User talk:Multichill/Archives/2011/January

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Multichill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Unapproved bot edits?

Where is the approval for this bot to add dates to {{PD-self}}? Anomie⚔ 18:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've had to block it again, Multichill. This wasn't in any of your RFBOTs. They look like legitimate edits, and I really don't want to harass you (we need bots that handle images), but please get approval. As soon as you get that, place the unblock template and I or another admin will be glad to oblige without delay. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your problem? What did I break? Didn't you notice that the bot stopped? Or do you block as punishment.? I'm just filling out the form so the Bureaucratic Assholes Group is happy again, but screw that. And they wonder why editors leave Wikipedia...... multichill (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the incivility there really necessary? Anomie⚔ 20:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The BAG thing? Oh, that's just the name when stupid things happen. multichill (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Anomie: No, but I understand why Multichill is upset. As you may know Multichill has millions of edits with his bot(s) and I doubt you will find many users than does more things than him (or does them better). So there was no risk that he broke something. The bot does a good job (as Magog the Ogre agrees) and the reward is a block instead of a barnstar. You are a member of the BAG and I'm sure you could evaluete if the task is ok or not even without a request. But if procedures requires a formal approval so be it. But the block was not needed - it would have been enough to say "Hey thank you for your help. It was nice you cleaned the backlog but please make a formal request.". I hope Multichill will make a request in a few days so we can get this task done. --MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I made a mistake, Ogre made a mistake, now fixed. We already wasted too much time and energy on this. Let's call it a day. multichill (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Good that the task is now approved. Then I do not have feel bad for unblocking the bot a little fast :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think the block of BotMultichill a mistake and I unblocked. User:Multichill is very helpfull in the area of cleaning up the NowCommons backlog and it is a great help to get the images sorted out in dates. The whole idea of making users ask for approval is to make sure the taks is usefull and that the bot operater can handle the task without fucking up. Do any of you think it is not usefull or that Multichill can not do the task? I asume you do not block users that adds dates manually? --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  Because the bot has started and stopped in the past, I didn't know if it would continue. Multichill is to be thanked for his contributions. But he is not to run an unauthorized instance of a bot. So here:

		Bot operator's barnstar
		All the nowcommons updates with User:BotMultichill. Good job!

Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

No unauthorized scripts please. You know better than that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

Commons moves

Hi. Thanks for that; I've been meaning to do it for a while but have never got round to it. I don't know if it makes any difference for the upload templates when you move them across to Commons, but I have an account there with a different user name: The Voice of Hassocks. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Hassocks5489/Archives/2011/January#Images to Commons. multichill (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Steering your bot

I know I've asked this of other editors who've had bots, but is there any way I can lure your bot to images in the Category:Images of railway stations in the United Kingdom? I've really filled that cat up, and I've always hoped others would do the same, but I don't think anybody is paying attention to it. ----DanTD (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You noticed my train transfers? ;-)

I'll move the images in the category to Commons. multichill (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so many of them were from the UK, I'm surprised nobody else categorized the orphan images by adding this category. I even added a note to the TWP Image Task Force page encouraging people to do so. ----DanTD (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Images should just be moved to Commons and categorized over there, not here. multichill (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of railway images

Are there any orphan railroad station related images within The Netherlands that you know of? They could be added to the Category:Images of railway stations, and if there are a large enough amount of them, they could be split onto their own category. ----DanTD (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I guess all images are in Commons:Category:Train stations in the Netherlands. multichill (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your message

I resent your implication.

When analysing for possible Commons transfer I am rather careful to analyse the information provided before I tag them.

Please provide a list of ALL images you consider to be a problem.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Adlai Stevenson statue

You can speedy-delete it if you want. At the time I uploaded it, I was ignorant of the restrictions about photos of statues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Multichill, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-01-02. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture upload to common

Only bunnies are allowed to hop here

Thanks for the information. Currently i am using mobile upload and its not possible to upload it to Common. Even though if it is possible, it takes lot of time to upload in common. (Wikindia24x7 (talk) 05:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC))

See User talk:Wikindia24x7#Upload to Commons, please don't hop talk pages. multichill (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Methods To End It All

I own exclusively the copyright to the album cover image. How can I ensure it stays on the Methods To End It All page?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parody Paradigm (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

East German Base Picture: Orphaned images and fair use policy of non-free images

I believe that if the non-free image is obtained by extracting one frame from the original movie, then it is legal to post this image at Wikipedia under "fair use" policy even though the original movie DVD is copyrighted. In other words,because the image of the abandoned East German base was extracted from the Equilibrium movie in the first place, it is permitted to put this image in the Wikipedia article. Apparently this is one gray area that does not infringe on the copyrights of the film industry because it is not just an orphaned image, it falls in the special category of frames extracted from a movie. This is why, after serious deliberation I have put this image at Wikipedia, with the belief that it does not fall in the category of unauthorized images. If you agree with this assessment, let us please put that East German base image in the Wikipedia article. Best Regards, Futuristicarchitect (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Erik#Image of East German Military base in Equilibrium: When the non-free image is a frame from original movie, this is OK under fair use policy. answers your question. multichill (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Free uploads pages process

After deleting a local image under F8, I observed that it was present at one of your "Free uploads" pages, so I changed the link. However, I've realised that perhaps this wasn't what you wanted — if I delete another such file, should I change it to the new image name, or simply remove it from the page, or do nothing at all? Please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I update (overwrite) these pages on a (semi) daily basis so you don't have to do anything at all. multichill (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments

Only bunnies are allowed to hop here

Thanks for the note, Wiki Loves Monuments sounds really interesting. Unfortunately I'm in the US, so I can't take any pictures, but what else were you looking for? Tobyc75 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Tobyc75#Wiki Loves Monuments, please don't hop talk pages. multichill (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive

Hallo Multichill: Ik heb recentelijk een paar images uploaded van de Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive, zie File:Justus Velsius.JPG en File:Johann Pistorius the Elder.JPG. Ik zag dat je dat plaatje van Justus Velsius inmiddels opgenomen hebt in je lijst Free Uploads. Ik maak me daar eigenlijk een (klein) beetje zorgen over, omdat de webstite van Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive oa het volgende zegt:

For more formal uses of materials from this web site (for example, publication or any other purpose that does not fall under "fair use") we require that you contact us in advance for permission to reproduce and the proper wording of acknowledgement. Please send such inquiries to [e-mail].

Ik zou het op prijs stellen als je daar even naar wilt kijken of dat OK is. Waar ik mij eigenlijk meer zorgen over maak is het feit dat er inmiddels 20 plaatjes van de Pitts Theology Library Digital Image Archive uploaded zijn naar Commons, zie Search results for "Pitts Theology Library" - Wikimedia Commons Aangezien die website specifiek de woorden "fair use" bezigt vraag ik mij af of dat wel kosher is. JdH (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

De website kan van alles claimen, maar op Commons gaan we uit van Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Al deze plaatjes zien eruit als oud genoeg voor publiek domein dus het zit volgens mij wel goed. multichill (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)