User talk:Davidgothberg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RC4 test vectors

In the Wikipedia article about RC4, you added some test vectors. Unless I'm wrong, I would say the last test vector result is wrong:

RC4( "Secret", "Attack at dawn" ) == 45A01F645FC35B383552544B9BF5

I think the second last 'B' must be a 5.

Can you check this and correct it if necessary?

--83.134.151.12 15:02, 14 January 2007

I checked my own code again an reran it. It gave the same result as before. I also tried the web based RC4 demo that the article links to and it also gave the same result. Of course, both those implementations might have the same bug. (Different programmers tend to make the same misstakes.) But I seem to remember that several other crypto geeks in a crypto chat where I hang out tested those test vectors in their implementations. So I think that the test vectors are right. You have to double check with other implementations than your own and see what happens. --David Göthberg 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's always someone else's fault! I typed "Attack at down" instead of "dawn". --83.134.139.54 09:28, 15 January 2007

Hehe, the human factor is always a big factor in cryptography. Thanks for coming back and reporting so that we now know that the test vectors seem to be correct. --David Göthberg 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: MessedRobot and the "WikiProject Computing" template.

Hello! In the second run, the articles that are being added are doing so because they belong to a specific category related to computing. I added a clause in AWB to ignore pages with the cryptography template, but I don't know if it will work or not. Let me know if more cryptography pages are tagged. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 05:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work. You are tagging both talkpages that already have the "CryptographyProject" template and those that don't have it. And even if you get your "fix" to work it means you will mass tag crypto talkpages that not yet have the "CryptographyProject" template which will be even more confusing since then people will think those pages are part of the WikiProject Computing and not the WikiProject Cryptography.

I thought it was against Wikipedia policies to run a bot totally automatically without a manual visual check of each page update before saving the page?

--David Göthberg 06:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My bot is authorized to run by itself, so no, it is not against policy. Apparently my quick modification to exclude talk pages mentioning the cryptography project hasn't been working (according to you) so I will take the time to manually strip such pages from the worklist. Hold on. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It is, and I'm running some list intersections to see how I can fix this problem. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot should now not tag cryptography-related articles (though a few may slip through the cracks, I don't know), and in fact I have a list of pages lined up to have the Wikiproject Computing tag removed rom them. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cryptograhy article naming

This discussion was moved to the talk page of WikiProject Cryptography. --David Göthberg 01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:·

Hi David,

Unfortunately, due to concerns raised on the talk page, I had to partially revert your change to {{·}} in that the non-breaking space seems to be required in order to avoid breaking before the dot, which seemed to be expected behavior. Unfortunately, none of the browsers that I tested (IE7, Firefox, and Safari) interpret the nowrap style to include leading spaces. The partial revert that I made was not optimally coded, but my goal was to reduce the risk of screwing things up in a different way until we can work things out a bit more. I'd have discussed on the talk page before re-introducing the non-breaking space, but I wanted to quickly extinguish the appearence that the template "worked" with a leading space, when in reality the browsers interpret things differently. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 07:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, bitten by the browser bugs again. Yes, you are right and I agree that it needed to be reverted immediately. --David Göthberg 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nowraplinks

I requested your nowraplinks addition at Mediawiki talk:Common.css#nowraplinks. ←Ben^B4 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I see it has now been added to common.css. Now I'll just test it a bit more and then I can "market" it to the navbox editors etc. --David Göthberg 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for nowraplinks

Your code has made it much easier for me to develop a nice-looking Template:BalzacBox. Thank you kindly for making our lives easier. -- Scartol 21:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for telling me. Your BalzacBox is almost scary, I sure do see that you have good use of {{nowraplinks}}. I am now working to add the nowraplinks feature to the generic navboxes themselves so editors (like you) don't even need to think about it. (I have already added it to some of them.) --David Göthberg 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the built-in feature is very nice indeed. I know the Balzac box is jam-packed; we'll probably tweak it as we go. I just wanted to make something concrete to get it off my to-do list. Thanks again. -- Scartol 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks about that. I'm kind of new at editing, so I couldn't edit like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TidMiste (talk • contribs) 21:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are on to a good start! You made a decent start with the Chaocipher article. Next thing you might want to do is to "wikify" the article. That is, to make some of the words clickable links to other Wikipedia articles explaining those words. --David Göthberg 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Neural cryptography stuff

Hi David ! Thanks for your comments. In the Neural cryptography article I completed with a few more references about the field ! Thanks a lot ! --Faturita 06:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just doing my "job". Now the article looks really good. I like that you added some comments to each external reference. Now all we have to do is to wait for some native English speaking editors to fix the language too. Some sentences are slightly weird but I don't know how to fix them since my English is not good enough. But that's the "wikiprocess", every one helps out doing the part they are good at, and in the end the articles get really good. Oh, we should probably add links to the article from other articles too, I will perhaps do that. --David Göthberg 14:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Template standardisation implementation

This discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Template standardisation implementation.

--David Göthberg 00:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A user claiming some legal authority

There are several IPs who are posting claims on the Administrators' noticeboard that they reperesent some sort of organization which has the right to hear matters concerning Internet disputes. See this post. Do you have any way of calling that telephone number or checking the address to see just what is located there? Corvus cornix 22:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since it is a Swedish organisation and I happen to be a semi-expert in investigating people and companies in Sweden I'll take a look at it. How come you asked me?

I just done a first read through of what that Peter Lundgren wrote. I say it "smells bad" in several ways:

1. He uses the organisation number of his organisation repeatedly like it means some special status, but anyone can get such an organisation number in Sweden.

2. He seems to be complaining about that people removed links in articles to their web site. Apparently he has never heard that Wikipedia is not a link repository.

3. The article about UNNET was deleted months ago. (He didn't say that, I saw that in the logs.)

4. He comes with a "legal threat" based on some US law but he doesn't really state what he want to achieve. Seems his main demand is that we link to his web site since he writes: "censuring access to UNNET websites".

5. I don't know if his organisation is the real deal or a "charitable hoax". But I know we got plenty of "charitable hoaxes" here in Sweden so based on how he writes I wouldn't be surprised if his organisation is exactly that.

But I'll check into it.

--David Göthberg 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to Category:Swedish Wikipedians and you were one of the first who seems to actually still be in Sweden who is recently active.  :) Corvus cornix 23:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For further information, this all comes from this post, where the User claims to have sent an email to this organization which supposedly has authority to resolve Internet complaints. Peter Lundgren's organization is apparently the parent company of e-pol.org. Thanks for any help you can provide. Corvus cornix 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read part of the discussions on that here on Wikipedia. (I Googled and almost all hits for un-net.org etc was here at Google.) I did the little checking I could at this time of night of the organisation here in Sweden. As others already noted the web site seems very fishy and the domain is registered to an address in Brussels, Belgium. There is no UNNET or UNombud in the Swedish phone registry and the fax number that Peter Lundgren claims to the organisation is unlisted but it is a phone number to southern Sweden. In what he wrote he claims an office address in Ystad, a small city in south Sweden. So I did a phone registry search, in spite Peter Lundgren being a VERY common name in Sweden there are only one in Ystad. So I now have his home address and mobile phone number.

So I guess I will call him tomorrow or so. :))

And if I have the time tomorrow during office hours I will see what the government databases have about him and his organisation.

--David Göthberg 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hooray, you are Wikipedia's own Sherlock Holmes.  :) Corvus cornix 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, he, that was nothing. By tomorrow afternoon I can have some data about his organisation and what car make, model and plate number he has, and the names, addresses, personal numbers and more of his family members. And in 1-2 weeks I can have his school grades, hair colour and photo of his sister (if he has a sister, let's hope she is cute) and know if he ever been to court or prison and so on. All that without me doing any travelling and all legal too. Problem is I don't have the time the next few days. And I don't think he is worth the effort. I think I will simply phone him and talk with him.

--David Göthberg 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you have time for. Thanks. Corvus cornix 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have time to phone him today and now it is already night. But I'll call him tomorrow or so. So keep this page on your watchlist. --David Göthberg 23:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Today I asked the Swedish tax authority. The "UNOMBUD Stiftelse", with organisation number 848001-2619, is registered. But just barely. The address Peter stated is the same as the officially registered one. UNOMBUD have existed for a number of years and are registered as a "foundation". But they have never paid any taxes, no salaries and have no employees. So either they have never done any work or everyone working for them works for free or get their salaries illegally.

I also tried to call that "Peter Lundgren" on his cellphone but got no response. He might actually be in Germany right now as he wrote, since the IP number he wrote from is a south German IP number. So he might not be reachable until he comes home.

The fax number he stated indeed has a fax machine answering. I did not send any fax there, I just phoned it and listened to the fax sound.

--David Göthberg 09:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have phoned him repeatedly without any response. He only have one listed phone number. And his parents have unlisted phone numbers so I can not reach them either. So the only easy options left is to fax him or write him a letter, but I will not bother about that. So I will not do anything more.

--David Göthberg 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much

I appreciate your help in this matter. It sounds like the gentleman isn't as authoritative as he claims to be. Corvus cornix 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Norwich City F.C.

Hi David. Just spotted your edit - thanks. Subtle, but correct. :-) --Dweller 10:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah it was just a small change in colours. But since you asked for help with your colours at another talk page I checked everything carefully and then I saw you already solved the problem but I noticed it wasn't the correct club colours. And since it was so easy to fix I just boldly did it. But I didn't bother to fix the image/logo in the article since that is more work. Guess you guys should consider fixing the logo. Some fans tend to be very sensitive about such things. (I know from experience, in the 90's I was the web master for some clubs here in Sweden.) --David Göthberg 23:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WT:TS archiving

Yeah, sorry about that, I thought someone had just copied a few threads to the archive and forgot to remove them. Sorry for any confusion caused. If we archive just the inactive threads, will it be a problem if the threads aren't listed in chronological order? Sebi _[talk] 07:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you couldn't have known. And was easy for me to fix so no confusion caused. And yes, I think the same. I took a look and most threads have been to recently active to be archived, yet the page is getting way to big. So yeah, I think we have to archive in "non chronological order" and just archive those threads who is not needed any more. Although they are not many... Should you or I do it? Or should we make up a list of thread headers on the archive page together to see that we agree and then cut and paste the content to them afterwards? --David Göthberg 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just simply go through some of the threads on the page and filter through, spotting threads that are unlikely to receive any replies to them in the near future (i.e. "Support" section), or threads that are outdated (i.e. "Credit" section). Sebi _[talk] 08:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Need a free alternative to Image:Current sport.svg

Like you did with Image:Gnome globe current event.svg, could you create a similar free version to replace Image:Current sport.svg because that image still contains some parts of the Wikinews logo. I would do it myself – combining Image:Current event clock.svg and Image:Soccerball.svg – but I cannot match the clock shadows that you added to Gnome globe current event.svg. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed the non-free background on that image too, but at least according to Swedish law that is too little reuse to be copyright infringement. (Unless the entire globe is still hidden behind that ball, then even the hidden data can be copyright infringement.) But no problem, I'll fix that.

--David Göthberg 04:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, I just checked. There is no globe behind the ball, and the blue "parenteses" are not the same as in Image:Current event marker.svg so I say that is not copyright infringement. But the clock is very similar (but clearly not the same file). So probably a trademark infringement. Anyway, let's see if we can design something better looking? --David Göthberg 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this one? Image:Soccerball current event.svg

I made a misstake and uploaded it to en.wikipedia instead of commons, but I'll fix that. --David Göthberg 05:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Even though it actually might not be copyright infringement, we at least have something else that is similar and a little more consistent. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Default template image

I saw you checked my template (Thanks!) here, but since the image isn't showing up at all, that's why I added it, because I tried it without it, and it wasn't showing up for me, but it did if I added it specifically. The same goes for the default style image in {{Ambox}}, so I can't figure out what I did wrong, lol. (I've cleared my history/cache, so that's not it, using Firefox 2.0.0.6/XPSP2). Anyway thanks for checking the obit thing, if that's the only mistake I made, I'm happy, lol. I just wish I could see these default images. Thanks David! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all of us have problems seeing those images right now. Sometimes Wikipedia simply fail to show some images, and probably especially during extreme load situations like during this update. So just wait and those images will show up normally again soon. The yellow brush and the merge arrows have come and gone sometimes already the last few hours.

--David Göthberg 07:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness it isn't just me, the odd thing is, in IE, the image shows as an invalid image (like, red X type box) but clicking on it takes me to the image page, and I see it fine there, Silly, lol. Yeah I'm not seeing the merge arrows either, hee hee. Well thank you dear David, for easing my fears that I royally messed something up! And I appreciate that you took a look at the Obit thing, I removed that table, because frankly it was god awful ugly, and when I tried to just make it a plain one, it showed up right one time, and then weird the next refresh, so I gave up, lol. Thanks for fixing it! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually hoo boy did I mess up that obit template, or what? I wasn't paying attention and copied all the closing <div tags, sheesh. What a mess, sorry you had to clean that up! I tried to just copy/paste the template message, but guess I watch where it ended, and the old box did, lol. I think I'll stop trying to do these, I'm probably screwing them all up. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no shame in that. I have been programming since 1982 and editing/coding at Wikipedia for several years now. And for me that template actually was tricky to handle. So it was a hard one.

And yeah, some years ago when I first experienced the "lost images" I almost thought I had lost my mind or something. I think it is as simple as when the servers get overloaded they are set to prioritise text and stop rendering images. Since we still get the page text rendered quickly even during extreme loads like now.

--David Göthberg 08:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, do you think I should list the ones I converted for you to review? I mean, I think the others weren't as hard as that obit one, but perhaps it would be a good idea to just check? I did test them after I changed them, and they seemed to work correctly but now I'm worried lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy

Calm down my friend

Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 08:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Why are you saying that? --David Göthberg 09:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ambox

Regarding this edit, would it be possible to instead edit {{ambox}} to match the original examples? The tags look much better with the horizontal grey border extending the full width (including the colored strip). —David Levy 08:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the grey border remains in Internet Explorer 6. I don't know about Internet Explorer 7 (which I don't have installed), but it's gone in Firefox. Can this be fixed? —David Levy 08:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look in the archives you will see why we decided on using a CSS controlled thick left border instead of using a left table cell with background colour. Also the experts over at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Template standardisation asked for it. There are several reasons:

• It causes simpler smaller code.
• It makes the message boxes fully CSS skinnable. That is, in other Wikipedia skins or later in time these boxes can have a very different border, like for instance a thick right border.
• Users themselves (for instance seeing impaired or colour blind) can fully configure how they want the message boxes to look by editing their own monobook.css.
• Some or perhaps most of us actually like the current border better.

And yes, my Explorer 5.5 also adds (keeps) such borders. As usual different browsers renders things slightly differently. And sure, I know ways to fix it, but that would be REALLY ugly coding. We are actually going to use such nasty coding on the new navboxes to get all margins etc look exactly the same in all browsers. But we are worried no one will be able to maintain that code if we are not around then.

Oh, by the way. I left a message for you at Template talk:Notice some days ago.

--David Göthberg 09:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that message. I just posted a reply.

Are you saying that there is no non-ugly way to restore the original appearance in Firefox? —David Levy 09:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, forcing that border to look the way you want it would cause more/worse code. Although it wouldn't be that bad code really. But would take away the freedom to skin the boxes. But note that we don't want to "restore" those extra borders. Or to be honest, they have not been discussed much so I don't know what most think about it. But among the few comments I have seen it seems most like the "new" way that we have now.

--David Göthberg 09:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the new method is superior to the old one (given that it provides all of the benefits described above).

As for the border, the only comment that I've seen was someone complaining about its absence and opining that the original examples looked nicer. But if changing it back would break the ability to skin the boxes, I agree that we're better off this way.

Thanks for the explanation! —David Levy 09:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly interview

Hi there, Yes you sound like a perfectly good interviewee. I certainly have no problem with a swedish accent - I lived in Lund all last year! We could discuss your opinions on the meta-templates on article pages too. We record via Skype, so you would need that programme and a microphone headset. Could you be available on Sunday (tomorrow)? I'm available most of the day, when is good for you? I'm in Australia so I'm 10 hours ahead of Swedish time. Leave me a message either here or on Skype, my username is "Wittylama". Hope to hear from you soon. Witty Lama 13:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. --David Göthberg 15:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Um sorry but I don't have skype out, and I have no plans to get it. Could you recommend someone else in that case? Cheers, Witty Lama 12:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the choice is easy. Violetriga IS the Wikipedia:Article message boxes project. --David Göthberg 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tack för din hjalp. I've sent him a message. Lycka till med Ambox och I'll see you 'round wiki. Witty Lama 10:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambox

Hi, just a note, please see my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Template_standardisation#Maintenance_Templates. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 15:22 15 September 2007 (GMT).

I didn't understand what you were talking about over at that section. But I'll sleep on it and look again tomorrow. Perhaps I will understand then when I am not so tired. --David Göthberg 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambox and Wikinews

Hello, David Gothberg. I intend on porting the lovely Ambox to Wikinews. Tell me everything I need to know about it on my talk page. MessedRocker (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, CU on IRC perhaps tomorrow if we are lucky. --David Göthberg 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You are a winrar!

The "Holy Crap That's Awesome" Barnstar This is for making Template:Ambox ViperSnake151 00:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. But just so no one thinks anything else: I just built on the work the rest of the people in the Wikipedia:Article templates project had done. They had already come up with the new design of the article message boxes and most of the CSS code we needed. I just added some small details and coded it up.

--David Göthberg 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Current sport-related template

Thanks for fixing the mini function on this template. It looks much better this way. Resolute 19:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Sports Template

What happened to the template? For a second, all was perfect. Right now, the mini version automatically and irreversably aligns right. It also does not take up any lines, and instead the text wraps around it. This causes a great problem with the baseball team articles. If we put this template to the left of the infobox, we end up with the beginning of the lead being squished between the tiny space between the left side of the template and the margin. This can be rectified, but only by placing a large number of lines so that the text begins below the template. Although the template only seems to take up two or three lines, it takes five or six in the editing field to make the text begin below. The current solution has been to put the template above the infobox, but the infobox should be the most prominant part of the article, and it belongs in the top left, over some little box.

Then, suddenly the template changed. It aligned left and took of space, making everything fall into place perfectly. Now, I've returned to find that the template has returned to acting in its stubborn manner. While I've edited frequently, and changed many templates, this one completely escapes me. I have no clue how to edit it. Could you please, perhaps, allow for the template to take up space? You seem to have a good handle on how it works.--Silent Wind of Doom 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you link to some of the problem articles? I was just asked to restore the old functionality since the new message box standardisation people had edited into the new standard. So I just restored the old code exactly but keeping the new standard look on it. I have a guess what yor problem is but you have to show me those pages so I know for sure.

--David Göthberg 01:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed a few when the new template came about. New York Yankees has disambiguation information on it, which, as you can see, is squished. Boston Red Sox has no such information, meaning that the lead, which should have great weight, is shifted in an odd manner. This squishing is pretty awkward at my 1024X768 pixel resolution. I'm sure the standard 800X600 is much much worse. This is an issue with every team page, given the large infobox.--Silent Wind of Doom 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, from the old code it is clear the mini version is supposed to be small and align right. But now I tested it below the infobox and it didn't work right then. I have now modified it so it really does align right, even if after an image or infobox. That is, it will end up below the image or infobox. Which seems pretty nice. If you do not want it to align right as you mention, then I wonder where you want it? On its own line taking up the full width but looking small? Thus leaving a lot of space on both sides? Is that what you want? Why would you want that?

--David Göthberg 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at User talk:Melesse

Hi, I happen to watch Melesse's talk page and noticed your comments there. You should know that Melesse is working image conversions and Commons moves per WP:IUP. The images you created were better suited to SVG format, and, since they are under a free license, belong on the Wikimedia Commons. I also remind you that, once you uploaded these images under a PD license, they were no longer "yours", they now belong to all of us. Melesse did the conversions and the Commons uploads, and, as a courtesy to you, changed the links on your user page to the SVG version so that your links would not simply turn to redlinks once the old image versions were deleted (which they will be). She did not need to do this, but was simply being nice - you should probably give her an apology. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, this is about the PNG images Image:HASHTB08.png, Image:HASHTB12.png and Image:HASHTB32.png. And the SVG images Image:HASHTB08.svg, Image:HASHTB12.svg and Image:HASHTB32.svg.

Oh, you got this wrong in so many ways. You really should check your facts before you drop in here claiming so many things. So let me try and straighten this out for you:

1. No, User:Melesse did NOT make those "image conversions". It was commons:User:Helix84 who made all three of those SVGs, based on my PNGs. And he did that in December 2005. And he uploaded them to Commons.

2. I made those PNG images back in 2005, just before this SVG craze took off, so don't blame me for making them as PNGs. PNG was the preferred format back then.

3. Back then I was a beginner at Wikipedia and back then there were almost no information about Commons on the image how-to pages and no information about Commons during image upload. Thus I uploaded the images here at en.wiki.x.io just like most others did back then. Even many admins back then didn't know that an image uploaded to commons was automatically usable in Wikipedia articles.

4. You put the speedy delete tag {{NowCommons}} on my PNG images. If you even bothered to read the pages that the tag links to then you would know that the tag should only be used for identical images of the same file format. SVG remakes of PNGs have so far NOT been considered to be identical images. The policy so far have been not to delete PNGs just because SVG remakes have been made. So go read up on the policies and ask around and you might learn something.

5. There are a number of good reasons to use PNG formats still. Among them that SVGs do have standards problems and rendering problems. For instance SVGs made with one program can not always be opened by another program and text in the SVGs often do not render correctly on Wikipedia. But that is not the issue here right now.

6. What you can do is to move the PNGs to commons since they are public domain. But then you should update the links/attributions in the new SVGs since they do state that they are based on those PNGs. And you should keep the exact same name on the images since they are referenced in the talk page archives of the article they were made for. But since the article now are using the SVG version all that probably would seem like a waste of work for you.

So, I am going to remove the erroneous speedy delete tag {{NowCommons}} you put on my PNG images. And no, I am not going to apologise to anyone since it is you two who done wrong, not me. Although I will assume this was an innocent mistake from your side. And yes, I will keep calling them "my". I am entitled to call them that according to law both in the US and here in Sweden where I live since it was me who did them, even though I released them for free usage.

--David Göthberg 02:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, I did make a bunch of mistakes in my post. However, I still think you were wrong to jump on a user for apparent good-faith edits - a polite note would have been more appropriate. Anyway, I still feel the PNG versions are now obsolete and have nominated them for deletion here. You were correct to remove the speedy tags. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: id=colorcode

To hide it on my screen. I still have a sour taste in my mouth since green was nixed from that code. --  Denelson83  19:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Article message boxes

Thanks for your suggestion and apologies for the delay in responding - RL is pressured at the moment. I don't have the time or energy now to go further with the debate. I have made my points. The old design (i.e. tinted boxes) is superior to the new one for job in hand. A tinted box is a standard graphic device for juxtposing but separating text which has a different function from the main text. Side bars are more effective for drawing attention to a section of main text, whilst not divorcing it from the rest of the main text. The lack of tinting in message boxes gives them the same fundamental presentation as the article text, which is not what should be communicated visually. The new designs are smarter than the old when seen in isolation, but deficient for the purpose when seen in context of articles. The individual messages are harder to assess: they tend to form a continuous block of text, not helped by the lack of a gap between them. The confusion with main article text is even more pronounced when the message boxes are in sections within the article. Twee pictures, such as a mop, undermine the intended seriousness of the project. Tyrenius 16:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Porting Ambox to wikiHow

David,

First let me say that Ambox rocks. It is amazing...so amazing that several editors on wikiHow want to bring it over to wikiHow to improve our comparatively messy templates. Is is OK if we use your code on wikiHow? Thanks again for this great contribution to wiki templates. Feel free to reply to me here or on my wikiHow talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackHerrick (talk • contribs) 20:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for this late answer but I have been on a much needed wikivacation.

1: First of all thanks, glad to hear you like the {{ambox}}. But personally I dislike article message boxes since I think they clutter up the articles and really are "self references" and are discussing the pages and thus belong on the talk pages. But I helped out with the article message box standardisation project so they at-least would not look as ugly as before.

2: Well, I did not code the {{ambox}} alone. Sure I did the bulk of the coding in the beginning, but by now it is very much a team work. And it is not until now that it really works as nice as it should. And the original design ideas were not mine.

I wouldn't mind if you used the code I wrote on your site. But using the code that the others wrote is problematic, since your wiki uses a copyright license that is incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) that Wikipedia uses. You use the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license which is more restrictive than the GFDL. Actually, the license you use is similar to what I have used in most of my own projects in my life.

3: Of course, there is a "legal" "solution": You can unilaterally decide that the {{ambox}} and its CSS code do not reach the threshold of originality and thus are not protected by copyright. And I doubt that the {{ambox}} coders and designers will gang up on you and sue you, especially since you would be using it for a non-commercial purpose. So you would probably be okay.

Man, I hated saying all that. I dislike all these copyright troubles.

--David Göthberg (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well

Just putting a note here, to let you figure out who I am. (I shouldn't take you that long, should it? You don't seem to spend very much time here since a couple of months, though. Oh well.) // habj (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hahaha! You seem to be the paddling, medical researching, contact sport, Japan interested, dancer that I met at another community recently. But your user name here at Wikipedia seemed familiar so I looked around and saw that you are also the Habj that did work on the first article I ever created here at Wikipedia: filmjölk.

So it really is a small world!

And yeah, I am on a long wikivacation due to that I reached a way too high level of wikistress while managing a bigger project here at Wikipedia this summer.

--David Göthberg (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)