Túrelio

Welcome to Meta!

Hello Túrelio, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

--Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 22:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Commons upload counter

Hello

Thanks for your input. I'm aware of the problem with non-ASCII characters, but I don't have the time to correct it right now. You can try this version instead.

Pleclown (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of the way

In relation to another discussion File:MALAYSIA BILL RHODESIA AND NYASALAND BILL (2) (Hansard, 11 Juli 1963).djvu  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Chain of events: 1) PD-UK-EdictGov claimed as invalid (August 3) and deleted (August 11); 2) all PD-UK-EdictGov-licensed media tagged with no-permission (August 11) and deleted (August 19).

Possibly sub-optimal steps: 1) Uploader hadn't edited since April 2; thereby unlikely able to comment at the template deletion discussion. 2) Uploader was NOT notified about the no-permission-tagging. 3) Uploader was notified about file deletions only after the deletions had been performed. 4) Instead of the no-permission-tagging a regular DR would have been more appropriate in such a case.

--Túrelio (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the chain. Work is 1963, and should have been relicensed PD-UK-Gov as now out of crown copyright. Could have been done by the person removing tags, problem solved, work not deleted, no issue. Could have been done in next phase, no issue. Or, could have seen that the works are in use and dropped a note asking for the works to be curated by the host wiki. There is a DR on wiki that should have been referenced that talk about yet another licensing, not done. Too easily stepped to, through to a deletion. As I said though more provocatively … 'inwardly focused'.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, with the now-and-since-years workload of those few colleagues who process most of the regular and speedy deletion requests, any changes of the attitude or in the manner which you suggested, are either unlikely or to be expected only very slowly, IMO.

The likely unnecessary deletion of the above mentioned file might have been prevented if somebody with knowledge about PD-UK-Gov would have objected either in the DR discussion for the template or in the non-existant discussion about the file. IMO, it's unrealistic to expect that every admin is an expert in every national PD regulation. Therefore, the deletion process should try to involve someone who can make a change. However, this might not necessarily be the uploader.

Currently, this doesn't happen because there is no standard process for it. Sometimes when I process images which have to be deleted from Commons because the country of origin has no FOP or FOP-terms are not met, but which are in use on projects, I do an interwiki-jump and leave a warning about the impending deletion on the talkpage of the article where the image is used, as some projects, such as :de, apply their national FOP-rules and thereby do host such images. However, with images which have more than 1 use, this is quite a task. In addition, at least on :de, my warning was most often futile, as nobody noticed or cared to locally upload the image before it was deleted. Also, when doing is, it requires to delay the deletion on Commons in order to allow local upload. All this requires sort of "breaking" the standard process.

So, I see only 2 achievable ways to improve the situation:

• 1) change of deletion policy/process, requiring such kind of files (to be defined) to be processed through a regular DR and no kind of speedy allowed (incl. no-perm). --> RFC
• 2) Include an automatic notification of the projects, where the to-be-deteled file is used, into the deletion-process. Please see my proposals on c:COM:AN about possible solutions for interwiki notification.

However, in order to support your position, you should request un-deletion of the above mentioned file. --Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalismus

Hier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Katholische_Erwachsenenbildung_–_Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft_Hessen

und

hier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Liste_religiöser_Amts-_und_Funktionsbezeichnungen

bitte genau untersuchen und dann entfernen oder melden!

--Stephan S, der Coole (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Túrelio (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kampus-spgmu-3.jpg

deleted this photo!!! --Панн (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Щ.jpg

deleted this photo --Панн (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Already deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kampus-spgmu-3.jpg

подвести итог!!! --Панн (talk) 05:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)