User talk:Sven Manguard/2011 Q3

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.

July

signature

Thanks for the note. However, I have had several administrators drop me messages, I've dropped them messages, they view my edits, ARV requests, etc and not one has had a problem with my signature so I'll keep it until they do have a problem. And checking ur categories, ur not an admin. Thanks tho. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That I am not an admin matters how? That I am not an admin does not mean that I am not correct, and that an admin has not commented on it does not mean that it is okay. However I won't make any further issue out of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your kind comment re:WikiLove! This is NOT a templated message: I made the kitten myself, out of dust bunnies.

Drmies (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh my... here kitty kitty, you hide behind this plastic sneeze guard where it's safe. I'm allergic to your dust based ecology. There we go, aren't you a cute kitty kitty? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

"Meaty" engagement on the Turning Point FAC. TCO (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Architecture of the Song Dynasty

Is Architecture of the Song Dynasty ready for its closeup? For the GA re-listing? Is there anything else I can do/advise on to help the GA process along? --NickDupree (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I really haven't had a chance to work on it or look at it at all since I talked to you. I'm on Wikipedia only during my study breaks. I'll look now though. You got me at a good time, so I have 10 minutes to spare. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see two things that need to get handled.

1. The citations need to be redone, preferably in that style you showed me a few days ago, so that we get rid of all the 'ibid' citations.

2. We need someone who can read Chinese to go look at the zh.wiki version of the article, which is at FA level, and see about getting something about temples listed, since that is a noteworthy gap in coverage.

You probably can do the first of those things better than I can. I know some native/native-level Chinese speakers from the IRC, so I'll go after the second one when I have time. (Which will not be until Thursday, as I'm knee deep in finals preparation.) In the mean time, I'm going to go ask someone from GOCE if they can spare some time to look it over and make sure that it meets the Manual of Style. Thanks for giving this a boost of energy, I'll be nice to take this off my list of things to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I had User:wctaiwan give me alternate citations for the Li Jie page numbers and I can add them in the coming days. NickDupree (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Sven Manguard Wha? 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Odysseus1479#Architecture_of_the_Song_Dynasty_Copyedit's talk page.

Beta ANI

I'm more than a little disappointed here by your comment on the topic ban proposal.

Beta is uniquely contentious in his approach to NFCC / FUR issues, and has been for some years. Many other users have worked on the general problem; he has generated more complaints than the rest of them combined.

I am not stalking him nor any of the others who work in that area. Particularly not the others, who work in a much more collaborative manner. But I really don't care about the vast bulk of Beta's actions.

It's only when he acts so aggressively contentiously on the topic that the trouble begins; and it must end. It's been to Arbcom, there's an active community sanction I could have entirely legitimiately simply blocked him for a month (given other recent blocks) under. He's getting blocked once a month that sticks.

If you want to pick up his efforts and run with it, please do. I encourage anyone with good judgement and communications ability to work on NFCC / FURs. There are legitimately a lot of problems there. But anyone else ... everyone else ... working on the problem does it without causing community uproars. Any reasonable person, on having a long ANI thread started over their behavior, will back off and behave themselves during the discussion. Beta took it as a challenge and ran a new large sanction-skirting-or-breaking automated removals run. That is either unacceptably bad judgement or POINT.

He has to move on and do something else. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point I've all but given up on good faith here. Yes, Detla has civility issues, and yes, he does break the sanctions imposed on him. However what I have seen over the past few months is numerous editors going after everyone that seeks to enforce the NFCC, (Detla and Damiens.rf in particular as their civility issues make them easy targets). It's become little more than an attempt at policy changes by banning. Standards of civility are applied unfairly, unreasonable demands are being made, people that clearly are not uninvolved are pretending to be neutral, concerned onlookers. I'm sick of it, all of it.

There is a legitimate complaint about Detla to be made. He needs to slow down and double check his work. He sticks to the absolute letter of the law in image work, an exceptionally grey area, and that causes tensions. However he does good work, a lot of it, in a thankless environment, and he is no more uncivil, in fact he is often more civil, than the people going after him.

It has to end. The underlying problem is not Delta, it is the NFCC. There's no interest in an RfC to fix it, there's no interest in rewriting the policy, ArbCom won't do anything more than ban a few people and slap discretionary standards on the whole thing, the WMF legal team won't touch it, and a majority of the community can't be bothered to care unless it winds up at AN/I, which is why it winds up at AN/I, in some form, ever week for months on end.

Maybe you were, or think you were, acting in good faith. A number of the posters there were not. More importantly, by going after Delta, a symptom, you're diverting attention from the real issue and damaging the project in the process. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be making my case for me.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we share a fundamental agreement that NFCC is toxic, but a fundamental disagreement as to the role of Delta. I believe a great deal of complaints about him are motivated by the NFCC war itself; i.e. I think it's that Delta is a major enforcer of the NFCC, not his actions pursuant to that, that are generating a good deal of the heat that surrounds him. Would there still be complaints about him if not for the political machinations of a small group of editors acting in bad faith? Yes. Would the number of complaints be abnormally high? No. As you have just illustrated, this has become a self feeding cycle. Because there were previous bad intentioned complaints, whenever good intentioned complaints come up they feed off of the bad intentioned complaints as evidence or as history. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't break the cycle with him in the picture, because he has chosen (or is simply unable to avoid becoming) to become the flashpoint and keeps pushing people's buttons.

Again - he responded to the ANI discussion by escalating rather than calming things down, by starting several new edit wars. That is incredibly badly not ok.

If he's the face of the deletionist NFCC enforcers - you've lost, and you are lost, and this will end in disaster not just for everyone else but particularly for "your side".

Defending him is counterproductive for your own goals. I know he's someone you want to support on principle, but that's the point. You have to treat the things he does do, not just the things he's trying to do. What he is trying to do and wants to do is fine, but how he does it is not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Well now, a bit more of the issue comes to light. Deletionist and NFCC enforcer are most certainly not the same thing. I consider myself an NFCC enforcer, but I don't consider myself a deletionist. Many, such as Damiens.rf, Future Perfect, and Delta are both, however there is a large number of NFCC enforcers that are not deltionists. I'd actually like there to be more flexibility in the NFCC. I think that filling up an entire page with dozens of non-free images (as is done in Western painting) is absurd and wrong, but I think the whole thing about deleting Getty images on sight is also absurd and wrong. I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what people that work with the NFCC actually do. It's like IRS auditors. It's a lot of technical compliance stuff, no one likes being focused on by them, and the vast majority of audits don't result in action, however the first thing you thing when you hear IRS auditor is "he's going to take all my money away or throw me in jail."

As for the concept of sides, I do consider there to be sides, but I don't see myself as wed to one side in particular. I acknowledge that Delta causes problems, but I think that the tactics being used and the focus overall are unfair, so yes, I defend him, but no, it's not because I'm on his side. Maybe he can't be rehabilitated, but at this point I view him as just as much the victim as the perpetrator. I see him as a bull, who having been baited by a good number of clowns, now acts in a way quite different from how he would have acted had he been left alone. A bull is aggressive, thickheaded, and dangerous as it is, but it dosen't just go out on rages unless someone keeps hitting it.

One final note, as I really must be getting off, is this: Whatever happens here, whether Delta is let off with a wrist slap, a topic ban, or a site ban, if you think that the NFCC problem will go away quietly, you're fooling yourself. Once Delta is taken out, many of the same people will try to have Damiens banned. After that, they'll seek a desysop of Future Perfect. Then they'll go after the half dozen other people that list large numbers of files for deletion. You might think that I'm being paranoid, but I'm confident that this is far from over. For now, I'm disinvesting myself of this mess. It's going to be horribly ugly with or without me, so it might as well be without me. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the "deletionist" comment - that was a comment on the tactic (preferred enforcement via deletion, versus via correction / fixes / discussion) rather than the end goal (improper fair use is not ok in Wikipedia). Improper fair use images should go, yes. Go == deleted.

I can't predict the future, but I for one would not support going after Damiens or particularly Future Perfect (or you) about this. There have been individual incidents where someone did something wrong that perhaps rose to the level of admin attention, with other users, but not a pattern requiring community intervention.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I mentioned before you to that you should go read up on some of the history on this. Now, I don't know if you've actually done that or not, but I can't imagine you've thoroughly read it if you claim he's a victim. Delta has been like this forever. Ever since I've seen this issue crop up. You once again try to blame everyone else for Delta's failing, but the failing is his. No one controls his actions except him. I haven't seen a single report of any editors breaking into his house with a gun and forcing him to edit the way he does. You even admit here that he's disruptive that you don't know if he can be rehabilitated, but still support him? That makes no logical sense at all. It sounds almost like you're supporting him because if he was actually topic banned for the good of the encyclopedia, it would seem like some kind of a loss for NFCC. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand is making automated edits his behaviour right now is not significantly different than this, this occurred over 2.5 years ago and the result was an indefinite block. Which went on for a long time until he was let back in under heavy sanctions (which he violated around 24 hours later) and continues to violate to this day. Heck even with this huge on-going discussion he goes through and does a huge NFCC purge, which some people are complaining about, because it seems he made errors or what they see as errors, and who made him do that? anyone? No one.--Crossmr (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What I said was "just as much the victim as the perpetrator". I know he has a long track record, and I don't endorse his recent sprees, but you and others have done a great deal of kicking him, and not only do you somehow act surprised that he responds negatively to being kicked (do you honestly think the timing of the sprees is coincidental) but you also seem unwilling on unable to acknowledge that your kicking of him might have something to do with the continuing problem. His response is childish, but you all are taking the role of the playground bullies. The actions that got him in trouble in the first place were wrong. He continues to do things that are wrong. Ganging up on him and bringing him to task not only when he's causing harm but when he's not causing harm is also wrong. Two wrongs does not make a right. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2

I have replied to concerns.--WillC 07:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. Forgot to tell you here that I replied to them there. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sven, for your rapid response. How'd you get on the list? As it says in my post, anyone (other than anon IPs) who made an edit to either "pro-life" or "pro-choice" since 1 July 2010.

Now if I may, can I ask you to consider revisiting the discussion? I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear, but you see, we already know that a lot of people feel as you do. Trouble is, there are pretty much an equal number of people who are on the opposite side of the issue. The result has been that, over the past year, there have been 499 edits to these two articles, but 1351 edits to their talk pages. And that talk page discussion has been dominated by one topic--what to call the articles.

The mediator knows and respects what the two sides want, but he's hoping to find a new solution that both sides can agree on. Would you see if you can find the time to read his suggestion and comment directly on that? Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You are going to get a ton of vandalism fighters with your method. I have to believe that's how I wound up on your list. As for mediation, I have little interest in participating. I have nothing to add other than what I've said, and in all honesty I hold little hope that mediation can solve the issue. If it can, good job. If not, don't take it hard at all, you're dealing with a contentions subject, meaning that you're up against hopelessly stubborn warriors, and I do use that word with care. Good luck regardless. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that the method of selecting whom to post to was not perfect, but it was at least completely objective, thus pre-empting any claims to votestacking. And it has accomplished its purpose--the number of participants in the discussion has probably quintupled, which in my eyes is a plus. But will it solve anything? Not likely. But Steven Zhang gave it one try, and his attempt was flailing, and I saw it as a way of injecting some life into the proposal. If it doesn't work, I'll withdraw permanently. What troubles me most is that the most obstructionist editors appear to be the very ones with whom I agree on the subject of the articles in question. "Warriors" is not a bad word choice. Thanks for your comments. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC images

In addition to the two images I added on RHM22's behalf in the Gobrecht article, I've added one, here for the Indian head article. Could you stop back at the FAC and give it a clean bill of health? Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please block

Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE bblock that user who is messing up the List of Waterloo Road characters article. He is driving me CRAZY 2.100.144.137 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so no I can't. However if he keeps it up, he'll hit four warnings and will get blocked by someone else. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, im sorry I thought you were. My apologies. Its near next to impossible to stop that article from being vandalised every single day now. I have never known any other artile on the entire wiki to be targeted as much by if anything "retared" vandalism 2.100.144.137 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

...yelling at Fastily isn't going to make it any better. I submitted a request for page protection, however that'll prevent you from editing it as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Non-free image resolution advice

Thanks for the tips; I'll make sure to do that stuff before I nominate an article again. Images have never been my strong suit, so this should definitely help me with future nominations. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Necromancy is nothing

But out of interest...what would you like to see the CONTRIB team do if I could resurrect it? working on it... Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs has seen some improvements recently. I hadn't seen that, but I was angling for something along those lines. It needed a good kick to get it back up to speed.

I also have plans to revamp the tournament, make it more accessible to more people, and tie it in with other interested projects. It needs to be more of a hub for gnomes than it is. I'll get back to you with details.

Oh, and it's worth saying again, It's good to have you back. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

YF-23

No worries, I've replaced it. I'm very appreciate of your reviewing the YF-23 already. 03:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp33dyphil (talk • contribs)

I responded at your talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding your evidence submission; the site ban proposal was placed beneath an ANI section started by MickMacNee, but it was not MMN himself who proposed the site ban (see [1]). –xeno^talk 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence withdrawn. Easy enough mistake to make, but still a mistake. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, after all the refactoring it wasn't entirely clear. You can remove your header and note altogether, if you want. –xeno^talk 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No golden goal

Hi Sven. You declined my request to create this redirect to Golden goal. I was previously unfamiliar with this term, but was watching a Women's World Cup match recently and heard it used. I searched the term on Wikipedia, and instead of being redirected immediately to the relevant article, I was left with a search list. I was able to find it, but it would be helpful to other users to be redirected immediately. "No golden goal" just means that a goal does not immediately end the game in extra time, the full extra time is played out (as was the case in the USA-Brazil match I watched earlier today which allowed USA to win). Hope this convinces you. Cheers. 98.200.59.112 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I am an Association Football (Soccer) fan, so I do know what Golden Goal rule is. Wikipedia, however, dosen't create redirects like that. For example, No penalty kick does not redirect to Penalty kick. If we did redirects from negatives, we'd have to create tens of thousands of such redirects, and almost none of them would ever be used, because most people lop off the negatives when they search for things. You can submit it again and hope someone else accepts it, but I'm not convinced it's needed. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Case in point really. You are a football fan so you would know that "golden goal" is the term to type in. Me, having no idea what it was, simply typed in exactly what I heard. "No golden goal" would be helpful, plain and simple. It wouldn't hurt anyone. Plus I hear redirects are cheap. 98.200.59.112 (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW I think there is a typo on your userpage: "I would be in favor of making the requiring of the entire collection a prerequisite to running for RfA." 98.200.59.112 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

File:IParty with Victorious release poster.jpg

You are correct that this file would not be acceptable under fair use if it were being used in an article about the women pictured. However, this is a promotional poster being used in an article about the production advertised. There is no free equivalent possible. Its use is "Main infobox. The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for. Use for this purpose does not compete with the purposes of the original artwork, namely the creator providing graphic design services to film concerns and in turn marketing films to the public." If you feel it is not acceptable under NFCC, please dispute the fair use justification on the file. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the generic FUR rationale that is built into the template, several times in fact. In this case it does not apply. Tell me how a poster that has nothing but images of the two main characters and a date adds to the article in a way that words cannot? There are free images of the two actresses, and the date is in the infobox. I'll take it to FfD then. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles without listas parameter

I had a good laugh today when you put the "Please do not delete this category even if it is empty!" in the listas category. You mean somebody out there thinks I will actually finish??? Pffft. Can I have some of what you are smokin'. Bgwhite (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

He eh, I also stuck that in the unsourced articles section, which has 250,000+ items in it. This all came out of a discussion elsewhere (somewhere in Village Pump, I think) about an idea to create a bot that deleted unpopulated categories. I said it would delete stuff it shouldn't. Someone countered that the bot would pass by any categores that had that template in it. I countered that by saying that many administration categories never got that template. After posting that, I made sure that almost every category in WP:GBD had the template, just in case. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah dang, you make my day then pull the rug out from underneath me. I say this as I sulk back into my dark cave and trudge thru listas some more. sniff. Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

FurMe

In response to your query on my talk page, please see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#FurMe news. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 00:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact

Hi Sven, I'm here regarding your comment at User:In fact's request for file mover. I just wanted to say, that if the request is already declined, it doesn't help to then start commenting on the user's maturity. I appreciate that you were trying to explain things to the user, and educate them on why their request keeps getting declined. However, I think you may have misjudged the best way to go about that. Most of what you say was spot on, but it's important to make sure you don't simply inflame the situation (accounting for overreactions by the other user), which is sadly what appears to have happened here. Don't let me put you off commenting at the RFPERM pages though, as I do appreciate all help there. Just be very careful in how you talk with users who are already upset at getting their request declined. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I will refrain from commenting towards him in the future, however I stand by both of the statements, and I don't believe that either of them are personal attacks. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Image advice

Yeah, I actually just read that. xD Thanks for the advice. I'm sure I would never be in a situation to change that section of the image. And I've actually done something similar with a few images I've come across. Like some too HQ .PNG files as single/album covers. Photoshop would be my drug of choice. ;) Also, I hope you don't mind: I kind of jacked your archive idea. xD I had moved them all to separate years and it took forever to load and I saw yours so I decided to separate them into the quarters of the year. The month separation idea was pretty cool too. ;) ℥^nding·start 05:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you had quarters. I didn't know if you came up with it independently or not. I do it because it allows for the archive pages to be small enough that it's not dreadful trying to find stuff, but large enough that I don't have 40 of them. Also it makes finding stuff so easy. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Traditionally quarters are Q1 Jan/Feb/Mar, Q2 Apr/May/June, Q3 July/Aug/Sept, Q4 Oct/Nov/Dec. That's how it is in most businesses, at least.

Yeah, and it also helps with the months so you won't end up with like 56738987673890876 different archive pages. Damn! I'm gonna have to go fix that. :) Thanks for pointing that out to me. xD ℥^nding·start 05:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I AM SO STUPID. It got declined because I said I would reformat files, but what I meant by that was doing what I was supposed to with the tool (adding spacing, and proper naming to files). *head desk* ℥^nding·start 17:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I responded at that page. Maybe you'll get lucky. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you, kindly

Thank you for the crop.TCO (reviews needed) 20:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Notice

I have started a Talk Page for this file nominated for deletion,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Day_of_Awakening.jpg

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've noted that at the FfD. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no evdience that Harold Covington served in the Rhodesian Army

The link that sourced Harold Covington serving in the Rhodesian Army actually says that there is no evidence that he served in the Rhodesian Army. There is only evidence that he went there to serve for a construction firm.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kbKJU3e59MsC&pg=PA45&dq=Covington++%22Rhodesian+Army%22&hl=en&ei=VRh0TP--DMKB8gbFyqj2CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Covington%20%20%22Rhodesian%20Army%22&f=false

"The Zimbabwe government, however, was able to dispel at least part of the myth: There was no evidence that Harold had served in the Rhodesian Army, as a mercenary or otherwise; the record showed that he was employed by an engineering and construction firm, probably as a low level clerk."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.11.81 (talk • contribs)

may I say something about the categories you are reinstating when you revert? is it intentional? if so this is plainly vandalism. Nasnema  Chat  06:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's look at what categories you added to the article. Here's a small selection: Category:Gay politicians, Category:Pedophilia, Category:Jewish pornographic film actors, Category:Free love advocates, Category:Homeless people... but wait, it gets better. Category:Indigenous Mexicans, Category:Mummies, and Category:Nirvana members.

It's clear vandalism, don't do it again. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just added those for fun because Harold was being a douche.

That, however, does not change the fact that there is no evidence (besides what came out of his own mouth) that he served in the Rhodesian military. There is evidence that he worked for a construction firm there. The article should mention this and then be locked so that it may not be changed, because clearly, by looking at the discussion page, he himself is throwing a tantrum over this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.11.81 (talk • contribs)

I don't care if he set your house on fire, you don't vandalize the page on him. Believe me, I don't like what he stands for, but vandalism is vandalism is vandalism, it gets reverted all the same. You want to make an attempt at the edit without the vandalism, go ahead. If you start putting false categories in though, you're going to get blocked. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I just now corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.11.81 (talk • contribs)

Noted. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Harold Covington Wikipedia page has been edited again with false information. I tried to undo it but a bot tagged it as vandalism. Could you please restore it with it's original information and then lock it? And can't count how many times it has been edited now.

• Edit - The discussion page for Harold Covington has also had several posts removed. If you could please restore it.

Dong-Pyeong Middle School

Hi Sven. I'm just letting you I declined your CSD A7. Schools are not eligible for this CSD criterion. I have redirected the article to the education section of the school's city article per standard procedure. (WP:WPSCH). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't usually tag stuff in the article space. Good to know. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2

If you have anymore comments regrading Turning Point (2008) would you please return to the review as it has come to a stand-still, thank you.--WillC 13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't do prose anywhere near the level of FAs, so I don't support FACs (I will oppose though if the images are a horrid mess, but that's a specific and usually temporary oppose). You handled everything from the image review, the rest is up to the prose people. Good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to make sure. Thanks--WillC 22:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I made this account in 2008 without much thought on the name. After a while I noticed it sounded really gay. So I've been using WillC as a sig since mid-2008. Its my nickname as my name is William C. I've been meaning to update my user page for some time now. Hasn't been worked on since 2009. I dislike it anyway, but I'm usually too interested in working on an article than working on it. Just got Destination X (2005) done so I may update it now.--WillC 22:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

the photo

File:Florek-wikipedia.jpg was passed on to me by a person who was in the theatre department at Eastern Michigan University at the time the photo was taken. It was, as I understand it, in a program or something that had no copyright information on it. I posted it for him, but have no more info about it, nor do I feel any attachment to it. If you feel it is best, or safest, to move it on, do so. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't personally care, I was just cleaning out Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review and wanted to wrap that one up. If it's used with permission, that's okay. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Great. Sounds as if everyone is happy. Wish all the stuff could end up like that. Carptrash (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-credible dog breeds and the standard for credible claims of importance

I'm responding to your latest comments here, because I'm afraid the discussion is getting somewhat off topic for an RFA, but if you think it would be helpful to the discussion of Qwyrxian's RFA to move any part of my message there, I wont object. To respond to a couple things separately:

• This is a somewhat circular argument, and I realize as much, but, if the breed is actually only one, or a very few dogs, that a family or other small association decided to call a breed, then the claim that "The breed is known for its amazing looks" could well be true amongst those that recognize the breed as even existing. So then we have a claim that is facially a claim of importance, but is either not really a claim of importance, as saying "amongst us five people the dog is known for its amazing looks" would not be a claim of importance, or it is implying that the breed is widely recognize as such, and is a real claim of importance, but it is then a non-credible one, as there is no way a dog breed made up one day is recognized widely as such. It is mess, my reply in the oppose section was because in the vast majority of cases, the credibility of the claim of importance should not be undermined by a lack of search results, and to suggest that bad Google results undermines a claim of importance, as the comment I responded to implied with "Can't you confirm whether a claim of significance is credible via a google search?" is not consistent with how CSD should normally be applied, though in this particular case it may be fair. The goal in asking the question was to see if Qwyrxian would identify the issue of it being about a breed, and in hind-sight I should have left off any claim of importance, as it has made the question much more messy then I intended.
• Your response to oppose #3 I think is a quite reasonable explanation for why the article would be deletable as A7. Even if I disagree with some of the judgments made in the process, and would reach a different result myself, the approach you take in explaining it is reasonable. My problem with Qwyrxian's response was the failure to deal with it as being an issue, regardless of the eventual conclusion.
• In response to your query, my answer to question 8 would be: The article looks like something that was made up one day, the name of the breed, the unusual mix, and the lack of anything beyond the blog posts coming up in the hypothetical search strongly suggest as much. While the outcome will almost certainly be deletion, I would not delete it under Criteria A7. The creator of the article claims it is a breed of dog, so assuming good faith, I would move forward assuming that it was. In my opinion, criteria A7 cannot be used to delete an article about a breed of dog. The article is also getting in to hoax territory, but I don't think it is blatant enough to delete under G3, (absent the creator having some type of history) and I don't think any of the other speedy deletion criteria are a good fit. As such, I would PROD the article, with a rationale of "This article appears to be about a non-notable breed of dog, I have been unable to identify reliable sources to support it being recognized as a breed, and it fails the General Notability Guidelines". In my opinion, allowing the article to remain for 7 days wont do any serious harm, so there is no urgent need to try to stretch a CSD criteria to fit. PRODing the article will hopefully avoid wasting people's time with an AfD discussion that will certainly result in deletion. I would then leave a note (non template) on the nominator's talk page explaining the basis for my switch to a prod.

More generally, I don't think the CSD issue here is big enough to oppose over, as in most cases (without the school CSD added to it) it would be a failure to spot an unusual fringe issue. Monty₈₄₅ 07:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your response. Your solution, while not the one I would go for, is reasonable. I'm sorry if any of this has gotten overly antagonistic or anything. See you around, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For help with Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review! I was starting to think I was the only person who cared about it. Your assistance is much appreciated. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. A large amount of my work is in or around the file namespace, so when it hit as the collaboration backlog for the month at WP:GBD I figured "Why not, we can knock one off forever." Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 21:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You deserve it!!!!!! Garvit (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? In all seriousness, thank you for the barnstar, but what exactly did I do or not do recently to warrant it. (If you tell me what I did right, I'll be more likely to repeat it.) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir you may not remember but you were the one who helped me when i started on wikipedia. And you are not like other editors. You are very cool minded and helps everyone in the best way possible. I remember when my first article was put up for deletion you posted a comment that said "I appreciate those people who starts writing an article from scratch giving their valuable time". Thats what we need in Wikipedia. So thanks again and dont loose this attitude.Garvit (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ten Thousand Miles of the Yangtze River

Nothing stopping you renominating. Typically, waiting a few months is polite, but if there was a particular problem which has now been resolved, I don't think anyone would begrudge you an early renomination. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Image reviews

Quick question: when you review images at FAC, do you also look at captions? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should, since that would make for a more complete review. In fact, if I remember correctly, Fallschirmjäger‎ mentioned captions in the job description when I asked him about it. Honestly though, since I see captions as more of a prose issue than an image issue, its slipped the subconscious checklist I go though when I do reviews. I will try and ensure that I check captions when I do future reviews.

Speaking of that, I would have to think that there was a really screwed up caption on one of the articles I did an image review for in order to have prompted this question, so can you point me to it for future reference? Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 21:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't one in particular that I've seen. In addition to prose issues, captions should also be checked for sourcing, particularly when the information in them isn't also in the article (as happens surprisingly frequently). That kind of check can be part of an image review or a source review, and since I do quite a few of the source reviews at FAC I wondered whether you were doing this or whether I should be. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy is good, and you're much better at catching sourcing issues than I will ever be, so I certainly wouldn't tell you not to include captions in your reviews. I'll step up on it myself though, as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. One point, though, as I noticed you editing one of the FAC articles - captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't have closing punctuation, per WP:CAPTION. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice that some people are able to absorb the MoS, becuase I certainly haven't been able to. Please feel free to fix any MoS mistakes you see me make, and continue drop me messages explaining where I messed up. While I know and follow such things as N, V, NPOV, etc, any time that the MoS differs from standard academic paper writing in grammar, punctuation, the use of dashes, etc., there's a good chance I'll get it wrong. That's why when I work on stuff in the mainspace, I never claim prose expertise, and I almost always ask for copyeditors, or at least other editors that write more than I do, to take a look over my work. Thanks for all of the recent guidance. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem - I tend to have a decent eye and memory for details (feel free to ask me if you need copy-editing, btw), although MOS does tend to change from time to time. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas FA review

Thanks for commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of Julia Martha Thomas/archive1. I've responded to your questions about images - please take a look. Prioryman (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Could you possibly say whether you support the promotion of the article? Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A note to myself (and my talkpage stalkers)

Massive backlog of stuff that needs to be done.

GAN Awareness - Done, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#WikiCup GANs

Collaborations with wctaiwan and NickDupree

• Architecture of the Song Dynasty - Section on the book is dry, needs to be reduced.
• Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms - Get started on.

Other

• Caption checking.

Photograph permissions

The individuals, R. Nijboer, E Collin, etc. who took many of the photos used in the Ulmus pages have been asked to contact Wiki formally notifying their permission for the use of the photos in Wikipedia. Regards Ptelea (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Franklin half dollar

In addition to swapping out the scanned medal images for photoed ones, I've added this image. Please accept my word I went through it carefully for copyright markings. The Numismatist was non copyright until about 1956, not sure of the exact date but it's later than 1952 and earlier than 1958. If you could revisit the FAC briefly, I'd be very grateful.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

China Collaboration of the Month

Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board has selected a topic for collaboration. The current China Collaboration of the Month is Shanghai. Because collaboration is a pipe dream on Wikipedia, this promotional blast will serve as the only time anyone notices that there is a China Collaboration of the Month. Carry on.

Thanks for the Kind Words on my RFA

Thanks for the word to the wise -- the process was actually quite enlightening! I learned a lot from all the comments and will keep in mind how much more there is to Wikipedia. ch (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you enjoy writing though, there's no reason to stop doing that, it's quite valuable. The behind the scenes of Wikipedia can be a bit ugly too, so try not to let any of that ugliness taint your experience as a Wikipedian. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your helpful question on my RfA, along with your support and your additional comments regarding some of my answers. I shall do my best to live up to your and the community's expectations. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. The question was my pleasure (no really, it happens to be my favorite RfA question). Sven Manguard Wha? 06:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New Portal

Thank you Mr.Manguard.I am honored to have such a seasoned Wikipedian to work with me in this venture.Here is to our project..........Skylark2008 (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Skylark2008

Keep Calm And Drink Tea :-)

Thx  Chzz  ►  23:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. So what did I do to earn the tea? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage

User:Sven Manguard,

Thanks for your interest in WikiProject Espionage. As you've seen on our talkpage at least one person has suggested to align WikiProject Espionage with The WikiProject Mility History. Another two users on that list has expressed interest in helping. As for the rest, I have not heard anything from them and their where-abouts are unknown. I've tried my best to get support and start up WikiProject Espionage again unfortunately I had 10 weeks overseas and only been back home 2 weeks.

If you are able to help with inter-connecting the two WikiProjects I'm more than willing to help and give you advice, help, my idea's etc on it. Hope to hear from you. Adamdaley (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File upload question

A new user is having difficulty uploading a file. I was trying to help but realized that I don't know enough about file uploading to give a definitive answer. If you have time, could you take a look at User talk:Allycat1208#File upload question? Xe mentions getting an error when xe tries to upload the file. I've made my best guess about the problem, but I figured that, since you are one of the biggest workers with files, you might have a more clear answer. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded there. Sven Manguard Wha?

Hi, I'm the one with the photo upload problem. I did everything you said. The photo appears on the last page after I followed all the directions. Now how do I get that photo into my user page? Thanks lots! Allycat1208 (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Sven Manguard Wha?

Hi, again! Why was I able to upload the file to my computer if its not free to use? How could you tell if its not free to use? Also, why would I be able to put the photo in the infoxbox once I move the user page to "Zahra Baker" if its not free to use? thanks lots! Allycat1208 (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, One more question? How do I respond to you on my talk page? thanks! Allycat1208 (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You can edit your own talk page the same way you edit my talk page. Just click the edit button at the top of your talk page. Just indent the text the way you did with the question you made right above, and you'll be fine. I'm watching your page, so I'll know when you respond. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me. After someone responds to me, I can only respond back to them by opening up their personal talk page as I did with you? Can't I respond to you from my own page? Allycat1208 (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We're making progress

Ta dah! :)! Still got lots to do, but we're getting there. Two things that I also intend to work on at some point aside from the rest of Chzz's lists and the new 'largely duplicative filename' database report are these two - An old list that I found via what links here on an image I was nominating at FFD, and this list of possible bot-tagged NFCC problems. Feel free to pitch in if you want to! Regards, Acather96 (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Sven Manguard Wha? 19:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Internet issues

Hi there. I lost internet at about 2:30 AM EST (6:30 UTC), and it will be down for at least another seven hours, until Midnight EST (4:00 UTC), possibly later. Blame BellSouth.

I am at a free WiFi hotspot now, hence the ability to post, but may not have internet access for long periods of time.

Just letting you all know, in case you were wondering what happened. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope it all gets worked out well. I'm well acquainted with Internet downtime because of my stupid provider, too (but they're the only one I can get). :( –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RTV

I'll address your issue, but first I have to ask that in future, when something involves RTV, please curb your instincts to take it to WP:AN. They're kind of polar opposites.

The user has now been officially vanished; if it will satisfy your deep-seated need to have everyone follow The Rules, I'll reblock him indef. Everything else is really none of your business. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply to you by email. We have much to discuss. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

U1, under which the talk page was deleted, specifically excludes user talk pages. As so often happens, an admin chose to ignore policy and leave a dishonest deletion log. And as so often happens, as soon as someone questions this, another admin comes along to try to strong arm you into shutting up. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure about the "dishonest" deletion log (perhaps inaccurate), not sure about the "strong arm you into shutting up" either, but in any case, as a default setting and considering the experience on-wiki of everyone debating this, please continue this discussion via email, clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, "deletion log which falsely claimed a justification which does not exist, no doubt due to the admin not being familiar with policy or bothering to read what he was citing". DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already sent several emails. Here's an excerpt that I'm going to share publicly, from an email I just sent:

"Also, RTV or no RTV, I don't think it's right to delete the talk page. If you want to undelete it as user talk:<<redacted>>, but it really should be undeleted."

I am willing to share the rest of my emails, which explains why I am pursuing this issue, with The Rambling Man, since he's involved. All he needs to do is ask. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well I am involved, so I guess so. If this is just about the deletion of a talk page under U1, perhaps we can centralise a discussion elsewhere. It's not directly related to any particular RTV. If Sven, Duncan etc feel so strongly that this is an issue, I think they should raise an RFC to ensure that (a) user talk pages aren't deleted as an oversight by people who are trying to help RTVers (b) guidelines are clearer (c) admins are more aware of this topic (d) we understand exactly why talk pages shouldn't be deleted, after all once an account is moved, once all the user pages are deleted, and once a user exercises their right to delete the talk pages, what's the point? Note: I don't want an answer here, nor any discussion. If you want to debate any of this, centralise it. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The policies about deleting usertalk pages are clear, as are the speedy deletion criteria. Unfortunately, some admins are either too lazy to familiarise themselves with them, or believe that they can ignore them with impunity. Users don't have the right to delete talk pages. They can ask for it via MfD. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well claiming dishonesty or laziness isn't actually going to support your position in "re-educating" admins. If you actually want to make an improvement, talk things through rather than issue such wrath. The deletion of talk pages being subject to MfD only is one of Wikipedia's little mysteries, seemingly without justification, but one we all should follow until such a time it's changed (after all, deleting barnstars and chat, whatever...); however WP:IAR allows for this sort of thing in any case. All we've done know is create another "RetiredUserxxxxx" account which is as useful as a chocolate teapot. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I am not DuncanHill and do not know who he is. To the person that sent me an email that seemed to confuse the comments I made with the comments that he made, please take it up with DuncanHill. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bob

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Bob 1991-08-19 1226Z (alternate).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Internet issues - take two

Hi there. Remember how I said that I'd be back online last night? Well 19 hours after their self imposed deadline has passed, I'm still offline. I'm at the WiFi hotspot I was at last time, but it's a store, and it closes in two hours. If anyone wants anything from me within the next 24-48 hours, they had better ask now, because I don't know when I'll have access next. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dang. Just missed you. Hope you find internet access soon. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

August

Could use your help

Hi Sven, hope all is well. When you have time, and if it's not too much trouble, could you help me improve User:Fastily/Fbot Blacklist? Thanks in advance, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please also add the general (G##) CSD tags to that list. My internet is still down, so I will have to catch up with you later. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, will do. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've created a whitelist here. When you have time, could you please help out with that too? Thanks! Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)/archive2

Thanks for taking a look. The issue you raised has been addressed. Thanks again. —Andrew_stalk 07:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence portal

(Moved from your user page –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

Dear Mr Manguard

This is Skylark2008,in connection with the Intelligence[info-gathering] portal.Sorry I had to :fall off the radar for a few days for some works.Anyways this is a rough list of things that I would like to have in the portal-

Distinct links to-

1.Intelligence collection.

2.Intelligence analysis.

3.Intelligence dissemination.

4.Intelligence cycle management.

5.Spy-wars during ww-1.

6.Spy-wars during ww-2.

7.Special mention of Stalin's spy who tipped off the Soviets that the Japanese would not attack the Siberian areas,allowing Stalin's sucker-punch on the Nazi Germans.

8.Spy-wars during cold-war.

9.Spy-wars during age of imperialism.

10.Spy-wars in the many regional conflicts,today,around the world.

11.Special spy weapons.

12.Special spy devices.

13.Special spy platforms.

....anything else you might care to add.

Once more please allow me to express my gratitude. Skylark2008 (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Skylark2008

Internet issues may be resolved

I'll be touch and go for a few days, but hopefully I will have a stable connection again. In the mean time, I think there are a few things I need to get caught up on, yes? Sven Manguard Wha? 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 12, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Where the heck did you get that I was at all interested in this mess? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Perp walk video xlinks

Sven,

I reverted your removal of the external media box in Perp walk because I believe both links are to media posted by the copyright holder, which is in keeping with WP:EL. The first one is posted by a YouTube user named Wala, whose channel page shows that it's the YouTube channel for WALA-TV in Mobile. The video seems to be their raw footage. They would own the copyright.

The second does not appear to me to be scraped local news footage on TV, rather something shot by someone in the neighborhood who happened to be there at the time (and they would certainly be allowed to shoot such footage and post it on YouTube themselves (and remember, of course, that contrary to what some users seem to have come to think there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube videos. If you like I will contact one or both users to make absolutely sure they posted them.

I'm a little perplexed that you described this as an attempt to "get around" the fair-use policy and its limitations. The template page says specifically that it's intended for this purpose. I would love to have a freely-licensed video of a typical perp walk; maybe someday we will. Until then, we don't, and absent one that was the subject of enough media commentary to justify its inclusion, I think an external link to a video or two showing a typical perp walk will aid readers in understanding the practice, specifically the interactions between defendants and the media present.

External links to copyrighted material, as long as it's not posted in violation of said copyright, are perfectly acceptable under the fair-use policy. It is standard practice on the German Wikipedia, where no fair-use images are allowed, to include a link to any copyrighted media such as album/book covers etc. in the relevant articles. I don't see why it would be so problematic here. Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The image, rather than the two videos, was the one I had the most venom for in that edit summary. I still disagree with it, however I won't argue the revert. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's harder to argue. Thanks for the understanding. Daniel Case (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Internet issues - take three

Alright, so this is getting quite frustrating. Yet again, with no prior warning, BellSouth, my horrid ISP, cut my internet at 2:00 AM last night.

My apologies to the people I was in IRC conversations with at the time, and to the people I was doing work for at the time.

I'd say something pleasant, like "It won't happen again", but I can't, because BellSouth is a horrible ISP and in all likelihood they will continue to disconnect me like this.

Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Naked Monster

Perhaps you might wish to withdraw the nomination? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've responded there. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I joined the topic and boldly made an accuracy tweak to your comment after the shuffling.

FYI, I appreciate your comments/criticisms re: the committee but will not be responding substantively to those on that page; you can catch me in my arb hat at one of the arbitration venues (if you like).

Thanks for helping me pound together a workable proposal. –xeno^talk 03:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. For the record, as you can probably tell by now my trust in ArbCom has eroded significantly in the last dozen weeks or so. A number of things, none of which you initiated but at least one of which you supported, have led me to believe that ArbCom has at best lost touch with and at worst holds in disdain the broader community. I see a lack of respect for the community in ArbCom's recent actions, both in words and in deeds, and it saddens me. I truly believe that just about every time ArbCom (as an entity) touches something, it gets worse. Transparency and community control do not seem to be able to co-exist with anything ArbCom has taken hold of. As a result, I want ArbCom touching as few parts of the project as possible. At the same time, I also see the charter of ArbCom responsibilities slowly and subtly expanding, meaning that it is, as an entity, in fact touching more things.

I am sorry that you, as an individual, got caught in the crossfire. I will, however, vigorously defend my position. The voice of a single, common editor means less and less as time goes by, but that dosen't mean that I am going to give up what little voice I have left. What ArbCom is doing is wrong, period, and I will continue to say that, even if it will in all likelihood be to my detriment.

Thank you again. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"I am sorry that you, as an individual, got caught in the crossfire." No worries - there is no need to apologize for participating in consensus building. Cheers, –xeno^talk 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

SAJC cricket team is a real cricket team with history. Please do research on it before deleting articles.....you are harming others!

Areafoo (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I rolled back some "fluff" prose, and it would appear that I inadvertently took out a lot more text (which happens if one editor makes several edits in a row.) I apologize for that. In the mean time, please read Wikipedia's policy on using a neutral point of view, so that you don't get reverted in the future. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Crat inactivity

For what it's worth, I think routine reconfirmations for bureaucrats would be a better supplement to the new "remove for inactivity" policy. Stewards, who are similar in number and to some extent duties, are confirmed annually. In fact, most roles beyond adminship are either "at will" (checkuser, oversight) or periodically selected/reconfirmed (stewards, ArbComm, Audit Subcommittee, Ombudsman Commission). --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Stub articles are a drain on Wikipedia's resources. They should be deleted after six months if they are not accepted as a Good Article (GA). Allowing them to be here encourages lazy editing.--andreasegde (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(TPS) No. Just no. –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. You like your stubs about your favourite shop.--andreasegde (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you just meant. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he thought I was you even though I specifically noted that I am a talk page stalker. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Pudagla-Greifenwappen.jpeg

Hallo Sven Manguard, changing the file extention without reason like you did at File:Pudagla-Greifenwappen.jpeg creates replacement work. Please do not do it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do a lot of file moving locally, and tend to change the extension almost subconsciously, but it dosen't really pose a problem then because the file name has to be replaced in the articles anyways.

In this case, (maybe it was Google translate), the file name on de.wikipedia was unworkable anyways. I was seeing "File: Pudagl.." instead of "File:Pudagl..", and that kind of spacing issue really is worth the effort to go and fix, as it trips users up when they try to place the file.

I guess you have my apologies if you want them. Thank you for fixing everything on the de.wikipedia end. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

IRC

You online? Let's chat :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

What do you think? "Contains Elements from Blacklist" appears to be slightly broken but it shouldn't be too difficult to fix :p -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong. All of the ones that have Template:Information in them are being passed over by your bot, even when there should be nothing that would prevent them from being tagged. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot also looked over File:Otemon.jpg and did not tag it. File:Otemon.jpg is already at commons. Is there any provision the bot has to recognize that kind of thing? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, should have explained the report better. This page is an analysis of 1,000 random files that transclude {{PD-self}}. The program I used to generate this report did not actually edit any pages. Instead, it reviewed each listed images' respective file description pages, checking to see if each page:

• Transcluded {{Information}}
• Transcluded elements from this blacklist (basically the same as User:Fastily/Fbot Blacklist, minus Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons)
• Was already flagged for transfer to Commons and if the Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons was applied by Fbot.

Hope that helps to clarify things. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Just finished resolving several bugs. Looks like we're good to go. Anything with a "No" in the "Page Transcludes items in Blacklist?" is probably eligible for transfer to Commons. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to crank it up, crank it up. I'd actually like to add a few more templates to the whitelist, since you don't want to do multiple runs. What do you think about adding the whole PD-USGov suite in? That aside there's no reason not to start, so long as it's working properly. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's do it. FWIW, you needn't ask me for whitelist/blacklist additions; the amount of work you've done for this bot project basically gives you that right ;) Thanks for all your help! Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I got all the government ones. The US government has 100 templates, which lends itself to a few jokes (one of which is in the edit summary of your whitelist). There are some templates I'm trying to find the names of, a few national archive collections, and I can't find them right now, but whatever. Start 'er up when you're ready. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Pudagla-Greifenwappen.jpeg

Hallo Sven Manguard, changing the file extension without reason like you did at File:Pudagla-Greifenwappen.jpeg creates replacement work. Please do not do it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I do a lot of file moving locally, and tend to change the extension almost subconsciously, but it dosen't really pose a problem then because the file name has to be replaced in the articles anyways.

In this case, (maybe it was Google translate), the file name on de.wikipedia was unworkable anyways. I was seeing "File: Pudagl.." instead of "File:Pudagl..", and that kind of spacing issue really is worth the effort to go and fix, as it trips users up when they try to place the file.

I guess you have my apologies if you want them. Thank you for fixing everything on the de.wikipedia end. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you change a file name anyway - sure - you can change the extension. But here the file name was not changed ("Pudagla-Greifenwappen" before and after your renaming) and hence no replacements (about 8 in total) would be necessary and no red links would be show up anywhere. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Must have been Google translate issue then, because when I did a cut paste, there was a space like > "File: Pudagl.." < in it. Ah well. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Police helme

Sorry, I missed your q, "<Sven_Manguard> Chzz what's the difference between a CP and an MP";

CP is City of London Police, who cover only the very centre of London (a tiny police-force); MP is Metropolitan Police Service, who cover the rest of Greater London (and is massive).  Chzz  ►  12:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Stop Following Me

You closed my games proposal at the village pump. You dragged me into a sockpuppetry case to which I am completely unrelated. Recently you answered a question of mine at the help desk, and I thank you for that, at least. However, those three things combined are slightly annoying to me. I politely ask that you not respond to anything of mine for a short while - perhaps a week or two. I will appreciate it if you do. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 23:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to follow you, and I actually didn't notice you were the one that asked that help desk question. I happen to be active in FAC, the Village Pumps, Help Desk, all the file namespace related notice boards, and... well... the file namespace. I will look out for your name in the future and avoid your questions, if you like. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 19, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

GET

OFF

MY

PAGE

I've left you all a wonderful little note about all the canvassing. This is beyond absurd.

Sven Manguard Wha? 05:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, just wanted to thank you for all the hard work you did for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 2. Please take this cookie as a token of my appreciation.

Fastily has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Best wishes, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Anytime. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Fakers

That according to the Wikipedia page "List of crime movies of the 2000s" and according to many online sources such as this: http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/art_malik_and_who_starred_in_fakers - the film came out in 2007. Why brand me a vandal? --82.10.203.103 (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I was only trying to help Wikipedia. I was on the 2000s page and saw Fakers under the 2007 section, so thought I'd correct the article itself to read 2007. But I get branded a vandal. Now if I edit the list of crime films of the 2000s page and move Fakers to the 2004 section I'll probably be called a vandal again.

This is one of the reasons I've abandoned my Wikipedia account and now can't really be bothered to edit anymore. Everything is branded vandalism, nobody bothers looking into things --82.10.203.103 (talk) 07:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You edited the year that a film came out, without adding or changing a source, and only changing the year in one of the places it appeared in the article. That kind of edit happens often, and is almost always an illegitimate change. I did some research, and 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007 are all listed at different places as the release year, which is rather odd. The source you linked to is a user edited site, which is not a reliable, third party source. If you can find such a source, you can make the change, but it has to be sourced.

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Cobi's talk page.
Message added 07:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- DamianZaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

... and I have replied. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: capitalisation in file names

Since progress of the above seems to have gone silent, I raised the question of what had become of the request at VP here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have responded there. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the possibility mentioned above...

You may be interested in Gollum or WP:TOR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the message you sent 54 minutes ago, I already read it :D Sven Manguard Wha? 20:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Geez, that was fast. :P I just sent you the program files. Enjoy ;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not as much fast as lucky timing. I just happened to be at Panera at the right time. I'll let you know when the email comes in, it hasn't yet. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The email bounced -_- I forgot gmail doesn't allow executable attachments. By any chance, do you have a non-gmail address? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I could make a new account on any free service, just tell me which one to use. In the mean time, I have to go now, I'll check back in when I get access to the internet again. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that. I figured out a workaround. Check your email as soon as you can. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Got the email. Gotta go, Sven Manguard Wha? 21:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Geometrics-band-2009.jpg

Hi, what else is required to reverse this? The image was released by its photographer Carl Manley into the public domian at the time the article was created. Short of publishing the photographers telephone number I'm not sure what you're expecting here. --C:Amie (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Fallschirmjäger ✉ 09:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Safe trip!

I hope your China trip is enjoyable! Stay safe! - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Re:Bot issues

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A note

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Ktr101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Espionage

Sven Manguard,

Why are you saying that WikiProject Espionage is not moving? The reason why I put myself as inactive, was because you were talking to someone else and I was only waiting to see what came of the situation if I saw any discussion about it on my Discussion page or WikiProject Espionage's Discussion page. Adamdaley (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is it not moving? It's not moving because I will not unilaterally merge projects, and there was not, last I checked, a consensus to merge with either WikiProject Intelligence, MilHist, or both. As someone peripherally involved at best in the WikiProject, I don't have the authority, and really don't have the desire, to force the issue. You and the other long term members figure out what you want done, and I'll help you do it if I can, but it's not my decision. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be more than happy if someone like yourself could help me merge into WikiProject Military History or WikiProject "Whatever it's called". I do have three people who are willing to help do articles, so that makes four including myself, so where ever we end up as a WikiProject there will be upto four more people to help with that WikiProject. You can count on me being part of it and would like to have access to the decisions or at least give my opinions. Because I've tried my very best to work with coordinator's and more experienced Wikipedia users than me. Especially over the last year. Adamdaley (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Adam, Sven directed me here from IRC (I'm a coordinator of the Milhist project). The way forward, I believe, would be for you to propose a merge between the Espionage WikiProject and the Milhist intelligence task force on the main project talk page so that editors can comment and the project can be formally merged after some time for others to comment. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving files to the Commons

Thanks so much for this rewrite! I hope everything is ready by the time the drive starts. Speaking of which, I asked some questions about the drive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive Sep 2011 (as advised here), but have not yet received any replies. Could you help with this? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just found out about it yesterday, but sure, I'll see what I can do. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

All is ready. Also, you will need to be extremely fast before an admin deletes the image. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

HA! Unless I nudge an admin in the IRC, it usually takes between 24 and 48 hours between when I tag an image F8 and when it gets deleted. Don't worry, I know how to do my/this job, I won't let you down. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Related to the above, I thought you might be interested in User:Quadell/MoveToCommons guide, which I wrote for the occasion. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have updated this to remove letter grades, and explain which moves I will consider acceptable. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOOTY discussion

As you're not a regular at WikiProject Football, I thought it'd be courteous to ensure that you were aware that the response to your discussion has not been a simple rubber-stamp. While there is general acceptance that we should be less reliant on first party sourcing than many articles currently are (particularly with match reports), there is concern that by encouraging the use of the media for breaking transfer news, we are making sourcing less reliable. More detailed rationales can be found at the section you started on the matter.

Regards, —WFC— 17:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll join in the discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Two kit images

You can feel free to do anything you desire with these two images ( File:Kit body dinamo09drugi.png and File:Kit_body_dinamo09prvi.png ).
I don't see any valid reason to keep them.
N1cky

Alright, thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles

Don't spend too much effort getting them... if you can't, you can't. :-) [2] [3] [4] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Svenbot

Hey Sven, just uploaded a new version of Fbot's code to Google docs. This updated resolves several issues with Fbot's login screen. Check it out. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had any issues with the login screen... Sven Manguard Wha? 21:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The old code doesn't accept certain characters in the password field. The end result is that the bot just refuses to log in. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot Issue

Sven. Your bot flagged this file to be moved to commons but the PD-US notice states that it won't be PD in the home country till 2032. I'm not sure if this was an oversight error or a bug but there may be more files like it cheers. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I hadn't seen any cases like that before. I'll institute a quick fix now and then explain to you why it happened in a second. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am no irc now. You can tell me there. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Right. So the bots tag for transfer any files that contain a template from their whitelist and do not contain a template from their blacklist. This is a 1 in 10,000 case where because there are multiple licenses, the bot got tricked. It read that there was a PD-USGov template, which is on its whitelist, and didn't see anything on its blacklist, so it made the tag. PD-US-1923-abroad is not part of the whitelist because not all of the files tagged with it are eligible for transfer, but it was not added to the blacklist either. I've added PD-US-1923-abroad to the blacklist now, so the bot won't tag anything that has it, even if it has other licenses, like PD-USGov, too. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Madras Sappers

Will replace them with free images, if I cant find the emails. Also, the postage stamp fair use rationale for the postage stamp on the page is imho defective and should be deleted otherwise you'll be inundated with stamp images creating huge admin backlog of deletion. WikiProject Philately may be approached. AshLin (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I only noticed the three medals, I didn't even look at anything else there, because I came from Category:Wikipedia license migration needs review, where the 1940 medal was one of less than two dozen items left in the backlog. I'm not familiar with British or Indian copyright, but would PD-old come into play at all? Sven Manguard Wha? 09:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Message

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

Hi, I explained the "hypocritical" part for you on Fastily's talk page. It's all about one problematic user. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mhmm, this post has been quite revealing. Legolas does not in any way appear to be a problem user. You, however, are starting to fit the bill. Please extricate yourself from my page. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Image question about AAC aids

Greetings, Sven. Do you have any insights regarding Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Derivative Work issues in photos of AAC aids.? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Diagram of the Federal Government and American Union edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot tagging

Please don't tag files with any variant of {{notforcommons}}. That's a good way to cause the files to be deleted here when the transfer happens, and later on Commons, as they're US-only. In particular, do not tag ones with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, and please untag all you have tagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.106.183 (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot dosen't tag anything with {{notforcommons}} on it, because {{notforcommons}} is a redirect of {{Do not move to Commons}}, which is on the bot's blacklist, and has been on the blacklist since before the bot began its run. {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, which is not connected to {{Do not move to Commons}}, was added to the blacklist when that issue was discovered, almost 48 hours ago.

Only a tiny number of items using the PD-US-1923-abroad template were tagged, among the 16,500 that the bot has already tagged, making manually untagging the files infeasible. I've yet to even see the problem during my spot checks (I check a minimum of 36 Svenbot edits an hour, or 1 in 10 files the bot flags in that hour).

I have been working with Fastily, however, and can tell you that the problem will be corrected when Fbot task #4 (already in development before this issue was discovered) is approved in a few days.

Thank you for bringing your concerns to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucart RfC - oppose sections

Hi Sven. Thanks for the input on the crat threshold RfC. I had the same question as you about the oppose sections when we were writing up the RfC. SoWhy had added it per his reasoning here. So I wanted to let you know about it as others may have that same resoning. Best regards. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I restored them. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fbot Update....yet again

Hey Sven, I updated Fbot's jar file, and it's now on google docs. In this update, I resolved a major bug which was causing Fbot to improperly determine whether a file description page contained elements from the blacklist. Also, I fixed a few inefficiencies with the code so it should run much faster now. As always, if the program starts crashing randomly or doesn't do what it's supposed to, don't hesitate to drop me a line. All the best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I finished running all of the US related stuff, and am uncomfortable with some of the other items remaining on the list. I was going to talk to you tonight about it, but my schedule got shot to hell, so we'll see. I probably won't be running Svenbot for a few days. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, contact me when you have time. On a side note, I just finished the trial for Fbot task 4, and the results look promising. The blacklist and error reporting page for this task are at User:Fbot/Blacklist4 and User:Fbot/E4, respectively. What do you think? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me take a look now. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

{{NC-CanDND}} is on the list. Umm... what is that? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any common themes between the errors, I don't have access to the source code, and even if I did, I wouldn't be able to help you at all. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:NC-CanDND removed. The errors mean that my parsers could use a little tweaking, nothing more. Also, thought I'd mention that the concern you noted at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 4 was resolved with the latest update to Fbot :P Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What happened?

I can't find the conversation about your complaint.--andreasegde (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I archives really, really quickly. It's near the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717; It resolved itself as a stern glare, and little else. Please do everyone a favor and leave Chzz and his talkpage alone, though, he really isn't out to get you or anything like that, and he most certainly isn't colluding with Pmanderson. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all, if he eases off with the warnings that nobody else gets. Done deal. :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing File:Proxyblock.png

Thanks a million for that. =) I've been bogged down with work and didn't have time to fix the stupid thing. :P --slakr^\ talk / 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem sir. If you ever need anything similar, drop me a line. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

UEFA reports

The consensus, as have been expressed through edits by hundreds of editors, for UEFA competitions have been to use UEFA official match reports, for many reasons such as uniformity and authority reasons. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to start an RfC, be my guest, however doing something repeatedly does not make it the best option, and my position is backed by an RSN thread. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In less than nine hours, three different editors (User:Tomcsy, User:Kante4, and me) reverted your edits on this matter, so I think it is fair for me to say that whatever "consensus" you cited do not necessarily reflect the general opinion of many football editors. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think your consensus is stronger than my consensus is, start an RfC. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion and vote on this matter at Talk:2011–12 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round#Match reports. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the 3RR warning. OpenFuture, your actions have proven that you are not an ethical person, and I will have no dealings with you. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing it doesn't invalidate it. Neither does your personal attacks. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider it a personal attack, I consider it a matter of opinion grounded in your actions. You voted in a thread, then enforced the thread which only had your vote and one other vote in it, and then hit me with a 3RR violation. Please explain how that is not massively unethical. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What you consider it to be is irrelevant, it is a personal attack. I have not "enforced" anything. I reverted your changed because you removed the match reports for a lot of matches for no good reason (as the RSN discussions you use as a basis have nothing to do with this case). The vote did not even exist at that point. I suggest you cool down, stop your personal attacks and edit warring and start following Wikipedia policy. The path you are on now is not going to get you anywhere you want. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My revert removed match reports... for games that haven't been played yet! Well duh! No other source has it because there's no content to be sourced, and all UEFA has now is a bunch of blank space. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Coin images

Please note that images photographs of PD coins are not necessarily PD- simply tagging them with PD-old is not enough, as we will also need the photograph to be public domain in some way. See this thread; Godwin was asked about this specifically, and his response was "The short answer is: yes, they are copyrightable by the person taking the photographs." J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree; I was surprised to see my watchlist light up with these changes. I think they ought to be changed back (most, at least). Virtually all have come from books. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 16:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and change the licenses back. I was unaware of that discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, so was I, I must say :) However, I am surprised that you did not consider using PD-art or PD-scan, even if you considered coins 2D works (which is completely understandable). Also, is it not a little unhelpful to suggest that other editors should correct your mistakes for you? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I respect respect Mr. Godwin and acknowledge his position of expertise, but at the same time, by not making the changes myself, I was subtly broadcasting that I disagree with his decision on the matter to a degree that is strong enough that I won't personally make the change back, but not strongly enough that I'll object if someone else does. Does that make any sense? (in other words: in most cases, I do undo my own mistakes, but I don't consider this a mistake.) Sven Manguard Wha? 14:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, if Godwin says it's a mistake, it's a mistake. J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You believe that you are right to go against the word of our lawyer in legal matters? You're welcome to disagree with his interpretation all you want, but actually acting against what he has said is downright disruptive. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Slight correction: Goodwin hasn't been the legal council for the foundation for close to a year now --Guerillero | My Talk 23:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Backtrack:

- I was not aware of the official legal judgement on the matter at the time of my edits.

- I have not made similar edits since becoming aware of the official legal judgement

- You've already made all the needed reversions.

Alright. With that in mind, I'll reiterate that I disagree with Godwin here. I think Godwin is being overcautious; because he cannot assume that everyone will know how to distinguish non-artistic cases from artistic ones, he closed the door on that whole category. While not all cases are like the ones I edited, the ones I edited (centered top view, normal light, white background) are essentially identical to what a copy machine would produce. However, it is essentially a moot point now, because of the above points. Finally, please don't accuse me of being disruptive, it is more than clear that I'm not being disruptive. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Guerillero- He was when he made the statement, and he made the statement in his role as the legal counsel. Whether he is now is irrelevant- We don't just dismiss whatever was said as soon as he leaves the job. Sven, I did not accuse you of being disruptive, I said that "actually acting against what [Gonwin] said is downright disruptive"- your refusal to clean up your own mess, however, was certainly borderline. I've no opinion on whether what Godwin said was right, but, for reasons I have explained, I am going to treat it as right, and, while contributing to Wikipedia, we really have no option but to do so. J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not going to agree on this issue, and there are no edits left to be made on the matter. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Sven, hope you're well. I've uploaded a patched version of Fbot yet again, and started a new BRFA for Fbot. Thought you might like to know. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was literally on your page clicking preview regarding the first of those two items. Scary timing. Hop on the IRC if you can. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hah, win. I'm a bit busy at the moment, I'll be on in a half hour. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try and stick around for it, but I might need to step out. In the mean time, I'll post to the BRFA. Mind if I create a page in your userspace (User:Fbot/Blacklist6)? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, feel free to! We'll need a whitelist too. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I copied over the templates from User:Fbot/Whitelist2 to User:Fbot/Whitelist5. However, for this task, I'm going to require a list of all free license templates on Wikipedia. If you have time to help, I'd appreciate it. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg

Hello, another user named Quadell has listed a rather good explanation of why the image is public domain, i was wondering if you still object to the image on copywrite grounds.XavierGreen (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me take a look. I really haven't had time to check up on much (see the big box at top of this page for why.) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Image

I don't know what image you're referring to. Dan56 (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Nas-the-lost-tapes-lp.jpg was the one that triggered the message. Don't lose any sleep over this, I've left a half dozen other people the identical message, it's a common and pretty harmless mistake. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

DASHbot

My apologies — I only meant to follow the directions I saw there, and if there were additional, I missed them inadvertently. I just want to assure it was done in good will. It may be a case of the Christmas bicycle coming with directions, and the only part a dad can follow is, "remove the parts from the box." Nothing untoward was intended, and I thank you for alerting me. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, apology accepted. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

I'm back, to say I've forgiven you for the sockpuppetry case and such. If anything, that case might have been good for me, because now I can refer to it if my identity is ever compromised again. Interchangeable|talk to me 01:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Coldplay - White Shadows cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Coldplay - White Shadows cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed--Guerillero | My Talk 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Sven Manguard. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--FAZZMUSICLTD (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)--FAZZMUSICLTD (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:Jf rh camden1uk.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jf rh camden1uk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UT

• I've responded to your email by email. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

September

Twinkle Ffd Fails

I thought Twinkle Ffd nominations were only broken for me. Apparently not: User:Fastily/FfD. These files could use some review, if you have time. Best, FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested in User:Fastily/OIReport. The vast majority of these could be sent to Ffd... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would appear that multiple editors were having trouble with FfDs, curiously though, only during two small windows, one on the 9th, the other on the 15th. I renominated five from the first list for FfD and everything worked fine, you should be good. As for the second link, I'll keep in on my page, however the amount of free time I anticipate having this month is rather low, and I'll be prioritizing the transfer drive. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request on Commons

Hi Sven, I have speedy deleted the redirect on Commons. In the future you can tag it with {{delete}} for a speedy deletion request since it is a wrong redirect and deletion is requested by uploader. Anyway, for the Commons IRC channel, there is a admin stalkword !admin@commons, use that to get people's attention. After all, people usually idle on IRC instead of looking at it all the time. No need to be angry about it. Have a nice day. --Ben.MQ (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The delete template didn't work, and as I said on the IRC, following the in template instructions just made things worse. I decided not to use the ping function because for something that trivial, it would cause more annoyance than anything else. As for my anger, if this were the only time I've had trouble securing help over the IRC channel or in Commons proper, I would not be angry. However it is, from my experience, a persistent issue. I've lost patience with Commons. It wasn't aimed at you specifically, in fact I have to thank you for actually following the redirect to this page, most of your brethren don't.

Well, cheers, I'm going to take my Commons bitterness elsewhere. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Media review for an article at FAR.

Polish–Soviet War is currently going through a featured article review. I would like to ask if you could spare the time to go through all of the photos there? I've butted heads with wp:poland editors in the past and an outside party would likely have more impact. No rush to complete and please don't mention I asked you ;). Brad (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of prior events which, to my knowledge, you have had nothing to do with, I categorically refuse to participate in any activity where I am nudged, asked, or told not to mention that my participation is the direct or indirect result of a request from another user or outside party. This point is non-negotiable. What I choose to declare or not declare is my decision and mine alone.

I will consider participating if you strike out "please don't mention I asked you", however since I am not an FAR regular I might not have much to offer, and I most likely will mention that I was directed towards the thread from another user.

Sven Manguard Wha? 08:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as an FAR delegate, it would be very helpful if you could review images on that or any other as-yet-unreviewed article, and there's no need to hide your reason for being there - just declare any COIs you might have. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to working at FAR, my only objection was that I was how Brad asked. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Don't know what's going on with that, but I'll let you two work it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop posting deletions on the Commons

Hi,

Please stop posting deletions for polyhedron images on the commons. V. Bulatov's license is to protect his software not the images it generates. It is a fairly typical Free Software license. Just like GIMP, Inkscape, etc. it does not restrict use of the images it creates. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I stopped a while back, but the matter is still very much in the air. I'll decide whether or not to list the rest depending on how the current listings go. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just received this reply from Vladimir: "Hi ... you are correct. I don't assume any restrictions on use of the images created with the applet." Hope that settles the matter. If you still feel it is "very much up in the air", we'd need to understand why. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It was very much in the air because I was getting conflicting opinions on the matter. Do me a favor and forward that email from Vladimir to OTRS, just in case this comes up again. Once its in I'll withdraw the FfDs and tag the files with the tickets. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have forwarded the email, together with my own comments, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Hope that's right, I'm not experienced in this kind of negotiation. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ticket 2011090410008681. – Adrignola talk 21:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll start the tagging and stuff now. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for this. It's something I've often wanted to say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd actually forgot that I pulled that stunt. Glad no one got the pitchforks and torches out, or just undid the close and kept going. Hopefully that'll either stop the monthly ritual or encourage other users to clamp down on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Signs and logos on Commons

I'm a little concerned about some of the signs and logos you've been moving to Commons. Things like File:Chicago Transit Authority Logo.svg and File:Detroit Free Press Logo.svg are fine, but File:Powassan welcome sign.jpeg and File:Phillies scoreboard.jpg are more questionable. They might be fine, but it's debatable. I'm not confident enough to review the moves as either good or bad, so I've been skipping them.

I'm really not sure what the best strategy is in these edge cases. Presumably they would either be acceptable both places or neither place, so in one sense there's no benefit to leaving them here in limbo. On the other hand, I don't want to see wasted effort (and Commons folks seem to have a gut-level distaste for images from en.wiki that get deleted). What do you think? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of treating those last two as 3D structures that fall under Freedom of Panorama. I've tagged them as such. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

In the U.S., FoP applies only to buildings. Signs and sculptures are not covered. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's hardly a sign, as I understand it. It's a fully permanent multi-component three-dimensional installation that happens to hold several signs. FoP applies to structures in the United States. Furthermore, it is a permanent part of the stadium, which is a true building. As for the Canadian sign/structure, it is three dimensional enough for their laws as I read them. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

United States Bicentennial coinage

Another editor had a question, here. Thanks again for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles Boycott FAC

Re Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Boycott/archive1, I have replaced the file you mentioned with File:Michael Davitt (Napoleon Sarony).jpg. Can you check that & comment on the FAC page again. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 16:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded there. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Requests for ribbons

Could I get a ribbon for this if possible? :) -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 03:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

An odd request, but sure, I guess. You should know that almost no one ever uses ribbons though. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I hope I captured its nature to your liking. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded the ribbon, it's on my talk page. Hope you like it. I'm off to get some lunch, so if you don't like it, it'll have to wait a few hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is awesome! Thanks! :) Take a look at my userpage for my ribbon usage> :)

I have a problem though, I just added borders to User:とある白い猫/Ribbon which looks awful when I put these together in a group. Do you know a good way to make it so that if two bordered elelments are next to each other, border is hidden?

-- とある白い猫 ^chi? 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Message from Sven

Sven Manguard has asked me (over IRC) to convey this message:

Hello. As the message above indicates, I am currently in the People's Republic of China, and am therefore subject to the Great Firewall of China. Wikipedia is blocked regularly (for periods of a few minutes) by the GFC, however long term blocks are a rare occurrence. Unfortunately, it appears that just such a long term block has been enacted. I have been unable to get through for half an hour, meaning that the block is targeted and deliberate, and therefore it is likely that I will be unable to get on for an extended period of time. This may be a few hours, a few days, or even a few weeks. I have no way of knowing. In the mean time, I can be reached by email, however please use that option sparingly. Thank you for your understanding, Sven Manguard

Posting on behalf of Sven, wctaiwan (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I am confirming that I asked for this message to be posted. (I do have a VPN, however it is too slow to be a practical work around.) Sven Manguard Wha? 16:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck with your travels my friend--Guerillero | My Talk 16:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For now, I have access without a VPN again, however it is noticeably slower, and some components (namely the ability to access the toolserver) are still offline. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot

I started an RFC at WP:VPI#Linkrot - What to do? and encourage you to comment there. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:WikiProject North America.svg

A tag has been placed on File:WikiProject North America.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? What exactly was there before? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not fully understand what you mean. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

While I wasn't the user then that I am now, I have a hard time believing that I created a blank local page for an image on Commons. I wanted to know what was there, in the local page, before it was speedy deleted. Was it a set of local categories? (Because if so, those were there for a reason). Or did I really just create a blank page? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator so can't now see the deleted page, Sorry :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sven, it looks like you had added enwp categories to the image. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, in that case the F2 is bad; the file wasn't corrupt and the page wasn't empty. Although I've long forgotten the reason I put local categories in, I must have done so for a reason. I'd appreciate it if you restored them. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

中秋快乐

Dear talk page stalkers...
Happy Mid-Autumn Day

Sven Manguard Wha?

Warring for a bar

I would like you to not re-add the BacklogEliminationProgressBar which I removed. It was not about the wording, it was because I made a global MtC dashboard Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drives/Dashboard. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 10:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but

a) No one is going to see that during the current drive, they have to go out of their way to find it, and

b) Putting all of that into a collapse box makes it a mess of misaligned and overlapping junk on my monitor, which is of a rather common size.

c) I am very much opposed to global (cross drive) trackers because they set the bar too high for new entrants

d) Your rationale here is different than the one in the edit summary. You said there that you didn't want a reach goal, but I liked it because I wanted to see our total progress.

Since this is your drive, I won't revert you, however I think that this is a bad idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

Sent you one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I've replied. The message is for your eyes only. I will send it to other clerks or CUs on a case by case basis. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

One more. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding you to my recall list

Hi. It's recently been pointed out [5] to me that there is a slight flaw in my recall criteria. The criteria is fairly simple - if three or more of the people on the list ask me to hand back the tools I will. Sadly a number of memebers of the list are now so inactive as to make my criteria almost un-enforceable - not a good thing. I'd like to add yourself to the list as I trust you to be impartial. Please let me know if you're happy with that or not - or feel free to edit User:Pedro/Recall and either add or remove yourself from the hidden list. Best. Pedro :  Chat  09:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, let's hope it dosen't come to that. Sven Manguard Wha?

Notice of Inactivity

Hi there. Due to a previously scheduled engagement, I will, starting... well... two days ago, be mostly inactive for several weeks. I am healthy and all that, I just won't be online, at all, for days at a time until mid October. That means that you won't be able to contact me here, over the IRC, or by email.

I might, and this is a big might, have internet access once and a while during this period of time, however its not something that can be counted on.

If you're here to contact me, and you don't know anywhere else to stick the message, go ahead and leave it here. My talk page stalkers include some of the best and the brightest (and a few of the strangest) of Wikipedia, and so you might get an answer, even if its not from me, but please send the message to another forum if you can. (If you're here about problems with the GAN, either contact one of the other two co-noms, put the GA on hold until mid October, or close it out with a message that it should be renominated when I'm back (and please do it in that order).

Thank you for your consideration,

Sven Manguard Wha? 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi

When you regain access, I'd like to talk to you on IRC. Pilif12p 01:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Email me. I'll have access to email within days, but won't have IRC access for a few weeks. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

ArbCom Edit

Hello Sven.

I clicked on 'My watchlist' and a request for comment was the first thing I saw. I'm not really sure what you meant that my comment "Well said." (No. 16 for the statement by HJ Mitchell) was a "strong enough opinion". It's not even an opinion, you see. I'm just agreeing to HJ Mitchell's opinion which I think makes sense.

Perhaps a user like me who only has 4 edits should not receive a notice on such things?

Kind regards,

GuterTag (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)