User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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:
Arrowe Hall.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Damage to the visual pollution of cars, but we understand its presence by the utility of the building. It is therefore a useful element. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

★ 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:
Holy Cross Church, Woodchurch - rectory.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for the cleanup on my talk page :)

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 21:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Edinburgh Water Company

Can you please explain the logic for removing pictures of the assets of Edinburgh Water Company from the category:Edinburgh Water Company. The "Commons has media related to Edinburgh Water Company" link on the wikipedia article no longer works sensibly, because there are no pictures. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bob1960evens: The individual images are in categories already categorised with Edinburgh Water Company and therefore inherit that category implicitly. To have them in both is a breach of COM:OVERCAT. I've added the link to the en:WP article to the category for you, but Commonscat links to categories, not images (the clue's in the name). Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. They were not over-categorised when I added them, because Category:Loganlea Reservoir was not a member of Category:Edinburgh Water Company at the time, but the fact that you altered Category:Loganlea Reservoir created what I thought was a problem. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

File:JohnGeorgeHaigh.jpg

File:JohnGeorgeHaigh.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!

SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you know..

..that the editor above dodged a bullet by edit conflict. Quite impressive in a way, really. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, he's now of no consequence to me and might show a modicum of grace and humility by withdrawing his nomination. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, his findings may have allowed him to dodge some sharp words of mine, but the way he presented them is everything but collegial. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite protection

Hello again.
Where the protection policy encourages indefinite protection of such pages as File:Cheng Tzu-tsai and Peter Huang 2018-01-13.jpg (hist • logs • abuse log)? Or can you perhaps point to some discussion where similar actions enjoyed a broad community support? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite protection does not mear "forever". It really means "for an unspecified period". I'm quite prepared to drop it down when this persistent uploader (who is a sockmaster with no fewer than 47 socks) appears to have got the message. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Which message? The uploader is de facto banned from the site. It was namely the last upload which caused the sock to be quickly detected. If he’d been forced to use another filename, then detection would be more complicated. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to give out any clues but my experience tells me that persistent vandals and their socks will stop trying to do what they want to achieve when they are no longer able to do so. IMO, any move that helps to achieve this is a bonus. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Pubs in Oxfordshire

You have been edit warring with me for two years. Your reason for doing so defies logic. Now you are bringing inconsistency to the alphasorting of pubs as well as churches. And to defend your idiosyncrasy, you have used your power as an admin to threaten me.

My comment when reverting your edit to Category:Lamb & Flag, Oxford is not, as you falsely accused, "rubbish as usual". It is fact. And the threat you made when reverting my correction of Category:The Wheatsheaf, East Hendred is intimidating and gratuitous.

I have brought too much order to too many buildings in every county of England to accept you disrupting it. And it is not as if you work consistently. You have rearranged a few pubs in Oxfordshire and left the rest where I alphasorted them, by place name first, and then by building name. The order I have applied is justified, both because people study vernacular architecture by locality and because a significant number of pubs tend to change name.

We are not going to agree. So please refer your edit war to dispute resolution. And if you win, it can be your job to change the alphasorting of every church and every pub in England. I have more constructive things to do.

Motacilla (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Putting things in the wrong order is, as I have long been pointing out, simply incorrect and confusing for our users, if we still have any. Why would you expect to find "St Bartholomew's church, Thurstaston" anyhere else than under "B", except that "St Bartholomew churches in England", where this is the only place where sorting should be by location. Your defence of the way you do it seems to be "that's the way it has been done". That's plainly insane to follow an illogical way of doing things. As for "bringing order to buildings", all you have been doing is unhelpfully surprising our users by putting things where they don't expect to find them. Kindly stop doing this immediately. As for correcting your errors, I've estimates that it will take about three months to correct churches in England, but I'm prepared to set aside that time because I believe we should be providing a system that is taxonomically defensible as well as user-friendly. For once and for all, why is your version in any way useful to a typical user? Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ye Alternate Cover.png

Hey Rodhullandemu, could you take a look at File:Ye Alternate Cover.png because the same person from here, File:Ye cover art (high quality).png is back again with fake album covers. – Vistadan 16:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention at QI nomitation

Hello Rodhullandemu, it was not my intention, to delete any nomination. Thanks a lot for your attention, I really don't know, how this could happened. --J. Lunau 13:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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:
Ancient Chapel of Toxteth - Schoolroom.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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:
Bank of Liverpool, Prescot Street.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

★ 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:
Pleasant Street Board School - front elevation.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

★ 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:
Liverpool YMCA.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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:
Liverpool Mountain - context shots.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

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:
Prenton Hall - East.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

★ 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:
Prenton Hall - West.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Everything, everything

We had fun on Commons:Deletion requests/File:JohnGeorgeHaigh.jpg the other day.. But now, I'm having everything but fun. I don't know to what degree you've been following some things that happened recently.

I don't know what to do anymore. Colin can accuse me of everything and their mother on COM:ANU without limits and he can't be held accountable in any way. Jcb attacked Guanaco a month ago and after that I got an email from him which (among other things) said "I have a lot on my plate right now outside of Wikimedia". But after 13 October there hasn't been any response to my mail anymore. I hope we haven't lost Guanaco. Looking at Guanacostats there is hope, but this wikibreak wasn't on good terms.

In what I can only call a smear campaign, my essays are nominated for deletion using blatant lies as arguments which was only initiated because Steinsplitter mentioned not liking them on Colin's thread full of false accusations. The perfect chance for T cells who simply never liked me for reasons I don't know to nominate two of them. He couldn't nominate the third one because Fæ already had, presumably because Fæ was unaware of the history of discussions here and on enwiki about Everipedia and the fact images from Everipedia do get uploaded here and can never stay because their attribution and licensing is botched.

Please, give me a reason not to become a vandal. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alexis, I haven't really been following this and I'm probably too old to have meaningful opinions these days. A quick look tells me you are keen but perhaps optimistic- writing about people who are not on Commons is fraught with danger, er, as is writing about people who are on Commons. Opinions are always welcome in discussions but turning them into essays may not always have the intended result. I have no view on whether the two essays on Commons-related issues are useful, because I don't know the background. But becoming a vandal is a bridge-burning action which can only ever go one way- badly. For one thing, you instantly lose the trust of the Commons community, totally and forever. You are constrained to sockpuppet and seek out technical ways to avoid your IP block. That's time-consuming and in my experience is usually detected before long. So your kudos level then dips below the zero you had achieved for it. It's all downhill from there, and you eventually realise that other sites are easier to vandalise and troll. So, at least you go away (yay!), but with a door shut firmly behind you that you might have wanted to keep at least ajar (boo!). HTH, Cheers Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no reason to vandalise or troll other sites. I don't want to vandalise this one either. But Colin already accuses me of vandalising Commons, knowing full well he's lying. If he doesn't know, the alternative options would be far less flattering, so I assume he's lying. With your legal background you probably know: if you accuse a person or a group of something, it increases the chance they will end up doing exactly what they are being accused of. Because they're guilty anyway, so they might as well start doing it. Instead of Colin being told this is not okay, he gets a pat on the back. Is that Commons now? We can just accuse anyone we don't like of vandalism without any consequence? I find that extremely sad. As you haven't followed it, I understand you can't say or do much about it either. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Please act on old Deletion Request

Hello, now the picture "File:John lundvik.melodifestivalen2018.18d873.1460241.jpg" is no longer in use. Except for Wikidata... and the category John Lundvik, which I suppose takes the picture from WIkidata. Anyway, would you please try to delete this picture, per support in DR. Best Regards --Janwikifoto (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

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:
2A Price Street, Birkenhead.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

★ 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:
51 - 57 Hamilton Square, Birkenhead.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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:
6 Duncan Street, Birkenhead.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

★ 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:
Former stables and carriage houses, Gertrude Street, Birkenhead.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Could you protect my user talk page for unlogged users, please? Thank you. Greetings, Szoltys (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Szoltys:  Done. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Eduard basurin.jpg

переименуй в предложенное название, пожалуйста!!!! Панн (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

 Сделанный Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Илья Южанов на встрече с Путиным.jpg

переименовать!!! Панн (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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 Matchworks, Garston.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

★ 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:
11 Clifton Road, Birkenhead.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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:
Customs Depot, Sefton Street.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

★ 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:
HMS Eaglet.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

File:PEJABAT- ABU CONSTRUCTION TEL-FAX -604-9170281 - H-P-012-557 3308- 017-4167802- Email-abu.taher47@yahoo.com- no.113,tingkat3, pusat bandar barat bandar darul aman 06000 jitra kedah - panoramio.jpg

I saw that you deleted File:PEJABAT- ABU CONSTRUCTION TEL-FAX -604-9170281 - H-P-012-557 3308- 017-4167802- Email-abu.taher47@yahoo.com- no.113,tingkat3, pusat bandar barat bandar darul aman 06000 jitra kedah - panoramio.jpg as an advertisement, but wasn't this image imported from Panoramio before the representative of this company edited it? I highly doubt that this image was uploaded to advertise. It would probably best to go through a normal DR with this one and from what I can tell the only thing resembling an advertisement in this file was that the contact details of the company was included in the description. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I might have just changed the name but I couldn't work out what the name of the building was. OK, I'll change it to a DR and see if it's savable. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Q

Hi Rodhullandemu, happy new year, great new start of the semester, and happy Valentine's Day (already)! Maybe you can help me here--I don't believe File:Fuckin' backstabber Cassette Single by Soul Intent.png has the right license--it's a cassette cover. Same with File:Steppin up onto the Scene - EP 1.png, which is listed as "own work". Could you have a look? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, same to you. I've tagged the first as needing a licence given its creator is stated to be Eminiem, the other is so bad I can believe "own work". Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Waiting room at Minorca station (geograph 3144177).jpg‎

Hi Rodhullandemu, I've responded to your question on this on my talk page. -- Chris j wood (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Saint Peter's Church, Snailwell‎

I don't mind if you revert my edit on Category:Saint Peter's Church, Snailwell. Wikimedia only allows one location template per page and there is already one in the infobox. A second one places the category in Category:Media with erroneous geolocation attributes. I see that you don't like the map scale there although both produce the same scale of map for me. I'm sorry but I don't know the formatting of the wikidata source. Finavon (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finavon and Mike Peel: I don't see Wikimedia complaining if there are several {{Location}}s on a page but only interprets the first or last it finds, I think. It certainly does not produce an error message, and particularly not if another is indirectly transcluded via {{Wikidata Infobox}}. In the case of Saint Peter's Church, Snailwell, it appeared in Media with erroneous geolocation attributes because of a typo I inadvertently introduced, and not because of a duality of location templates. But the problem arises whan you upload a new image to the category. You have several options: (1) Go to, e.g. GridReferenceFinder and copy the coordinates into the location template, which might introduce a discrepancy (2) Use the coordinates from Wikidata, but there they are in deg/min/sec for some reason rather than in decimal format- which is so much more intuitive these days since few of us are mariners or astronauts here, again increasing the possibility of error and being extremely user-UNfriendly; or (3) copy and paste the categiry {{Location}} into the Upload Wizard, which guarantees consistency even if not accuracy. That's why I prefer to keep the local location template- also partly because the default scale in Wikidata is too huge if you already know roughly where you are in a county or town and aren't keen on zooming and shifting the map to where you need it. I would agree that all location templates across Wikis should be identical for the same concept, but they aren't. Possibly Wikidata should be the logical repository for location templates and all others should inherit from a definitive version, but that solves neither the "copy to file" problem or the scale problem, which could be fixed by adding a scale widget to the template and the user can select at which scale they wish to see the map. But those templates are vastly used and changing it would be a huge hit. I just wish Wikidata had asked other people how things should be used for their POV and it wouldn't be such the mess it is. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finavon and Rodhullandemu: I think you fixed the conflict with this edit? All of the functionality of {{Location}} should now be in the infobox, though (except for the local coordinate definition) - the coordinates, and all of the relevant links, should appear just below the map. It uses dms as that's much more human-readable than just degree format, but you should still be able to easily get the degree coordinate if you need (it's in the URL when you click on the dms coordinates). Hopefully at some point soon it will be possible to say "this image depicts this object", and we can just pull the coordinate from Wikidata rather than having to add it manually ({{Artwork}} is a good example of what's already possible on image pages, but it doesn't cover everything). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thanks both. Sorry, I had missed the stray "scale=" and thought the error cat was down to duplication. The one-line location box looks much better at the end of a mainspace infobox (perhaps as designed). I'm content to leave as is for now and await improved functionality for wikidata infobox. Some of us are mariners and prefer DMS without the excessive precision that can appear with decimal degrees. Finavon (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Roundabout

I'll play nice.

I will "discuss" this edit first with you. I do not need to see any website I grew up in Norris Green and this is Norris Green. 100%. I'm sorry if you think otherwise or believe to be following what you think is correct but I can assure you this is part of the Norris Green area. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Argue it with Liverpool City Council. What you think you know is not what you know. I go by reliable sources, not local gossip. official map. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No.

Are you not aware that what you are quoting is the map of the council ward? The ward is not the area. Where I live in Belle Vale the ward covers Netherley too. What about Kirkdale ward? This now covers the Vauxhall area. Yet a few years ago Vauxhall was within it's own ward. So wards change.

Also the ward includes Broadway, which is Norris Green district centre basically.

Also, your attitude has not changed. You're quite pompous. "What you think you know is not what you know. I go by reliable sources, not local gossip". What on earth are you talking about? I grew up in Norris Green I know my area! If you want an "edit war" fine. I have no issue here as I am 100% correct. That's not "local gossip" that's local knowledge. Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: There is no reliable source for the area. Even the councils' signs aren't definitive. We categorise by knowns. But you've started an edit war. I can finish it, and you. I strongly suggest you revert your last edit, unless you want it to be the last you make here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely disgraceful.

You've totally ignored what I've advised you. I will repeat again the map you provided is a (politcal & administrative) ward. It is not I repeat not representing the place/area. Why don't you check the council wards that I've provided you can see for yourself the discrepancy. By your reasoning you would have Netherley in Belle Vale because it's in "the council map".

I find your "threat" quite ridiculous.

Babydoll9799 (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: According to the map, Netherley is in the Belle Vale ward. So we could have it as a subcategory of Belle Vale, but it has its own category as a "district" of Liverpool. The problem is that Netherley is very well-defined, whereas Norris Green is not. Show me a reliable source for its boundary apart from the council's map. Accordingly it's perfectly proper to put that bridge into Clubmoor, which is verifiable, but Norris Green's south-western boundary is Lorenzo Drive/Parthenon Drive/Stopgate Lane. And that's what we will use. I'm sorry you find my ability to use my administrative duties to prevent incorrect information being used on Commons, ridiculous but that's what I don't get paid for, but is none the less sometimes necessary for those who aren't experienced enough to know how we do things here. Meanwhile, I have other work to do, which you are interrupting. Please revert your last edit. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. For one, I do understand that Norris Green does not have a defined boundary. At least in this neck of the woods. The north eastern boundary is for example is Lower Lane/Lower House Lane, which separates Norris Green from Croxteth. There are many areas of the city that don't have a defined boundary.

Two. I do not know what "duties" you have and frankly I don't really need to know. It's free to edit on here; I understand that there has to be admin to ensure incorrect information is removed etc. This is in fact what I am doing here. I am informing yourself why I disagree with what you believe is the case.

This is because you are quoting an arbitrary ward map which is not set in stone as I've already explained (you can see on Wiki there a numerous defunct wards in existance). I am informing you politely that I know this area of Liverpool I grew up here. I know a number of areas and some areas I know nothing about. But I am 100% correct that this is Norris Green. Not Clubmoor.

Finally. Again you are being quite disrespectful to me a fellow editor. "I have other work to do, which you are interrupting". This is not my concern. What I am doing is trying to work it out with you we both have opposing views it would seem. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Just to add I think the boundary would be Queens Drive from there you are in Clubmoor/Anfield and Walton. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: Administrators may block vandals or edit warrers from editing. They may also protect pages against undesirable edits. It is "free" to edit here, but doing so carries responsibilities, one of which is to only add correct information. Failing to do so will be prevented, if necessary. We do have a difference of opinion, but mine is at least supported by a legal document (it is defined by the Boundaries Commission for England and Wales), which I'm afraid trumps local knowledge any day. It's not a case of where the boundary "would be", it's where it f*cking IS. Unless and until you provide a better source that that bridge is in Norris Green (and you have come nowhere near yet), I'd revert that edit or be blocked forever. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You're continuing to be quite aggressive and disrespectful and threatening to block me. If that's what "you do" then that's what you.

I'm sorry I will not revert the edit to suit you.

True. You have quoted a source. I have given you a reason why this document is not accurate and I have given examples. I also have local knowledge. Where are you from? You may be local to Liverpool I don't know, but do you know this area? As clearly if you have any knowledge of this area you will not be challenging it.

I do understand that many things need to be 'sourced' as on Wikipedia. But not only are you barking up the wrong tree here you're opening up a potential can of worms. When I mentioned Netherley you stated it could be a sub cat of Belle Vale. Which is utter nonsense. But not the first time I've heard that as the Vauxhall area wasn't officially defined for many years even though it existed. And what of other wards that do exist that are frankly, not places but just administrative wards? Greenbank, Yew Tree, Central, Riverside? What about the wards that are joint? Speke Garston, Allerton Hunts Cross, Fairfield Kensington?

How do you justify those places? Are you going to re write all those places so for example Speke is called Speke Garston? Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: 1. Get off the horse 2. Drop the stick and walk away 3. Stop obfuscating 4. Provide a reliable source that that bridge is in Norris Green, as against than a definitive legal source that says it's in Clubmoor. As for respect, sorry, you have to earn it here. If you won't revert the edit to suit me, ok, but please revert it to suit the facts. That is my last word. If you persist in failing to remove false information, go you must. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Again you continue to threaten me. What gives you the right to behave this way?

Okay, the source. The source you've quoted is not fact; I've explained why there is a discrepancy. Given examples. Many examples that you've chose not to respond to. You're quite hostile in this matter. You say this is "false information" yet you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Which is to correct what you're doing. Providing you and Wiki Commons with correct information.

Respect goes two ways. You have been hugely disrespectful towards me. I have been an editor on here and Wikipedia for some years I realise there are disputes and I understand that some times people require 'facts'. I'll look for 'facts' but I will not revert this as I am 100% correct. Babydoll9799 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"Norris Green Library" is across the road from one of the roundabouts. https://liverpool.gov.uk/libraries/find-a-library/norris-green-library/ Babydoll9799 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Iceland in nearby Broad Lane - Norris Green. (the district centre of Norris Green but in the map this is under Clubmoor as you believe to be accurate) https://www.iceland.co.uk/store-finder/2426/norris-green/?utm_source=Google&utm_medium=GMB&utm_campaign=Store Babydoll9799 (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Prebble Opticians. Next to the bridge opposite one of the roundabouts.

https://www.nhs.uk/Services/opticians/MapsAndDirections/DefaultView.aspx?id=17516 Babydoll9799 (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The other roundabout and former station. Here on Flicr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/garstonian/4998346536

Are you still calling this false information? Babydoll9799 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You may have contributed quite a lot on here with your uploads. I respect that. But some are not correct that's all I am doing challenging this; A couple of my earlier changes that you reverted I did so in good faith because I knew their 'location' was wrong. One of them was quite evident (Stanley Park Avenue bridge) which is Anfield not Clubmoor. I spotted another, The Clarence, Which is again not Clubmoor either it's Anfield. I don't know if you are familiar with the area or are just looking at things black and white. The council ward map is not what the city's area's come from and the ward in very much the same way Parliamentary constituencies are, are prone to boundary changes. The areas of a city seldom change. Babydoll9799 (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: Enough. Please learn how to conduct a threaded discussion. Your responses are all over the place. I'm not interested in other places; that's a fake tactic comparable with en:wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. For now I have reverted your edit to a defensible position supported by evidence. If you have any better evidence, put it on the talk page for that category rather than overburdening my talk page with your weak protestations. The matter is settled. The location of that bridge within Liverpool, wards or districts, is now, and for the moment finally, supported by a reliable, legal source. Change it at your own risk, and you are now de facto banned from this page. Have a nice weekend. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Questionable edits

I see you have been the latest victim of a users questionable edits and edit warring, it is nothing new, here are some prior happenings you should be aware of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums in London Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/02/Category:Stadiums and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 75 Oxyman (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I see the problem and will deal with it when the time comes. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensual Review

Hallo Rodhullandemu, seit Du das Kapitel Consensual Review gegen Vandalismus geschützt hast, erscheint bei mir das gesamte Kapitel durchgestrichen. Kannst Du bitte mal danach schauen. Freundliche Grüße -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

A stray <s> has been removed. Vielen Danke. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Na_h-Eileanan_Siar

Na h-Eileanan Siar 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!

Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping Wikipedia be better. But I demand your support. The images that you have chosen to erase have their own rights. I see that there is vanadalismo when trying to eliminate content that represents work of my part like collaborator. WebOn HN (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Millvina Dean

Hi! I saw you deleted the picture. Could you check my confusion on the user reports of the Administrators noticeboard please? Kind regards --LLcentury (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Sir, my profound apologies but I lack of English skills, could you briefly explain me, if you wish to do so, what must do I do with that picture? Only if you wish. Kind regards. --LLcentury (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@LLcentury: Your only chance is to upload it to the Wiki you want to use it on and claim "fair-use" for it. You'll need to see first whether that Wiki allows fair use (English Wiki does, but others differ), then see how to attach a fair use argument to it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Perfect Sir, and last question, why is it Share Alike 4.0 not allowed? (as specified from source Wordpress.com) I am so confused please don't get mad at me. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Wordpress is open to anyone (e.g. for blogging) and its users may not be so particular about copyrights as we have to be here. It's a 1994 image and I think you say it came originally from Reuters, and I don't imagine they would use a Creative Commons licence. I did check the image on several other websites, and all seem to state it's copyrighted. When in doubt, you should always go to the original source of the image and not take claims as being necessarily true. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I've sent an email to Reuters asking for permission. Did I do well? Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Best of luck with that, but I'm not sure you'll be lucky with that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

It was an unexpected pleasure to see your name pop up on my talk page, regardless of the event that brought you there. I hope you're well.--Ponyo (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Likewise, a pleasure to be of assistance, and to see you around once more. I'm so busy these days, what with taking photos of Liverpool and district and dealing with vandalism here. Judging by recent events, I'm not sure Wikipedia is worth even trying to return to, and I do have enough to do here. But I still remember my friends from old times. Regards, Phil. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Help Desk deletion

Hi. I'm sorry, I only meant to delete the last section in this edit because it was not a question or request for help, I don't know what happened. Thanks to you and Bjh21 for cleaning up my mess.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Chinese 20 renminbi yuan location.jpg

It's not obvious that this is a copyvio per Commons:De minimis. Please undelete and have a full discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd have to go some way to argue de minimis given how obvious the banknote is, but I will change it to a DR for you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

File:General David H. Berger.jpg

Hello, could you delete the newest version of File:General David H. Berger.jpg and File:General David H. Berger (cropped).jpg and rename it back to File:Lt. Gen. David H. Berger.jpg, please? The new version and old version are two completely different files (different ranks) and can be more seen by clicking the pix and looking at the stars on his collar. I think the new uploader may not be familiar with our guidelines. If you can, please upload the newest file under the current name. Thanks, Corky 12:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan:  Done Should be all OK now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

BBC Your Paintings

What is the reason for the deletion of template: BBC Your Paintings? Trzęsacz (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trzęsacz: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:BBCYourPaintings. A similarly-named template. This should go to COM:UNDEL to reconsider consensus and request renaming if it is restored. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The other template: BBCYourPaintings would not have been deleted. I agreed to the deletion because it was not used and because there was template: BBC Your Paintings. The reasons are set out in the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Template:BBCYourPaintings. Therefore, the deletion of this template requires a deletion discussion / deletion request. Trzęsacz (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trzęsacz: See discussion at Village Pump. Creating a fork of the template doesn't seem to have been appreciated. I can see the argument for the new version, but in principle, since it's so similar, consensus should have been reassessed at COM:UNDEL. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This template exists since 2017. It was for the pictures from the BBC Your Paintings website that is now gone and whose content has been moved to Art UK. But it is no longer the same content, as you can see in many pictures. Also different exif data etc. Trzęsacz (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

PS. In the Village_pump the user GreenC lied over the creation period of the template. The reason for deleting template: BBCYourPaintings was "unused", which was true.. But template:BBC Your Paintings was used. Trzęsacz (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wilbert Awdry

I am sorry to say that I dont find your closing statement convincing. Material/medium/method of creation do not correlate to the work's legal status. I believe they are graphic works. Graphic works are separate from works of craftsmanship. Some precedents of similar photographs being deleted:

1. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Homer Simpson in Cerne Abbas.jpg
2. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Blue plaques in Monmouth
3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Strawberry Recording Studios Blue Plaque.jpg
4. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chepstow - St Mary's Churchyard Walk plaque - geograph.org.uk - 503782.jpg--Roy17 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I only started practising law in 1974, so perhaps I'm a bit of a newbie. I think the wording is clear enough to fulfil the permissive nature of Section 62, and when open to interpretation, should be so construed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Even though the 1988 Act deleted the explanatory clause from Works of artistic craftsmanship, not falling within either of the preceding paragraphs found in en:s:Copyright_Act,_1956_(United_Kingdom)/Part_1, I dont think works of artistic craftsmanship should be interpreted as such a broad catch-all.

The definition of works of artistic craftsmanship itself is not very extensive either as reflected in legal precedents.--Roy17 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought the discussion was over. It is now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Carl Jung statue, Mathew Street

Hello
I'm writing to you because you posted the image of the Carl Jung statue (actually, both of them) outside Flanagan's Apple in Mathew Street.
I am interested in how many statues there have been, as I remember (and have found a picture of) at least one more. I have opened a discussion on the talk page here if you could comment. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Scottish categories

Do you think that like w:Category:Populated places in Highland (council area) is divided into the likes of w:Category:Populated places in Sutherland that we should do the same here? For the Inner Hebrides do you think that we should sub divide it so that we have something like Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides in Argyll and Bute and Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides in Highland council area? the reason being that many are placed in both categories when a single (divided) category could be used? As far as I can see only those part of the Islands of the Clyde, some in Loch Lomond and possibly a few tiny ones are in Argll and Bute but not the Inner Hebrides. For Highland some in the northern part aren't apparently part of the Inner Hebrides. For the Outer Hebrides and the Orkney and Shetland Islands this problem doesn't appear to exist (apart from possibly Category:Island of Stroma) because the archipelagos are concurrent with the council areas. Uninhabited island categories like Category:Uninhabited islands of Highland (council area) might also be useful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I'm not usually happy to categorise by placenames that are no longer current, but that would be a start. I realised years ago that Highland was going to be difficult to subdivide and never got round to thinking about it in depth. As for the islands, that makes sense because because then we don't mis-categorise but we do have a coherent category structure. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I thought the the likes of Sutherland and Argyll no longer exist but it seems like they do at least have some current status, I might do those later. I have started on the Inner Hebrides islands but maybe the entire Category:Inner Hebrides should be divided into X in in Inner Hebrides in Argyll and Bute and X in the Inner Hebrides in Highland council area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg

Ciao Rodhullandemu,

I found and corrected geometry and symmetry errors for the "star" only in the current version of File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg (verify, please, by Inkscape for example the y axis values for "star" nodes: right side not equal left side, slightly deformed). No other changes: same image, same file. Moreover, after corrections, I optimized and fixed svg code (now minor bytes).

Please, is it possible upload the new geometrically correct ("star") version?

THANK YOU AND CIAO!

User talk:FDRMRZUSA , 4 September 2019, 16:20 (UTC+1)

@FDRMRZUSA: I don't see a problem with that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my bad English, but "I don't see a problem with that" ==> I can upload or I can't upload? User talk:FDRMRZUSA, 4 September 2019, 17:31 (UTC+1).

@FDRMRZUSA: I can't give you permission, but I have no objection to you uploading that file. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you. But the file is protected since 2014. You have protected the file on 18 March 2014. How can I upload the new file? User talk:FDRMRZUSA , 4 September 2019, 17:42 (UTC+1)

@FDRMRZUSA: Sorry, it was a long time ago and I had forgotten. The file is now unprotected. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Done! But now is necessary align the same coat of arms in this file File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg: I corrected the coat of arms in this flag too (same corrections, no other changes). But also this file is protected since 2014 (by you). Please, it is possible unlock it for align the coat of arms? User talk:FDRMRZUSA , 4 September 2019, 18:55 (UTC+1).

@FDRMRZUSA:  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Done! THANK YOU AND CIAO. WARNING: SEE THE PROTECTION TEMPLATE IN FILE File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg. User talk:FDRMRZUSA , 5 September 2019, 15:36 (UTC+1).

Forgot to remove it. It's gone. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Unblocking Fcuk1203

Roy17 thinks that the last edit of Fcuk1203 was on 17 August 2019, but he does not violate any policy. That's his point of view on the blocking of User:Fcuk1203. If you think there is no need to block the user, then I have no opinion on it. However, I still want to say that the unblocking won't solve the problem for us(Wikimedia.Commons). I know what Fcuk1203 is thinking, he does not trust the users from China(including Hong Kong) and Taiwan as we are not native English speakers. But ironically, he is not familiar with English so he will choose to accept the editing of English users. That's why he object to my reverting his overwriting. I do believe that you can see what the real problem is here. Even if I tell him in his mother tongue what "Overwriting existing files" is, but the policy is all written in English and he won't believe what I said. If you tell him about COM:OVERWRITE and then to translate by Chinese users, just maybe, he may follow the policy.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Usage of attribution template

Hi Rodhullandemu, {{Attribution}} is one of the ancient, slightly weird, license templates. I noticed on File:The Solar Building, Wallasey.jpg that you use it in User:Rodhullandemu/Attrib, but also add {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I think you're (ab)using the {{Attribution}} template just because it clearly shows the attribution? Did you ever try using {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=By Phil Nash from Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0}} instead? I'm wondering because you're not the only user using it in this way. Multichill (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I saw that template elsewhere and borrowed it for my Attrib, which only adds a pageviews link. I've had to make it clearer since people were using my pics all over Facebook without any attribution, but I don't see how it's an abuse of the template. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RFA Support

Hi. Since I cannot edit on Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fitindia anymore, I wanted to thank you for your support on my recent successful RFA, Your trust and faith in my candidature is much appreciated and I could not have done it without your support. Warm regards FitIndia ^{Talk Mail} 14:57, 5 October 2019 (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:Liverpool FC crest on Walton Breck Road.jpg

And also:

• File:Liverpool FC crest, Main Stand.jpg

Yours sincerely, Jonteemil (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Doh! Ever seen them? Try looking from the side. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Geocoding

How can I geocode files that do not have a camera location? --VKras (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: First, I would ask whether you need a camera location- for many images, if the camera was in front of an object such as a building, I'd say it's obvious and doesn't need a location template. Second, if an image isn't of anything in particular, e.g. a landscape, the camera location and direction of shot are more important than an object location. I very rarely use both, but an example is File:Everton water tower from the southwest.jpg, a tele shot taken from about half a mile away.

As to how to do it, if it already has an object location template, open the image on Acme maps from that, then scroll the map to put the crosshairs on the camera location. The coords will be shown in the small box at the bottom right. Copy these into your {{Location}} template and copy it into the image. If there is no {{Object location}}, find a nearby image and scroll the map from there. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Tuvalkin

Hello, there was no need to hide the whole diff, I think. The offensive text was only the description. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

It was one of a whole bunch, and I dealt with them equally. That may lead to the odd inconsistency, but I think we can live with that. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Featured video UserBox

Hi Rodhullandemu,

If you wish you can use the new userbox for FV which shows

This user has uploaded featured media to Wikimedia Commons.

. -- Eatcha (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

… for adopting the QI review for this photo! I could not complete it, I got the feeling that the photographer and me are just talking at cross purposes.  ;–). So thank you and best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Template: UK postbox still active

Hi Rodhullandemu,
may I ask you to give the following a look, please, as I am struggling to find a solution:
On c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:UK postbox the deletion request appears to be closed by you on 3. October 2019, but the template is still active resp. available and showing "nominated for deletion".
On c:Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts there is a bunch of images that use this very template twice, and thus are generating an entry in this maintenance category. I am hesitant to just remove the (double) template-usage from those images, as there might be a better way to solve the problem; a way I do not see.
Any idea you might have ?
Thanks, --Archie02 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've deleted the template, as that sort of thing could be dealt with by Wikidata (although it seems a little heavy-handed to have a WD item for every single postbox). That has solved the double usage problem, but still leaves the 172 transclusions to be dealt with. While there are as yet no WD properties for post boxes, I think I'll leave them there for now so tha the information is retained. Cheers. 17:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for the super-quick action. -Archie02 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

One question

@Davey2010: And @Rodhullandemu: If i globally rename my username, can i edit my previous signatures that related to my old username in archived talk pages? 05F2uIhfx0Rv (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@05F2uIhfx0Rv: If you are globally renamed, all your edits will be reattributed to the new name. There is no need to change them yourself. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

In edit history my old username was changed to new one, but in talk pages and everywhere that i used 4~ in end of my sentence before renaming, i see my old username. i searched and in this page found that i must do it manually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username) you can see it in Limitations and restrictions part (Existing signatures and mentions of the old username in discussions are not affected by a rename) 05F2uIhfx0Rv (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies I didn't actually realise you were renamed, I thought this was a new account and that the other username was still registered,

Given that username isn't registered (and given there's privacy issues here) I've gone ahead and replaced your old username with your new one on the DR and talkpages,

Had you made it clear you were renamed I would've done this hours ago. –Davey2010^Talk 13:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - 05F2uIhfx0Rv If I've missed any let me know,

I also don't believe OS will revdel or oversight the DR as they'd then also need to revdel our archives and then they'd also need to revdel virtually all 2019 revisions on mine and others talkpages due to that issue.... which as you can probably imagine is impractical .... - People can find your username through the history but other than that all live traces have been replaced, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Thanks, please edit this too (And i consider you as a diplomat ;D):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davey2010/Archive_2019#A_barnstar_for_you!

in above of edit page you should select link in toolbar (text to display, target page or URL). in text to display write _This link_ and in target page write DR page url. 05F2uIhfx0Rv (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi 05F2uIhfx0Rv, You're welcome :), I've asked at AN if this sort of thing is accomodated - Usually it's not but their may be discretionary admin actions here so I'll ask, If the answer's no then I'm afraid the DR and links to it will have to stay as is, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: it was my fault, i shouldn't edit pages that only admins have right to edit them, so i let they do what they want to do with DR page. about your archived talk page, you just change a direct link to non direct link, i hope they edit DR page and then hide other edits.05F2uIhfx0Rv (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see, No sorry the DR can continue to remain linked - Unless I'm taken to AN for some reason then my archives are never looked and that's the same with everyone, Anyway I've asked at AN if the DR can be moved/renamed but that's up to them, If they refuse then there's nothing else I can do,

In regards to hiding - I'm surprised if it does happen but my bet is it won't - Mainly because your name's now been replaced,

We should probably stop replying as Rod probably has like 20 notifications all for here! (Sorry Rod),

If you have further issues or concerns please come to my talkpage - Don't reply here. –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

It's OK, I had to have my afternoon nap, so missed most of it. Will archive this if you've done here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Haha I'm jealous right now! :), Yep all done here thanks - Many thanks Rodhullandemu for your patience during/after this - Had I been you I think I certainly would've had a different reaction lol, Stay safe and happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)