User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 3

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Listed building Scotland template

Quick query - is it just going in categories now, and not on the individual file pages when they're inside categories ? Nick (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have always though that categories are there to hold data common to all images in it, including its listed building status and link to English heritage. The reason being that if you look at Category:Listed buildings in Scotland with known IDs it's vast and therefore unmanageable. Unfortunately, the WLM people don't seem to have considered this when setting out their criteria, so that's where most of them come from. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Rodhullandemu!

Happy New Year!

Rodhullandemu, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Episcopalian bishops revisited

Hi, back in October we discussed the naming of the category "Episcopalian Bishops". That category is still open for discussion. I think that we came to a conclusion, and I am going to rename the US Episcopal church sub "Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States" and create "Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church". But the discussion guidelines say a discussion should be closed by someone familiar with the process. Can you close the discussion, as I am not familiar with how to do it? Thanks, Drbones1950 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look at this shortly as I am somewhat overwhelmed at present. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.


Take the survey now!


You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Inner Shadows cover

Greatings, again!

As you adviced, mr. Saraew has sent email with permission to use his image(Ticket#: 2017012210008748). When you'll have time, you may check it out and return image back into Commons.

I hope this situation is settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BSamedy (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I said, this may take some time to process, and the admin dealing with the OTRS ticket will restore the file if all checks out. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undeletation request

resected Sir I am social worker, i wad created page on wikipedia, i was using real picture, on that page, yet it shows deletation request , i have all government documents, why delete my image, please help me sir arjunraje.png Mahakalclub (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. The file is in use, therefore is in the scope of Commons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St James' Church, Coatbridge

Hi, I realise that St James' Church is not a plural, but the correct usage of the apostrophe in English does not require a second 's' when used after the first. The website for the church on the Diocese of Motherwell uses this variety of spelling, however I can understand this specific church having some trouble with its naming, since other websites instead use the name "St James the Greater Church", so this is really up for debate!

Thanks, JoshTilley (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think as long as people unambiguously know which church we are talking about, minor differences in its name are unimportant, other than spelling errors, of course. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) There is no one correct way of spelling possessives of words ending in S. Some authorities say to omit the last S only in polysyllabic words, others say only in classical and biblical names. Some go by pronunciation: if you would say “Jamezez” aloud then include the S, otherwise don‘t. Personally I prefer to write the S in most cases, certainly including monosyllables like “James‘s“ and “Charles‘s“, but I wouldn‘t call anyone wrong for omitting it. For category names here, my preference would be to follow the organizations‘ usage, particularly as revealed in any photos showing their signage.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly happy with your reasoning. For churches I add that specifically use the ending apostrophe and no 's' on their websites, I'll follow suit, but I won't dispute any of your 's' edits from now. Thanks, JoshTilley (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland

I assume that you've noticed my ping about the Geograph work I'm doing at present, migrating things a long way down the tree (in locations at least). However I'm still not sure about north of the Tweed. I'm drawn to civil parishes but have doubts. They are used by Historic Environment Scotland to describe the location of listed buildings, which is mirrored by the WP lists about them. However, I don't think there is any other use. Community council areas might work better, but they seem to be very low profile too. The biggest problem there is just getting hold of the data!

One example: File:Trees on Am Bàthaich above Track - geograph.org.uk - 1333855.jpg. Its currently categorised as being in the Highlands. It is in Moy and Dalarossie CP, which I can easily detect that and use. Its also in Strathdearn community council area, but its a pain-in-the-neck to work that out.

Is there any other sort of localisation that would work? I'd prefer to use administrative features to physical geographic ones, for consistency with the rest of the UK and its less subjective (does that show part of the actual valley of Strathdearn?) That said, its logical to treat islands as distinct entities...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nilfanion: I was aware that Highland was going to be difficult but hadn't thought much about it other than that Community Council areas would be good subdivisions if we could determine their boundaries. I know Fae has done this with the council areas and counties but I hadn't got as far as asking him if he could look into auto-categorising on that basis, and I'm not sure the boundaries of community council areas are coterminous with civil parishes. I think if we can use CPs for now it should be easier at some stage to gather them into CC areas. Sorry if that's not very helpful but I haven't considered it for a while. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There may be some similarity between CPs and CC areas, but in general they are different. One specific issue is the CPs are aligned to the historic counties, while the CC areas are to the modern council areas. However, I think that last comment is gives justification to press ahead using the CPs (when in a single council area), as its easier to sort to the CC areas in the future with some meaningful localisation already done instead of just all being lumped in the top-level cat.
The biggest drawback I see is that will lead to a parallel category structure, but its only going to be at the local level, so I don't think its too big a deal. Let me know if you have any further thoughts, it will probably be a couple weeks before I start actual work on Scotland.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my plan for this to to create categories for all 871 civil parishes, putting them all at "Category:<parish> (civil parish)". That avoids any ambiguity with namesake towns (or the community councils). However, many won't clash so can safely be moved and redirected to the plain name (eg Penninghame). The advantage of the systematic approach is its simplicity.
My chief concern now is ones like Lismore and Appin, which is split between Highland and Argyll. It would be good to split the parish in two for categorisation, but can you think of a good way to do that? "Lismore and Appin (civil parish, Highland section)" is ridiculously clunky, but would work.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that, I've no objection. Things that straddle boundaries are always troublesome because I think categorising by both is unhelpful because it puts files into the wrong area. What I've done for, e.g. The Pennine Way is to split it into county/council area tranches, and the naming convention I've used is "X in Y", so your example would be Lismore and Appin (civil parish) in Highland council area and Lismore and Appin (civil parish) in Argyll and Bute. The parent would be Lismore and Appin (civil parish) - but that doesn't solve the problem of any cats with the same name but in different, but not overlapping, council areas. Is Lismore And Appin any more than a CP? In which case perhaps it doesn't need the "(Civil parish)"? Just some thoughts. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that matches my thinking - and like you I dislike putting cross-border things in the overarching cats, using "x in y" cats to avoid that where possible. I'll get the categories created over the weekend. The real challenge is matching the existing categories for villages to the CPs, and will probably take some time of course...--Nilfanion (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh towns

As you moved Bridgend to the base name (which has other meanings elsewhere) shouldn't that also be done with Wrexham and Conwy? which aren't really ambiguous. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, but I suggest you chat with Sionk because he's currently doing a lot of work on Welsh categories, and is Welsh. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NHLE tagging

I saw your comment on Peter I. Vardy's talk page regarding the "listed buildings with known IDs" category and wondered what your opinion on commonly accepted best practice is? I have taken a lot of photographs of listed buildings in England and dream of either an ultimate category (with c.600k subcats) OR a giant category which could be mined/shared with Historic England users et all. How should I be tagging? Thanks so much for all your hard work here, I've always been an admirer. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've long thought that categories should be used for removing redundancy by listing commonalities, and that seems largely to be norm. I disagree with Peter's argument that adding {{Listed building England}} to individual images within a category is performing a service for the reader- I don't think our users (if any) are so disinterested that having found an image, they wouldn't also know that information about the subject of the image, rather than the image, is going to be in its category. As for the "listed buildings with known IDs" category, I can see how it's useful for Historic Britain/English Heritage users but there doesn't appear (at a cursory glance ) to be any sorting criterion. Thanks for the plaudit, it's rare here but appreciated. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Conference project

Hello Rodhullandemu,

I'm writing you as one of the most active Commons users right now. Since a while now, the idea of a dedicated Commons conference has been floating around, but since the last Wikimania concrete steps have been taken to actually make it happen next year. If you're interested in participation or maybe willing to help organize the first ever Commons Conference, I invite you to check out the project page and leave your comments; or just show your support for the idea, by signing up.

Cheers,

--MB-one (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cat removals

Hello, You removed the category instead of reverting it, which means that the useful category's are no longer on the userpages. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix it and re-add the correct cytegory's to users userpages? The category removal created a mess, you should revert vandalism not just removing the cat. Thanks. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realise we have incompetent admins, but I don't think any are child abuse offenders. My watchlist shows me ONLY removing that category; do you have an example to the contrary? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhhh! This .... hrr troll confused me. Sorry. I owe you a beer. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big sorry

Hi Rodhullandemu, due to my fault I have blocked and unblocked you some minutes ago. I clicked the wrong link in the list of contríbutions of the vandal User: RIPPublicHDTPB. Please accept my apogolies. Raymond 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Code issues in User:Rodhullandemu/Commons.js

Hi Rodhullandemu, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Rodhullandemu/Commons.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 1 new jshint issue — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page or cmb-opt-out anywhere on your your global user page on Meta. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 23 character 29: Use '!==' to compare with ''. - Evidence: if( editSummary != '' )

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 21:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

User talk:Ghk1991

FYI, I have indeffed this guy. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category

Hi, what´s the problem with the category? It´s part of a Wikimedia Spain project: No Spanish municipality without a photograph, and it´s useful for us to know how many images are uploaded each year. --Rodelar (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodelar: Oh, OK. if it's a project's category- and I see it's hidden- that's fine. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Park Ji-sung G20 Seoul Summit Ambassador.jpg

hmm, I raised it because I am use to Fetx2002 taking copyrighted images and putting them on commons via flickr the guy has been doing it for years. Guess I was mistaken on it's sourcing. I tried to report Fetx2002 a number of times as he has uploaded tons of photos that breach copyright. So ye, please keep your eye on him thanks. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow admin

Hello. I saw the "being mellow" thingy on your page. Love it! "Don't bring disputes from other wikis. This is not an extension of those wikis. Assume a fresh start, assume good faith, see what your colleagues want. Heck, maybe a friendship you make here will help resolve a dispute there?.. So, in order to preserve the neatness and peacefulness that is Commons, you need to be extra mellow. Don't assume that everyone understands where you are coming from. This may not be your home wiki, and not everyone does things the same way. Compromise, reasonableness, and explanation are needed..."

I looked into your page because I was looking for a good admin who cares for those issues I quoted above. I also wanted to find a "tolerant" person because I have never had the intention of being harsh on others. It goes against my character. Looking for the said admin I also passed from Christian Ferrer's page. He is also an ideal candidate for what I was looking for. (BTW the great majority of admins I happened to meet in Commons are wonderful people, only a couple need to develop themselves, especially their capacity of empathy, but that is not the question here. We all have to develop our capacity of empathy.) Am I taking too much of your time? Before getting to the grains let me explain why I also mentioned Christian here: Yesterday some angry IP added a talk on their page threatening to "cut him with a seesaw" or something like that. I noticed that he was there, making edits, but did not bother to remove the vandalism. I appreciate these things. It's like "You can do whatever s**t you wish, I will not come down to your level." (Someone else later removed the threat.) I wish I could be like him and take things so cool. I try to, but my patience has its limits.

All this loooooong chat is to complain from some user's attitude. I came to a mellow admin because I don't want anyone to be blocked, even for half an hour. (I have been blocked in several WPs, I know how it hurts. Sometimes you feel you have had an unjust treatment and get angry and at times you keep that feeling for a long time. At others, when you cool down, after the first reaction, you may feel like "I shouldn't have done this or that" and accept the situation with more calm. In any case, it leaves a bitter taste.) I only hope someone to tell a couple of words to people who are rude and unjust about their colleagues here. Maybe they forget we are all volunteers here and even if no one says "thanks" for anything we contributed, they should show the minimum respect to people who spend their time here for a good cause.

Whatever, I simply want to say this: Some users insult me without any acceptable reason, freely (gratis), I don't know for which reason. If they had done that only once I would shut up, but while I shut up they take it I don't know what, maybe as a sign of weakness, and I cannot accept that. (Look at my uploads, many food items, I am not weak at all! :-) From now on if insults continue I will continue with complaints. I hope I won't have to.

Please have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hassan the bookseller (7550602404).jpg. I waited more than 40 hours for someone, an admin an editor, an IP, anyone, to tell the concerned user not to act like that. At least to ask them why? Why? I was wandering around uncategorized files, alphabetically, I saw several files with the name "Hassan" which seemed out of scope personal images to me and made DRs. (Look at the DRs closed today, many have been opened by me.) This one -uploaded by the concerned user- also looked like a UPF and OoS to me and I presented it to DR. Still, I wrote "Could be categorized within Category:Bookshops, but I've got the impression that Hassan is the focus of the image..." with which I implied others could find the image in scope. I encouraged people to object to the proposed deletion but never to insult a colleague. Why do some people need to insult others? Why don't they limit themselves to talk about the files? The DRs are for discussing if a file should be deleted or not. We have the DRs for this. If not, everybody could simply delete what they considered correct to delete. If you do not agree with me you say your opinion about the file. What do you think you will lose by being kind and polite? I am really ashamed to make this application here. We are all grown up and educated people. We should act like that. Please.

Sorry for taking this much of your time and space. Take care. --E4024 (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DR

Rodhullandemu, this morning I was going to write to you about a DR that you closed the day before yesterday but I got confused and wrote it to fellow admin Guanaco instead! The title of my talk that you can see in their page is "Pencilll". Sorry for this confusion and thanks. --E4024 (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tower Buildings, Liverpool.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Hale Bank/Halebank

I moved it to show that it is about Hale Bank its self not just its CP. If there was a cat just for its CP then it should probably be at Category:Halebank (civil parish). You removed the message so I'm assuming you released this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cammell Laird shipbuilding hall.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Why?

Why do you think these two photos should not be categorized here? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
South Ferry Basin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

[[:Toxteth library:Template:VICpromoted|{{Toxteth library 201712.jpg}}]]

Valued Image Promotion

[[:Duke's Dock, Liverpool:Template:VICpromoted|{{Duke's Dock to west.jpg}}]]

happy

Happy new year, Rod --Jeff chandler (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and the same to you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[[:The Keel, Liverpool from the southeast:Template:VICpromoted|{{The Keel from Mariners Wharf bridge.jpg}}]]

In relation to BR logos...

In the DR, you stated you had contacted the DfT/ATOC concerning this issue. Did you contact anyone specifc?, as I've checked my e-mail archive and found a named individual within the 'Rail Executive' portion of the DfT, who had responded when I'd asked about the status of the BR design Manual early in 2017... As of today, I'd still not got a definitive answer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an email from their contact page. Also, to a guy called Chris Lund at ATOC, his name is the contact on the leaflet about using the image. No replies yet, which doesn't surprise me, but I think we have to take these steps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... I'd also like to see the status of the "Rail Alphabet" typeface clarified, (not an issue with respect to the US, but in the UK typeface designs can disappointingly be copyright.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Once an IP has been reported/delt with and the vandalism has been reverted already is it appropriate to patrol the edits if it isn't already patrolled? I try to keep as much of a handle on anonymous IP vandalism as one person can and I am curious what would the appropriate way to deal with this? I already patrol the edits of a someone doing vandalism before I would revert but I don't know how to handle someone who has had an admin action against them. The case of 85.118.76.63 made this issue shown to me. Thank you for your time. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually little point monitoring contributions since they are rarely static IP addresses and that particular vandal seems able to use new ones in the same subrange with some ease. On the other hand, there's no harm in it since in a limited subrange, e.g. a public or school library, the vandalism may recommence after the block expires, but it's more likely to be spotted if you are watching the target of the vandalism. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Albert Camus

Dear Administrator,

Much to my regret, these photos should be removed too:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FF-AC.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:FF-AC-hq.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:CamusJeanCatherine.jpg

They all belong to Fonds Albert Camus. Thanks in advance!

Soleil222 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soleil222: No problem. ✓ Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bolton

Is there a reason you didn't remove the cfd template from the category? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the closure script did that. I'll do it now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know there was a closure script: I always close them manually. How does the script work? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just press the [Not] part and it prompts for a reason, but perhaps that's all it does! Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery wars

Hello.
Likely grammatical singular is his idée fixe; note “les titres de paragraphe dans les galeries sont toujours aux "singulier"” that is, of course, a blatant lie – there are many titles in plural for years. You likely are really interested in Scotland only, but the problem is rather broad, and there will be no significant progress until the community definitely will put the end to such things. I proposed him twice to join our reasonable work on i18n of galleries, but he doesn’t listen.

I’ll try to start a discussion about galleries and propose, first, the following principles:

  • Where we have many objects, the grammatical number must be plural if any possibility to implement it is apparent.
  • There should be no superfluous words (from Wikidata) in a heading – again, look in category talk: Multilingual tags: Gallery headings for Russian example.

Your opinion? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Incnis Mrsi: I'm in complete agreement, but my interest isn't confined to Scotland. We have galleries and categories for things sharing properties, and it follows that their names should be plural, otherwise that's just a grammatical error. I look at what Wikidata have done, and I don't understand how a native English speaker, or even someone who has learned the language, and presumably its rules, could ever have thought singular names for groups of things would ever be correct. When we have cats/galleries for one thing, e.g. York Minster, they got that right, at {{Q252575}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Watch Mediterranean Sea please, and stay vigilante tomorrow since 13h (UTC). I requested Camulogene77 to start a discussion anywhere within 24 hours if he does not yet reconcile with our views on galleries. Edit warriors without a reasonable positive programme should get out of the way, at last. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AnRo0002 still renaming files away from common names

I noticed you warned AnRo0002 about renaming files from common to scientific names. He's at it again:

All of these were today. --bjh21 (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Left a final warning. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have renamed these files agein that the common name is visible now --anro (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with INeverCry

I saw that INC's latest so k seemed to have attacked you for no reason and that you are usually the One dealing with him, why not move all of their deletion requests into user space? If they know that evading their WMF ban won't lead to actual changes they might stop their trolling and finally leave. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an idea, but it leaves junk lying around and is also seen to be pandering to him, and we should not be seen to do that. In my experience, if you ignore social inadequates they will eventually realise they are being ignored, that their efforts amount to nothing and will find something more constructive to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately their deletion requests keep getting answered so by simply ignoring them the issue doesn't seem to be able to solve itself, I would say that leaving those deletion requests in mainspace is more pandering to him than making sure that they won't get seen. But I can respect your decision to not want to do anything about their deletion requests, closing all as "Kept" might have the same effect where they will see the infutility of their efforts. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Cycle Network Route 70

National Cycle Network Route 70 runs from Barrow in Furness to Sunderland. The Route 70 on the Wirral is a regional route. Would it not be confusing to have images form the regional route in the national route category.Vavasharp (talk)

Replied on your Talk page Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let you know

Two unrelated things:

  1. Numerous Commons members deem destruction of redirects very harmful;
  2. You should not transclude {{Indefblockeduser}} because it fails to categorize correctly then – use «subst:».

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. 11 isn't "numerous", it's "several", although I see the reasons for keeping redirects in general.
2. Strangely, I've only recently realised that {{Indefblockeduser}} should be subst'd, and I will do that from now on. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #2, I’ve come across quite a few of these cases, where a block is categorized in the current month despite having been issued long ago. Is it OK for a non-admin to fix (subst & redate) such notices, or should it be requested from the blocking admin (or at COM:AN)?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it OK for anyone to fix an incorrect notice. I am keeping an eye out for them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frink Riace / running man figures

Dear Rodhullandemu,

I notice that you have recently moved File:YSP 33.jpg and File:YSP 34.jpg into Category:Running Man by Elisabeth Frink, but I think that they are of a different sculpture from the Running Man (rather her 1986 Riace series shown in Yorkshire Sculpture Park temporarily (https://ysp.org.uk/openair/riace-figures-ii-iii-iv)), and was wondering why?

I clearly have much less experience than you on commons, and my category creation may have been less than adequateIcarusgeek (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, different faces. I'll move them back. It's confusing because there's a similar one in Liverpool, Front Runner by Elizabeth Frink.
Thanks - I had noticed that you'd added the Front Runner - I must look out for itIcarusgeek (talk) 14:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About to upload a new photo of it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another troll

Vandyrenty22 (talk · contribs) Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Indeffed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Camulogene77

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems #Rodhullandemu vs Camulogene77. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all? Responded there. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

83.149.44.170 and others

There is a complaint on Russian Forum that you blocked these IP's. I think, they are rather not INC: a) INC does not know Russian, b) INC uses open proxies, whereas these IP are all MegaFon Russia. The RfD's seem quite valid and reasonable to me, too. --A.Savin 15:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: I'm wondering why this editor does exactly what INC does, and nothing else. But OK, I'll leave him be unless he goes berserk. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it may be coincidence indeed, given the fact that there is really lots of Panoramio rubbish from Russia out there and many people notice it. --A.Savin 15:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Open proxies 4 lyfe

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections #User:Open proxies 4 lyfe. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it be dealt with here? Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t you read administrators’ “blocks and protections” noticeboard? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have. It's hilarious. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lochs of Mainland, Shetlands

Shouldn't this be at Category:Lochs of Mainland Shetland or Category:Lochs of Mainland, Shetland Islands? Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, if your naming scheme is to be consistent. OTOH, who would be confused by where it is now? Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

JarrahTree (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hadn't realised the problem was so severe, but this campaign stops here and now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo From Another Land!

Hullo, Rodhullandemu! This is ZfJames, and I had a question that I wanted to forward to you for a more expert answer. I'm frankly not that confident in my knowledge of cross-wiki policies, but here are a couple of questions that I recieved: one and two regarding a few picture deletions (here's one for reference). If you get the chance, I would appreciate your help explaining Wikimedia Commons guidelines to the user in question. Thanks!  :) ZfJames (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that she doesn't understand copyright issues (she was warned for the same images four years ago), but almost certainly the pictures of her father were taken by somebody else who is the copyright owner, even though she may own the prints. I will copy this to her user talk and unblock, but those images need clearance from the photographer via OTRS or be uploaded to Wikipedia under fair use. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodhullandemu: Thanks for your help. Based on two, I really don't think she does understand copyright and Wikipedia issues. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZfJames (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Caldwell Tower

Category discussion warning

Caldwell Tower 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 ∙ +/−

--RobertLechner (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to get back the page

Hi, As I am looking at the deletion log of the page मुखपृष्ठ, it looks like it was a nonsense page. But it links to many pages of hiwiki and mrwiki. Because it is the main page for both. Since, it can't be kept as main page so, Yann created it as a disambiguation page for both languages. So, those links are मुखपृष्ठ (hi) and मुखपृष्ठ (mr). Can you please restore the same page? I think it is some version of page from 2016 or 2017.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done @संजीव कुमार: Please check the content of the page, as I'm not qualified to do so. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I shall convert to the proper one.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use images

i see images in fair use in wikipedia english you not? for example king jom nam

Those images are hosted on Wikipedia. This is Commons, which accepts only images free of copyright or properly licensed. Please follow Donald Trung (talk · contribs)'s advice on your talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin question

Hi there. I brought the issue here not to occupy more the CfD. If I feel I have been attacked, and take the case to an admin, especially one that declares to be "mellow", so that the offender is only "warned", as I believed (then) that nobody should better be blocked... (sentence half cut.) Now, what should I do when I receive recommendations like "thought you could properly deal with it yourself" in the future? Two possibilities: I warn the user, they just ignore my words -and most probably revert them with a rude edit summary, as I have seen in similar cases- and continue to insult people. Two, I retaliate / respond to them with personal attacks. (Sorry, I cannot do that.) Above I used a "then" in parentheses, because today I am very decided to pursue personal offenders, like this one, which was not the case I had asked your help time ago. Forget it. --E4024 (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E4024: Sorry if you feel I've let you down, but without a reminder I can't remember my exact thinking at the time. I see the user you linked to has since been blocked for abuse, so if it was he, perhaps the message has got home. In general, I prefer editors to sort things out between themselves, and unless an edit is so gross as to be immediately blockable, I tend not to intervene lest I be accused of taking sides. That's not really what I think admins are for- there are always noticeboards to take such things to. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willaston Christ Church flagpole

Hi Rodhullandemu,

I was wondering why you'd removed the category of Category:Flagpoles in England from File:Willaston Christ Church (C of E) - geograph.org.uk - 1200559.jpg? I thought first that you'd detected that the white line was something other than a flagpole, but File:Christ_Church,_Willaston.jpg shows it more clearly as a flagpole.

Regards

icarusgeek

There's a flagpole in the picture,yes. But I doubt anyone would use tha image to illustrate the concept of a flagpole, as it's merely incidental to the church. If we used tags, a tag for the flagpole might be useful, but we use categories on Commons. The other image you mention shows trhe flagol much more prominently, so I thinks it's valid to have that category. I was there earlier today and don't remember the flagpole, so an image of the church with flagpoel might be of some use. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I'm sorry for using hotspot shield. --2606:2E00:8003:10:0:0:1:B13 18:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
K6 phone box, Hadlow Road station.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hadlow Road railway station - station buildings.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hadlow Road signal box.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Atworth House and Terrace, Willaston - Atworth House.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Atworth House and Terrace, Willaston - Atworth Terrace.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Gittins Building, Neston - corner view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hooton railway station - overviews (from above).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Christ Church, Willaston.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
The Lydiate Estate, Willaston - Lodge.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Quarry Lodge, Hinderton.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Hinderton Hall Estate - Back Lodge.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cherry Farmhouse, Hinderton - context.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review

Liswerry/Lliswerry

Lliswerry doesn't even appear to be the Welsh name, both cy:Liswerry and en:Liswerry use "Liswerry". Shouldn't the category just be renamed at Liswerry? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Thanks for the tip. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm more cautions about Welsh names because even though Commons general uses English the Welsh name be the common name. I found it because it wasn't in the right order in Category:Communities in Newport, Wales. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump baby balloon

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg

I feel this closure is a bit premature. Even if it is decided to delete the images for now, could at least the DR remain open for a bit? You've given a lengthy comment on the case in your closing message which I (or anyone else) can't respond to now. The discussion was far from dead. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Seven days is the normal duration of a DR. It was closed one day "early" because to my mind people were not addressing the principal issue of FOP and starting to make personal attacks. Commons cannot host copyrighted material and nobody was providing evidence of any permanence. You'd need a good reason to reopen this in an undeletion request, but that is your right. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to start an undeletion request, I just want to discuss the thing at hand a bit more. Specifically my argument:
From COM:FOP#Germany (yes, different country): "however, advertisements and applied art displayed on vehicles such as buses and tramways were found to have a permanent nature by the Federal Court of Justice". I'm not sure how this works out for the UK.
You also use other arguments in your closing message, like "could I go to a public place and view it right this minute?". Also from COM:FOP#Germany: "Graveyards, in turn, are often used as an example for a place which is public despite the fact that it might not be accessible all day". I don't know how FoP-UK may differ from FoP-Germany in these areas, but I find it worth discussing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: I don't find comparisons with other jurisdictions that helpful- other laws come from very different principles- for examples, in English law (to generalise a little) everything is permitted unless it is specifically prohibited, whereas in European countries, the opposite applies. Other jurisdictions might be persuasive to our courts but by no means binding. In English law there are various definitions of "public place" depending on the context, but that really is less important then the degree of permanence of the copyrighted work. I see no permanence here, nor any hope of there being any. In a couple of weeks the balloon will be in storage somewhere and largely forgotten. It's a nice intellectual exercise to discuss detail, but in this case, I think, hopeless. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FOP doesn't go into as much detail for the UK, so (at least for me) it wouldn't be really clear if art on vehicles or graveyards would also be considered to be "permanent public places". I'm not sure this thing will go into storage and be forgotten. I wouldn't be surprised if it starts following Trump around a bit. But I don't know what the intentions of the creators are, so we'll see. One more question: is it possible for the creators to give permission for a specific photo of the thing while retaining copyright for the full 3D object? For comparison, we also have photos of 3D sculptures that re-users are not allowed to recreate as 3D sculptures (FoP-Liechtenstein for example), so Commons should be okay with that. But I'm not sure it's possible when using Creative Commons instead of FoP.. As a workaround the creators could give someone in Liechtenstein permission to nail a sign onto their house showing a photo of the Trump baby balloon. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive_3&oldid=313453416"