This is an archive page. Please do not edit anything here. It will be reverted.
If you need something from this page, please cut and paste it onto the main talk page.

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.

Hi, I saw you closed the MfD for WP:RfA. Not having a go at you for that, but if you were serious about closing it (I'm assuming you were), then you might want to remove the MfD tag from the top of the RfA page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what your doing or who you are trying to prove but all of my images were orphaned because you made them orphaned. Also DASHBot has removed your tag because I rolledback your edits to Ellison Greenslade. Ithink it was vandalism for you to remove the image from the article and then put the image up for deletion when you clearly took the image off the article. And I will correct the non free image right now. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 21:05, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are orphaned because I removed them. I removed them because they are a violation of Wikipedia fair use policy. I tried to make that very clear. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read WP:ROLLBACK. It is for only vandalism. Other uses of it could end up with that flag being removed. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied your e-mail statement for my talk page. I will change it a bit. I put the note on just to say. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at WT:FSC. One of my Miller center files is up for deletion at commons. You had said this was one of many and that if one was deleted a ton of Miller center files will have to be deleted from WP:FS. I assume it is an important discussion for the project. Just making sure you look for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no that's just a documentation issue, not a copyright one. I addressed it at the deletion discussion on commons. In short, the video is PD (it says so at the website of the Kennedy Library, again linked at the Commons discussion) it just doesn't say so at the Miller site. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most unpleasant FSC ever? Still, I think it has a point. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that was a terrible idea. Here's why:

• More descriptive filenames are preferred by policy. In particular, "1941 State of the Union - Edit 1" is largely incomprehensible, but "State of the Union (Four Freedoms speech), January 6, 1941 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt" gives a good idea of what it is and who did it. One could simplify a lot more than I prefer without ending up with as generic and non-informative of a filename as you came up with. For example "Roosevelt's 1941 Four Freedoms State of the Union.ogg" is at least identifiable as to content for someone who doesn't have the 200 or so State of the Union addresses memorised by year.
• If you ARE going to force horribly simple names, don't include a hyphen. Dashes are only excusable in a longer filename; in a short one, you get all the risk of some idiot coming in and turning it into an en-dash, breaking the link, without the benefits of it doing anything useful.
• If you have a problem with long filenames, you have several thousand uploads by me to deal with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:U.S. Air Force Band - Robert Browne Hall - Veni, Vidi Vici.ogg

I missed a comma. Should be File:U.S. Air Force Band - Robert Browne Hall - Veni, Vidi, Vici.ogg

In the future, you can use Template:Rename media template and a friendly neighborhood file mover or admin will help you. That or... well you could keep doing this. At least four file movers seem to be watching my page, not including myself. I'll do it right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - That'll cost you more than you can possibly imagine though. Gwah ha ha ha ha! Sven Manguard Wha?

Oh, hey, Sven. Get on IRC. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How ominous.... Sven Manguard Wha? 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me if this file is available for use on Wikipedia. It states here, the only place the photo was used, that it was a handout. Thanks. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) •21:16, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

My answer would be no. Per the fair use criteria, the image would have to have contextual significance (NFCC #8), which this does not have in the article where it would be placed (i.e. the article for InSecurity.) Also, it is not a better image than the one currently used to illustrate the cast, so it fails NFCC #3-a as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article where it is to be used is not actually an article yet. It is a userspace draft here. I was not planning to upload it yet because it fair use and a bot would remove it from the userspace.

Generally it's a good idea to give the people you want help from all the information you have up front. You'll get better answers that way. That aside, I'd still not use that image. It's not particularly illustrative of the characters, generally portraits are used when images are used at all. I also prefer not to use non-free images on list pages at all, because then the whole limited use thing goes out the window. Either way, I'm a tad on the conservative end when it comes to fair use. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the template everywhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See if that fixed it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no file there. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new version of File:Remarks upon Signing the Civil Rights Bill (July 2, 1964) Lyndon Baines Johnson.theora.ogv has been posted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...that you're in a Wiki essay? :p WP:DGAF, I was reading it by chance and I lol'd. Just thought you might like to know if you didn't already. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I'm immortal. The only issue is that the context is all wrong. If I remember that correctly, I was putting that in because I was on the fence about the issues (and poking fun of Tofu). Either way, leave it in, it's humorous. I'm just going on the record to say I definitely did give a fuck when I said that. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't tell anyone, it'll probably always be there... at least until some big shake up of some sort for this encyclopedia that will probably be corporate where they decide to delete tons of stuff for whatever reason. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this site decides to 'go corporate', most everyone will leave en-masse. We already have enough questionable directives that we have to follow that were put forth by WMF, and they're a nonprofit foundation. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, one would like that, but they would probably find some way to hold on to newbies and guys who only care about looking good as editors. All the good people would probably leave though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? One would like what? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One would like it to be the case that if the whole project became corporatised, most people would leave, and that would serve as a major deterrent against such an action by Wiki. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my newest. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you handle this? I'm going to bed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll inform the performers. I suppose they will be glad. Paterm (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See new file at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get:

Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Ross's_Reel Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/delist-replace/Houston,_we_have_a_problem Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/Suite_du_Premier_Ton (maybe) Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/State of the Union Address (January 27, 2010) Barack Obama

Best to clear out as many as we can =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't close stuff, closing stuff takes too long, and I have papers to write and finals to study for. I only came in here to find sources. I've already been dragged back into closings before I wanted to, I don't want to get sucked into Wikipedia during finals period. The best I can do is rubber stamp the procedure (preform step 1) and only if you really need me to. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Take what time you need. I'll ask Bloodnok or someone. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sven, I was wondering if you could do an A-Class Review on the Frank Buckles article. User:HJ Mitchell was reviewing the article, but his computer is "on the blink" and I have talked to him by email and he says it is going to be a few before it is fixed. If you can give it a look-see, I would appreciated it, but if you can't, that's cool too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am the wrong man for the job.

a) I am not a good reviewer. I will catch image/media related criteria better than many, but am much worse at style/content/quality/writing related criteria.

b) I am really not a fan of the A rating in general. I think "start" and "B" are useful for targeting purposes, GA is kinda useful but horribly broken/corrupt, and FA is a good standard helplessly lost in bureaucracy and controlled by a small and insular cult. Other than "start", "B", and "FA" (which I would rename to 3, 2, and 1 respectively) I see no purpose in the other rating systems.

c) I am wholely unfamiliar with the subject matter. I'd be willing to learn if it were within my sphere of interests, but it is not, as far as I can tell by a quick skim.

Good luck though, if you ever need something more in my line of skills, give me a ring.

Sven Manguard Wha? 06:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) I'm not a great reviewer either. :) I have a couple requests into other editors, so I will find someone. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that User:Nick-D is going to be the substitute reviewer. If you wish to give the article a quick once-over and let me know of anything that needs fixed, please feel free. All are welcome. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no biggie.^^ Could also have happened to me. Besides, the whole thing would have been easier anyway if someone wouldn't have already had the glorious idea to add the results table as well... Oh well. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look... QPR are not definitely (or in other words, mathematically) in yet, as Norwich as current third-placed team can still catch them! Sorry man, but I think I will have to revert your edits for now... :-( --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, I was just going off of the table, where the (Q) was already in place. I should have done the numbers. All that effort wasted... Sven Manguard Wha? 08:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's almost impossible. Honestly, perhaps it's best to wait 24 hours. QPR hasn't played their week 42 game yet, if they win or draw today/tommorow, then it does become numerically impossible for them not to qualify. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, does it? They currently have an eight-point lead over Norwich with four matches to go, so I don't see their promotion guaranteed yet even if they would win their match today – unless there is a scheduling quirk of some sort, of course... *scratches head* --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My calculations were faulty. Even if QPC wins their game 42, that only puts them 11 points up. Putting the QPC information in hiding <!-- and --> still makes more sense with their lead, but yes, you're right on this one. I trusted the (Q) without verifying it, and it turned out wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, my involvement in this issue is now over. Enough already. Stop posting about it here. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

if you like to prepare more UEFA domestic season articles (decent job on the Eredivisie article, by the way ^^), I would suggest to take care of the redirects for Israel, Turkey and, on a less urgent scale, Romania... but really only if you like to, I don't want to push you into things... :-) Cheers, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think I'll have the time. France was still waiting to be created as well, although I held off because only two teams were secured at the time, if I remember correctly. I'll be around next weekend to update stuff, I suppose, but I really need to be spending my time preparing for finals. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on ebay. It appears to be from 1913, accordig to http://victor.library.ucsb.edu/index.php/matrix/detail/200013778/C-13522-Kol_Nidre

Think it's worth getting? Do we have anyone with a USB record player? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a USB record player, but I won't be at home for a few months. Also, I'm not spending $25 to get the record, and if someone else buys it, I'm not giving anyone my address. I suppose then that I am the wrong person to ask on that. It does raise a few interesting ideas for featured sound acquisition though. I will look for records over the summer and see if I can find something like that. Speaking of Jewish sounds, did BoP ever get back to us? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you're done could you close: Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Attention, there's unanimous support to promote and it's been there for ~8 days. Cheers Sven, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:36am • 00:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article "Ecliptic coordinate system," the sun does not travel across the "sky" in the course of a year. The sun travels across the "sky" from east to west once a day. It makes a circuit of the "celestial sphere," with respect to the fixed stars, in the course of a year. 70.179.92.117 (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Universe is not a sphere and the stars are not fixed in place, they just move very slowly from our perspective. Saying that the Sun makes a circuit does not make much sense, rather from our perspective as a planet orbiting Sol, it appears to make a circuit I guess. I think for the Sun to actually revolve around the Galaxy itself (a galactic year), it takes much much longer. Sven, did you edit this article? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I understand that, my question is where the heck did this come from? I assume I must have reverted something constructive (i.e. got a false positive). Sven Manguard Wha? 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was directing that all at the IP except the last bit. Sheesh Sven, just because it's your talkpage doesn't always mean it's about you (jk =p). 'Tis possible, best to look at your contributions, or better yet, let this fellow do it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am... incredibly confused. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have included the beginning of the conversation, that started it all, from my talk page. Here it is:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ecliptic coordinate system with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[Side question: Is there an easier way to carry on a conversation, rather than copying stuff from one talk page to another?]

Anyway, the edit in question was my change of "sky" to "celestial sphere" in the following sentence from the opening paragraph:

The ecliptic is the path that the sun appears to follow across the sky over the course of a year.

I contend (as stated above) that the sun does not travel across the "sky" in the course of a year. The sun travels across the "sky" from east to west once a day. It makes a circuit of the "celestial sphere," with respect to the [approximately] fixed stars, in the course of a year.

Sir William seems to object to the concept of "celestial sphere," and that is perhaps a separate discussion, but the article itself uses the phrase in the very next sentence, and I think it is an accepted concept in astronomy. 70.179.92.117 (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am not involved in that article, I've never been there before I reverted your change, I probably will never be there afterwards. What I was doing was using Huggle to patrol recent edits looking for vandalism. I assume what happened is that I say you change "sky" to "celestial sphere", thought you were being silly rather than serious, and reverted the change. It would appear I misjudged the situation, and I'm sorry if this caused you any trouble. You don't have to explain anything else to me, just make the change again and explain in the edit summary that you're putting in "more accurate terminology" or something like that. Meanwhile, I'm really not involved with that article, hence all the confusion. Good luck, keep up the good work, and if I ever make a mistake like this again, just drop me a message. I rarely do Huggling, only a few times a month generally, so chances are I won't come across you for a while though. Again, apologies for the misunderstanding. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 03:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten on the Keys

---

Problems playing this file? See media help.

I won't tell you the silliness I had to go through to do it, but I *did* remove more clicks.

Very good. Please see my note at WT:FSC, where I specifically ask not to be contacted regarding Featured Sounds. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] and WP:AOHA. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Fences&Windows, "Go away." Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "... especially if Jimbo had anything to do with this". The Lacroix watches campaign is no secret, and was publicized at the time in various ad-agency blogs, as well as, err, Other Forums Which Shall Remain Nameless. It's even mentioned in his own article. Regarding "how much money he's getting as our speaker", his asking price is $50,000 - $75,000 last I saw, down from "above $75,000" a while a back. That's public info which has been mentioned in various places. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well then. I still want it out of his mouth, in public, so we can all make informed decisions as to how we want to handle it. A majority of Wikipedians don't read those "Other Forums Which Shall Remain Nameless", however if he were to report this on his talk page, well, I predict a reckoning. I don't believe Jimbo should leave Wikipedia, but there are a fair number of people that do, and number would grow if awareness of this issue were increased. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't follow. Why would there be a reckoning? Of what? Here's another ad-blog article on the Lacroix endorsement: "A new kind of brand ambassadors" . This all happened more than a year ago. Walking a line between being coy and self-promoting, I wrote an article myself the concept of (you said it, not me!) "Somehow it feels like we're doing all this work for free and Jimbo is making out with bags of cash based on our success", it's "Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says". That was more than two years ago. There might be some harsh comments in a discussion on his talk page if this flares up - but truly, I can't see a reaction amounting to anything more than that. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Jimbo Wales exists in a strange place on Wikipedia. On the one hand, he wants to be seen as a regular editor. On the other hand, he can overturn decisions made by ArbCom, his talk page is a forum for disputes, foundation questions, resignations, and other random stuff that exists on no one else's pages, and he has a bunch of roles that are no longer clearly defined, like his role in the ArbCom elections. What I'm hoping for is that the community throws up its hands and decides exactly what Jimbo is and is not exptect to be able to do. Can he overrule ArbCom? Can he overrule the ArbCom election results? Can his talk page be used as a warzone? Can he use his connection to Wikipedia for personal profit? Does he still have the support to speak for the community? Should the Founder flag be removed or restructured? Jimbo is the epitome of grey areas on Wikipedia, and I want solid, explicit resolutions to these issues. There's too much "default to yes because I said so" involved. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good luck with your efforts, and I certainly wish you well in resolving such matters. But my past experience in having raised various matters even in published articles sadly inclines me to cynicism. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, between this conversation and the emails I've gotten from several prominent users, well... let's just say that I am not a member of the "Jimbo has to go" camp. I've long held that every time he weighs in on an issue on Wikipedia, it polarizes the issue, which promptly spins out of control and becomes unsolvabe (therefore his touching of the RfA issue makes me apprehensive). Now I think he's unethical. Wikipedia will be better off if he severs all ties with the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. I did an ad campaign which promoted Wikipedia around the world, particularly in China where we need it badly, and ensured that all the money went to charity. Based on this, you call me unethical? Forgive me for being amused.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to be or say you are, the truth is that you are a community leader. There are three related properties that make a good community leader that are at issue here. One, you must know how your actions affect the community. Two, you must consistently communicate effectively with the community. Three, you must be able to push and protect your message.

For a long time I have felt that you don't fully appreciate how your involvement in pressing issues effects those issues. Take Pending Changes. The discussion on PC not only involves PC itself, but your endorsement of it, with sizable groups both supporting it and opposing it on the grounds of that endorsement. Were I you, recognizing that my imput was polarizing and distracted from the issues being discussed, I would stay away from pressing issues and let the community work them out. Instread you jumped into the RfA mess recently. If you put forth an idea, a camp will spring up and say "So sayeth Jimbo, so we shall do" and another camp will spring up and say "Jimbo's word is not law" and those two camps will dominate the discussion while the issue at hand becomes a tool of the debate, rather than the focus of it.

As to the second point, while your page has an open door policy, I waited for several days for a response and did not get one. Other people mentioned other things, but the core issue was not addressed. I appreciate that other things were happening. Had the incident with the watches not come into play, I'm sure that both my interpretation of the time spent waiting and your eventual response would have been different.

However the issue with the watches did come into play. I, being completely unaware of the situation, did not know the background to it. Yes, I responded with shock and anger, yes, I did assume the worst, and I should not have done so. In all honesty, my view was colored by my already strained view of you because of the PC/RfA thing. However at the same time, I got three emails, one from a 'top 40' contributor, as well as the response by Seth here, before I heard anything of the altruistic motivations or that the proceeds were going to charity. I got ahead of the facts, but then my fears were validated, all before anyone rose to your defense on the issue.

I apologize for calling you unethical. The recent revelations on your motivation and on the destination of the proceeds fundamentally change my view of the situation. I also apologize for my general impatience in these issues, and for not waiting to hear your side of the story. I am still uneasy about your role in Wikipedia, I am still apprehensive about your involvement in high profile matters such as RfA, and I still believe that the community will strangle the life out of Wikipedia before we can print off the Wikipedia is 20 tee shirts. I should not have let these things manifest as an attack on you. For the sake of reconciliation I will push those issues on you, at least not now. I'll think I'll stay away from your page for a while though, I don't want this to flare up again.

And thank you for the reading material. I'll look at it soon.

Here's to hoping things all work out for the best. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very hesitant to post this, given Wales's immunity from WP:NPA and tendency to respond to tough but fair criticism by lashing-out. However, regarding "that the proceeds were going to charity", would it change your evaluation to know that the charity Civilination is created and run by a woman once described as "his lovely girlfriend"? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That connection, and the extent to which it promotes him, matters to me in terms of considering motivation. But, given the sensitivities, I'll leave it at that. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Perhaps an explanation would be in order. I knew who you were before you posted here. I don't share your views, and I don't particularly respect the way you interact with Wikipedia and with the media. So, suffice to say that I was fully aware of the fact that you had an agenda in your postings here, and my decisions were influenced much more heavily by other people who contacted me than they were by your postings. I could have chased you away, but I was interested in the contrarian opinion. However, at this point, your usefulness is heavily outweighed by your bias, and so I will do exactly that; I will ask you to leave me alone.

I am a Wikipedian. My apprehension towards Jimbo is based off of a desire to see what is best for the project. Your goals and my goals are in fundamental conflict. Ultimately, you will find any attempt to dissuade me from my position on Wikipedia to be an exercise in futility.

As to the issue of the choice in charities, I do follow politics, I know that donations to charities, especially by high profile figures, are often personally or politically motivated, so it does not surprise me that Jimbo would donate to a friend's charity. I'm more concerned with the overhead costs and the work being done a charity than I am about who owns it or who donates to it.

Sven Manguard Wha? 00:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned. (I was unnecessarily harsh here, given your apology. But still, please don't delete things from my talk page.) Your perception of my role in Wikipedia is really wrong, and especially of my involvement in Pending Changes. I am very very far from being a divisive figure in Wikipedia - I am generally criticized by serious Wikipedians for not being divisive enough - I tend to work very hard to find a middle ground that can help us move forward productively. People who don't stop to think for a minute and really observe me are not helpful - so please stop and think for a minute and observe my actual behavior and actual positions before lashing out at me and others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the implications of your statement. I consider myself to be a "serious Wikipedian" and I while I concede that I have rarely seen your direct actions, I've seen enough of the results to have a well formed opinion. Whatever your intentions are when you weigh in on issues, you're involvement becomes a factor. Finally, while I understand that I've stepped on your toes, I backed off, and you haven't. I'm not going to ask for an apology, but I would appreciate it if you recognized that I've already cooled my tone and if you decided to follow suit. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I deleted from your talk page was a form message by a SPA attack sock troll. That's all I deleted. I've seen the same form message seven times now, and all seven accounts blocked as SPA attack account socks. Whomever it is has tried unsuccessfully to get me to believe it was Malleus F. (I know it isn't) and has now moved on to pretending to be an established user by coping the pages and signature templates of other users. It's all being handled well enough by the checkusers, but all that posting was designed to do was piss me off and derail the conversation. I'm apathetic towards the sockpuppeter, I removed the post so it wouldn't accomplish the second goal. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.

Finals.

See you in five days.

Sven Manguard.

P.S.

Might do image size reductions during study breaks.

Not really active.

Will just appear so.

Please only contact on emergency basis.

Sven Manguard.

You call this not being active? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks there. Actually, yes, I do. Mind you it's my period of heaviest activity, but if you look at where it is, it's in image work. Too few people watch/care about image work, so I can go unnoticed for long periods of time. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well I know about the image stuff, but still, when I see not really active, I expect it to mean overall. :p And I see you all the time on my watchlist for proposals. :p Idk bro, if I had finals I would have my nose in the books a bit more, wikidrama is distracting after all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a busy couple of weeks, and I'm just now following up to your response to my comment regarding the Miller Center's videos, and determining which can be reproduced freely. (Sorry for the delay!) As I said, I don't speak for the Miller Center, so since you contacted somebody here, you've almost certainly got the best response. That said, I'm not really sure who you talked to here, but the best person to talk to is Sheila Blackford, who told me that she hadn't received such a query. Why don't you call or e-mail her? Whatever she tells you is bound to be right. :) She works from 9 AM–3 PM EST. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful, Sven—I'm just a programmer, and am neither a spokesperson nor do I have anything to do with the acquisition of new materials. I just happen to be a long-time Wikipedia contributor. :) --WaldoJ (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember when I called, but I remember where I called from, so my best guess to when is that it was on a Tuesday or a Friday either right before noon or right after 1:30PM EST, and based on when I made the posts here, Friday April 8th is the best guess for the date. I played phone bounce, calling plausible looking numbers until I got a human. The first person I got a hold of directed me towards Sheila Blackford, after I had already got her voice mail (I didn't leave a message, I don't think.) The second person, the Governor's administrative assistant, directed me towards Michael Greco after I told her that I had been unable to reach several other people. Michael Greco was the one that told me that he source of the recordings was presidential libraries, and that the Miller Center would not independently state that the recordings were PD, they had to trust the libraries.

I will be unable to contact Sheila Blackford until after Thursday, at the earliest. I will try to do so soon though. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Michael Greco is Sheila's (and my) boss, and held Sheila's job before she did, so he knows everything that she does! So must rescind my prior statement—apparently you talked to the right person. :) Though there'd be no harm in talking to her, I suspect she'd just tell you what Mike said. I'm sorry for the confusion here! I must say, though, that the confusion reflects the reality of the state of copyright and reuse of many of these materials. It's frustratingly difficult to ascertain which presidential materials are in private hands—I'm going to need to set up a database here to track all of our in-house use of such assets, so that we have an internal record of the copyright status that is part of our asset management system. --WaldoJ (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do that and you're willing to share, that would be wonderful, as it would help us to feel sure that the files we have marked as PD are in fact PD. We're also, no offense to your organization, looking to find versions of the videos we already from the Miller Center that do not have the orange watermarks in them. We're more than willing to give credit to the Miller Center, but those watermarks are rather distracting, and are placed in such a way as to make croping them out difficult (which, of course, is the idea of watermarks). If you have any ideas that, that would be wonderful too. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sven. Just thought you would like to know that you have a typo in the header of your latest version of File:Top_Wikipedians_compared_to_the_rest_of_the_community.png. It says "Compated," not "Compared."--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dealt with. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope you read my comment in the immature, sarcastic tone with which it was intended. If I had an eloquent quote that bettered 'Pot calling kettle black' I would have used it instead Jebus989^✰ 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the irony completely. Will correct for it now. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Sven!

I appreciate your reply, especially to my somewhat presumptuous comment, which was not intended as an accusation that you had misrepresented MF.

I voiced a wish that some words had been said to moderate the howls of outrage, etc.

I can imagine that regular statements by the community, by the "loyal opposition" (past critics of MF) on his behalf, may be a good way to reduce the frequency and the intensity of the expressions of hostility and irritation by MF.

Standing up for past adversaries is a good practice, regardless of outcome, because such statements on behalf of fairness are good for the community spirit.

Don't worry about replying. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't forsee myself standing up for Malleus any time in the near future. I stand up for good people, the kinds of people I've seen him go after. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would fully support such a proposal. I agree that there are issues regarding common users' knowledge on files, and such a proposal would have benefits. I guess it would allow a place for those familiar with more technical details to be able to communicate with one another. If you do plan on making such a suggestion, then you have my full backing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sven, after the fuss over Vote.svg the other day I started work on a bot to notify us of deletions and things on Commons. Seeing as this is something you gave input on before, I'd love to have your views on this bot (and any ideas for extending functionality) at the VP thread and the BRFA. Cheers --Errant ^(chat!) 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may take it to AFD if you think he does not meet the notability guidelines. I have no objections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to take it to deletion, but I suppose I will if that's the best the article is going to get. I was hoping you had more for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a question at the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production level is important. I guess that means we could not use this for a rehersal performance. However, you have not clarified my confusion. I hope I have now made my confusion clear with my latest question.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took a long time to write out, but it's there now. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Segrete is notable enough to have been profiled in a number of major newspapers. I've added references to her article from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the New York Daily News, and the New York Times; all are articles about her. There are others in Google News Archives, but those three were free and they settle the question of her notability.

Thanks for AFDing the article; that was a horribly referenced BLP, and without AFD it would have continued as such. I wish I could find as good references for Tom Kraeutler, but I'm not finding much. --NellieBly (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's odd is that I really did do a search for this person, the only hits in 'news' were PR releases. Ah well, you're clearly better at this type of thing than I am. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an annoying quirk of Google News: you have to click on Archives to find anything over a month old. Worse, your search results can differ depending on whether you are at google.com, google.ca, or google.somewhere-else. Anyway, thanks for AFDing it so we could get some good references in there! --NellieBly (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks a ton. I didn't know about 'Archives' at all. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I didn't mean to claim credit for your idea of using an edit notice, rather I just wanted to agree that it's a good idea. If you like, your input at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 41/Archives/ 24#Bot to create edit notices for British English articles would be appreciated. :-) Regards SoWhy 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, I was just pulling your leg. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That TreasuryTag opposes you is enough to convince me that you're a net positive. Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Any such further instances will be immediately reported to WP:WQA and/or WP:ANI. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That warning, coming from you, means nothing. If other people find it sufficient to comment on it, then I might consider it a problem, but you have shown terrible judgment on an incredibly frequent basis, and I have had nothing but unpleasant interactions with you. You will have to excuse me then if I find that your judgment so flawed that it in and of itself gives me reason to add credence to opposing arguments. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done," (italics copied from original). That seems pretty clear to me. If you choose not to take the warning seriously, that's entirely up to you, but it still stands, especially its second sentence. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 08:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in the same paragraph you took that from it gives a (non exhaustive) list of personal attacks. Things such as outing or bigoted comments are very much different form expressing that you feel that an editor has terrible judgment. In my case, that is my opinion of you. I could have called you pond scum, or insulted your intelligence, or picked on some biological trait of yours railed you on that. I did none of that, instead, I commented on your judgment, a subjective opinion, but one relevant to the discussion. Could it have been worded more directly? Yes, I could have said "TreasuryTag has appalling judgment and a history of battleground behavior, and as such, I find his opposition to this RfA to be a factor in and of itself for me to give the benifit of the doubt to the candidate." That, however, would more than likely have still wound up with you coming to my page to threaten retaliation.

As I said the last time you came to my page "go away". Nothing conductive will ever come of you being here. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coast looks clear. That's good. I'll be away for a day or so, well not totally away, but only around for a few minutes every few hours. Let's please not continue this. I'll refrain from talking about you in the future if you agree to drop this and not come back to my userpage for a while. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a live new source. Please do not add live updates to articles pertaining to sporting events as you did with 2010–11 UEFA Champions League. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wonderful template warning. I, however, waited for the game to end before placing in the winner or final scores in. As for putting Pedro's goal into the top scorers section, he scored the goal, so that event happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issues concerning fair use imagery of works of art have been argued and discussed for more than five years now. The use of images to depict contemporary art necessitates the use of Fair use imagery. This has been discussed for years. I am aware of the complexities, in those articles that you have recently noticed the Fair use imagery unfortunately represents the only way to depict the art of painting since 1923. We are trying to replace fair use with public domain at every opportunity...Modernist (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be holding a massive audit soon of the Western Art pages. This will consist of:

a) Fixing the FURs. Half of the images have FURs that don't correspond to the pages they are on, none of them that I saw were properly informative furs.

b) Image cleanup. Some of the images are too large. I go on resizing binges from time to time. I've done every non-free Dungeons and Dragons image, non-free every fictional rabbit image, every non-free Bjork image, and western art is next.

c) There will likely be more deletion requests, although this time in smaller numbers. I count two on my radar now. One is just massively screwed up license wise, I can't find where it came from, TinEye can't find it, and it's released PD but has a FUR. It's really not used much either, and can be replaced. The other is just a blatantly redundant image.

d) I'll be taking a few images to an expert, who may or may not say that the painting itself doesn't actually meet the threshold of originality for copyright, and therefore would become PD. The dangers of painting a solid colored square...

I will ring you up if I have any questions. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you need my help, just ask...Modernist (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what your issue is, but your noms all focused (insofar as they had focus) on the pages with the weakest FU rationales, when to justify a deletion you need to focus on the the pages with the strongest rationales first. But you also need to think how the art of the last few decades is to be illustrated, when almost everything is in copyright. This is not an area like some branded stuff where all images can just be removed. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections were more varied than others. In many cases, a section used four or even six or eight fair-use images where half as many would have sufficed. As for the issue of focus (veiled insult in parens ignored) upon reflection you are absolutely right, that was my bad entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your reply, I left mine there. Regards, --Elitre (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please shoot me an email sometime over the next few days. I have some things about FS that may need your approval. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 03:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Revert me if you want to still be a director though your irc comments don't seem to back this us. Diff 1 Diff 2 --Guerillero | My Talk 20:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment here I think you are being rude. If you've got so many suitable replacement images in mind, why don't you name them. Jehochman ^Talk 17:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I wasn't trying to offend. I responded there. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to create the tool I mentioned on my talk page? Might be better for you than running a book report job in user space (which would take longer). Noom _talk ^stalk 02:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the tool is on my talk page. Noom _talk ^stalk 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will test it on Western painting immediately! Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sven, just a gentle reminder. FFU no longer uses the old AFC archive templates. The new templates are: {{subst:ffu d}} or {{subst:ffu a}} for declining and accepting requests, respectively and {{subst:ffu b}} for wrapping the request. Thanks, —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:02pm • 09:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but FFU template doesn't have the same selection of templates. I intend on fixing that soon, however in the mean time, I needed the "Succeded" template. Actually there are a couple that warrant copying over. Mass moderated decline and an "already on Commons" (which is what I used succeeded for) come to mind. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any extra thoughts on the images bot? So far that is two "central" notifications that hopefully have been beneficial (good fix on the latter), so I am hopeful that we will see a net benefit if approved.

Secondly; that agreement on VPM was still available in the history despite the oversighting of some edits. I don't know exactly what went on there (I did read what was posted because it has my name in it :)) and who oversighted it (or why) but on good faith I RevDel'd the remaining revisions containing the text. That's the limit of my abilities, so if it needs to be oversighted raise it with the relevant people :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back. Errr... the only thing I can think of for the image bots thing is that it'd be even better if we got the notification when the deletion request was posted, rather than when the deletion went though. That would allow us to prepare ahead of time. Meanwhile, the Hawaii thing was just excellent compared to what was happening before, as it dramatically reduces the image down time for Wikipedia.

I will have a new page for those notices to post to soon. I'll try and remember to give you a heads up when that page goes online. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely give me a heads up on the new page, that will be great. r.e. the nominations thing, I have part written the code to parse out that information. But till now my main focus has been on stabilising the core code so it can do notifications right. If approval goes through in the next couple of days I can get it sorted over the weekend :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sven_Manguard --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it's fine. I know it's hard sometimes to calculate whether a team has promoted or not. It was very clear that Betis was going to promote anyway, but we can not make something happen until it is a mathematical fact. You did a good job though and I really appreciate it when people try to contribute. Many thanks for your help and sorry if I've been too harsh on the promotion ; Qampunen (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here was that I thought that all of the teams has played 38 games, however the team in fifth playing only 37 made my math invalid. You were not too harsh on me, really. Since you explained your reasoning in the edit summary I was able to figure out what was going on, see that you were right, and move on. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

VoxLuna (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"[06:50] <Sven_Manguard> Chzz, can you do a similar list for files starting in IMG and see if that's also a problem?"

• User:Chzz/img0511

HTH,  Chzz  ►  14:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May god help us all... at least I'll have something to do from now until the sun is a smoldering lump of coal... thanks for running the list. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have a similiar script to do this tedious task? ;) And didn't you started the discussion :poke:--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/rolls eyes/ There is a script. I don't use the script, because I do more than the script does. I am also fully aware of the fact that I asked for this to be run. This is something I've worked on intermittently for months. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you'd be able to help out with an image-related issue here could you? Thanks. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Handled. Details at the link. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. I always figure that in cases where it's best to ask someone who knows better, you do just that (rather than blundering about trying to figure it out yourself, messing up, and letting time get wasted). =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 22:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to files, I'm one of the "someone who knows better" people. If I can't help you, I know who can. Feel free to drop in as often as needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I figured as much, just need to find the right balance between using teamwork and having other people do my work for me. =p Thanks, will do, lord knows there's enough file issues on these things. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Experience is a good teacher. Work long enough in one area and soon you find people seeing you as an expert in that area.

If you stumble upon a massive cache of files that all need work, message me, as I can power through most image related problems at a high rate of speed while maintaining quality of work. For example, the current mess than I am waist deep in is DSC and IMG image name renamings. There are about 2700 to go though. Even the ones that other people renamed I still am going through to flush out. Ah, masochism. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's about the gist of what I told my gf today with regard to mathematics during my daily pep talk with her. =)

Lol, sure thing. I don't think I'll need to deal with that many, but I might be dealing with one that is an image of an Akkadian name and a few that are pics of my dog for the Finnish Spitz article and I don't know anything about img copyright procedure. xD Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you are taking pictures of your dog, then you get to set the license and copyright isn't really an issue. If you're uploading other people's images, and those images are not explicitly released under a free license, or if you're taking pictures of something that isn't free, say a painting in a gallery (assuming that painting is not old enough that the copyright expired) then you are dealing with copyright, and therefore the images must meet the standards at WP:NFCC, and must have a Fair Use Rationale (FUR). The Wikipedia upload wizard will walk you though uploading both free and fair use images, I think it's rather well done.

Of course if you need help feel free to ask. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a summary about what we just went through to ANI? Thanks a lot for explaining! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 00:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry I couldn't help more. My advice, if you do get topic banned, is to keep looking for good images, bring them to other people that work in files, ask them to check your work, and then ask them to upload for you. It won't show up in your edit history, true, but if they acknowledge it came from you during the upload, and you keep track of your success stories, you can come back in a few months to AN/I and say "Look at this, I've learned. I can now be trusted." Sven Manguard Wha? 23:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if they don't :( Thx for your help anyways, I learned a lot of NFCC! --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored to. Message me again if you need anything else. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured sounds was booming with activity in the March/April period, ideally that should be all the time. FS has been a battleground at times, however, it is my hope that that is in the past. I ask you all to reconsider your positions and set aside the differences you may have had with other participants for the good of the project and encyclopedia. Don't let FS become like VP, it is a path that a featured process should traverse. You were sent this message because you are listed at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Contributors or have been a past contributor.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Featured sound candidates at 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

No. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe sven. I had no idea this was being sent out. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. It says that this was Ancient Apparition's doing. I suppose it was a good enough idea, but I'm not heading back to FS in the foreseeable future. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be my mentor for non-free images? Please leave me a {{talkback}} if you reply here. Thanks,--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but at this time I am not willing to be your mentor. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask why? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I suspect, however, that you are not going to like my answer. The short and pleasant answer is that I do not believe I can help you. The long and less pleasant answer is that I do not believe you can be helped. I have researched your case, as well as your history as a subject at admin noticeboards, and your history of gaining and losing access to certain privileges.

Most people come into file work with 50% of what they need already there. They understand the basics of the NFCC and image policy, even if the fine points are confusing. They also show a respect for Wikipedia’s image policy, because even if they disagree with it or parts of it, they recognize the purpose it serves and the benefit of having it. I probably can build up from scratch an understanding of image policy in a user that knows nothing about that policy, assuming that the user is genuinely willing to accept and respect that policy. I can do nothing for a user that is not genuinely willing to accept and respect policy. Regrettably, I see with you neither the basic understanding of nor the respect for our image policy. As evidenced by your conversation in #wikipedia-en you take a battleground mentality towards basic policy. Because you do not understand or accept it, you seek to change or do away with it. I cannot work with you as long as that is the case. I don’t demand instant progress, but I don’t see the point in teaching someone something while they are actively trying to undermine what I am teaching.

As I said, this isn’t the answer that you want to hear, however it is the answer that I have to give. Please do not ask me for further help. If you make the changes that the community believes are needed of you, I will more than likely find out about it on my own. Perhaps then we can have this conversation again.

I have said I am trying to make an understanding of the policy and trying to prove myself. There is no way for others to know whether I understand of not without me proving. I am not trying to game the system but I genuinely believe that I have enough firm grasp of NFCC to upload software screenshots. I believe those cases are easy and not in the gray area. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you say and what you demonstrate are different. I said above that I need to see for myself the changes that I, and the other people that gave feedback, are looking for. Simply telling me you have changed is not enough, not at this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) so retyping: I am trying to make an understanding of the policy and trying to prove myself. There is no way for others to know whether I understand of not without me proving. Also, I am not trying to game the system but I genuinely believe that I have enough firm grasp of NFCC to upload software screenshots and work with those areas. I believe those cases are easy and not in the gray area. I agree that there are other cases/images where I may not have enough knowledge of the NFCC to determine if they can be used or not. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I want a checklist of points you are looking for. Simply telling show us, I believe is not enough. I do not know what points are you looking for. I have read and re-read the policy and I think I have some firm grasp of it. Also, how am I suppose to "show" if I have my hands tied. Perhaps a comprimise can be worked out? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have already said no. At this time that answer is non-negotiable. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Anybody else I can work with? There is no way of telling whether I know if I don't show. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have found other venues. You also do not seem to understand that when I said "Please do not ask me for further help" I meant "Please do not ask me for further help." This conversation is going around in circles and is becoming grating. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the best course of action (road map) in order to get the topic ban lifted? You know more about the NFCC and the workings of WIkipedia better than me. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm thinking is listing all cases whereby NFCC images I suggested to FUU was successful. Perhaps you can countersign the list to show that you approve/agree with me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tyw7/topicban_appeal --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 20:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing "assholes" and "jerks" was unnecessary ->> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Sven_Manguard. NVO (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there, anyone who works in files gets used to people assuming bad faith and incompetence. That being said, I should not have responded to you in the way that I did. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the insulting template (seen to the right of this text) that you put on the talk page of a contributor with 44,000+ edits. Whatever your motivation might have been, provocation or ignorance, it was especially appalling given the current situation. Moriori (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I requested one of the user's images be speedy deleted. Twinkle supplied the generic 'your image just got tagged for speedy deletion' template, which I guess includes that. I never actually saw the user's page. I don't care what you do one way or the other as far as this goes. The issue is moot now, the image is gone. As a side note, if an editor has 44,000+ edits and is uploading images that are copyright violations, there are disturbing implications. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have removed the component of the template that is glaringly irrelevant to the overall intent of the message. You need to be more observant in future to identify such an irrelevancy. Moriori (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. It's a template message, it's designed to be as generic as possible to apply towards all applicable readers. That there is one component that does not apply in one case is of no concern to me. There is a reason that the first word in that box is "If". Sven Manguard Wha? 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chzz/pic0511  Chzz  ►  22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yay for more work! Yay for unified naming conventions! Thanks Chzz. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+ User:Chzz/image0511  Chzz  ►  23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Powered though! Sven Manguard Wha? 02:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 17:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Because there currently appears to be no real consensus on which snapshots are suitable for the lead image of the article "T.M.I.", I have recently expanded the "Non Free Use Rationale" boxes for most of the png. format images that I uploaded onto Wikipedia. If you want to take a closer look at the more detailed arguments as to why I feel that most of these images are not a violation of WP:NFCC, just read my post on the section of the "Files for Deletion" page that is devoted to this controversy. --Kaiser Taylor (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no vested interest in either keeping or deleting much of anything, so long as an image is used and is within policy. If you are directly asking me to help you with a specific task I will probably do so, but I don't know the episode at hand enough to get into much of a discussion or choose anything. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have to renominate any of my old FS's if I amplify them, right? — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would qualify as a minor edit, so no you would not have to renominate them (so long as the sound quality stays the same). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What files? All I remember uploading recently are the Spider-Man one nad Horrible-bosses and I don't recall either of them being particularly big.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The four I found were:

• File:Visualeffectsscream1.jpg

• Comment This is two images composited. By your 500x320 standard I would argue that these two images come well short of a combined allowance, they could be much bigger individually but they won't work well in the article that way.

• File:Scream-cast-at-fountain.jpg

• Comment Will resize

• File:Scream292.jpg

• Comment Will resize

• File:NECA-Ghostface-Figure.gif

• Comment Will resize

Sven Manguard Wha? 22:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted your posts to put them on separate lines. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed pretty clear cut. Editor with a bad temper is at it again. But as I was digging into the diffs, It just didn't make sense that a hothead 3rd party would bring a stale issue to ANI, especially if you were following the discussion where it took place. In context, Delta's response was not that unreasonable. It took a good deal more time to see that the 3rd party was polar opposite Delta at the image nominations. I'm not sure if you also were researching the history or if you were aware of it, but I appreciate your opinion, it was good to have confirmation of what I was seeing in the diffs as being an accurate assessment. I feel the frustration of some of the other commenters at AN/I, but wonder how they would feel if they knew that they were being played by BQ or his own agenda. 12Minutes to 10pm 02:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Err, well there's a concurrent discussion over at WP:AN targeting Damines, and I've been around FfD a lot lately. Between the two, I kinda got to know the players rather rapidly. Good news is that the dispute is single-issue with a limited scope and well defined sides. Bad news is that the way it's looking, it is going to become impossible to work in files and not get sucked into it. Did I mention that I work in files... a lot? Yeah, I see this as becoming very ugly very quickly. I'm trying to stay neutral. It dosen't help that the people who are on the end of the dispute that takes a narrow interpretation of what is acceptable fair use, people like Damiens and Delta, have troubled histories and lack tact, because that makes them much easier targets. It also dosen't help that "I hate you because you deleted my image" gets mixed in with actual policy almost every time this comes up. It's a mess, and it's a mess that only the foundation legal team can put a stop to, if that. (Clarification: The legal team would have to step in and give an official clarification of the WMF's stance on a half dozen issues related to non-free images, most urgently the role of television screenshots, in order to set a bright line standard and hopefully diffuse this.) Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sven, thanks for you message. I shall give this some thought and respond with a considered response tommorrow, but for now I've perhaps optimistically left a message for the uploader on his blog regarding this. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sven, sorry about the late reply but technical issues dog me this week. I still think the closure was correct, though perhaps no-consensus is closer to it. Fut Perf fairly rebutted both of the assertions made that the licence was incompatible. I am perhaps influenced by the number of discussions I've read on commons related to the same issue - usually in exif data rather than on the image - where often it is acknowledged that image owners can arbitrarily put the image in different places with different licences as part of their rights. After looking some more I can see that we have a literate uploader, with a BS in a technical discipline who has made a sensible choice to mark an image they want to use online as "all rights reserved" (many think that anything on the web not marked this way is in the public domain) but has then decided to upload here, chosen a free licence from the drop down box, but ommitted to remove the very ugly watermark. I regret the huge, ugly, watermark but think that it is most likely the uploader understood what they were doing. I think my message to them though is going to go unanswered - the blog hasn't been updated for about 6 months and I'd guess their interest has moved on. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Wikipedia-Books for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the interview. The publication deadline for this interview is 3:00 UTC, Monday June 6 (less than 23 hours time at the time of this post). You can check the time here. However, I will already be working and editing this article in the next few hours. If you add any 11th hour comments, I will try to include them. But the absolute cutoff will be determined by the newsroom clock. Cheers. – SMasters (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reply at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_June_1#File:2005_Profit_graph_no_watermark.png.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to like the answer I just gave. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure you missed the point. You spoke about the mass AFD. This image is used elsewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I know that you were active in the process so I thought I would ask you. Do you know what the status is on getting Portal:United States to featured status? --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wouldn't say I was active. It popped up on my radar via Wikipedia:WikiProject North America, I pointed out some issues, stayed around for a while working on the on this day section, and got sidetracked from that a while back. I honestly haven't even thought of it since, so I don't know if I can help you. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap that's a fast response time. What's your trick? IRC feed to your watchlist? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, nope I just happened to see it on my watchlist. --Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your fun stuff page and thought you might like this one as well. User:Ned Scott/Upper Peninsula War, this article existed for years and would probably still be there but they submitted it for FA and someone found out it was a hoax. Of course you could also look at Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office, Smell-O-Vision or San Serriffe as well. --Kumioko (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only add things that I find myself, but thanks for passing some laughs my way. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sven, I've finally got around to adding the functionality you needed. If the updated version isn't showing for you, flush your cache. There's some more comments on my talk page. Noom _talk ^stalk 22:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently trying to figure out how to merge FurMe with Twinkle. The maintenance tagging part was easily fixed up. But the challenge is how to manage the remaining part (FUR tagging, and the "add/change image license" portion of the old "Tags" dialog). FurMe, as it stands, is fairly primitive and needs a complete overhaul, but none of us Twinkle devs (I speak on behalf of Amalthea and AzaToth) are especially experienced in dealing with file pages. So we thought to ask some users who are more experienced with file maintenance work about what they would like to have in a Twinkle-style FUR/license tagging tool. What are your thoughts? — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on your talk for this one, to keep everything in one place. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Web was founded at 2006 and had wiki page since 2008. why do you try to change the page all the time ? its not fair.. and its mislead dozens of people that searching information about the spoken web project. --Eyalshalom (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it once, not "all the time", and if I remember correctly I made the change because your project has no reliable third party sources to establish notability, while the other page does. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AN/I closing admin told me that it is up to you whether I am allowed to comment on my open nominations at FSC now that the ban has been enforced. Let me know what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been informed that this ban has been closed as supported. I have been informed that Wikipedia:Arbitration is suppose to be a last resort after all avenues have been exhausted. I have been told by the closing admin that the alternative formal avenue of appeal is back at WP:ANI. At ANI, instructions say to Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Here I am to discuss this ban. I am asking if you would consider requesting that the ban be vacated for the following reasons:

1. It was not filed in good faith. I.E., you did not follow WP:AN/I procedure (Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.) and attempt to determine if I had any intention of uploading images about myself and if I might consider resisting such urges.
2. There was no warning given that I need to desist from uploading images about myself or action might be taken to ban such activity.
3. There was no violation of the Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 June 1 decisions by me.
4. There was no history of violations of other WP:FfD decisions by me.
5. There was no history of violations of any WP:XfD decisions by me.

I would request that you consider your responsibility as an administrator and make a formal statement at WP:ANI that the ban be vacated so that I do not have to raise questions about your ability to follow procedure at ANI and then Arbitration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was, at the time that you posted this, writing a response to the first thread, which essentially said that it was the community as a whole, not me as an individual, that had to decide you were ready for the topic ban to be lifted. I was going to say that in order for that to have any chance, you had to show that you had accepted what the community has said and made changes to your behavior accordingly.

TonyTheTiger, throughout these entire proceedings you have done nothing but attack me. You have not listened to anything that anyone else has said, you have tried to get me punished, and now you have threatened me. I will not leave any message anywhere on your behalf. Whereas before your most recent post, I was still willing to render assistance to you, that door has now been closed. Do not ask me for advice, do not ask me for assistance, and do not ask me to say or do anything on your behalf. You are, quite simply, beyond hope of rehabilitation. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that you view my statement that I was following appeal procedure as "now you have threatened me".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "apology" is disingenuous. "I'm sorry you feel I wronged you" is different from "I'm sorry I wronged you". You said the first, and an actual, meaningful apology is the second.

You also needed to inform me of the latest AN/I post, as I am involved as the person that submitted the motion you are trying to overturn. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel my apology is disingenuous. I did not notify you directly because you told me to view the ban as if it was by the community and not by you. Thus, it was a community ban closed by a closing admin who was notified. I may have been mistaken in not notifying you for this reason however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. no longer watching here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You support baseless and blatant personal attacks? Because what future perfect said on my talk page is utterly without merit and he's failed to provide a single diff to support any of this accusations [3], I'd suggest you take a long read of WP:NPA.--Crossmr (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that people never seem to allow the thought to cross their minds that maybe, just maybe, they might be at least partly to blame in situations where they are accused of wrongdoing?

You have been going after Delta with a level of vehemence that is not only disturbing to watch, but also undermines your own case. Starting multiple threads and going after every comment that isn't in support of your position are signs that you've moved past the 'complaint' stage and onto the 'crusade' stage. I believe that the statement "This has taken on the character of wiki-hounding, and it needs to stop. I strongly recommend you take a step back from this issue." is an accurate summary of recent events, coupled with sound advice. It is most certainly not a personal attack.

As for the issue of diffs, diffs are not mandatory; there is no magical barrier towards legitimacy for which diffs are the keys. Everything is in plain sight at ANI. I think you need to have a long, hard look at your own recent contributions, because if you look them over objectively, you are going to see things you don't like there.

Delta isn't perfect, everyone knows that. You, however, are not innocent in this either. My advice? Back off. Do it now, do it with a minimum of fuss, and do it without a chip on your shoulder. Do that, and you'll be fine. Your proposals against Delta aren't going anywhere anyways. Best bail before more people start to see you as the problem. Just my advice, take it or leave it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started 2 threads, 8 days apart on 2 separate issues. The second was only started after an administrator agreed that I should post it. If you can provide evidence that I've started any further threads, please do so. The same could be said about Delta's supporters. Anyone who thinks Delta is making a mistake is accused of all kinds of wrong-doing. The problem is Future Perfects summary is based on his false accusations that are nothing more than merit-less personal attacks. Having the will to defend your position isn't a crusade, or hounding. It's called discussion and it goes both ways, even if one of those ways you don't like. People say something, and people respond and then there are responses by the original people, it's the way a discussion works. If people don't like that someone may firmly disagree with them, they shouldn't partake in discussions.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying is that your level of aggressiveness in the pursuit of Delta is disconcerting. You made half a dozen rebuttals, (to pretty much everyone that posted in opposition), and rebooted the discussion three times. That's not normal. People that are normally more than happy to go after Delta are posting that this isn't worthy of any action, and you keep on fighting like your limbs are at stake. I don't get it, I don't need to get, what's at issue here is that this just looks bad. I'm not saying you broke rules, I'm saying that you're on the cusp of going overboard here.

At a certain point, one you crossed a while back in this, the appropriate course of action is to sit back and see watch. If your points are good and the underlying issue is actionable, others will post to that effect, and will do so without you constantly posting. If your points are not good or the underlying issue is not actionable, no amount of posting on your part is going to rally support.

Future Perfect and I are not out to get you, and we're not attacking you either. This has gotten out of hand. Its time to cut your losses, exfiltrate from ANI and from my talk page, and move on. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might buy that if you'd quit the mischaracterizations. I only continued the discussion after two inappropriate closes. One by a non-admin who seemingly didn't bother to read the discussion as he claimed no one had supported what I said, when 2 people clearly had (but hadn't prefaced their comments with support) the first of which Baseball bugs himself even said he had intended to revert as it was clear the discussion was not over [4], the second of which was due to a misunderstanding where the admin closed it because he thought I'd ignored him. Future perfect has made several ungrounded accusations, which you turned around and supported, and then repeated here, and then furthered that by again exaggerating what I did. I only continued the discussion twice after it was inappropriately closed (and those inappropriate closes did a fantastic job of derailing the conversation), not three times. In addition, you came through to push the buttons on these blatantly false accusations hours after I'd already stated in the thread that I was done. As far as rebuttals go, I'm free to rebut anyone who partakes in the discussion. It's called a discussion, it's not a vote. That is the way discussions work. There is no aggressiveness. This is yet another false assumption. I know far too many people are used to people who show up, say something and just cave the moment anyone disagrees with them. It would have been nice to just let the conversation run its course to see what other people would have said about the edits, but inappropriate closes on a thread are like kryptonite. A lot of people will simply avoid the conversation once that has happened as they may have visited the page and saw it closed and put it out of their mind, even if it keeps going it becomes "tainted" in their mind. Let's keep in mind, that I ran this thread by an admin to get their opinion first, and he recommended I post it, and what was the first response? An assumption of bad faith from you. It was no attempt at an end run around anything. It was a genuine editing issue. The second comment? A further assumption of bad faith. No, if you're concerned about people acting inappropriately you may wish to have a good hard look at those who defend Delta, because the vast majority of those who take any issue with what he does are immediately inundated with insults and assumptions of bad faith. They all beg for everyone to assume good faith of Delta, despite the years of editing issues, issues that started years before you apparently even joined wikipedia (unless you've had another account), and yet after these assumptions and insults, and false accusations, those who defend Delta turn around and expect everyone to shut up and "leave him alone". I well detailed the issue, grounded the complaint firmly in policy, and ran it by an admin to make sure I wasn't imagining things. Then every single oppose contained an assumption of bad faith, an insult or both. No where did I attack Delta in my complaint, I spoke directly to the policy and the edits he made. Even some of those who support him have said they disagreed with the way he handled it, or the way he handles things in general. But really the discussion is done for now. As I'd already said hours ago I was done.--Crossmr (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We're done here. I knew this wasn't going anywhere a while ago, but I foolishly hoped that if I explained my position, you'd acknowledge that I wasn't out to get you, and that I had a valid, but different, opinion from yours. People can disagree and both have valid points, people can look at a situation and draw different interpetations from it. You shoot down any dissent as a slight against your person. While you lecture me about the proper way to hold a conversation, you act in such a way as to make any reasonable conversation impossible. I find talking to you to be in the same vain as talking to a brick wall. For that reason, I have no desire to speak with you again. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Crossmr removed the post in question from his talk page, without archiving it, invoking NPA. Because it is most certainly not a personal attack, I am saving a copy below, in the collapse box, just in case this ever needs to be relocated. (Also, diff is here.)

Warning 

• User:Chzz/Pictures0611

I also did just 'Pict' 'coz there's "only" 545, and I thought it might be handy to at least browse it;

• User:Chzz/Pict0611

 Chzz  ►  06:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm already running the first op out of User:Sven Manguard/File Renaming/Pictures and the second out of User:Chzz/pic0511 though. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...or not. There's a bunch of overlap but there's also new stuff. I'll take the likely targets from User:Chzz/Pictures0611 and put them on the to do list. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely confused what is going on at File:MG_Mary_K_Eder_ASU.jpg. User has uploaded about 4 copies of the same image, it seems, with two on Wikimedia commons, and 2 on Wikipedia. 2 have the wrong spelling and only one is up for deletion. I know you work with images, can you make sense of what is going on?--v/r - TP 19:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the uploads page, the user in question uploaded File:MG Mari K Eder ASU.jpg locally and then uploaded another file, also named File:MG Mari K Eder ASU.jpg, at Commons. You can speedy delete the locally hosted one. As there is a commons file with the same name, it won't affect the page that the image is being used on.

As for the other two Commons uploads, they are of a two different images of the same person, so they can both stay as is.

Hope this helps. If not, leave me another question, I'll be back on in about three hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think it's sorted now.--v/r - TP 19:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is. Call again if you need me. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, dude. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has nothing to benefit from providing official comments about fair use. By allowing the so-called community to make decisions, even when sanctioned by the quasi-official unpaid shills for the Foundation, the WMF maintains plausible deniability for involvement in any legal or ethical missteps by others. You can be sure that the Wikimedia Foundation will also not take a public stand on the obvious and persistent pornography on their servers (e.g. Commons), for the same reasons. Realistically, we can all decide personally whether and how much to support the various websites under the WMF, but the issue of fair use is not going to be decided by an official decree. General reasonableness (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, hmm... a user with three edits and a strong negative opinion of ArbCom. And you're a sockpuppet of which blocked vandal? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably both right. Sven, I've tried on several occasions to engage the Wikimedia Foundation on this issue, without success. I've received nothing but silence. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there's an underlying legal reason that strongly encourages them to not be directly involved in the overall NFCC dispute. Another editor did have some success in talking with them when Godwin was legal counsel. Godwin's response was to clarify that a particular usage of an item would, in fact, qualify as fair use under United States law. He refused to comment on whether it would pass NFCC requirements.

I came here because of a comment I found from you where you said "the entire point of the NFCC is to allow Wikipedia to use non-free content without getting sued". I just wanted to take a moment, outside of that debate, to note that as an inaccuracy. While Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy does set out legal requirements, its statements are clearly considerably more strict than law requires. This is due to the m:Mission of the project. If the sole purpose of the NFCC policy was a legal one, we would probably have at least one if not more orders of magnitude more non-free content here.

Your characterization of the NFCC debate as a 'war' is unfortunately accurate. I don't see it ending. It's a fundamental philosophical difference. I think the only way it could end would be if we stated unequivocally that non-free content is not permitted here, or that non-free content is allowable so long as it is legal. Since either of those positions is far too radical for both sides to accept, the dispute remains and will always remain.

I think the best way forward is to handle individual battles within the context of the war as best we can. As we do so, we help develop common practices that the community accepts as such. For example, the use of album covers in discographies is no longer acceptable use. Huge battles were fought over it, but the result now is that both sides agree (even if grudgingly on some editor's parts) that album covers are not acceptable in discographies. There's been lots of other battles like this, some more notable than others. Sometimes, the battles don't resolve anything, and they erupt again at a later date. There are times that I despair of moving forward, but bit by bit we do move forward with standards that the majority of the community accepts as common practice. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I still say that there is hope in getting all the warring parties together in a room to try and reach an agreement might yeild something. If we take the NFCC out of the picture entirely, get them to stop fighting over the interpetation of the existing policy and instead start crafting a new one, we might get somewhere. The Articles of Confederation were helplessly flawed, so they got scrapped when all the interested parties did a rewrite, and the rewrite works pretty well most of the time. Same basic concept, less grandiose scale. If the NFCC isn't working, scrap it in favor of a rewrite. It's worth a shot. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, if you've got a transmogrifier handy. I hear alchemy is an up and coming field too. :) Seriously, the underlying issue isn't the wording of the policy or guidelines. No rewording of either/both will fix the core issue. The core issue is the philosophical difference between those who want liberal inclusion of non-free images, and those that are trying to adhere to the m:Mission of the project. That has never changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transmogrifier? If things don't cool down, eventually the issue is going get 'solved' by the use of a big stick. Hopefully a solution between those two scientifc extremes can be found. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no solution, other than the extreme positions or continuing to plod forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• An optimist! Sven Manguard Wha? 22:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports, specifically Wikipedia:Database reports/Largely duplicative file names. May god have mercy on our souls. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Oh my. I assume that's only the first 1000 it found? 28bytes (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to assume so. That 1000 is in the 'H's would indicate that there are around 1500-2000 more that didn't make that list. With each of those list items having two or more similar names, this could, in fact, mean that 6000 files need to be renamed. It is going to take a very long time. Dragonfly was the one that pointed it out, I'm not sure for certain, but from what I'm seeing, it really does look that bad.

To make matters worse, I'm still knee deep in the 3000+ renames to do that are on the four pages linked up at the top of this page in the "Quick Link Bar". Since I do a proper Template:Information for every file I move that dosen't already have one (which is 95%+ of the ones I've seen thus far) it takes me a while to get them done.

I'll stick it on the list. Hopefully we can get some help on this one. There are 175 or so non-admin file movers, time for them to earn their chops :-) Sven Manguard Wha? 02:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was nominating for deletion, blanking wasn't required first but I did it anyway. The template and its redirect are not used any longer. -Kai445 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the page without a comment. I didn't see what you were trying to do. You're right, it was constructive, I just didn't know it at the time. Not that it excuses my actions, but please use an edit summary next time so that everyone else sees what you're trying to do, and dosen't revert you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no prob, I just wanted to let you know what happened. It really messed up my groove, cause I went to put the notice next but then you reverted me right before I submitted it, so I had to start over. I'll use the edit summary next time! -Kai445 (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there everyone, just wanted to let you all know some stuff ahead of time, in case I’m not able to give more timely information in the future:

From now until July I will probably not be on Wikipedia at all.

From July thought the middle of August, the quality and quantity of my internet access will be lower than it is now, meaning that the volume of work that I do, especially image work, might go down significantly.

From mid-August through the end of the year, I will be in China. I have been assured ahead of time that I will have broadband internet access in China, however my access to Wikipedia itself cannot be guaranteed. While I do not foresee any issues, Wikipedia has been blocked at the national level before, and if it is blocked again, my activity on Wikipedia will stop abruptly and with no prior warning. If Wikipedia is blocked, you’ll probably hear about it in the Signpost, so there will be at least some explanation after the fact.

In case I’m not around for the next six months, I want to wish everyone the best, I hope to be back in January.

Sven Manguard

Looks like I'm on my own for a bit - be assured you will be sorely missed :( . If there's one positive, it's that when you return in Janurary, all the DSC's and more should be done - until the next list is generated :) Best of luck in your travels, and I hope to see you back on Wikipedia soon. Acather96 (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the good news is that the Media Blacklist now prevents most of those bad names from being used, so the list won't get that much bigger. The bad news is that there are other lists, User:Chzz/img0511 (1600 items) and User:Chzz/pic0511 (300 items) to do. The very bad news is that Chzz isn't around anymore (he runs the lists, but more importantly, he was one of the best gnomes this project had). I'll talk to you soon, but I have to go now. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate the contribution. Think it will help us and hope you have some fun looking at the articles and interacting with the people as well.

It really is a big deal for FAC. Need more image help and from more different people, so that with time we evolve and get better (just like the writing has!)

P.s. Know we don't see eye to eye on some things and that is fine, not changing that. Just needed to give the props. TCO (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll float around there occasionally, but from what I've seen, you've already got a few good hands at FAC doing image stuff, so I'm still going to prioritize this behind a few other things I've promised to do.

As for our relationship, I would agree that we 'don't see eye to eye on some things', but don't take my chewing you out at WT:RFA as anything more than a very stern rebuke on one issue, I don't dislike you and I don't have any problems working with you in the future.

As a side note, you really should have email enabled. I'd have much rather said that second part in private. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]