User talk:Patrick87

Since you recently participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer, I'm notifying you that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer (2nd nomination) has been opened. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I just was your comments at my talk page. Although Hu12 is not quite right in his constant assumption that you are a sockpuppet, s/he may have his/her reasons to delete the article. The problem is that several other users have good reasons to keep it. That's why i closed the past AFD with a "no consensus" rationale. I considr that, as you original comments cane be seen at the first AFD, there is no need for you to re-vote at the second nomination. Anything else, you can ask me at my talk page. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected and knew, the deletion discussion was closed by Mark as no consensus. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Das liegt wohl im Auge des Betrachters; das procedere in der en-wikipedia ist, insbesondere im Hinblick auf Löschanträge, ein vollkommen anderes. Un die admins hier sind eigentlich ziemlich neutral, so dass eigentlich die Argumente zählen müssten. Bei der jetzigen Diskussion sehe ich wieder ein "no consensus" Ergebnis.

Lectonar (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)  [reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For your great work on signatures of U.S. military leaders —Ed!(talk) 02:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My first barnstar after all. :) -- Patrick87 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pdf source for image was found File:TMB new logo.png Perumalism Chat 14:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not able to find a link of it. Where should the PDF be located? -- Patrick87 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link http://recruitmentandresultsandjobs.blogspot.in/2012/11/tmb-recruitment-of-clerks-2012-13.html Perumalism Chat 13:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm blind or there's no PDF document on this page... -- Patrick87 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry my mistake what can i do now there is no pdf Document Perumalism Chat 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could hope for somebody doing the logo by hand (e.g. by identifying the used font and recreating as SVG with this info). Or ask the company to submit you a vector version for usage in Wikipedia (in this case it would be best to ask for an WP:OTRS message at the same time). -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got a PDF file with Logo link http://www.tmb.in/press/bs_dec_2012_01.pdf Perumalism Chat 17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this PDF only contains an embedded raster graphics (you can see it when zooming in very far) -- Patrick87 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this pdf is slightly better http://www.tmb.in/press/bs_jun_2012_01.pdf Perumalism Chat 10:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a raster graphics nonetheless. However it can be extracted from the PDF to improve the PNG version. -- Patrick87 (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Thanks Perumalism Chat 12:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, your recent comments about Flow have come off as accusations of bad faith. Statements like "And Brandon achieved what he intended: No one worries anymore up to the day FLOW is due and editors recognize [it] didn't work as expected" for example come off as basically accusations that Brandon is looking to deliberately deceive and confuse the community. Let me be clear on two points.

Point 1; if we wanted to deliberately deceive and confuse the community, here's how we wouldn't go about it. We wouldn't host all our documentation publicly and deliberately point users to it. We wouldn't have a series of wide-ranging conversations, on multiple projects, with many of them despite nobody but Brandon formally working on Flow at the moment. We wouldn't have people like Brandon persist in communicating with those users even when some of them take every reply as an opportunity to kick staffers hard in the ribs. What we'd do is go off for 6-12 months and build the software and then just deploy it.

Given that the list of things-that-we-wouldn't-do-if-we-wanted-to-deceive is precisely what we have done...we're not trying to deceive anyone. It's utterly, gratuitously offensive for you to suggest otherwise.

Point 2; do you think accusations like that add to the conversation? Do they make the person you're talking to more or less likely to listen to you and take your issues into account? Because as someone dealing with them, I'm far less enthused to pay attention to your issues than I would be if you were someone who approached situations politely, with an explanation of what was a problem and why rather than accusations that we were ruining Wikipedia and trying to do it under the radar to boot. Making statements like this leads to your commentary overall being less useful. I appreciate it's a great way to blow off steam, but it kills the efficacy of what you're trying to achieve. Following the principle of assume good faith - the same as you're expected to do for anyone else with an account - is not too much to ask, and might actually help you come across as someone who should be listened to.

I'm not sure if you're the same with other volunteers as you are with staffers; I'm also not sure what I want the answer to that to be. It's not fair and totally outside the principles and policies of the wiki for you to take your attitude with everyone, but then it'd also be pretty unfair for you to penalise staffers. Either way, cut it out. Approach this situation and future situations with good faith. People are more likely to listen if you do. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you actually expect an answer but I'll write one anyway to put some things right.

Regarding Point 1: If that's really how you understood my comments I'm sorry. It wasn't meant that negative. I have the feeling however that you and Brandon already know there are some "hot issues" where you could easily burn yourself if not careful. Instead of talking even more open about those issues you seem to try to keep the discussion as calm as possible, e.g. Brandon always pointing out FLOW was only meant to be deployed on user talk pages in "phase 1". It doesn't matter to me what's planned in phase 1, but what will be coming in the long run. To me this looks like some way to make people more comfortable with some problems, hoping those problems will settle themselves with time. I'm afraid they will not, therefore I was trying (probably too hard) to push the discussions into a direction were you had to answer those questions instead of getting through with some faint and vague arguments.

Regarding Point 2: No, and actually I'd write some things differently today as I wrote them. The problem was that I allowed myself to get involved too deeply into the discussion and got too emotional in the process. I'm sorry for that, but maybe it shows how important the thing is to me and that it really upset me in the first place. It's still upsetting me now, but I already decided to calm down and try to keep a little more distance before you actually posted this on my userpage.

One general thing that maybe complicates discussion between you and me is, that we're approaching the discussion from different ends. With community liaisons being one of your tasks you're probably trying to make everybody happy. Instead of a simple "no" you're trying to give people at least a tiny bit of satisfaction whenever possible. Personally I'm only interested in facts. I want to hear objective arguments and prefer a "no" (as long as it's based on a rock solid reason) over any attempts to please me with some "maybes".

One last thing regarding your accusation in the last paragraph: Actually I think you're doing exactly what you told me not to do one paragraph above by personally attacking me in a very rude way. I hope that was one of the "actions not necessarily representing the WMF" since it wasn't very professional at all. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the accusation in question? So, in order; I don't think that's what Brandon's trying to do at all. There's a corollary from "Brandon is the only staffer assigned to this project", which is "he lacks bandwidth in some ways". We could totally start a big discussion about the hot button issues right now, but we don't have the time to follow it in as much detail as we need to and any decisions or changes made as a result wouldn't be immediately noticeable. What he's trying to do by appealing for calm, if I understand him, is say "we're not building it right now, this is just a draft plan and there will be a lot of time to amend it". Right now, with only one staffer assigned and with no code committed or concrete set of features requirements written up, it's probably not productive to suck in a load of volunteer time working through issues that may alter substantially once we try actually making it work. I'm very grateful for you recognising that you're perhaps too attached to the situation and could've handled it better; honestly, I think admitting that we're sometimes wrong is (as silly as it sounds) something a lot of us struggle with. So: thank you for being the bigger man, here :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the part: "I'm not sure if you're the same with other volunteers as you are with staffers; I'm also not sure what I want the answer to that to be. It's not fair and totally outside the principles and policies of the wiki for you to take your attitude with everyone, but then it'd also be pretty unfair for you to penalise staffers. Either way, cut it out." It sounds (to put it bluntly and quite exaggerated) like "Are you an asshole to everyone or just to staffers? Any way stop writing something like this at all!". I don't know what you exactly wanted to say with this last paragraph but I'd be fine to forgive and forget about that. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was pretty poorly phrased; my apologies. I guess what I was trying to say is: sometimes I get the impression that in terms of community civility, staffers are treated differently from volunteers, which isn't right, and that we should be civil to everyone. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still around, I just don't edit much anymore. The answer is yes and yes. However, there are complications. The primary issue is that I would require authorization from the commons bot people before I could run a bot there and I'm not sure they'd be particularly thrilled to have someone running a bot on the site who never visits or edits it. I could probably convince them that I'm responsible etc. enough to do it given that I've been running bots continuously on Wikipedia for years without any real problems, but I can't make any guarantees. In any case, it seems likely that the approval process would take both time and effort on top of the effort in altering the bot to work with a template, and I'm sure you can understand why I'd be hesitant to expend that effort unless I was sure that the bot was needed and wanted.

On that note I can't help but notice that commons:Commons talk:Graphic Lab has a fairly long and contentious discussion of archiving on it. I didn't read the whole discussion, but I skimmed it, and I didn't see much evidence of consensus for anything. If you were to have a discussion with the other maintainers of the pages in question in which you outlined what the bot does (essentially what the existing bot does with the addition of automatic stale tagging and archival) and a consensus was reached that such a bot would resolve the problems you've been having to everyone's satisfaction, I'd be willing to run the gauntlet of getting the bot approved. If you wanted me to pop in and describe what the bot does quick I'd do that, but otherwise it would be up to you to gain that consensus. Please let me know how it goes. --Dycedarg ж 05:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Restore the request on Illustration workshop Perumalism Chat 17:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I also explained why I did in my edit summary. We have a bot that is automatically archiving resolved requests, so it is not necessary to remove them by hand. Actually it's even detrimental since nobody can ever comprehend how and why an image was created when he looks at it one day. If there is still a link to the Graphics Lab archive you can reread the requests. Additionally others might be interested in the result, too, maybe they even have some comments to make or further improvements to offer. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes i did myself but minor correction in tamil script if you can help me 17:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ask in the Graphics Lab in your original request (just remove the {{resolved}} tag and add your comment). That's what the Graphics Lab is for. If there is still some problem with the image, you shouldn't have removed it anyway. --Patrick87 (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep i going to do that Perumalism Chat 17:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The collaborator award
	For Graphics Lab work...we writers love our illustrators. TCO (talk)

As you've recently been editing the Top 4, I was wondering if you could have your input into some thoughts I've posted here. Thanks! NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patrick87. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think you haven't received the ping notification for my reply. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have Codename Lisa (and I'm also watching any talk page I wrote a message on recently, therefore also yours). I don't have few-minute response times though (as you seem to have based on the short time it took you to revert ). --Patrick87 (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discovery of my mistake (in assessing whose edit is BOLD, and whose is a REVERT) I self-reverted and started a discussion in "Talk:Inkscape § Where should version numbers go?". Again, sorry for the mistake.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CCleaner logo 2013.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DVBViewer Screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patrick87. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patrick87. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Patrick87. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest stable software release/KeePass has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/eMule has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]