User talk:Mattbuck/Archive6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St Philips Marsh TRSMD MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Porthmadog Harbour railway station MMB 02 Prince.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Sorry
Good day, how you can translate words are on the left navigation bar in my native language
* Main Page (Баш бит) * Welcome ( - ) * Community portal ( Җәмгыять үзәге) * Village pump (-)
Participate (-)
* Upload file (Файлны йөкләү) * Recent changes (Соңгы үзгәртүләр) * Latest files (-) * Random file (-) * Help (ярдәм) * Contact us ( * Donate (Иганә)
Toolbox (Кораллар)
* What links here (Бирегә нәрсә сылтый) * Related changes (Махсус битләр) * Upload file(Файлны йөкләү) * Special pages (Махсус битләр) * Printable version (Бастыру версиясе) * Permanent link (Даими сылтама) * Cite this page (-) * Subpages (-)
--indicated in parentheses in the Tatar word of them " - " mean that these words are not translated--Ильнар Шайдуллов (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that since I don't speak tatar I honestly have no idea. I'll alert the usability people to your problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Although I have no insight in the ticket I strongly disagree with the undeletion and deleted it per the following. Just look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:REMYA NAMBEESHAN.jpg, there he said "Forums which is using our (Mallu Man Max) images does not own any copyright, This image has been distributed to severl websites, publications[...]It is not restricted by me". He strongly claimed copyright on that image, he does the same with this image. Please open that deleted (other) file REMYA NAMBEESHAN.jpg and have a very close look on the females shoulder and compare it with the file the deletion request sais it comes from [1]. There still is the watermark. This user is able in editing images, but he is not a copyright holder but lied to us. I hoped that this story had an end with the block and that the user made a fresh start with his sockpuppet account - appereantly he tries to do well - I still hope. --Martin H. (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I asked User:Mattbuck to undelete it as it was linked to from an OTRS-ticket #2010091010007699. The ticket contains a valid consent for usage on commons, signed by MallumanMax. If you wish to contest the validity of the ticket, please send a mail to permission-commons and I'll merge it into the original ticket. --Henrik (Talk · Contributions · E-mail)
Some administrative asistance please
Hi Mattbuck, may I please ask you to delete all versions of this file File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach edit 1.jpg, but the current one of course. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Matt! Could you please tell me how long it takes to do it, and if there's any way I could apply for this tool to do it myself with my images only of course?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- About 20s, and since you'll never be an administrator, no you can't. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, is kuiper right, and this does not safe the space? Does it mean that all the files that were ever uploaded to Commons, and then deleted as copyright violations for example, are still taking the disk space? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Quite correct. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry I've bothered you a lot today. I have one more, hopefully last question, please. Is this really such a big problem for Commons, if I upload a few versions of the same file, I mean space wise? Thanks,--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- No problem whatsoever. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry I've bothered you a lot today. I have one more, hopefully last question, please. Is this really such a big problem for Commons, if I upload a few versions of the same file, I mean space wise? Thanks,--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Quite correct. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Matt, is kuiper right, and this does not safe the space? Does it mean that all the files that were ever uploaded to Commons, and then deleted as copyright violations for example, are still taking the disk space? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- About 20s, and since you'll never be an administrator, no you can't. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Wantstime2
Wantstime2 (talk · contribs) needs to lose talk page access too! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I thought I had removed that. Guess not. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've fully protected all the pages in question, can you revdelete? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that MediaWiki itself needs some tweaking to the "established account" code. No-one kosher registers a brand new account, filled with a burning desire to go and edit away in the Template: namespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not unknown. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Aberglaslyn WHR MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Hi. Two of the three "edit warrers" have been blocked for a week, so no reason to keep them protected. Heymid (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Llandudno railway station
Just to let you know I have used Llandudno railway station MMB 02 175112.jpg as a replacement image in this wikipedia article's infobox as the previous image was of a virgin train which no longer operates to this station.Bill Oversixty (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cool. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Conwy Castle MMB 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tal-y-Cafn MMB 02 Afon Conwy.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Llandudno Junction railway station MMB 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Language?
Do you fully understand som of the "English" of some of the people debating Kuiper? I know a number of languages, have taught English, and am pretty versatile, but I honestly do not understand some of it and don't know how to interpret it or argue it. I've seen quite a bit of headstrong writing in "English" by people who don't know English very well, but it's hard to believe, there, that they actually think we know what they mean. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Most, though whether those saying it understand it is another matter. What can I help with? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- One example of several lately: ... when he says he's have it, the case will most probably be watertight at last. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- What he means is that when MGA73 says he thinks there is enough evidence to permablock Kuiper, it will almost certainly be enacted due to the weight of evidence. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hopton Heath railway station MMB 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Just to note, this has now entered voting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bath Spa railway station MMB 15 43127.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bath MMB 17 River Avon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
re
you have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- He can post whatever he wants, but outing will be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 03 221133.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bristol Temple Meads railway station MMB 04 221133.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pilning railway station MMB 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bristol Parkway railway station MMB 18 221137.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Hello!
You gave me the hint on the page of the QIC that a scaled down version would be better and you'd support this. I rescaled it now. A comment of you on candidates page would be nice. Regards, High Contrast (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 11 170507 153333.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 12 323220.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 02 390016 220014 221133.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Paddington railway station MMB 02 332007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Look at the my talk page.
→ User talk:Idh0854. Thank you. --112.162.14.47 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It is do not help, misfeasance(Be not warning.) and again make warrior.
The point is "I can't upload new file, be used wikinew!" :( -- Idh0854(Talk) 11:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Pilning railway station MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Hi! Concerning http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list#October_10.2C_2010. Look here & here: Festuca rubra, but not 100% sure. It is difficult to identify it - also for a biologist, I guess. I would say it is a quality image. What do you say? Regards, --Danny (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm willing to accept it is. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- All right ;-) --Danny (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Revert humor removal
Did you have his approval to do so? Maybe I'm missing something here. ZooFari 23:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Never thought about it. Meh, fine. Shut up Meg. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Delete
I have no idea why my picture has been deleted http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mcfly-London-TomLeishman.jpg
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yate railway station MMB 01 150267.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Image removal
You deleted a series of images that I had uploaded on the Royal Dragoon Guards page. I think that there was a confusion over the licence, I have permission to use all 4 images. One image I took myself (D Sqn sunset), two images a friend of mine took, he has no issue with me using them (Op CERTAIN SHEILD 8 and the tank firing in the desert). The last is a series of capbadges of the RDG Antecedent Regiments and I have permission to use these. The reason that they appear on the official MOD RDG website is that I'm in the Regiment and involved in the organisation and upkeep of the website.
pt556470
- Hi, thanks for contacting me regarding this. I apologise if the deletion was in error, but I hope you will pardon me for saying that we see this sort of thing a lot, and 99% of the time it's people uploading photos to which they have no rights, especially when the images are low resolution as the ones you uploaded were.
- As the images appear to be mixed copyright, and you say you are involved in the upkeep of the website, there are a few ways we could easily verify your authorship. First off, if you were to upload higher resolution versions than the ones on the website, as it's generally safe to assume that he who has the highest resolution version has the original. Alternatively, you could state on the website that the images are published under a suitable free licence ({{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}, {{PD-self}}, etc). The third option is to send an email to the OTRS team, preferably from an email address listed on the website or the webmaster email, stating that you give permission for these images to be uploaded and that you understand the terms under which you release them.
- I'm afraid this is all a little bureaucratic, but unfortunately it's a necessity to cover ourselves against litigious copyright holders. I would like to commend you for these images, the tank and the setting sun is really beautiful, and as you noticed, there don't appear to be many, if any, other images. Thankyou for your contribution, I'm sorry you have to go through these hurdles. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Mattbuck,
Thanks. As you can gather I'm new to this. I'll do as you suggest and upload the higher res images, although The D Sqn CR2 in the sunset is a crop - I took it on a small point and shoot from a moving tank so it does not look great if you enlarge it.
py556470
- That's no problem, I'm sorry we are so paranoid about this stuff, the problem is that if people can't trust that our images are free, then it invalidates the whole point of Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
AN/U
Are you satisfied with the link Adambro added? Kooritza (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies, I read your statement as "Rama is banned from en.wp because X", not "Rama is banned from doing X on en.wp". -mattbuck (Talk) 20:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain this please. "removed North London Line using HotCat"
If you meant that it's not rolling stock of the North London Line, then it needs to have an incorrect description fixed too. Otherwise it ought to remain in either that cat, or at least some sub-cat of it (suggestions welcome).
Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, missed that. Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Trains by line
That's a useful little template you've got - it's certainly saving me some typing! I've just about finished Reading to Taunton and I'll be back to the Heart of Wessex and Wessex Main Line soon.
But... Your Intercity 125 categories ought to be InterCity 125 for accuracy and consistency. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just sort of going around as the mood takes me. It's quite annoying working out which trains are on HoW vs WML until you reach Westbury. Regarding the C, it will be easy enough to change, I'll put delinker on to it later. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- As regards Taunton to Plymouth, you might want to check out the question about naming at w:WT:UKRAIL about Rreading-Plymouth, Bristol-Taunton, Bristol-Exeter, London-Penzance, Reading-Taunton, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm very aware of this debate; I made my comments years ago. I see it as one long route (no one's proposing to split the WCML, are they?), but I fully understand why Reading-Paddington and Plymouth-Penzance have their own pages.Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Dilton Marsh railway station MMB 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Highley railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yate railway station MMB 09 150279.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yate MMB 02 Cross Country Route.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Please block him
Last SPI showed he controlled the Kàkhvelokákh account: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/K%C3%A0khvelok%C3%A1kh
He was never blocked, nothing happened!
Now he has created a third account to continue to make contentious pov edits: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DrorK
Please block him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Arley railway station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Canley railway station MMB 01 350241.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yate railway station MMB 07 150279.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chelvey MMB 02 Bristol to Exeter Line 150249.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
There is one of these sets. Why does Commons need seven categories to describe it?
Assuming for a moment that there is some OCD-derived justification for making the sub-structure for this class identical to all other classes (a useless and pointless exercise), there's still no reason to not leave those images in the one useful category where they might actually be useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- I categorised them that way for consistency with all other classes, or at least the ones I've done so far. I'll do them all eventually. It's not OCD, it's simply aiming for a categorisation system which works for every train in the country. As for why I removed them, it's generally not a good thing to categorise something in a subcat and its parent. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Patchway railway station MMB 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
QI - Decline
Hello Mattbuck,
you declined my panorama Madenburg. Thank you for your general comment, and thank you very much for the reasons! I am really glad, that someone took the time to show me the flaws in the image. Now I can have a look at the RAWs again. One thing ... I would be glad, if you could tell me what CA means.
Best regards from Friedrichshafen, Lake Constance --Dietrich Krieger (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- CA stands for chromatic aberration - it's when you see halos of colour around things, usually magenta one side and green the other around dark objects on a light background - I noticed it on the post at the right of the picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
BSicons
Hi Mattbuck,
somewhere on commons or en-WP we once agreed upon the fact, that there's no Threshold of originality in creating BSicons (esp. if you just take my design and rotate it by 90° ...)! axpdeHello! 23:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Did we? I licenced it as CC-BY-SA as that was what the original one was licenced as. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Assistance
Hi Matt,
I'm sincerely interested in your help explaining to me how the image File:Sleeping Giant 2010.jpg wound up "too noisy." I'm not arguing that it's not, it's just that I have to do all my work on a laptop and I have a fairly modest camera, so while it looked OK to me when I uploaded, I guess it's not, so I am trying to figure out what I can do to improve the quality of images I take in the future. After you rejected it, I blew it up as big as I could and once it's quite huge for my laptop screen, I do see some pixellation, but not sure what to do about it or how good the resolution has to be to avoid this problem. (You can see extended camera details on the image's page) Most images I take wind up downloading at about 800-1400KB, so not sure if the camera settings are my primary problem or not. (Setting the camera for TIFF images tends to slow it to a crawl, but is that what's needed?) I guess I'm trying to figure out how to get my camera settings where they need to be, how big the image should be prior to cropping, if exporting as jpeg in iPhoto is my problem, etc. I uploaded the photo after some minor color tweaking and made only a small crop, but worked on the whole thing in iPhoto, so I know I'm dealing with relatively primitive tools. Short of dropping $1000 on a digital SLR and assorted software, any tips you can offer? (I learned to shoot photos in the days of film, digital photography is still somewhat mysterious to me.) Montanabw (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- The pixellation was my first bugbear, now taking a closer look I also see that the trees are unsharp. 800kb is quite a small size for QI - most images that come our way are in the 2-4MB range, and usually around 8MP or more (yours only just reached the 2MP limit). The pixellation was easily visible even in thumbnail view - the sky just looks splotchy. I can't say anything about iPhoto, I've never used it, but general tips are to make sure you're shooting at a decent quality (6MP preferably), and that quality options in iPhoto are set to maximum - quality can quickly degrade massively otherwise. Hope this helps. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hm. What I'm trying to figure out is if I have the settings on my camera wrong or if it's the software on the computer. Or if I just need (as opposed to want) a new camera. (Oh Santa...) I do like the camera, it's an Olympus (I'm an Olympus fan -- it's what my old SLR film 35mm was too) The camera is a point and shoot, not a digital SLR, 4.0 megapixels with zoom, I think about 5-6 years old now (so it was kind of hot stuff at the time! LOL!) and the image quality settings are weird, with the manual of little help in explaining photo quality in numerical terms or saying things like "this is the best option for XYZ photos ... my options are TIFF, SHQ, HQ, SQ 1 and SQ 2, each with various pixel resolutions. I know what the TIFF format is on a computer, but if I set it there for the camera, it slows to a screaming crawl between shots. I've messed with different settings, at the moment I'm using HQ 2288 x 1712, which is the middle option in HQ, I can go to 3200 x 2400. If I had any clue how to compare these settings to one another, it would help.
- I guess until Santa wants to grant me a digital SLR, what CAN I do to improve quality with what I have, other than use TIFF and wait 30 seconds between shots?
- I do of course dink around in iPhoto, then export as a jpeg, so plenty of other places where I could be screwing up, but the software end I can at least comprehend. (Unless they make it so idiot-proof that you can't get into settings!) I've tended to upload low-res images to commons in the past because I have a slow internet connection, but have access to faster connections now and would like to do better stuff, so interested in improving. Any tips or thoughts appreciated. (Why can't these things just have shutter speed, f-stops and ISO settings like film ones? Or am I a Luddite??) Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'd try the higher quality setting, not TIFF, but unfortunately point and click cameras aren't designed to take good photos, they're designed to be able to let a complete idiot take reasonable photos - they have a very narrow window of quality available, whereas a good camera can take absolutely atrocious photos, but also very good ones. I'm afraid there's really not that much which can be done about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's the problem, I agree. Does the difference between 2288 x 1712 to 3200 x 2400 help significantly within the same quality setting? I assume that's a pixels setting but not sure if it makes a higher quality photo or just a bigger one (or it that's the same diff). Digital cameras are such an improvement over things like the old point and shoot film cameras that I forget even a real decent one with lots of knobs and fiddly bits still have limitations. I can't seem to find explanations of HQ, SHQ and SQ outside of the Olympus manual with their oversimplistic explanations. Any idea where there is a good digital photography site that can explain them? Montanabw (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, size helps compensate for quality issues somewhat, it's a lot easier to make a high res photo better than a low res one. As for the acronyms, one way to tell might be to set it to each setting in turn and see how many photos it says are left, the lowest is likely to be highest quality. I'm afraid I don't have any knowledge of photography sites, though you could try asking at WP:RD, Wikiproject cameras (I assume one exists) or a suitable flickr group. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. It's a help. I may toss you some future images for comment while I try to decide if I need to talk to Santa... Montanabw (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Maesteg railway station MMB 03 150208.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Maesteg MMB 05 Sunset.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bridgnorth railway station MMB 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 07 221133.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tondu railway station MMB 09 150252.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 10 323214.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! 175005 Newport.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Rede Record Logo
Hi Mattbuck, sorry about the Copyright violation, please tell me which Rede Record-Logo may I use then? There are several in Wikipedia project already in use (pt/en) and I need just one of them. Please answer on my page. Regards Cruks (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Please
Upload it as a deriv - mine is just fine and the way I want it. The histo is pretty full/spread and it is the way the days was. --Herby talk thyme 19:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
TAP Logo
Hi Mattbruck, could you explain me why the TPA Logo has been deleted? This is a logo and has only simple graphic structures with text. Please respond on my page. Regards Cruks (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Westbury railway station MMB 08 150278.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Pieter Kuiper
Over to you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
DELheader
Hi, Mattbuck. Per this, could you move {{DELheader}} to {{DeletionHeader}}. I can't do it because I am not an admin. Thanks! Rehman 00:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
And also {{DELfooter}} to {{DeletionFooter/Old}}. This is because the to-be-old {{DELfooter}} template cannot be transformed to support the new codes; hence has to be archived somehow. And I think this is the best way. Rehman 00:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How do you mean? -mattbuck (Talk) 02:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand that question... The following moves need to be made:
- Template:DELheader → Template:DeletionHeader
- Template:DELfooter → Template:DeletionFooter/Old (a subpage; leaving a redirect)
- I could do it, but the page is protected... Rehman 08:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- So what would go at {{DeletionFooter}}? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- A new template is already existing at that namespace... Rehman 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thy will be
Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thy will be
- A new template is already existing at that namespace... Rehman 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- So what would go at {{DeletionFooter}}? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Mattbuck!
Templates damaged now. You can see it at closed deletion request pages. Please, fix Your contributions.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 16:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please pay attention to double redirects when moving stuff around, especially when they ( {{Delf}} and {{Delh}} ) are in use on 1000s of pages. The moving of those templates caused pretty much all deletion request pages to break. –Krinkletalk
- Dammit, sorry, I checked one DEL template redirected correctly, didn't think to do the other one. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Route maps
Figure you might be a sensible person to ask this. My primary work lately has been playing with OS data to create a glut of maps of the country. One type of map I haven't put much work into yet is route maps for roads and railways. Overview maps like the one to right could be handy for articles on the specific routes, (as well as maps of the network as a whole).
Any suggestions as to good subjects for test maps (I can include station locations too), and thoughts on content? I'm not sure if the one to right is ideal, its hard to follow the A38 in the Midlands; it might work better without the rest of the network displayed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- For railway maps, check out WT:UKRAIL, there was some discussion of this a while back. As for suggestions of what to do, comparisons of the M1/A1 and M4/A4 might be interesting. I'd certainly make the rest of the network less visible, but it's useful to have it there. Content-wise, I think what you have looks decent - I'd shy away from labelling stations as you'll likely find you get none for miles on end, then 10 in the space of a few pixels. Perhaps train operator routemaps might be useful - highlight all routes served by First Great Western for instance. Project Mapping should be useful for that. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, will bring that up at UKRAIL later tomorrow probably. One good thing is my workflow is quite fast now and I can produce plain and unlabelled, maps easily. Once that is created it wouldn't be hard to make a derivative with labels (its getting the data plotted that's time consuming). I'll probably have your 3 suggestions uploaded by the weekend too.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Uploaded File:M4 and A4 routes map.svg and a couple railway maps - see the discussion on UKRAIL. The A4 data needs tidying up but the principle is there.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, will bring that up at UKRAIL later tomorrow probably. One good thing is my workflow is quite fast now and I can produce plain and unlabelled, maps easily. Once that is created it wouldn't be hard to make a derivative with labels (its getting the data plotted that's time consuming). I'll probably have your 3 suggestions uploaded by the weekend too.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Minehead railway station MMB 01 88.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Westbury railway station MMB 02 159002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bridgnorth railway station MMB 07 D1062.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chipping Sodbury MMB 02 primula vulgaris.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tondu railway station MMB 07 150252.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 14 390028 390048.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tondu railway station MMB 10 150252.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tamworth railway station MMB 08 66432.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Pentax K-X
I noticed that you own a Pentax K-X (File:Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 01 390016 220014 323212 221133.jpg), I'm looking at purchasing one of these sometime in the new year and was wondering what your thoughts are of the K-X (Pro, Cons ect). I Currently own a K100D DSLR but it is time to get a replacement and retire the poor old K100D but keep it as a spare.
I have been a Nikon/Canon DSLR fan but never owned one but found that they are good but too expensive, so took the step in getting the K100D (never knew what it was like until I got it) due to the price. I have done everything you shouldn't do to any (D)SLR such as having sea spray/sea water cover the camera, dropping it on pavement (gave it a small dint but that is it), taken over a 200 thousand photos and used in different climates but it still going strong (example), although very worn and may only have a year or so life left. Sorry to ramble, but I'm sure you would treat your DSLR far better then I do but I feel it is time for me to start planning and saving for a replacement DSLR. Bidgee (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have to say I like the K-x - it seems fairly hardy so far, and generally easy to use. There are two criticisms I would level at it - first off, the battery cover can be a bit loose, but that issue seems to have cleared itself up now. Second, it doesn't appear to do red dots in the viewfinder to indicate focus - of if it does, I haven't figured out how to turn them on yet. But otherwise I really have no complaints about it. You'll need a decent size SD card (I have a 16GB) but they're pretty cheap on Amazon. I reckon that for the price it's a pretty good piece of kit. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I have asked for help in here, but nobody answers me. Since it is the first time that I have uploaded a photo, I really don't know if I have done every thing right or not, specially about licensing. Could you please help me? The website which I took the photo from, permits to use the contents of it only if the source (University of Tehran) is mentioned. What shall I do ? *** in FACT *** (contact) 13:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I don't see anything wrong with the licencing, but I'm afraid I have no idea as to why your image is distorted - try asking at COM:VP. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please to not cross-post. Talk at help desk and stay patient. I gave you a first answer there.
- @Matt: he linked a section to high. Commons:Help_desk#License is the correct one. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Mattbuck and Saibo. So if you say the licensing is OK, am I allowed to upload another image from the same source? You see the point is I do not want to do anything wrong. That's why I am not patient, as Saibo said. Regards, *** in FACT *** (contact) 14:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if I can follow your reasoning at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Country_by_month_categories. Does your closure mean anybody can just recreate them and you were simply to lazy to do so? -- Docu at 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I just didn't want to see them speedy deleted again. Many can be populated through templates, so it's probably fairly easy to re-create them. I will look into that later. -- Docu at 10:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
WHY ARE YOU DELITING DECENT IMAGES PLEASE STOP
Why did you nominate m perfectly decent image for deletion whithout any reasonable explanation, you are acting unreasonably please stop acting this way and start to act in a civilised manner Oxyman (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I am not deleting decent images, I nominated ONE for deletion because I thought it was replaceable by similar ones. I find your accusation that I am not acting in a civilised manner to be insulting at best, and I frankly find your use of block capitals to be less civilised than my simple deletion request. If I'd wanted I could have just deleted it, but I didn't want to do so without consultation, so I nominated it. It's how Commons works. I was working through every photo of St Pancras, adding time and camera coding, and came across one which I thought was replaceable and could be deleted as it was blurry. I did delete several other photos for freedom of panorama reasons, but that is on copyright grounds, not quality grounds. Again, I nominated one image. One. Please stop shouting at me over such a small thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Patchway railway station MMB 05 43198.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
This Category should be called Category:British Rail Class 37s in West Coast Railway Company maroon livery or somthing similar. British Rail never painted class 37s in a maroon livery, also you can see the West Coast logo in the full res version of File:37706 at Kings Cross 038.jpg see Category:West Coast Railway Company 212.139.123.155 02:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, I'd still say they're in BR maroon livery, even if not painted by BR. The livery is clearly meant to be the BR one. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thats insane! there never was a BR maroon livery for class 37s as I have said above(I challenge you to find a single image anywhere of a class 37 painted marrooon by BR!). How can it be meant to be a livery that has never existed. If you are claiming that it is the same livery it painted some hydrolic locos like the class 52 then I assume you have not realised that it is significantly darker shade. It does appear though that you cannot admit to making a mistake as you have clearly done here 88.109.15.107 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have proposed a rename of category I do hope that you can accept liveries that actually exist rather then the fantasy you have constructed, though judging by your response above you will be unable to do this 88.109.15.107 21:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- ... You know, if you didn't go off the deep end when people initially disagree with you, you might win more friends. OK, now you've explained I'll accept they're a different livery and move them. But you might want to consider your attitude, and calm down before you start claiming other people are "insane", living in a "fantasy", or "unable to admit to making a mistake". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- You have a point about Staying mellow, I shall try to learn 88.109.15.107 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- ... You know, if you didn't go off the deep end when people initially disagree with you, you might win more friends. OK, now you've explained I'll accept they're a different livery and move them. But you might want to consider your attitude, and calm down before you start claiming other people are "insane", living in a "fantasy", or "unable to admit to making a mistake". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have proposed a rename of category I do hope that you can accept liveries that actually exist rather then the fantasy you have constructed, though judging by your response above you will be unable to do this 88.109.15.107 21:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thats insane! there never was a BR maroon livery for class 37s as I have said above(I challenge you to find a single image anywhere of a class 37 painted marrooon by BR!). How can it be meant to be a livery that has never existed. If you are claiming that it is the same livery it painted some hydrolic locos like the class 52 then I assume you have not realised that it is significantly darker shade. It does appear though that you cannot admit to making a mistake as you have clearly done here 88.109.15.107 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Durston MMB 03 Bridgwater and Taunton Canal.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Westbury railway station MMB 24 47854.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Reading railway station MMB 33 458007 458023.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yatton MMB 15 Bristol to Exeter Line 150121.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Blue ... and grey?
I'm currently working my way up the South Western Main Line and had to create some categories for EMUs in BR blue and grey livery. I was puzzled why there were no other categories for this livery then found that you had created Category:British Rail Class 313s in British Rail blue livery and Category:British Rail Class 317s in British Rail blue livery, although these trains were all in blue and grey. We need to distinguish between the two schemes as some EMUs (such as 4-REPs) and a lot of DMUs were changed from plain blue to blue and grey. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I confess my knowledge of trains is almost entirely post-privatisation, so apologies if I categorised some things wrong. If you can give me some sensible recategorisations, I can easily task delinker to change category names en masse. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've used [[Category:British Rail Class 000s in British Rail blue and grey livery]] for the two that I've created so far. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only 3 images in that cat, and the KGX one looks like it is actually blue rather than blue/grey. Easy enough to move manually. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you mean File:Resting at King's Cross station - geograph.org.uk - 1427194.jpg then this is definitely in blue and grey.
- As a rule of thumb, all EMUs from class 312 upwards were delivered in the two-colour livery until sectorisation, as were the prototype DEMUs that were tested on the Western Region. During the first half of the 1970s cross-country and Inter City MUs were generally blue and grey while suburban and local ones were plain blue. But there were exceptions...
- If you come across any that you're not sure about, let me know where to find them and I'll take a look. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Having thought about it, the IC125 blue livery cats are really just BR blue/grey, so I'll switch those too. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Only 3 images in that cat, and the KGX one looks like it is actually blue rather than blue/grey. Easy enough to move manually. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've used [[Category:British Rail Class 000s in British Rail blue and grey livery]] for the two that I've created so far. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hm?
? ? -- Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- They're already in the Dereham station cat, which is a subcat of MNR. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose. But the first one isn't really representative of Dereham station (it doesn't really show the station) and the second one is sort of representative of the MNR as a whole (being its only major station), so that's why I categorised them under both the main category and the subcategory. Whatever you think is right, though. :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nipple clamps MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Norfolk
As a UK-based administrator interested in railways, any help that you might be able to give to resolve the "Norfolk" problem which I've flagged up here would be much appreciated. Ravenseft (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Duplicate image
File:GMPTE pacer in Cardiff 2000.png (categorised directly into Category:British Rail Class 142, which I think is wrong in its own right) is the same as File:142069 Cardiff Central GMPTE.png. Looks like a bot did the same transfer six months later. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorted. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nice. On a loosely related topic, any idea why File:Castleford railway station - geograph.org.uk - 332898.jpg is only in the main class category rather than the subcats? Alzarian16 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Because I sorted the cats before 30th December when it was uploaded. You can sort them out yourself - I created a few handy templates. {{Ukt}} sorts it nicely. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nice. On a loosely related topic, any idea why File:Castleford railway station - geograph.org.uk - 332898.jpg is only in the main class category rather than the subcats? Alzarian16 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Edit conflict
You edited this file File:Tadorna ferruginea -Pune, Maharashtra, India -flying-8.jpg file about one minute after I uploaded it, thus causing an edit conflict. I would have thought that anyone uploading a file will need at lest 10 minutes to work on it, so please leave more than ten minutes to let people finish thier work. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies, I had no way of knowing if someone else was going to do anything with it, and an edit conflict is hardly the end of the world. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
File:Stallone_2011.jpg
Why did you delete this file ? It was necessary for the article [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_Stallone] because this image is newer - Jackie Chuck (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- And why did you delete One Night poster ??? - Jackie Chuck (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I deleted these files because you don't have the right to release them. You can't simply upload a photo you happened to find online, it needs to be released under a free licence which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, including commercial works and derivatives, without contacting the creator. Unless there is an explicit statement of licencing, you must assume that any photo you find online is all right reserved, and therefore not suitable for Commons. While some non-free images are accepted on Wikipedia (see WP:FU), Commons accepts only images which are free. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
File:Logo perfect lineup.png
Hello, I'm not the creator of the file, but this last gave me the right to publish it with Creative Commmons Licence. What do we do now? Hauref (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Hauref. It would be best if you got the copyright holder to send an email to the OTRS permissions team, however even if such permission is given, I don't really see how the image is within our scope of providing educational materials. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Massage For Relaxation Box Cover
Mattbuck, Why do you keep deleting my box cover? This is my video, which I produced in 1985, and I am the copyright holder. Do you need to see the actual copyright? I can scan it - it's right here on my desk. I appreciate you looking out for copyright violation, but once again, I am the copyright holder, and co-owner at New & Unique Videos here in San Diego. What do I need to do next?
- Hi, apologies if I was somewhat overzealous, but we do get a lot of people here who believe that simply owning a copy of a book gives them the right to upload pictures of it here. I'll undelete the photos for you, but please send an email to our OTRS team stating that you are the copyright holder of the video, preferably with a scan of your proof. I'll tag the pictures as {{OTRS-pending}}, and then when the ticket is reviewed someone from OTRS will confirm it. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Joke?
File:Nottingham railway station MMB 04 66021.jpg The caption on these images reads "According to the visible tank, they contained tea." I'm guessing you're joking here, but is commons the best place for jokes like this? Oxyman (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Meh, it says tea, damned if I know what that means. Change it if you want, but I don't see the occasional brief levity as a bad thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just so you know; The 3 letter code that describes the type of waggon it is (what diagram it is built to) the following is from http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/3-sigs/comscont.htm "Under TOPS three letter identification codes replaced the old telegraphic wagon description codes and they are painted on every vehicle. The first letter of the TOPS code designates the general type of stock, the second the particular type (although some individual codes refer to completely different types of vehicle). The third letter defines the braking system". It wasn't immediately obvious you were joking here given commons is used by many nationalities, but if thats the way you want it I'm not going to change the description. Oxyman (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Westbury railway station MMB 18 158953 47854.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
![[1]](http://i25.tinypic.com/33ol1xz.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 10 390048.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Severn Tunnel Junction railway station MMB 07 66054.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
InterCity liveries
Hi, Currently there is a train in InterCity "Swallow" livery in Category:British Rail Class 43s in InterCity Executive livery, although I accept it's essentially the same livery. meanwhile trains actually in InterCity "Executive" livery have been put in Category:British Rail Class 43s in InterCity black livery a name I have never seen used outside commons. The names I have allways seen used are; InterCity "Executive" livery for the trains branded "InterCity"; InterCity "Swallow" livery for the trains branded "INTERCITY" and with the swallow (obviously); an unbranded version used on mixed trafic locos was called "Mainline" livery, see the gallery on en:InterCity (British Rail), I have told the other person involved and shal now leave allone. best Oxyman (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Kentish Town railway station MMB 08 319435.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
How about you don't delete my stuff?
I uploaded an image that belongs to me, it's my image that I created for my own film and put on my own film's wiki page, and for some reason you felt the need to delete it as a "copyright violation." Reading your talk page, this seems pretty common. Please, leave other people's stuff alone.
- Then if you've read my talk page you know that most of the time people upload stuff they claim is their own when it simply is not. I'm sorry if I deleted something which is actually legitimate, but on this page you only see the 1 time in 50 that I'm wrong, not all the others when my deletion is correct. I'm an admin here, it's my job to make sure that we don't have copyright violations, and we work by the precautionary principle: if in doubt about copyright status, delete, as it can always be undeleted later.
- On a side note, I would like to point out that creating a wikipedia article about your own film violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, and frankly I don't think it meets their general notability guideline either. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
hey asshole
How bout ask me if the picture is mine before flagging it. I own the picture, I'm IN the picture and it's my property. leave it alone and stop being a over zealous douche.
- Hello person who apparently doesn't know how to be civil. I deleted the image because it was a promotional photo of a band, and those are copyrighted by the record label or the band themselves. Further, people who use a band's name as their wikiname tend to be fans who use the account to upload said promotional images to commons when they have no right to release the image under a free licence. I'm sorry if it was actually your photo, but the low resolution makes it seem like a copyright violation. If it truly is your photo, please send an email to the OTRS team who will then undelete the picture when they receive the email. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Move
Hello Mattbuck. Could you move the File:Eva Grimaldi.jpg to File:Eva Grimaldi and Gabriel Garko.jpg? Thank you very much ;-) --RanZag (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done -mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Watford Junction railway station MMB 24 390025.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bridgnorth railway station MMB 08 D1062.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Maesteg railway station MMB 02 150208.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
File deletion warning of Robinsonsmalls.svg
hello there! actually its the original logo of the Robinsons Malls. I hope that you will not delete the image. If you are not convinced, you are free to delete the Robinsonsmalls.svg.
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Guildford Cathedral MMB 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Euston railway station MMB 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Christina_B_finger_masturbation.jpg
Hello Mattbuck, could you please give a valid reason for deletion now? Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Christina_B_finger_masturbation.jpg Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- To keep discussion in one place I have answered you there. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Weird close wrapper Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests
What is it that we wrap a heading line inside a wrapper like {{delh}} so we have one part of the wrapper outside the discussion edit tag. So when someone edits the section they have to someone manage to understand and coordinate to not actually edit at the end of the section but now they have to negotiate the opening of a close wrapper for the next section. Very weird, and not particularly helpful. I would think that the practice of discreet sections would be a good practice, and that the discussion area would be able to be wrapped to give the decision point. We can successfully negotiate that practice at enWS. What am I missing? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the udelh tag goes above the heading so that when the discussion is archived the heading is taken too. They get archived within 24h usually, so it's not a big imposition. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
This image can now be deleted as I have added a bigger size. Apologies for the mis-understanding, I edited the image to fit on the Wiki page.
Did not realised this was not the case.
Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smvseo (talk • contribs)
- No problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
_railway_station_MMB_07_150208.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Maesteg (Ewenny Road) railway station MMB 07 150208.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Clevedon MMB 12 Pier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Проблема с загрузкой изображений
Mattbuck, здравствуй! Я хотела попросить у вас помощи. Я новичок на этом сайте и не совсем понимаю, как правильно добавлять фотографии. Больше 5 мною добавленных фотографий были удалены из-за нарушения авторского права и лицензии. Подробно изучив статью, посвященную лицензиям, я так и не поняла, в чем заключается моя ошибка, поэтому я хотела посоветоваться с профессионалом. Также я хотела заметить, что одна из фотографий была полностью моей собственной работой-но ее опять же удалили. Что нужно делать, если я загружаю фотографии из компьютера, которые когда находила при помощи различных поисковых служб интернета, чтобы они соответствовали нормам авторского права и не нарушали лицензии? (все эти фотографии я загружаю чисто для вставки в статьи в Википедии, посвященные различным музыкантам и исполнителям). С уважением, Crashing Dreams
- Hi Crashing Dreams, please accept my apologies in advance for the translation of this reply. I apologise if I deleted something which was actually own work, the images I saw appeared likely to be copyright violations, so given the several other notices it seemed prudent to delete them. Our policy here (see Commons:Лицензирование) is that you can not upload images which you do not have the right to distribute, reuse and modify. This generally means most images you find on the internet are not acceptable. Own work images are generally fine, barring laws relating to freedom of panorama or other such issues. I hope this helps explain. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Привет сбоями Dreams, пожалуйста, примите мои извинения заранее за перевод этого ответа. Прошу прощения, если я удалил то, что было на самом деле собственной работы, изображения, которые я видел появилась могут быть нарушения авторских прав, поэтому данный ряд других уведомлений казалось разумным, чтобы удалить их. Наша политика здесь (см. Commons:Лицензирование) является то, что вы не можете загрузить изображения, которые вы не имеете права распространять, повторного использования и изменения. Как правило, это означает, что большинство изображений вы найдете на интернет, не принимаются. Собственные изображения работы, как правило, хорошо, за исключением законов, касающихся свободе панорамы или других подобных вопросов. Я надеюсь, что это помогает объяснить. ~ ~ ~ ~
That's all right.
Do you mean, what can upload only one's own work? Very pity, because I don't have photos, what don't search on the World Wide Web. But still, thanks for the help. (Crashing Dreams)
- You can upload other people's work so long as the author of that work has licenced it under an appropriate free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, among other works don't have photos, who interest me. Rather, not have photos, who need for me (Crashing Dreams)
Telnyuk sisters
Hi, Mattbuck!
I`ve upload five pictures of Telnyuk_sisters. It was initiated by mr. Nazar Strygun (user:Na3ar in uk.wikipedia) his is art-director of Telnyuk-project. I inform him (he is a copyright holder) about need to permisse uploading. I hope he or ms. Julia Gorobei (photographier) write message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org very soon. Please, do not delete this and other images. A similiar message I added to User talk:Denniss (he also make warning to me). Thank's for your attention, --Fed4ev (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I see all images are deleted. Maybe you advice me how upload this files without problems?
- Hello Fed4ev. Our policy here is to not allow photos unless we have explicit permission for them. When the OTRS permission is received, it is the work of moments for the images to be undeleted, with no work lost. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. It will be done --Fed4ev (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- hello, as I know, permission was send to OTRS (from mr. Strygun, nstryhun@yahoo.com) today. I hope it`s ok? Do you know about it? How can I be informed about recovery of this file File:Telnyuk_sisters1.jpg and four others?--Fed4ev (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. It`s first time I upload files on WikiCommons and I glad that it was successful --Fed4ev (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- hello, as I know, permission was send to OTRS (from mr. Strygun, nstryhun@yahoo.com) today. I hope it`s ok? Do you know about it? How can I be informed about recovery of this file File:Telnyuk_sisters1.jpg and four others?--Fed4ev (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Clevedon MMB 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 04 220014 323212 221133.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stratford International station MMB 01 395006.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Deletions
Why did you erased my picture? Thanks not doing it, you are disturbing my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UMPS (talk • contribs) 19:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)
Ok, the thing is those books have a creative commos license, so there is no problem to upload them. Sorry but I don't know how to talk directly so I writte here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UMPS (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC) (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Romford railway station MMB 12 321428.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Guildford MMB 03A University of Surrey.jpg
I reached through a timewarp and found this photo taken just after your one, it might keep some QI reviewers happy :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St Pancras railway station MMB 26 406-585.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Finchley Road station MMB 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
File:Federico y Flor de Floricienta
Excuse me, but the file is not a screenshot. is a photo taken by me during a concert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.81.45.113 (talk • contribs)
Great job with Bayes Theorem photo
This is great! I am so happy you found a good picture for the article! In fact, all of your pictures are good. Thanks for doing what you do. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much, it's always nice to get a little praise now and then. I have mixed feelings about that picture, because I took it while at a job interview, but didn't get the job. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This user needs a break :-)
User:Pagu pagli does not seem to understand. Moros y Cristianos 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Figurine-Boy and dog.Porcelan.Made in USSR.1965.
Эта статуэтка сделана в Советском Союзе в 1965 году! Это моя личная собственность и тогда в СССР китайского барахла ещё не было! Эту статуэтку я знаю с детства! Посмотрите фотографию заводского клейма. Это Ленинградский фарфоровый завод .--Andshel (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Westbury railway station MMB 03 159002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tondu railway station MMB 08 150252.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St Pancras railway station MMB 28 406-585.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 14 323204.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Nailsea and Backwell railway station MMB 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Did you decide against your position on Category talk:Fishes? The majority of the children use "fish", and even Category:Fish at Wikipedia points to Category:Fish here. – Adrignola talk 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'd evidently just forgotten about it. I'll task delinker to it. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Birmingham and Euston
When promoting Birmingham New Street Station I erroneously put 'Euston Station' in the Edit summary. Sorry for that. Regarding the image of Euston Station: I see a perspective distortion at the right side (see the humans which should walk upright). If this can be corrected, I'm willing to promote that one too. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- The rotation is intentional, or rather not making it upright in photoshop was intentional - I did try it, but it didn't look as good. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Autonomy
Hi there! I gather from File:Bayes' Theorem MMB 01.jpg that you've been involved with Autonomy in Cambridge. I've got an interview with them in a few weeks, I wondered if you've worked there, and if so how you've found it? Thanks! Mike1024 (t/c) 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Afraid not, I had an interview there but didn't get the job. Not sure I even got any contact at all after the interview actually. Best I can offer is that I was asked to derive the golden ratio. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, Thanks! Mike1024 (t/c) 09:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Birmingham New Street railway station MMB 01 390016 220014 323212 221133.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
talkback
|
Hello, Mattbuck. You have new messages at Tyw7's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
|
--Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also feel free to promote/select any of my pics to be promoted :D --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 12:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Severn Beach railway station MMB 19 143617.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! St Pancras railway station MMB 60.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Grayrigg derailment
Hi Mattbuck. Yes it is a lot of categories, but without them the images don't get to the appropriate meta categories. It might have been an idea to ask me what I was doing and discuss, before simply deleting the lot. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- And why in heaven's name did you delete Category talk:Traffic? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. Wow. Just wow. Seriously, that was a LOT of categories. I'm both impressed and terrified - how the hell did you manage to create 1400 categories like that before anyone noticed?
- Commons is here for our images to be used by others. To do that people need to be able to find our images. What you did made it frankly impossible to do so. For instance, if someone were to look at Problems in Cumbria it would take them about 20 layers of self-containing subcategories before they were able to find an image in there. We do categorise heavily in certain cases, but generally only when it is necessary to keep the number of images in any one category to a manageable number - for instance we have plenty of categories about domestic cats because otherwise we'd have the better part of a million photos of cats of various shapes and sizes. The Grayrigg derailment did not need to be buried under 100 layers of categories about derailments in that particular village - most likely there will never be a derailment there again, and there never was before Grayrigg. As for why I deleted that page you specifically asked about, I ran a program to delete every category you'd created recently, as frankly it was a lot easier than doing it manually. I'm sorry if some legitimate ones got caught along the way. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete this category? I don't find "(Category farmer, holy shit that is a lot of categories)" informative. Please explain.
Why did I not receive any notification that this category was a candidate for deletion?
Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry about that. Per the previous section, I found a user who in the past few weeks had managed to create 1400 categories, almost all completely superfluous. I ran a nuke to remove them all, and unfortunately it did pick up some real ones along the way. I have restored those which seemed reasonable. I did not restore the AUS... category because it had only a single image in it, and so did not seem a worthwhile gesture, thus I just reverted the changes that had been made to the file to put it in the category (reverting to a version from 2 weeks back). If you would like me to restore the category I would be happy to, but I don't really see a lot of point to it currently. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't read the above. Yes, it makes more sense when one reads both your reply and the above. Thank you for the explanation.
- Unless you have a crystal ball that can read my mind, I express no surprise that you "don't really see a lot of point to it". However, yes please, I would like you to restore it - I have "plans", and one day soon I may actually get around to executing them!
- Thanks again for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Why did I not receive any notification that this category was a candidate for deletion? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Because the process of finding the mass tree to nuking it took under 30mins - then there was just a bit of cleanup to be done, undeleting the few legitimate ones. I didn't notify anyone because it didn't seem worthwhile - 99% of the categories were useless. Furthermore you'd never edited the category, so even if I had run something to notify users you wouldn't have got a message. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and Done. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, that all makes sense. Thanks for this explanation too. Perhaps I should just call it a night and go to bed.
- P.S. Thanks for the restoration. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
|
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Guildford MMB 03A University of Surrey.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
This is really all your image --Tony Wills (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks mate. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Shirehampton railway station MMB 13 143617.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
0.1 kilometers
Hi Mattbuck, I noticed your comment at Commons:Village pump#"1,0 kilometers" and just wanted to hint to a related discussion here. Cheers, --ELEKHHT 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Willesden Junction railway station MMB 03 378007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Thanks
Sorry I came off heavy-handed. I like your talkheader!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Photo Bon Jovi
Hello again, Mattbuck) (in advance, sorry for my English, if that) I have a big request to you. I want to upload a several photos, covers from the musical albums of Bon Jovi. But I am afraid that they may again be removed and my page is then blocked, as you once wrote to me. These pictures I need to design one of the pages in Wikipedia. But in the photo library of this site those pictures ,that I need, nay here. And I wanted to ask, if you can don't delete my photos? Crashing Dreams
- Hi Crashing Dreams. You will not be allowed to upload the album covers to Wikimedia Commons, as you are not the copyright holder. Some wikipedias (for instance the English one) allow fair use images in certain circumstances, for instance on pages about albums. However, you would have to upload the covers to that Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, suppose, and then how to upload photos(covers) in Wikipedia?
So I think that I can not add to this site (Wikimedia) none of the files. am I right? Even if he even will be made, for example, using my camera, it will still remove, what I became convinced Crashing Dreams
- If you upload copyrighted album covers, they will be removed, no matter how you create the image of the album cover. If you want to upload images to the wikipedia rather than commons, go to wikipedia and click "upload file" from the toolbox and choose the album cover option if available - at English Wikipedia, this is en:Wikipedia:Upload/Non-free album cover. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Trying to load an image to Wikipedia, I have it still be loaded in Wikimedia. Please, delete it. But please, do not block my page
Crashing Dreams (Talk) 15:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the help) Crashing Dreams (Talk) 16:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cam and Dursley railway station MMB 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Leytonstone High Road railway station MMB 11 172005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Patchway railway station MMB 10 43176.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Hi, I honestly believe that now after User:Saibo has redone my image - keeping the resolution rate & everything is neat, you may easily delete the one in the title; it's obvious that keeping that file will be in vain, as there is a far better crop (with same res) and no one will have reason to use specifically the image with the ugly pole along the left side. Thanks, Cheerz, /Orrling (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Willesden Junction railway station MMB 17 378005.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
Ozge Ulusoy pictures taken by me
Hello, I've a question. Why did you remove the images taken and uploaded to Wikipedia by me. I own those pictures of a public figure -a Turkish top model- and able to use them because they were taken by me so why am I not allowed to upload them to a platform such as Wikipedia? What's wrong and illegal with it? I'd be too pleased if you correct me and help me to upload those pictures in the best way. Have a nice day! --Adrianafan 19:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)}}
- I rather assumed they were copyright violations - one is certainly a professional, posed photographs of the sort you'd find in a magazine. The second also looks professional, and the third most certainly is. When I see a photo like that, especially low resolution ones lacking metadata (as these do) my instinct is that someone has just found a website and downloaded a few - the "self portrait" one is available in many different sizes on many different websites, and that's just from a quick google search. To be perfectly frank, the likelihood of you being the photographer seems low, and even if you were, the copyright would probably rest with whoever commissioned you do take the photos. I will restore the photos and tag them as missing permission. Please send an email to the OTRS team stating that you are the photographer, that you release them, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Have a look at File:Ozge Ulusoy.jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Martin, I have redeleted all three. Adrianafan, if you wish to contest this deletion please take it to COM:UDEL. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, «I own those pictures» might be true, but physical ownership of picture on your harddisc does not mean that you are authorised to replicate the picture. «Because they were taken by me» is not true, and thats the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me Mr. Martin and Mattbuck, am I being charged with lying? I'm a friend of Ms. Ulusoy and have taken (first one using a photograph machine, second with an iPhone) two of the three photographs uploaded by me to Wikipedia. And the other one I've uploaded is taken by a close professional photographer friend of mine. I'm in fashion business and work in the backstages of considerable fashion shows in Turkey, that's why I work with Özge Ulusoy. By the way, she and the other friend of mine let me to upload them. Maybe I couldn't upload them appropriately and that's why I'm having trouble because I'm an amateur user of Wikipedia, have a nice day! --Adrianafan 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you're having trouble here, but we are very strict about copyright - we only accept photos people took themselves, works ineligible for copyright, or ones where we have an explicit permission from the copyright holder to release it under a free licence. And if we have doubts, for instance the image looks professional or appears on a website without any copyright notice, we ask you to use OTRS to provide us with a paper trail. Go to the OTRS page and follow instructions there - they can undelete the images if necessary. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me Mr. Martin and Mattbuck, am I being charged with lying? I'm a friend of Ms. Ulusoy and have taken (first one using a photograph machine, second with an iPhone) two of the three photographs uploaded by me to Wikipedia. And the other one I've uploaded is taken by a close professional photographer friend of mine. I'm in fashion business and work in the backstages of considerable fashion shows in Turkey, that's why I work with Özge Ulusoy. By the way, she and the other friend of mine let me to upload them. Maybe I couldn't upload them appropriately and that's why I'm having trouble because I'm an amateur user of Wikipedia, have a nice day! --Adrianafan 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, «I own those pictures» might be true, but physical ownership of picture on your harddisc does not mean that you are authorised to replicate the picture. «Because they were taken by me» is not true, and thats the problem. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Martin, I have redeleted all three. Adrianafan, if you wish to contest this deletion please take it to COM:UDEL. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:London Paddington railway station FGW Mk3.jpg
|
| This media may be deleted. |
A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:London Paddington railway station FGW Mk3.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 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! |
Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bristol MMB «B0 Richmond Terrace.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|