User talk:Leyo/Archive1

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Swiss-arch-aar-bridge.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Jnpet 21:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! USA Arches NP Delicate Arch(1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Jnpet 12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Waiau Ferry Bridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Jnpet 15:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lions Etosha NP Fight for Prey.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

en Gruess --Ikiwaner 20:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cucurbita pepo 02 - Orange.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--Jnpet 11:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Caiman crocodilus Costa Rica 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Phalacrocorax-auritus-007.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Phalacrocorax-auritus-007.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Glarus Kloentalersee.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Glarus Kloentalersee.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Alvesgaspar 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:ChampagnePool.jpg

Hallo Leyo, dieses Bild gefällt mir sehr. Wenn du eine grössere Version hast, würde ich es etwas bearbeiten und an passender Stelle nominieren. Hast du eine grössere Version? --Ikiwaner 15:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Voilà! Grösser/besser ging mit dieser alten Digicam halt nicht. Übrigens: Vielleicht kannst du da etwas beitragen. --Leyo 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pentabromodiphenyl ether.svg

Thank you for expanding the description! Do you think I should upload the file under a new name in case images for other congeners are created? Regards, Fvasconcellos 21:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. Like this, a more general picture of pentabromodiphenyl ether (i.e. a technical mixture of different congeners) could be placed on Image:Pentabromodiphenyl ether.svg. Maybe a drawing similar to the one in the German WP (but as a SVG) would be fine. --Leyo 23:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've renamed it to Image:Pentabromodiphenyl ether BDE-99.svg as per your suggestion. Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 01:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:San Francisco at Sunset 2.jpg

Sorry about the QI tag, I was copying from Image:San Francisco at Sunset.jpg and forgot to take it out --Digon3 01:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I guessed you did. No worries! --Leyo 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

vote:A Siberian Husky exhibiting heterchromia

Hi, isn't the vote on Image:Husky oczy 897.jpg at Commons:Quality images candidates actually 2 support 1 oppose as User:Simonizer has effectively withdrawn his objection? --Tony Wills 22:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your note on one of your QI consensual review edits, I have tried helping with the promote/decline of the consensual review QI's, let me know if I stuffed up anywhere ;-) --Tony Wills 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the excellent work at QIC. You are right, I made a mistake when counting the votes on the Husky image. Sometimes it is quite tricky to count the votes, because the statements are not entirely clear. I would prefer, if the users would use  Support or  Oppose. --Leyo 21:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a couple of notes to the consensual review rules section to clarify voting. I've also started a separate discussion about how we should handle revisions during the consensual review process on the QI talk page. --Tony Wills 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Zeitliche Entwicklung der weltweiten Aluminiumförderung

nice diagram!

can you come to the discussion page of the german article "Aluminium" for further amelioration of it? --81.252.82.4 07:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC) (schwobator)

Hi again and non exact duplicates :-)

Ahh, I couldn't remember who was doing the QIC/CR maintenance before I started, I see from your talk page that it was you :-). Regarding deletion of non-exact duplicates, it is 'nice' to be tidy, but Commons doesn't have any reason at all to get rid of old versions of chemical formula diagrams etc. If the diagrams and drawn in error then a normal deletion nomination might be appropriate to see if others agree. It would be much more useful to add a note to the image description pointing out that there is an alternative (modern, better, improved or whatever) version, rather than mis-applying the {{Duplicate}} tag which will only be actioned by admins who aren't paying attention ;-) --Tony Wills 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am that guy. ;-) Now I am working mostly in the quality assurance of chemical articles.

I do not agree with you. I think that it should also be a goal to have high quality graphics on Commons and to tidy old chemical structures that do not comply with the guidelines and have been replaced by better versions. I certainly won't tag one structure for deletion that has a similar quality like another. For me, the use of {{Delete}} is just an overkill. To include the tag and to do all 4 steps (I definitely always do a usage check of the image) is not worthwhile IMHO. As I wrote before, I tagged some hundreds of structures on de-WP either with the speedy deletion or the NowCommons template. However, none of the original uploaders complained about doing so. If you prefer, I can use {{Speedy}} here, as there is the possibility to add a comment. --Leyo 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are jumping the gun a bit here. No project or person has ownership of images on commons, ie it's no person's or group's mandate to control what images are accepted here (apart from copy-violations). Secondly the link you gave (it doesn't actually work, must be slight typo) is to a en:wikipedia project page anyway. Commons is not a resource just for wikipedia. There is a WikiProject Chemistry here, but it hardly has anything too it yet. So by all means reorganise, classify, upload, improve etc the structural chemistry images. But you have no mandate to clean-out images that are not required by some en:wikipedia project. It is a bit like going into someone else's house and clearing out all the stuff you don't think they need :-). If you just want them out of your sight because they offend you, then stick them in a different sub-category (less work for everyone as well) eg Category:Antiquated chemical formulas that are not wanted by WikiProject Chemistry and should not be used in case they cause offence ;-) --Tony Wills 00:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the link. Of course, it's no one's mandate to tidy of these structures on Commons. However, this would help to find what people or looking for and lessen the work for recategorizing. By the way, not just looking at the requirements of en-WP (and of course de-WP). If I replace a structure, I do this in all projects. I could create a template (in a similar format as {{Duplicate}}) that includes replaced, old structures in a specific category as you suggested. --Leyo 12:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Might be an idea to raise this issue at a higher level, as there is probably some Commons-wide guideline on deletion. If there isn't, many people might be interested in thrashing one out.

I don't mind if clearly poor quality chemical structures get deleted. We could create an "erroneous chemical structure" tag, so that chemists can discuss whether an image really is wrong in all circumstances. What I do not want to see is overzealous editors tagging any chemical image they don't like, just for the sake of cutting categories down to size. It's not the principle of jettisoning bad images I object to, but the fact that some editors think an image is bad when the majority think it is good.

I'm frequently having my PNG chemical structures marked as "superseded by SVG", but in most cases the SVG images are inferior in quality except that they are vector. We cannot have good quality images getting deleted because certain people are obsessed with tidying or SVGing everything.

So it's not a simple issue, and it's relevant to many editors. Refer elsewhere?

Ben 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ben. I feel competent enough to distinguish if a chemical structure is of poor quality (or erroneous) or not, as I am contributing to the chemical project (mostly on de-WP). But I can not speak for less experienced users, you are right.

I would never tag your PNG chemical structures (you are doing a great job) for deletion, but poor quality structures in GIF or even JPG format like this, if they were replaced (in all projects) by an image that meets the guideline. In many cases, such structures were uploaded by users that have not been active for a while or maybe just uploaded very few images. --Leyo 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few poor quality chemical structure images that are unlikely to be of any use to any of the Wikimedia projects. I support any effort to delete them, where appropriate. But I have a bit of the same concern that Ben does. I have also noticed .png images marked as superceded by .svg images that are perhaps of better quality visually, but poorer quality (or just plain wrong) from a chemistry viewpoint. I've seen Leyo around enough to be confident that he is not going to get rid of good images, but I don't know about others. I like the idea of a category for these poor quality images, but I would go further and suggest that any image that has resided in that category without objection for a sufficient waiting period could then be subject to speedy deletion. This would be akin to the strategy used in the English Wikipedia's "proposed deletion" process for non-controversial deletions. Anyone would be able to remove an image from that category at any time, but if not, after the set period of time the image gets deleted. Edgar181 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that Edgar's idea is good. I would suggest to create a template that sorts the image into the category. For example for Image:BDB.png this could be {{SupersededChemical|BDB (psychedelic).png}}, which includes the image in Category:Superseded chemical structure. After e.g. one week in that category, the images can be deleted by admins. What do you think (also concerning the name of template and category)? --Leyo 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, too and I also agree with the names of the category and template Leyo proposed. I think a lot of chemical drawings now tagged with Superseded and SupersededSVG respectively would fit in that new category. But I think one week until deletion is too short, I'd rather wait a month. --NEUROtiker 17:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to the chemical experts, I don't think we want to start yet another category of quick deletions, or even slow deletions, without every deletion being explicitly discussed. By all means put them into another category (and if you must, use a template). If they 'must' be deleted then periodically create a multiple deletion request for the accumulated 'redundant' images. Then there will be the normal deletion process, people can discuss the individual images if they like, if agreed the images can be deleted after a week or whatever the normal deletion-request period is. There will then be a record of everything. Bureaucratic perhaps, but better than setting up yet another minor bureaucracy just for chemical images --Tony Wills 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion that would be too bureaucratic (and too time consuming) just to tidy poor chemical structures (there are lots around here). Normally, an uploader has his images on the watch list. So, he will notice the deletion proposal within one month most probably. Other users being interested in specific Wikipedia articles containing the poor structure will notice the replacement there. In the IMHO very seldom case that someone wants to have a structure undeleted, there is the possibility to do so. I think the advantages of the method proposed by Edgar181 are bigger than possible disadvantages. --Leyo 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, would certainly support Ben's idea of some sort of template with which "erroneous" structures could be tagged, so that (1) the uploader is made aware and (2) editors will know not to use it on their projects. As for deletion—there are certainly some images that (as Edgar said) are of little use, but who will assess whether, say, an SVG superseding a PNG is good enough to actually replace it? The {{Vector version available}} template says "the vector version should be used... when superior" for a reason. Fvasconcellos 23:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here wants to pick up the debate whether to delete superseded images, such as PNGs superseded by SVGs, or not. This discussion is just about deleting incorrect structural drawings (like this) or those of poor quality (like this), of which there is a correct or better version. There is nothing wrong with a well-made high-resolution PNG.
The authors of the images marked for deletion could easily be informed by a bot and get a chance to correct the errors or make a statement. --NEUROtiker 20:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. --Leyo 21:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On the same subject, my opinion is here: User_talk:Alno#Structural_formula.
Best regards from France,
-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:AZT.jpg

Delete this image. Jurema Oliveira 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I added a note to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:AZT.jpg. --Leyo 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Danke ;-)

Danke, Leyo, für die freundliche Fremdbegrüßung ;-) Grüße, --Hans Urian 21:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Smederevo coat of arms.gif

Wenn ich versuche, die neue Version der Datei hochzuladen, kommt folgende Warnung: Unter diesem Namen existiert bereits eine Datei. Bitte gehe zurück und lade diese Datei unter einem anderen Namen hoch.. Wieso kann ich keine neue Version hochladen?--Milosevo 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hast du's mittels Klick auf “Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen” gemacht? Dann musst du bestätigen, dass du das Bild durch eine neue Version ersetzen willst. --Leyo 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Entweder ich bin zu dumm, oder ich finde das nicht.--Milosevo 19:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was, “Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen” oder die Bestätigung des Uploads über das bisherige Bild drüber? Bei Zweiterem kann ich nicht ausschliessen, dass du als neuer User die Rechte noch nicht hast. --Leyo 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AIBN

Dear Leyo,

I am wondering why you tagged the image Image:AIBN.png with wrong geometry. The chemical structure is correct, so has it to do with the layout? Is it purely because CH3 is written in contrast to the omission of CH3?

Thanks. :-)

Annabel (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did it, because in your image it looks like the –N=N– bond is linear, what is not true. In addition, I am not sure if the structure should not look like this and that. --Leyo 12:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if that's the reason, it is just a matter of style. When one draws the molecular structure, one can do it in different ways. The only way in which one can add stereo(chemical) information is by adding wedges, dashed and wavy lines (which is not the case as this product does not contain such stereocentres). It is not necessary to imply 3D structure in a 2D linear drawing. Instead, it is the viewer who should be aware of the different possible 3D structures. Moreover, chemists frequently draw the skeletal bonds in other angles compared to the real situation to obtain a clearer drawing (e.g. of 90 degrees where in reality 108 degrees can be expected). If you do not know what I mean, I'm referring to the way in which the methyl groups are drawn in the disputed drawing. So to conclude, there is nothing wrong imho. I can, however, upload a new svg-based drawing for better quality but afaik, png images are not deleted if they are superseded by svg (and hence this would not be necessary). Regards, Annabel (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not talk about 3D. What I meant, is to draw the –N=N– bond angulate like in Image:AIBN-2D-skeletal.png and most other images in Category:Azo compounds. BTW: Your image was not the only one I tagged. --Leyo 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I know Leyo, but there is no rule that obliges one to angulate bonds. Do you have a reference to a written document of IUPAC? Annabel (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just remove the template if you like. I'm not gonna revert. The image is just used twice anyway. --Leyo 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 7633b8df1c4f644fd525089db278a369

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Congratulations! ;-) --NEUROtiker (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Das oben ist der vorgegebene Standardsatz. Vorher hat's zweimal nicht funktioniert und so hab ich's mal so ausprobiert. --Leyo 22:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sowas hab ich mir gedacht. Als ich den Satz gelesen habe, hatte ich das Bild vor Augen, wie ein kleines Kind strahlend und voller Stolz sein Geburtstagsgeschenk präsentiert, da konnte ich nicht umhin, dir zu gratulieren :-). Humor im Internet funktioniert leider nicht immer so wie in echt. --NEUROtiker (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC) P.S.: Danke

Ich habe das schon so aufgefasst. Ich war froh, dass es letztlich doch noch klappte und wollte den Abschnitt eigentlich wieder löschen, war aber offensichtlich nicht schnell genug. :-) --Leyo 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mesna.svg

Of course! :) How's this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Much better! :-) Thanks. --Leyo 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Tiophene1.JPG

Hi! My version of this file was here. I think this image is useless now, cause they are better images in appropriate category, and may be deleted. Thank you Margoz (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edgar181 already fulfilled your request. --Leyo 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Altstätten

Hallo! Wie geht's? Danke für deine Nachricht! Leider konnte ich nicht sehr schnell antworten, weil ich kein Internet mehr habe... aber das wird nochmals kommen! lol. Weisst, ich bin zurzeit in Sankt Gallen! Ich mache gerade meine Studium dort... und "deine" Gemeinde ist nicht sehr weit von hier! :-) Momentan bin ich ein bisschen beschäftig mit dem Studium, aber wenn ich eine Zeit habe, werde die Wappen weiter machen inkl. die von Altstätten. Ich wünsche dir noch ein schönen Abend, und bis bald! :-) Aliman5040 (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Aliman. Du hast ja schon eine ganze Menge an Schweizer Wappen erstellt. Eilen tut's mit dem Erstellen des Wappens als SVG-Grafik nicht und dein Studium geht natürlich vor. Ich habe im Kanton St. Gallen (nicht mein Heimatkanton) noch eine weitere Gemeinde mit einem sehr schlechten Wappen entdeckt, nämlich Brunnadern. --Leyo 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC) PS. Wenn du im November noch immer in der Schweiz bist, magst du vielleicht ans nächste Zürcher-/Schweizer-Treffen kommen.

Image:Strukturformel Polyetherimid.JPG

Image deletion warning

Image:Strukturformel_Polyetherimid.JPG 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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

NEUROtiker ^⇌ 12:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Huch, wo bin ich denn hier gelandet? ;-) Gruß, --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 13:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe das Bild nur zugeschnitten... --Leyo 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Triops-longicaudatus-dorsal-ventral-edit.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice to see some notostracans. Valuable picture with good quality. Lycaon 21:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas review!

Hi Leyo/Archive1. I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in my request for adminship, and for the time you have taken to review my profile. As a Christmas present I've just been given the admin tools, for which I'm thankful as well. I have understood all the remarks that have been made during the review period. I will take them into account and begin using the tools with much care, until I gain more experience and self-confidence. Thanks again, and Merry Christmas! --Eusebius (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Transparency

Per your comment at User talk:Pngbot. If you tag your images with {{ShouldBeTransparent}} then it will put them in Category:Images that should have transparent backgrounds so someone can look at them. --Fluteflute (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rheinfelden Feldschloesschen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Proper quality. Lycaon 20:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

*hust*

wie wärs? abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, hilfreich wären erweiterte Funktionen tatsächlich. Man fühlt sich (als de-Admin) fast etwas „behindert“ ;-), wenn einem die Rechte fehlen um geschützte Vorlagen zu bearbeiten, gelöschte Versionen zu prüfen oder auch bei der Arbeit mit Strukturformeln, wo neben Kategorisieren, Verbessern, Beschriften, usw. auch manchmal Löschen notwendig/sinnvoll ist. Ein weiterer Admin im Bereich Chemie (siehe hier) könnte wohl nicht schaden, da es für fachfremde Admins oft schwierig sein kann, Löschanträge von inkorrekten Strukturformeln und ähnlichem zu beurteilen. Betreffend Anzahl Beiträge bin ich mir aber nicht sicher, ob das reichen würde. Oder sind die Anforderungen da geringer als in der de-WP? Auch könnten ähnliche Bedenken wie oben verlinkt bei mir ebenfalls geäussert werden. Was meinst du? --Leyo 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. Magst du vielleicht für dem Französischen oder Englischen nicht mächtige Benutzer eine deutsche Übersetzung ergänzen? Du würdest diese bestimmt besser hinkriegen als ich.

Verschwörung übersetzt. Ja, auf Commons ist der "Editcount-Standart" wesentlich niedriger als auf de:. Glaub mir, ich hab schon so viele Leute vorgeschlagen ;) Willst du? ;) Grüße, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Danke für die Übersetzung (für andere). Naja, wenn du meinst, dass die Aussichten auf eine erfolgreiche Kandidatur gut sind, wieso nicht? --Leyo 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Viel erfolg. Eine RfA auf Commons dauert eine Woche. Wäre nett, wenn du noch sowas wie "I accept" drunter schreiben könntest. Danke und Grüße, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 18:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Vielen Dank. Ja, habe ich. Nur nicht ganz so schnell wie von dir prophezeiht. ;-) --Leyo 18:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:1-T.svg

I wrote that 1-T.svg should be deleted on that image's talk page (quality is not so good and it misses a hydrogen atom in the hydroxyl group). Unfortunately, I don't have the rights to delete it myself. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also File:19-testosterone.png should be deleted as well because it's plain wrong. It's a duplicate of 19-testosterone.png. The "9" was a typo, but it can't fix it. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As you already have tagged both files, an admin with take care of that. --Leyo 16:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Androgens and Category:Anabolic steroids should be merged

The androgenic:anabolic ratio does vary with the compound, and there are a few AAS that are/were considered mainly for the androgenic effect (e.g., en:trestolone), but no scientific text considers these to be two distinct categories. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my knowledge on steroids is too limited to reply appropriately, but be bold. --Leyo 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Leyo/Archive1, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of 100 % support. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and I promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks,Abigor talk 17:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Ein Willkommenspräsent für unseren neuen Administrator von deinen Kollegen...

Herzlichen Glückwunsch, Leyo! Du hast jetzt die Rechte eines Administrators auf Commons. Nimm dir bitte einen Moment Zeit, um dir die Seite Commons:Administratoren und die in Verbindung mit der Beobachtungsliste stehenden Seiten durchzulesen (insbesondere Commons:Administrators' noticeboard und Commons:Deletion requests), bevor du damit beginnst, Seitenlöschungen, Accountsperrungen oder Änderungen am Seitenschutzstatus bzw. an den geschützten Seiten selbst durchzuführen. Der Großteil der Bearbeitungen eines Administrators kann durch andere Administratoren wieder rückgängig gemacht werden, mit Ausnahme der Zusammenführung von Versionsgeschichten, die deshalb mit spezieller Obacht behandelt werden muß.

Wir laden dich herzlich ein, mit uns auf IRC Kontakt aufzunehmen: #wikimedia-commons @ irc.freenode.net. Du findest zudem in dem Commons:Ratgeber zur Administratorentätigkeit vielleicht eine nützliche Lektüre.

Bitte überprüfe, ob du in der Commons:List of administrators und den jeweils nach Datum oder Sprache sortierten Listen eingetragen wurdest und ergänze deine Daten andernfalls.

The mop is over there :P. Congratulations, Patrícia ^msg 19:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy admin :) abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both of you and also to the others supporting my in the RfA.

I have a question concerning “check usage” and “CommonsDelinker”: Do they both miss articles to which an image has recently been added in case of a server lag? --Leyo 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

CheckUsage is affected by server lag, I'm afraid. CommonsDelinker too, as far as I know, because it is a toolserver based bot. But I'm no expert in this, just saying what I've seen others writing here and there about it. Cheers, Patrícia ^msg 14:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's good to have another chemist administrator here. Edgar181 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Version merging

I have been waiting for a while to delete a couple of duplicate pictures. Unfortunately, the tools.wikimedia.de keeps giving me a Database Error, so I can't see which one I need to delete (and to access the usage tool) until its fixed. --Digon3 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wappen im SVG-Format

Hoi Leyo

Danke für deine Nachricht! Ich werde ab sofort meine SVG-Wappen in die Artikel einfügen.

Gruss Gerhard Bräunlich (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ich habe gerade eben eine Diskussion betreffend SVG-Wappen gehabt (siehe hier). Bei deinen Wappen sollte dies aber wohl nicht passieren, da du Quellen angibst und die Blasonierung etc. beachtest – jedenfalls soweit ich dies beurteilen kann. --Leyo 17:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ich würde schon eine farbige Version erstellen, aber frage doch zuerst de:Benutzer:Sa-se. Der hat die SVG-Version gemacht. --Gerhard Bräunlich (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Gut, hab ich gemacht. Du kannst übrigens jeweils auch auf deiner Diskussionsseite antworten. Ich nehme Diskussionsseiten jeweils auf meine Beobachtungsliste auf, wenn ich dort etwas poste. --Leyo 11:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ..

...for the RFB support. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

und vielen Dank für Diene Korrektion auf meinen Deutsch! Kannst Du auch auf {{Chemical structure verified/de}} blicken? Physchim62 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course: Richtigkeit! I knew there was a word I was looking for and couldn't find! I can't even blame that on having learnt my German as Züridüütsch! Grüetziwohl, Physchim62 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have you lived in Switzerland so? BTW: Are you willing to help drafting a request to ESIS? --Leyo 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Skeletal formulae

Hallo Leyo. Bin gerade über die Disk. gestolpert. So ganz blick ich noch nicht durch. Soll die Kat gelöscht werden? Ich bin nicht dagegen. Besteht die Möglichkeit, eine Galerie von (svg) Formeln der wichtigsten Stoffgruppen anzulegen? Wenn ja, wo sollte diese kategorisiert werden? Und noch eine Frage: In Category:Crystal structures sind etliche Molekülmodelle (Kalottenmodelle, sticky balls) enthalten. Werden diese im Englischen evtl. auch als Crystal structures bezeichnet oder kann ich sie dort entfernen? Gruß --Hystrix (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Ja, das ist der Vorschlag. Es gibt zehntausende von Skelettformeln auf Commons. Diese sollen besser nach Stoffgruppen, Wirkstoffklassen, usw. kategorisiert werden.
2. Ich bin nicht sicher, ob ich dich richtig verstehe. Willst du eine Galerieseite von Skelettformeln für eine Auswahl wichtiger Substanzen anlegen? Dann sollte diese – analog zur oben diskutierten Kategorie – in Category:Chemical structures eingeordnet werden.
3. Da kenne ich mich zu wenig gut aus, sorry. Frag doch Orci oder in der Redaktion Chemie.

--Leyo 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Zu 3.: Nein, Kalottenmodelle u.ä. haben nichts mit Kristallstrukturen (en crystal structures) zu tun, die heißen auf Englisch en:Space-filling model. Kristallstrukturen brauchen immer irgendwas periodisches und sind nie die Abbildung eines einzelnen Moleküls. Du kannst Kalottenmodelle etc. problemlos aus der Kat nehmen. Viele Grüße --Orci (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded

Dear Leyo, i noticed you deleted several files with the edit summary "superseded". Superseded or low quality is not a speedy deletion reason see Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded and Commons:Deletion policy. So please stop doing this, undelete all files you superseded and maybe list them for regular deletion. Multichill (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Multichill. I am sorry I didn't provide the full reason here such as I did e.g. here or here. We have the categories Category:Disputed chemical diagrams and Category:Low quality chemical diagrams, a procedure which has been extensively discussed. I certainly know the links you provided. :-) --Leyo 22:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't except you from having to follow policy. See for example what a mess you caused at fr:Composé organique. Multichill (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This “mess” has been caused by re-uploading the images in an acceptable resolution yesterday late evening and not by deletion. The resizing was on my to do list. Before I started to improve that page, it contained poor quality and partly incorrect images. The improvement is almost finished now. See also here. --Leyo 23:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so long ago some users thought it would be nice to draw some flags. They made some nice flags and started replacing the old inferior flags with their shiny new creations. Because the old flags were redundant they deleted the old images. But some of the new flags weren't exactly correct or just not what wikipedia users wanted, but they couldn't use the old flags anymore because those were deleted at Commons! This caused quite a fuss and after a long discussion it was decided this shouldn't happen. Superseding was suspended to prevent this from ever happening again.

We don't decide what wikipedia users have to use, we just provide and certainly don't try to force "better" images. Multichill (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Now replace flags with chemical diagrams

I know the problem for flags well, but the case is not really comparable to chemical structures. We are a small group of users who care about the accuracy and the quality of chemical images. See this discussion for the most recent example. --Leyo 23:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. We have a policy and until that policy is changed you have to stick to that as an admin. Please see Commons:Deletion policy#Superseding. Multichill (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. --Leyo 13:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me you respect our policy, but you're still violating it. Please explain, Multichill (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? You think you can change processes, that have been discussed (see e.g. here) in order to tell me afterwards that I do not respect the policy... There is no use to discuss on such a level, sorry. I do really appreciate your and your bot's work on Commons in general, but not in this case. --Leyo 14:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to make clear: I know that some time ago, several high quality PNG images (such as these) were deleted, because they were “superseded” by SVG images. In some cases this was done, even though the SVG images were of minor quality. I am happy that this deletions have stopped and I would certainly never perform such a deletion. --Leyo 14:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Falsche oder überflüssige Dateien kategorisieren

Hallo Leyo, erst einmal noch ein Dankeschön, dass du bei Orci wegen den Kristallstrukturen nachgefragt hattest.

Bisher habe ich die Dateien, egal ob jpg, gif oder png, nur einsortiert, sie nicht zusätzlich in Category:Disputed chemical diagrams, Category:Low quality chemical diagrams oder woanders kategorisiert. Wie ist bei folgenden Dateien zu verfahren: Image:Electophylic_addition.png – fünfbindiger Kohlenstoff und Image:Alkyl-(general)-skeletal.png – eine PNG-Version von Image:Alkyl-(general)-skeletal.svg? Du brauchst es nicht erklären, einfach vormachen. Falls ich es dann bei den nächsten Dateien falsch mache, klopfe mir einfach auf die Finger ;-) --Hystrix (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bei inkorrekten Grafiken – wie beim ersten Fall – kannst du {{Disputed chem|Grund}} ergänzen (die Kategorien nicht direkt einfügen). Die – qualitativ gute – PNG-Version soll als Alternative zur SVG-Grafik bestehen bleiben. In diesem Fall also gar nichts machen. :-) Alles klar? --Leyo 20:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Noch was vergessen: Wenn du die Vorlage eingefügt habe, dann bitte den Uploader mittels {{subst:Disputed chem/notification|Bildname.ext}} informieren. Das geht via Copy&Paste sobald die Vorlage auf der Bildseite ergänzt ist. --Leyo 21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

grrrins Den Grund soll ich mit meinem Shrek-lichen Englisch einfügen: The carbon atoms are five-bonding :-D – Das andere war klar, obwohl selten ein Uploader, der schon lange nicht mehr aktiv ist, von anderen informiert wird; werd' es trotzdem machen. --Hystrix (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Im aktuellen Fall ist der Upload ja erst einige Monate her. Das gesuchte Wort wäre wohl “pentavalent”. --Leyo 21:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pentavalent – welch ein schönes Wort. Und, hach, denselben Uploader User talk:Laghi.l von Image:Electophylic_addition.png hast du auch nicht informiert wegen {{Low quality chem|Poor resolution, inappropriate file format (should be SVG or PNG)}} von Image:11etandiolo.jpg. Allerdings, lieber Leyo, mach ich dir das nicht zum Vorwurf. Lieber kategorisiere ich jeden _{((dahingeschissenen Pups))} Beitrag, nur um Fehlerhaftes didaktisch zu vergleichen/verdeutlichen, als dass ich einen Löschantrag stelle. NEIN! Das klingt jetzt alles sehr vorwurfsvoll. Das ist es mitnichten. NEIN! Wir, du, ich und die paar wenigen anderen Chem-Hanserln machen weiter und versuchen die Kats ein wenig ordentlich zu halten. --Hystrix (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe dies eben nachgeholt. Und danke vor allem für das Kategorisieren. --Leyo 22:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unidentified Formulae

Ich stöber sehr gern bei den Karten herum, und dort gibt es Category:Unidentified maps. Wäre für die Chemiker eine ähnliche Kategorie sinnvoll, wohin Butchimull und andere die Dateien erst einmal verschieben und wir sie dann in Ruhe kategorisieren könnten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hystrix (talk • contribs)

Die gibt's und darüber wird auch gerade debattiert: Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Unidentified chemistry bzw. Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2009/03/Category:Chemistry (unsorted). --Leyo 22:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also da sind Foroa dabei, die/der gerne löscht, ok und cwikididum. Machen wir eine andere Kat für die einzusortierende Fälle auf. --Hystrix (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Besser das Ergebnis abwarten – oder selbst mitdiskutieren. Ich mache Schluss für heute. --Leyo 23:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Crap it

Hi Leyo. Ich habe mir erlaubt, dieses Bild als speedydelete zu vermerken. Dies tue ich im übrigen bei vielen anderen Bildern, die a) nicht mehr benutzt werden und sowieso alt sind b) qualitativ mies sind und c) bei denen es mindestens eine bessere Version gibt.

Normalerweise sollte man ja den Dienstweg nehmen (User benachrichtigen, LD führen), aber ich sehe Commons nicht als Müllhalde für schlechte Bilder. Dann lieber Platz schaffen. Bisher hat sich auch niemand bei mir beschwert, von daher...

Wie ich übrigens sehe, läuft bei dir das Erstellen von svg-Bildern sehr gut! Thumbs up! Grüße, --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Zirland hat's entsorgt. Mehr im Mail. --Leyo 12:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello,

I noticed that you give yourself rollback rights, but a administrator already has rollback and doesn't need the extra permission for that.

I removed you out of the rollback group because it is a unneeded double permission, I hope you don't mind.

Best regards, Huib talk 07:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that I've had this user (implicit) right before. If no admin is in the rollback user group, it is of course OK. --Leyo 08:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our German-language image submission queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

7 8 dihydroksy 9 10 epoksybenzo a piren.PNG

Hi Leyo. Thanks for fixing File:7 8 dihydroksy 9 10 epoksybenzo a piren.PNG. However, I think it is now missing one double bond. Compare with the structure at the PubChem link at the image page. Can you fix it? Thank you. Edgar181 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Should be OK now. --Leyo 18:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. Edgar181 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Hallo Leyo, das Bild File:Rasensport MGladbach 1920-1921.jpg steht seit Monaten unter den Deletion Requests. Da das Bild vor 1923 angefertigt wurde, bin ich für behalten. Andererseits stammt das Bild von der Website von Borussia Mönchengladbach (laut Einsteller). Da der Artikel von Borussia im Moment im Review steht, wäre es mir schon recht, wenn man den Fall zu Ende bringen könnte. Kannst Du mir weiterhelfen? Gruss, Linksfuss (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mit solchen Lizenz-Grenzfällen kenne ich mich zu wenig aus, um den Löschantrag zu entscheiden. Um eine schnellere Entscheidung herbeizuführen, könntest du im Administrators' noticeboard um Hilfe bitten. Du kannst das Bild ggf. zusätzlich mit {{Bild-PD-alt-1923}} in der de-WP hochladen. --Leyo 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, danke. Gruss, Linksfuss (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Löschen

Hallo Leyo, ich habe ein Bild versehentlich zweimal hochgeladen. Wenn es möglich ist, würde ich die Version File:Verena Wolf Richter. Schlossparkturnier.JPG gerne löschen lassen. Kannst Du das erledigen? Gruss, Linksfuss (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Für solche Fälle gäbe es auch {{Bad name}}. --Leyo 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Kenne mich auf den commons noch nicht so gut aus. Gruss, Linksfuss (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

auch Löschen

Hallo, manche meiner Formeln sind inzwischen überflüssig (da mehrfach vorhanden) und beyond repair (also Aufwand/Nutzen zu hoch). Welches Procedere würdest du empfehlen (Beispiel File:Phytic acid.svg)? --Ayacop (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nachtrag: ich habe nur noch File:Capsaicin.svg gefunden. Diese beiden sind also IMHO überflüssig. --Ayacop (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Am transparentesten wäre wohl, wenn du „speedy“ ergänzt, wobei du die Löschung als Erstellerwunsch sowie bessere Version(en) angibst. Anschliessend kannst du mir hier ggf. eine Notiz hinterlassen. --Leyo 11:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Remarques sur la chimie/polymères

Hallo, voici une remarque concernant le classement des polymères (Category:Polymers) sur Commons : la plupart des polymères sont organiques, donc la Category:Organic polymers est inutile (cela complique le classement des polymères).

Concernant 2 images sur Commons :

• File:Isopren Kopf Schwanz.svg : l'isoprène a 2 doubles liaisons C=C ; l'unité monomère isoprène a 1 double liaison C=C ; or l'image Isopren Kopf Schwanz.svg n'a pas de C=C. Ce fichier est utilisé dans plusieurs Wikipédia, il faut donc faire une modification dans les articles allemand et japonais.
• File:Formula latex certo.svg : doit être renommé, et il doit être supprimé des articles concernant le latex. Car le latex naturel de caoutchouc est à base d'unités 1,4-cis et non 1,4-trans. De plus, la représentation chimique de "Formula latex certo.svg" est incorrecte.

Best regards. Cjp24 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Es ist natürlich richtig, dass die Kategorie Organische Polymere die Kategorisierung etwas umständlicher macht, aber sie erlaubt eine bessere Trennung von Objekt- und Themenkat.
2. Ich vermute, dass sich Neurotiker beim Zeichnen von file:Isopren Kopf Schwanz.svg etwas gedacht hat. Vermutlich dass im fertigen Molekül unter Umständen garkeine Doppelbindungen mehr vorhanden sind. Die Benennung der Datei und die Beschreibung sind vielleicht etwas missverständlich.
3. Wenn Naturlatex cis ist, dann ist das natürlich schlecht. Mir ist nicht klar in wie weit sich der Begriff "Latex" nur auf Naturlatex bezieht, die Datei also falsch benannt ist.

Sorry für's Einmischen. Vielleicht kannst du ja meine Anmerkungen in deine Antwort einfließen lassen.

Gruß --Cwbm (commons) (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

@Cwbm: Danke fürs „Einmischen“!

@Cjp24: Est-ce que tu as compris la (bonne) réponse de Cwbm en allemand? Autrement, ça sera peut-être mieux de changer la langue à l'anglais. --Leyo 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oui, bien compris. Si on revient au sujet de File:Formula latex certo.svg (partie 3), il faut savoir que le caoutchouc naturel (sigle NR), issu de l'hévéa, est le plus connu, sa structure est cis-poly-isoprene-1,4.

Il existe un autre latex naturel (arbres gutta-percha ou balata => isomère trans-1,4) ou du latex synthétique. Cjp24 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I respond in english, but my french is hardly good enough to understand your contribution. As cwbm already pointed out the image File:Isopren Kopf Schwanz.svg was drawn without double bonds on purpose. It was mostly thought to be used on the german article Terpene, hence the german labelling. It is thought to depict a sort of "frame" of an isoprene unit, as it is often seen with terpenes e.g. Squalan. Regards, --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Opal from Yowah, Queensland, Australia 2 retouched.jpg

Hallo Leyo, kannst du mir einen Gefallen tun und dieses kürzlich von mir hochgeladene Bild löschen. Es enthält einen Fehler und ich möchte gerne eine neue Version hochladen, aber das Überschreiben funktioniert ja schon seit einiger Zeit nicht. Gruß, --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 17:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Danke. --NEUROtiker ^⇌ 20:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel/de

Hallo Leyo, ist der Test, den du hier durchgeführt hast, inzwischen abgeschlossen? Ehrlich gesagt würde ich das gerne revertieren, da dadurch die Quellenanzeige bei allen Dateien, die damit hochgeladen wurden, im deutschen Interface defekt ist. (Beispiel: File:Maulde aval Cascade Jarrauds.JPG) Hintergrund ist, dass {{Parse source}}, welches von {{Information/layout}} verwendet wird, sich die Übersetzung aus MediaWiki:UploadFormOwnWork holt und da steht in der deutschen Version momentan eben nur die Vorlage drin. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wenn überall, wo es hingehört, {{Own}} stehen würde, würde das nicht passieren. Dein Beispiel habe ich mal entsprechend geändert. Sind denn die Bots nicht bald soweit, dass sie alles ersetzt haben? Ich finde es halt einfach Unsinn, dass im Upload-Formular etwas vorgegeben wird, das dann von Bots ersetzt werden „muss“. Wenn du möchtest, kann ich aber die ursprüngliche Version (temporär?) schon wiederherstellen. --Leyo 11:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Naja, wenn denn die jetzige Version dann so funktioniert, dass bei hochgeladenen Dateien im Quelltext auch wirklich {{Own}} drinsteht, empfiehlt es sich wohl eher, die Vorlage anzupassen anstatt der Systemnachricht. Funktioniert das denn jetzt? Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Da komme ich jetzt nicht mit, sorry. Ich habe den gewünschten Revert inzwischen durchgeführt. --Leyo 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Naja, die von dir bearbeitete Systemnachricht wird von zwei unterschiedlichen Systemen verwendet. Einmal wird sie eingefügt, wenn jemand beim Upload in der Liste "Eigenes Werk" auswählt und einmal wird sie ausgewählt, wenn jemand mit deutschsprachigem Benutzerinterface eine Dateibeschreibungsseite aufruft, auf der "own work" in einer beliebigen Sprache steht. Wenn also das Uploadformular jetzt tatsächlich beim Upload immer {{Own}} einfügen würde, würde es Sinn machen, den Text in der MediaWiki-Seite stehen zu lassen und dafür eine andere Übersetzungsquelle für die Information-Vorlage zu finden. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, jetzt verstehe ich, was du meinst. Ja, das würde es tatsächlich. Hast du schon herausgefunden, wo und wie das geschehen müsste? --Leyo 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Die eigentliche Frage ist, ob das jetzt funktioniert, dass {{Own}} beim Upload eingefügt wird. Wenn ja, dann muss {{Parse source}} entsprechend angepasst werden. Anstelle von {{int:UploadFormOwnWorkLabel}} muss dann eben direkt {{Own}} verwendet werden. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ein Entkoppeln wäre wohl sinnvoll. Ich denke, das sollte aber auf Template talk:Parse source oder an einem sonstigen passenden Ort diskutiert werden. Ich muss für heute Schluss machen (daher auch nur kurze Antwort). --Leyo 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Für's Protokoll: Ich habe die entsprechende Änderung soeben durchgeführt, nachdem ein Admin alle Übersetzungen der Systemnachricht gelöscht und die englische Version mit {{Own}} überschrieben hat. ruft jetzt in jedem Fall {{Own}} auf. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dann wollen wir mal hoffen, dass OMA ob des nicht erklärten {{own}} nicht allzu stark verwirrt ist. :-) --Leyo 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/NEUROtiker

Hi,

I just removed your protection from the page because it passed the scheduled time but a bureaucrat can choose to extend it since it isn't a fixed time, so the best way to do now is just wait, a bureaucrat will close it and after that we can protect it untill that its still open for votes.

Best regards, Huib talk 20:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of the possibility to prolong the time slot for voting. But anyway, he/she could have removed the protection if necessary him-/herself. --Leyo 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but its open for votes untill a crat close it, and if you protect it people couldn't vote anymore.. anyways I poked bastique and its handled now ;) Huib talk 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for poking. :-) --Leyo 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hexitol.png

I'm a bit puzzled that you closed this RfD as "delete" with no further explanation, given that noone except the nominator had argued for deletion (and three other had argued "keep"). Anyway, that's not my business, just came here to remind you to delete the talkpage as well ;) Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank for bringing this to my attention. I deleted the talkpage. BTW: I am not counting votes but weighting arguments. --Leyo 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Lyngbiatoxin A.svg

File:Lyngbiatoxin A.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. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Charlesy (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Commons:Picture requests/Requests/Nature#Chemistry

Hi Leyo. Thank you so much for replaced "horrible" chemical structures that I uploaded I have just downloaded and installed ACD/ChemSketch 12 and now I am trying to gain experience. My first chemical structure that I made is about 8-Geranyloxypsoralen. I hope to get better issues in future. See you soon Jacopo Werther (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The structure looks good. Are you going to draw and upload a nicer image of the oxypeucedanin hydrate structure yourself? --Leyo 13:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kategorie hier in den Commons

Hallo Leyo, dies hier File:3-hexanol.PNG hat die Kategorie: Verified chemical structure diagram. Was soll das bitte bedeuten v.a. bei so simplen Stoffen?? Du warst irgendwie daran beteiligt. m.E. ist diese Kat so unsinnig. Grüße 88.67.178.110 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC) PS: war von mir, aus Versehen nicht eingeloggt Cholo Aleman (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ich war daran nicht wirklich beteiligt. Die Kategorie wird mittels Vorlage eingebunden. Unter Commons:WikiProject Chemistry findest du mehr Informationen. --Leyo 11:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Danke! - man hat sich irgendwas dabei gedacht, das ist mir jetzt zu langwierig Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)