User talk:Herbythyme/Arc11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ 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:
Châteauneuf-du-Faou.
review

Article "Walter Rojas Perez"

[edit]

You have vandalized all the images in the article "Walter Rojas Perez" by deleting them. I suggest you to return all the images as they were, otherwise there will be a legal action against you. If you believe that you represent Wikipedia, please contact The General Council by email at: mgodwin@wikimedia.org or by mail at: Wikimedia Foundation Inc. P.O. Box 78350 San Francisco, CA 94107-8350 USA Phone: +1-415-839-6885 Email: infowikimedia.org Fax: +1-415-882-0495.

Always be respectful!--Ugancea (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no deleted contributions. If I have deleted something it is probably because it is outside our scope which is solely to host files, mostly images, freely licensed, for use on other Wikipedias. Threatening legal action against me or any other volunteer will not assist your cause I assure you. It would be wise if you were to be respectful too. --Herby talk thyme 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equally I guess you may be connected with this user. One image I certainly deleted as it was clearly a copyright violation. One of the others you are complaining about still exists here but is a copyright violation. please take rather more care before you make accusations. --Herby talk thyme 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images article "Walter Rojas Perez"

[edit]

Señores vándalos. Antes me refería a los que me querían borrar mi artículo "Walter Rojas Pérez" como amigos o compañeros ya que nuestra labor en wikipedia nos hace ser compañeros y amigos. Ahora a los que me borraron el artículo los llamo sin duda VANDALOS. Wikipedia por si no lo saben tiene como función fundamental el crear material educativo que se puede presentar de forma interdisciplinaria como lo es mi articulo ecocrítico sobre el Dr. "Walter Rojas Pérez". Wikipedia es una organización sin fines de lucro que tiene una de las bases administrativas en San Francisco y su base legal en Los Ángeles, digo esto ya que si usted dándolo no tiene nada que hacer en su casa por favor con sus fechorías no destruya la misión honorífica de Wikipedia en Estados Unidos de Norte América y en todo el mundo. Wikipedia es una organización seria que prohíbe el vandalismo y es lo que ustedes están haciendo con borrar artículos académicos que llevan en su creación horas de trabajo y por ende muchos meses de preparación académica. Esta ardua labor de pensamiento y creación debería hacerlos cambiar a la hora de cometer el vandalismo que se esta realizando a nuestro articulo "Walter Rojas Pérez". No ven que muchos de nosotros somos contribuyentes académicos y a la vez contribuyentes monetarios que ayudamos a que se consigan los 6 millones para el ano 2009. Sus actos vandálicos no solo afectan la imagen de Wikipedia sino que nos afectan a todos ya que una demanda estatal o federal nos quitara esta nuestra organización y usted que poco tiene que hacer también perderá su trabajo de estar borrando. Como creen ustedes vándalos que pensaran organizaciones que si contribuyen a Wikipedia con grandes ayudas económicas como lo es: The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation que dio $ 3, 000,000 el 25 de marzo del 2008, Vindo and Neeru Khosla que donaron $500, 000 quienes donaron esos dineros el 27 de marzo del 2008. Ahora mire su aporte en Wikipedia como se ve? Solo serás un borrador de artículos ya que ni con artículos buenos contruibuyes. Entonces ¿en que contribuyes borrando? Borrando solo estas probando que eres un delincuente mas y que nos perjudicas como Wikipedia. Sus actos solo nos perjudica como organización sin fines de lucro y con un deseo muy grande de contribuir a las naciones del mundo. Hoy he puesto otra vez mi artículo "Walter Rojas Pérez" en Wikipedia y le pido no vandalizar más. Ocúpese de otras cosas productivas. El respeto en la comunidad mundial no se logra borrando artículos ya que eso a como se lo he dicho es vandalizar a Wikipedia. Dése cuenta que en mi artículo "Walter Rojas Pérez" no existe ningún plagio ya que yo mismo lo he realizado con arduo trabajo. Por favor no se den títulos ustedes, vándalos, que ustedes no son parte de Wikipedia, son vándalos destructores de un hermoso proceso académico wikipedico. Le prometemos en Wikipedia que si siguen haciendo eso buscaremos la forma de procesarlos. Invito también por este medio a que los que se hayan visto afectados con artículos para que se comuniquen con el abogado Y consejero general de Wikipedia Mike Godwin email:mgodwin@wikimedia.org o bien si vive en USA puede llamarlo al 1-415-8396885 o escriba por correo regular a la dirección:

Postal address Wikimedia Foundation Inc. P.O. Box 78350 San Francisco, CA 94107-8350 USA Phone: +1-415-839-6885 Email: infowikimedia.org Fax: +1-415-882-0495

Registered agent (Legal) Wikimedia Foundation c/o CT Corporation System 818 West Seventh Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Designated agent (Copyright) See Designated agent. Business Development Kul Wadhwa +1-415-839-6885

SABEMOS QUE JUNTOS PODEMOS SEGUIR HACIENDO DE WIKIPEDIA UN LUGAR DE RESPETO ACADEMICO Y CON ENFOQUES GLOBALES. --24.99.30.97 19:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was one on es (es:Walter_Rojas_Pérez) but it looks like they didn't want it either..... Similarly "respectful" language used on talk pages there! --Herby talk thyme 13:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

[edit]

Hi Herby, could you please have a look into this. I'm not sure if Lar checked the accounts or not. Best regards. --Dferg (commons-meta) 11:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bit old to get good checks on really. I'd have no issues blocking the account although it doesn't seem to be used any more. I see the is a DR in on the images - good to have other opinions but I'd not nuke them while a DR like that was on. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 11:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devon

[edit]

Oh - I had not seen that you're planning to work on it... I was just a bit frustrated that there is nothing at all and decided to make a start. I just saw that you also worked quite a bit on Cornwall and therefore wanted to ask if you've got a general concept for English counties? Anna reg (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moon from Lac De Monteynard- Avignonet 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 {{{3}}}

Sorry!

[edit]

Sorry to step on your toes on the Seattle building vandalism. Didn't realise the timing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware you had :). Needed CU anyway tho. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - my bad I think. Thanks for sorting it! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of you know what!

[edit]

The nominator made a follow up comment here after his DR was closed. I think he is new to Wikipedia/WikiCommons policies. But this DR was uncalled for. Cheers, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone that edit after closure and informed the user. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysticshade/Historian19 sockpuppets

[edit]

Both Buenos-Aires City (talk · contribs) and Porto Madera (talk · contribs) are blocked on en wiki and are active here with the usual bogus uploads. O Fenian (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Sorted thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mediterranean Man (talk · contribs) is one too, uploading the same copyright violation version of File:Irish People.JPG. O Fenian (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On it - care to look at these too? I'll mail other project CUs I think - there might be an odd sleeper too - are there any pages on en wp you can point me to to assist me? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked on en wiki. The image itself is no use, as the colours are completely wrong and it's the wrong proportions. He did keep changing the ratio of that flag to an incorrect ratio on en wiki as well, like this for example. That's an incomplete list of his sockpuppets, his concentration of articles is quite narrow. O Fenian (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - sorted that one. I think there may be some others but time is short today - with luck I'll get to it tomorrow & also mail the CU list to liaise with en wp folk. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Owen Roe O'Neill (talk · contribs) is obvious, according to this article history. The email address on the Flickr account is an amalgamation of two of his account names, and looks like it's been set up to dump all his copyright violations in with a CC licence, since the image is actually from here. Similarly there's a load of uploads from NIR-Warrior (talk · contribs) uploading images from that Flickr account, and unsurprisingly that account is blocked as a sock on en wiki. O Fenian (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right - sorted them a a fair few others & posted the info to the CU list. I'd not got a handle on how extensive it was. I've asked en to inform Commons if anything else crops up but feel free to nudge me! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Monster ! (talk · contribs) seems pretty straightforward, especially as it was added by an IP in his usual ballpark, and the usual style edits made by the identically named account on en. O Fenian (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent beggars aren't they :). I think I'll review them daily for a bit. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Villacis (talk · contribs) is probable, based on the article edited and the style of editing on en wiki. O Fenian (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely precognition - I checked the range yesterday but just a little early! Sorted thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FOP

[edit]

Dear Sir, MBisanz suggested I contact you on Common's FOP policies.

I was looking at Commons FOP here and I notice it excludes some critical Islamic countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Dubai is located. Your Admins should consider placing FOP entries for these important countries here on whether FOP is allowed or not. The exclusion of Indonesia (237 million people), the UAE and Jordan is very puzzling since these states are quite popular with tourists who may place photos here someday. I was born and arised in Malaysia and the native language is the same between Malaysia and Indonesia. Yet, the Admins state that Malaysia has full FOP, but nothing is given for Indonesia.

I guess we all have "specialist" subjects over time on Commons and there are some things I know quite a bit about. However FOP is not one of them. I would open up the topic on the talk page which will be watched by those with far greater knowledge than mine. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no conscious decision regarding which countries are listed and which are not - the list has evolved over time as people have been able to add information regarding specific countries to it. If a country is not listed, it simply means no one has yet figured out how the law works in that country. In many cases, it's a bit more complicated that just speaking the language to work out what the legal position is. There's actually a discussion regarding UAE FOP rules happending now, see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#FOP in the Emirates. I have to say that on the available information regarding UAE law, my opinion is that their FOP does not allow images of sculptures/buildings that are subject to copyright to be created freely for all commercial purposes and as such these images are not suitable for Commons. WJBscribe (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your 2 replies. I'm guessing the UAE does not have FOP because it does not have english civil law like Malaysia and Singapore do. Perhaps then kuwait or Jordan may allow it. As an aside, an entry for Indonesia is critical. The old Buddhist temples in Bali are OK for Commons but no one knows about modern buildings and sculptures there. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grimspound circle 4.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 Clear photograph. Very good considering the weather. --Jolly Janner 16:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ 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:
Dartington Hall.
review

Rollback

[edit]

Commons:Rollback#By personal request/at administrator discretion states that users can request rollback from Administrators directly, rather than going thrlough the requests process. As I've had dealings directly with Angela on enwiki, where I am also an administrator, I chose to use the direct approach. – Tivedshambo (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

[edit]
★ 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:
Grimspound.
review

About Fjardaál

[edit]

Hello Herbythyme, could you please explain to me why my pictures from Fjardaál are a violation of Copyright? Thank you--Lala Lugo (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were tagged by another user as copyright violations. Looking carefully at your other contributions here they are mostly scanned or taken with a specific camera with EXIF data. The deleted ones are professionally taken aerial photographs with borders that suggest the same. If you have the original photos (if they are yours I presume you will have) then please do upload them as they look great - however they look nothing like your other images. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

picture taken down for coypright violations

[edit]

Hi Herbythyme, can you please explain why the magazine cover I uploaded, given to me by the publisher, was taken down due to a copyright violation? If there's another category I should put it in, please let me know. Thanks.

As you haven't logged in it is hard to be precise as I have no idea what image you are on about.
However the publisher owns the copyright to any material in a magazine - to be kept on Commons it has to be freely licensed for any use. Most publishers would not like their material so licensed. In order for us to host such material it must be licensed via OTRS or it will be deleted. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl reactor clean-up operation.JPEG

[edit]

Hi Herbythyme,
I'm contacting you because I need your {{User en}} skills. There is a request to delete this file, because it's not possible to clear the request who the oiginal author is (russian spy, US soldier, stolen russian pic,...). The source is http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imagery.html;jsessionid=494F87703F897E6D38600ACD3CEDA790#guid=76285ce70c79b3f3c3a60629c1765a39255f1d34 . The Privacy Policy says "Information presented on DefenseImagery.mil is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Is "public information" the same as Public Domain or released to the public or does that just tell you that it isn't secret and can be shared with the public. Please tell me
thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - missed this earlier.
Not really enough time to dig deep BUT your quote of the privacy policy suggests PD to me however the presence of a shopping cart & the general format of the site suggests maybe not.
Best quick answer there is an email address here & I would mail them? Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File: The Mosquito 5S N10.jpg

[edit]

By Portuguese law, any dissolved or defunct magazine and newspaper, enters in public domain. So this is the correct license for the file and there are no reason to delete him.

Pela lei portuguesa, qualquer revista, ou jornal, extinta, entra no domínio publico. Como tal é esta a licença correcta e o ficheiro não tem razão de ser apagado.

Zorglub

05:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Colombianorgulloso

[edit]

Hola.

Otro títere: Chocolisto (talk · contribs). Saludos.--83.156.31.87 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Gracias :) --Herby talk thyme 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still having problems with this guy? O_O I had to protect Bogotá and Colombia ([edit=autoconfirmed]:[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)) to stop this person :). I hope, this days I'll get more active on commons so if you need more info, don't hesistate to ask me. Cheers,
Dferg (commons-meta) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dferg & likewise - I do hope that you manage to be active on Commons when you are able :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 07:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El usuario continua subiendo archivos en wikipedia. Saludos.--91.168.42.138 07:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not en admin any longer but posted to CU list so it should be dealt with today. Regards --Herby talk thyme 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. --Kanonkas(talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the "offerings" here & es the images will be copvios. Equally the accounts does need CU running - unlikely to be the only one. Thanks though --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otro títere: Claumy (talk · contribs). Saludos.--91.172.128.205 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified another checkuser about this new one. Prior accounts blocked also on eswiki and meta and globally locked too to prevent further abuse. Best regards, df. (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dferg. I did let a couple of CUs know I would be away & to watch this page :). I'll check up on this as the day goes by. --Herby talk thyme 08:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you, I can't do nothing than block the accounts on es and meta. Drini didn't check Claumy. He wanted to get data for you. If it is a sock, please, let me know :). Kind regards, df. (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages on en.Wikipedia

[edit]

Hi Herby, it happens so often, that I find an image, sometimes the only image a copyvio uploader left behind, that is in use on en.wp Userpages. The only purpose of the User on en.wp was, to create a userpage and promote themself. eg File:Amanda McKay.jpg has to stay on Commons because it is used on two userpages - two duplicate userpages w:en:User:AmandaMckay and w:en:User:Snypo. We have thousands of this kind of images here: Userpageimages in use but uploaded by users that dont have any interest in the projects. On Commons some people reduce the Userpage spam. Is there any process on Wikipedia to remove this advertising pages with a speedy request? This does not need any comunity review, thats self promotion and abuse of Googles denial not to exclude the User namespace from search. --Martin H. (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum - I'm not very good at "rules" ;) I do not see that something that is solely on en wp user pages & is self promoting is within scope (so I've deleted it!).
I certainly clear user pages that are promotional here so tag them as speedy here if you see them. While I was an admin on en wp I used to clear the user pages there - there are lots everyday, however, as with most other things on en wp, there are plenty of arguments about whether that is right etc etc. They can be tagged there but they may not be deleted - depends on the admin. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ill try it, thanks for the infos. --Martin H. (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boca Raton FL Airport FloridaPhoto.jpg

[edit]

You recently deleted this image as a copyright violation, however the user who uploaded it is, in fact, the original photographer. I had contacted him on Flickr regarding a comparable image, and then encouraged him to join the community. What basis do you have for thinking this was a copyright violation? I also think you may have been a little cold with that boilerplate message (diff) which seemingly had nothing to do with the actual complaint about the image (how is a copyright infringment equivalent to scope?). These actions come across (to me) as a little bitey and I would ask that you undelete this free and informative image and restore the resultant change at the wikipedia article after you have done so. Or please respond expeditiously on my talk page, thank you. -Zappernapper (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is the website being on the image any different from being on the description page? additionally, an image can both be owned by a specific entity and still be have a CC license, so the acknowledgement of that ownership does not automatically mean a copyright violation. As for using OTRS, i was under the impression that it was for people who are contacting the photographers, not the photographers themselves. I am not aware of any precedent for people submitting their own work to have to file an OTRS. If you feel that the image is only permissable with the removal of the watermark, i would like to see the guideline/policy on that as i am more used to wikipedia's policies and proccesses, not commons'. -Zappernapper (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your message on my talk page and appreciate your concern for the use of my images. The Wiki account FloridaPhoto was created by me, Ross Cobb. I am the photographer, company owner, website owner, and copyright holder, and I uploaded this image.

My images that contain a COPYRIGHT Notice are in fact copyrighted and I reserve all rights to them. Images marked with "Photo by ...." or "Courtesy of ..." or similar, are licensed according the whatever CC license I selected when uploading. I don't know how to be more clear about my intentions. I uploaded the images that I took, and flagged the license appropriately. There is nothing in the OTRS that seems relevant to my submission. Feel free call me at the number listed on my website or telephone book from 3pm-9pm if you must. I am not in a position to spend alot of time dealing with this and I'm glad that it came up so quickly before I wasted time filling several other image requests. --FloridaPhoto (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My response has been posted on my talk page.
The community would be well served if the publicly viewable policy, procedure, upload, and license pages accurately reflected what is being enforced here.
Since this is clearly a recurring issue, and you are highly knowledgeable and affected by it, Why not take some time and fix these pages/articles to fit your views?
If you are deleting hundreds of images daily, this would reduce your workload, as more people would be inclined to conform with the rules or simply refrain from submitting altogether.
--FloridaPhoto (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in response to the message on my talk page:

On a daily basis Commons deletes many images that are watermarked with a website. This watermark implies copyright ownership. As such we need to ensure that the licensing is valid for the benefit of the copyright holder...

i do understand the LARGE amount of copyrighted images that are uploaded all the time, usually as PD-self or similar when it is plainly obvious that the uploader is unlikely to own the rights to the image. There are some cases in which i agree with a speedy deletion process, for example with film, art, covers, and other media. however, many photos may be uploaded in the manner present here, and the fact that you felt it necessary to delete the image within hours showed bad faith and this was not an obvious copyvio under COM:SPEEDY. i am not aware of any guideline or policy that states watermarks mean the image is an obvious copyvio, and merely submitting images like this to deletion review might be a more diplomatic way of welcoming new photographers to the project. -Zappernapper (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:JohnStanley637

[edit]

Note for you on User_talk:JohnStanley637, thanks. Gigs (talk)

On my watchlist thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual

[edit]

Pipi man (talk · contribs) seems obvious? Identically named account already blocked by checkuser on en. O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sorted. Mental note to check the ranges a little later in the day I think.... :) --Herby talk thyme 06:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pictish Defender (talk · contribs) too based on edits on en. O Fenian (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maxi Uploader hhhh (talk · contribs) blocked as a sockpuppet on en. O Fenian (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - done, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo00260

[edit]

Hola. Camilo00260 (talk · contribs) tiene una galería llena de copyvios. Saludos.--83.154.11.95 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted some as copyvios happily but some may well be ok (& my es is very bad, siento). Saludos --Herby talk thyme 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's lovely

[edit]

to see you again! You've beaten me to a few new page deletions, I need to step up my game ;) Hope you're doing well! -- Editor at Large • talk 23:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valued Image Promotion

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

Ping

[edit]

Hello!, I've opened a deletion request of a poster per COM:IC#Posters but, after searching a bit more I've found the image here. Could you please close the debate and do something with Edviges (talk · contribs)). His talk page is full of {{copyvionotes}}. He got blocked for one day but he still upload copyvios, the most recently, May,15 and today. Thanks in advance and best regards, df. (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - deleted plus some others that are similar & blocked for a couple of weeks. Pity really as some of the images are ok. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing his contributions right now in order to open a Deletion Request. I'm pretty sure that images like File:PatrimBenafoto5.gif (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log) are not own work at all. Most of them (all?) are tagged as own work but the user didn't provided a date... Many thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. df. (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping

[edit]

I've jsut seen your action, you probably saw my message here. Regards, -jkb- (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope :) (though I would have done in time!). The user page del req (& CU list traffic) alerted me. All part of the job, regards --Herby talk thyme 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no reason to panic :-), I have got used of it, my pages in different domains have been vandalized some more hundred times, it will be a guy from CS. Regards, -jkb- (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...dislike ... people using Foundation wikis to promote other websites"

[edit]

Noticed the quote above on your page. Was wondering if you would comment on the website article (http://www.marketswiki.com/mwiki/Globex) with respect to the speedy deletion of CME Globex, an article newly created May 26. Can there be COI with the people involved in the speedy deletion if these people are involved with MarketWiki? Can this be investigated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Current_requests Henry Delforn (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I have no real idea what this is about. This is Commons not Wikipedia and it would appear that your problem is with Wikipedia. I rarely edit there now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holliday?

[edit]

Hello,

You are going on a vacation? Have fun.. And remember that your friends will wait here for your return ;-D

See ya, Huib talk 16:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vandalism

[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask you if we have here on commons an automated tool like the huggle of en.wiki ?? please answer on my talk page or at least notify me :-) Madhero88 (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herby's not really around these days. So far as I know, Huggle doesn't work on Commons - we use old-school methods.  — Mike.lifeguard 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Drizzlecombe kist 5.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  Support good photo. Dferg 21:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Quality Image Promotion

[edit]
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Drizzlecombe kist 5.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  Support good photo. Dferg 21:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadover Cross

[edit]

I don't suppose you took a photo of Cadover Cross at 10:32 on 19 June 2009? Jolly Janner (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two minutes before you....:)? What did I look like :)
Google Earth makes me about 750 km away from that location at the time! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - nice piccy & good to see you now have the same "fetish" :) Catch you somewhere sometime H
Take a look for yourself. See the guy in white walking along the path? Jolly Janner (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must be SmallJim. He also has a fetish for phallus-shaped symbols such as Dartmoor crosses. Seemed odd that after I added a section on Cadover Cross, someone else was there to take a photo of it the next day and SmallJim has it watchlist'd. Jolly Janner (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship application

[edit]

Hi there, and thanks for your support, which came as a really pleasant interlude in the middle of this mess I caused with my damn weird sense of humour. Well, I think there won't be a third try anytime soon, or even much later. Sincerely, thanks again, this little positive message made my day. Well, at least it helped my day be a little less bad than it could've been. :) Cordially, Alchemica (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for wanting to help us out. I would sugest we work together for a time period.. I am sure if I help you, or Herby you will be a good admin. Don't give up already please. Huib talk 22:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, both of you. I've seen far worse in the last three years than this misunderstanding, so it's not gonna take me away from here. I need to cool down, your answer was certainly not as "bad" as I felt it was yesterday. I know what you wanted to say and let's be honnest, we all, after several years on a project, accept and do things we wouldn't have done earlier. Even though I try to avoid it as much as possible, we're only humans.
Talking about my application, I think I missed something important before giving it a second try, and that is dealing with different cultures. It's been a while since the last time I talked to people from abroad on a regular basis. I've spent too much time with French people only, lately, and I guess being more active here, and talking to more people, would be a good start. This will help me keep my big mouth shut a bit. Yeah, I'll try to stay politically correct, no kidding. ;) Alchemica (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually prefer the cross cultural projects to the language specific ones BUT they do need people to reflect maybe before acting/posting (there is of course nothing wrong with French people though!).
Humans I like :) --Herby talk thyme 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

[edit]

I mentioned to you here that I was thinking about becoming an admin here on Commons. I was wondering if I might ask you to review a draft of my admin nomination text that I have been working on. Would like to get the opinion from an admin of my accomplishments and remarks before submitting for nomination. You can find it on my sandbox page: User:Captain-tucker/sandbox. I completely understand if you don't have the time and no rush if you feel you can assist. Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I did a few minor edits in it, some spelling and a linky, you have my support for your adminship. :)
Sorry herby but I was faster :P Huib talk 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Huib for your input and support. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - looks ok to me. There always will be varying views about exactly what is needed in an admin but you tidy up junk - that is a fundamental task. We have a large heap of admins who do very little - you will put me out of a job but....:) --Herby talk thyme 18:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and I hardly think I will put you out of a job. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admin nomination submitted. Thanks for you support. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request

[edit]

I need some administrator help with this request. Are you available? I'm not sure if I made the request in the correct place - the English Wikipedia has a special page just for username problems, but I don't see one here. Even if you can't help, I'd appreciate any advice you can give me on related Commons policies. Jaksmata (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been dealt with - sorry I was not around. Regards --Herby talk thyme 08:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historian19

[edit]

Scribe Osiris-express (talk · contribs) is probable based on the edits on en. O Fenian (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it had been quiet for a while! Done & thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hum - found a couple more and posted to CU list. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
El Gran Via (talk · contribs) is probably him based on edits on en, the image was added to an article by an IP that's 99% him. In fact looking at the logs I see you've deleted an image of the same name already today.. O Fenian (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ✓ sorted, 2 in one day :) --Herby talk thyme 09:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Korean Core (talk · contribs) seems rather likely too. And quite possibly City of Istanbul (talk · contribs) too? O Fenian (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right as usual :). Done, cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Creep

[edit]

I'm on my way to Dartmoor on the search for a sheep creep to photograph. Are you able to tell me the location of the sheep creep you have photographed? Thanks Miriam

Hi Miriam. I have now geo tagged it which will give you a pretty good location if you look. If that is not enough then do get back to me & I'll come up with a grid reference if that will help. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CkeckUse request

[edit]

Hi Herbythyme, Can you please check Mizunoryu and compare it with 201.42.167.120. I have the suspicion that both are the same guy, but the IP tells what the user does not want to say or does not have enough courage to say what s/he thinks.
Thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've blocked the IP for a period - not the behaviour I like to see at all. I have not checked Mizunoryu as yet as I would really want a little more evidence than one edit only. I understand your position & would ask you that you contact me again if you need me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I would may consider as additional evidence for now is that the user wrote "I'm a brazilian user" and according to http://aruljohn.com/track.pl the IP was lokated in Sao Paulo. I wouldn't say that "I can get easily mad sometimes" is a clear evidence but for me it makes it more likely.
If I find out some more inormation I will contact you.
--D-Kuru (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions

[edit]

Hi there! Would you mind if I ask you to check for this? I need your comments on it. And if I made mistake to add it without following the proceeure, please feel free to delete it! Yours,--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err - are you on the right page with this. Not my language or my area of Commons. Sorry --Herby talk thyme 14:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. You're an admin, so, you have a right to know what happened, isn't it? Okay, hope it's works here. And if you don't mind, would you be so kind add it to the language list? Just like the other ones shows on the GFDL template! Cheers.--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once the template is created, there's nothing else to do. As far as I can tell, it's fine as-is.  — Mike.lifeguard 15:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mac9

[edit]

Dear sir or Madam,

Have you been an Admin on Commons long enough to know if Mac9's images are trustworthy? There has been a mass DR placed on the 'possibly unfree' images by him which failed flickr review here I'm sure that many Commons members must know about his work...and not just me. Anyway, feel free to make a reply on the DR...either for or against it. Personally, I wish such the DR could be postponed for a few months for reasons which you can see. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Discoveries

[edit]

Hi Herbythyme,

I googled "Amazing Discoveries" and noticed that you had removed it from the Wikipedia website. That's too bad! It aired in over 60 countries and in The Netherlands (where I live) it really has cult status. I think Wikipedia should definately have a page on it. Could you please restore the old page or create a new one?

Thanks, Boyana

No idea really what you are on about. If it is a Wikipedia issue then it should be addressed there. Either way a link to the page that is deleted would be very helpful. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hum - Wikipedia, deleted in October 2008. --Herby talk thyme 13:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

[edit]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA which just closed as successful. I really appreciate the trust that the Commons community has placed in me and look forward to expanding my contributions to Commons. Thanks again. --Captain-tucker (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herbythyme/Arc11&oldid=26066379"