User talk:Herbythyme/Arc10

References

Hi Herby, I'm happy you sound more cheerful so hope these first few days of 2009 have been good!! Have been telling my colleagues about my wiki 'exploits' and they think you're actually a computer. Nevermind herby, i tell them you remind me of the car movie then. With reference to my article, i've inserted the references. With all humbleness (because i know what you're going to think, what you're going to say, what you're going to write.....-read through pls before you do these things!)i hope they are ok. I'll leave them for some time but i am thinking of moving it herby, seriously so that( humbly again), it is accessible to the public. Pls let me know of any opinion ( no matter how adverse it is) Thanks again, herby, may this new year brings you all nice things in life!!! 210.187.3.170 02:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Daisy

File:Logo web1.jpg

Hi, you've recently speedy-deleted this file. Why do you think {{Pd-textlogo}} is not applicable here? Bitmap representation of a possibly copyrighted font? --Eusebius (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The two differing length "p"s coupled with the coloured "z" were an issue for me. Equally I have some real doubts about "scope" - I doubt there would be a wiki page for the company. Always happy to hear other views tho, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No pb for me, I simply wanted to understand. Regards, Eusebius (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually almost argue it the other way around - out of scope & then copyvio. To me folk often do it the other way (that licensing is the most important issue) which I'm not generally in agreement with - but that is just me :). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lionel Messi 31mar2007.jpg

Hi, you recently deleted File:Lionel Messi 31mar2007.jpg because it was tagged as a copyright violation. However, the image was taken by User:Darz Mol, who has taken many similar images. The link provided as proof of copyright violation was simply copied from the image here, so perhaps you could reconsider the deletion. Jacoplane (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - undeleted anyway. I'm in two minds though - the link (here) does suggest an image from that website, however I see the user does have many similar images in their uploads. I'll leave it for wiser folk to figure! Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Logo-animoto.jpg image deletion

Hi, I got this company logo to create my first article by doing screen capture. I see many articles on company names such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RockYou! that are aparantly taken as screenshots. How else we can get the company logos properly? Pls bear with me as this is my first attempt to create article, and can you help me do it right way? Sgnaren (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Herby, i keep needing to find you here even though the wiki encyclopedia should probably be the place to say this. A colleague of mine tried to move the article that i put up but it was subsequently tagged and speedily deleted by a wiki administrator by the name of Vianello citing A7. To make it brief, I disagree with this deletion. I read the guideline for companies and corporations which impresses upon me that the points of A7 are subjective and open to interpretation. As i'm used to you herby can you tell me if you agree with this administrator? If you do agree with him tell me how i can change the article. Please let me know. Have a good day herby. Daisy

Block

I guess not. Jolly Ω Janner 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what I thought :) Hope you contribute & generally help out, you know where I am. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi Herbythyme/Arc10, I would like to express my gratitude for your participation at my recent RfA, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of 100 % support. I'm happy that so many people have put faith in my abilities as an admin and I promise to use the tools wisely and do my best not to let you down. Please do feel free to get in touch if you feel you can improve me in any way; I will be glad to listen to all comments. Again, thanks,Abigor talk 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria Von Ritchie Lopez

Hi Herby, could you have a look at User_talk:Multichill#Maria Von Ritchie Lopez and help out Dikweed? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - replied here, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Zemfira mikrofon.JPG

Herby: The file you added will soon be deleted

Hello! How can I prove that it is my own work?!

Sincerely

Barbara

Replied on user talk page --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Enquiry on deleting logo

Hi,

I noticed that this logo has been deleted a few times.(DSI Logo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_dsi.jpg)

As i have gotten permission from the owner of the logo to post the image on Wikipedia, how can i prevent it from being deleted by Bots and yourself due to copyright violations?

Thank you. Appreciate a reply.

You can email me at:

Replied on user talk page --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: templates

Hi, thanks for your revert and your notification. Please, do you have more details about what was broken? Thanks again for your help,

best regards from France,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 13:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I got it! I forgot to forward the 1st parameter to the layout template from the language subpage templates. I'm fixing it.

Regards,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 14:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed -- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ..

...for the RFB support. Yours particularly. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

Hi Herbythyme! Thanks for giving me your oppinnion about me in my RfB, and because of some opposes of really trusted commons-users I withdrew. Now I have got the best 'crate-coach I could think of and I might possibly retry in a few month. To improve my behaviour/editing habbits here on commons till then I'd like to hear what you want me to change in detail (as you also had some concerns). Expecially examples you're not happy with would be great. Feel also free to e-mail me if you don't want to say this in public. Thanks for your help, abf «Cabale?! Quelle Caballe?» 14:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change allowable scope of userpage content

I have made a proposal to specify more clearly what is and what is not allowed on usepages. You have expressed interest in this issue, and you may wish to comment at Commons_talk:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#The use of userpages to advance personal political opinions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Hi, Herbythyme. I saw you've deleted the photos File:Chuky el muñeco.jpg, File:Chucky 1.jpg, File:Chucky 2.jpg, File:Chucky 3.jpg and File:Chucky 4.jpg, because they're ou of project scope. I understand your decission, but can you make me a favor? I need those pictures for personal use only. I won't upload it every time. If you can see deleted pictures, you can send it to felipelombardo86@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers! Riuk (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC) P.D. If you can write your message to me in Spanish, as well.

Hey mister

Amareto2 is probably this guy, who in turn is a reincarnation of this other guy, who i believe is fairly unwelcome on every website hosted by wikimedia. JarlaxleAwbrey (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Above account is now globally locked. --Kanonkas_(talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Herby. I was wondering if you would mind extending the block on this IP. Seems to be a EDU IP. You might also want to check this. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no time - feel free to fix it - I was just preventing further damage :) Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you! Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Blopp3r1

Hi Herbythyme, i saw that you blocked this user for abusing multiple accounts, annother sockpupet of User:KhmerM79? Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup - that's the one. All now blocked (that I could see). I find the block log "light" reading....:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MDCarchives

This user (who apparently represents the archives of an American college) has uploaded many obviously useful pictures of writers (from lectures at the college, I presume). The warning you put on his/her talk page appears rather unfriendly to me. I realize that it probably isn't meant to be unfriendly, but if I had uploaded pictures like these and the only comment from somebody in a position of some authority on Commons had been a warning that they had done something that was out-of-scope and that it would be deleted, I think I might have been offended.

Wouldn't it be better to delete the talk page and recreate it without the warning? Perhaps with a friendly and encouraging comment instead? --Hegvald (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree (in a sense). Trouble is - they have already had the warning so all that would happen is they get a new "orange bar" and get even more puzzled? So - I go & say "sorry" etc & that may be better I think.

You are right to point it out too - thanks. I have limited time & should have looked rather more carefully :(. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that may be a better solution. --Hegvald (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Herby

I sent a message to Martin about Bob Marley's montage picture. It's fine if it's been deleted. It's not a good picture of Bob Marley anyway because there's one pic of him in the montage smoking. Not good for kids to see for educational purposes or what have you. There are other interesting facts about Bob Marley that made him who he is. Thanks for the heads up.

Oh, you were talking about my user profile

I thought you were talking about Bob Marley's montage photo I uploaded. Sorry. The talk page is fairly confusing and I'm just getting used to it. Yes, I do apologize for the profile I created for I'm very passionate about our project here @ http://www.djod.org. I am the writer for this organization and I understand now that my profile should be just about me. Thanks. Marko

Valued Image Promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Dartmoor Pony.

review

•  Request Would you please categorize and geotag the picture? --Eusebius (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment For a VI, I think the cropped version is better (more adapted to an infobox for instance). If you agree, you can change it in the "image" field of the VIC template and leave the rest as it is. --Eusebius (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, Eusebius. I did it. I believe I'll change the image in the articles too.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Question How did you get that location as it was not you that took the picture? Lycaon (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment (Supposition) The name of the town is in the image file, and rather close to the geotag (which is in a natural park). I think an approximate geotag is enough here. --Eusebius (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

   Comment I guess so, but it would have been nice (and proper) to ask the original author first ;-). Lycaon (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, Hans, you have known me for quite some time. When was the last time I did something that is proper? :) (except maybe finding and nominating this very cute image). Yes, I looked at the image description and got the location from there. I hope it is OK. I did not want to bother the original author. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  Pretty accurate actually :). Approx 200 metres South of current geo tag, if I get time I'll alter it later. Thanks to you all.--Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  I moved geo tag 200 meters (which I believe is about 6 seconds) South. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hameldon boundary stone 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK for me. Lycaon 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Combestone tor edit1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Shadow of the photographer should be cropped. Lycaon 10:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you for review, Hans. I've cropped the shadow.--Mbz1 13:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC) OK for me now. Lycaon 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About Dartmoor crosses

Hi Herby, as you know we're examining a VI candidate, a picture of yours, for the scope "Dartmoor crosses". I have a question, in order to definitely make my mind about the nomination: apparently there are 152 registered crosses, have you been able to shoot them all? If so, then first you're a dangerous psychopath, and second I might prefer a "VI set" with all the pictures. If not, then I'm relieved about your sanity and I'll be happy with the present nomination (unless you think you have a better one not already on Commons). You can react on the nomination page if you wish. Best regards, --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Dartmoor Crosses.

review

•  Question Are there only five crosses? If it is the case, maybe a VI set would be more adapted? --Eusebius (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for your question,Eusebius. Commons category has now nine differeent crosses. Looks like there are 151 known crosses. May I please ask you, if you still believe I should nominate 9 crosses that we have on Commons in the set? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment No, it would have been valuable only if we had all of them and if there were not too many. Actually I was only looking at the English article. I will review this VI, just not right now. --Eusebius (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  The series of crosses on the track in question are about 10/12 (no books to hand) so i have some to "collect" yet :). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment It's difficult to choose. I think it is valuable to see both the land and the cross, because of the story attached to them. Actually, I like both this one and this other, where the cross has an odder, more irregular shape (but its lighting is not as good). --Eusebius (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It "speaks" to me. --Foroa (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. 'Speaks to me' is not a valid assessment IMO. Maybe we should wait until Herby has caught the few remaining ones and bundle them into a VI set. Lycaon (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment ? --Foroa (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think this image must be VI, because it shows both landscape of Dartmoor and cultural heritage of Dartmoor.--Umnik (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment About possible updates in the scope/organization: I am ready to support the picture of a single cross with the present scope, as soon as it is fairly representative of the style and of the landscape. I am also ready to support aVIS with all the 152 crosses, but there must be all of them! I would oppose any incomplete set, and I don't know whether Herby was or not able to shoot all the crosses. Anyway it would be a pretty large set, and some people might not be happy with that. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok - my sanity is undoubtedly suspect :) I have some doubts that there are only 152 crosses in the area & my intention was not to capture all of these (yet!). What I was starting to work towards was a particular series of crosses (this is one of them) that (are said to) mark an ancient trackway known as the Abbot's Way which goes from the site of one monastery to another across some fairly bleak moorland. There are (IIRC) 15 crosses on this track & I would certainly hope to try and get the remainder of this series this year. I hope that my comment helps. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment About the number, Mbz1 pointed a list with 152 referenced crosses, but there might be more of them. About the trackway, I don't think one given path in Dartmoor is notable enough to justify a scope on its own (although it would surely be valuable to have the path identified and illustrated). I think it's better if we stick to "Dartmoor crosses" in general, therefore I maintain my support on this one. --Eusebius (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes I was merely making the point that I was not after getting 152 crosses but more the set of them along the trackway for now. Others I'll try and get when I pass by. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Consequence of my previous comment. I may retract my support if Herby says he will be able to provide a complete set. --Eusebius (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image Image:Crazywell cross 1.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Crazywell cross 1.JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Best regards.--Mywood (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! View along Monts d'Arrée 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good --Mbdortmund 11:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sourton snowfall 7 February 2009 6.JPG

I was quite pleased with this photo that I took on Saturday. You seem to know a lot more about photographs than me. Do you reckon it's got a chance of those valued/quality/featured picture statuses? Jolly Ω Janner 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• A user said it was over-exposed. Is it possible to decrease the exposure levels using software? Jolly Ω Janner 14:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The effect of changing exposure can de done via software (photoshop, paintshop, GIMP I think). Sorry not to get back sooner - busy weekend. I guess the "post" aspect may actually be seen as an issue however I suppose we have to accept that city folk are unlikely to understand sheep to a great degree never mind the fact that farmers need to identify their own stock....--Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Would Wikibooks:The GIMP/Blending Exposures be of any use to me or is it something completely different? Jolly Ω Janner 11:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick glance that looks to be blending bracketed exposures (camera takes three images at different settings automatically). However the wikibook should be useful & as long as you keep an original no harm is done if you "play" with it a bit. Can't see it being this week but I want to play with gimp myself so I'll see if I can find anything. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of User:How do you turn this on

Hi Herby, I notice you deleted the user page of User:How do you turn this on. Please note that this is a renamed user and the old user page should thus point to the new one. Would you mind if I restored it? Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad - sorry & done. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure? user:Amicon is gone too... Lycaon (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's fine. All that matters is that it becomes clear that How do you turn this on is now called Amicon. Whether or not the actual user page is empty is only the user's decision. Thanks Herby and best regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

rfa

Hi Herby,
I would like to propose Tryphon (talk · contribs) as an admin. He said to be willing, when I asked him. Your opinion? --Túrelio (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well - I'm not really active at present (very little time) but Tryphon seems like a good choice to me. I'd see no reason not to support. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:TenTechnologiesCover.png

Hello, I'm writing about the deletion of my image (title). You told me that I was able to justify the reasons behind it not contradicting copyright status, however I had been away from the Commons for weeks and have only today read it. When I returned, the image was gone and with seemingly no way to restore it and argue my case. The image, which came from the pdf. file that was also deleted, was given to me by the author of said book, Chris Goodall. He said that I, and anyone else, could use it for my explained purposes (on Wikipedia and sister sites) any time they liked.

If you could kindly point me in the direction of someone or something who can restore both images and hear my case also then I'd appreciate it greatly. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you can request that the image be restored at Commons:Undeletion requests. It's not very likely to be succesful though, that the author of the book has approved use for Wikipedia is not sufficient for the image to be hosted at Wikimedia:Commons, see Commons:Licensing. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I would also consider it "out of scope" unless you can point to a wiki page that requires the image. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The pdf file which was deleted, was being used as reference in the article Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, which is why I became concerned and check back (since it is no longer there). Having looked over the licensing, it appears that it does actually adhere to free licensing. Thanks. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK restored for now. However the very fact that there was the copyright symbol in the file description info means that it is copyrighted (& the reason I deleted it) & so authority must be provided via OTRS. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Herby. It was irritating to return and find the image deleted, but I know you were right to do it, so I hope I can avoid something like this happening again. Just looking over the OTRS guidelines: I'm not so sure that I can chase up the author in the near future, and the email that I recieved wasn't as thorough as the guidelines suggest. However I will sort something out, and it's not your problem regardless. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Image reversions

Hi Herby! Could you please take a look at some images for me and see if my actions are correct! Whilst looking for an image I noted that it had been replaced by a totally different one by Thomas Gun. On further investigation I saw that he had downloaded and then cleaned up numerous images before re-uploading them, which is okay. However in several cases he has uploaded some totally different images with the same edit summary that they were newer versions. I felt that these newer images were not actually newer versions of the same image and would be better uploaded as new images in their own right. Accordingly I reverted them back to the original and stated why in the edit summaries. I have now received a message on my Talk page from Thomas Gun telling me to stop vandalising portrait uploads or he will report me and seek a blocking! My personal feelings are that by replacing the original images with totally different ones he is effectively censoring the originals, uploaded by other users, with his preferred choice. Where the originals have been uploaded by an editor to be placed in an article that editor will now find an image that may not match what they used it for and in some case the captions may no longer fit the image. I do not believe that my actions were vandalism, but constructive edits and as such I do not appreciate being intimidated with a potential block. These are the images I edited, which Thomas Gun has now reverted back to his previous versions:-

• File:Joseph-Lancaster.jpeg
• File:7thDukeOfDevonshire.jpg
• File:Joseph Wilson Swan.jpg
• File:Michael-Drayton-Kupferstich-1619.jpg
• File:OrlandoBridgeman.jpg
• File:BpRichardWatson.jpg
• File:George Savile - 1er Marquess von Halifax.jpg
• File:George Whitefield preach.jpg
• File:Elizabeth Conyngham, Countess of Conyngham.jpg
• File:William Harvey.jpg

There could be more, but after doing those I needed to log off and I intended to check for others that may be of a similar type later. I note from Thomas Gun's Talk page that Shakko has previously taken the same action with another image he changed for a different one, yet that image remained reverted back to the original. I will not revert the images I edited back to the original versions the other editors have uploaded again, but instead leave it to your judgement. If I am in the wrong then I apologise, but my edits were in good faith. Richard Harvey (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Harvey is warring because I recently fully sorted out the backlog on the Category:West Yorkshire images and some others (including some photos he had taken). Richard gets very protective about this, despite being told by an admin that there is a serious backlog that needs fixing. So Richard in revenge has taken it upon himself to troll me by going through logs and randomly revertying image uploads - he is making a nuisance of himself to waste my time. - Thomas Gun (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you stop going through my logs and mass reverting? Many of them, such as this one, File:EdwardFowler.jpg is the same image but improved quality and cropped borders. - Thomas Gun (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, take a look what you are reverting. This is another example, File:SirJohnDodson.jpg. I simply cropped the borders off its the exact same image. There is even an official temp, which suggests this to be done. Look, don't waste my time please - I am not very patient. I'm here to contribute, not be agitated or have my time wasted. - Thomas Gun (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Crop}}

User:TheHellraiser

Hello Herbythyme, listen, I just wanted to let you know that User:TheHellraiser has been uploading images that have not been granted permission. If you see the images he has uploaded, File:Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania XXIV.jpg, File:Edge before his title defense at WrestleMania XXIV.jpg, File:Undertaker with Fire.jpg, File:Kung Fu Naki.jpg, File:Punk Tag Champ.jpg, File:Tazz 2.jpg, File:Michaels DX Attire.jpg, File:Michaels DX Attire.jpg, File:Khali cropped.jpg, File:Maryse cropped.jpg, File:CM Punk RAW 800.jpg, File:Shad Cryme Tyme.jpg, File:Jerry Lawler RAW 800.jpg, and File:Taryn Terrell.jpg. And, if you see, File:Shawn Michaels WM24 shot.jpg, an image I've uploaded was given permission for its use, it has the "TicketID=2456232". The only problem is that the OTRS ID should have an e-mail concerning File:Shawn Michaels WM24 shot.jpg only, not the rest of the images that User:TheHellraiser has uploaded. I thought it was in good faith to let you know about the situation. Cheers, Zerorules677 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. I've consulted an OTRS agent about the above ticket. I have now removed the permission for all of the files, excep the ticket for File:Shawn Michaels WM24 shot.jpg. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The images are now tagged for missing permission. --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being helpful. Zerorules677 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I took permission from the autor... from here... "Thanks and feel free to use any of my flickr images". Can you help me with the permission to use the images?. I don't know how to do it, but I know that the autor will give us the permission. Please help me and sorry for my bad english. --TheHellraiser (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

links to English wikipedia

I am in a slow and not very intelligent edit war at Category:Ecozones and Category:Afrotropic. User:Timeshifter keeps putting a text link to English wikipedia there and does not seem to yet understand how [[en:Ecozone]] works (nor the other smaller fact that the article there is not pluralized) or that there are other wiki's which have the article as can be seen in the intra-wiki navigation stuff.

Do you have a suggestion of how to avoid this edit war? -- carol (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with the other party is a good plan. Not reverting the specific page is also something I'd recommend. Next step is trying to relax, don't get to aggresive (I'm not saying you, or anybody else are), but try to discuss the issue with each other. Try to negotiate to a result that both of the parties think would be justified, while having a nice collegial atmosphere. I hope this helped you a bit, Carol. --Kanonkas_(talk) 13:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with not reverting changes is that it tends to be one-sided. The not reverting should go to the user who as of yet does not seem to understand the software and what wiki-markup does and also that the image server serves more than just English wikipedia?

I am not certain what the word "collegial" means -- if it becomes necessary, I will look this up while waiting to read what Herby has to say about managing English wikipedia-centric users. Also in the meanwhile, Kanonkas, do you understand that the commons serves images to more than just English wikipedia? -- carol (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Herby is having (or trying to have) a wikibreak. I left a comment at Category talk:Ecozones, please use this and other category talk pages for discussion before reverting. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Crazywell cross 1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent! --Jolly Janner 01:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi Herbythyme, can you check if User:Writeme, User:Alejocade and User:190.29.158.79 are the same? I read, that i can request a checkuser privately, I am expecting the answers: Yes, maybe not, No or request denied, IP details or other privacy concerns or something like this are not of my interest. --Martin H. (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Email sent :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. --Martin H. (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

IP address block (thanks!)

Thank you for blocking 84.45.219.185 (talk · contribs) - apparently the IP was being used to run some sort of open proxy software. The OS has been cleaned, all spyware removed, and security is now better enforced after someone else pointed out security flaws. The IP is shared: but hopefully all will be well now. I'm here as a contributor, and hope I can be of some use! ;) --Litherlandsand (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a closed proxy now. Port 80 is giving you a log in screen, asking for username and password. --Kanonkas_(talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mt Misery cross & view.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Excellent! --Jolly Janner 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please check

Whether EveryShades (talk · contribs) is our friend back again? He uploaded File:Stormont Parliamentary Building.jpg which was added to en.wiki five minutes later in one of his favourite target articles. Thanks. O Fenian (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we will call that "likely" :) Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I also wrote to you on Wikibooks, but that was just a few minutes ago. I hope that you are fine. I don't know why, but I'm praying for you.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

your welcome. --God'sGirl94 (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

voting

sorry, I just click it twice to add a comment or if it is taking a REALLY long time saving my vote--God'sGirl94 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

voting

In regards to the amount of edits, I have 183 here and 67 on Wikipedia. If I add that right, that comes out to 250. The requirements say that I need to have 200 minimum. How is it a problem so far?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

oh. Well can i vote now?--God'sGirl94 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OH. I guess I'll just wait until the next voting thing of any sort.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcoming message

I know that I contribute little to Commons but maybe one day (I know some users are pushing me to take pictures of city halls in my canton for example :D ). Erdrokan (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows live, and personal photo for user profile in Wikipedia

There is a violation of use adding a personal image, or a link to a peronal web page like Windows Live personal page, to my user page? txn in advance.

Hi. Herby deleted the page as being out of project scope. Please see this section which is a part of the project scope policy. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and sorry for not answering your question. Yes, user page image(s) is/are fine (at least if you use them). See the template - {{Userpageimage}}, which you would want to add to the file page. For the link part, well it seems like they're accepeted if you contribute "constructively", and not using this project for webhosting/promotion. As many editors use this project as their webhosting service, or to promote their profiles outside Commons. --Kanonkas_(talk) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mbz1

Hi Herby,

I hoped with my message on the admin notice board that all involved people would stop and ignore all others.. I know that the way some user act isn't good for Commons. But if the keep responding on the messages it will never stop.

I noticed that you blocked on person for a month, I am very glad it was not my call. I find it difficult to block on person that is active on the project and also does good work. I was working (thinking) for a solution that wouldn't need a block.

It makes me very sad to see Commons go down this way. We got a lot people attacking other people while it isn't important what people believe, or where the are from. I noticed that this is not only bad for the people involved but also for Commons as a project. Do you think we are at the point of no return? Because when people come here to attack other people instead of working here on free images it is maybe time to leave this project and remember it as a nice and good project. The way things are going with Commons isn't where I believe in, I almost believe that this is where it ends.

O just so you don't understand me wrong, i don't think the block is wrong.. It was user reqeusted, it makes me just very sad to see it goes like this.

Best regards, Abigor talk 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I so agree with you. I really dislike this (& I think you handled the previous blocks just fine). However I sympathise with MBz1 trying to get away from this and not being able to. Given that it was better that I placed the block rather than some who might be more involved. Thanks Abigor & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ An image you created has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you created 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:
Châteaulin .

review

•  Support Criteria ok. --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Hello, Please delete this .Thanks جمال بركات (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I've deleted it as a duplicate of File:Ramadi-Forces.jpg. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kanonkas --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please check 2

• MellBourne (talk · contribs)
• DutchSupremacy (talk · contribs)

MellBourne has uploaded a unified image of File:Irish people.JPG which is used in en:Irish people (which includes original images that cannot be re-released as a PD image) that Mysticshade (talk · contribs) originally uploaded in a slightly different form. Added to the en article by [1], who also added File:Dutch People.JPG on en as well, which was uploaded by DutchSupremacy tying both accounts together. I should note DutchSupremacy is already blocked as a sockpuppet on en as well. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Spot on (again!). Blocked & nuked. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sure he will be back again though.. O Fenian (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unfortunately the range would give rather a lot of collateral damage for now so we will do it the slow way for a bit :(. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Was there an original of File:Dutch People.JPG? It existed in the article prior to MellBourne amending the size of it, so I am wondering what has happened to the old image? Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope - nothing other than DutchSupremacy's uploads here, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, checking through the history the DutchSupremacy account originally added it. Sorry to trouble you. O Fenian (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Les fleurs

Heya Herby :-). Best bet is to ask on w:WT:PLANTS... I haven't the faintest idea what they are. --SB_Johnny ^talk 14:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[2], kind regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm looking into it! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete

Hello. Could you please delete this file for me?

That is not Matt Entenza. I uploaded several files at once, and entered the wrong name for that one. Jonathunder (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A question

Hi Herbythyme!

You deleted File:Maxx_drag_queen_(11).jpg as "Out of project scope". May I ask why it was out of scope? It was used as you can se here [3] if it makes a difference.

Hope to learn :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The same image has since been reuploaded as file:Maxx drag queen (31).jpg by the same user, we have better images in Category:Drag queens but if a project choses ti use this one it's by definition within scope. (not undeleting since the same image is now avvailable under a different name. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that duplicates has to be deleted. I just did not understand the reason written. --MGA73 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't a dupe when it was deleted. The new version was uploaded the following day. My guess would be that Herby deleted it since it appears to be someones private party-picture. (Thanks Herby btw for the use of your page for this little chat, you should be grateful we're not writing in Danish/Norwegian ;) Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually when I saw it it was on a user page promoting that user & their website. As such the image was promotional & out of scope. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Timeship

Hi, I was going to look into this user and I see the page was deleted. It says out of scope, but it looks like it contains information about the user (if the user is indeed Bob Bello). I'm just following up as I'd like to see what the content was previously. - BalthCat (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit: TimeShip -> Timeship - BalthCat (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Err nope - not in scope to my mind at all. speculative fiction novel series and radio drama with a link to the website is not something required on Commons. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately since I can't see the content of the page to make my own determination, I can only provide you with the impression I have: a content creator released a form of his work as CC-BY-SA for us to use and references the project it came from on his User page. While he may have attempted to advertise his work on his userpage, I imagine that as a minor editor, and content creator, he at least has some right to reference his personal projects elsewhere. I am admittedly not familiar with Commons policies on User pages, and the links to "scope" in your deletion comment and your reply to the user on his talk page don't reference any policy regarding User pages. I would suggest something be added to directly reference User pages (which on other projects are all over the place) if they have to be within a certain guideline. I understand that editing another user's user page is not ideal (and may be against a policy I haven't seen on commons) but it might have been preferrable to wiping a content creator's personally identifying page because it was "out of scope". - BalthCat (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. However the only contributions by the user to Commons have been out of scope pages & an image whose licensing is questionable. The user page solely promoted two websites which had nothing to do with Commons or its content. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

CU request

Hello Herby,

I always try to use AGF, and believe all user should get a second change (I did get one also) but could you give your opinion as checkuser on this case? Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Fangusu I think we should never block a user on Commons for things he did on other wikis, but do you think he need to be checked for socks on Commons? I think we should handle him just like other users, that he is blocked on en.wiki doesn't make a difference to me.

Best regards, Abigor talk 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mail :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Friend of yours?

[4] ? Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, puzzle solved ;) [5] Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read this...

Please read this, it will be of interest. --84.45.219.185 11:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And this for completeness.--Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, I'm very much aware of that, but those were different individuals trying to game the system. I'm not a vandal. --84.45.219.185 14:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted pictures, support requested

I believe you removed a number of images that I have uploaded. These images belong to my organization and I have submitted them as outlined by Wikimedia Commons. They are the corporate logos of my organization and our affiliates, as well as the front cover of our magazine. They belong to us and we're approving their use on wikipedia for the purposes outlined by the copyright pages. I have explained that on the pages and emailed requesting permission as I was told to do. Why were they deleted? What step am I missing? MrMath1966 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As it stood they were copyright violations. I was not aware you had sent permission (by OTRS I imagine). Once you have that confirmed you can place the template & OTRS number of the images. It is for the protection of organisations such as yours that we require confirmation of licensing. Equally many such organisations are reluctant to freely license such material. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That I understand but some of the deleted images had a posted note about having seven days to fulfill the missing requirement (the note was posted today). I'm not sure why that user did not tag all of my images with a similar note, but even some of the ones that had it were deleted already. I hadn't realized I missed that step until the note was posted, but I have submitted the request for permission from my work email account and I do not know how long it takes to receive approval but I will be happy to update them with whatever information is necessary to demonstrate their copyright. Also, when that happens, does this mean I have to upload the photos again? I can't even tell you how long it took the first time around, I would love to know that we can undo the delete without having to redo all of the work.

I believe I chose licenses that best protect our logos, while approving them for use on Wikipedia. That's essentially what I'm doing here, yes?

I appreciate diligent users policing the wikis, we might have chaos without it. MrMath1966 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sort on time at present I'm afraid. Take a look at COM:L for licensing info. However uploading files here really means you cannot "protect" them. They have to be freely licensed for any use - your organisation might not be happy with that? Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and I have read those, as well as Wikipedia:Fair_use Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria and a half dozen other pages of guidelines about posting an organization's logo to Commons. I realize you may not have the time now but being a Wikiveteran, could you point me in the right direction when it comes to using a company logo on a wikipedia page? How does Pepsi or YouTube do it? Should I simply add images to Wikipedia with {{non-free logo}} as the copyright? Your advice would a big help. MrMath1966 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me as though you have it sorted now. I hope it all goes ok but get back to me if I can help - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well almost everything was resolved. For some reason one of the logos was approved but the link was not restored. KAPE_logo.jpg is the only one. The ticket number is 2009031210039076. Is this something you might be able to fix? Thanks for your help. MrMath1966 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In terms of getting OTRS stuff checked/reviewed you would be better contacting one of the folk on this list. I don't have OTRS access. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hambrientino, Thecircle

Since you were mentined on the request, I drop a link: [6] -- Drini 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delay, but I was taking a short real-life vacations. As soon as I returned, I requested CU in es@wiki and made the blocks here. Thank you! ;) KveD (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Mysticshade back again possibly?

Irishbud1 (talk · contribs) is looking likely. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean but not quite as straightforward as the past ones. Consulting other CUs, will get back to you. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well File:Ulster-bank-dublin.jpg is a copyright violation of this. So I'm thinking same articles edited on en (using Irishbud account) adding copyright violations uploaded here.. O Fenian (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the copyright violation. Best regards, --Kanonkas_(talk) 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is a "duck test" one really but I'll like to hear from other CUs before blocking I think. I'll give it a few hours (personally I think the other is likely to be a copyvio!). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey. How are you? I'm REALLY bored.--God'sGirl94 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)