User talk:Ilmari Karonen/archives/1

I see you've deleted Image:Illustration fetus.jpg, Image:Illustration embryo.jpg, Image:Illustration fertilized egg.jpg and Image:Conception B sm2.jpg. Could you also please take care of the following:

• Image:Month 9 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 8 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 7 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 6 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 5 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 4 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 3 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 2 sm.jpg
• Image:Month 1 sm.jpg
• Image:Labor steps sm.jpg
• Image:Conception E sm2.jpg
• Image:Conception C sm2.jpg
• Image:Birth Process.jpg
• Image:Pregnancy.gif

They're all from the same page (http://www.4parents.gov/topics/pregnancy.htm) and their copyright is owned by the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. (The last two are derivative works based on the others.) I contacted the copyright owner to request permission to use these images, but they did not want to allow commercial use, which makes these images unfree. I believe I've orphaned them all, save for talk pages and such. —Ilmari Karonen 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the pictures are from physicianscenter.org? (I guess that's what 4parents.gov told you when you asked, but I just want to make sure before deleting.) User:dbenbenn 23:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. I also requested and received e-mail confirmation of the copyright status from the National Physicians Center. —Ilmari Karonen 00:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moi Ilmari!

I got an inspiration on [2] and created series of these images in Corel. Please, see Category:Pregnancy, images Image:Month 1.svg to Image:Month 9.svg. Proportions of pregnant bodies are practically copied, the rest was done according to my skills in Corel. Do you think they are still derivative work or could they be considered as own work? Miraceti 16:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Thanx. Could you please elaborate on how you fixed the problem? Lycaon 23:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? For the filled-in magnifying glass and parts of the frame, I just split the path and took the difference of the resulting components. I also directly edited the source and removed the "fill-rule" and "clip-rule" style attributed that seemed to be causing some of the compatibility issues. —Ilmari Karonen 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I was feeling badly for not being able to solve an apparently simple problem. After all, it isn't simple at all... Why does this type of incompatibility happen? Has it anything to do with the application used to create the vector graphic? - Alvesgaspar 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly to do with the fact that different SVG generators and renderers have different bugs and implement different subsets of the full SVG specification. In particular, rsvg, the renderer used on Wikimedia sites, is not quite the most advanced one. (Another common source of incompatibilities is fonts, but I guess you already knew that.) Often the best solution is just to keep fiddling with the parts that don't render right, trying different changes until something works. If the problem is caused by the program that generated the SVG being buggy or too clever for its own good, often opening and resaving in a different program may help. Also, sticking to the most basic features may avoid problems in general. In time, you get to know what works and what doesn't. —Ilmari Karonen 00:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari, I was tagging some of your cat photos and I just wanted to say thankyou for uploading hi-quality photos of interesting things, and giving them such detailed descriptions. It makes Commons a much richer resource IMO. :) cheers --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice work with the image! I think the problem is that the browser doesn't support the arrow heads. I had the same problem once and I decided to exchange the arrows for simple lines and draw triangles in the ends. nmnogueira 11:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message for you at Image talk:Möbius resistor.svg but it looks like you haven't seen it yet... (please reply there to keep the discussion centralized). --Thinboy00's Global Sock 05:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.99.192.134 22:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Then template and Image:Tetropium fuscum.jpg must be deleted Laisverobotams (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

• Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
• State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
• If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
• Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
• Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Sz-iwbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Sz-iwbot (talk)) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Sz-iwbot (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−

It has been found that Image:Ching ling foo.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Filbot.--Filnik 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−

It has been found that Image:Arg-airforce-OF1b.png has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Filbot.--Filnik 20:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch | English | Italiano | മലയാളം | Português | +/−

It has been found that Image:Ido.jpg has a deprecated license tag. Please choose a new free license tag which describes the rights of the image correctly otherwise it will be deleted!Thanks for your consideration. This is an automatic message by Filbot.--Filnik 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am nto sure what the problem was - it displayed an open properly on my computer. Re-uploaded though as you requested. --Zureks (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got sent a link to Commons:MIME type statistics -- neat!

I notice it doesn't though distinguish between audio and video Oggs currently. There's a separate media type field in the database which can be used to tell these part, in case you want to add a breakdown.

Running a quick query to get the current stats on commons...

+----------------+----------+
| img_media_type | count(*) |
+----------------+----------+
| AUDIO          |    92123 |
| VIDEO          |     2120 |
| MULTIMEDIA     |       67 |
+----------------+----------+

Not quite sure what the 67 files that aren't video or audio are. ;) --brion (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I'd looked at that field before, but didn't realize that's what it was for. I'll add it to the next report. Anyway, just ran a test query, and it seems the only MIME types with more than one media type on Commons are "unknown/unknown" (57 UNKNOWN, 4 BITMAP, 1 DRAWING), "application/ogg" (as above), "application/photoshop" (2 UNKNOWN, 9 BITMAP, 1 DRAWING) and "image/x-ms-bmp" (179 UNKNOWN, 1 BITMAP). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you know a bit more than I do. May you want to give an example on the template's discussion page :-)
thx for help --D-Kuru (talk) 10:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the template isn't in use yet, I just made some changes to the template itself. I'm hoping they more or less match what you wanted, but feel free to fix any mistakes I may have made and/or to ask for any more help if you need it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The weblink still doesn't work :-/

I like your idea with "{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#switch:{{{2|Armed Forces}}}
|Armed Forces|Army|Navy|Air Force={{{category|[[Category:Images by the U.S. {{{2|Armed Forces}}} with known IDs]]}}}". That's exactly what I searched for :-)

--D-Kuru (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put "url=" before the link, like in the example on the template page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have some more ideas to upgrade this template. May you can help me again.
Mattes changed the used image. My idea is to change the image for every different authorgroup (for example: the army gets the United States Department of the Army Seal.svg and Army emblem, the navy the United States Department of the Navy Seal.svg and Navy emblem and so on). Do you know of this option is possible and how to do it?
thx for help --D-Kuru (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. It's quite straightforward to do with {{#switch:}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for help :-D

--D-Kuru (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see Image talk:CodeCmmt002.svg. //Knuckles (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I trust you more than one "salwadordali", I put the "retouched" tag on File:Blossoming Almond Tree.jpg, but without filling in a comment. I admit that such checks are somewhat beyond my technical abilities, and, besides, do not interest me. Besides, I do not know the picture, nor have a first-rate reproduction of it available.

I had rather liked to cleanup and somewhat balance Category:Vincent van Gogh (see talk), where those badly described mega-uploads are quite disturbing, but AGF (on uploaders) I've to handle them somehow. I'm not even sure whether such stuff might be intended as kind-of-"mailbombs", but on the other hand, if 100MB are allowed, a 30MB file is anyways (I'm talking about my COM:VP note, but actually am not willing to waste more time in checking such, my equipment being too poor, and my technical experience obviously either. Could you possibly help? It's about that "Heritage-Torrent". Maybe, even a cu might be appropriate [s. vs. Olpl].) Thanks, [w.] 07:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly help with technical issues like this (though I don't know how often they actually tend to come up). Unfortunately, I'm not much use with the art-historical side of the project: about the only van Gogh works I might just barely recognize are "Starry Night" and "Sunflowers" (and, since yesterday, "Almond Blossoms" :). But if you need help in dealing with large files, or, say, with template syntax or such things, do let me know.

Anyway, I tried to figure out who might've photoshopped the edges of the version at File:Blossoming Almond Tree.jpg. The small version at http://www.obrazy-vangogh.com/obrazy/432kwitnacymigdalowiec94x74.jpg appears to be scaled down from the edited version, so it's possible that whoever runs that website did it. I'd like to know where User:Salwadordali found the large version, though — I couldn't find it on that website, but it was kind of hard for me to browse since I don't understand much Polish at all. Neither could I find anything matching the edited version on Google image search nor on GazoPa. There do seem to be plenty of even more tightly cropped versions on the net, including a few here on Commons.

Of the (seemingly) authentic versions I could find online, the best ready-to-upload one seems to be this one at artchive.com. There's a much higher-quality one at vangoghmuseum.nl, but it's only downloadable in pieces. Not that it should be technically that hard to stitch them together into one big image, but it's really not something you'd want to do by hand. I did also find someone's personal snapshot, which, though of low quality in itself, seems to confirm that the crop on these two versions does match the actual painting. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is quite enlightening [I think you had to work on it for a while ?]. I, for myself, am not at all interested to "stitch" material which is provided with a lot of work for offering it to every visitor of owning museum's page, just to "gather" such for WP -- imo it would be just fair to link to such site whilst providing a reasonably low-res version for quick lookup. According to what you provided, that ******* "so-called" vG Blossoming Almond Tree should rather have a DR (and other uploads of same user should be inspected quite closely). How to proceed? [w.] 20:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On downloading all the pieces, you might want to see Help:Zoomable images#Zoomify... we have the tools to mass-download the tiles, and even a script to assemble them in the GIMP. Lupo 21:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari,

re this thread on wikitech-l, to which you also commented: why not use the same mechanisms as are used for {{int:}}? See User:Lupo/xx (your interface language), in Bulgarian, in German, in Suomi...

I don't participate in the mailing lists, but maybe that would merit pointing out there. It appears the mechanisms are in place, it'd just be a matter of generating the wikitext of the image description page using {{int:}} instead of the pre-resolved messages.

Whatever is done, someone should also think about how to migrate already existing image description pages.

Cheers, Lupo 08:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my proposal on the list was to use a MediaWiki message instead of hardcoded headings. That's the most flexible solution. The Mediawiki message could be set to whatever we want. It could include the old headings, the new headings as proposed by you or could be empty (that's what I prefer). So, if your proposal is meant as an alternative to the Mediawiki solution, I'm all against it. But if your proposal is meant to be used together with the Mediawiki solution, it's at least a solution that can be considered.

The int: solution is of course better than the solution we have at the moment, but I prefer getting rid of the headings on Commons. They don't add anything. The description part will always be either the information template or some other template like painting etc. and the license part will also always be templates. It's easily visible what's the meaning of those templates. The two headings are a relic from old times when there were no templates or any advanced features. In those dark ages it was all plain text that needed some headings to structure it. But those times are gone and the headings are not needed anymore.

Aside note: On User:Lupo/xx you use {{int:summary}}. This won't work. That message is for edit summaries. The correct one would be {{int:filedesc}}. --Slomox (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, minor oversight of my part. Fixed. Lupo 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the software does use MediaWiki messages. The problem is that these are language-resolved at the time of the upload, and are thus shown in the uploader's interface language, not in the viewer's. I think it's lines 1802 to 1804 in SpecialUpload.php:

$filedesc = $comment == '' ? '' : '== ' . wfMsg ( 'filedesc' ) . " ==\n" . $comment . "\n";
$pageText = $filedesc .
   '== ' . wfMsgForContent ( 'license' ) . " ==\n" . '{{' . $license . '}}' . "\n";

Simply using '== {{int:filedesc}} ==\n' and '== {{int:license}} ==\n' instead of '== ' . wfMsg ( 'filedesc' ) . " ==\n" and '== ' . wfMsgForContent ( 'license' ) . " ==\n" should do the trick, no? Lupo 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how about replacing the old code

    static function getInitialPageText( $comment, $license, $copyStatus, $source ) {
        global $wgUseCopyrightUpload;
        if ( $wgUseCopyrightUpload ) {
            if ( $license != '' ) {
                $licensetxt = '== ' . wfMsgForContent( 'license' ) . " ==\n" . '{{' . $license . '}}' . "\n";
            }
            $pageText = '== ' . wfMsg ( 'filedesc' ) . " ==\n" . $comment . "\n" .
              '== ' . wfMsgForContent ( 'filestatus' ) . " ==\n" . $copyStatus . "\n" .
              "$licensetxt" .
              '== ' . wfMsgForContent ( 'filesource' ) . " ==\n" . $source ;
        } else {
            if ( $license != '' ) {
                $filedesc = $comment == '' ? '' : '== ' . wfMsg ( 'filedesc' ) . " ==\n" . $comment . "\n";
                 $pageText = $filedesc .
                     '== ' . wfMsgForContent ( 'license' ) . " ==\n" . '{{' . $license . '}}' . "\n";
            } else {
                $pageText = $comment;
            }
        }
        return $pageText;
    }

with the new code

	   
    static function getInitialPageText( $comment, $license, $copyStatus, $source ) {
        global $wgUseCopyrightUpload;
        if ( $wgUseCopyrightUpload ) {
            if ( $license != '' ) {
                $licensetxt = wfMsgForContent( 'fileupload-licenseUCU', wfMsgForContent( 'license' ), $license );
            }
            $pageText = "$licensetxt" . wfMsgForContent( 'fileupload-defaultUCU', wfMsgForContent ( 'filedesc' ), wfMsgForContent ( 'filestatus' ), wfMsgForContent ( 'filesource' ), $comment, $copyStatus, $source );
        } else {
            if ( $license != '' ) {
                $filedesc = $comment == '' ? '' : wfMsgForContent( 'fileupload-filedesc', wfMsgForContent( 'filedesc' ), $comment );
                 $pageText = $filedesc . wfMsgForContent( 'fileupload-default', wfMsgForContent ( 'license' ), $filedesc, $license );
            } else {
                $pageText = wfMsgForContent( 'fileupload-simple', $comment );
            }
        }
        return $pageText;
    }

and setting the messages to this:

'fileupload-licenseUCU' => "== $1 ==\n{{$2}}\n",
'fileupload-defaultUCU' => "$1 ==\n$4\n== $2 ==\n$5\n$licensetxt== $3 ==\n$6",
'fileupload-filedesc'   => "== $1 ==\n$2\n",
'fileupload-default'    => "$2== $1 ==\n{{$3}}\n",
'fileupload-simple'     => "$1",

? We have to change the Mediawiki source, so why not go the full way and make it flexible? We could get rid of the heading by changing the Mediawiki messages onwiki (if we want to), or we could change the order (e.g. license first, then description). We would just be flexible. --Slomox (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't your code still language-resolve the messages at upload time to the uploader's interface language? I think you'll have to use {{int:}} somewhere to get the language resolution to the viewer's interface language at load time. Lupo 07:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't your code still language-resolve the messages at upload time to the uploader's interface language? Yes. I don't want to change the default behaviour. I guess, it's reasonable to keep the default text in the content language. On Spanish Wikipedia the text should be displayed in Spanish and on the Swedish Wikipedia in Swedish. Localisation is only needed on multilingual wikis. The localisation comes in, when we onwiki change MediaWiki:fileupload-default from "$2== $1 ==\n{{$3}}\n" to "$2== {{int:license}} ==\n{{$3}}\n" and MediaWiki:fileupload-filedesc from "== $1 ==\n$2\n" to "== {{int:filedesc}} ==\n$2\n".

My proposal doesn't change the default, but it makes it possible to customize the results by editing the Mediawiki messages. --Slomox (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The diagram again. Gun Powder Ma (talk)

Thank you. Sorry, my mistake.--Carrilano (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people/Proposal in response to a variety of helpful suggestions that users have made on the talk page. You have already commented there; could I ask you to have a look again, and to consider whether you would like to express an opinion in the Poll towards the bottom of the page? Many thanks. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Ilmari Karonen. I have nominated your information picture for deletion, a=because you forgot to agree and obtain permission. Hope you deal with it... Flappy (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note (even if, from your other edits, it does seem you were here just to vandalize). That image is not actually mine: all I did was reupload it one point after the original version had been lost due to a software bug. I've edited the image description page to correctly attribute the actual authors. (I see Foroa had already corrected the licensing status.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got e-mail. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 19:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... aren't you an admin on Commons? I'm baffled :). Patrícia ^msg 20:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia.... For some reason I asked too, though I was first! :) — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now you had a "e-mail section" above mine. Well, Ilmari can count with two votes, I guess :P. Patrícia ^msg 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Actually, I'd been thinking of requesting of adminship here, but hadn't worked up the confidence to actually do it yet (and I wasn't sure if just now would be the perfect time, what with the Main Page thing and all :). Mind you, I wasn't really that active here until this year, and I'm only now starting to feel like I actually know how things work around here. If either or both of you would like to nominate me, though, I'd be glad to accept. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear. I'll write a nom when I've got some time left. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 20:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Please accept, and we're ready to run. Good luck! --— Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

---

Ilmari Karonen/archives, onnittelut! Sinulla on nyt ylläpitäjän oikeudet Commonsissa. Odota kuitenkin vielä hetkinen ja lue Commons:Administrators, Commons:Administrators' noticeboard ja Commons:Deletion requests.

Voit halutessasi liittyä IRC-kanavalle seuraamme: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Commonsin ylläpitäjille on myös oma IRC-kanavansa: #wikimedia-commons-admin.

Harkitse myös liittymistä kanavalle #wikimedia-admin, kaikkien Wikimedian ylläpitäjien yhteiselle kanavalle.

Kannattaa lukea myös Commons:Guide to adminship.

Tarkista myös, löydytkö listoilta sivuilla Commons:List of administrators, Commons:List of administrators by language ja Commons:List of administrators by date.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I look forward seeing more of you. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all of you. :) I have to say I didn't expect the support to be quite so unanimous. I'm deeply moved by the trust placed in me, and I'll try to live up to the expectations in wielding the mop responsibly and not screwing up too often. :) (And now I'm trying to resist the temptation to go out and buy some apple pie...) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, and thank you for helping :). Patrícia ^msg 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, congratulations. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-uploading the highest resolution image of this photo and preserving the metadata. Normally, I upload the highest resolution images from flickr but this was not from flickr...and I had forgotten this fact sadly. With kind Regards from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for enabling making gallery without chess-board backgrounds! One more thing - can it work in transclusions in Wikipedia as well, e.g. for the images in en:File:Tuberculosis symptoms.svg#See also? The images in the file here in commons (File:Tuberculosis symptoms.svg) is class="nochecker" and it works when viewing in commons, but currently not when viewing the same image page in Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added the same rule as I added here to en:MediaWiki:Common.css. Assuming nobody reverts me, it should work there too after clearing your cache. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi;

just cc'ing you a copy of the note i left on your question @ "village pump", in case you weren't checking it for further changing.

NOTE: speaking from an archivist's perspective, it is desirable & useful for WMC to have hi-res scans of the complete & original stereoscope as-is (in original, unrestored, unretouched condition), as well as any modified versions you care to create & submit. as a historical object/document tho, it's the original card that is the most important; everything else is derived from it. it also makes it possible for others to work from the original material (& the original upload file version should not be overwritten by any subsequent editor!). also; a high-quality scan of the reverse side of the card, appropriately labeled to "match-up", would always be of use & interest. Lx 121 (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmari, could you pipe up at COM:FPC#File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 007.jpg? The image is Renoir's The Two Sisters (On the Terrace), and I believe it came from that torrent. People are unsure about whether these are the original colors. The few images from that torrent that I got all have a Kodak Color Card in them that could help establishing whether the reproduction is accurate. Unfortunately, I didn't get this one yet. Lupo 22:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a copy in JPEG format with the color card. The TIFF version is too large to upload here (282 MiB), but if you're specifically interested in just that image, most BitTorrent clients these days will let you choose which files to download from a multi-file .torrent. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, did so. Stalled at 98%. :-( Thanks! Lupo 09:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, give it some time. Those last few bytes always take the longest, especially if there aren't too many seeders. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your remark at File talk:Biandintz eta zaldiak - modified2.jpg. What do you think about this other version? Shawnc (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Do you have a copy of the Hermitage torrent file? I can't get it, but I would like to have a copy of the Derain, Matisse and Kandisky works, which can't be uploaded to Commons, but are public domain in Canada. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the mininova link posted by Diaa abdelmoneim work for you? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the link is fine, but I can't get the whole torrent: too big, it crashes my PC. I didn't find yet a usable torrent client on Linux. Yann (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using KTorrent myself. Transmission should be fine as well, and there are others too. Most BT clients these days will let you select which files to download. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've kept the file and closed the DR. Could you please add a few words of description in English? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters, On the Terrace.jpg, which was nominated by Yann at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters, On the Terrace.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thanks for fixing the cat-a-lot bug. I really appreciate the feature working properly now :) --Sailko (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renoir, Pierre-Auguste - The Two Sisters (On the Terrace) (uncorrected).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

 

--4649 06:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, good work!

Hello. this picture is probably a copyright violation. It is a edited version of a commonly used copyrighted image.Take a look at google searches here. --Eldarion (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've tagged the image as {{Copyvio}}; if nobody disagrees, it will be deleted shortly. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want to block him? Or issue a last "end copyvio" notice, since the deleted uploads were a few months old already? --Eusebius (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your ltr/rtl fix for {{GFDL/lang}} (Template_talk:GFDL#RTL_template), I'm planning to add something like that to {{Ll}} and probably some other templates but I was wondering if there's a better way to do this. One idea I had was to utilize MediaWiki:Pipe-separator. I also thought of adding ‎/‏ instead of spans. Basically, the goal is to simplify the code, if that's possible. Any ideas? Rocket000 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I use for quite some time User:Lupo/testfile.js, which does it all in JS without any need for a toolserver. Only thing that keeps me from publishing this (replacing the old CheckUsage gadget) is that I'd like to use the site matrix instead of hardcoding the list of projects. But the site matrix may contain wikis on which the API is disabled, and then my script will eventually block (if it encounters the tenth such wiki) because the result of an API call with a disabled API is not a JSON error result, not even proper HTML, but simple text. Any idea how to avoid this? Lupo 09:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a simple timeout would work? Just forcefully remove the script tag (or increase the connection limit) and let another connection take its place if the callback hasn't been called in n seconds?

Of course, I'd also suggest an embedded blacklist of wikis that are known not to have the API enabled. You don't want to even try them if they're just going to time out. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a timeout might work. Though its imprecise. Might be an idea anyway to catch unresponsive projects that normally should return an answer. A black list would still mean to hardcode some projects (though less than with the whitelist). If the site matrix could just give some basic info about the sites (read/write API enabled or not? Maybe even wgScriptPath, wgArticlePath?) one could just request the site matrix from the server and then take it from there. Lupo 12:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request, I added an Advertisement section to Commons:Image casebook.

I have more on my talk page. User_talk:Swtpc6800#Most pre-1978 magazine advertisements are likely in the public domain.

-- Swtpc6800 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I took a look at your text and tried to edit it a bit to make it as clear as possible that ads published since March 1989 are still copyrighted. I hope the changes I made constitute an improvement. In any case feel free to improve it further or to correct any mistakes I may have made. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari, I dont know how to express this technically correct: All scripts are gone! HotCat, Nominate for deletion and QuickDelete in the toolbox, all extra tabs including log, purge, FlickrReview tabs, DelreqHandler on DR subpages... all. Maybe http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.js&action=history? --Martin H. (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried clearing your cache? One of the edits I made had a syntax error; I fixed it within minutes, but your browser might've grabbed a copy just then. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did. It seems like they are coming back, the Usernotification and AddInformation are back, the extra tabs and QuickDelete buttons are still lost. Maybe it take some time, thanks so far. --Martin H. (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if the problem was a stale copy of Common.js, a single cache refresh should fix it completely. If only some tabs are working, I suspect the problem is something else. Anyway, I can't really test it, since they all seem to work fine for me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the gadgets in the preferences, FWIW. — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired. All Gadgets for the File namespace except MediaWiki:AddInformation.js and also the Gallery tab on Userpages are gone for me in IE (8.0.6001), MediaWiki:UserMessages.js is shown up and it opens an edit window but it not edits or saves. Everything OK in Firefox (3.0.6). I not changed any security settings or installed any software or plugin. Sorry for bothering you with my problems. --Martin H. (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IE (all versions) have problems clearing their cache. A simple Ctrl-reload won't do it. The following procedure usually works for me:

1. If you're not logged in in IE, do so
2. Go to your user page
3. Manually clear the cache (Internet Options→Delete temporary files).
4. Ctrl-reload (may or may not actually refresh the cache, depending on what IE still has in RAM)
5. Exit IE
6. Repeat

In the second round, step 4 really should load the current versions of the scripts. Oh, and I have set up IE to check for new versions of a page upon each access. Lupo 20:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was something other. I reseted my browser to default settings and now it works again. Maybe I blocked some script or I had a plugin instaled that was incompatible. --Martin H. (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found out it was the compatibility view http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/27/introducing-compatibility-view.aspx. Klicking this icon makes all scripts, tabs, (+), e.g. disapear, in Special:NewFiles the default gallery size is set to 4 per row. Deactivating it results in some uncomfortable navigation and optic but all scripts work. Uncomfortable is that the cursor, while writing in edit mode, always moves the line im actually writing in to the very bottom of the edit window. Also the edit window shows some strange jumping behaviour if i move the mouse outside and a tooltip (like that on GFDL) is shown up. Also the font size in /lang templates varies while moving the mouse over them. --Martin H. (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried all that in IE6 and Hot Cat still doesn't work. FireFox does fine. --Foroa (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ilmari, I was just wondering what's your reason for this change. If you're logging any adding of an image note, then this is totally flooding the Abuse log with more than acceptable edits and without being able to catch other abusefilters, like removing all categories. Thanks for your answer. -The Evil IP address (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point was to allow people interested in how the ImageAnnotator is being used to look at this list of recent changes. See also the discussion here at the VP.

If it's flooding the abuse log, that's certainly a problem. A possible technical solution might be if a filter could be configured to tag edits but not log them in the abuse log, or if the log could be easily made to exclude certain filters or tags. (Currently, it seems to be possible to limit the log view to only some filters, but there seems to be no way to show, say, edits matching any filters except #47.) Anyway, if it's interfering with legitimate abuse monitoring tasks, I won't object if it gets disabled again — it's always possible to pull out the same info e.g. from the toolserver, even if it won't be quite as conveniently accessible as via the tag. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now checked it out again for some days, and it's still flooding. For the moment, I've thus disabled it. If you find a way to not flood the abuse log, feel free to enable the filter again. Cheers, --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js#Special:AbuseFilter/47. -- User:Docu at 16:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re #All scripts are gone above: this has fixed it. Please remember to test changes to global scripts also in older IEs (or in IE8 in compatibility mode).

In all fairness, I have made that same syntax error several times in files I wrote, too, but until now I was lucky enough not to make it in such a widely used file. :-) Lupo 06:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari, can you configure Special:AbuseFilter/50? I overreach myself, with copy&pasting from other filters I not come to a working result. Adding Template:OTRS (including Template:Otrs) or Template:PermissionOTRS (including Template:OTRSPermission, Template:Разрешение OTRS) should be logged, without any actions. --Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but I'm not sure if I got it exactly right since there don't seem to be any recent OTRS-related edits to test against right now. (I know there are some obscure variants of template transclusion that it won't match, but nobody practically ever uses those.) Also, instead of looking at added_lines, it might be better to check if new_wikitext matches the regexp and old_wikitext doesn't: that's less likely to give false positives if someone just happens to make an unrelated change to a line already containing a {{OTRS}} template. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your skillful help, I activated it and will see what happen. Maybe something like that will be helpful for the OTRS team. --Martin H. (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my formatting. I knew I was missing something. - BanyanTree 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Ilmari Karonen/archives!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image:Recplaneoff.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:KleinBottleAsSquare.svg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Velden Gerardus Wilhelmus van der.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Lieutenant des armes à cheval.png was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:CA Navy OR5.gif was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.

Hi Ilmari hope your having a splendid day this is Peter Hofbauer from Tin Alley I'm writting in regards to the site Tin Alley.

Bergstein who added thoses images mentioned to us to contact you to make you aware that he had permission to use them..

Now About a month ago if I can recal he asked us if he could use the images and we gave full permission for our images to be used under wikipedia for public use so please feel free to use our images..

Hope this helps Ilmari and please feel free to contact me on peter@tinalley.net or info.tinalley.net or if your on myspace your welcome to communicate with us there on www.tinalley.net.

Ps. If you require any more info on us for the wiki page please send us an email and we will give you wahetever info you need on the band cheers..

Kind Regards, Peter Hofbauer

Thanks for asking my opinion. I wonder what the subject would look like to the naked eye. I think that simple adjustments to pictures that could have been done at the time with camera settings and filters should be treated the same way as camera settings and filters - to give the viewer the best (honest) impression of the subject you can. Digital manipulation has (with some justification) a bad reputation, but I don't think you're exactly airbrushing anything. Note how I've carefully avoided actually answering your question. :-) Sorry, I don't know. --Simonxag (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In WIKI I saw file "Gullfoss 1.ogg" which was created by you. I have a ".avi" format video which I want to convert to ".ogg or .ogv". I converted my video by "ffmpeg2theora-0.25.exe" voice is normal, but video is scrambled. Please help.Surprizi (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really help you much there. Ffmpeg2theora is the converter I use, and I don't really know of any better alternatives. Assuming that the original video plays fine, either ffmpeg can't decode your video correctly or there's some bug in the Theora encoder in your version. You might want to try downgrading to an earlier version of ffmpeg2theora (e.g. v0.23, which I know I've used with some success) and see if it works better; if it does, you should also definitely report the bug to the ffmpeg2theora maintainers. Actually, you should probably report it anyway.

If you'd like, you could send me the video and I can try to convert it myself, but I doubt I can do much better than you. You could also try pasting the text output from ffmpeg2theora (or at least the first dozen or so lines, if it's long) here so I could look at it and see if I might spot anything possibly useful in it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. While looking at the ffmpeg2theora web page, I found a list of Theora encoders. You could always try one of the others and see if it works better. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ilmari, I just wanted to ask if you're able to help me with a possible abuse filter script: Currently, we have several files that are indefinitely protected from editing and uploading. However, there's rarely only the need to also protect the description page, and since file protection doesn't yet work, I had the idea to do it with the abuse filter instead. However, for testing, I created the following text: (action = 'upload') & (file_prefixedtext rlike '.{3,}')(only for testing, of course the script won't look like this, but will contain the filenames that should not be reuploaded), but the abusefilter said: "Syntax error detected: Unrecognised variable file_prefixedtext at character 23". Are you able to help here? Thank you. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you correctly, you want to prevent people from uploading new versions but allow them to edit the description page? It might be easier to do this using the title blacklist (see documentation). Just remember to use the "casesensitive" option (and possibly "autoconfirmed" and "errmsg=") and to escape regexp metacharacters, like this (for File:Cc.logo.circle.svg):

 File:Cc\.logo\.circle\.svg  <casesensitive>

Also note that a lot of the files in the list you linked to are old inappropriate file names salted with {{Prohibited name}} which should really just be deleted and protected against recreation. Might be a job for an adminbot.

As for you original question, I just looked at some recent entries in the abuse log and it seems like there's something seriously wrong with the "file_prefixedtext" variable. I may be to blame: the code that sets the variable was broken before and I tried to fix it, but it's possible that my fix broke it further. :( In any case, I'd advise against using the abuse filter for this, at least until such issues are fixed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and yes, it was my fault. Hopefully I got it right this time, so that it'll be fixed as soon as the AbuseFilter extension is next updated. Although, come to think of it, I can't see how that could cause the error message you reported... hmm. Odd. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, with the Titleblacklist this seems to work. I will try to take care of these files within next days. Thanks again. --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a surprise. Nearly eleven months ago you posted a message about US 90 map.svg on my talk page. I haven't been on Commons in a while (obviously), but the US 90 article on WP uses the PNG version. Back when I made these maps, SVGs took many moons to render the detailed linework and crashed many browsers, mostly Firefox.

I actually found the original SVG from July of 2006 and it is, indeed, 3.40 MB in size.

Better late than never ;)

Cheers! Stratosphere (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit: I reuploaded it, and commons now shows the proper filesize. Stratosphere (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pluto_artistimpression.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Lokal_Profil 16:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari, can you please enable the ajax translation script as you said you will in MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Ajax translation of templates. thanks, ערן (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've checked it now in IE and it works fine. ערן (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well? ערן (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I haven't been very active on Commons, and basically forgot about this. Sorry.

I see The Evil IP address has also said they'd enable the script soon if no-one else does, so I thought I'd ask him if he'd like the honor. In the mean time, I've added it to my monobook.js for one last bit of testing, and it seems to be working fine on FF 3.5 at least. Between me and The Evil IP address, I think I can safely promise that it'll get re-enabled in a few days at most (this time for real, I promise!).

Anyway, one thing to do in the mean time is to track down the most common translated templates that still don't have the "layouttemplate" class and add it. I've done a few already (and in the process had to make a couple of changes to the script, so I'd be glad if you could retest it), but I'm sure there are plenty still left. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it's good idea to add "layouttemplate" for other templates to make it work in many more templates. Thanks, ערן (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that patroller and autopatrolled are part of the +sysop package, so they're redundant flags if you're an admin. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there are currently a lot of username blocks in the titleblacklist. I was just wondering if they could be moved into the usernameblacklist. I'm not sure if the usernameblacklist has som disadvantages compared to the titleblacklist, then of course they should be left there. It would be good to make the titleblacklist a bit shorter, because as ChrisiPK noted, it would take a lot of server load if the titleblacklist would be full of entries due to the file upload protection. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mw:Extension:Username Blacklist says that "This extension is obsolete! It has been replaced by TitleBlacklist." So it might in fact be more appropriate to do the opposite and move all the username regexps into the title blacklist. Note that TitleBlacklist is a fairly low-impact extension: the parsed blacklist is cached so that it only needs to be reparsed when it's edited, and the regexps themselves are only checked on the appropriate actions (page creations / uploads / account creations / edits / etc. depending on the attributes of each rule). Yes, it will be somewhat less efficient than proper protection, but I wouldn't really worry about it, at least unless the length of the blacklist starts growing to thousands of entries. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! If I'm not mistaking it is your script I'm using. Sadly it removes a little to much. Example [3]. I was just told. I used it for several months so chere could be thousands of edits to check. I'm probably not the only one so I hope it is a new error. Will you have a look? --MGA73 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. It should definitely not be doing that. Let me take a look... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me which browser you're using. The most likely explanation for that bug that I can think of is that your browser doesn't implement a particular feature of the String.split() method correctly. I might be able to work around that by using a global pattern match instead, but it's probably going to be a bit tricky. :( —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Good" news. I checked my own edits and it seems that there is not many people helping so there is probably not many errors left. I'm still working with Category:License migration needs review.

When I use Firefox it does not work at all. So I have to use IE8. --MGA73 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, it works on Firefox for me. Anyway, I added a quick stopgap fix to the script: instead of corrupting pages, it should now show an error message and abort if String.split() returns something other than it should. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is, it used to work on Firefox for me — now it's complaining about MD5 mismatches, apparently because the new wikiEditor code is doing something funny to document.cookie. :( I should really do the MD5 check in a better way anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get that too. :-/ --MGA73 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that part should be fixed now and the script is working for me on Firefox again. Still not sure how to best work around the IE but, but at least it shouldn't be causing content loss any more. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tried one and it worked fine :-D --MGA73 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Could you please add the enclosing source tag (</source>) to the end of the following pages?

• MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js/ca
• MediaWiki:Extra-tabs.js/km

Thanks in advance. --Superyetkin (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure,  Done. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari Karonen, I noticed all your edits in layout templates. Maybe you could respond at Commons:Village pump#Multiple template layout chanded? Seems related. Multichill (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's related — none of the templates I edited seem to be used by {{Painting}}. I'm not sure what the issue might've been, and I can't reproduce it myself: either someone fixed it already, it fixed itself or it's something browser-specific. I'll try to look into it a bit more, just in case it was something I did, but I suspect not. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. Multichill (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed your edit on {{LOC-image/layout}}. I did not know about this Ajax feature, it is great! I'll make sure to use this class each time I create/edit a /layout.

I came across two problems though. Would you know where I can report those by any chance ?

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most proper place to report bugs in the Ajax translation code would probably be MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js. (Yes, I know it doesn't exits yet. I should probably go add something there.) I don't know how many people are watching that page, though (besides me, and I haven't been very active here lately), but you could always add an {{Editprotected}} tag to attract wider admin attention.

There's also a thread about the feature on MediaWiki talk:Common.js (see direct link a few sections above). I'd expect that if you left a comment there, someone would notice it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: It might also be helpful to contact the author of this script (ערן), though they can't fix it without admin help. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reported on MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js and left a note on MediaWiki talk:Common.js. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Benazir_children.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Havang(nl) (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's severely pissing me of. How do I disable it? Multichill (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a quick-and-dirty option to disable this feature by adding

window.disableAjaxTranslation = true;

to your monobook.js or vector.js. (It should probably be made into a Gadget if several users want it.) However, I'd also suggest that you might want to leave at note at, say, MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js about exactly why you find this new feature annoying, so that such criticism can be taken into account when deciding whether we want to keep it and how it might be improved in the future. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fun toy, but it's very annoying to have it enabled when you're working on templates and don't know what the hell is happening because the clicks are hijacked. Multichill (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ilmari Karonen, Thanks for retouching Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (2). Is there any chance of replacing the original upload with your retouced version? What do you think about adding the annotations to your retouced version as well? Originalwana (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel my version should replace the original, as the modifications I've made include some subjective "artistic" adjustments done by a non-expert (me) without full proper regard to scientific accuracy. It's "fudged data". Sure, it looks better, but I can't really make any guarantees that, in trying to make it look better, I haven't accidentally obliterated some subtle details of geological or hydrological interest. (I know I wiped out a few small clouds, even if it's not really noticeable unless you compare the two versions pixel by pixel.)

Your suggestion of copying the image notes is a good one though, and I've just done that. For that matter, a few more notes from people familiar with the geography of the area (like names of the rivers) could be useful. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used and combined several sources to draw the maps:

• The starting point is a partial foto of a 1978 GTF national railmap (black and white). This map is no longer available or sold. The vicinal railway lines on the GTF map are very small dotted lines. However there were many errors, imprecisions and corrections for wich I used a lot of (sometimes conflicting) sources. These where:
• Michelin road maps
• Vicinal railmaps of "Rail Atlas vicinal"
• The vicinal story (light Railways in Belgium)
• Detailed walking maps
• Google Earth
• railway timetable of 1933
• Tram/railway map of Brussel
• Personal hikes along the tracks (File:Tunnel spoorlijn 25A onder 25 en 27.JPG, File:Essene-Lombeek oude spoorbrug.JPG
• Discussions with other wikipedians over the precise route of a line.

When I am ready with a map, there is not single byte left of the original picture. All railway lines/vicinal lines have been redrawn with the hand, using the other sources. (thicker and smaller lines, lines and stations deleted and added, etc) I have added a lot of locations and other details. All text is my own.

There is a discussion as what is an original map. Al maps have to start from somewhere and it is inevitable that as a representation of a reality, al maps wil look similar. These are the same railway lines and information. (content) What ultimately makes the difference is the styling en way of presentation, not the content. (Look for example at roadmaps of the same area) Besides there is a lot of original content. Each map cost me a lot off effort and time. The styling and colours are original and my own. A strongly object to refering the maps as derivative works.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I can send the "starting" map if you want to judge for yourself.

Replied at your talk page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You commented about Image:US_90_map.svg on a friend's talk page. Well, I took a look at the file, and that's not US 90 highlighted in red on that map. It's US 101. US 90 would run east–west along the southern tier of states as implied by the number and the grid pattern for the US Highway numbering scheme. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, that is indeed a problem (although not the technical one I was commenting about). I think I'll go and rename it to File:US 101 map.svg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you seem experienced with bots and the like, I would like to ask you a favor. I'm trying to kick off a project which aims to provide spoken examples to all German wiktionary articles. There are a number of subtasks, one of which is the management of the files on commons. The files are (currently) uploaded using commonist, which does not allow for an automatically generated description (depending on the file name). I succeeded (with User:Snowmanradio's help) to write an AWB script, which does the necessary follow-up edits such as this one, for example. However, AWB is terribly slow (takes some 10 seconds per edit), and since this is only the tip of the iceberg of the project to come, I'm in need for a fully automated routine. Could you write or help me writing a bot to do this task. I can give you the AWB replacement script, so I presume this will be an easy task for an insider, but I have no experience with bots, so I'm somewhat hesitant.

Another option would be to create an upload script which does the job in one step. Perhaps this would even be better than modifying the uploaded files a posteriori. If you could help me doing this alternatively, I'd be much indebted.

Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still interested in bugzilla:13172? If so, could you take a look at my new patch to fix this at least for the GPS coordinates for all newly uploaded files? The longer we wait fixing this, the more files we'll have where we would have to re-compute the metadata from scratch, and as I understood Tim's comments, that's a problem. Lupo 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll take a look at it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari Karonen, could you add this category to your sourcecode as well so it won't get overwritten? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Actually, I should really rewrite the whole thing to make it template-based and localizable, but I haven't managed to fully work out the setup yet. Anyway, thanks for the notice. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moi! Olen huomannut, että olet taitava kuvanmuokkaaja. Yritin tuossa tehdä paria panoraamakuvaa, mutta niiden yhdistäminen oli minulle liian hankalaa, sillä kuvat on otettu käsivaralta, eikä automaattinen "liimaus" tuota haluttua lopputulosta. Jos lataisin yksittäiset kuvat tänne, olisiko mahdollista, että yrittäisit tehdä kuville voitavasi? —kallerna™ 12:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yrittää voi aina, takuuta en anna. :) Laita vaan kuvat tänne tai jonnekin nettiin ladattavaksi, niin katon, saisko niistä mitään aikaiseksi. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okei. :) Eli kuvat ovat tässä: 1., 2., 3., 4., 5. ja 6.

Homman ei pitäisi olla mahdoton, sillä itse yritin kuvia sovittaa panoraamaan noin viisi kertaa ja aina tuli liimausvirheitä, mutta eri kohtaan (suhteellisen hermostuttavaa hommaa). Kuvia ei ole nyt muokattu yhtään, vaan muutin ne vain RAW-tiedostoista JPG-tiedostoiksi. Parin ensimmäisen väribalanssi on hieman erilainen kuin muiden, joten niitä kannattaa hieman muokata ennen liimausta. Kiitokset jo etukäteen! —kallerna™ 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entäs onnistuuko varjon häivyttäminen tästä kuvasta? Siis se varjo, joka on siinä vasemmalla puolella ja ainakin omasta mielestäni häiritsee kuvaa. —kallerna™ 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Njaa, kokeilla voin, mutta vähän epäilen tuon onnistumista. Valaistus varjon alueella on niin paljon pehmeämpi, että siitä ei ihan pelkillä käyräsäädöillä saa saman näköistä kuin suorassa auringonvalossa olevat alueet. Toki voisin myös koittaa ihan kylmästi vaan kloonata koko varjon pois. (Ps. Yritin tuota panoraamaa koota aiemmin, mutten minäkään saanut sitä ensi yrittämällä saumattua kovin hyvin. Lähinnä ongelmia tuli alareunan portaiden kanssa, niitä on vaikea saada yhdistettyä ilman ylimääräisiä mutkia. Täytynee joskus myöhemmin koittaa uudestaa paremman ajan kanssa.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lataa edes jonkilainen yritys, on se varmaan parempi kuin oma versioni. —kallerna™ 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tässä olis ensimmäinen yritys tuosta kairauskuvasta. Tämän verran sain aikaan ihan vaan värikäyriä säätämällä ja maskaamalla. Yllättävän hyvin tuokin jo toimii, kaukaa katsottuna menee miltei täydestä. :) Koitan tuosta panoraamastakin uppia piakkoin jonkin version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No niin, tässä olis se panoraamakin. Siistin siitä pahimpia liimausvirheitä, mutta muutama aika näkyvä vielä jäljelle. Kaikki "haamut" ja ihmisenpuolikkaat sain uskoakseni kyllä korjattua, vaikkakin vasemman reunan ihmismassaan saattoi ehkä joku pariton raaja jäädä. :) (Tai no, näkyy tuonne vielä muutama rampa jääneen kun tarkemmin katsoo. Koitan niitä myöhemmin korjailla, tältä illalta saa riittää.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onhan tuolla vielä muutama liimausvirhe, mutta ehdottomasti hyvää työtä, kiitoksia. Nykyisellään kelpaa jo ihan hyvin koristamaan artikkelia Hansakortteli. :) —kallerna™ 10:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moi taas! Onko kuvasta mahdollista poistaa ikkunan tuomia heijastuksia, niinkuin esimerkiksi tässä kuvassa? —kallerna™ 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teoriassa joo, mutta oon tuota itse aiemmin yrittänyt pari kertaa, ja jälki on kyllä ollut täysin onnetonta. Tuohon vois tietysti vaan röyhkeästi koittaa kloonata pahimpien heijastusten päälle uutta taivasta. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuossa kuvassa oli juuri pahimmat heijastukset, sitten on vielä monia kuvia joissa on pienempiä heijastuksia. Pystyisitkö tekemään tuosta kuvasta jonkinlaisen yrityksen, ei tosiaan haittaa kuinka laadukas lopputulos on? —kallerna™ 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Illmari,

I was looking for the copyright policy of floor plans and I found what you wrote on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Altbirnau Grundriss.jpg. Your third point exactly summarizes my current questions.

Finally, if the drawing is in fact modern, the question still remains whether it is copyrightable. IANAL, but it seems at least possible to me that any accurate floor plan drawn of the same building according to all applicable standards and conventions would end up looking essentially identical to this one, in which case by the merger doctrine the drawing would be ineligible for copyright. Also not being an architect, I can't really say anything definite about this point.

I was wondering if you now have any answer regarding this issue ? --Pethrus (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No more than I had when I wrote that, really — I'm still neither a lawyer nor an architect. :-) I'd still consider it a reasonable interpretation, based on the general principles underlying most copyright laws, that any copyright to a factually accurate floor plan, drawn using standard notation and conventions of the trade, of an old building whose copyright as an architectural work has expired, would have to be very narrow and tenuous at best. That said, different jurisdictions (and different courts within a jurisdiction) may interpret the idea-expression divide differently, and I'm not quite ready to entirely exclude the possibility than some of them might find verbatim copying of such a floor plan infringing, despite the general lack of originality in the copied work. It would help to have some references to existing case law on the matter, if and where such exists, but I don't know of any (nor have I actually looked for them).

Having written that, it did occur to me that precedents from Feist v. Rural and related cases (including Bridgeman v. Corel, which is cited in COM:ART) could perhaps be seen as supporting this interpretation, at least in the United States. However, I don't know if any court has actually applied them to cases specifically involving architectural works. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I thought, as you did, of the Bridgeman v. Corel case, and this idea of "no originality, no copyright" in the US (and I'm glad Commons server aren't here in France where there would be not be even PD-art). Do you have any idea where I should go / to who I should speak to learn more about this ? --Pethrus (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ilmari, thanks for fixing File:El Baúl 8.jpg, great work - much better than I expected. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For taking the time to fix File:El Baúl 8.jpg and so make it usable, a sincere thank you! Simon Burchell (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1909_Tyee_-_Debate_and_Oratory_illustration.png: Beautiful. Thank you. - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with Template:ID-USMil and the subpages. I always tried to get this template autotranslated but it included Incorrect ID-USMil files everytime and I had no idea how to fix that. Thanks for your help again! --D-Kuru (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

// Hide title when viewing the main page (but not when editing it or viewing the talk page)
if (wgNamespaceNumber == 0 && wgAction == "view") {
   appendCSS("#firstHeading { display: none; }");
}

I think you forgot something there, the pagetitle is hiding on all pages in the main namespace. I've reverted the actication of the script for now. –Krinkle^talk 20:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know how to fix it, but I dont have time now. Please experiment in your own MyPage/vector.js before going public. –Krinkle^talk 20:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* I thought I'd tested it thoroughly, but apparently I simply didn't notice that the title was missing on normal gallery pages. A case of inattentional blindness, I suppose. :( Anyway, I've fixed (and tested) it now. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. –Krinkle^talk 00:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've moved two scrips (MediaWiki:InterProject.js now aswell) to a seperate page. I'm not sure why you are doing this. It means 1) the script won't load untill importScript() is initialised and fired, and 2) the browser will have to excucute an additional function, insert a script in the body and download an additional file with the script in it.

Asuming you reason is to keep things central, I recommend copying scripts to MediaWiki:Common.js instead of exporting to another page and calling importScript() in Monobook.js and Vector.js.

As I'm not sure about your motivation, I'm waiting with doing that. –Krinkle^talk 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I put MediaWiki:MainPages.js on a separate page is so that it can be loaded conditionally — it's quite long (over 4 kb) and completely useless outside the main (and talk) namespaces. I'd assume (though I haven't tried to verify this) that a noticeable fraction, if not a majority, of visitors to Commons never stray outside the file and category namespaces, so having this code on a separate page ought to save bandwidth for them, and possibly even improve responsiveness on the first page view. I'll admit that that's all very conjectural, though.

For MediaWiki:InterProject.js I had no such reason — it's simply IMO easier to test code that way, since one can use the withJS parameter. Also, some versions of the code would've broken badly on skins other than the four supported ones (Vector, Modern, MonoBook and Chick), although I think that the latest version should handle unexpected skins safely (and it could always be wrapped in something like if (skin == "monobook" || skin == "vector" || skin == "modern" || skin == "chick") { ... }).

Anyway, if you feel that either or both of those scripts would be better merged to Common.js, I won't object to that. In the end, it seems to make very little difference — the script(s) are cached by the browser after the first load anyway. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ilmari Karonen/archives. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you have MIME type statistics for files that exist on enwiki (i.e. not including files that are merely transcluded from commons)? Thanks, Tisane (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it shouldn't be hard to run the bot on the enwiki database too. In fact, making the code more modular so that it could be easily run on multiple wikis has been on my "to do" list for a long time, I've just never got around to it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Original
• SVG

Hi Ilmari Karonen, can you move a little bit the star, is lightly descentered if you look the base it touchs the body of the axe, thanks for now. --Kineto007 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully to the border of the 1st and 2nd flag of the left side you will notice that they have a straight edge, in comparison with the borders of the 1st and 2nd flags from the right that have a slightly "curved" edge instead of a straight one like it should be, can you fix it please? --Kineto007 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tips of the spears are not sharp enough, like in the original. And there are many more imperfections that should be corrected, like the lines in the axe body for example. Please do not change the color it's correct, and the suns too, thanks in advance. --Kineto007 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you do the work? --Kineto007 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll have much time to work on this in the near term. (And, to be honest, this is not a job that particularly interests me.) Instead of spamming the talk pages of random editors, why don't you just let the request stay on the graphic lab page and see if anyone takes it. I do have it on my watchlist, you know, and I expect so do most people that contribute there. Or, you know, if you feel too impatient for that, you could just download Inkscape and fix it yourself. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to this edit: Facebook.

See also User talk:Justass/2010#Strange filename. –Krinkle^talk 13:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Now that I know what to search for, I did some digging myself, and it seems the actual pattern is \d+_\d+_\d+_\d+_\d+_[tsn]\.jpg, where the letter gives the size and the third and fourth groups of digits are the ID and PID respectively. Apparently, there's also an older(?) format matching [tsn]\d+_\d+_\d+\.jpg, where the ID and PID are the first two groups.

I added both regexps to the blacklist now, but given how nice and informative these file names are, I'm now wondering if it might be better to just let them through and log them with the Abuse Filter instead. That might help us catch some lazy copyviolators. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I came to your talk page because I was worried the new title blacklist rule might actually help copyright violators get under the radar, but I see you've thought of that too. It would be great if the Abuse Filter solution could be implemented, as those images are copyright violations 99% of the time. –Tryphon^☂ 15:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun the work of setting this up - right now, it's pretty much a clone of PotD, but we can pretty easily work from that (and it's not like the current setup is much different, if you removed the brokenness). The next step is deciding aesthetics - I've set up a discussion at Template talk:New Motd. Once we've decided on Aesthetics, it should be fairly easy to get everything in, and then we just need to do the PotD/MotD combined page (for translation). Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Template:New_Potd/2010-05. It's a rough mockup. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good (enough) to me. :) Haven't really poked at the internals yet, but on the surface it looks OK. That's a scary number of transclusions, though... but I guess it can't really be avoided. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut it down to as few as possible. It's why parts of it are hard coded.Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what do you think of asking to use June as a test month for the new PotD/MotD system? I think we have workable code right now - it needs prettied up, of course, but that shouldn't be too bad - and a test would be useful for finding out if there's going to be issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ilmari, I've provided more info concerning the deletion of this file. I would appreciate if you read my newer comments. --84.72.0.237 17:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Merkur train.jpg - Was it really necessary? So you can continue and apply this practice on thousands other files on common. I think that the label from W.Rebel alias Hapesoft had nothing to do with protection of human rights but it had quite different reason. --PetrS. (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but surely you'll agree that the image is better now for having the irrelevant background cropped away? If not, feel free to revert it — it's a wiki, you can do that. I would suggest trying to look at the matter from a neutral perspective first, though: there's no use in keeping an inferior image just to spite someone you disagree with. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I anonymise persons on the pictures, I want to let there an atmosphere of the exhibition. User:Hapesoft alias User:W.Rebel has no relation to these persons, he has only problem with me because I permanently repair their mistakes in articles cs:Vykolejení and cs:Průjezd obloukem - if you want see discussions at this articles, although you do not understand czech, watch the lenghty and frequency. He does not understand this problematic very well - this confirmed me some people from czech railway research institute (VUZ). Human rights - this is only one part of their revenge. --PetrS. (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything that you did on Commons and the support that you gave me! --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ilmari. I was wondering if you could restoreFile:Edwin McMasters Stanton Secretary of War.jpg? This file is in pretty bad condition, and the damage is very visible. Please restore from the original .tiff file. Thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that went pretty well. 3 weeks to completely revamp a major part of the site, from seeking permission to apparent end point =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I converted JP2s into PNGs, but the PNGs are so large that they don't display thumbnails.

Do you suggest JPGs? If so, what free program is the best one that converts images without loss of color information? WhisperToMe (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JPEG should work in that case, yes. Any image editor that understands both formats should do for the conversion — they all use basically the same code for JP2 decoding and JPEG encoding, and there are no special tricks (that I know of, anyway) for doing it faster or with fewer losses than the usual way. The best you can do when saving is set quality to maximum (usually 100) and turn off chroma subsampling (or set it to 1:1:1). Also turn off blurring, if such an option is given, and save in normal rather than progressive order. (The image scaling code doesn't particularly like progressive JPEGs.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]