User talk:Nyttend/archive 2

Deletion of categories

Hi, was looking at the administrators' noticeboard and happened to see your request at "Simple category move, please". If you are moving files and subcategories from one category to another one manually and want to have the original category deleted, you can tag it with {{Speedy}} like this: "{{speedy|Empty category – files transferred to "[[:Category:Screened porches]]".}}". An administrator will usually delete the tagged category in about a day. But I hope the backlog at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" gets cleared soon! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:00, 16 October 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） ∙ +/−

--GrapedApe (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some consultation that might involve you

Hi. You've been mentioning your close affiliation to the English language wikipedia, I can assume that like many here you're a native of that language; if you're interested, I'd be happy if you attend this Village Pump topic. Cheers. Orrlingtalk 02:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paoli marker detail.jpg

File:Paoli marker detail.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） ∙ +/−

Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke of Paducah historical marker.jpg

File:Duke of Paducah historical marker.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） ∙ +/−

Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of your images

In reviewing Category:Media without a license: needs history check I fixed part of this edit to this image of yours but you might want to check the description that the anonIP added breaking the info template and hiding the licence that I've restored. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've simply reverted everything since July 2012 except for the third-party's category addition, since the IP edit went against published documentation. Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I was not sure how far back to go, so, as you are an active editor, I thought it best to notify you. There seem to be quite a few vandalism, maybe not all intentional, in the Category:Media without a license: needs history check items and also some bad edits by people who just don't properly review their edits and so leave errors that hide the licence tags. Ww2censor (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music year cats

What would you think of closing Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Music of 1905? The outlier "Music of" category has been redirected, and there seems no consensus to rename/delete/redirect the more than 200 "Music in" categories that have been tagged since July. Happy New Year. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no further discussion since July 2013, but all this time hundreds of categories bear big "This category is being discussed in accordance with Commons's Categories for discussion policies." warning boxes at their top because of your listing. I would be happy to close the discussion as no consensus to change if you're agreeable. Could you please consent to removing the large number of "discussion" warning boxes? Thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes colored like countries

Done -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 16:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your help to view a map

Hi I helped you some time ago with a monochrome version of a Democracy index map.
Now I work on another request Commons:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#Updates_and_corrections_for_the_map_File:Islam_by_country.svg_and_its_alternative_map_File:Islam_by_country_01.svg were I also made a monochrome version of the map. Could you please have a look at it and see if it works. I has many different levels/steps and combination and I don't think the colored map works very well either. It's almost impossible for most screens/people to view those very small differences. In the monochrome I have removed some steps lying in between.
Would be great if you could have a look and give me feedback as I this way can make better maps further on, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PA?

Send info on new location and we can get together. Smallbones (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello! File:Murdered_by_Indians.jpg is deleted, you can proceed with your move. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 01:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Learner Building, Kokomo.jpg

File:Learner Building, Kokomo.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） ∙ +/−

50.178.38.107 19:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location question

I remember that day well. I took that picture while clinging to a hillside standing on one foot, holding onto a tree and holding the camera with the other hand. It is about 1/2 way up the steep hill behind the smaller baseball field, behind the bleachers that have their back against the hill. There may be a small stream to cross as well. Once you get into the woods, you can see it. I've updated the location on the image to be closerd to where it is, I don't remember exactly, but it is on that hill. Generic1139 (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a commons category and two images, you should now have a spotters guide, see the image note. Generic1139 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Boom! Thank you. Now maybe it can be added to the article. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

Hello. When you nominated my files for deletion of KS Senators/Reps., I noticed that a few that haven't been nominated yet. (File:Kansas Senator, Don Hill.jpg, File:KrisKobach.jpg, File:KS Representative, Ray Merrick.jpg, File:Peggy Mast official portrait.jpg, File:Kansas Senator Jeff King.jpg, File:Michael O'Neal.jpg)) My question is could you nominate it for deletion? Like we've previously talked about, KS doesn't put their pics in the PD and this one isn't in the PD. Also, File:Larry Kramer (American football).jpg this file as well. I don't know much about Commons and how to tag files, so if you could help, that would be great! Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 20:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. It really would help if you'd give a reason for speedy, not only for the uploaders sake, but for those doing the deleting. I've declined the speedies, but have tagged the affected files for a procedural deletion in two weeks time as missing permission.--KTo288 (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry just noticed that you did put in a reason for speedy but that something in the markup meant that it wasn't showing up.--KTo288 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joan Maynard and Sam Jackson.jpg

=={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{en|1=Joan Maynard poses with Sam Jackson on an episode of PBS's History Detectives}} |date=2014-12-08 |source=http://ventriloquistcentralblog.com/history-detectives-john-coopers-black-ventriloquist-dummy/ |author=Dan Willinger |permission= |other versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{Remove this line and insert a license instead|year=2014|month=12|day=08}} [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] {{Uncategorized|year=2014|month=December|day=8}}

File:John W. Cooper and his Barbershop Routine.jpg

=={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{en|1=An advertisement for John W. Cooper's "Fun in a Barber Shop."}} |date=2014-12-08 |source=http://www.ventriloquistcentral.com/ventriloquism-tribute/vaudeville-ventriloquists/ |author=Steve Hurst |permission= |other versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{Remove this line and insert a license instead|year=2014|month=12|day=08}} [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] {{Uncategorized|year=2014|month=December|day=8}}

File:John W. Cooper and Samuel Jackson.png

=={{int:filedesc}}== {{Information |description={{en|1=John W. Cooper and his dummy Samuel Jackson}} |date=2014-11-08 |source=http://www.vaudeville.org/profiles_A_H/index_files/Page327.htm |author=American Museum of Vaudeville |permission= |other versions= }} =={{int:license-header}}== {{Custom license marker|year=2014|month=12|day=08}} © 1998-2012 American Museum of Vaudeville, Inc. Page 35 [[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] {{Uncategorized|year=2014|month=December|day=8}}

Countries belonging to UNASUR / UNASUL

Could I ask you, please, if you could fill the countries in UNASUR / UNASUL (South America) with a light green colour indicating the countries belonging to this bloc? (Like in the cases of ASEAN, EU and African Union). I've been asked to do so, but these files have not been very easy for me, namely the one concerning to Brazil. Thanks for your attention.Mondolkiri1 (Mondolkiri1) 04:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of image description formatting

Hello, Nyttend. There is a proposal for a style guideline for image descriptions at the Village Pump. Previously, you have expressed an opinion about such formatting. Please feel free to join in the discussion! — hike395 (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

broken record

As always, nothing happened at COM:AN/U and the discussion is now archived. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ हिन्दी ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Türkçe ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

response to "Extremely long category names"

I do agree that the category names are long, although they are used to match HABS/HAER images that share matching titles. Theses should be categorized into a subcategory of a parent category because they share common categories outside of a parent category such as it relates to history of a city, black and white photographs, time of photographs, author, etc.. With this said, I disagree with not having such subcategories, but perhaps there is a way to shorten the category names without compromising the names found at the library of congress. I have already being doing this specific categorizing for months without a complaint while following the lead of what I saw in the beginning. Please do not make any changes. Thanks Xnatedawgx (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMacZeroBot

All done! Here's the list of dates that couldn't be figured out - not too bad. [1] BMacZero (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amsterdam abandoned GR house.jpg

File:Amsterdam abandoned GR house.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） ∙ +/−

184.99.225.206 17:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:USMC-090529-M-8583E-133.jpg and File:USMC-050507-M-1758Y-006.jpg

Hi Nyttend, "we dont' care where the guy comes from" is a somehow weak explanation for removing a category as others possibly do care. Are there any more objective reasons behind your decision? Otherwise I´ll revert your changes and hope for your understanding. Best wishes, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're request at admin board

I recall you asking for help with some category moves last week. I moved a couple of them but I remember thinking it would be best to wait for a list. So... did you get anywhere with them? Green Giant (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collages

With reference to File:PitestiCollage.jpg and File:PitestiCollageWider.jpg. Of coures we need sources for a collage, even if the editor uploaded the content to Commons themselves. There is no source for those individual pictures. See Commons:Help desk#Licensing specified for picture, yet it still shows as missing. for the discussion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of AN discussion

Greetings Nyttend, I noticed you made a number of edits regarding categories recently that I think are incorrect. Given our negative history on ENWP I have chosen not to engage in discussion with you but have posted a note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible problem with a users edits. If one of the admins feel there is any necessary action I will let them address it. Reguyla (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Please do let me know if the category problems start up again in one month after the block wears off. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled jpg/svg/png

Aloha! I didn't see you ask for redirects. Sorry about that. I created the redirects as requested. Thanks for not biting my head off! --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 02:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming admin

Hi Nyttend,

I saw that you are an admin at the English Wikipedia and I see you participating in admin related jobs quite often by reporting users who violate copyright law etc. As you might have noticed I am looking for potential candidates for adminship and I believe that you can use the tools at Commons as well. If you want I can nominate you. If you don't want to be nominated it would be a shame of course but it is your choice :). Natuur12 (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would

Support your request to become an admin and it would mean you would be able to do some of these things yourself. Green Giant (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on your RFA

I understand opposes are annoying in RFA's but calling me a "habitual troublemaker" is a personal attack and as an RFA candidate its not called for on your own RFA. Reguyla (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Nyttend, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

odder (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step towards an early grave! Welcome! I hope you stay happy. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 04:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratz! Natuur12 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection

I still cannot overwrite File:Coat of arms of Morocco.svg. --AymanFlad (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Mail Pouch reproduction in Fultonham.jpg

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Mail Pouch reproduction in Fultonham.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Leoboudv (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting duplicate files moved to Commons

Hi, Could you please help deleting duplicate files I moved to Commons? Thanks in advance. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

revision deletion

Hello Nyttend! We talked about Krankenhaus Siloah, Hannover, Wegweiser yesterday. I just uploaded a new version of that file with blurred license plates. Could yo delete the first version, now? Thanks!--Geogast (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!--Geogast (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images from newspaper La Presse "may be freely distributed on the internet..." (La Presse)

I am writing, first of all, for the user Mlaucke since his health is not perfect at present. My name is Dave and I have been his assistant for many years.

The present communication concerns the following document, which is an article that appeared in a French newspaper called La Presse. Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Michael Laucke Couldnt Be More Convincing" Montreal. Canada Eng translation.jpg

Our resource is here; sorry that it is in French by I will translate the essence of it's purport immediately below. http://www.vteducation.org/fr/articles/droit-dauteur/7-reproduire-des-textes-tires-de-eurekacc

The two pertinent paragraphs are:

1) Toutefois, la Loi sur le droit d’auteur permet aux enseignants et aux étudiants de sauvegarder, de télécharger, de montrer, d’échanger et de transmettre les ressources librement accessibles sur Internet dans leur environnement pédagogique. Les textes sur Internet ou sur des sites Web qui ne comportent aucune interdiction de reproduction peuvent donc être intégrés au recueil à distribuer aux étudiants ou à verser sur une plateforme sécurisée. AND 2) interdisant la reproduction en plusieurs exemplaires des articles provenant d’Eureka.cc pour d'autres personnes, les documents repérés dans cette base de données peuvent tout de même être intégrés à un recueil de textes et reproduits à des fins d’enseignement.

In a nutshell, this says that, regarding reproducing articles from La Presse, "the Law on copyright allows people to save, upload, display, share and transmit them (newspaper articles from La Presse) freely on the Internet for educational or informative purposes." One is NOT allowed to reprint and distribute La Presse articles for personal financial gain (obviously not our case). ...thus "prohibiting multiple copying of newspaper articles for other people. Furthermore, La Presse newspaper articles may be integrated into a collection of texts and reproduced for educational and informative purposes".

I hope this helps somewhat to clarify the use of this newspaper article and other newspaper articles, (and our good faith :), articles we uploaded to contribute to users' material in the realm of the classical guitar.

I understand that there was also an issue with our highlighting certain phrases to help users save time and get to the most interesting parts of these newspaper articles. If you wish, we can upload original, un-highlighted versions, of these newspaper articles, if need be.

Thank you so much for taking the time, and applying your attention to making Wikipedia the magnificent achievement that it is! all my very best wishes, Dave Bradley

The discussion is at Mlaucke talk page. Please do not shop-admins and create chaos. The place to answer a Deletion Nomination is at the nomination page, not all over people's talk pages. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted SD templates

Hello, Nyttend! I notice you recently reverted a series of speedy-deletion requests coming from 128.0.220.172, which gave the rationale (quite invalid for SD) of being out of scope. JFYI, judging from the choice of targets and the geolocation, I‘m pretty sure those were block-evading edits by the owner of the account that uploaded the files, in turn a sock of the rather disruptive account (also indeffed on enWP) mentioned in that block log, by way of taking home his bat and ball. (IMO the user category wouldn’t be missed.) No action required at the moment except, I suppose, to keep an eye out. FunkMonk has had some dealings with this editor (and blocked the master here), so might be a good person to consult in the event further investigation is warranted.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ducks on Lake Maxinkuckee.jpg

File:Ducks on Lake Maxinkuckee.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） ∙ +/−

PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept. This person is nominating a lot of photos without a valid reason. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blank page scan

I went ahead and deleted File:Eighty years ashore and afloat, or, The thrilling adventures of Uncle Jethro - embracing the remarkable episodes in a life of toil and danger, on land and sea (1873) (14782903492).jpg.. (admittedly, I did not notice that you had denied it in the edit history until after I hit the button) Not that I disagree with you about blank page scans when it comes to the upload of an entire book, but it was an upload from the IA's Flickr feed. It wasn't in the context of uploading the 'book itself' for something like transcription on Wikisource. Without that kind of context (the rest of the book) it's just a useless blank image. Sorry if this was 'stepping on your toes' (like I said, I didn't look at the page history until after hitting the button), and feel free to yell at me, but I really don't think it was at all useful in the context. Revent (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of stuff I didn't do.

In the future please don't blame me for stuff I didn't do like you did here. That sort of jumping to conclusions without bothering to actually do the research is exactly the reason I opposed your RFA here. That was Russavia commenting, not me. They left a comment on my talkpage as well as comments on the talk page of Floquenbeam before they admitted who they were. Its also an Australian IP and I live in the US. Not that it would have mattered in that discussion but if I am going to be banned it should be for what I actually did (which was for making a comment on my talk page) and not for made up accusations. Just be honest and say we are blocking him for this minor comment on their talk page. Don't exaggerate and say its for something its not like disruption, vandalism or socking. Reguyla (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not apologizing or responding to my comment in any way. It shows a lot about you. Reguyla (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask you nicely to please stop lying about me socking as you did here. Just because they edited that page does not mean its me. Is it really so hard to believe that someone would either support me or troll that discussion to look like me. The tone isn't me, the IP is not a series I have ever used and PA is quite a ways from me. I have used several IP's you are correct, but there is nothing in that IP that even remotely resembles me, you have no proof it is me and frankly it isn't. So quite it with the grave dancing and the unfounded and untrue bullshit rumors. I am already banned thanks to you and your pals, what more can you possibly hope to gain from rubbing it in? In fact, why don't you go ahead and have someone check user me. That way they can lie too and tell everyone that it is even when anyone who looks at it for more than 10 seconds can see its not. You know I do have feelings and emotions right? I mean its not enough that many of the people in that discussion made up stories and exaggerations in order to revoke the three strikes agreement me and Worm made. But you don't need to invent new things that aren't true to make yourselves feel better about it. What's wrong with you people? Reguyla (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the timestamps; both diffs that you link were written before your first message. I'm not sure why you consider the first one Australian and the second one Pennsylvanian (or if that's not what you mean by "PA", I don't know what you mean), since the Geolocate tool tells us that 166.170.45.93 and 166.171.121.70 are both located in California. Nyttend (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WHOIS tool, the one was an IP in Australia and the 2nd was for AT&T and listed PA. Of course it could just be saying PA because thats where it was listed. Regardless, they are not me and I resent the accusation. If you cannot find anythign valid to accuse me of, then there is no need to make things up. Just be honest and say "Block because I don't like him/editors/etc." I was trying to get back into the community and get back to editing before all that drama, I don't need you and Chillum accusing me of shit I didn't even do. Basically what I am trying to say is, if I didn't do anything wrong, then you shouldn't be creating shit out of mid air to build up your ego. Again, its your history of doing that sort of stuff that was the reason I opposed your RFA here. So please stop. I am already banned. Reguyla (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I've stopped using the WHOIS because they added the captcha (it makes it slower to use), and I had no idea that it would yield results so radically different from the geolocate tool. Meanwhile, once again, the diffs you link were made before your first note, and (as far as I remember) I've not otherwise participated in these discussions since your first note: as you've asked me to do, I have stopped, aside from responding to you here at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: what tool are you checking? http://whois.domaintools.com/166.170.45.93 and http://whois.domaintools.com/166.171.121.70 tell me that both IP addresses are based in Doylestown PA; I don't see anything talking about Australia. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I did not intend for this discussion to be about what tool I used to determine the location of the IP in question. The tool or my reading of it may have been flawed but its irrelevant. I started this discussion to ask you to stop making baseless accusations about me doing things I did not do. I have enough problems already without you adding to them. Since you say you aren't doing that anymore, I am moving on and have no desire to interact with you anymore unless its absolutely necessary. Reguyla (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(just an interjection) FYI Nyttend, the WHOIS record data only reflects the address of the 'Registrant' for the domain, and often has little to do with the location of the actual IP. All Comcast addresses, for instance, will show a Delaware registration (which is actually the address of the DNS registrar they use), but their servers are in a Seattle datacenter. 166.170.45.93 is a Cingular cellphone... the Pennsylvania address is where 'Wireless Data Service Provider Corporation' is located. Revent (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No-source tagging

It is obvious that user Miguelperezreviriego‎ (born in 1955) can't be the author of a photo taken in 1932 and it is obvious that in 1947 he was not working for the Bishop of Plasencia. I had tried to explain to the user (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Miguelperezreviriego#Pies_de_fotos) that he must tell the actual author and date of the pictures. LMLM (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. IMHO, there is no difference between images with an obvious false source and images with no source: the required information to verify its copyright status is missing. Thank you so much and sorry for my English. LMLM (talk)

Fortunately, not all administrators think like you. Your threat was completely unnecesary. Have a nice day. LMLM (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request on it.wiki

Hello. I asked the uploader to provide informations. Thanks for your request--Formica rufa (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

flickrreview tag

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. I didn't want to remove the tag as it was automatically added by the flickr2commons tool. Will remember to do that in future. g Gbawden (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common English has transformed Kharkov into Kharkiv

I have seen many attempts on Wikipedia from Eastern Europeans to cheat their wrong version of events into Wikipedia and it is nice that you want to prevent this, so di I. But I proposed to move Category:Kharkov GAI to Category:Kharkiv GIA because the Common English name of city is Kharkiv. Hence all Wikipedia common categories related to Kharkiv are named "... In Kharkiv".

You can check any website of a major English newspaper website to check, and all will tell you they use "Kharkiv" to address the city formerly known as Kharkov. Compare https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+Times+Kharkiv with https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+Times+Kharkov please. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rollback script

In case you haven't got this up and running: Now that you've added it to you're common.js, when you look at a user's contribs, like Special:Contributions/TryHarder, you'll have a "rollback all" option in the "More" drop-down list right up next to the search box. See File:Writ Keeper mass rollback script.jpg for an example. INeverCry 21:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World map of long and short scales

You screw the map very hard. Colors are now wrong on all the national wikipedias. You changed short and long etc. Why did you do this? Old colors are fine. Revert all your changes or fix all your mass edits.

See the "Color coding on map" section of this revision of WP:GL/M; the old one was useless to colorblind people like me. I've updated the descriptions on all Wikipedia pages in all languages that were using the image. If I've made a mistake in the Russian Wikipedia, please fix the description. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aphelion (logiciel) - ADCIS Image file deletion

Hi, I'm author of these files on the website (authors readable on source of the web page) and I'm authorized by ADCIS to use these files. Could you restore them or can I reupload them? --Damien ELIE (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your instruction this morning and wrote on the deletion discussion page. Thank you. --Damien ELIE (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another mass rollback script

I just found this:
importScriptURI('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kangaroopower/MRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
It adds a big [Mass Rollback] button directly to the right of "User contributions" at the top of the page when you look at a user's contribs. I haven't had a chance to test it out... INeverCry 10:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"People of" vs. "People from"

Asking because of this and other similar edits. Do we have anything like a policy on "People of" vs. "People from"? Because we went exactly the opposite way not long ago on Seattle people. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Copied, let's keep the discussion in one place] If there's any policy, it's one of the most obscure policies around here. See my edit summary here, but aside from Ohio, everything's so fractured that I would demand a link to policy before believing anyone who said that there was such a policy. For example, while we have almost everything as "from" in Ohio, Category:People of Pennsylvania by city and Category:People of Pennsylvania by county are almost (but not entirely) "of". Nyttend (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that we ought either to hammer out a policy or just not make changes like this, because simultaneous movement in two opposite directions can get really confusing and also wastes a lot of effort. I don't have a strong preference, myself, other than consistency. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through every county category in the state to improve the geo-categorising (so far, I'm done with 58 of 88 counties, including most of the bigger ones), so I'm confident that if any others besides Cleveland exist, they're very few in number. I'm not planning on doing any unilateral movement with stuff outside of Ohio, basically for the reason you cite. It's just that Ohio is so overwhelmingly "for" that the existence of an "of" will inevitably engender confusion; even if things are going the opposite way on the other side of the country, making things more consistent within one state is still helpful. But at the same time, that's why I'm not touching Pennsylvania; while it's mostly "of", there are enough "from"s that it's not quite as clear-cut as Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Out here, we are also dealing with movement in both directions between using Seattle and Seattle, Washington. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Cleveland changes

Greetings, I noticed you did some category changes and had a question. I noticed several of those folks have Category:People from Cleveland and they also have Category:People from Ohio. May I suggest we remove the People from Ohio cat from the articles that also contain the Cleveland cat since it falls under the Ohio category? Reguyla (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

=={{int:filedesc}}==

Hi, Why you remove =={{int:filedesc}}== from files? Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia: Ohio Courthouses project

Thank you for your reponse to my photo! I am currently working on a project to see all 88 Ohio county courthouses. I plan to take at least exterior pictures of all of them, and would love help creating photo galleries on their wikis. For instance, I have a few other photos from the interior of the Hardin County courthouse.

You may already know that some courthouses do not have dedicated pages. In those cases, I would like to add a page and cite information obtained from the Ohio Supreme Court's website about the county courthouses for a start. I also plan on photographing the exteriors of all 88 courthouses, and were allowed, the interiors.

Thanks for your help, and I look forward to sharing my photos.

People of Ohio

Please.Do.Not.Revert.It.Anymore. Categories are being moved. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some discussion should occur before you 2 admins start edit warring over categories? Reguyla (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you had read this in the object you would have thought twice before engaging in a pointless revert? The scheme is "People of" -- not "People from", and I am surprised that as admin you don't know it. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 14:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asked to comment but came by. Clearly Blackcat is right here. Even though the per-city subcategories currently are still named by the "People from foo" scheme, this scheme is obsolete and superseded by the clearly superior "People of foo" scheme. --PanchoS (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic district contributing properties

Hi, can you explain how Category:Historic district contributing properties in Michigan is a redundant category for File:Elijah Anderson House in Tecumseh.jpg? I've added a lot of files to these categories, and I don't think I'm doing it wrong, but I don't know all of the established NRHP procedures, as has already been pointed out to me. kennethaw88 • talk 22:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:IOOF building in East Liverpool.jpg

Is this really an "industrial laundry," not just your basic corner drycleaner? - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taken On

Thanks for your notification about the Taken on template. This was the first time I've come across the template and have now began to add this to files. Like you I find it annoying that contributors do not bother to add this to there contributions as I think it is a vital component to the information provided with each file.Kolforn (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Birmingham Society of Artists permanent collection/Reports

Please restore Category:Royal Birmingham Society of Artists permanent collection/Reports, which is both meant to be empty, and needed. Likewise any other /Reports sub=pages. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No duplicates!

Deleted files File:Battle of the Dnieper a.jpg, File:70 rokiv viz Melitopol r.jpg - not duplicate, they are loaded in May 2015 and had a more accurate description and category. Duplicate - File:Битва за Дніпро аверс.jpeg, File:Визволення Мелітополя реверс.jpg, they are loaded in October 2015. Gipoza (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore File:Battle of the Dnieper a.jpg, File:70 rokiv viz Melitopol r.jpg, these files are not duplicates. Duplicates - File:Битва за Дніпро аверс.jpeg, File:Визволення Мелітополя реверс.jpg. Gipoza (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do You think the duplicate files that are uploaded in May 2015 and have a more accurate description, and not files uploaded in October 2015? Gipoza (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need more time to do what I have already been once made (made more precise and correct description, and also the more accurate category)? The name of the coins in my description was given in the original language - Ukrainian. I don't understand why You don't want to admit that it was not necessary to load in October 2015 the files that have already been uploaded in may 2015. And, therefore, no reason to delete files that are uploaded in may and contains a more precise description and categories. The language is neither here nor there, members of the Ukrainian section fully understand the descriptions of the files in Russian, as I am in Ukrainian. Gipoza (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Mosley

As I have explained in the past, web site f1almanah.mk has become complete sports dedicated portal and the interview conducted in Skopje 2008 is published here: http://derbi.mk/fajterstvoto-e-nuzhno-za-rakovodenjeto/

I expect at least an apology for all the fuss and accusations of a type "how hard is to enter office of the famous person" because he entered mine. You could ask before you nominate file for deleting, not playing smart one with that destructive comments. F1almanah.mk (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shetland pony inbred

I came across the image Shetland_pony_inbred.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Shetland_pony_inbred.jpg and the diagram seems useless. The horse is identical looking in all images, so what is the point of the diagram?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

Whoops, somehow I totally missed that File:Nicholas County Bank in Summersville.jpg does include the courthouse. kennethaw88 • talk 02:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feburary, 2016

This is your last warning. The next time you editing an unincorporated community, as you did at Category:Fairview Alpha, Louisiana, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.166.170 (talk • contribs)

This warning, if you look at the actual edit, is truly hilarious. Revent (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is, Revent, as is the mangled wording of the warning; the IP was making a mess (moving lots of category contents to new categories and attempting to have established categories deleted as empty) and left this warning as an attempt to get me to stay away, as far as I can see. Also note my edits to the DR comment below the "hbar" that you helpfully added. Nyttend (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for amending it, though I don't think it was really needed (the point was valid either way). I just wanted to let you know that duplicating conversations was not my intent... technically odder did so, not me (by about five minutes), but the AN should take precedence. Revent (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peloduro Portada No.99.png

Not going to argue, but FWIW the VPC conversation was (it seems dead) a 'general' discussion about the URAA, not about the specific file, and I re-opened the DR before odder brought it to AN... if I had known he was going to do so, I would not have reopened it. Revent (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maine vs Massachusetts

Was this edit purposeful (Maine being part of Massachusetts at the time) or a misclick with HotCat? Choess (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have strong feelings about it, but I'm not sure that practice is consistent with the way the category structure in Category:Architecture of the United States is set up. e.g., Category:18th-century architecture in West Virginia. Choess (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Battle of Corydon July 9, 1863 historical marker.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Battle of Corydon July 9, 1863 historical marker.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

And also:

File:Indiana Capitol historical marker.jpg

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Longmont College.jpg

I'm really curious where you got 1881 from. According to the nomination form, the City of Longmont, and several other sources ([2], [3]) say 1886. kennethaw88 • talk 15:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stumper

Since you've also been doing this type of work out here, maybe you can help me understand something that has me stumped. I created two categories recently that don't show in their respective parent categories: Category:Houses built in Maryland in 1877 & Category:Houses built in Texas in 1875. Do you see them? If not, any idea why? I've probably created a couple or three dozen of these types of categories over the past week and only these two have this problem. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion. I thought it might have to do with database lag, but it's been a day or two since I created those categories. I'm not seeing Category:Wooden houses in DeKalb County, Indiana under Category:Wooden houses in Indiana either. It seems like the same thing. The null edit did the trick for the two categories I created. Hmmm. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP template

I was wondering why you put template {{NRHP}} back on things that are no longer on the National Register of Historic Places. I did a check: of 1,025 categories and files under Category:Former National Register of Historic Places, only 161 have the template. (This does not counting the 31 subcategories directly under that category, which are all "Former NRHP in <place>" categories.) Some of those could be tagged because they are in a historic district that's on the NRHP, not because the place itself is. I would think that only current NRHP listings should have this template, if only because it adds a category for NRHP listings. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing properties

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Medernach_Building_%28Pendleton,_Oregon%29&curid=36040489&diff=195749899&oldid=136597837: You write "If it weren't a CP, it wouldn't belong in the HD category". I'm not at all sure that's how things actually get used. I think that often images or subcategories end up in a historic district category on simple geography. For example, a sign, a street, a visitor center, an event. - Jmabel ! talk 14:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PMFJI ... The category structure on Commons for NRHP historic districts and contributing properties is kind of a mess. I don't find the "Historic district contributing properties in <state>" series useful, but since these categories exist, I use them. In cases where a specific category exists for an historic district, it's redundant to use both, but since we certainly don't have a specific category for every district, it's not redundant to use the CP categories in those cases. There's also an issue with whether it's appropriate to use the "NRHP in <county> in <state>" on photos of properties that are not individually listed on the NRHP but are HD CPs. Some people do, some don't. I don't think it's appropriate to use the "NRHP in <county> in <state>" category on these photos because the properties aren't technically listed on the NRHP. But a good argument could be made that this is a distinction without a difference.

My MO has been to create HD-specific categories when there's more than two images out here of a CP (as far as I know, that criterion is totally arbitrary). I put the HD category under the appropriate "NRHP in <county/city> in <state>" category or "Historic districts in <location>" category (if one exists) as well as a more specific geographic category (if appropriate). Unfortunately, some editors put HD categories in categories that may not apply to all images in that category ... for example, "Houses in <location>" when not all CPs in the HD are houses. In this case, "Houses in <location>" may belong on individual images, but isn't appropriate for the HD category.

Do you suppose that this is something we should raise for discussion over at WP:NRHP? I disappeared from that scene a while back because I grew tired of all the drama, so it may be that there's already been discussion or even a standard of which I'm not aware. I'd be happy to participate in a discussion of this topic there if you think it would be fruitful and not devolve into bickering and name-calling as was so often the case when I last frequented that page. Thoughts? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment ... there's also the issue of folks assuming that all buildings, structures, etc are CPs as long as they're within the HD boundaries published by the NRHP. I tend to be a stickler for details like this, but I try not to identify images as in an HD unless I know that they include verifiable CPs based on the nomination forms. This can take a lot of research and I'm sure that many folks don't bother, but that's what building a reliable encyclopedia takes. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see a policy better pinned down. I'm pretty open to what that policy might be. I would point out, though, that there can be properties listed and discussed at some length in the application for a historic district designation without being considered a contributing property as such, usually an architecturally significant building that doesn't date from the characteristic period for the HD. I believe the term for this is a "non-essential" property. An example of this is Category:Congregation Adath Israel in Middletown, Connecticut. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respond to either of you at your talk page, but since you both came here, that's hardly practical...Images that belong in an HD category are either images of one-or-more CPs, or images related to the entire HD, e.g. a district map. Consider Category:Beaver, Pennsylvania, for an example: virtually the entire borough is within the boundaries of the Beaver Historic District (the two are combined in one article at en:wp), but Category:Beaver Historic District includes just the CPs and a map, while borough maps, an image of a long-ago-destroyed church, and images of newer buildings (e.g. the post office, near some of the borough's central squares that themselves are contributing sites) are put in the borough category, because they don't depict anything related to the district as a whole, and they don't depict any contributing properties. In the same way, Category:Steele Dunning Historic District excludes File:Central Wesleyan Church in Bloomington.jpg, because as a non-CP, it's not part of the district, even though it lies within the district's boundaries. If someone takes a general picture of a scene in the district, e.g. File:Genoa Main Street, eastern side.jpg, of course it belongs even if some of the buildings are non-contributing, but if you happen to get all non-CPs, it should be taken out of the category. Building a reliable encyclopedia (and a reliable media repository, for that matter) requires that kind of specificity, removing images from categories in which they don't belong. And finally, regarding non-HD categories such as Houses in X — the COM:OCAT policy is relevant, stating that categories represent the subject of the category, not merely the images currently in it. I put the Steele Dunning HD category into Category:Wooden houses in Bloomington, Indiana because all the CPs are wooden houses: no houses of other materials and no other buildings of other materials. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "non-essential properties" issue I mentioned? - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)To me, this would depend on what constitutes the historic district. Is it defined as a geographical area, or as a set of individual contributing properties? (Is it even the same for all HDs?) If the former, then I'd include anything inside the boundaries. If the latter, then I'd include only the designated contributing properties. On another point, I oppose listing contributing properties under type of property unless they are individually listed. For example, Category:Rivoli Theater (Pendleton, Oregon) is currently under both the category for its historic district and the category for theaters on the NRHP in Oregon, in spite of the fact that it doesn't seem to be individually listed. IMO, it does not belong in the latter. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The primary questions for me are: (1) Should CPs that are not individually listed be placed in the "NRHPs in <county> in <state>" categories? (2) Are the "Historic district contributing properties in <state>" categories useful? I think it's also necessary to provide guidance somewhere about how to categorize HDs and CPs within HDs, including stressing the importance of doing the research to identify which properties are contributing and which are not. I'm guessing that Commons users aren't aware of this distinction and assume that everything within the NRHP's descriptive boundaries contribute to the district. I know that when I first started doing this way back when, I wasn't aware of it.

Auntof6: I'm not sure that I understand your question about geographical area vs individual contributing properties. I think of HDs as both, i.e. "a set of individual contributing properties" within a "geographical area". Am I wrong about that?

Jmabel: I don't recall seeing anything other than "contributing" and "non-contributing" properties in HD nomination forms. Have you seen the "non-essential" terminology anywhere other than in the Middletown South Green HD nomination? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've seen it a few other times; I don't read a lot of HD nominations, though, and could not give you another example offhand. - Jmabel ! talk 02:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right about HDs being both a geographic area and a set of properties, or at least that it can be either. en:Historic districts in the United States#Federal-level gives the NRHP's definition of a historic district: "a geographically definable area, urban or rural, possessing a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district may also comprise individual elements separated geographically but linked by association or history". So maybe it depends on the specific HD.

As for your other questions:

Should CPs that are not individually listed be placed in the "NRHPs in <county> in <state>" categories? I think these should go in one of the following, in order of preference, depending on which cats exist:

the category(ies) for the HD(s) they are in
the category for HDs in their city, county, or state (whichever is the lowest level)
the general category for NRHPs in their city, county, or state (whichever is the lowest level)

Even if the CP is a specific building, for example, it also depicts the HD. They should not, however, be in any other kinds of categories, such as "Houses on the NRHP", because the CPs are not the things listed on the NRHP. To avoid confusion, it might be good to create a category for the HD if none exists, just to avoid someone thinking "it's a house, it's in an NRHP category, it must be a house listed on the NRHP" and moving it to a "houses on the NRHP" category.

Are the "Historic district contributing properties in <state>" categories useful? I think they're useful if we have categories/media for HDs at more than one level for the state. Not all HDs are on the NRHP, and some are on more than one registry (for example, on both the NRHP and a state- or local-level registry). Other than that, I think these categories are useful only to complete the set of "HDs by state" categories.

By the way, where I say "state", I mean state or equivalent -- it could be a territory, Washington, D.C., or even another country (there's at least one in another country). --Auntof6 (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy on Wikipedia and off-wiki for a few days, and haven't been over here. Responses to each of you:

Non-essential properties — everything in a district is either a CP or a non-CP, unless it's minor enough to be ignored, e.g. fire hydrants and sidewalks typically won't get mentioned, although they occasionally get CP status (see [4] once the NPS servers start working properly), and of course a full-size building is too big to be ignored. Some SHPOs use a three-or-more-levels ranking system for non-ignored properties; Indiana's has used both four and five — Non-Contributing, Contributing, Notable, Outstanding (see the subcategories of Category:Places recorded by the Bloomington Historical Survey), plus Reference in some cases; C, N, and O all get recorded as CPs on federal documentation, while NC and R. If I remember rightly, when R is used, NC is for places that actively detract from an HD (for example, a Brutalist building in a nineteenth-century neighborhood), while R is for places that don't contribute but don't actively detract, e.g. a small empty lot. When your state or locality uses several tiers of CP and non-CP for its surveys, they'll often be mentioned in nomination forms that rely on local surveys, but everything that isn't ignored still has to be considered CP or non-CP for the purposes of NPS paperwork. Presumably that kind of thing is addressed in the Middletown nomination, but see my comments above about the servers.
I don't use "BUILDINGTYPE on the NR" categories myself, and I don't really care about them, as long as they don't accidentally prevent someone from putting an image or category within the geographically lowest level on the "NR in PLACE" tree.
Consider an image that belongs in the HDs tree and that depicts a scene in Raintree County, Indiana; if there isn't a category for its specific HD, we need to put the image into "HDs in Raintree County, Indiana", or "HDs in Indiana" if Raintree County doesn't have its own category. I can't imagine anyone disputing that idea, as long as we agree on whether it would belong in the category for its HD. But now imagine that we have a 21st-century ranch in the middle of a 19th-century HD (which doesn't have its own category), which was (of course!) deemed a non-CP at the time of designation. If we take a picture depicting just that house, would the picture belong in "HDs in Indiana", since it shows nothing historic? Yes, a picture showing that house and its 19th-century neighbor would belong, but it could also be put in "HD CPs in Indiana"; my point is that media depicting only non-CPs don't belong in the HD category tree, and since all media depicting more than non-CPs would go in the "HD CPs tree", there's nothing that should go into HDs but shouldn't into CPs. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the four of us participating in this discussion are pretty much in agreement on this issue. We could draft some guidelines about this topic, but where would we post them where they're most likely to have an impact? There's the NRHP project on WP and some pretty well-developed guidance documents are available there. There's a FAQ over there with a "Questions related to images" section. That's a possibility. But how does one communicate these kinds of details to users here on Commons who may not be particularly active on WP? There are Commons Project pages, but I don't see anything there that's NRHP-related or even architecture-related and, frankly, I wasn't even aware that project pages existed out here on Commons until just now. In any case, those pages don't seem to have anything to do with providing guidance to users. Does anyone have a suggestion for how we spread the word to other users on Commons? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could link to this discussion on the talk page for the category (or even copy the discussion there). We could then put a hatnote on the category briefly summarizing and referring to the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be appropriate to have this discussion at en:WT:NRHP; this is a Commons thing, not an en:wp thing, so discussions need to be held here. If you want more input from WP:NRHP members, leaving a note at WT:NRHP (e.g. "We're having a discussion at Commons regarding HD CPs; please go to [link] to participate") would be entirely appropriate. Regarding non-WP people who are active here, I'd say that we should add a scope note to the parent category explaining what to do. If you want more discussion, we could always have it at COM:VP. Begin the discussion with "Here's what we did, but we want more input [copy this discussion there, collapsed for space] What do all of you think?" and wait for opinions. Nyttend (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subcategories of species by countries

Hi Nyttend & @~riley: - please be very careful with creating these (e.g. Category:Branta canadensis in the United States and Category:Branta canadensis in the Netherlands that you created), as there are several problems with them:

Bear in mind that wild nature does not follow national / political boundaries. For photos of wild specimens without human interaction in their origin, think carefully whether it is sensible to categorise by political units at all; consider instead leaving such photos in the main species category, or if there are more than 200 of them, then subcategorise by subspecies if relevant, or by natural biogeographical regions, rather than political units.
Unless used carefully, it may result in the mixing of photos of natural (wild), feral (non-natural, human-introduced), and captive specimens in the same category. It is very important to avoid this; the photos should be sorted by status first – zoo inmates should not be in the same category as wild specimens.
Captive / planted specimens in zoos and gardens are not part of a nation's fauna or flora; therefore, they should not be subcategorised into Category:Fauna of Xxxx Country / Flora of Xxxx Country.
The Taxonavigation template at the top of the species category is important in that it allows the automated harvest of images by external users like the Encyclopedia of Life. Please ensure when creating new subcategories, that the Taxonavigation is copied from the species category into subcategories which involve photos of wild specimens (but not into subcategories involving photos of captive or feral specimens). This ensures that photos of wild specimens remain available to external users.

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added
{{Taxonavigation| include=Anatidae (IOC)| Subfamilia|Anserinae| Tribus|Anserini| Genus|Branta| Species|Branta canadensis| authority=(Linnaeus 1758)}}

to the province subcats of Category:Branta canadensis in Canada, but don't have time to add it to all the state subcats of Category:Branta canadensis in the United States, could you please ensure it is done! Thanks - MPF (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'll admit my portion of this was only fulfilling an automated work request, I really have very limited knowledge when it comes to these sort of categories. I've gone ahead and added {{Taxonavigation}} to all the state subcats of Category:Branta canadensis in the United States. :) ~riley (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the blocking

And doing it in seconds, priceless. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings:

I have renominated all the images in the batch nomination to which you objected, please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dr._Cuitlahuac_A._Rovirosa_Madrazo. All but one of those images were overprinted from "Alas innocentes...". I remain puzzled why you felt these had to be handled separately as they are all obviously the same problem - i.e. not user's own work - but they are all nominated individually now. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apartments, condos and such

Hi. Not a complaint, or a request to undo anything, just a comment on the apartment/condo business.

My understanding is that an apartment is a living unit contained within a building called an "apartment building" which consists of a number of such units. Whether the unit is owned or rented is irrelevant, it's still an apartment, such as the one I'm sitting in now, which we own, as opposed to the one I lived in for 31 years, which we rented. Both were "apartments" in "apartment buildings".

"Condominium" is the term and method of ownership favored in the U.S. for apartments which are owned and not rented. Confusingly, the term can be applied either to the apartment or to the building in which the condominium apartment is located. "I own a condo, #3C in that big condo on the hill." In a condominium, the owner directly owns only the apartment itself, and the common areas outside the apartment are owned by a condominium corporation, which holds that property in trust for the collective owners. The apartment owners, of course, have rights of use of the common areas.

This is the common way apartments are owned in the U.S. In New York City especially, but also in some other areas, the preferred form of ownership is the "co-operative". In a co-op, the owner has possession of the apartment they live in, but they actually own shares in the cooperative corporation equal to the value of their apartment. So, the entire building and all its apartments are owned by the cooperative corporation, but each member of the coop owns a percentage of the corporation (in shares) based on the square-footage of their apartment. So, I sit right now in an apartment in a cooperative apartment building in NYC. We say that we "own" the apartment, but in truth what we own is a percentage of the cooperative corporation. Of course, we have the right of residence, we can sell our apartment, all that stuff is spelled out in the contract with the co-op.

So, the essential difference between a condominium apartment and a cooperative apartment is that the condo owner actually owns his apartment, directly, but has rights concerning the common areas, which are owned by the corporation, while the cooperative apartment owner "owns" his apartment and the common areas indirectly, through their shares in the corporation.

Our course whether the apartments inside the building are condos, coops or rented, the building is still an apartment building (and their can be rental apartments inside either a condo building or a cooperative building - but you can't mix condos and coop in the same building, just won't work.)

There, more than you really wanted to know. Sorry to take your time.

Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psalms

Why are you undoing the improved ranaming I’ve been working on? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated

Hi! I've seen your undo and it's actually fair, but I want to argue why I added the "duplicate" template. The user uploaded first File:Producción mundial maíz 2001.png (21:57), then he probably realised that the font was not what he wanted (I assume so because of the upload log of the next file), changed it, and uploaded it later as File:Producción mundial maíz 2001 B.png (22:03; upload log says "Producción mundial de maíz, ajusto formato de texto." [in Spanish, "corn world production, I adjust the text format"]; this file is in use, but not the first). Best regards! -Aleator (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A millennium

I had a laugh at your century block again, so I wanted to see if a 1000+ years block would say a millennium. Sure enough: User:LuellaHills9... INeverCry 02:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridge in Athens Township.jpg

Ah, thanks. I missed that the main span projects beyond the midstream pier, making it a cantilever. Of course, when I went to look for an aerial view, it isn't there anymore... Choess (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you were right. It is a cantilever, and I overlooked that. (The NRHP form isn't very explicit about it.) Anyway, thanks for the fix. The "iron bridge" categories seem to be a bit messy: anything post-1890s will almost certainly be built with steel. From the existing population of the categories, people seem to have been using "iron bridge" in a loose sense to mean any metal bridge, and I haven't the energy to straighten that out at present. Choess (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ewing Hall, Parsons College.jpg

Hi NYT ... My edits weren't a mistake. The construction year of the building comes from the NRHP nomination form for the "Architecture of Henry K. Holsman Historic Campus District" and that's consistent with when Italianate architecture was popular in this country (1840s - 1890s). I swear I read somewhere that the building had been destroyed and removed from the NRHP, but I can't find that now. At the time of the nomination, "The building is in an advanced state of deterioration; external walls are crumbling". So I figured that it's demolition was plausible.

Unless you object, I'll restore the 'Houses built in Iowa in 1857', 'Historic district contributing properties in Iowa' and 'Italianate houses in Iowa' categories.

--Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this photo, the construction year in on the portico. And since it was taken just a couple of months ago, the building clearly still exists, though it has been altered since the HABS photo you uploaded in 2009. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please to protect my talk page, again

I'm being revandalized by the IP sock who when they don't get their way on Wikipedia, attacks on other wikis. If you can protect the page until the end of the year, that would be good. Or as long as possible otherwise. Thanks. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Dental Museum

I removed the category, because it´s a museum, not a dental school. diff. --Partynia (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge at Thirteenth Street

If the Bridge at Thirteenth Street is a bridge on the NRHP in Illinois, why would you remove the category for it? ----DanTD (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City halls

I don't know why you changed all the city hall categories I added/corrected. But I'm going to rollback all of your edits. Not sure who made you in charge, but I don't understand your vandalism to the ones I corrected. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mjrmtg at Town Hall

Can you take a look at his talk and tell me if you can make sense of it? He talks about you, and yet he started a strange revert war of my perfectly normal closes at UDEL that have nothing to do with him. I've blocked him for a day, but this strange behavior is concerning to me. INeverCry 01:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit concern about the premature report here. Wikicology (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; it would have helped if he'd mentioned that report to me when he left it. As I noted to INeverCry, he's been creating a duplicate category tree, not based on any firm differences between subjects, and objecting when the content-forking is undone and the original categories are put back. Nyttend (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A city hall is not the same as a town hall. That's like saying a city is the same as a town, why have a distinction there? Why do you think city halls should be under town halls? Why shouldn't town halls be put under city halls then? --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a category tree has been established since 2004, doesn't mean it can't be enhanced, does it? --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the concepts are separate, please begin by demonstrating the wrongness of en:Seat of local government covering all of them. You are not enhancing anything: you are forking the category tree, with no reason for some of your actions, e.g. the Idaho and Alaska halls. And once again, as I told you already, the name chosen for this concept doesn't matter, as long as it's commonly used; if the whole tree were named "City halls" instead, it would be equally fine. If you want to do that, go ahead, but further forking will not be tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing around your admin status with statements like "will not be tolerated" and "categories will be locked" is not appreciated and makes you look like a --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll say it another way: if you persist in disrupting these categories, violating the "Universality principle" section of COM:CAT, either the problematic names will be salted, or you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't see the merit in putting City halls and Town halls under a Municipal buildings category? And what do you mean by salted? There are exceptions to every rule, even "Universality principle" (e.g. Gas stations vs. Petrol stations) --Mjrmtg (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Not all towns, nor all other classes of entities that the "Town halls" category covers, are municipalities in the first place. As long as New York and Wisconsin, for example, distinguish between city, town, and village halls, the town halls must be excluded from municipal buildings, because they're not municipalities. And if you want to see the whole tree renamed, even to "City halls" or "City and town halls", you must request renaming through CFD or some other community forum: just deciding to rename a long-established category tree and doing it without consensus is quite disruptive. (2) Sorry, but I'm forgetting that en:wp terminology doesn't always get used here. en:WP:SALT is what I'm talking about: protection of a deleted page when it's disruptively been recreated. (3) Gas stations and petrol stations are an accommodation we make for different national usage, because we tend to implement another en:wp page, en:WP:ENGVAR, in our category naming. The town halls category tree has been used worldwide, because there's no such distinction in the naming of these places. Nyttend (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York and Wisconsin aren't the only states that distinguish between Town Halls, City Halls, Village Halls, Borough Halls, and such. They may not distinguish them the same way as one another, but they still do it. The only disruption here is your refusal to acknowledge this. ----DanTD (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to create an argument here, because I've always liked your work. But I have to agree with Mjrmtg in this case. Your relentless blurring of City Hall and Village Hall categories with Town Hall categories is quite disturbing. If the numbers in any of these categories were low it wouldn't bother me as much, but Mjrmtg is right; they're not the same. ----DanTD (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in California there is a legal difference between a City Hall and a Village Hall. Cities are incorporated. Our category structure carries this forward with "Cities in __X___ County" and "Populated places in ___X____ County". I would seriously appreciate it if you would not change any more of my categories of local City Halls to anything else because I have been very careful to only include those of real legal cities. If it's different in some other part of the world, please feel free to interact with users in that part of the world, but please stop changing the City Halls in California that I uploaded, they're not "village halls". TYSVM. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The category tree for buildings of these types uses only "Town halls", and while arguing for violating the universality principle of COM:CAT, you (plural) been objecting because I've been merging "City halls" and "Town halls" even in places such as Kentucky and Alaska that don't even have any legal distinctions. The COM:CAT policy will continue to be enforced, and further attempts to ignore the policy will be ignored. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will be ignored? What's going on here? Have normally wise and cooperative editors gone crazily willful? Jim.henderson (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're rejecting Commons policy on this question, or they don't know what they're doing (see KY and AK for example), and in at least one case, yes: see Mjrmtg's block log. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you're choosing bureaucracy over accuracy. ----DanTD (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend insists on grouping "City halls in states of the United States categories" under "Town halls in states of the United States categories" or not even having a City halls category for a particular state. He's deleted the Category:City halls in California. He can try to tell anyone at the Category:City hall, Sacramento, California that they work at a town hall as he categorized, but it is a city hall not a town hall. There is a difference between City halls in states of the United States and Town halls in states of the United States but Nyttend insists that his way is the only way and it has to be that way. He's already salted categories and has threatened blocking if he doesn't get his way. He's acting very uncivil and edit-warred with me, yes I was edit-warring but so was he. I got blocked for it. The admin that blocked me said they couldn't block Nyttend because they could just unblock themselves . --Mjrmtg (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This shit is getting out of hand now. I don't care if you're an administrator or a trolling anonymous IP. These are bad edits, and I'm calling for every other concerned editor to revert them. Get this through your head, Nyttend; Town Halls, City Halls, Village Halls and Borough Halls ARE NOT THE SAME THINGS. Therefore your claims that the other categories are duplicates are false. ----DanTD (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Category:City halls in Washington (state) to the list. Allen4names (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you're from Washington, and know how things work in the state much better than Nyttend, or even me. Even if you don't the technical details, it's utterly stupid to remove blatantly obvious city hall categories from major cities, and replace them with town halls. Newark, New Jersey, the largest city in New Jersey has a city hall in the Town Hall category. Chicago, formerly known as the SECOND CITY, has it's city hall in the Town Hall category. LOS ANGELES, the real second city since 1984, has it's city hall in the Town Hall category!!! This is wrong, and Nyttend has to be blind not to figure this out! ----DanTD (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: There has already been a CfD open by Mjrmtg at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:City halls since August 28, 2016, over a week before the so-called "edit war" block. (Probably would have been helpful for someone to point that out in the edit summaries.) And Nyttend mentioned this topic in User talk:Mjrmtg/Archive 2#Town halls in February 2013 and then didn't engage further, but just months later in June 2013, another user in User talk:Mjrmtg/Archive 2#Government units in Wisconsin told Mjrmtg that he should be splitting into subcategories by type, and actually explained why. Mjrmtg is not the only user who subcategorizes these by government type: I've done it myself where the existing structure existed above, and obviously there are others. Obviously at least some long-term, well-informed users see these distinctions as reasonable and within policy; there's no need to be jumping straight to salting categories without a CfD first. --Closeapple (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't prove he's wrong for pulling this, I don't know what does. Time to bring back the City and Village Hall categories, and even add some Borough Hall categories... and that includes for New Jersey and California. ----DanTD (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nyttend may not be the only user who thinks they should be merged, either. INeverCry could be agreeing also, for example, and ŠJů has contributed a comment to the CfD. CfD is the best way to go. --Closeapple (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A question

Would this be a violation of copyright policy? I'm foggy on where copyright goes when a corporation or non incorporated business folds. It seems the woodcut at least would still be under copyright, making the derivative work a copyvio. Please reply to my en.wiki talk page. I don't watch commons. Thank. John from Idegon (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historic sites for WLM

Hey Nyttend - the end of Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States is coming up! I noticed you uploaded some more great photos of historic sites. Did you want them to be included in WLM? Thanks, ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP template placement

Hi, Nyttend. On File:Harvey Wells House.jpg, you moved the NRHP template from the description field of the information template to the very top, before the information template, with the comment "putting the template back in the normal location". Is the correct place for the NRHP template documented somewhere? In the thousands of NRHP-tagged files I've worked with, nearly all have had it in the description field. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen documentation, but putting a big banner in the middle of the box interrupts the text below and above, and unlike the permissions field, the description field is for text, not full-width boxes. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaineer Power Plant

Hi,

I would like to write the German article about Mountaineer Power Plant and have found your photo File:Sutton Township fields and West Virginia power plant.jpg. If you were living near to it – would it possible to take a photo of the whole power plant and not just the chimneys?--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC) make a "close-up"[reply]

Clueness

Could you please stop being that bold? Thanks. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert is completely senseless. Prove me that there's any reason for disambiguate Carson City (no, "naming" is not a good reason, disambiguation is the exception, not the rule). -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackcat: Generally, Commons uses the name on English Wikipedia, especially for English-language countries, unless a more-specific Commons standard exists (such as Latin for biological organisms) or needs more disambiguation than English Wikipedia. The standard on English Wikipedia is that United States settlement/city/town/village names, and U.S. county names, follow en:Wikipedia:USPLACE, which is "City, State" except for the AP Stylebook list of about 20 famous cities. If you see examples of American cities without a state name, it's almost certainly one of the AP Stylebook cities. (The AP is the press agency that most American newspapers are members of. The list of cities is in the footnotes for en:Wikipedia:USPLACE.) --Closeapple (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Closeapple but how could one possibly confuse Carson City which is unambiguous? Over there you love to complicate simple things :-) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 09:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Actually I note that are more than twenty...

"Nevada" is part of the name, for one thing: it's not a disambiguator. Closeapple has given precisely the response that I would have given on that; your idea that it's disambiguation is entirely a misunderstanding. For another, if you want to complain about boldness, complain at yourself: you disrupted a name format that had been used for several years, if not for all of the history of this category. Don't completely change around a system and then complain that its reverters are being bold. Nyttend (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What category tree are you talking about? The scheme adopted on here is "Counties of" or "Boroughs of", not "in". This is not en.wiki where there are other naming rules (questionable, but is not to me to discuss). As for doing the sherriff with me: keep in mind I'm an admin, too. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at these category trees which have not been created by me. Don't accuse me for the inconsistency of the categorization. Whereas in the main category I found "in" I kept "in". -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has that to do with what I just wrote above? How does that affect the fact that the main category is "Boroughs of"? Respond to that pleae instead of giving unrequested lessons of geography. We have schools, too, and older than yours. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackcat's move of "Category:Amarillo, Texas" to "Category:Amarillo" has been under discussion for some months now, and to date all !votes save Blackcat's have opposed the move. This is arguably a special case, since "Category:Amarillo" can be confusing for Wikipedians whose primary language is Spanish, and who think it's a place for yellow things. However, several of those weighing in on the question have expressed support for a standard of categorizing US cities as "city, state", even if the city name is unique. — Ammodramus (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ammodramus, if there's only my opposition, is clear that the consensus is for Amarillo, Texas. Since now I stay to the AP's stylebook for the 30 US cities that don't need the state to accompany their name. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extensive proofs that you've been making significant category moves against common practice without discussion, this is a firm restatement of that warning: further moves of this sort, and you will be blocked for general disruption. Take category moves to CFD if you don't like their current titles. Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I state here clear. Please stop addressing me like a you were a sherrif. Unless you consider AP's stylebook disruptive you should give a consistent definition of that term. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 15:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Nyttend!

Happy New Year!

Nyttend, a new year is like a blank book, the pen is in your hands. It is your chance to write a beautiful story for yourself! Happy New Year 2017. Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Halls in Iowa

On 9 September 2016 you deleted the category "City halls in Iowa," and all of city hall files are now in "Town halls in Iowa." Technically, Iowa doesn't have any towns so it is impossible for it to have town halls. The only municipality provided for in the Iowa Code is a city, therefore all seats of the local governments in the state are city halls. Other states continue to have the city hall category. Why was Iowa's eliminated? The reason you gave makes no sense. Farragutful (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wants to eliminate all categories for local government buildings and move them all to "Town halls in foo." You should defy this incorrect edit and restore it! ----DanTD (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former Lisbon trams in Detroit

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Former Lisbon trams in Detroit, User_talk:Themightyquill#By_the_book, and these (and similar) edits: [5] [6]. I'm not going to edit war, but I find this rather unproductive. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Los_Angeles_(California,_USA),_Hollywood_Boulevard,_Jerry_Lewis_--_2012_--_5023.jpg

Hello! You're right, a lot of days are gone. But may I explain the whole problem?

File:Los Angeles (California, USA), Hollywood Boulevard, Jerry Lewis -- 2012 -- 5023.jpg (5023) is a redirection to File:Los Angeles (California, USA), Hollywood Boulevard, Jerry Lewis -- 2012 -- 4973.jpg (4973)

but

File:Los Angeles (California, USA), Hollywood Boulevard, Jerry Lewis -- 2012 -- 18.jpg (18) is the file that should be File:Los Angeles (California, USA), Hollywood Boulevard, Jerry Lewis -- 2012 -- 5023.jpg (5023).

I can't rename the file because of the old redirection. So what is the solution? Should I rename File:Los Angeles (California, USA), Hollywood Boulevard, Jerry Lewis -- 2012 -- 18.jpg to File:Los Angeles (California, USA), Hollywood Boulevard, Jerry Lewis -- 2012 -- 5023-2.jpg? Please help to find a solution. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 12:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imri Ziv (cropped).jpg

Hi, what is the sense of discussing the deletion of a bad picture of an unknown person where the deletion is wished by the author instead of just deleting it? Can you please finally close the deletion discussion? --Ailura (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephantreaching.jpg discussion close

Hi, I see you closed this discussion as a Keep, which was the correct decision. Thanks for that! You mention in your closure that this was "a good example of the grandfathered-files guideline." I am wondering if you could elaborate on that just a bit, since according to the discussion on the nomination page this looked like a file that was not really entitled to be treated as grandfathered given its sketchy history, the indefinite blocking the the uploader's account, no evidence of any kind of permission from the original author, and four editors standing behind the deletion nomination, including some very well known admins (Magog the Ogre, INeverCry)— it looked to me like there was a pretty good case for deleting the image unless the author could be found and was willing to submit a permission statement. It turns out that she was, but if I had not found her, do you think you would still have closed the discussion as a "Keep"? My gut says that would not have been the right choice, which is why I am here looking for some clarification. Let me know what your thoughts would have been in this instance. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic American Engineering Record images of Illinois category

I noticed that you removed Category:Historic American Engineering Record images of Illinois was from Category:London Mills Bridge, which I guess makes sense if there will be photos that aren't HAER. But I don't see the category on the individual photos either. Is that just an accidental misfire or preparation for some subcategory to be added? --Closeapple (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1920s_bridges_in_Connecticut

1920s bridges in Connecticut has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

— JJBers|talk 03:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded derivatives

Hi! Unfortunately the section of uploaded derivatives which you had moved to Village Pump got archived without a single comment. Can I have at least your opinion on it over here? Or should I start a sample DR taking some files and then see how it goes? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COM:AN/U

Hi Nyttend,

Currently there is an section at AN/U about you. I didn't notice that you was not informed so my comment there was a bit harsher than it should have been. My apologies about that. Could you please respond there is you have some time? Natuur12 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

Hello

We have a copyright problem in File:AutoWikiBrowser screenshot image.01.png and File:AutoWikiBrowser screenshot image.02.png: Their previous revisions display full-resolution copyright-protected assets of third parties. So, I think those revisions should be deleted. (The Windows taskbar alone has previously been a subject of a DR and got deleted, not to mention the icons.)

Thanks in advance

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Union_Township,_Licking_County,_Ohio

Union Township, Licking County, Ohio has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

2607:FB90:6090:7F79:E308:8492:F436:1808 03:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US Places

I'd dispute that the state names are part of the names of the places. Its just than in the US (and to a lesser extent in Australia and Canada) its common to include the state[7] we have Category:Cotcliffe (pop 3) and Category:Great Maplestead at the base name for example in England. Using a comma doesn't show its part of the name [8] its effectively the same as putting it in parentheses like Category:Fordham (Essex) instead of Category:Fordham, Essex if natural disambiguation was used like w:Wath-in-Nidderdale then we use something that is part of the name but a less common alternative. Does Category:Boston need moving to Category:Boston, Massachusetts? In the UK people generally don't say "Colchester, Essex" instead they would usually if at all say "Colchester in Essex". I'd also dispute that "Mississippi River" is the official name of the river as it is fr:Mississippi (fleuve) on Fr wiki[9] as pointed out at User talk:Auntof6#US states. Georgia would remain at Category:Georgia (U.S. state) while we would just have Category:Washington (state), Category:New York (state) and Category:Mississippi (state) but neither Georgia not Washington should be moved as noted at [10]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Given your extensive history at en:wp, I'm sure you're familiar with en:WP:ENGVAR. We do the same thing here; see Category:Gas stations in the United States versus Category:Petrol stations in the United Kingdom. This is the same thing: how things are done in West Yorkshire, Suffolk, Essex, and Cumbria (to quote your en:wp userpage) doesn't affect how things are done in the US. And yes, Boston should be moved. (2) Are you seriously advocating moving the Mississippi River category? (3) Given your extensive history of sockpuppetry, and the fact that all the socks I checked are globally locked, I can't imagine why this account isn't already locked as well. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) en:WP:ENGVAR only applies to the English Wikipedia, not Commons, which is global. (2) I was suggesting that the state be moved and turned into a DAB not that the river should be moved to plain "Mississippi". I asked you because you have commented on those on Wikipedia and we tend to get little input on Commons CFDs. (3) because Commons (and other projects) should encourage people to contribute, note that I have never been banned from anything else in my whole life (but I have banned myself from things). Shouldn't you instead advocate that I be allowed back on Wikipedia (I will look into that in a few months). Crouch, Swale (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We follow ENGVAR here, too; if you wish to do otherwise, you need to start a huge discussion. But if you start doing something with that subject other than starting the discussion, you will be treated like any other sockmaster. There's no reason to trust someone who has literally more than eight hundred times attempted to deceive the WMF community. Nyttend (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a global project not just an English one (as has been pointed out to me before). I have not tried to deceive the WMF community. Look through my contributions before. The problems only started when I started doing something other than my usual work. Does the fact that no one has ever banned me from anything else say anything. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that you've created more than eight hundred accounts that have been globally locked, and given the fact that you've also been shown the door at simple.wikipedia.org, there's no way that your statements can be accurate. You're compounding the situation by pretending that it's otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category description in Skyline Drive

Wait a second; you blocked another user because they added a category description to a category, and now you're threatening User:Famartin over a description in Category:Skyline Drive (Shenandoah National Park)? Please tell me I'm misinterpreting what's going in here. ----DanTD (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda figured it wasn't directed at me. Famartin (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

photographing the pentagon

photographing the pentagon is difficult. (in re your comment on english) they say "no photographs" from the acres of surrounding parking lots (government property). photo while driving is hazardous and requires quick stop / de-blur, or stop on shoulder. you could try photo from the 9/11 memorial, or air force memorial, or marina across boundry channel. the US govt helicopter shots are hard to improve on. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminar archivos

Hay que eliminar los archivos: File:Función 14 discontinuidad 321.svg a File:Función 14 discontinuidad 668.svg el autor soy yo, y quiero eliminarlos, para sustituirlos.

Dáni (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete files from: File:Función 14 discontinuidad 321.svg to File:Función 14 discontinuidad 668.svg

and File:FunciónDiscontinua 111.svg to File:FunciónDiscontinua 571.svg

I am the author, and I want to replace them.

Dáni (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

La nueva colección de imagenes es File:Función xy discontinua 11.svg, a File:Función xy discontinua 54a.svg, más correctas.

The new collection of images is File:Función xy discontinua 11.svg, to File:Función xy discontinua 54a.svg, more correct. Dáni (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opera Mini logo horizontal.png is overwritten

Hello.

I am surprised that Commons does not have a proper template for marking a file as having been inappropriately overwritten.

Anyway, File:Opera Mini logo horizontal.png is inappropriately overwritten twice. The 3 August 2015 revision is already available as a separate file. The 17 November 2016 revision has twice been uploaded as a separate file and deleted in the past, for being non-free and above TOO. (I am sure in one instance, it was named "Opera mini logo.png" but I cannot find this name in the Commons deletion log.)

Do these revisions need to be deleted?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the more recent one. There's nothing wrong with retaining an acceptable old revision, however (it's not making the history really long and hard to browse), so it should just be left in there. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category name change?

On the talk page of Category:Monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America in Georgia (U.S. state) I proposed a name change. What do you think? Bubba73 (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historic District Contributing Properties (second section of this title)

Let's see if I've got this right; Individual sites that are contributing properties of historic districts don't get the category "Historic district contributing properties in blank?" ----DanTD (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fundamentally an awkwardness caused by the way subcategories work. First off, an HD category shouldn't have images of non-contributing properties (the place isn't a part of the district itself), so for images and categories that are placed within an HD category, it's extraneous. Consider a building in an HD that doesn't have its own category, and you take several images of that building. If you upload just one image, putting it into "HDs in STATE" is perfectly sensible, because it depicts part of an HD in that state, but moving it to "HD CPs in STATE" hides its existence from the HDs category, so if more images get added to that category, this image's existence will get overlooked, and thus it's unhelpful.

Now imagine that you upload several images of the building and create a category for them. It's not a good idea to put the category in "HDs in STATE" — the Somebody Somebody House is part of the HD, but it is not itself an HD, so we shouldn't put it in "HDs in STATE", but it ought to be somewhere in the tree. That's why we have the CPs subcategory: it's less helpful than the parent HDs category, but it's accurate (unlike putting the house in the HDs category) and better than leaving the category out of the HDs tree entirely.

Final comparison: consider a different subject, e.g. the Big River Bridge that carries State Route 1 over the Big River. If State Route 1 and the Big River have their own categories, of course we'd put Category:Big River Bridge into them — it's quite closely associated with both. But if neither one did, you'd not put Category:Big River Bridge either into State highways in STATE or into Rivers of STATE, because it's neither a state highway nor a river. Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

THanks for the protection, I think you didn't realize (just like I didn't until now) that my user page is a redirect to my talk page and the full-protection came through to my talk page instead. Could you reduce it to just semi for a week or so? And maybe full protect the user page redirect instead? THanks. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Visual Studio Code 0.10.1 icon.png

Hello

Someone has uploaded non-free revisions into File:Visual Studio Code 0.10.1 icon.png. I was wondering if you could suppress them.

If you want a little background, here it is: Visual Studio Code version 0.10.1 binaries were released under a free license. But the binaries of the next versions are not free. That includes anything coming out of those binaries.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows Store.svg → File:Microsoft Store.svg

Hello, Nyttend

How do you do?

I was wondering if I could bother you with a problem that I cannot fix myself. (I don't have enough privileges.)

A file formerly called File:Windows Store.svg has gotten overwritten with new contents. Then, it has gotten renamed to File:Microsoft Store.svg to reflect the name of the new contents. Problems:

Per COM:OVERWRITE, it must have not been overwritten in the first place. The new contents must have gone into a new file.
The reason for which it was nominated was wrong: The name was not a "meaningless or ambiguous name". Hence, it does not qualify for a move. The involved file mover was Mr. Fulano.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: I didn't see that is a overwrite, I though that the logo was changed, like Google when turned to Alphabet, mainly when I saw that the articles had a name changed. If you want, I can try fix this. Mr. Fulano (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Fulano: It would be great. I was under the impression that file movers also don't have enough privileges to unmerge history, but if you can, please go ahead. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: I can undo the overwrite and move to original title, but I think that is better call Capa23 to create an image in a new file. Mr. Fulano (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the delay; I've been off-wiki for several days, working on a real-life project. Nyttend (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused

Hi, admin. I saw you just reverted an edit (opening of a DR) but Commons:Deletion requests/File:AMA AR PN ANDES AZOGUES RUINAS INGAPIRCA 036 (14475716168).jpg is there. Huh? --E4024 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for rolling back the User:Daniella10171989 deletion requests. Tedious but important work with the mop. GRuban (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if by

Keeping with link to the EN page on several of them I actually made your job harder, didn't realize that was how the tools worked. --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader created art

Hi. I read your opinion on this issue here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blue castle.JPG. Can you have a look at User:Innerartworker's uploads. The user may be a notable artist, but, without the OTRS template on the files, how do we understand the permission situation? I will DR all this kind of artwork that comes on my way... Or should I not, huh? --E4024 (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also have a look at these uploads, I mean the art works in there; I'm always confused with the "own work"s. What is the own work, the art work itself, or its photograph? Or both of them? How do we understand this? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E4024, on Innerartworker, see this comment; the uploader is not DeMartini. Those files need to be deleted; I can handle it. On Babacou1951, I'm not sure what to do, thanks to the language barrier, so I've left a note on the Greek Wikipedia's village pump asking a competent translator to come here and help me. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grecophone here

So...what's up? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous section; User:Babacou1951 is uploading a good deal of artwork, and every item I've checked is related to a Β. Σταυρου. Could you ask this person whether he is Β. Σταυρου, and then give him instructions on OTRS if he is, or explain that he can't upload his own photos of other people's work if he isn't? And if you could let me know what you find out, that would be really helpful. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I 'll see what I can do and I 'll let you know. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am here, too! Τζερόνυμο, have you managed to contact with User:Bababouc1951? The same user has created a page of Β. Σταύρου on his/her sandbox on Greek Wikipedia but he/she is inactive over a month... So I am not quite sure if we can find him/her. —

ZōonPolitikón^(talk...) 14:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello old friend! Seems to me that Babacou is inactive but I 'll wait a couple of days. I have been thinking, is it ok to call V.Stavrou (Β. Σταυρου) at his phone number and ask about it? Here is his contact details. But, is it appropriate? Τζερόνυμο (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be hesitant to make such a contact myself (it would be rather odd for Mr. Stavrou to get such a phone call, I'd think), but judging the awkwardness is your responsibility; we don't have any policy against it. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to any one who isn't shy to do it. I wouldn't do it if you ask me. Or... we could simply send an e-mail here: athamaniko@gmail.com. —

ZōonPolitikón^(talk...) 14:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email would be better, I'd say. I suppose writing in Greek would be better than writing in English. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reply from Babacou. I will send an email to Stavrou, to have data held on the PC.21:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Having caught two Grecophones here, would you mind having a look at the files of another Grecophone that wrote everything in Greek. I could device only Mr Venizelos and added a cat. All the rest wait for cats. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nyttend. There 's an update. Babacou answered [11] and claims he is the creator (δημιουργός) of the paintings.Τζερόνυμο (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taken on

I presume you are not in favour of country specific category for day date photographs then Kolforn (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the question, but I have strong opinions on not breaking an established technical setup. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the country specific category is added to a infobox template that already includes {{Taken on}} template I have only removed it so as to free up the day category which i'm sure you must be aware, often become overloaded with many images, often of the similar images and becomes monotonous to view as a snap shot of that particular day. Do you object if the country specific category is added to the category list as well as the {{Taken on}} template. Kolforn (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; see COM:OCAT. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that It? I take my hat of to you for your communication skills!!! Kolforn (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sig

Hi Nyttend... I hope you are well. Your {{S}} vote in this edit probably had an extra ~ in the signature... Cheers, Storkk (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you commented on my photo

I'm sorry, I thought I was placing that photo of Patrick O'Brien in my sandbox only. I didn't realize it was going out onto the Commons. I'm new to this. It can be deleted.

Astano

about ->https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Astano_texto_plano.svg
watch this please -> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Refrigerador23
this user created an account just to ask to delete Astano? joking aside, it is absurd the argument of not being useful or having no use. It is the name and logo of a company, is part of the history. The page about that company is being vandalized by an ex admin and deletes all the contributions that are made there, greetings. --Nemigo galiza 21:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now the file is in use again. But it was not in use before... Sorry about that. But there are still two questions left: 1. Why does Nemigo create a logo of a company in plain text, which is in fact not the real logo of that company? 2. Why does Nemigo use a wrong abbreviation in upper- and lower-case letters (Astano) and not the correct abbreviation in upper-case letters (ASTANO)? Thank you and have a nice day.--Refrigerador23 (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

locations along SR 3

Why you insist on putting pictures which have nothing to do with a road inside a road category, I do not know. But I have made categories for them which make some vague sense. Don't you understand that someone looking in a category about a road has zero interest in seeing a picture of some building? Either just keep them out, or put them in a category where they sort-of make sense. Famartin (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's just stupid

Really? Your only comment is "that's how its done elsewhere so that's how it should be done?". That makes no sense and is totally illogical... that's horrible behavior by an admin. I didn't create state highway categories just so you could populate them with all your stupid building pictures. BTW, if you really want to "unimpose" my system, you have quite a bit of work to do. Famartin (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump discussion

Your name has been mentioned at COM:VP. Bidgee (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Mississippi

I am about to close this discussion as move, if you still object could you please comment there, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Andrzej Augustyński

Hi Nyttend, somehow the template of your DR is not correct and you would also have to inform the other two uploaders. sy --Jotzet (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]