Jump to content

User talk:Sven Manguard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.44.163.139 (talk) at 02:46, 18 February 2013 (→Wikidata "Conflicts"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Looking for something that was here? Check the archives: 2010 · 2011: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2012: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2013: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 · 2014: Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 · 2015+
Fast navigation: Commons · Wikidata

Reminder: free copy of Civ 5 for an FA

If any of the games on the list below make it to FA, the nominator can claim a free copy of Civ 5.

This contest is now over. The free copy of Civilization V was won by Futuretrillionaire for bringing The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to Featured Article status.
Do you want a free copy of Civilization 5?

As part of a Steam pre-order deal for XCOM: Enemy Unknown I have just received a free copy of Civilization V, a top notch turn-based strategy game. Because I already owned a copy, I am free to gift the new one to anyone with a steam account. That anyone can be you.

Below is a list of some of my favorite games that are of C class or below. I will give my copy of Civilization V to the first user that brings any of the following articles to FA status:

If none of the articles above have made it to at least the stage of a good faith Featured article candidates run by the end of the year, I will expand the list to include some of my favorites that are ranked B or above:

If none of the articles from the first section make it to the stage of a good faith Featured article candidates run by the end of the year, but one of articles from the second was promoted before the end of the year, the nominator will instantly become eligible to claim my copy of Civilization V. If no game on either of the two lists makes it to FA status by April 6, 2013 (six months from the start of this competition) I will give my copy of Civilization V to the first user that brings any role playing or strategy game to FA status.

You must leave me a message on my user talk page in order to claim the prize.

Disclaimers: I only have one copy, so if you're going to work with someone else, you need to decide ahead of time who gets the game. I can only deliver the game via Steam. By receiving the game, you agree to never disclose any information that Steam transmits along with the game. I haven't read the terms of service closely enough to know if this transaction is a violation of them. If for any reason I lose the ability to gift the game, I am under no obligation to replace it; the competition is simply canceled. I reserve the right to add more games to the above lists.

Good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am aware that some people will dislike this because it gets too close to "paid editing". I have no affiliation with anyone involved in any of these games. The selection was (essentially) completely arbitrary. The idea itself came about only because I had the game through the pre-order. If it were a different game that I recieved, I would be offering a different game. Please don't bombard my talk page if you think this is a bad idea; simply choose not to participate.

This re-post will not be archived.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Splatters
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:The Splatters 03.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. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Woooo! Sven Manguard Wha? 21:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Games

When you finish splitting Portal:Games into a separate Portal, can you update the table at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory? I came across the old name coming off a CSD request and pointed it to Portal:Sports but am not familiar enough with the Portal hierarchy to create a new listing. Thanks. --Michael Greiner 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FP Question

Hi, In terms of quality, I think it's good enough. I personally would prefer a shadow and higher resolution but it meets the criteria as it is. I am more concerned with the EV. Perhaps you could add it to the pinball article as well; it would have greater value there IMO and is much better than the current lead image File:Theatre_of_magic_pinball.jpg. If that is done, I'd support --Muhammad(talk) 09:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sven Manguard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContinuityBot.
Message added 15:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Piandcompany (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal: Singapore review

Hi Sven Manguard,

Thanks for your review. I have addressed your concerns at the review page, and would be grateful if you can have another look at the portal. Happy editing and good luck at the Wikicup.--Lionratz (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template Question

Should ContinuityBot flag files such as File:9.5.07AMCGardenStatePlaza.JPG that have been marked as deleted on commons for re-transfer to commons (Task I) or remove their transfer to commons template (Task II) or do nothing? Piandcompany chat 22:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Files with {{Deleted on Commons}} should not be tagged for transfer (task 1), and transfer tags should be removed if they are on a page with that template (task 2). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much

Thanks much for pitching in at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Main Page Featured Portal drive, we'd love the added assistance!!! — Cirt (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm working on the selected pictures section now. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, so good.

Well, so far, we're managing to be perfectly civil at FP. If we can manage to keep this up, we're probably ready to relaunch FS =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inflatable habitat looks quite feasible. I'll leave it for now, as it's a good project for a budding restorationist, but if it's not done by the time I finish the Cendrillon poster, I'll do it.

I ramble far, far too much
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Then decide if someone like me can claim credit for such a small restoration. (Claiming that many points for something I can likely do in half an hour seems a little wrong, don't you think? I mean, for someone else, learning how to do these sorts of things, it'd be perfectly reasonable to claim it. But if I let myself get too lazy, then all that the Wikicup causes is that someone who could be doing the difficult stuff is instead doing easy stuff that others could do instead, and claiming credits that are a bit too easy to feel right to claim.)

=) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, um, one thing: You should probably move the Inflatable habitat/moon colony thread to WT:FPC. Far, far more people watch that talk page. Adam Cuerden (talk)

Thanks, I'll move it now. As for the points thing, I built a GA quality article from scratch in about 12 hours, and between the DYK and the GA, that's the same number of points as an FP. How long did it take for you to do the restoration on the Pirate Publisher image? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been particularly good at estimating time, but probably 30-40 hours. But that's not really typical. If you want a rough guide for recent FPCs, check the file information page. If you notice I'm doing almost nothing to claim restoration credit, it probably took between 2 and 4 hours. If I'm doing something to claim it, but not in the license area, probably 6-9; if I do ask for credit in the Licensing area, but say it's "requested", about 12 hours, and if it's Pirate Publisher territory, it won't be a request, as the amount of reconstruction work done in things like that is sufficient for British copyright. [Note that this doesn't include the documentation and upload of files, which can take hours in itself sometimes. =/ ] Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, honestly, I wouldn't be doing that if it weren't for those damn poster sites that grab stuff from Wikipedia, and sell them without telling people they can use the images freely, and can get them from here. It seems immoral to sell someone else's work for $50 or so, without crediting the person who did the work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've brought up to the WMF multiple times that the WMF should be printing and selling posters of Commons images as a fund raiser, like what they do with the PediaPress printed Wikipedia articles. That way 1) proper attribution would actually be followed, 2) more people learn about the existence of Commons, 3) the WMF would get a little bit more cash, which means less Jimbo stare-down banner ad time, and 4) we'd be able to get highly educational material out into the world in a practical manner. Thus far I've given the 'good idea, but not right now' type line. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. But there ye go. I think they've finally made a Wikipedia store; there's a chance they may reconsider now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fuck people?

We gotta be more on top of this. That's just bad... Sven Manguard Wha? 05:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My question is, why did the bot redirect it to Boredom? I can't find any evidence of the double redirect. Ryan Vesey 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Legoktm (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, usually double redirects come from moves so I just checked the move logs. Ryan Vesey 05:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal DYK

Hey, Sven, how you find good DYKs for Featured portals, short of grabbing them from other portals? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I've done it is by grabbing a list of words that are associated with my topic and using the search bar at the top of Wikipedia:Recent additions. I got surpremely lucky for Portal:Sports in that there was already a good list there, but I still used that tactic for that one. Portal:Massachusetts and Portal:Games, however, are almost entirely done using the search. One other thing that you should do though is check the related Wikiprojects. Some of them maintain a list of DYKs themselves, such as the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lacrosse#Did You Knows (DYKs). That's really useful although tragically also really rare. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much

Thanks for the helpful tracking bar at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society, much appreciated! — Cirt (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hey, while you're here could you give me your thoughts on Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates#Portal:Massachusetts (and Wikipedia:Portal peer review#Portal:Sports if you've got the time) please? Sven Manguard Wha? 16:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About to grab some food, but I'll try to make some time in a few hours later. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm going to be gone for a while. Probably six or eight hours. <shudder> Sven Manguard Wha? 17:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Sports

If you want help pulling stuff over, after my comments, I will, but would appreciate a little help with finishing Portal:European military history once I have =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. As much as I would appreciate the help, right now you'd probably be better finishing Portal:European military history first, since it's already in the nomination process. I don't want to turn away the help, but I'd feel guilty since I'm not sure if I am going to have the time to reciprocate. I enjoyed my 2000 edit month (it's going to probably wind up being my third most active ever), but real life commitments are going to leave me with much less time over the next four months, and I don't want you to put your project on hold if I can't pull my weight. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to be around, but not at the hours at a time level I've been doing lately. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking bar usage

Just a question regarding the tracking bar at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Society, do you know if there's a way it could be regularly implemented at WP:FAC and WP:FLC and other similar areas of Wikipedia? I think it'd be most helpful! — Cirt (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I reused the code for the "Quick Link Bar" I have at the top of this page, which is itself taken from the {{Video game reviews}} template. I suppose you could have a bot track things like that and update the bars, but I've no idea how to do so. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could suggest it at WT:FAC and see what happens? — Cirt (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have my permission to do so if you wish to, not that you needed it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Sven Manguard - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grooveshark screenshot at DGM

Please see Discipline Global Mobile, where the screenshot was removed because "we don't need to 'prove' anything with it". IMHO, the screenshot draws the readers' attention and illustrates the article's section well. The section could be expanded to describe the distribution in greater detail, if that is what is needed to restore the screenshot. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting involved in that mess, sorry. It seems like something for AN/I. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literature portal

I don't know if you watch the Featured portal review page, but I've just brought the Literature portal there for review. I seem to recall you were the editor who first brought my attention to it being a bit of a red-link sea. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portals Massacusetts and Sports

Hey I looked over the WP:FPORTC discussion at Portal:Massachusetts, haven't looked over Portal:Sports yet, anything specifically left to address? — Cirt (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Portal:Massachusetts is ready for promotion. I'm holding back on nominating Portal:Sports because Adam Cuerden is right, I need to expand it a bit, and right now I just don't have the time. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll keep that in mind and give Portal:Massachusetts another look in a bit. — Cirt (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for pointing that out now. I probably wouldn't have on a smaller portal, but for one of the six or so linked from the main page... Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, er, speaking of portals, do you know anything about portal topics? I've been asked to redo a section, and I'm not quite sure I know what to do. If you can advise me through it, the portal's likely to promote. Hmm. Or maybe I do have an idea... Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
  • Chicago HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry- I'd written most of the newsletter before that point. I'll definitely make sure it goes on the next newsletter. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Sven,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Hurricane Bob 19 aug 1991 1226Z.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 4, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-02-04. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Cool. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep to Featured quality selections where possible at Portal:Technology. It's the Main Page, after all, and it's such a broad topic and subject matter, should be pretty easy to accomplish. Are all the "Selected pictures" also WP:Featured pictures? If so, we can change that label to Featured pictures! :) — Cirt (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are all featured either on English Wikipedia and/or on Commons. I find doing that gives us a broader selection without compromising on quality. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Now on to the other sections, it appears the Selected articles section has some poor quality selections, IMHO those should all be at the very least WP:GA class or higher. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. Before I start on that or any other text based section, I'd very much like for you to pick (or do) an entry that is the size you want all entries in that section to be. Left to my own devices, I will make them far too large.
The sections that I think are in most dire need of fixing are Selected quote and DKY, so I will be working on those as well.
Finally, just so you know, I'm not going to be too active this month because I have other, real life commitments. Don't be surprised if I only show up a few days a week for only an hour or two at night. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did the Selected quote section from scratch, what don't you like about it? — Cirt (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly just layout issues. Some of the images are too large vertically. I like to use something like x80px or x100px, which sizes based on the vertical axis, for sections like this. Don't worry about it, I'll get that fixed up. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay sweet, thank you so much. — Cirt (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cendrillon

Thank you for pointing out the error; I'm not sure of the exact cause - it may have been what you suggested, or just reflections, but since it was isolated to the two points, better to blend it in, regardless. A new version has been uploaded. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pinball
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Visible Pinball III - Pacific Pinball Museum cropped.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. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ULPower UL260i
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:ULPower UL260i.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. Armbrust The Homunculus 00:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Concern with Portal:Technology

Oh, those were all selections that I added in there myself. Perhaps instead of replacing those selections, we could instead expand the portal's randomness and increase its dynamism by adding more selections on top of those as well, and retain them? I'm open to any suggestions of selected articles that are of WP:FA or WP:GA quality, if you have any recommendations for additions to the portal? — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll start by adding more from the subject of Mathematics, but if you have any other suggestions for additions that are WP:FA or WP:GA quality, I'd love to hear them? :) — Cirt (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what's needed is technology items that aren't from the late 20th or 21st century. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think the next sensible step is to look into relevant WikiProjects and dip into WP:GAs for that sort of thing. But of course if you have any specific WP:FAs or WP:GAs to suggest, we can gladly add those in as additions as well. — Cirt (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Portal:Technology selected articles

These are really great suggestions, I'll get to adding some of them. Thank you! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technology did you know

I'm going to be reformatting this section - we can still use the hooks you've selected, but it's going to be three per hook subpage, not five, and everything will be standardized with a layout page to improve uniformity throughout. :) — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But of course again thanks for all your help with this, I'm using all of your DYK hook selections for the new formatting! — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all  Done for now, now you can go and add more DYK entries at your leisure, just it's helpful to also confirm them by adding the DYK archives notes to each subpage. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technology selected picture

You did something to Selected picture sizing? It's way too big. The pictures are too wide and bleeding over and overlapping into the next section. Can you change it back please? — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, I've added an extra parameter at Portal:Technology/Selected pictures/Layout for sizing, so now each image page can have its own size, depending on whether the picture is moreso horizontal or vertical in nature. (Vertical, smaller sizing; Horizontal, larger sizing, etc.) Then maybe you can go through those pictures and resize some of them to be bigger or smaller, and add that extra parameter to each individual picture page? — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the only other option would be to have a really big huge image size, and just move that whole section on the main portal page down at the bottom where it can have its own horizontal scaling of 100%, let me know what you think about that idea. — Cirt (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, disregard my above complaints, sorry about all that, feel free to size the images how you feel is best idea — I've made room for big sizing by moving the pictures sect down to the 100% horizontal scaling section. — Cirt (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll look at it later. I'm in the middle of the Great Blizzard of 2013, so I'm kind of not able to do it now. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of recent redirects

Hey Sven, I just noticed a bunch of recent redirects you made and just wanted to make sure there was a discussion somewhere. Can you point me to it? Ryan Vesey 17:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one, but the articles themselves are poorly sourced forks of the main article that I'm redirecting them back to. Most have been tagged as needing sources since 2009, which was the last time that they were edited. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was just a discussion for this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 metre where consensus was not reached. I'm not sure if you were aware of the discussion, but being bold doesn't apply here. The article, Orders of magnitude (length), also had clickable images which have all been broken now. Ryan Vesey 17:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that recently? No, I was not aware of it. Had I known about that, I would not have done those redirects. That being said, I really don't want to undo them, because I feel that I'd be making the project worse by doing so. I am leaving for lunch now, and will ponder what to do then. If anyone else wants to undo the changes in the mean time, they can. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm busy today, so I won't be reverting them, plus, I'm still not sure where I stand on the issue, but I think leaving it all at the redirected article is better. That said, I think it's fairly likely that someone will come by and revert them. Ryan Vesey 17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the question of whether or not it's better to redirect them to Orders of magnitude (length) or specific subsections of List of examples of lengths (up until 1 meter when it stops for some reason). Ryan Vesey 17:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for pointing that discussion out to me. I'm going to leave it as is, as I'm off to go help dig a friend's place out of snowpocalypse. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leviathan Photo

Going by how you said you don't really like the blue on blue, would this photo still be worth nominating?--Dom497 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not think that I am the best judge of these things, as I haven't been part of that process for very long and really am not a photographer, however I would oppose that image at FPC because I think that it's not showing anything of any real encyclopedic value (in the article on the roller coaster, this illustrates the roller coaster's sign). Sorry, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about renaming image files of people

I also posted this question on your Wikimedia page, but noticed that you respond more often on this page.
Thanks for your advice on my correcting of file names. I had a question about another thing that I was hoping you could answer. If I come across a photo of a singer or some other person and the filename of the photo either does not have the person's name or it just has their first name with no last name, or just their last name and no first name, should we rename the picture so that it includes both their first and last name? (This would help people figure out who exactly the photo is of without having to click the image and read the file description). Or, would that be considered as another one of those minor changes you had recommended that I avoid making? (Also, I am not talking about people who are known by their first name such as Madonna, Cher, or Rihanna). Thank you for your help.

Examples are: File:200d.jpg - which is of Michelle Shaprow; File:Greta44.jpg - which is of Greta Salpeter; File:Gordonphoto.jpg - which is of Mikalah Gordon.

Dobie80 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded over at Commons. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Two selected bios ...

Good thoughts, if we can find relevant free-use images, great, if not, we could try to look for replacement bios of WP:GA or WP:FA quality with free-use pictures. — Cirt (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you were serious about wanting to participate,a s I'm reviving it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I quite simply do not have the time to add yet another thing to my current list of Wiki[p/m]edia projects right now. As it is I feel that I'm not giving some of my commitments the time that they deserve (like, for example, the entirety of Commons). As I have had to tell several people already in the past few weeks, maybe I'll have the time in May. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have time for one more thing... :P --Guerillero | My Talk 07:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The scary thing is that I don't. I never thought that I'd be stretched this thin. Usually when RL got busy I'd be able to cut other things before cutting my time on Wikipedia, but I've already cut those things, cut Commons, and cut my Wikipedia time. If I have to cut more, I'm going to sacrifice Wikipedia before I sacrifice Wikidata, so if I disappear for a few weeks, don't be surprised. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation

Hi Sven. I noticed you removed a submission from the redirect centre of articles for creation because a submission was not for an article; that is a valid rationale but, generally speaking, the convention is to archive all requests and simply collapse the submission with reasoning. Please do that in the future. TBrandley (what's up) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for the files!--Mr Fink (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Geography

I've responded to all of your suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Geography.

Perhaps you could revisit and see if this portal merits your Support at this time?

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme know when you get a chance, — Cirt (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe over the weekend? It'd take me a few hours to check over everything with a fine toothed comb, especially since I have the "fix as you go" philosophy towards reviews. I don't have a few hours now, as it's 11:00 PM here. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good, keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta: Steward reconfirmation comments

Hi, Sven. I would appreciate it if you could expand on what areas of my steward activities you find lacking which required you to make the confirmation non-unanimous. Obviously, I have room for improvement. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your activity levels for the past three months, as reported by the tools I have available to me as a user with only limited advanced permissions, were troublingly low. That might be in part because I would have no way of seeing your CU activity, but as it stands, you've been, in my view, too absent lately. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I did say in my reconfirmation statement that I focus on CUs (often the big zh sockfarms) and one "rights change" may encompass tens or hundreds of checks, but you are certainly entitled to hold me to an even higher standard. Thank you for the explanation. -- Avi (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CU-ing is definitely important, and as I said, I do think that you should retain the tools, I just think that the model steward should be a bit more active and a bit more versatile than (as far as I can see) you have been lately. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussiont to revamp WP:FS

As a formerly active discussant at WT:FSC, I would like to call your attention to Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Proposal to revamp FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussions

Please remember to close discussions under the level-2 header. Otherwise MiszaBot gets confused and creates mess. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm pretty used to putting it over the level-2 header, which is what I've been doing over at Wikidata. I'll keep in mind that it's reversed over here. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata "Conflicts"

This is not a "conflict". Both Portal:Science and Portal:Technology link to the same page on the fy Wiki. Wikidata does not handle one to many relationships at present (and there are no plans to do so in the immediate future), so these types of interwikilinks will have to remain in the wikitext of the page. The rest can be removed though. 86.44.163.139 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's still a conflict. The Wikidata community will sort out which is the correct link. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever it is, please, let's all have more discussion about it, and less reverting and edit warring, please? — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only made one edit, so I don't know what all this talk of edit warring is about. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only made one change also. There's no edit war. 86.44.163.139 (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sven_Manguard&oldid=538812999"