User talk:Ammodramus

Before you write here: I visit Commons only sporadically, and don't check this talk page on a regular basis. If you'd like to contact me, even about a strictly Commons-related issue, you'll get a faster response if you leave a note at my Wikipedia talk page.

Nebraska

I love that you are adding photos from Nebraska! I have close family ties to Elgin and Neligh and think it is great that you are doing it. I just uploaded a copy of a photo from Nebraska State Fair that hung in Elgin for many years. I also just noticed I made a typo in the filename that I need to fix, thanks to visiting your page! So just go visit my Gallery and see the photo since the name will change soon. (I take photos in Dallas area). Thanks again and I hope you add more photos. Mang9 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed you have photos in [[Category:St._Peter's_Episcopal_Church_(Neligh,_Nebraska)]]. I attended their 100th anniversary service. Very cool, and nice shots! Mang9 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

State Flags

Yes, I removed Nebraska's because there is only one state flag for it. California's section, as well as Texas' and Maine, contain numerous flags, and it would better suit them to be there in a sub-category. There is already a section with the state flags listed by state, we don't need two of them. Fry1989 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, it's actually "Symbols by state", not flags by state, I had a bit of trouble finding it myself, but I have since added it to the State Flags category. You can see it here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:State_flags_of_the_United_States Fry1989 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

How to ask for a category to be deleted

If it's empty, typically {{Speedydelete|empty category}} will do it. It won't be instant, but it will get done. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Nebraska church windows

Português: 1 Já indexei.

2 Podes enviar outros pedidos que, se possível, responderei.

3 Estou buscando uma imagem de [hermit] heremita medieval de uso livre , copyleft. Caso saibas de algo, agradeço se avisares.

4 Viva o Google Tradutor !!!

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

San Ferdinand III de Castela

Paz e bem!

1 ¿Es la espada grande la marca de Ferdinand III of Castile? Resposta: Sim, e às vezes asociado com o orbe, além da coroa.

2 Sobre as Obras de misericórdia corporal, vou tentar, mas não garanto muito.

2 File:St. Helena Immaculate Conception window apse E.JPG., talvez seja também, São Fernando III, existem representações dele com um igreja na mão.

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Henry II, Emperor

Concordo que é mais provável ser o Imperador. Indiiquei que talvez fosse o rei, mas tinha muitas dúvidas: * Formato da coroa. * Desenho da Igreja.

Continuo à disposição, mesmo com minhas limitações.

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ammodramus, We must speak. I am an architectural and grammatical geek in central Nebraska. May I email you?

Classifying buildings

Please learn some more about architecture before you classify buildings. This [1] is nothing like a Romanesque revival building, even though it does have round topped windows. Through most of the history of architecture, buildings have had round arches, unless they were Gothic or Islamic. So in the context of the United States, you have genuine old Classical style buildings from the 1700s, you have Roman Revival, Renaissance Revival, Palladian Revival, Neo-Classical Revival and Romanesque Revival all with round topped windows.

So how do you know that this building is not Romanesque? Firstly, go to Wikipedia and find out what Romanesque really means. Then look hard. This building has a delicately made triangular pediment all finished in white wood. That low triangular pediment is a dead give away that it is "Classical" not Romanesque. So you look at its date and find out how old it is. It might be 18th, 19th or 20th century. If its simple, then its Classical.

If it is stone, very ornate with heavy carvings and a big portico with columns, and big keystones above the centre of the windows, then the chances are that it is in the Renaissance Revival style, but you need to familiarise yourself with Renaissance palace architecture. Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I must admit to a near-complete ignorance of the fine points, or even many of the tolerably coarse ones, of architecture. I only classify buildings to architectural types when I've got a source for it: in this case, the Nebraska State Historical Society's NRHP in Antelope County website. The NSHS may be in error, for the reasons you mention; unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject to detect such an error, and had to rely on their authority.

Note that Category:Antelope County Courthouse is in the parent Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Nebraska. If you're confident that the building's actually Classical Revival, could you change the category classification? Again, I'm loath to make such a change without a source that I can point to, whereas I assume that you could justify such a change if it were disputed.

And: I'm sure it's unintentional, but the first sentence of your comment gives it a rather condescending, not to say somewhat hectoring, tone. Your contribution history indicates that you've been reclassifying a lot of buildings apparently misclassified as Romanesque Revival, and I'd imagine that you could get frustrated with what seems like the deplorable ignorance of your fellow editors. However, you'll find others more willing to read and consider your arguments if they don't come in the context of a scolding.

--Ammodramus (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Your are exactly right! I am feeling frustrated.

Please tell me how one goes about changing categories. I haven't a clue! If I knew, then I could sort out the problems far more easily. Sorry for being so terse.Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize. When you know a subject well, it can be irritating to find people making basic mistakes concerning it. I've been tempted to send off tolerably snappish messages to editors who don't know what seem to be basic facts about Nebraska history or geography; happily, in most such cases I've taken a walk around the block before hitting the "Save page" button, and cooled my temper a bit.

To change categories, click on the image or category that's miscategorized—not on the bad category—then edit the page and change the category there. It's a bit confusing, because intuition is to click on the bad category and try to change something there; but you have to edit the miscategorized object, not the incorrect category.

For example, if you want to move Category:Antelope County Courthouse from Category:Romanesque Revival architecture in Nebraska to Category:Neoclassical architecture in Nebraska, you'd open the category for the courthouse and then edit it. When you do, you'll see a list of categories; change the one that you want and then save. It's a good idea to check the parent of the category-to-be-corrected and make sure you've got the right name for the new category; I, for one, can never remember whether it's Category:Neoclassical architecture in Nebraska or Category:Classical Revival architecture in Nebraska. Making matters worse still, capitalization matters: so there's Category:Greek Revival architecture in Nebraska, but Category:Gothic revival architecture in Nebraska.

I suspect that this explanation could be clearer—if you try following it and you're still having difficulty, leave me another note and I'll try to explain better. Good luck—

--Ammodramus (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be this thing, with historical societies and so on, to grab a single idea and then bend everything to fit it! The long tradition of architecture in the US is Classical, not Romanesque. The Romanesque thing only happened in the late 19th century-20th. The best examples are Universities, courthouses, warehouses etc. There are houses, but they are rarely row houses. Late 19th century row houses are often highly eclectic in that the basic form is always the same, but the details are tweaked a little to give some individual character, and are sometimes muddled with several styles on a building, particularly in terms of moulded details that are added by the builder rather than an architect.

Another point is that the architecture of Venice was influential. Any architect that bases anything on the Venetian style is likely to do odd things. Amandajm (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's a lovely example of a typical American Classical Revival building, wrongly classified! Neat tidy details, elegant large window. There is so much of this elegant architecture that would probably be better appreciated if it was perceived for its Classical qualities, instead of looking for "Richardson Romanesque" and find it tidy and tame. Amandajm (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)0

Thanks for your help! I must say that I know absolutely nothing about Nebraska. ......checks Google maps...... Oh.yes I do! I thought it was in the middle, and it is. So it would be flat. Ah, huh, and its neatly divided into rectangles by long straight roads, with big towns and little towns neatly arranged , and rural areas in between...... have I got it right, or do I need to zoom the map? Traditionally, Nebraska would produce grain, dairying, fruit..... or is it too dry? I'll bet the winds are a menace. Old estates would have wind breaks..... How am I doing? Amandajm (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Counties in/of Texas

I had no idea this was the case, but if you feel you need to change it back, go ahead. ----DanTD (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't blame you. Adding the categories themselves is enough of a task, not to mention sorting between cities that cross county lines. I have to admit I'm a little disappointed that you ended up creating the NRHP in Texas by county category before I did, but I'm still glad it's there. ----DanTD (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	Kudos for your yeoman's work snapping nice photos of NRHP listings all over Nebraska. It looks like you've literally covered every corner of the state. I hope you can take a tax write-off for the mileage you're putting on your car! Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I do my share of tearing around with a camera as well having snapped photos of most of the NRHP sites in 7 Bay Area counties; Stark County, Ohio; Hood River, Oregon and Wilmington, North Carolina. It's all a cross-section of three of my interests: Wikipedia, amateur photography and history. I find the Wikipedia lists to be invaluable tools, which is why I try to keep them up to date. I also enjoy the search for NRHP sites. It's kind of like a hunt for hidden treasure. It's too bad that the treasure sometimes turns out to be a dilapidated building or an empty lot. Keep up your good work! --Sanfranman59 (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

User rights

Hi Ammodramus. Since you do a lot of uploading and other work around here, I've added the filemover and rollbacker rights to your account. I just wanted to make sure you have these tools in case they're needed. INeverCry 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

SEEKING PERMISSION TO USE ONE OF YOUR IMAGES

Dear Ammodramus,

We are visual artists and academics who are currently working on a chapter in a book entitled ‘The Photograph and the Album’ (published by MuseumsEtc http://museumsetc.com/blogs/news/7422776-forthcoming-the-photograph-and-the-album). We are also contributing to the editorship of this volume.

Our chapter is examining the role that the internet plays in acting as a 'giant photograph album'. We have taken this principle and have begun to look for images, searching – as many of us do – under our own names, curious to find out what images appear.

The following image came up in relation to one of our surnames:

Carson house on south side of Main Street in Brownville, Nebraska; seen from the southwest. The building was constructed in 1860 as a one-story brick house; additions were made through about 1880. It is part of the Brownville Historic District, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carson_house_%28Brownville,_Nebraska%29_from_SW.JPG

We are interested in using the image in our chapter and want to confirm that you agree that we can do this in line with the statement that appears in Wikimedia Commons which is as follows:

“I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.”

To be clear about our use of the image, it will appear as part of a sequence of images for which we will provide full captions and acknowledgement (in reference to the information which appears on the webpage provided above).

We hope you are willing to give permission and would appreciate if you would confirm this via this email – j.carson@salford.ac.uk. We would also be very grateful if you could inform us of any other parties from whom we should seek permission in reference to this image, if you are aware of any such parties.

We would appreciate it if you could respond by Friday April 19th 2013.

Thank you for your consideration & please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Very best regards, Rosie Miller & Jonathan Carson

Category:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_Sedgewick_County,_Kansas

Category:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_Sedgewick_County,_Kansas 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!

Jeffrey Beall (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your DYK

Hi, I was wondering if you had a better picture to go with your hook? It's probably needed before it goes to the queue. Panyd (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I never thought I'd be saying this...

...but I really enjoyed looking through your pictures of Nebraska. I can't even remember how I ended up on that tangent. But anyway, nice work, and thanks for filling in a blank spot in my catalog of visual impressions. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Kansas Cathedrals

I know this is a long shot on my part, but I thought it was worth a try. I noticed you recently took some fine photos of St. John the Baptist Church in Beloit, Kansas. I've been trying to get photos of the Kansas cathedrals uploaded, but I have been unable to do so. A couple of people said they would upload photos, but have not followed through. I was wondering if you get back to Kansas, and specifically to Salina, Wichita, Dodge City or Kansas City, if you could get a photo or two of the cathedrals there? They all have pages on Wikipedia. Best regards. Farragutful (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the photos of the former Sacred Heart Cathedral in Dodge City. Well done as always. Farragutful (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

SEEKING INFORMATION TO USE ONE OF WIKIMEDIA COMMONS IMAGES

Dear Ammodramus,

We are Paleontologists and academics who are currently working on a book about Paleontology in Americas with academic purposes.

Part of our work is show Ashfall Fossil Beds. The following image came up in relation with information we show in the book: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ashfall_Fossil_Beds_-_Teleoceras_female_and_calf.jpg We are interested in using the image in the book.

We know what the reach of Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes the photo, but we don't know if fossil show in the image have copyright by facilities in formation Ashfall, in other words, the fossil shown is copyrighted by a private institution (museum, university, private land, etc).

We hope you are willing to give this information and would appreciate if you would confirm this via this email paleovenezuela@gmail.com or here in your Discussion (User_talk). We would also be very grateful if you could inform us of any other parties (owners of this fossil like museum, university, private land, etc) from whom we should seek permission in reference to this image/fossil, if you are aware of any such parties.

Thank you for your consideration & please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Very best regards, Eduardo Saavedra, editor in chief of PaleoVenezuela.
http://paleovenezuela.blogspot.com/
https://www.facebook.com/paleovenezuela
https://twitter.com/paleovenezuela
google.com/+PaleoVenezuela

This raises a question that I hadn't considered: is a prepared fossil a creative work, in which the preparer can have a copyright? I did not look into this before I took the photos, nor did I secure permission before uploading the photos to Commons. A Google search was difficult, because the word "copyright" turned up on pages that were copyrighted. I found a single article that seemed to touch on the matter; it stated that the Black Hills Institute was suing Fort Peck Paleontology for using Black Hills castings of a T. rex skeleton, and mentioned that BHI didn't claim to hold copyright on the skeleton itself. But the article is in a pop-culture source, and I'm not inclined to rely too much on their legal analysis.

I suspect that an excavated fossil in situ wouldn't be copyrightable, since there's little creativity involved in its excavation. A mounted and posed skeleton might be a different matter, but that's not the situation here.

I'll certainly grant you permission to do anything you like with the photos, to the extent that I hold the copyright in them; I was very much in earnest when I released them into public domain. I'm sorry that I can't give you better information or advice. — Ammodramus (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. As the press article says "Nobody can own the copyright over a fossil", only over the work done to a fossil, as scratch, preparation, protection from the weather etc., In short, the copyright is when the fossil is in a private museum or private collection, but not when it is in a national park or excavated in situ.

If you want, we can give you full credit for your photo in the book, which will be spectacular. You can email me the data you want to appear in the credits of your photo and we will gladly put you in the book. The book will be in Spanish. Thank you very much.

Thanks for your offer to credit me for the photo. However, that's not necessary: I prefer to remain anonymous.

Deseo a Uds. buena suerte del libro. Es lástima que yo probáblamente no tendré nunca la oportunidad de leerlo. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

County seats ≠ cities

I note that you've recently created Category:County seats in Nebraska as a subcategory of Category:Cities in Nebraska.

At least in the case of Nebraska, this is incorrect. Incorporated communities in Nebraska are classified as either cities or villages, and a number of county seats are the latter. Moreover, at least two county seats in the state are unincorporated communities.

I suspect that similar problems might obtain in other states; you might want to find out what those states are and correct any errors that you've inadvertently introduced to the Commons category system. Thanks. Ammodramus (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not create the Category:Cities in Nebraska. It's been out there since 2005, created by someone else. End of discussion on this one. Maile66 (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Re. my recent note: I didn't say that you'd created Category:Cities in Nebraska; I said that you'd created Category:County seats in Nebraska and placed it within the existing category (see diff).

This is not correct for the case of Nebraska, since not every county seat is classified as a city; I fixed the problem by moving it to Category:Populated places in Nebraska. There are almost certainly similar problems in other states; for instance, a spot-check indicates that municipalities in Maryland are classed as cities, towns, and villages, and I find that Easton's WP article calls it a "corporate town" and describes it as the county seat of Talbot County, so placing it in a subcategory of Category:Cities in Maryland would be incorrect. Since I'm sure that you don't want to introduce errors to WM's category system, I called your attention to the problem, trusting that you'll do appropriate checks and fix what needs fixing. Ammodramus (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Answered you on my talk page. Didn't understand the first time. In essence, I was going by the English Wikipedia list of counties. Maile66 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Words like "city" and "village" and "town" can be a rich source of confusion: on the one hand, one tends to use them generically for "populated place"; on the other, they often have specific meanings in a given U.S. state. When I find myself having to create a Commons category for a community, I'll generally go to its WP article and see how it's described in the lead sentence, and categorize according to that. Ammodramus (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Valentine, Nebraska

Hi there, Regarding File:Cherry County, Nebraska courthouse from NE 1.JPG, the courthouse is physically located in Valentine, Nebraska. Cherry County is the parent category of Valentine, the county seat of Cherry County. County courthouses are located in county seats in the United States. Physically the courthouse is in Valentine, although the courthouse serves the whole county. I believe the photo should be placed the most precise category, namely Valentine, Nebraska. All the best, Kalbbes (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

p.s. per Commons:Categories, the courthouse can also be place in the Cherry County category. (See Over-categorization per the illustration there, since it is the Cherry County Courthouse it is relevant to both cats. Kalbbes (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kalbbes—The photo in question, along with two others, is in Category:Cherry County Courthouse, which in turn is in Category:Valentine, Nebraska. I think you my be misreading COM:OVERCAT: it expressly states that if a file or category is contained within a category that's contained within another, then the file or category in question shouldn't be placed in the higher category as well as the lower. In other words, since

photo < Cherry Co Courthouse < Valentine < Cherry Co,

photo should not be placed in the Valentine or the Cherry Co categories. Ammodramus (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ammodramus, do you mind if we ask a third-party? Someone like User:Jmabel at the Help Desk? My understanding is different from yours. To me File:Over-categorization.svg at Commons:Categories means the photo under discussion should not go directly into the Cherry County category without being in Valentine. If I'm wrong, then I need to know, since I've made so many thousands of edits that are wrong and need to correct myself in the future. Thanks, Kalbbes (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kalbbes—The photo shouldn't go directly into the Cherry County or the Valentine category, since it's already in an even more specific category, Category:Cherry County Courthouse, that's contained within the Valentine category. Referring to the illustration you've added (and I've tweaked your comment just a bit, to eliminate some of that vertical white space, without changing the substance), the photo is at the bottom level. The courthouse category is the middle level, and the Valentine category is the top level. The red X means: since the photo's in the courthouse category, which is in the Valentine category, the photo should not also be placed directly in the Valentine category.

Feel free to ask a more experienced editor about this. I see that Jmabel is a Commons administrator, so presumably well versed in Wikipolicy. Ammodramus (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ammodramus is correct here. There are very rare cases where there is a reason to put something in two categories, one of which is an ancestor of the other, but this is definitely not one of them. The exceptions would be things like:

• a museum owns a publication, which is mostly not about the museum itself, but we have photos of the museum that come from the publication. Those photos might be categorized both for the museum and the publication.
• We have picture of six members of a city council, two of whom have categories of their own, the rest of whom don't. We'd categorize both for those two individuals and in a category for members of the city council.

This case isn't at all like that. All images of the courthouse are images of Valentine and of Cherry County. If your concern is that someone would go to Category:Cherry County, Nebraska looking for the county courthouse and not know where to find it, feel free to create a Category:Government buildings in Cherry County, Nebraska or even just Category:Government of Cherry County, Nebraska and put Category:Cherry County Courthouse in that. But in any case, it would be an addition to Category:Cherry County Courthouse, not to an individual photo, because it would apply to all photos in the category. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jmabel, thanks! I misunderstood the whole thing. I received a notice that my edit of that file had been reverted, and didn't take the time to understand the notice. I guess I don't express myself very well, but I do understand what you are saying and agree. I hastily made a bad edit, failed to bother to fully understand what happened and I apologize to you and Ammodramus. I agree that you are right, User:Ammodramus. Thank you for being patient with me. Kalbbes (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No trouble—it can take some time to learn all the relevant Wikipolicies, and the reasoning behind them. Good luck with your future Wikiendeavours! Ammodramus (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 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:Pleasanton, Nebraska downtown 1.JPG

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)