User talk:Ardfern/Archive 5

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

File:Bogside (14), August 2009.JPG

File:Bogside (14), August 2009.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Steinsplitter (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

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

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 16:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buses in NI by year

Please stop creating this branch, I strongly object to it, not least because you are implementing it as an additional category, rather than an intersetion of the UK by year and NI branches. It is frankly insane to have three categories on a bus image, all of which are simply different ways to say it's a bus photographed somewhere in NI at some time, in addition to another generic NI/time category too. If this needs to be made more granular, then please get consensus before hand. There are currerently about 6 different ways UK buses can be categorised, if we were to create similar intersections for every combination in this way, then we will soon end up with 20+ categories on an image. And I'm really not seeing why this intersection is important enough than any of the other potential combinations. Please remember that anyone needing this information can already do so using CatScan and the basic branches. Ultra7 (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You may strongly object, but you are denying a legitimate NI cat (one that applies in every other country), and you are not even properly registered on Commons! Having all UK buses lumped in one place and not by region is not helpful and runs counter to how virtually every UK cat is treated. UK files are usually split by region to allow completeness of categorisation by region (ie England, Scotland, wales and NI)and is more meaningful and useful than being jumbled in a UK whole. Adding one further cat to make it meaningful for NI users is neither here nor there and is in line with rest of Commons, which you are not. You say I should have got consensus, well so should you before reversing my work - speedy deletion was inappropriate - it should have been put up for deletion discussion. Please do so. Ardfern (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to set you straight on a few basic things first - I am registered on Commons in thee exact same way you are, ie I edit under a user name not an IP. Not that this matters, as IP users and registered users do not have different statuses with regards categorisation edits. What you probably meant by that is that I haven't created my user page, but that doesn't mean anything here in terms of being allowed or entitled to do anything. You probably thought that meant I was inexperienced, but as it happens, I've been editting on Commons for years, which includes making many thousands of category related edits, and that includes practically every bus ever pictured in NI that's on Commons. So, with that in mind, please let that be the last time you question anything I do based on these grounds. Now that you've been informed, I will not take any future messages like that very kindly. Now onto the content issue - speedy deletion was entirely appropriate on the bold, revert, discuss model. As for the claim that this is a valid category, well, the fact that there are no other similar categories for the other parts of the UK, such as 'Buses in Wales by year', and the fact that Category:Northern Ireland by year is only further sub-categorised by month or event, suggests you are flat wrong on that point. Your attempted creation of 'NI buses by year' was clearly going to be the first time any 'NI by year' image was going to be further sub-categorised on a non-chronologically related aspect. Yes, as a country/top level region/home nation/whatever of the UK, NI largely contains the same branches as the UK itself, and for buses that has already been implemented - there is a Buses in NI branch, just like there is a Trains in NI and Bridges in NI. There is not however, any branch like Trains in NI by year, even though those other branches like Trains in the UK also have different branches like Trains in the UK by year. The current implementation of Buses in NI sub-divided by place, and Buses in the UK by year, is entirely consistent with what happens in other branches like Trains, etc. You proposal was clealry not following any established scheme that already exists, which is why I can confidently say it is invalid, as well as classic over-categorisation the way you did it. And whether replicated or integrated, you haven't made a single argument of why the combination of NI/bus/year is useful for any user. I am aware of no good reason to do so, and this is my expert subject area. The only thing different between NI buses and the those in the rest of the UK, is registration plates, and the dominance of state owned operators in public transport services. And those differences are not even unique to NI, they exist to lesser or greater degree in the other parts too. And infact, as there are identical bus models being run by the same company in every one of E/S/W/NI, it is clear that doing so would inconvenience an entire class of users who couldn't care less if they want to find such images, and don't care where in the UK it was photographed. What you are doing is clearly not standard and arguably not useful, so it is for you to make the case for it. Ultra7 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, well, I presume you're accepting that you were wrong, if a little gracelessly. If not, then if this is the end of it for whatever reason, fine. As long as you don't try to recreate this sort of category again without establishing consensus, we won't have a problem. I appreciate your NI images, even if you don't appreciate what I do here. But based on this one line response to a very detailed and comprehensive reply to what was a quite rude and presumptive response from you, please don't be in any doubt that should I ever feel the need to undo any of your work in future, I'll probably not be spending any time explaining myself to you. If any third party has an issue with that, I'll be directing them to this conversation. Ultra7 (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever. Don't accept was either wrong or rude. Funny how simply questioning something is called rude. Don't have time for such nonsense - am I to assume that the 48 cats of Buses by country by year of photographing are also wrong - we can have this for Ireland or Estonia but not Northern Ireland. keep up the good work. Ardfern (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "you are not even properly registered on Commons!" - this was rudeness personified. As well as being total nonsense. You didn't just question, you said what I was doing was wrong, without any evidence at all. You can claim you are right all you want, I really don't care if you're not willing to even acknowledge the facts I've given that show you're clearly not. You're not entitled to assume anything is wrong with Category:Buses by year of photographing just because Estonia is in there but NI is not. That's a quite ludicrous position to take when England/Wales/Scotland are also not in there, and other UK 'object by year' are also not broken down that way either. You can ignore me and carry on existing in la la land if you want, it's really no skin off my nose as long as you don't try this again in buses. But if you try to do this in other areas as well on these same spurious grounds, then you're only going to come up against the same objections too from other people. If you don't believe me, then why don't you try to start creating NI specific branches elsewhere in Category:Transport in the United Kingdom by year and see how far you get before someone asks you to stop and get consensus for what you're doing first. Ultra7 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (13).JPG

File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (13).JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (10).JPG

File:Divis Street Murals, Belfast, May 2011 (10).JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metacat and year categories

Hi! When creating "X by Y" categories, please don't forget to add the {{Metacat}} template on the top of the page. (See Category:Aircraft of Finnair by location or Category:Aircraft by location by airline for example.)

In addition, I don't see much sense in categories like Category:1990 in aviation in Finland. There are so few aviation related pictures taken in Finland from that time in Commons that Category:1990 in aviation (or Category:1990 in aviation in Europe) and Category:1990 in Finland would do the thing. I think this kind of too detailed categorization actually does more harm than good. There are more discussion on the topic at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Transport in Finland by year. (I want to stress that I am not against year categorization altogether but its level of detail must be reasonable.) Best regards, ––Apalsola t • c 12:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I added the following categories created by you to an existing discussion:
Feel free to comment on the discussion. Best regards, ––Apalsola t • c 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect naming

Someone should be aware of this mistake of mine. I believe there should be "aircraft" in brackets at the end of VH-VXC?? 124.168.230.88 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Wiki ian 22:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMV, Dublin, October 2010 (01).JPG

File:HMV, Dublin, October 2010 (01).JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris, March 2013 (02).JPG

Pay attention to copyright
File:Musée Marmottan Monet, Paris, March 2013 (02).JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ Malti ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ தமிழ் ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Alinea (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation barnstar

Aviation Barnstar
A big thank you for the tireless work you put into aviation categorisation, this work has not gone unnoticed and is appreciated by all. Cheers, russavia (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ardfern/Archive_5&oldid=207951180"