![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Ogrebot made this change to Dassault Mirage 5 - the two photos in question are definately NOT duplicates - one is a colour photo of an aircraft on the ground, the other a bloack-and-white photo of an aircraft in flight. Nigel Ish ( talk) 08:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Maldives was like Afghanistan, no copyright protection. So I based the template on PD-Afghanistan. Perhaps the link to the US code is useless. I will have to do more research on this. But Maldives only introduced copyright protection in 2010. I can see that we need a Copyright in Maldives article with all the refs. At the time of the new law, it appeared in some newspapers and the government website. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for using your talk page as a sandbox, however for the purposes of the testing, I could not use the WP:Sandbox, nor my own. If you have any questions for me about the purpose (if not obvious), please feel free to ask away on my talk page. Thanks, – AJL talk 01:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You deleted File talk:Crumb self portrait.jpg, stating that "The result of the debate was to delete the image." But where was the debate? Could I be pointed to it? Because I wasn't even aware of it.
Also, you point to bullet point #1 of WP:NFC#UULP, the second part of which reads:
However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.
If I had been aware of the debate and had WP:NFC#UULP been brought up to me, I certainly would have brought up this quote, as Crumb's image is well known and an important part of his persona—especially the way he depicts himself in his famous autobiographical period (mainly in the 1980s), and he no longer looks like his most famous portraits of himself (he has grown a beard). Acidtoyman ( talk) 04:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
So does that mean that if the image had been used in the body of the article to illustrate Crumb's style, then it wouldn't have been up for deletion? Acidtoyman ( talk) 06:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the db-u1. Barong 08:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
File:OiAparadektoi.jpg, File:Ti psixi tha paradoseis mori.jpg, File:NtoltseVita.jpg, File:OiTreisXarites.jpg. Are they ok now? -- GhostFace1234 SCREAM 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!-- GhostFace1234 SCREAM 09:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to transfer this image to commons because of the license template not being recognized by commons mover. Can you help? -- Sreejith K ( talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
—Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC).
I'm dealing with an editor (Giovann..eeer,
BernieW650 who is in a slow motion, multi-front edit war. He has been advised of
WP:BRD and understands that 3rr is not a license to make 3 reversions but is steadfastly ignoring that. He is obviously trying to suck me in and get me booted again. He has reverted twice,
[4]
[5] and his last revert summery was simply "1st rv", indicating that he was ready to take it up to 3. I'd appreciate it if you could take a second to reiterate that 3rr isn't a guarantee of 3 reversions and that we are supposed to adhere to WP:BRD. -Thanks MTO
V7-sport (
talk)
19:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ironic that you have accused me of following you as you post here... I have been adhering to the BRD cycle, you haven't. V7-sport ( talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There are a large number of copyright map images being used on UK general election articles, uploaded by User:Mwhite148 - you deleted one of them as a result of this PUF discussion but there is a comment by an IP at the very end of the discussion that correctly identifies that the images Mwhite148 claimed he had "got from a friend who abandoned them" are simply taken from a website that claims copyright over them. Someone needs to go through his uploads (which may have been transferred to Commons by now) and get rid of them all! In the past when confronted by the fact he's just taken copyright images, Mwhite148 has just simply repeated the implausible claim they were made by a friend - he's still a schoolchild which probably explains his behaviour. I don't have time to deal with this and so apologies for "dumping" it on you - you just seemed the most appropriate person to let know given that you closed that PUF discussion. Hopefully you can find an image-copyright wikignome to do the grunt work - if I knew a board where they hung out, I'd have taken it there instead, any suggestions where to look in future? TheGrappler ( talk) 01:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
MosMusy is named in a currently-open 3RR report. I noticed that you took some actions in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy/Archive. MosMusy is confirmed by checkuser as the same as another guy, User:Mov25, who you have indefinitely blocked. I don't know if either one is likely to be Meowy; perhaps the SPI doesn't answer that. MosMusy has broken 3RR, according to my analysis, and it's about Armenia. This would show a common interest between him and Meowy. What would you think of an indef block of MosMusy for abusing multiple accounts? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I hereby award you the very small and discreet admin's barnstar ( * ) for figuring out how to place people under supervision under WP:ARBAA2. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at this thread (on the Senkaku Islands talk page) and seeing if you agree that the tag should be placed on the article, particularly taking a look at my post here? If you'd rather not make a decision, I completely understand. Thanks. – AJL talk 04:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL, I never removed the tag in the first place; in fact, I don't believe I've ever edited the article itself Nope,
I never have (I'll assume good faith regarding your comment directed about me). I completely agree that it should be on there too, but I thought I would get an outside opinion first. –
AJL
talk
17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind if that page got locked, but do mind it was locked without that tag. Without that tag, the discussion is just like "closed door" discussion. I think this discussion needs to attract more users or readers, as an "open door" discussion as Wikipedia (the Free Encyclopedia) prefers. The second point is, we need to go step by step if everyone is really serous to want to solve this dispute. So the tag is the very first and essential step, which means at least all participants should admit there is dispute on the title. If we cannot go through this step, forget next step. Otherwise, as you mentioned, this discussion will go nowhere, and will go along a dead loop again and again. It just wastes time. It was far beyond my expectation that the NPOV tag itself can cause such problem. ...--Lvhis (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre and AJL -- No, please think again. The POV tag should not be posted. The reasoning you both express is arguable, but flawed in a way which bodes ill for the future.
In contrast, the rationale which supports a more nuanced analysis is informed by the edit history of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. Please consider this: Unlike you both, I did participate actively in the development of both the articles and the talk page threads. As a matter of fact, I had nothing to do with the specific tagging of this article. In fact, I paid little notice at the time; but this issue has fully engaged my attention now.
Mere "contradiction" without support is unpersuasive per WP:Dispute Resolution. This is not an evidence of bias, but rather a pro-Wikipedia stance in the face of an uncooperative strategy.
According to WP:DR, we are able to parse the different types of arguments in terms of their strategic content. In other words, WP:DR helps us to recognize and acknowledge categories of constructive comments, such as:
In future, WP:AGF encourages us to hope that those who perceive a problematic issue will decide to confine themselves to constructive contributions.
As a good first step, it is necessary to acknowledge the reasonable points which have been presented in extended talk thread discussions about this very topic. If not, why not?
The content of the "tag" is construed to function as a headnote or "value-added" component. The development of our talk pages informs a heightened alertness to "value-added" "spin". (See WP:FOC)
Can we agree that it is forward-looking to re-focus on content rather than validating a tactic? If not now, when?
Magog the Ogre and Ajl772 -- Is it fair to conclude that you each appear to accept one or more implied premises? IMO, your acceptance of unstated premises only serves to endorse and validate a concurrent refusal to acknowledge or engage what has gone before.
In other words, is it fair to conclued that you make yourself part of our problem rather than part of our solution.
This begs a question: What moves us towards constructive resolution rather than an enduring impasse?
What helps us to fashion a flexible management strategy for future disputes which are likely? --
Tenmei (
talk)
23:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre -- I plan to contribute no more to this thread. An unresolved issues are better addressed in some other venue. I hope my diffs are construed as arguably constructive steps in an unfolding process. --
Tenmei (
talk)
01:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Tenmei, can you please explain (without being excessively verbose) in which way our reasoning is flawed? We understand the WP:DR process, so please don't keep bringing that up over and over and over and over... again, please. – AJL talk 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
In this context, "verbose" is non-responsive. The label "verbose" is an easy gambit, a cheap trick. Your words do not engage any explicit issue to which I can respond.
In other words, your resort to "verbose" becomes an ad hominem tangent which serves in no way to enhance the quality of our collaborative editing. Why not decide to look again at what I've written above? On further reflection, why not address the content of what I wrote -- see WP:FOC?
AJL -- In order to be very, very clear, I reproduce the familiar pyramid graphic. It is not "verbose" to point to the caption which appears along with this graphic at WP:DR. What part of this graphic and this caption do you persist in misunderstanding? As an alternative, please do explain what you perceive I misunderstand when I rely on this specific phrase at WP:DR: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."
In a thread concerned with the title of an article about a controversial subject, the unhelpful label "verbose" is not in the top three sections of the pyramid. Aha -- at last? Do you begin to grasp the emerging outlines of an recurrent pattern?
Paraphrasing the words of the first paragraph of WP:V,
Perhaps you do not know that there is extensive research which informs the choice of article title? No part of this research has been subjected to refutation as a context for a POV-tag. No counterargument has been explained as context for a POV tag.
These are marginalised.
As a constructive step, can you point to a threshold we can cross together? -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, I will attempt to address your concerns stated above, in no particular order (I'll sign after each point so that you may address each point individually).
Please do not take any of my comments as a personal attack (and I really do not have nothing against you); I am merely attempting to provoke some thoughtful contributions. – AJL talk 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you are the admin who had blocked Mov25 earlier for sockpuppetry. He has returned with a new account: MosMusy. Could you please review this case of the sock master. Neftchi ( talk) 21:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Why does this person get away with sockpuppeting when his MosMusy account was blocked, then being blocked as Mov25, and finally continuing the same behavior as MosMusy after Mov25 was now blocked. I thought sockpuppeting and sockmastering was not encouraged. But now I see with handling of this person, looks like, it is. I even provided diffs of his nationalistic edits in previous years where he added Armenian flags to Azerbaijani articles and added "Armenia Forever!". Where does this stand and how is this supported by the spirit of Wikipedia?? Last I heard sockmasters should be blocked. Thank you. Neftchi ( talk) 14:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand and I appreciate your response but considering the fact that he vandalized the page Azerbaijan in the past by nationalistic comments like "Armenia forever" and replacing Azerbaijani flag and coat of arms with Armenian, AND that he does the same thing with his Mov25 account AND then again continues the same behavior with his unblocked MosMusy account, isn't enough proof of unchanging pattern, and not enough to restrict this editor somehow? With all the abundance of evidence, no one should hesitate to impose sanctions on this editor. Neftchi ( talk) 18:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
He has a long history of vandalism. For example here (1) he replaced the state symbols of Azerbaijan and wrote about humiliating defeat for Azerbaijan and Armenian freedom fighters. In this (2) example he again replaced the state symbols of Azerbaijan with Armenia's flag and coat of arms. And he did it again here (3), in fact he vandalized the page after an admin corrected it and even wrote "ARMENIA FOREVER" as a new headline. And again (4) he added Armenian power and vandalized the page. This editor very well knows the rules and yet he continues to defy Wikipedia rules and regulations. I gave more examples in the investigation. Is this what you meant? Neftchi ( talk) 11:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Magog, I can't believe this, but the sockpuppet of Mykungfu -- 24* -- is edit warring on the ANI thread you began. I posed a response to an editor there and 24 moved it. I reversed that move once and requested in the edit summary that he not move it again, however he went ahead and moved it a second time. The audacity of this individual to continue his warring on an ANI thread. I do not want to continue this with him; he is a troll, a sockmaster with over 100 sockpuppets, and a vandal. I have created a registered account, as someone suggested on the ANI thread I do, and I will not use it until I am notified of the consensus view on the situation. I do not want to engage a troll and vandal; please tell him to stay away. I do not understand why he keeps getting away with this. Thanks. 97.77.103.82 ( talk) 21:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Magog, thanks for the reply. He moved my comment once and I reversed that. He then slickly moved the comment again without actually using the Undo option. So, he moved my comment, I moved it back, and he reverted my move. I stated in the edit summary that I would appreciate if the comment were not removed again, though he moved it a second time.
On to another issue. I will begin using my account perhaps after today when this particular discussion is over, and so I will likely no longer edit with this IP address. I may not receive any messages placed on the talk page because I won't be paying attention to it. I think that it is better to have a registered account.
And third -- how can I go about getting the CAtruth block removed? I can't access the account, but I just want to avoid any future headaches. I would appreciate if it could be unblocked. Again, I don't think I'll ever be able to use it again anyway. Thanks. 97.77.103.82 ( talk) 03:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you please mind taking a look at this help request about images? Thank you. – AJL talk 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as you seem to be familiar with image policy, I'd appreciate your having a look at some of my recent laughable attempts to add {{ information}} to images and identify possible images for Commons... Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
It does partialy, It's analysing the permissions side I get cautious about because of having been overly deletion happy in the past. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 08:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Please consider closing a poll on a talk page -- see Talk:BRICS#Consolidated discussion about flag icons. Consensus opinion rejecting the use of flagicoms in the infobox and in tables on this page seems plain; and the reasons which inform this decision are clearly expressed.
Hopefully, the results of this poll will help avert further disputes about this very narrow topic in the context of BRICS. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Magog, you recently tagged this page as an advertisment. Thank you for pointing out the poor writing. The page has now been rewritten and a few other sources have been added. Do you think the tag can be removed? Thanks Jeremyjoshua ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC).
I guess you're right about the praising by proxy, and the peacock terms should be removed. Nevertheless, Brandston does appear to be all those things, at least according to the IESNA publication cited in note 2. But I get your point and will do. One last thing. Do you have to eventually remove the advertisment tag or can any editor (ex. me) do it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyjoshua ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions Magog. I'll ask for a second opinion in the Editor assistance. Take care. Jeremyjoshua ( talk) 07:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please consider what I have written at User talk:Ged UK#Senkaku Islands dispute.
It is probable that Nihonjoe's decision to lock Senkaku Islands here and Senkaku Islands dispute here mirrors the reasoning which informed the judgment of Ged UK when he locked one of these articles here.
Nihonjoe's succinct analysis bears repeating: "It's a POV-magnet, and edit wars happen frequently."
Despite the ways in which Nihonjoe and Ged UK are each correct, is is possible that both misconstrue the problem at hand?
IMO, this is a temporary bandaid. It is a mismatch which rewards an edit warring strategy rather than suppressing it. Compare Lvhis's explanation: I don't mind if that page got locked, but do mind it was locked without that tag.
Can you envision an alternative approach which we have not yet perceived? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Magog, you're an admin, so you should know not to keep bucking consensus like this. There's no problem whatsoever with an image uploaded to WP being copied to the Commons but not deleted, and there's a strong consensus that it be allowed, so please just let it be. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
You declined which deletion?
You posted something about "until this is resolved," as though the Keeplocal tag is a problem that needs to be fixed. Perhaps I misunderstood the point of what you wrote, but if that wasn't what you meant, what did you mean? SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 21:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't see the previous edit that in effect requested deletion. I'm sorry, I was thinking this was some new KeepLocal issue that had emerged. I should have looked more carefully before commenting. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm sorry again for snapping at you. SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 01:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. You recently blocked this user for edit warring. But he has evaded his block here as an IP. — Abhishek Talk to me 19:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding This ANI thread, 24.239.153.58 (UnclePaco) posted on my talk page [9] asking about the "standard offer". It looks like this ANI thread disappeared with no real decision of any kind. My personal opinion is (1) I don't especially think it's the best use of our time to worry about rehabilitating contributors with issues and that his edits evidently were tendentious enough to attract attention even before anyone knew who he was doesn't speak well of his chances of becoming a positive contributor, but (2) the "standard offer" isn't going to result in anything any worse than what is going on right now (whacking the new socks every few months). Do you have any objections to giving the user what he wants? (Namely, a blessing to come back with a new account on or after December 9, 2011 with the understanding that he will work peaceably and use only that one account.) -- B ( talk) 23:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Magog, First of all this is not a request. Here I am providing some facts, and please accept it, if it is good for wiki. You have completely mistook my views and edits. On May 4th you blocked me due to edit warring in Kochi. Once you told me “If you will agree to wait for consensus before editing again, you may be able to avoid sanctions”. That means, eventhough it is a valid information, we shoulld convince all those who are against it illogically? For about Kochi, Commercial Capital of Kerala is a valid one and a group ips and users trying to remove it. The commercial capital tag is an official and it has n number official and unofficial references. The tags for other cities in kerala remain same without any reference. For eg: Thrissur (Cultural Capital), Trivandrum (Evergreen City) etc... .. New Delhi is the capital of India, but a group of peoples and ips come and it is not, and then is it mandatory we should convince them? I don’t know much about it wiki.
Then about recent block with Nemom article:- Somebody trying to put Nemom railway station name Trivandrum Nemom. There is no such name for that station. For any reference www.indianrail.gov.in. and also somebody put some express trains stop there. Till date (14/06/2011) no expess trains stops at Nemom. Then Kerala page, Ernakulam Town Railway Station handles 41 pairs of trains daily. In the same page stations include like Kasaragod Railway stations handles (34 pairs of TRAINS), ALLEPPY station (26 pairs of trains), Kochuveli (Just 9 pairs of trains only) and Trivandrum Central (39 pairs of trains). You can get these informations from the above mentioned Indian Railway website. It is proved that some anonymous ips and users tried to mistook to administrators and they succeeded it. They all are Trivandrum biased editors. If you look at their contributions in detail you can find it. Then about User:Samaleks: Till date I never revert any new contribution done by samaleks. You can check our contributions and edit history. Samaleks always trying to revert my edits. Even I appreciated him for creating a new article to wiki. Actually I took a gap in May month in wiki. Surprisingly, the same samaleks is missing the same May month. Then I came in to wiki on June, suddenly user Samaleks reached in wiki. I do not have any solid proofs regarding these. I request you to check at least my contributions to wiki for verifying any vandalism that I did. For your kind information I suspect Kerala related pages in wiki are in the hands of Trivandrum biased editors. Some users informed you, that I am doing editing with some other ips. For the past 3 years, I have only one internet connection and its ip address is 59.93.43.177. I ready to provide more references on your request regarding any of the points mentioned above.
You just check the edit summaries of ip address 117.230.140.22 in Nemom article- [10] and [11]. Is these are allowable in wiki? If I am going to edit these again, I am sure, I will get a block from you.
-- Bijuts ( talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Magog, I posted an image I created by adding some overlay graphics to some NASA and USGS images. I received an automated email, and tried to add the source info, but all the wiki markup and jargon is getting me really confused. I hope I did it right. The image is really truly bonafide clean. Public domain images mashed up with a little overlay annotation....by me. I promise. Swear I created it, and did not rip this image off from somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.222.5 ( talk) 23:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I was the original uploader of this image on en.wikipedia, which was a screenshot from a book. There is no record of that on wikipedia now or on commons. Mathsci ( talk) 22:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I created it originally for the article Clavier-Übung III. Mathsci ( talk) 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
WyrdLight ( talk) 08:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you delete it also on commons? And can you delete other images by this uploader? Thanks Bulwersator ( talk) 11:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Especially File:James kelly.jpg - I am unable to find source but it is probably copy Bulwersator ( talk) 11:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Heh Bulwersator ( talk) 11:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Futa wheel.jpg is probably ok (FOP) but File:Futa logo.jpg may be not Bulwersator ( talk) 11:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
copyvio}}
instead of {{
delete}}
, it will be deleted faster.
Magog the Ogre (
talk)
11:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Thanks Bulwersator ( talk) 11:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I like your "Completely original and (hopefully non-partisan) observations about political issues, from an American perspective" especially Russia+journalist - it is good that sb see this problem with media Bulwersator ( talk) 11:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I like anyone who knows how to summarize a situation accurately. - Roy Boy 22:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you Mr. Redundant. 117Avenue ( talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
And you nominating it for deletion, after I already did, is also redundant. 117Avenue ( talk) 00:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I meant the now commons, which is actually a higher quality different version. But non-the-less it has been deleted. Thanks, 117Avenue ( talk) 00:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I could have just left it be, and let it be deleted as an unused non-free, but I thought it was dishonest to not mention it is free. Image politics can get so complicated. 117Avenue ( talk) 21:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm a noob I admit it. I read your article on coat racks and I compared it to my post on saddleback. I admit that the original was rough but I was more than willing to let other editors edit it to their liking which they did. It was entirely relevent to major political action the church took in 2008 which is why I included it and people agreed that a criticisms section was needed. in fact I discovered by looking at 2006 history logs that it had one but lyoncc chipped and chipped away at it till it was donefor. a major institution needs a criticism/controversy section especally when it finds itself criticized and controversied wouldn't you say? Scottdude2000 ( talk) 22:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thank you for stepping in. I know that at least a controversy section is appropriate for an Orginization of this size. I was attempting to get the ball rolling. can you tell us in the saddleback talk page what we have to do to get it in? FYI FYI Lyoncc follows my every move to make sure nothing bad is ever said about any christian anywhere no matter what the sourcework says. thanks again for showing my noobishness the way! :) Scottdude2000 ( talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
you seem cool man. thanks for all your help. maybe you can tell me what I'm doing wrong. I'm going crazy here. originally I posted that thing as opposed to talk about it cause I knew the people who wanted me to use the talk page wanted to talk it into oblivion so there would neve rbe a consensus and it would never go up. I never said it was perfect. It changed quite a bit... but I'm kinda lost. is the newest version of my thing relevent? I felt like the fact that the church eventually had to save their pastor's national bacon made it a big enough deal, regardless of how we define who's name the pastor made the original statement in. this whole first week i feel like I've stomped through some weird delicate ecosystem but I'm just editing the way I'd edit a term paper or a group assignment back in college. what are your thoughts dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
[12] <- Good work. My plan is to move all files in Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders to Commons because the files are reviewed so they should be ok. However, I skipped a few because they did not look ok but you found one more. If you have the time it would be nice with a second opinion on the files so you are most welcome to help with the files my bot reviewed. -- MGA73 ( talk) 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah! It is just hard to transfer to Commons if you do not use the right bot ;-) Anyway what do you think of File:Author Lauren Groff May 2008.jpg + File:Daniel Smith-Christopher in 2009.jpg + File:David Louis Edelman Author Photo.jpg + File:GIDDINGS-FRANKLIN-HENRY-2.JPG? -- MGA73 ( talk) 15:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I moved all files that looked good. Once those are deleted the rest will be checked again. Are you sure File:CLÉSTON.JPG could/should be split? If yes we need a description. Anyway I tried to split up some files but it did not work. -- MGA73 ( talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I know how is should work but when I did it yesterday the new file showed up instead of the old one. Even if I deleted and only restored the old one. -- MGA73 ( talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Tried but id didn't work. I even moved the file to Commons and the wrong file was transfered :-o But I tried one today and it worked. So there is hope. -- MGA73 ( talk) 08:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)