User talk:Mtaylor848/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re: montage images

Hello! Pretty much along the lines of the advice of the previous poster, all you'd need is a simple image editing program and some patience. I used GIMP, which is open source and freely (as in free beer and speech) available. Having skimmed your user page, I think you'd be more than adept at working with the images since you seem to be into photography! I hope you make a montage of Leeds! Good luck! Tong22 (talk) 08:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Specsavers_Opticians,_Horsefair_Centre,_Wetherby_(15th_October_2010).jpg

File:Specsavers_Opticians,_Horsefair_Centre,_Wetherby_(15th_October_2010).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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Grand-Duc (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_012.jpg

File:York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_012.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:The_Minster_Shop,_York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_003.jpg

File:The_Minster_Shop,_York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_003.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_007.jpg

File:York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_007.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Banners_at_the_Yorkshire_Museum,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.jpg

File:Banners_at_the_Yorkshire_Museum,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Lendal_Tower,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.jpg

File:Lendal_Tower,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Dcoetzee (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Main Street, Cushendun, September 2010 (01).JPG

Hi Michael - many thanks for notifying me about the corrupted file. Unfortunately I lost the original (due to stupidity) so I have just deleted the file. I see you are having loads of trouble with the copyright police, as am I. This is the kind of policing that has put so many off Wikipedia and it looks as if it is starting to happen here as well. Unfortunately this appears to happen to people that are active, while similar pics by others that have been there for years never get touched. I have added comment to the ridiculous Specsavers proposed deletion. I also note the stupid attack and comments on "spamming" date categories - I've had my share of that as well. It will be interesting to see how much worse this all gets - it certainly doesn't help to maintain enthusiasm or to encourage participation. Best wishes. Ardfern (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bloomfield Road 1995

Yeah, 1994 is just my idiotic mistake when I was renaming them. Feel free to change the filenames to 1995 if you want. Kafuffle (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Lendal_Tower,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.jpg

File:Lendal_Tower,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Powers (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It was worth defending this picture. I wish you a good 2011. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yourself as well, Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Categorising buses by location by year

Please can you not start recreating these trees? It's serious over-categorisation - we already have branches by year, which are logically subdivided by month, and branches by location, logically sub-divided by lesser and lesser geographic locations. If anyone wants to find a bus in a place in a year they can use the catscan tool to find any combination they like. It isn't feasible to create this manually for all possible combinations, and with it only existing for Leeds and Isle of Wight (both now cleared), it was of little use being woefully incomplete compared to what it would be if done fully with what images we already have.

I know you seem to like catting all sorts of things by location and month/year, and I know people have already questioned the reason why. But please realise that for UK buses at least, we already have a very well developed categorisation system with several logical defining branches, and as such there now many many things we could theoretically create specific three way categories for. But it doesn't serve much purpose to create them all, as rather than 5-10 categories per image, we would start getting closer to 25 or even more. That simply wouldn't be maintainable, or even usable. And in that context, year by location isn't as defining and so needed as anything else. Ultra7 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. How you search for them is not the same for everyone. I personally find them useful. If you don't they don't harm. If you wish to pursue this I would suggest mediation. Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Overcategorisation is considered harmful, period. And the harm is very real - it's no word of a lie that your personal idea of 'useful' here for UK buses could lead to the addition of a ridiculous amount of specific three way categories to every UK bus image, if everybody chose to start implementing their personally desired 3 way intersection system that they happen to also think is useful. There are several equally sensible potential combinations, given there are 7 core branches for every image. I will go wherever you like if you disagree with these basic facts and think this has sufficient benefit for everybody, but do not start recreating these any more unless or until you show others agree with you that they are useful and are not harmful over categorisation. If you do, I will seek administrator intervention. As it is, without showing that agreement, it is simply unnacceptable to have this being implemented by one user for a ridiculously small subset of images such as one city for one or two years. It's pointless. Our category systems are supposed to be universally applied for the benefit of all. If you get the approval for your idea of useful, I'll even request a bot myself to deploy this particular combination fully over the tens of thousands of images it can be applied to. Ultra7 (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

These categories were deleted without reasonable consultation. If you see Category:Buses in the United Kingdom photographed in 2010 you can see that such categories continue to exist and are very large and cumbersome given the number of images they contain, ergo I would say it would be sensible to break it down further. This kind of deletion undermines a lot of work done by users and makes it very difficult for anyone to maintain enthusiasm for the project. Your threats of 'administrator intervention' are churlish in the upmost. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am one of the three editors who have to my knowledge done most work on that system, categorising and recategorising thousands of those images, and designing the system for UK buses per the established general rules and principles for categorisation. So please, if you're going to feel disheartened, imagine what it's like to see someone try and repeatedly create their own little non-standard arrangement inside a whole system they've helped set up, for no other reason apparently than they like it that way. And yes, that category exists, and the same is true for many other parallel years. That's because the UK is the root of the category system, of which year of photographing is just one branch. And if you look at it more, the further subdivision of that category branch is by time, not location, because as I've already said, there is another branch for location, among 7 in all. What you are trying to do is re-unify those two seperate branches further down the line, which is something which is actively discouraged in Commons category systems without a very good reason - because otherwise it simply wastes categorisation effort, makes it less likely other images will be categorised correctly in the first place, confuses the user looking through categories, and duplicates what can already be done using smarter tools like catscan, which cover every possible 3 way combination and more, rather than being limited to your own small decision of what is useful, and over a tiny scope in comparison to all available images.

The 2010 category is large because it was created on its own first, and the sub catting into months only came later - it will be diffused in time, and then even further if necessary - many of those images were all taken on the same day that's for sure. And in parallel, if many of them were taken in the exact same place too, but at different times, and they will further sub-catted in the location branch too if necessary. That's how it works - you subdivide on the same theme for each branch. And then as said, using tools like catscan, it becomes possible to search for every single time division & location combination. What your intervention does though infact is make that harder - people have to remember that there are subcats just for Leeds in 2009/10, and in those cases they have to set it to search down another level, and make sure they aren't getting false positives because an image in there is now in one category but on the same two branches.

Finally, frankly, if you get disheartened at the deletion of two categories containing barely 100 images, please see how annoying it is for you to keep arguing that your personal desires are more important than adhering to the system that actually follows the established rules and conventions of categorisation which are there for the benefit of everybody. And if that disheartens you, I frankly don't think you are serious about putting the amount of work in that would be required to deploy the three way system you are arguing for across all the images it should be applied to, if you did what I asked and showed it was actually needed instead of just insisting you should just be allowed to have it. I've made no threats here, I've only told you what the good practice is, and if you refuse to listen to that or to show how I'm wrong, you don't leave me any choice if you resume, because I'm not going to spend any more time explaining this to you, and I'm certainly not spending any more time deleting it for a third time. The admins (plural) who have deleted these categories in the past were all given full reasons why, the same reasons I've explained above, and they chose to delete without recourse to further consultation, so that should tell you something about whether I'm right or not on the general principles here, as I directly mentioned over-categorisation, the existing system, and things like catscan, in each of the deletion rationales. Ultra7 (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How exactly am I arguing for my personal desires anymore so than you? You seem to imply that you are wasting time explaining something to me that I cannot comprehend. Aside from being profusely arrogant, this seems to miss the point that actually I disagree with your point on several levels of which I have explained. As someone who put much work into this I was not consulted and feel agreived with respects to the issue. I have pointed out to my mind how you are wrong and why my suggestion is more practical. I resent your authoriative tone and agree that any further dialogue with someone as obdurate as yourself would be fruitless, hence my desire to take this to mediation. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Posters_displayed_on_the_community_notice_board_in_the_Garden_of_Rest,_Wetherby_(March_2010)_001.jpg

File:Posters_displayed_on_the_community_notice_board_in_the_Garden_of_Rest,_Wetherby_(March_2010)_001.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Acather96 (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

University of Leeds

Thanks for your support for my images and contributions to the University of Leeds wikipedia page. It's a shame the moderators don't believe that my images are genuine. Unfortunately, I don't get the time to come on and check as much as I used to but the reason the images were small were due to them being my photos from my Facebook page, hence the reason the images are of smaller quality to what the moderators deem "genuine". Sorry I didn't get online in time to argue my case, I have lost the will to battle with them anymore, the crest was one thing but now they are doubting my other images, which as you will agree, have contributed to a better and more thorough article. Just a shame the moderators aren't as tolerant and educated as they lead people to believe.

Anyways, thanks for the support in the past and on the images/crest. I feel I owe you a personal response and explanation, not the "moderators" or rather judging doubters. Take care Mtaylor848, and thank again. --Freedomflag (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Aviation Wikiproject on Commons?

Hey mate, I've had an idea of starting an Aviation WikiProject on Commons. I have created a page at User talk:Russavia/Proposal where I hope that if other editors think this is a good idea, we can all come up with ideas, etc. Please keep all comments on that page for time being, and if you know of other editors on Commons or on other language projects who might be interested in commenting, coming up with ideas, etc, please let them know of the discussion. Let's see if this could be a workable project. russavia (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on airline/aircraft fleet categories at Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Airline_fleet_categories. Could you provide input there, and if possible, perhaps let projects on other wikis know, because this will assist them in finding relevant materials as well. russavia (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture details

Hi, to help me categorise your images, could you let me know which terminal the Heathrow pictures were taken in? Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That should be terminal 3 if I recall correctly. Cheers! Jnpet (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, regards Mtaylor848 (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Yates's_Wine_Lodge

Yates's Wine Lodge has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion 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. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2012 (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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:York Road and Nursery Garth Information Board - "Labour - James Lewis" (April 2010) 001.jpg

Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Permission to use photo of conifer

Dear Mtaylor May I use photo of conifer (tree) for school books? Contact me at sandra.poon@pearson.com Thanks

Sandra Poon Pearson Malaysia

Any of my photographs maybe used subject to the terms of the licence and me being credited, by the name of Michael Taylor (rather than MTaylor848. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Graduation day, Atrium, University of Bradford (Taken by Flickr user 7th December 2011).jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 13:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Driving in the river, York (Taken by Flickr user 29th May 2012).jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Driving in the river, York (Taken by Flickr user 29th May 2012).jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ju Ta 00:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.jpg

File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Mtaylor848/Archive 2

Contents

Re: montage images

File:Specsavers_Opticians,_Horsefair_Centre,_Wetherby_(15th_October_2010).jpg

File:York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_012.jpg

File:The_Minster_Shop,_York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_003.jpg

File:York_Minster_(21st_October_2010)_007.jpg

File:Banners_at_the_Yorkshire_Museum,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.jpg

File:Lendal_Tower,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.jpg

File:Main Street, Cushendun, September 2010 (01).JPG

Bloomfield Road 1995

File:Lendal_Tower,_York_(21st_October_2010)_001.jpg

Categorising buses by location by year

File:Posters_displayed_on_the_community_notice_board_in_the_Garden_of_Rest,_Wetherby_(March_2010)_001.jpg

University of Leeds

Aviation Wikiproject on Commons?

Picture details

Category:Yates's_Wine_Lodge

Notification about possible deletion

Permission to use photo of conifer

File:Graduation day, Atrium, University of Bradford (Taken by Flickr user 7th December 2011).jpg

Copyright status: File:Driving in the river, York (Taken by Flickr user 29th May 2012).jpg

File:Billboards at Leeds Bradford International Airport (24th July 2010) 001.jpg

Navigation menu

User talk:Mtaylor848/Archive 2

Re: montage images

File:Main Street, Cushendun, September 2010 (01).JPG

Bloomfield Road 1995

Categorising buses by location by year

University of Leeds

Aviation Wikiproject on Commons?

Picture details

Notification about possible deletion

Permission to use photo of conifer

Copyright status: File:Driving in the river, York (Taken by Flickr user 29th May 2012).jpg

Navigation menu

Search