User talk:Davey2010/Archive 2018

Archives:

2011

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

fyi

Don't just straight out call things "pathetic" or just blindly "revert". Im still interested. I wrote it in a way for people to be very honest. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Artix Kreiger - You have no interest in LR so your request has been speedy closed, Retry in a few months. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I will re-apply in a few weeks. Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Place de l'Hôtel-de-Ville (Le Havre, France), côté est

Bus stops are actually in the bottom of the picture, near the bus, viewed from top. Thanks.Palamède (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I know, They just don't need to be included. –Davey2010^Talk 14:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

White frame : File:Cross - Les Iles d'Or.JPG

I was at the Musée d'Orsay three days ago. I guarantee you that the frame of this painting of Cross is white. Totally white, without even a shade of yellow, or ocher. Would you be so kind as to believe me. The image available on the museum site is in shades that I had restored, but in slightly more soft : http://www.musee-orsay.fr/fr/collections/catalogue-des-oeuvres/notice.html?no_cache=1&zoom=1&tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bzoom%5D=0&tx_damzoom_pi1%5BxmlId%5D=000152&tx_damzoom_pi1%5Bback%5D=%2Ffr%2Fcollections%2Fcatalogue-des-oeuvres%2Fnotice.html%3Fno_cache%3D1%26nnumid%3D000152%26cHash%3D4bd3741aca. What happens unfortunately often, without being constant with the Musée d'Orsay. I can find the same colors of the museum, if you prefer. I have been contributing for a long time and I have never encountered a problem of this type. Cordially. (Ismoon (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)).

(Edit conflict) - Hi Ismoon, The issue I have is that Szilas took the photo .... and currently it's being used on many articles so I don't think it's a good idea replacing it with a much brighter one, If you want to reupload as a seperate image you're more than welcome too but images like these shouldn't be touched, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Thanks for providing that link, I've now reverted, I'm a bit confused as I thought the uploader took the image .... no idea but anyway I've self reverted :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I took the picture ten years ago, and the frame was not white at that time. It could very well happen thet the museum has changed the frame in the meantime. But I have nothing against changing my pictures to fresher, better ones. Szilas (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy Esther Celebration

Hi Dave,

Hope you are enjoying your holiday. Happy Esther celebration to you. Wishing you all the best. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Wikicology and a very Happy Esther to you too, Yeah I'm enjoying it thanks and I hope you and yours are enjoying today too :), Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

COM:AN

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators noticeboard. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

- Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of archive pages

Please do not hide other people's deletion requests in archive pages. It is highly unlikely that any auto-archive page will be watched by others. Suppressing DR notices in this way will cut out the Wikimedia Community from participating in deletion discussions, this is especially true for blocked/locked user accounts. --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The archival was fine but I should've left Mays as was, Thanks for restoring Mays. –Davey2010^Talk 15:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

CFD

Hi Themightyquill & ŠJů, Unable to comment there as requested a months block,
My main issue isn't that there's more than one category - It's that I don't see the point in having a category for blurred plates ... at all!, I genuinely cannot see anyone in the world searching for "blurred or unblurred plates" I really can't?,
It just seems a category has been created for a problem that isn't there .....,
That all being said whether I was blocked or not I can't stop people !voting keep nor having a supercat,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Generally, categorization should sort and group images by their relevant content. Utilitarian retouching of images is a relevant item and should be a criterion of categorization. I see no reason to take out just license plates from this system and these principles. I think, the categories are relevant, adequately named and specified, not duplicite one to others. However, the umbrella category for them was really missing, I fixed this imperfection now. Cheers. --ŠJů (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I do have to respectfully disagree on that - I just cannot see anyone ever searching for these sorts of images I mean who would ?, Meh if the community want these kept then coolio, I just disagree that's all. –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical too, Davey2010 but it seems that we're unlikely to reach consensus to delete. And honestly, I've seen worse. In the same month, there's a CFD for Category:Portrait paintings of men with left hand holding objects. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Themightyquill, Wow never thought I'd say this but that's 10x worse than the one I nominated and I thought that was worse enough! :), One could really despair at times lol, Anyway thanks for popping by, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Vacations

A slice of kayısılı turta

Go home man! Weren't you supposed to have a rest? Turn off the computer. Have a good weekend. --E4024 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I was pinged so I couldn't fight the temptation any more! ... Just had to reply :D –Davey2010^Talk 15:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!

Affected:

• File:San Francisco Mission St 01.jpg

Yours sincerely, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Iveco Daily: 2009-2011 vs 2011-14 models

Hi!
As you seem to mix these models (I recategorized some of them, lately, and checked who made these mistakes ), here are a few hints to give them the proper category:

• 
  2006-2009 model,
  part of the "2006-2011 generation".⁽¹⁾
• 
  2009-2011 model,
  part of the "2006-2011 generation".
  Light facelift: same headlamps and bumper, only a grille change;
  "IVECO" still in the grille.
• 
  2011-2014 model.
  Bigger facelift: new bumper, grille and headlamps;
  "IVECO" above the grille, in a grey bezel.

1: For the record, Iveco calls the 2014+ version the 3rd generation of Daily. Which means that 2000, 2006, 2009 and 2011 vans are just parts of the 2nd one, with more or less strong facelifts...

I hope this will help you. Regards, -- BarnCas (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi BarnCas, Are you sure these are the 2006 models ? .... Going by the EN page the 2006 front end is completely different and so I've been assuming for instance this image was simply a facelifted version of the 2011 model ? ..... –Davey2010^Talk 12:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If the table above is correct then the EN page needs updating as it's currently giving the wrong info, If I have been incorrect with the categorising then I sincerely apologise–Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi!

Are you sure these are the 2006 models ?

Let's say Iveco believes it⁽¹⁾, at least
Being a "facelift version of the 2011 model" would have mean changing the whole front fascia in 2011⁽²⁾ and reusing the previous bumper and headlamps for the face-lifted version. More than unlikely, for me

If the table above is correct then the EN page needs updating as it's currently giving the wrong info

Not the first article in WP to be incorrect. Without searching, I can cite 2 other articles with the same problem: the 1941-47 Chevrolet "AK-Series" and the "1966+" Chevrolet B-Series. I'm not native speaker, so I hesitate to change these articles. But one day, I'll crack up and correct this bad info. Even in pidgin English, if necessary

If I have been incorrect with the categorising then I sincerely apologise

Errare humanum est... There's no reason to apologize. Or I should too, as I'm human and make mistakes too. We just have to remember that... perseverare autem diabolicum
-- BarnCas (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Notes:
1: excerpt of the June 2016 edition of the "Iveco Plus" magazine. Note that this article also talks about 3 generations of Daily, the second appearing in 1999 and the third in 2014...
2: 2012 for Iveco, due to the unveiling in autumn 2011. But I disagree with this "model year interpretation", as MY notion has disappeared in several European countries since the early 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarnCas (talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 September 2018‎ (UTC)

Hi BarnCas, Ah thanks for providing that link - The reason I thought it was a facelifted version was because the headlamps and grill (with the logo) is near the same whereas I would say the 2006 one is drastically different well the grill certainly is anyway,

Ah okay I wasn't aware of that - You would obviously think the EN article would be perfect in terms of it being up to date and obviously correct, Although I'm British and all that I'm not that great with English as such (hence why I've never really created any articles),

Haha very true we all make mistakes, It's just with Commons you have to be very careful and obviously the last thing I want to do is categorise everything incorrectly :)

Anyway thanks for bringing this to my attention - I'll certainly be a lot more careful in future (and thanks for spotting my mistake(s) ), –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. In turn, please don't hesitate to spot the mistakes I made/make/will make: I usually learn a lot from them. -- BarnCas (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi BarnCas, To be honest I've not seen you spot any mistakes but if I do I'll tell you :), Thanks again :), –Davey2010^Talk 12:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	amazing account,interesting and inspiring. Delux.delux (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Music Oblivion - Carter Cruise

A note that MusicOblivion is probably Carter Cruise herself, although it's not clear if she owns the copyright to the image[1] instead of the photographer. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Morbidthoughts, Ah right sorry I hadn't checked the username, I'm under the impression that they've uploaded the image simply for the En article and infact they have 0 knowledge of what this place is .... –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Kirchenfester in der röm.kath. St. Anton Kirche in Basel. Gestiftet von Henri und Marie Braun-Dreller (1929).jpg

In deWikipedia - de:Kirchenfenster. So, please rename. --2003:DE:711:18EB:ACFD:47D7:B450:112 18:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2003:DE:711:18EB:ACFD:47D7:B450:112, For renames I'm not too sure about I'll always do research first, In this case there are other names exactly the same as this in that category and unfortunately I thought you were a vandal (as that rename was your only edit), In this case I was indeed wrong so my apologies for that, –Davey2010^Talk 20:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Davey2010: ,

as a response to the message you left on my talk page ...: No, I am not identical with the IP above. And please be assured: There is nothing wrong in not carrying our a file rename in case you cannot positively verify that the request is a valid one. As for the other files in Category:Antoniuskirche, Basel , I have spotted a few more typos of the same type in file names there.

Thanks for your valuable work here on Commons! --Archie02 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Archie02, Oh right sorry (As you did the rename after I wasn't sure if you had accidentally logged out), Okie dokie no worries thanks for your message,

If I spot them before anyone else I'll move them over for you, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Rename request declined

Hi Davey2010, you just declined the renaming of File:StNicolai Weissenborn Wehranlage 01.jpg and File:StNicolai Weissenborn.jpg. Maybe I should just have given the reason "uploader request", for they are both taken and uploaded by me. But even as it is, I don't understand your problems. I gave two websites, the first is the official website of the "Kirchenkreis", which is ~ churches district, and the second (map) is an online-version of the official map provided by LGLN (states office für geographic information etc. in Lower Saxony). There is no website of this specific church, because it belongs to a connection of 4 churches and chapels which also has no website of its own, so I took the Website of the next higher level in the organisation of Hanovers Landeskirche. So I just don't know what you meant to be an "official website" I should have given. --Dehio (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dehio, Many thanks for coming here, Most churches here in the UK have official websites and I assumed this was the case worldwide, I wasn't aware the first link was a church district otherwise ofcourse I would've moved it :),

You may want to update the category to reflect the correct name,

Anyway I've gone ahead and moved these 2 images :),

Many thanks for your message, –Davey2010^Talk 18:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I often miss churches' websites, most of the smaller churches in Germany seem not to have an own website. --Dehio (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, Ohhh right I'll remember that now, Thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 18:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Rename request

Hi, you've declined a renaming of Hanne Borchsenius.jpg and Lilli Weiding..jpg saying it didn't "comply with renaming guidelines" and more importantly that it was "best this is discussed on the talkpage", how and what is it that needs to be discussed on the talkpage other than that which have been stated already and additionally been repeatedly pointed out in the danish wikipedia article? TherasTaneel (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi TherasTaneel, I still stand by that comment - One comment isn't a discussion, Anyway the categories are all still the opposite so these should be updated first, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, one step closer "categories should be changed before renaming", then there is the issue with the files being linked in all the wikipedia articles, should they be changed before as well? and don't see how it helps, but should a version copy of the edits where people write into the article itself that the image is wrong, because they don't know how else to do it, be added to the talkpage? TherasTaneel (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah ofcourse it would .... It would be pretty stupid to have "Lilli Weiding..jpg" in a Hanne Borchsenius article would it not ?. –Davey2010^Talk 16:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

But... that would be the case if they were changed before renaming. What I meant was, if a bot were doing that afterwards, as I've seen in the past. Anyway, I'll link your advice to the talkpage whenever your page archives it, so people know what to do. Thanks. TherasTaneel (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That would be the case after renaming, So what you'd need to do is add the Hanne Borchsenius images into the Lilli Weiding articles and the Lilli Weiding images into the Hanne Borchsenius articles ... so when it comes to renaming them the filenames will then match the article :) –Davey2010^Talk 16:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:London June 7 2016 021 ITV EU Referendum Debate Cameron v Farage (2) (26917273454).jpg

File:London June 7 2016 021 ITV EU Referendum Debate Cameron v Farage (2) (26917273454).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 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!

B dash (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Renaming

You recently rejected two requests from me to rename files on the grounds that "does not comply with renaming guidelines".

I would suggest both requests do comply with Guideline 3 "To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms".

• File:Ordnance Survey Drawings - Belpher (OSD 349).jpg is an obvious error in the filename - a misspelled proper noun.
• File:Ordnance Survey Drawings - Corby, Northamptonshire (OSD 266).jpg is a misidentified object. It was Corby, Lincolnshire (not Northamptonshire), which is now called Corby Glen to distinguish it from Corby, Northants.

I invite you to revisit your decision.

Thank you. Nedrutland (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nedrutland , I declined based on the image description - I take those into account when renaming (as well as doing my own research), For the latter upon searching Corby I got the one up Northamptonshire which is why that was declined, I apologise for these mistakes I could've done better research so I apologise for that,

I've renamed both files :), Thanks for coming here it's much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Images marked for deletion

Hi,

You’ve just marked all of the images I’ve uplaoded for deletion, even those I’ve taken myself.

The MediaCity logo was uploaded using the incorrect tag, so I’m happy for that to be deleted as I accept I uploaded the logo incorrectly. However you have also marked the rest of my images (my own) for deletion. I’m new to Wiki so would appreciate some clarification. Thanks Chrisgg382000 (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, None of the images appeared to be yours, Any future reuploads will see you blocked, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 12:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2019! ;)

			* Happy Holidays 2019, Davey2010! *
			Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)