User talk:Sven Manguard/2012 Q1

January

Re:WikiCup Question

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)

Responded on your talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:Sign up

Re:Sign up

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)

The mousepad as a whole is an original composition (literary and artistic), meaning that it is copyrighted, irregardless of the status of the image on the left. I'd judge that the image is non-free, meaning that it cannot be transferred to commons. Right now it's also orphaned, and we don't allow non-free images to be stored on Wikipedia if they're not being used. If you intend on using the image soon, please add a fair use rationale to it and change the licesne. If not, please list it for deletion at FfD (or ask me to do it). Feel free to use this message as an FfD justification. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Bulwersator (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• YA question - is it possible to move File:MillstoneCrest.jpg? PD-text is bogus, PD-Old is impossible - it may be less than 100 after death of author Bulwersator (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is PD-old impossible? If it was published in 1863, it's over 100 years old. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • "with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years." - maybe author was still alive in 1912? Bulwersator (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll handle this. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• PS - what about placing something like this on Wikipedia talk:Moving files to the Commons (I copied list of reviewers)? It is really helpful to ask about commons and/or copyright Bulwersator (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the last drive, users willing to offer advice and users who were reviewers were two seperate lists, and in all honesty, I believe they should stay that way. Therefore my recommendation is that you ask each editor individually if they'd be willing to be on the list, and if they say yes, add them. I'd also look at the list of people willing to offer advice from the last drive, and ask those people as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• Is it OK to tag File:Grand Theft Auto Advance.svg as PD-text? Bulwersator (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see why not. File:Grand_Theft_Auto_logo_series.svg is PD-text itself, and File:Gameboy advance logo.svg is PD-textlogo (although I just changed that one myself). Together I'd say that the best choice is PD-textlogo, rather than just PD-text, alhough they're pretty much functionally identical. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• File:SAM penny 50MHz.jpg - is it OK to AGF and keep this as own work? Editor was SPA, so maybe he really created the image using Scanning acoustic microscope (she/he started article about this), maybe it was school assignment and she/he uploaded file using random licence... BTW, I watchlisted Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sven Manguard 2 Bulwersator (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence from where I'm sitting that there's anything wrong with it. No TinEye hits, editor is in the right area edit wise, and it's the only upload. An SPA that is constructive is a good thing. I'd say transfer it. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I used here SPA as positive rather than "Block evading, trolling, spamming and drunk SOCK editing on behalf of Syrian government" Bulwersator (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

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)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_December_23#File:Don-2-3d-poster-shahrukh-khan-srk-04.jpg

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)

Talk:Typhoon Dot (1989)/GA1

Just lettin' you know that I've replied to all of your comments for Typhoon Dot :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My Commons transfers

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.

HurricaneFan25 — 18:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a common mistake, but information about the transfer does not belong in the information template. In several of your transfers, the en.Wikipedia uploader and yourself were listed as the authors, and that is simply incorrect. The en.Wikipedia edit history and any documentation of the transfers belongs outside of that template. I just list it below that template. I recommend that you use the tool For the Common Good which handles the transfer information for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh (I don't like Windows though I have a Windows PC; I use a MacBook to edit). I moved a file though adjusted some things – does this look good? HurricaneFan25 — 22:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That one is perfect. This is also Sven Manguard 13:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Lansdowne riot.jpg

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, Quasihuman | Talk 18:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't see much value to the image. The 2x4 in the crowd is all that really indicates a riot, and it's not really apparent even there. If you managed to find an image of the crowd doing the fascist salute, which was discussed in one of the sources, that would come closer to meeting NFCC #8, but I personally wouldn't have uploaded the image in question. That being said, I personally wouldn't put the image in question up for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I agree, uploading it wasn't the best idea. I think I'll G7 it. Also, good luck with your RfA! Quasihuman | Talk 18:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good luck

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. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the kindness. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your RFA! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would be glad to support a great user who can give lots of advices and maintaince work. I like his enthusiasm and he is actually involved most of Wikipedia. So good luck on your RfA! --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 15:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You as an alternate account running for admin.

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)

I've responded to this concern at the RfA. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, Shoemaker's Holiday

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)

Oh, my this diff just popped on my watchlist, causing me to see the section just above this one. Unrelated. Goodness. Well, now that I've caught up and see you're at RFA, I don't suppose I'll be getting an answer to my question, considering the timing. Sorry to trouble you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if I were not running at RfA, I'd be loathe to talk about Adam. It wasn't a bright chapter in my history here. To the question of "Would it trouble you if he were back", the answer is "yes", and please tell me what the account is. I don't have any intention of interacting with him, but considering our past, I don't want to be surprised if we run into each other again. Most importantly, if he's back, he needs to be transparent about his account history. It must seem hypocritical that I'm saying this, considering my RfA has the potential for derailment because I'm not willing to reveal my onw old account, but the issue in this case is that there was a first account named Adam Cuerden, but using RTV, that account was moved away, allowing Adam to create a second account named Adam Cuerden which didn't have linked history to the first. I'm all for CLEANSTART, but what happened in this case was abnormal. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and I'm really sorry to have inadvertently put you in this position during your RFA. The first thing I posted this morning when I started editing was the query here, after reviewing an editor's contribs, and the last thing I usually check after catching up in the morning is RFA and articlehistory errors. I will let this drop for now, and possibly revisit as evidence becomes clearer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's okay. Please keep me in the loop. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:22, 6 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)

A whole bunch of shit was done through ArbCom, which I have an incomplete picture of. I know about the RTV because I stumbled upon it by accident, and was subsequently told that the RTV is a small fragment of a much larger ArbCom mess. You need to talk to John Vandenberg, he's not ArbCom anymore, but he knows the case very well. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA

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)

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A bitter fight, unfortunately, but you stayed classy through-and-through. You get a beer on me. (Not a Template WikiLove .svg picture of a mug of beer, but a free invitation to have me buy you a pint of your preferred lager next time you're in New England and feeling WikiSociable). Achowat (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the RfA now, sorry I didn't have a chance to weigh in. I would have supported. Skyrim is a good place to unwind! Will look for your next Request. The Interior (Talk) 20:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would have supported. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Email

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!}

• Replied. Probably best to watch it. I reply pretty quick. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Very impressive

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)

Seconded. Very classy, and I'm glad to see you'll be sticking around. 28bytes (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Sven, you withdrew before I could append this to my initial statement on the RFA after seeing other people's comments, so I'll give it to you here: "ETA: However, I agree with tommorris and Scottywong that you do good and useful work on this project, and if you can get the tendency to snappishness under control, I would expect to support you at a future RFA." I'm sorry things turned out like they did - I think blind opposes over the very concept of someone having cleanstart-ed are silly. Hopefully someone will figure out what the community wants in that regard, to prevent all future "I had a clean start" RFAs from auto-tanking. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What they said. I look forward to supporting you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sven Manguard 2. Watch out for those Arrows to the knee. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is very strange, I saw your username yesterday and thought about you possibly running for admin. What an extraordinary coincidence that was. Ah well, I don't think we've ever interacted, but had I seen your Rfa in time I would have been in the support column, for sure. Sorry to see that things didn't go well, hope that you don't get discouraged. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 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)

A good close Sven, and in every way as eloquent as your extremely professional work on Signpost. You and I have worked well together many times and I have every respect for the huge investment of your time in your high quality contributions. I have sometimes noted your slight, very slight, tendency to be abrasive, but it would only be of concern to those who are of an exceptionally sensitive nature, or indeed for those who look for possible hints of incivility in the written word - those who do, generally end up with a piece of wood at their feet. Your withdrawal was already done by the time I woke up this morning and although I have known for some time that your RfA was coming, I cannot say how I would have commented. Nevertheless, I know you will address the concerns you have yourself recognised, and you can be assured of my support next time round. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• It was unfortunate to see how your RfA had turned out. Apologies for not noticing it earlier. I hope with time your true worth will shine and everyone will be able to look beyond the old past. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ah! I've been taking some time off lately and I missed your RfA (which I've been watching for for months). When it comes to users who should be admins, you're one of the first to come to my mind, and I was sad to see how it turned out. It looks like you handled it perfectly, though. I'll have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sven Manguard 2 pre-watchlisted and I look forward to supporting you in the future. Swarm ^X 22:26, 9 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)

JSTOR Ban Dainagon

Hello, Sven Manguard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you. bamse (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anónimo Consejo

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)

Responded with a withdraw. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've closed it. Good work, both. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

RfA

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)

• I thought you handled it with great dignity. I hadn't had time to decide yet, so I didn't !vote, but I certainly hope to be able to support you in a future run -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: I think part of the cleanstart problem was that the unequivocal statement from xeno was a bit late, and people weren't at first sure who you had contacted and how. I suspect that getting such a statement from an ArbCom member right at the very start, appended to your nom statements before transclusion, might make things go more smoothly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you need some random person to go through your old account in the future and verify there is nothing in your history worth opposing (assuming there isnt), I'm willing to volunteer. We've spoken once or twice about a couple of files but I don't think we've ever talked at all enough to consider me biased. I'd be willing to put my name behind a short 'statement of findings' if you want. Just let me know next time.--v/r - TP 03:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Fbot task 4

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Fastily's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed, and have been trying to figure out the best way to respond. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No response to my opinion essay submission via email at wikipediasignpost@gmail.com

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)

I actually don't have access to that email address, I directed things there because it made more sense than having things sent to my personal email address. I will alert the executive editors, who do have access and should have seen it and either responded to you or told me about it. Apologies, Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

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)

New e-mail

Hello, Sven Manguard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Yarrusso (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

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)

The date field really should be filled in. If it's an 'own work' image by a Wikipedia editor with no date, I just state "Uploaded <upload date>". If it's a current corporate logo, you can say "current as of the date of transfer". In all things, use common sense, and if you can't figure something out, skip it. There are 200,000 files to choose from, there's no need to force yourself to transfer a specific file that is missing information. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Sven Manguard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded with an email. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggested an alternate method. It's kind of crappy (because I can't be arsed to multithread my bots), but that's usually how I run my bots. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We should...

Cover the debacle going on at WP:FAC. You up for a short Discussion report? ResMar 04:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of any of that. There are two problems with me doing a discussion report on it. First, I have no time for the Singpost right now, and second, I doubt that I can cover anything related to TCO, who I have had numerous negative interactions with in the past, in a neutral manner. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. ResMar 14:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Bulwersator (talk)

Re:Bulwersator (talk)

"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)

Okay. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Please use Commons"-notices

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)

It's not a guarentee, but there's no other way for conscientious objectors to Commons to signal that they don't want to use Commons, and since I believe in moral rights in images, I am going to continue to give that option. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions re. Signpost opinion pieces

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,

CarmenYarrusso (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but I am no longer the opinion desk coordinator. As such, I am no longer involved in the process of getting pieces run.

To be completely honest and upfront, were it entirely up to me, I would decline to run the piece, as I do not believe that the Signpost is the proper place to advocate for the launching of new initiatives that are only tied in the loosest way possible to Wikipedia. You are not the first person, nor will you be the last person, to propose new projects on Wikipedia, however the proposals do not belong here, they belong (I believe) on Meta, and regardless of the merits of individual project ideas, they all get sent to the same place to be proposed and flushed out. That place is not the Signpost.

There are two executive editors, Skomorokh is the one that has always been more hands on with the Opinion desk, but she is ill, so I'd not expect a response from her. SMasters is the other executive editor, and I've never seen him in the area of the Opinion Desk, but right now he's the only person that has any input on what gets run in that section. I advise that you go speak to him if you still seek to use the Signpost as a platform to launch your idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

(sorry, I don't know how to indent my response)

Thank you for letting me know you’re no longer the opinion desk coordinator (I assume this is a very recent development since you didn’t mention it a few days ago when I sent you a copy of my opinion piece via e-mail).

If you read my piece even casually, you’ll see only a very small part of the essay refers to my specific proposal for a new WMF project. As the title indicates, the vast BULK of the essay is clearly a general argument advocating the WMF articulate its political POV by providing the world with a reliable source of free political knowledge (because, the piece argues, political knowledge is at least as important to humanity’s wellbeing as encyclopedic knowledge).

After spending 1300 words carefully explaining WHY the WMF should sponsor a new wiki to provide a reliable source of free political knowledge, I would be quite remiss if I didn’t refer the reader to an existing system that does just that, especially since the system is modeled on Wikipedia and would thus be relatively easy and inexpensive for WMF to implement.

Perhaps you don’t believe political knowledge is at least as important to humanity’s wellbeing as encyclopedic knowledge?

CarmenYarrusso (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Perhaps you don’t believe political knowledge is at least as important to humanity’s wellbeing as encyclopedic knowledge?" that's not it at all. I am, after all, a political science major. Clearly you're attached to the piece, which is understandable, but launching an attacks against me isn't going to get you anywhere. As I said, Meta, not Wikipedia, is the place for this, at least in my opinion. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I’m very sorry you took my response above as “attacks” against you. I was simply trying to explain why my opinion piece meets the criteria for Signpost. My new project proposal is at Meta where you say it belongs, my opinion piece merely refers to it, while making a general argument.

From the Signpost opinion desk under “Submission guidelines”: “The criteria for publishing opinion pieces are quality of argument, originality, and relevance to the community.”

If the “quality of argument” is not up to your standards, I would think you’d point out the flaws and make constructive suggestions to improve it.

If you don’t think the piece shows “originality”, I would think you’d clearly state why it doesn’t.

That leaves only “relevance to the community”. If you don’t think arguing why the WMF should openly embrace a political POV, and arguing why it should provide free political knowledge to the world (because political knowledge is at least as important to humanity’s wellbeing as encyclopedic knowledge) is not relevant to the community, I would think you would clearly explain why it’s not.

What am I missing? CarmenYarrusso (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey Carmen, given that Sven is no longer the Opinion Desk coordinator, wouldn't it be more productive to go debate this with whoever is? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

I'm not going to name names, that's not my style, but an admin that I'm friendly with told me in private that another admin (which I know of but don't really know) was tied to his/her old account by someone else (i.e. was outed), and the old account had some apparently serious problems that would have factored into his/her RfA. I didn't investigate it, but apparently it made waves and enough people took notice of it that right now, there's not a surplus of trust for cleanstarts. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to tell me more about it privately through Special:EmailUser? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Other than the names, which I won't share, there's very little I know, and even less I know with enough confidence to share. Additionally, I've created and try my best to follow a philosophy that when I say bad things about users, by name, in public, they either have to be public figures (mainly full time WMF staff), or I would have to feel that they've wronged me to a degree to which I'm willing to deal with the fallout from saying bad things about users, by name, in public. I'm sure that if you ask someone who opposed me on account of the incident, they'd know more. Please ask them instead, or drop it entirely. If you didn't know about it, (and keeping in mind Wikipedia's love for gossip and drama), how big a deal could it really have been? Sven Manguard Wha? 15:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about Fæ? I'm assuming that you're not since Fæ is a public figure and a WMUK Trustee. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you found it on your own. In case you didn't pick up on it, this isn't something that I either followed or care to discuss, so if you have specific questions about me, or how the incident affects me (other than raising suspicions right before my RfA), I'd suppose I'd be willing to chat about that. Otherwise, I have no interest in helping you get yourself uncomfortably involved in issues that really don't concern you. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

File Database Reports

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)

I have no real opinion either way. Run it by a BRFA person, informally would probably be good enough, and tell them that you're going to have the bot update a page in the Wikipedia namespace rather than your userspace. I doubt they'd have a problem. If they do object (or even if they don't), I'd love to have a "hub" page, which links to all of the reports that you (and maybe the other file namespace workers) generate, whatever page they dump to. This would allow people to find all of them, which isn't exactly easy now. I'm an organizer, what can I say . Sven Manguard Wha? 14:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here we go - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 16. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the task was approved for trial. If you're willing, I could use your help in getting Wikipedia:File Database Reports together and coming up with ideas for reports to run. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take time to track them down, but I know betacommand has some reports, and there are a few others floating around by either MBisanz or MZMcBride, I forget which. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

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 2343 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? 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)

Sorry, but I stopped doing that a long, long time ago, and I don't see myself doing it again. On the plus side, a 267 item backlog (which is where it was at the time of this comment) is pretty low for you guys. Congrats on getting it out of the 400s. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the most cheeky response I've read in ages =S ResMar 03:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not kidding either. Part of the problem is that Chzz is inactive again. AfC's continued smooth functioning is heavily dependent on two users. Chzz does massive amounts (at times between 50% to 99%) of the work there, and Earwig maintains the bot that allows people to handle the massive queue. Evidence has shown that when either user goes dark, the process grinds to a halt. Similarly, if Armbrust were to take a leave of absence, FFU (the files subsidiary of AfC) would grind to a halt, even more so than AfC, since he pretty much does that whole project solo (the only way I'd get back to FFD were if Armbrust were to leave). Sven Manguard Wha? 07:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As result of talk page stalking I joined FFU :) Bulwersator (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Maria/Colin

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)

Sorry, no can do. I have less than no time right now (that's right, I've got negative time). My plan was to do the reviews during the blackout itself, then post them as soon as Wikipedia goes back up. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think you could. Thanks anyways for responding. (: TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Switch function and images

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)

I'm a tad confused as to what you're asking, and I'm not that familiar with Parser Functions. That being said, if what you're asking is 'should I have two images that switch from one to the other, in an article', then I would say "no, that's a bad idea". How would that print? How would it export? Sven Manguard Wha? 15:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you think it's a bad idea, I'll lay the matter to rest. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of File:Movies_es5-20030823.png

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)

File:Sophie Lyons in Professional Criminals of America.png

Why do you want to keep it local? Don't you like Commons? :-D --MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

+ File:Pugsey Hurley in Professional Criminals of America.png and a few others :-) --MGA73 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

1) At that time I had a deep distrust for Commons and open disdain for its community, which came from a number of personal experiences which I will not go into further detail about. (While there are still a number of problems with the project and several of its editors, enough so that I choose personally to minimize the time I spend there, I'm no longer as stridently opposed to storing files there.)

2) Many of the files I've uploaded have been transferred to Commons. Of them, half a dozen were botched by a broken bot (which I've since had blocked) and another few were botched by users. The number of incorrect transfers far, far outstripped the number of correct ones. The Keeplocal allows me to check over the files one last time, so that I can add the information that disappears during bad transfers. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oki... It was the combination of you being here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives/Jan_2012 and using "Keep local" that made me wonder :-) And yes... Crappy transfers sucks... --MGA73 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

GAs

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)

No I did not forget, I'll be doing Maria and Capture of Savannah, the two GANs I'm listed as doing, this coming weekend. Let's hope you're right about Maria. I'm not going to lie, the sourcing thing worried me. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot request

Could you confirm at [2] that I have understood the request correctly? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed it there. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh if there is a problem with this user perhaps you should know I moved 500-1000 (not really sure how many) images to Commons. But the good news is that (as far as I remember) they are all in Commons:Category:PD-Bain and have a link to LOC. --MGA73 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It was actually sparked by me stumbling upon the work of the other user with an images CCI. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Can you comment over at Commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/SreeBot, thanks. ZooFari (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please take what I said into account, we don't need a broken bot with a knowingly negligent operator doing transfers. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Citing this work

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)

Please give credit to English Wikipedia users Cmglee (original creator), as well as A. di M., Proctris, Tauʻolunga, and DavidSpanel (created subsequent versions).

You do not need to credit me, all I did was move it from one file repository to another one.

Thank you for taking an interest in ensuring that the authors and creators of Wikipedia's work are properly credited. Major news outlets, politicians, and publishers all occasionally neglect to do so; taking the time here to get it right is much appreciated. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

CCI Arab Hafez

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)--

Filemover noticeboard

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:File_mover#Centralized_discussion_page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Responded. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm back

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)

My trip abroad was fantastic, thanks.

Let's see... the File namespace noticeboard was created, and in theory should be the place for centralized discussions on the namespace now, although awareness of the page is still low. There's a transfer to Commons drive going on (this one is almost over, but there's another one in March). A fantastic new tool for transfers, For The Common Good was created to assist in the task. Fbot has a whole bunch of new tasks, collectively making our lives easier and Svenbot has something to do again. The Betacommand case is still at ArbCom, with no end in sight. Oh, and on a personal note, my RfA failed. I'll be running again in either three or five months. Glad to have you back. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with an image

Shovel-shaped rotor blade ends of a RAF Merlin HC3

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)

It is now looking like someone fixed it. Was that you? Dolphin (t) 03:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. Everything was good. Happy to be of service. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. All the images are now satisfactory so the article is getting close to GA status. Dolphin (t) 06:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Death By Cube

Mifter (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I...

...laughed out loud at this. Nice. WilliamH (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was the idea. On the one hand, that thread looked pretty harmless. On the other hand, that page has sparked from less. WT:RFA needs every encouragement not to continuously erupt into chaos, so if I can close off a nonconstructive thread once and a while, and do so in a way that dosen't piss anyone off, I figure that I'm saving us all some drama later down the road. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Why thank you, good sir. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice...

someone has offered a way to disable the floating "Improve this page" box using CSS. Cheers, Goodvac (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar

		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)

Thank you

...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)

Sorry, I guess I have a couple more questions. What about files that come from countries without copyright law (i.e. Somalia)? Some are advocating we should treat them as copyrighted even though they lack the ability to attain copyright. What about files that are PD in their host country, but not in the US (this is already a major point with Canadian images that only have a 50-year limit in Canada, but we extend it to 70 in the US)? Buffs (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's going to take me a while to formulate a response to all of that, there are a lot of good questions there and some of them I'll need to think on. It's 3 AM where I'm at, and I'm rather out of thinking power until I get some sleep, but I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.

One more thing. I'm really not entirely sure what you meant with the "little people" comment. Could you explain that one?

Sven Manguard Wha? 07:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Us "little people" refers to just your average user. I consider you a veteran and I appreciate you getting involved in a serious policy discussion. Too often, veteran users tend to get wrapped up in their own world and don't branch out. You clearly care a lot about others and I just wanted you to know from us non-vets that it's appreciated :-)

I look forward to your response. Buffs (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My general philosophy on copyright and images is as follows:

There are three factors that need to be taken into account when we talk about images on Wikipedia:

1) What are we legally able to do?

2) What are we able to do within the confines of our mission?

3) What is the ethical thing to do?

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:

1) When at all possible, Wikipedia should respect local copyright, regardless of the country of origin or the specific nature of the copyright holder or the copyright.

2) Copyright terms are, as a general statement, unnecessarily long. There are legitimate reasons for extending copyright past the creator's death, but I'm much more partial to 50 years than I am to 70, I think that 100 is excessive, and I don't accept as valid any of the arguments I've heard to date for indefinite copyright. My position on the 'abandonedware question' would be that such items' copyright should be shortened but not instantly terminated.

3) Where 1 and 2 come into conflict, I support 1 over 2. The sole exception would be indefinitely copyrighted items, which I'd shorten to 100 years after the authors death. I know that seems illogical, but C-indef really bothers me.

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.

My point is not that I place more weight on your opinion. Rather that you actually voiced an opinion instead of staying in your "shell". Everyone has a single !vote from the noobs to the veterans; You made your voice count and I believe that it deserves praise.

As for the rest of your answers it leaves me puzzled. I too believe Copyright is a bludgeon used to clobber people instead of a fine tool to prevent Intellectual Property piracy, but the problem I have with treating images under "local" copyright is that international copyright is all too often in conflict with the US's copyright rules; treating those images as if they are copyrighted limits valid PD use in the US. That doesn't help our "free content" mission! The rules right now are VERY complicated and introducing this monkey wrench will cause massive problems (every image that ever held an international copyright will basically have to be reviewed...this is literally tens of thousands of images). While I want portability, we need to realize that the servers for WP are in Florida and the only legal issue we have is US law. In this case, I think we should trade portability for useability. Moreover, we would have to remove all C-indef images except FU exceptions...realize though, some of those images aren't even copyrighted in the whole country in which they are in, just a region! How do we treat those?!?

For far too long, it's been a wishy washy attitude:

"C-indef? Nah, the US doesn't recognize those claims, so WP won't either"

"C-50 in the host country? That makes it PD there, so, it's ok in the US...maybe?

"No-C in their country? We'll treat is as copyrighted even though there is no where in the world where it's actually copyrighted"

etc

While I prefer a relatively simple "How does the US treat it?", in the end, all I want is clear, concrete rules as to how we treat images instead of the mishmash inconsistency we have now. I think if we go down this path, the image process will become too cumbersome and legalistic to actually serve as a useful process. We WILL bog down in bureaucracy (as if now isn't already bad enough) and cease to be a valuable source of images.

Thanks for the feedback. Buffs (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said anything close to "Copyright is a bludgeon used to clobber people instead of a fine tool to prevent Intellectual Property piracy", and don't believe that to be the case. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That part was intended to be hyperbole. Buffs (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking in

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)

I'm not on IRC as much anymore, but I'll jump on now. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

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)

I don't remember participating in any discussions on Fae, and am curious as to how I wound up on this list. Eh, I really don't feel like wading into that mess. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(I just did a brief followup on my bot's edits:) I was asked to deliver the message to anyone who participated in Fae's RfA, which you did. My apologies for the irrelevant notice, though; you can feel free to remove the section. :) — madman 20:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense then. I participate in a lot of RfAs. I was trying to remember if I particpated in something more recent or with more drama, and was coming up with blanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

February

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

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.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

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)

RfC

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. B^e——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

... Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WTFPL license up for deletion

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)

I personally like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. It's very common, and protects your work well. The one closest to the license you chose, however, is {{PD-self}}. Either choice is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's AAalive!!! (NickDupree)

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)

上海大学 logo

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)

谢谢朋友。 Sven Manguard Wha? 20:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images/Lakes could use an updating

Re:User:Bulwersator/Echo/Images/Lakes could use an updating

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)

True, although the image that you recommend is in the article, just not in the infobox. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is only checking infobox Bulwersator (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And I think that image should be moved to infobox (maybe there are special cases but I am unable to imagine anything like this) Bulwersator (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly won't revert you if you make that change, but I'm far more concerned with getting images onto pages that don't have them than I am figuring out which one of two perfectly valid options should go in the infobox. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be possible to add "there is a file in this article, but not in the infobox as image" - is it a good idea? Bulwersator (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, Sven Manguard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I responded within seconds of it coming in. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Dipankan001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 07:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A Long Book

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. Interchangeable|talk to me 01:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The software won't handle a book that large, the book has to be broken into volumes just for basic functionality. As for your claim that you'll update it constantly, you might say that now, but what about three years from now? Realisticly, such a thing needs to be entrusted to a bot, who not only will update the listing, but also rebalance the books (so that if one gets too big, articles are shifted to later volumes and another volume is created for the stuff at the back.

Really though, the person you need to talk to is Headbomb, he's the 'head' of the books project, and knows more about it than anyone else. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry; what do you mean by "won't handle"? Interchangeable|talk to me 18:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PediaPress software is fragile. If an individual book is too big, the software will crash. Really, you need to talk to Headbomb though, he knows the technical details, I don't. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Svenbot and British galleries

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)

We use a template based blacklist for Fbot/Svenbot. In order for us to exclude the NPG et. al. images, two things will be needed. First, there needs to be a named template (although Do not move to Commons works, it's not the best solution), and second and most importantly, I will need to see a policy decision on that. To be blunt, the NPG case against Dcoetzee petered out because it didn't have, at least in the U.S., a leg to stand on. Unless I see a policy document on Commons, I won't take the Do not move to Commons tagging as legitimate. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

High quality reproductions of public domain artwork, which are in the public domain in the United States under Bridgeman v. Corel, are permitted on Wikimedia Commons under the PD-Art policy. See commons:Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_non-US_copyright_law (the part reading Exception) and commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. This is an explicit exception to the ordinary rule that works on Commons must be in the public domain in the source country. This policy has been in place since August 2008. Dcoetzee 04:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

However, it may be unwise for people located in the UK to move the images since I suppose that the people moving the images could face legal actions themselves. There are also some other countries where these photos are copyrighted, and since I am in one of those other countries, I would never dare to upload any NPG or Bridgeman image myself. Maybe the {{Move to Commons}} template should mention this somehow. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot

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)

Thank you. I've placed all three up for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Date links

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)

Actually no, I came across it on my own because you hit something on my watchlist. As for your argument, I do not see where it says what you're claiming either in the MoS or in the page you're linking to. What I do see, however, is that you've reverted a whole bunch of other users (not just the two I mentioned on your talk page) to add the dates back in, and that strikes me as being more of a one person crusade than anything else. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The links were always there, and were there in almost all the chronological articles but have been subject to a campaign of repeated removal by a small but persistent group of individuals (two of whom had temporary editing restrictions placed on them as a result of their conduct during the original debate). It would not trouble me so much if these were people who have ever contributed a single fact to any of these articles and had any real interest in them, but their sole activitiy is the removal of links which I (and many other people) believe are useful and appropriate. I do not really think they need you to argue their case for them, so I thank you for your attempt to mediate but must respectfully disagree. Incidentally, I don't watch other people's talk pages as a rule, so I won't reply if you place further comments here. Deb (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pablo Ganguli

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)

The article suffers from what is a common trick in POV writing: 'when you cannot get away with writing an article in an overly praising way, fill it with overly praising quotes'. The "Media comments" section adds nothing to the article, but destroys any semblance of NPOV in the article. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm not arguing that the article is well-written, or neutral, or that the level of detail is appropriate, and I welcome any involvement by you in improving it. I'm simply saying that improving the article, rather than deleting it, is the proper focus, given what I consider to be more than sufficient demonstration of notability. I've posted more on the article's talk page, to hopefully move the focus of editors' attention to more productive areas. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2012 appointments/DeltaQuad.
Message added 09:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting clarification to #4 please. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Browsercookies

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)

Good to hear. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mongol Empire Map

I have a first draft available for your review and comments, on the map request page. Keithpickering (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

George Ho

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)

Ah, I see. While I can understand your justification, unfortunately NFCR is largely a dead-zone, as you've seen, and it's really not the best place for teaching people because of that. I'm not sure if there's really a better option though. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem, there isn't. I'll try to keep as much of it in George's space as I can. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Balisani Re: [Michelle Shaprow] artwork and photo

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)

Hi. Since the image has been previously published in a copyrighted form, pretty much the only way that we can accept it is if you have Michelle or her authorized agent follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT and send an email authorizing the work to us at the email address on that page. Thank you for showing an interest in contributing to Wikipedia, and I'm sorry for all the trouble. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

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, B^e——C_ritical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you

for the help on Frank Bungarten, - maxneo111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxneo111 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acather96 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to self

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)

Those are not specifically covered, but the long and the short of it is that uploads by User:Dmitri1999 claiming to have permission to release images attributed to Dmitri Markine should be taken at face value. Your friendly neighbourhood Volunteer Response Team agent, Skomorokh 05:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The images are currently up for deletion as no permission. How should I handle them? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the specific templates/metadata required to ward off the bots, but citing the ticket should be sufficient proof of permission; I see no grounds for deletion. Skomorokh 19:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So I can cite that ticket? I was unsure. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In my qualified opinion, the ticket satisfies any permissions issues here, yes. Skomorokh 23:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I transferred them to Commons after talking to Kat last night. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you don't get as immediate a response as you'd like on IRC, you can always leave a note at WP:OTRS/N and there's sure to be an answer there by the time you get back... Cheers, — madman 05:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Anu Hasan page

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 JayGjay66 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. Wikipeida has both an ethical and a legal obligation to ensure that files uploaded to Wikipedia are uploaded by the legal owners or their representatives, and not by people who just found the file online and incorrectly claimed it as their own work. The image you uploaded appeared on one or more websites before being uploaded here, and those websites, or at least the one I determined was the most likely original source, did not contain any text indicating that the image was released under a license Wikipedia considers free. The image was therefore placed up for deletion to protect the rights of its owner.

If you are the file owner or their agent, I apologize for the confusion or hardship this has caused. There are two main ways to ensure that the file remains on Wikipedia. The first way is to amend the website that hosts the image, adding text either on the page that contains the image or the legal disclaimers page, that indicates that the image is released under a license Wikipedia considers free (My personal recommendation is CC-BY-SA-3.0), or has been "released into the public domain". The second option is to fill out the form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and then send the form to permissions-commonswikimedia.org.

Please note that Wikipedia does not accept licenses that apply only to Wikipedia, such as "I release this for Wikipedia's use", and does not accept licenses that place restrictions on commercial use or derivative use. Also note that once a file is released under a free license, that cannot be undone. The copy on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons will always be considered to be under the license that you chose to release it under.

Thank you for your understanding. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

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)

You unfairly deleted images from McPherson, Inc.

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)

Hello there. Wikipeida has both an ethical and a legal obligation to ensure that files uploaded to Wikipedia are uploaded by the legal owners or their representatives, and not by people who just found the file online and incorrectly claimed it as their own work. The image you uploaded appeared on one or more websites before being uploaded here, and those websites, or at least the one I determined was the most likely original source, did not contain any text indicating that the image was released under a license Wikipedia considers free. The image was therefore placed up for deletion to protect the rights of its owner.

If you are the file owner or their agent, I apologize for the confusion or hardship this has caused. There are two main ways to ensure that the file remains on Wikipedia. The first way is to amend the website that hosts the image, adding text either on the page that contains the image or the legal disclaimers page, that indicates that the image is released under a license Wikipedia considers free (My personal recommendation is CC-BY-SA-3.0), or has been "released into the public domain". The second option is to fill out the form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and then send the form to permissions-commonswikimedia.org.

Please note that Wikipedia does not accept licenses that apply only to Wikipedia, such as "I release this for Wikipedia's use", and does not accept licenses that place restrictions on commercial use or derivative use. Also note that once a file is released under a free license, that cannot be undone. The copy on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons will always be considered to be under the license that you chose to release it under.

Thank you for your understanding. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:37, 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)

Once the website is changed, leave me another message and I'll make sure that an administrator restores the images. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Enforcement.
Message added 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage with the two of you on this issue anymore. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Whisperback (Banej)

Hello. You have a new message at Banej's talk page.

Uh

You said you'd decided not to run.[6] :? ResMar 23:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the other piece is going to run, just as soon as I hear back from the people that I'm consulting with. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge

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, Quasihuman | Talk 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Svenbot - task 1

Is it possible to restore task 1 as Fbot is stoppped? Bulwersator (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I actually use the same code as Fbot does, so I'd have to check and see why it's been stopped. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like his bot was blocked because he didn't use a throttle. My version does have a throttle, so I have no issue running it. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to stop it now due to start of MtC drive Bulwersator (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Mongol map

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, --Elonka 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I commissioned it to replace File:Mongol Empire in 1259.JPG, which is, as you can see, of horrid quality. It says "Imitation of the map with additional correction in C.P.Atwood-Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire" but I don't have the source so I have no idea what the corrections are. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if you need assistance, I have some sources that might help, as I'm doing a complete rewrite of Liao Dynasty, and some books grouped the 'conquest dynasties' together. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, would love the help! Especially as Mongol Empire is one of the 1000 vital articles, it'll be very gratifying to get it promoted. --Elonka 17:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

GIVING UNWARRANTED ADVICE

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)

I'm not sure, to be completely honest, if or where it states that you're not supposed to insert your signature into references in articles. I can tell you that it's never done though. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to Wikipedia:Signatures, pages in article namespace should never be signed. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Alpha. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to self

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)

{{Not-PD-US-URAA}}

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)

•  Done, and as we speak Svenbot task 2 is running to remove transfer tags from files which contain that tag. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wonderful! --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Run is done, problem should be solved. See Special:Contributions/Svenbot for details. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost Barnstar

		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)

March

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

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)

Svenbot and British galleries

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)

There's a very simple solution: create a template that indicates that files tagged with that template should not be transferred to Commons because they are British Library scans (or whatever the reasoning is). It will have to link to a policy statement that a) outlines clearly what does and does not fall into this category, and b) has either community or WMF approval. Once you have created that template, please notify me, and I will add the template to the appropriate blacklists, which will prevent the bot from tagging for transfer files that contain the now blacklisted template. It will be up to you, of course, to make sure that the files that shouldn't be transferred are properly tagged with this template.

The reason I'm suggesting this course of action is twofold. First, Svenbot is a bot, it has no idea who the author is, it just looks at templates. Therefore, in order to solve the issue, templates are needed. Second, many people aren't aware of the restrictions on British Museum pieces, and therefore unless they are informed of this, are going to transfer the files anyways because right now the look free and ready for transfer. The easiest way to inform people is through a template. It's the solution that's worked for the recent PD-Italy issue, and for other issues before that.

I hope that this is an acceptable solution to you. If not, there's really little I can do. The bot isn't going to do another tagging run for at least a month anyways, so there's plenty of time for us to work something out. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 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)

Neither of those contain the information that's needed. Personally, I'd place Template:Never_Copy_to_Wikimedia_Commons up for deletion, and use the second one with a reason that describes the situation more accurately. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that transferring British scans is perfectly allowed. See Commons:COM:L#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law under "Exception" and Commons:COM:ART. Better transfer them sooner than later. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a similar problem with the bot which tags a wikiproject PD file for transfer to commons. I am tired to remove the template. So I would like to put up the template mentioned above to repel the bot. --Stone (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

British galleries images that are scans of PD paintings are in the PD. We ignore the hissy fit that the BG threw because there is nothing creative about making a scan per US common law. The short version is that these images SHOULD be moved to commons UNLESS they are scans of non-PD works. --Guerillero | My Talk 14:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I was fully aware that Mathsci would face a great deal of difficulty coming up with a document that met the requirements I specified (community or WMF approved), because he was on shaky legal grounds. However I chose that route because I'd rather not antagonize anyone. If he creates the template does the legwork, I'll hold up my end of the deal though. With several hundred thousand files waiting for transfer, it really dosen't make sense to drag the bot into a preexisting conflict of this nature. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

MtC Drive

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). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

People are honestly too focused on the drive itself. My personal view is 'so what if the barnstars never got awarded, you should know you did a good job, and you don't need a graphic to tell you that', but at the same time, I can understand if people are upset that something promised to them wasn't delivered. The answer, I suppose, is that I will continue to transfer files over anyways, as I did in February when there wasn't a drive, I just am not going to go through the effort of logging them, and I'm miffed over the Mulitchill situation. I'm still around to give advice too, if anyone needs it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot fix

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)

You've created a massive and unnecessary mess which I refuse to touch. Admins are supposed to check files over anyways before deleting, so all you've done is create another layer of bureaucracy, further slowing down the process. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 --Guerillero | My Talk 14:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if you do not like the idea it would be nice if you told why on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Images_and_Media/Commons/Drives/March_2012#Another_idea_to_involve_more_users. --MGA73 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How does a file worker work?

DISCUSSION CLOSED. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Forget it. I removed your talk page from my watchlist and will stay away from it for the time being. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I have decided to stay away from NFCC enforcement for a while. You said here that the file workers should deal with the NFCC violations. How does a file worker deal with NFCC violations? How can I enforce NFCC without the attitude you attribute to me here? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I'm very confused as to what just happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Although this contradicts what I wrote above, I want to explain. I need to take a step back from Wikipedia. I am just tired of the crap surrounding the NFCC issue. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Also, you seem to think I am an NFCC zealot (I am sorry if that is a misunderstanding on my part). I am not. See for example User talk:Toshio Yamaguchi/Archive 3#Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Enforcement. I would really like to see the NFCC issue being "resolved" somehow. As you said, it has caused more drama and editor burnout than anything else here at Wikipedia. However right now I don't have any hope that this is possible. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) And as a last note you can be happy, I withdrew my support for Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NFCC Enforcement, so nothing like this is going to happen with only one support vote remaining (and HS also seems to have stepped back from Wikipedia). The people thinking the use of NFC in violation of WP:NFCC is improving the encyclopedia finally can have it their way (so this list can now grow as it pleases). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Give me a poke tomorrow at your convience

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)

I'm on Mumble now. Also, see the note above. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives

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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your contribution to editing articles of Chinese history Geistcj (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

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)

New Page Triage newsletter

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)

Missing FURs

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)

I don't read Italian, so I'll give you the two solutions:

1. If the logo is specific to only one year, remove it from the articles not of that year. Using year specific logos for their years is allowed (see 2011 FA Cup Final), but not for other years that the logo isn't specific to.

2. If the logo is not specific to one year, remove it from all of the articles it is currently in. It could be justified in the article on the tournament itself (it's not in that article now), but not the yearly installments. See 2011–12 UEFA Champions League versus UEFA Champions League.

Hope this helps. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is the general logo of the Coppa Carnevale Tournament. Each year there is a personalized reuse of that logo, but that logo is "valid" for the whole competition, at least until it changed name in 2009. I provided FUR only for the first entry in which I used it but I thought it was clear it could be valid also for the other years of the competition. What should I do now? Should I keep using it in the entry I am fixing about the competition? Gp37 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd add the image to the article on the tournament itself, but leave it out of the year by year competition articles. That's what I'm seeing done across the board with sports tournament logos. If you want to upload the personalized-by-year versions, and place each one in the article on that year, I suppose that's within policy, but I personally wouldn't bother. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

help triage some feedback

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)

RfC on Wikipedia books

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)

Your recent edits on College of Engineering, Pune

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)

Please read WP:NFCC, specifically criteria #8. If there is enough sourced information to create articles on those clubs, you may place the logos in the articles on those clubs, but they do not belong in the article on the university itself. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sven, that was very useful, will bear this in mind in future. Jobin (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

I'm not sure if you read my user page and am trying to cheer me up, or if the world just has some excessively strange timing to it, but for what it's worth, thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Break

Messages below this point will not be read or responded to in a timely fashion. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Many people seem to be leaving lately. First Saibo over at Commons (for a completely unrelated reason) and then Fastily and you. I hope that you will be able to return at some point; your contribution here is really valuable. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well shit, Saibo is gone? Saibo was one of the users who convinced me, through showing me that Commons users were friendly and helpful people, to give Commons a chance.

It's an odd position I'm in with the WMF, really. On the one hand, I was friends with Ironholds before he got hired by the WMF, and have talked to him extensively since, and through interactions with him and other staff members my (initially exceedingly low) opinion of the WMF has risen. They really do have competent staff that care about the project. I still want Jimbo to leave the project, but other than that I'm largely fine with them. On the other hand, the WMF has made some truly awful decisions, and it still has this awful tendency to take actions without communicating with the community (even though the WMF would be nothing without the community). Saibo's example is one such case, although if it's a legal matter (i.e. the person did something worthy of being reported to the police) the WMF really can't communicate with anyone. Still though... Sven Manguard Wha? 17:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one presented any evidence which would be enough for the police to do anything. It was argued that there had been some issues 12 years ago, but it was long ago and not proved to 100%. After the WMF's decision, Saibo decided to leave, although he is still answering comments related to the issue on his talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing (especially the tight-lipped but simultaneously aggressive/defensive response reminds me of the messes with Sophie and Thesevenseas. Those were so bad that when the emails leaked the WR community grudgingly accepted that ArbCom made the right call. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am distraught to see you, one of my greatest wikifriends, leave. You are yet another great member to decide to leave during the Great Wikipedia Exodus of 2012. I am personally thinking about cutting back or moving on. Perhaps I will. I do hope that one day, I see your green and yellow signature reminding us that there is a great amount of maintenance work out there in the file and article namespace. All we need to do is get off of the drama boards and look for it.

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

--Guerillero | My Talk 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you. I'm not formally retiring, and if I work at Commons I'll still wind up around here from time to time, it's more that I won't be going out of my way to spend my time here. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll also be sad to see less of you here. (And I like your green and yellow hope, Guerillero) – SJ + 17:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Eight weeks under construction?

Please see Talk:Liao Dynasty#Eight weeks under construction?. Thanks. 72.244.206.138 (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response; I've replied. 72.244.206.160 (talk) (aka 72.244.206.138) 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter

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 Notice

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)

Personally, I'm not going to be making any April Fools related edits this year, but quite frankly you should probably just go do something else for 24 hours instead of battling the merry-makers again. 28bytes (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty disgruntled with the project right now (and yet I'm still on almost every day), so if they break something I really don't think it'd bother me all too much. I just don't want it on my page. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

However you want to handle your userspace is fine by me. I'm just stopping by because I watch the RfA page and noticed you called Blade of Northern Lights a vandal, which doesn't seem like the best approach to take. 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was already 8:00 PM (00:00 GMT) when I made the edit. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave you alone then. :) 28bytes (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm really not bothered by it; if I had been doing RCP and seen that, my reflex would have been to do the same. I too have my issues with the project (which are very well documented); I'm tempted to block Philippe and pretend it's an "April Fool's Joke". I got templated by someone else for screwing with the ANI editnotice, so I really don't mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shark fins and image placement

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)

Color me confused. I moved the images around so that they didn't puncture through header lines. There's also the issue of the images being on the right page if the page is exported for print, but since I'm not sure anyone actually does that, it's a moot issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I looked it over and I don't see any problem with the current layout. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, okay, I'm not going to make a fuss of it, but you just completely ignored what I said and then said 'per discussion with other editor' to justify it. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update

Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

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

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. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. 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)

I don't take surveys pretty much ever, sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Huggle

Must say, you're quick reverting vandalism. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 14:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've got a very good internet connection. I don't huggle very often though, so don't feel like you can go slack off . Sven Manguard Wha? 14:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Email/Talk

Hello, Sven Manguard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Tomtomn00's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've got an email, and a talk page message. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

FtCG (from metadata)

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)

Already requested at WT:FTCG#.7B.7Baccording to EXIF_data.7D.7D. Would be nice to have it implemented in the program. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at WP:PERM/F.
Message added 10:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Also a kitteh

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3

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)

Sorry, but I haven't the time nor the will to touch FAC for the time being. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

for heading over to Meta and commenting on the global bans proposal. Much appreciated. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	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! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
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.

Oh yeah, you mean the one I already signed up for... Sven Manguard Wha? 13:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist questions

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)

ShadowsCommons is pretty much always used deliberately. Considering how easy it is to move a file locally (or on Commons for that matter), and considering that only admins have the ability to upload a file locally with the same name as a Commons file (although this does nothing in cases where the local file was there first), when you see something that's ShadowsCommons, it's there for a reason. OTRS received has been added to the blacklist, thanks for catching that one.

That being said, Fastily is gone, likely forever, and I neither have a complete set of his bots nor do I have any real desire to run the ones, because at this point, the computer I'd run them on is pretty close to death, and the bot does chew through processing power at a high enough level to make my fan squeamish. I considered moving them to the toolsever, but Fastily was against that back when he was around, and honestly, at this point I'm far to disillusioned with Wikipedia to make the extra effort to get the stuff set up.

On that happy note, cheers. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

MtC

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)

I made a suggestion in a thread higher up on that page, and I still believe that's the best idea. That being said, I'm not participating on Wikipedia very much anymore, so I doubt I'll participate no matter what you do. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that all the rules and logging and counting and evaluating is too much trouble and too little gain. That is why I never bothered to list the thousands of files I transfered and deleted in January.

My problem is that a lot og good users tried hard and worked hard and now we have a lot of users who think "What the hell. I don't want this anymore.".

I really hope if we can close the January drive in a way that makes most users "happy" then users will start working on files again and perhaps a few will give the MtC a second chance help find a better way to do.

If the good users do not return then we are left with the users that transfers copyvios or mess up the license and/or do not add a link back to the file on en-wiki. That is why I so desperatly try to find a solution that will not get users even more angry. --MGA73 (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kublai Khan

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)

That was so long ago that I completely forgot about it. I really don't need the CE anymore, to be completely honest. At the time I wanted to get all of the Mongol/Yuan Dynasty articles to GA status and do some sort of GT, however I've found out recently that writing GA quality work is just really difficult for me. Also I'm trying (and failing) to break from Wikipedia for good. All that being said, talk to Elonka, she's working on getting the main Mongol empire article to FA status, and would be interested in this, I think. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying; I can see why you'd forgotten about the c/e request - it's been there since late January; sorry it's taken so long! Not many editors are working the request list at the moment so i'm slowly working my way down it. I'll contact Elkona as you suggest; hopefully she'll have some ideas, but I'll carry on with the c/e anyway. Wishing you well, though sorry to hear you're leaving WP - it needs all the good editors it can get - and thanks again. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FFD comment request

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)

NFCC #8 enforcement of screenshots is never a pleasant area. Personally, I think that we've gotten so used to fair use that we've let it cripple us; i.e. we're not asking for things to be released under free licenses as much as we should be. That's a little off point though, I suppose.

To the specific inquiry: I think that this particular image probably could stay, but I'm not wading into that FFD discussion in any formal way, and I think both of you have conducted yourselves poorly (but then again, this is coming from someone that left/is leaving/is trying to leave the project over the way people treat each other). Seriously, things are too heated over there/here, so w/e. Good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think it should stay, then you should say so at the discussion. It is a matter of contributing your expertise to help WP come to the right decision.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to get involved in that mess, I would have. I don't. I'm sick and tired of the senseless, highly personal, and totally unnecessary bickering. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)