User talk:Qgil-WMF
Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing. |
| |
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?) |
--SieBot 04:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 19:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
POTY script fixed
[edit]Sorry for the inconvenience. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AEnhancedPOTY.js&diff=87889281&oldid=87662697 should have fixed this. -- Rillke(q?) 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Qgil, I don't have the time to scan through this pdf-file. However, if the content is what the title suggests/claims, this file will be clearly out of COM:SCOPE. We really have enough problems with the many unsolved bugs in MediaWiki software, we don't need even more problems produced by hackers. --Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Software developers tend to use confusing terminology. I think the title should be „Which components of MediaWiki can be improved?“ to reflect its contents. But this would neither sound exciting nor challenging. -- Rillke(q?) 11:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, these slides are being prepared for a lightning session at FOSDEM this Sunday with the idea of making them reusable by anybody willing to explain mw:How to contribute. Yes, the title is focused on Wikipedia more than MediaWiki because this is what most people know and also because it is also true that the path to Wikipedia / Wikimedia technical contributions goes through MediaWiki development. Túrelio, you probably should look at the slides. The title refers to hacking ON Wikipedia, not to hack Wikipedia itself, see w:Hacker (programmer subculture). In the context of free software development (as in FOSDEM conference) the language brings little confusion. The goal of this presentation is precisely to find more technical contributors to (among other things) address the bugs you refer to. (((In fact security hackers are also useful to keep an infrastructure healthy but we are definitely not calling them, and I'm digressing now))). Still, if you find this presentation is off-topic here I can move it to mediawiki.org, no problem. I thought of Commons to increase the audience precisely among those that haven't visited mediawiki.org yet.--Qgil (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. Seems I was mislead by the misleading filename. Actually, the out-of-scope threat was the mellow alternative to speedy-deletion, based on the mislead perception of the content of that file in mind. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for bestatesting the title of the session. :) It still works perfectly well for the first conference where we will use this presentation but it is good to keep in mind the risk of misleading people in other contexts. Proposals for short, catchy alternative titles are welcome.--Qgil (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. Seems I was mislead by the misleading filename. Actually, the out-of-scope threat was the mellow alternative to speedy-deletion, based on the mislead perception of the content of that file in mind. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, these slides are being prepared for a lightning session at FOSDEM this Sunday with the idea of making them reusable by anybody willing to explain mw:How to contribute. Yes, the title is focused on Wikipedia more than MediaWiki because this is what most people know and also because it is also true that the path to Wikipedia / Wikimedia technical contributions goes through MediaWiki development. Túrelio, you probably should look at the slides. The title refers to hacking ON Wikipedia, not to hack Wikipedia itself, see w:Hacker (programmer subculture). In the context of free software development (as in FOSDEM conference) the language brings little confusion. The goal of this presentation is precisely to find more technical contributors to (among other things) address the bugs you refer to. (((In fact security hackers are also useful to keep an infrastructure healthy but we are definitely not calling them, and I'm digressing now))). Still, if you find this presentation is off-topic here I can move it to mediawiki.org, no problem. I thought of Commons to increase the audience precisely among those that haven't visited mediawiki.org yet.--Qgil (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Lua-logo-nolabel.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
–moogsi (blah) 11:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Sunflower from Mediawiki logo reworked 2.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. |
↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)