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's
Casliber (
submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including
ornithology and
botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
Congratulations to
Matthewedwards (
submissions), whose impressive
File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to
12george1 (
submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on
Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as
recent statistics from
Miyagawa (
submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
April fools jokes perpetrated on any page beginning with User:Sven Manguard or User talk:Sven Manguard will be reverted as vandalism.
You are, of course, allowed to poke fun at me for having absolutely no sense of humor when it comes to April Fools day, as I believe that making factually accurate statements, even ones that are unpleasant to mention, should not be considered as vandalism.
Seriously though, find someone else to taunt. I don't want it here. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I accepted your suggestion about moving most of that to the SCA article, since as I said most of it was sort of a reaction to the thinness of the existing SCA article.
However, re this: I know you have the best of reasons for doing it but, as I've explained here and here I think the underlying policy is short-sighted (and I'm not alone). I had a bit of a related tiff with another editor about this sometime back.
Basically, it looks better and reads better to have images that are most relevantly placed as a section lead image (and, if you're like me and feel that alternating images generally enhance the article's readability) justify both the hed and the text to their right, keeping both together, rather than breaking the intuitive connection between hed and text in order to preserve some notion of the proper way to edit an article (see this diff as well (complete thread here).
I;m trying to adjust the image placement rather than revert, since as you would certainly agree that's not worth starting an edit war over. And it may be less necessary after the edit you recommended. But I just felt I should let you know that this an area of the MOS I believe we can be less dogmatic about. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:
coding
All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.
Stuff to look at
We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.
I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.
I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Sven Manguard. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Must say, you're quick reverting vandalism. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 14:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
You've got an email, and a talk page message. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Please take notice of {{
according to EXIF}}
, which is an internationalized version of something your bot is doing with plain-old English.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
00:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Replied to your queries. I won't be online tomorrow; so just notifying you. Dipankan says.. ( "Be bold and edit!") 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Look at it. It's for you. You'd better take this goddamn cat and snuggle its goddamn belly. Boop its little goddamn nose. You'd be doing the world a grave injustice if you didn't. — La Pianista ♫ ♪ 14:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You commented at the first FAC, so as a courtesy, I am notifying you of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
for heading over to Meta and commenting on the global bans proposal. Much appreciated. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
New England Wikimedia General Meeting | |
---|---|---|
The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future!
| ||
|
| |
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England! |
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.
I took a look at User:Fbot/Blacklist2 and found some questionable things. Why is {{ ShadowsCommons}} there? The tag indicates that the Wikipedia file is blocking some Commons file, so this would be extra high priority to move to Commons, wouldn't it? You have {{ OTRS pending}} there, so shouldn't {{ OTRS received}} also be in the list? -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you could find some time to look at this? I think we need to find a solution. -- MGA73 ( talk) 20:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Sven, I'm answering your copy-edit request for the above article. Is there anything i need to know? Please feel free to follow my edits and revert or correct if necessary; I usually only re-word prose, remove waffle and restructure when I'm sure of what I'm doing. I do often check sources when I'm unsure. That said, I'm no expert on ancient Asian civilisations, so if I should remove something important please feel free to correct me. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 01:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I hesitate to leave you a note, given some of our contentious issues. However, you were the image reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over There (Fringe)/archive2 which was promoted to FA on 19 July 2011. This included a review of the infobox image File:Fringe Olivias Fight.png. I am in a debate at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 April 15#File:Pilot .28The Cosby Show.29 monopoly lesson.png, which is a debate over the infobox image for a television episode. The reviewer believes that the image currently violates WP:NFCC. I was hoping you might weigh in on this debate.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)