User talk:Peterfitzgerald/Archives (wts-old) 2011-2013

spambot
Hello,

I'm not up to date about what's the preferred process to ask/report large-scale spamming problem, maybe opening a tech ticket, maybe not, so you may be of some help here.

I don't know about en.travel but on hu we definitely "enjoy" an idiot with spambots using some kind of distributed access or tor or other kinds of (open) proxies. If nobody noticed then check recently deleted pages by me, all created by random anons containing gibberish. It has been going on for some time now, at least the kind which gets the unicode text then converts to iso-8859-1 and puts back, which nicely garbles the accented chars. I didn't check for open proxies etc, this may be a global behaviour requiring central action. Or maybe it's just us. ;-)

So far it's okay, and I can handle it with a bot if it would get more annoying but it'd not be optimal.

thanks, --(WT-shared) Grin 16:02, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

Bureaucrat
Welcome to the small but illustrious circle of bureaucrats here on Shared! :-) May I also suggest that you archive some of your talk page, since it seems to be rather full? (WT-shared) Riggwelter 06:25, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

User rights
So, I see that you make good use of your newly received bureaucrat rights. That's good. What's less good, in my opinion, is that you do it with reference to he fact that we should have a discussion first. That is not in line with our guideline. I have notified the users in question via e-mail, just as the guideline says. I look forward to your view on it. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 17:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Sorry, my connection is bad. You should have my message now. --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 17:43, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I have for the time being undone your revoking of six user's admin/bureaucrat status. While the policy here does say privileges will be revoked after 3 months of inactivity, 1) this policy was long ago contested here (and I believe you were the lone dissenter); 2) changed on :en; 3) is controversial and important enough where we should not do this without some sort of discussion and an opportunity for the users in question to object; 4) could potentially alienate returning high-value users; 5) is of questionable value; and 6) may be in poor taste to do to the site's founders! --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 17:42, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I moved your post here, just to keep it in one place :-)
 * I had actually forgotten all about that - my bad.
 * Here's a problem. En: is by far the most active version, but I am sure we can all agree on that it is not the same thing as what's done on en: is what is to be done on all other language versions (even if I do accept that it is easy to pull that way...) incl Shared.
 * I do not see it as particularely controversial unless one thinks that it is a privilege to be an admin. If you're not active, then why retain the user rights? But, I can understand the idea of the need for consensus (as anywhere else...) and I am happy to bring up another discussion.
 * That is a psossibility, but I also think that high-value users more than the average users accept the idea of protecting Wikivoyage.
 * Anyone working with/having a knowledge of IT security knows that unused accounts is a security risk. I do not see why we should have lifelong user rights... even if I do understand that is not what your advocating.
 * The founders are clearly not around, nor interested. I doubt they would have anything to say about it (especially since at least one of them has all the rights in the world...)
 * So, no hard feelings from my side about you reverting my revokes - but just as I did it without the discussion you want, you did the same thing... without asking me why I did it :-) (WT-shared) Riggwelter 17:53, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Sorry for that. You'll notice my activity here today is a little clumsy. Between problems with my own connection and perennial problems with the Wikivoyage server, my edits are showing up before or after each other in random fashion...


 * My main concern was, though, the worry #4, and didn't want people to come back to simply see their privileges revoked. Perhaps we could start a new conversation, since the old ones are lying around in pub cellars in multiple language versions? --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 17:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Great idea, Peter! :-) Talk:Administrators? (WT-shared) Riggwelter 18:02, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Absolutely. --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 18:07, 10 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Done. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 18:43, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Please contact me
Hi Peter. I'd like to chat with you. You can email me at your convenience at paul.obrien@internetbrands.com and we can discuss it via email or you can provide a phone number and convenient hours for you, and I will call you. Thank you, Paul.--(WT-shared) IBobi 20:19, 23 August 2011 (EDT)


 * Paul, you can reach me privately easily by clicking the "E-mail this user" link to the left: Special:Emailuser/Peterfitzgerald. --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 23:37, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

Yakutsk map
Hello,

I'm curious if you have a copy of the vector file (Illustrator or otherwise) for the "Central Yakutsk map".

I'm an architecture student in Canada working on a theoretical project in Yakutsk.

You can contact me here: trozicki[at]gmail.com


 * Actually, both the general and central Yakutsk maps I uploaded come from the same vector file, and it's already uploaded here: Image:Yakutsk map.svg! --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 23:37, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Ticket?
Hi Peter! Is your ticket still an issue? (WT-shared) Riggwelter 13:18, 22 June 2012 (EDT)

Janitorial audit, June 2012
Hello Peter, mayhap it is time for another janitorial audit? We could always do it together. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 15:51, 1 July 2012 (EDT)


 * I do think it would be good to do, but I'm inclined to wait until some of the more egregious bugs have been taken care of and, crucially, CAPTCHA has been reenabled. Right now we would get a skewed perspective on how big the spam problems are. --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 19:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Template:Now Commons
Hi Peter,

the outcome of the discussion on Commons which you started seems to be that we badly need a template Now Commons, similar to the one in English Wikipedia. *I have already been reverted for trying to deploy such a template. What would be an appropriate place here to ask to create such a template? It would require a lot of adaptations, and I am afraid if I just start to do it, I will be reverted faster than the end result will have a chance to appear. Additionally, I am not a tech expert. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2012 (CET)


 * The pub is the place. I'll start a discussion. --Peter Talk 21:40, 28 October 2012 (CET)
 * Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2012 (CET)

File:800px-Dubrovnik Croatia.jpg
You uploaded this. Where does the image come from? You listed commons:de:Datei:Dubrovnik (near), Croatia.jpg as source, but no such file has ever existed. If you can't find the correct source, the image won't be accepted on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2012 (CET)


 * Actually, the original uploader on WT/en listed German WP as the source, not Commons. The image isn't there now, though, and without WP/de admin access, I can't see whether it was deleted. In any rate, there are tons of photos of the same spot in the Commons, so we can ignore the file. --Peter Talk 22:14, 1 November 2012 (CET)

More reckless account changes
Could you please also mark User:MGA73bot as a bot, to make RecentChanges a little easier to keep up with? I'm sure no one will object too strenuously to bending the Script policy for this mammoth cleanup. -- Dguillaume (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (CET)


 * Done. I've been thinking of marking a couple or our more prolific human taggers as bots too ;) --Peter Talk 22:24, 1 November 2012 (CET)


 * Another thing, can you comment on Travellers' pub? I'll create a separate account for the requested bot task if approved. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Images to Move
I thought I'd at a minimum make sure that images that I had taken were ready for the move. I noticed that you had tagged File:Stubby_Stonehenge.jpg to be kept locally. I was curious why. I'll stop tagging my other images, in case there's an issue there I don't understand. --Jonboy (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2012 (CET)
 * We, I think, will need to keep that one under our non-free content policy, as it is artwork. Take a look at en:User talk:LtPowers, which should probably clear things up. Also note that I've already tagged all Maryland, D.C., and other Mid-Atlantic states' photos (and am doing Virginia right now), so you won't have to worry about any of your photos in those states/districts. --Peter Talk 18:20, 4 November 2012 (CET)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. Trying to figure out what is under copyright and what isn't sort of makes my head hurt (in that particular case, it might not be under copyright since it was done by a state university, but heck if I am tracking down Missouri copyright statues), so I will try to err on the side of keeping it local. --Jonboy (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2012 (CET)
 * Pretty much the only government that is releasing works into PD is Federal. But even then, stuff they commission falls under the copyright of the artist (e.g., the Martin Luther King Memorial statue). I'm very far from being an expert, so I've also been erring on the side of KeepLocal for any artistic works. --Peter Talk 18:32, 4 November 2012 (CET)
 * Consider reading Commons:COM:FOP. In some countries (e.g. USA and UK), you can take photos of buildings. In other countries (e.g. France), you have to wait until the architect has been dead for at least 70 years, and it is often nontrivial to identify who the architect is in the first place. You can take photos of statues and monuments in some countries but not in other countries. In USA, you can't take photos of statues unless the copyright has expired. In UK, you can take a photo of any statue. When determining what to do, consider reading the relevant country section on the Commons page I mentioned. USA copyright rules are very complex (see Commons:Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US: some statues are published, other statues are not, and the copyright status sometimes depends on whether a statue has been published or not). In short, if the statue was erected in the United States before 1978 and doesn't have a visible copyright notice, then the statue is normally in the public domain and accepted on Commons. File:Stubby_Stonehenge.jpg in turn may be extra complex; I won't comment on that. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2012 (CET)

admin rights
User:Atsirlin suggested I ask you for admin rights - normally there would be a vote I imagine, but given the nature of the current move-to-commons workload, I feel it would be much better for Wikivoyage if I could contribute with admin rights (particularly deletion of empty/useless categories, and clean-out of "now commons" files). Do I still need to be approved by community vote or can you just give the bit? Another WTS gnome (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * Please don't delete too many files. I was planning to use the NowCommons tags here to check files on shared:, and for that purpose the files need to remain, at least if they're old files. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * Alright then, so I might limit deletion of files to obvious copyvios/rubbish. But certainly deleting empty categories needs to be done, to make life easier for others. Another WTS gnome (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * While I'm OK with "battlefield promotion," I'd feel comfortable if you at least had a few days of contributions here—I don't actually know who you are ;) But if there was a quick vote of confidence from other users who perhaps know you from past experience elsewhere, I'd go ahead.  --Peter Talk 19:03, 5 November 2012 (CET)
 * Fair enough! 02:05, 6 November 2012 (CET)

Tag relay
I saw that you were still tagging when I finished up. Thought you might be doing an all-nighter  to keep up! :-) -Shaund (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2012 (CET)