User talk:OSX/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please assume good faith

Keep cool and assume good faith, I know that it may be frustrating to have a contributor nominate your photo as revenge (such as this) but it will only escalate the drama and likely see you blocked in the long run, something I don't want to see happen. Bidgee (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Toyota Corolla

Why did you removed the category Category:Toyota Corolla from File:Crystal River Seafood, Tallahassee.JPG, File:TA Travel Center, Exit 2, Lowndes County.JPG and File:SGMC Emergency Entrance.JPG. Can you not see the automobile in these photos? Can you not tell that it is a Toyota Corolla? --Mjrmtg (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the cars only make up a tiny part of the image. No one wanting images of the Corolla are going to care about a tiny spec in the corner of the photo showing a blurry Corolla. The fact that these cars are in the photos is incidental; why not categorise them with "sky", "grass", "power poles", "stop signs", and "shrubs" as well, as these are also featured? OSX (talk • contributions) 15:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:1965 Chevrolet C10 Pickup.jpg

Hello!
According to Classicparts.com, "[1965] side emblems are now rectangular shaped with bowtie in left portion and series designation in right portion" (can bee seen here) and "[1966] side emblems are rectangular shaped with bowtie on top and series designation on bottom" (can be seen here).
As the pickup in the file 1965 Chevrolet C10 Pickup.jpg you uploaded has the 1964-66 windshield but none of the 65 or 66 emblems, should we assume it is a 1964 model like this one? If so, can you change or ask for changing the name of the file, so it won't mislead people? Thank you in advance.
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I uploaded the image in question as part of a batch of 1000s by the same Flickr user. I actually know nothing about this truck, so if you feel something needs correcting, I would encourage you to do so. However, VicRoads states this particular car (YQG-056) was manufactured in 1964 (so, could that mean either a 1964 or a 1965 model year?). However, as an American car there is the issue of calendar and model year confusion. As the steering wheel is on the left, I'd say this in a US car imported second-hand to Australia. Therefore we should treat it as a US car and use model years. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 14:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi again.

I uploaded the image in question as part of a batch of 1000s by the same Flickr user. I actually know nothing about this truck [..]

— OSX

Well, I noticed that you make often "charter imports" without much corrections in the descriptions nor categories. It's nice to you to give some works to other wikipedians

After having checked twice the trucks shown in the 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 brochures, I think that if I have to do something then I'll ask for a renaming
Thanks for your answer and for the link to the Australian registration services.
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mercedes CLK class

Hey,

• File:2009 Mercedes CLK Class.jpg

Please have a look at this picture I have taken and see if you like it. If you don't please let me know. I took all the time by following WP:Carpix and looked and analyzed your pics and see if they were at the same quality as the one above. Please have a look at it. If not please immediately reply and i will remove it.

Thanks

Nim

(butting in) It's a good photo, the only suggestion for an improvement that I could think of is to stand a little bit farther away from the car, to minimize lens distortion from using such a wide angle. I certainly don't think that you should delete the photo! Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 06:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I also favour taking photos on cloudy days as the lighting is much better suited to car photography, reducing, glare, shadows and reflections. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Daihatsu SUVs

Are really confusingly named. The F70 and F300 lines are completely different beasts (the F70 being much stronger, bigger, and heavier) but they used all sorts of names completely at random and for both models. I have begun splitting the model names into F70 and F300 ranges. My only concern is that "Taft" was used on the F70 in Indonesia as well, which will require another category reshuffle if a photo of one should pop up... mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been mighty confused about these cars for a long time. I simply don't understand how the Wikipedia articles Daihatsu Rugger and Daihatsu Rocky really work. I take it that one is for the F70 and the other for the F300? If so, what is the reason to divide by generation on both pages as they look that same to me! Are these so-called "second generations" really just facelifts? Also, would a merger be out of the question? I'm sorry for the confusion, but like you said, these Daihatsu SUVs really baffle me. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 06:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The F70 and F300 (completely different vehicles) were sold in Japan as the Rugger and Rocky respectively, but in most of the world the names used were very different. Coming from a continental European perspective, I think of the F70 as the Rocky and the F300 as the Feroza, but I understand that this is not true for all of the world. Second generations were mainly facelifts, although the F70 also received a whole new front suspension. I think of the F300 as a competitor for the Suzuki Vitara, while the F70 is more like a somewhat lighter Land Cruiser 70. Extra confusion is added by Toyota, who marketed the F70 as the "Toyota Blizzard"! mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 07:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. that helps! OSX (talk • contributions) 07:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions to photograph cars

Hey,

What Cameras do you recommend when taking pictures of cars. You have been removing my images because due to low quality. I need to know which camera I should be using and how can I take the best pictures so I can add them to wikipedia without you having to revert or remove them. Please reply as I need help.

My camera is a little Nikon L25 and I DO NOT take pictures on the street because in case I get run over by cars.

Do you have any suggestions?

EurovisionNim 09:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I use a Canon point-and-shoot compact ultra-zoom camera. I think it was around $500 (maybe a little more, I can't remember). In the past I have used the Panasonic equivalent (the current model is called the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ60) However, I am not an expert and do not research digital cameras other than for when I intend to make a purchase of one. I would suggest going to a camera shop and ask them what they would suggest. State that you are taking pictures of landscapes if you don't care to mention it is for taking car photos.

I can't see how you would get run over taking photos in the street. Obviously don't stand in the middle of the road where there is traffic! You should be right if you apply common sense. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will tell Grandma and Grandpa

EurovisionNim 10:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Camry

Thanks for your correction. I confirmed that was the 2014 model: http://www.toyota.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/catalogo_camry_0021.pdf. The one you point to is the U.S. 2015 model year, here in Brazil the 2015 has not been announced yet. Is the Asian version fascia going to look just like the American? Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pictures. It is good to have a cross section of images from as many markets as possible. The one I linked to is actually the Asian facelift model. The US facelift looks like this. They are very different. The Asian facelift gets minor changes—new front fascia and tail lamp lenses; North American versions get all-new body work except for the roof panel I believe (one of the biggest "facelifts" in Toyota's history). Enjoy the rest of your week. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thx for the explanation. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Photos of Proton cars in Australia

Hi OSX, A pleasure to be of acquaintance ! Lately I've taken a great interest in photography, Wikimedia Commons and Flickr. I must say your collection of car photos is among the best, if not THE best on Wikimedia Commons. Big kudos to you man, it must have taken a lot of time and effort. Still, you've release all of your photos to the Public Domain despite all the trouble, you have my utmost respect !

If it's not too much to ask, would it be possible if you could photograph some Proton cars too ? I love your 2 photos of the Proton Wira.

I would be absolutely delighted if you could snap more photos of other Proton models for the Commons ! I understand that they're rare in Australia, and if it's not possible, no worries, I won't bug or trouble you hereafter.

Much thanks, and please keep up the excellent work ! Cheers - Aero777 (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for your very kind message. It is good to know people enjoy viewing my work as it is very time consuming. I am currently not taking any more pictures until I can clear-out my backlog of photos taken between December 2011 and October 2012. Once this is done I will probably resume photographing cars once more. I have gotten a bit tired of editing all the photos and I am finding it difficult to motivate myself to get on with the job so to speak (taking the photos is the easy part).

When I do resume, I will certainly be on the look out for Protons as they are a rarer find in Australia and I have a strong bias for rarer models. Regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 08:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't mention it man, you're most welcomed ! I hope that all of your hard work will pay off one day. It's a shame that society never appreciates the works of great Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributors, only Wikipedia/Wikimedia contributors themselves will understand the sheer amount of sacrifice involved. But I've always believe that one's good deeds are always returned, in one way or another. :)

In any case, everyone needs the odd break, I completely understand your situation. I almost 'lost hope' once myself, but I guess that one's love and passion for his/her work is even harder to quell than a 1-year backlog of photos ! haha Cheers, and thanks once again for your efforts. :) - Aero777 (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi OSX,

Long time no talk ! Haha I'd like to thank you very much for uploading the 6 photos of Proton cars at the 2012 Australian International Motor Show ( two each of the Exora, Prevé and Satria Neo S2000 ). I'm aware that it's been almost 6 months since you've uploaded them, but I still want to extend my gratitude nonetheless !

Thanks again, - Aero777 (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Thanks for the message. Much appreciated :) OSX (talk • contributions) 00:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cats

Hi, Can you please remove the white spaces (' ') at CDL, Thanks --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok done, my apologies for that. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 10:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i mean you should remove the " ". Example:

- {{move cat | Holden VE II Commodore Omega | Holden Commodore (VE II) Omega | Disambiguation as per convention: [[Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categories]]}}
+ {{move cat|Holden VE II Commodore Omega|Holden Commodore (VE II) Omega|Disambiguation as per convention: [[Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categories]]}}

--Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I did a double take on it myself and worked out what you mean after my initial edit: [1]. My apologies for wasting you time. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for helping with category work :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Chevrolet C-10 trucks

Hi!
Could you please be a little bit more careful with the use of the "Chevrolet C-10" category, when using HotCat? This category is only intended for the 1964-1985 Brazilian C-10, but you seem to often put US C/K-Series trucks in it... Thanks for your attention to this point.
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I will take more in care in the future with images related to these categories. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I created the "Chevrolet C-10 (Brazil)" category and added a {{Category redirect|}} to the "Chevrolet C-10" one, so I hope it won't be (too much ) misused.
Regards,
BarnCas (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Busy!!!

You have been doing a lot of work recently! Very nice. I would give you some kind of award but I don't think that would be in your style (nor in mine). mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I have been busy fixing up categories to match Commons:WikiProject Automobiles#Categories. I see you continue to upload the highest-quality car photos here of any contributor! This W124 looks lovely—a great photo of one of my favourite cars. Merry Christmas! OSX (talk • contributions) 03:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It was nice of them to park it on a lawn all alone and at this angle. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 00:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

マツダ・ファミリアのカテゴリー名

日本語で失礼します。先日改名作業を行いましたCategory:Mazda Familia (FA1)・Category:Mazda Familia (FA2)ですが、日本語圏の事情を考慮していないだけでなく、マツダ公式の形式名とも食い違う大きな問題があります。「FA1」および「FA2」が何処から来ている形式名なのか、Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:Mazda Familia (FA1)・Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:Mazda Familia (FA2)で説明して頂きたいと思います。--Taisyo (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Sigma

I am not so sure about the deletion of the admittedly awkward category for the US market "Sigma". What should we call it? This car, the hardtop model of the previous generation Galant, was sold as the Sapporo in Europe and as the Mitsubishi Sigma in North America. Awkward, since both of those names have been used seemingly at random by MMC in various markets over the years. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

HI, I merged the category due to it only containing one image. However, I think "Mitsubishi Sigma (North America)" or "Mitsubishi Sigma (United States)" if not sold in Canada could work, fitting in with Category:Mitsubishi Sigma (Australia). Maybe Category:Mitsubishi Sigma (Mitsubishi Diamante) should be renamed to Category:Mitsubishi Sigma (Europe). OSX (talk • contributions) 15:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure about Canada, it is surprisingly hard to find out anything about our northern neighbours - especially since Google knows that I am not there. I second the renaming of the European Sigma category, this would also help resolve the North American Sigma concerns. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok all done now. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

NZ Car Freak's request

FYI: I've tagged those files for speedy deletion. Please see my talk page for details. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC) ...and now they're gone. De728631 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves

Hello, Please sign (--~~~~ your requests. See instructions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Nuisance Category:Rover_P4

Hi OSX, did you truly have no idea of the nuisance you have created and repeated? Eddaido (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really. What I see is thousands of new images available to the project that will take a little while to get into the exact categories. For some vehicles, I am not familiar enough with them to know the exact category. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? Not one of those Rover images could be wanted by anyone but the owner of the vehicle concerned. Perhaps one of the Pininfarina car as a record. Maybe you did not understand that Flickr is combed all the time by eager Wikimedia reps looking for the desirable or informative. Accordingly what remains in Flickr is very new or is pure dross which you have gathered up in vast bulk in a momentary misguided burst of enthusiasm. Surely an editor of your standing can organise some way to solve this.

why have this image in Wikimedia?

what is to be done about cases like this where the file name is so hopelessly wrong?

I see something has been done about that page. Why would an encyclopaedia keep a picture of a rotted Rover with a dingo on its roof? Well OK maybe it says something about dingos? Thanks for doing something about it though I'm not clear what it was! Regards from simple-minded unhappy Eddaido (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree. We now have more images of this car. How is that a bad thing? Any images that others deem low quality can be nominated for deletion very easily. Go to your preferences, select the tab "gadgets", then look under "Maintenance tools" to tick "AjaxQuickDelete". Then when you load an image not up to standard, click "Nominate for deletion" on the left sidebar. A dialogue box will come up, simply state "low quality". In most cases it will be deleted without question. I do this all the time. FYI, I have nominated the dingo image for you. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I thought Cyclops & Dingo by Riley from Christchurch, New Zealand was funny. I'll get to work on this page shortly (I didn't know or had forgotten about nominate for deletion). Again everyone already wants a photo of their own Daimler / XJ6 or Daimler / Mark II on record and now you have added around 70 more! How can this possibly be a good thing for the project?

You ask how is this a bad thing? Well, you have to wade through an awful lot of total rubbish to find anything useful — do you ever try to make use of these images? They have always been available to the project, you just proved it in the crudest possible way. It is like some upload 120 very slightly different technically superb shots of the same undistinguished vehicle. I suppose those vehicles were in museum condition but this too is a form of overkill isn't it? Killing is the right kind of terminology, causing to sink by overloading provides the same message and it is overloading with rubbish. Its like some new curator at the Art Gallery of NSW decided that all NSW residents (even those arrived this morning from Auckland) had a right to have all their daubs hung there for public delectation. Taxpayers will have to pay for the (Royal!) Botanic Gardens to be covered with multi-story buildings to house them all.

Discrimination, OSX, can be a very good thing. Sorry if I go on a bit but . . ..

Hah, nominations for deletion. Great. Cheering up, Eddaido (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrectly named images can be renamed, see Commons:File renaming. I have corrected the example provided. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"The function is only available to administrators and file movers" it says on Commons:file renaming. Eddaido (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Requests to become a filemover are listed at Commons:Requests for rights#Filemover. I am sure if you apply you will be granted file mover rights. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation

Hello. Is it so difficult to categorise? (one example) --Cjp24 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

File redirects

Hi,

Do not blank file redirects - I will restore any that are deleted unless the redirect is actively misleading. There is no reason to delete these files in such cases, and potential harm can result.

If you continue to blank them and tag them incorrectly with {{Speedy}} I raise your actions at the AN.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bull-Doser

He might need a hand (never thought I'd suggest that), see here. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. While the photos are bad, he's no thief. I'm on to it now. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers, things are not looking good for him... it seems a witch hunt has began. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Crazy. I opened a request for more eyes on this here, but I am not sure that it will be any help. If you think it might be better to just stick to the DR entry then I will stick to that. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 01:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, this is great. Thank you for posting elsewhere, I think more eyes need to be onto this case. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it seemed that the first sets of eyes were quite willing to look again. Good admin, I'd vote for reelection. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it was very good of Hedwig in Washington so remove the block. However, our job is still not done as we still have the main discussion surrounding his photos to finish. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems not to be a problem. The deletion debate might actually be very useful, should something like this pop up again in fifty years when we are all dead and gone. On a similar matter, I have uploaded a few photos taken by my dad, uncle, and mother (with their permission, naturally). Should I force them to go through the OTRS process? I can't imagine having to explain this kind of email exchange to my dad; he is happy to give his photos away but present him with all of that legal looking stuff and he will buck wildly... And my uncle doesn't really speak English, so that could also be fun. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: I agree. If you have permission from a family member to upload, there should be no debate. You'd have to be extremely unlucky for a family member to get upset about you uploading a photo of a car they took to Wiki Commons and for them to not fully realise the extent of what Creative Commons licensing means. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Also, I too worry about someone deleting my photos en masse well into the future. I therefore disclose as much information as possible (including exact EXIF date taken, EXIF geocoding so you could make a map of where I have been and use Google Street View to verify the locations based on the background, etc), full public domain licencing, and I ensure I upload a photo at Commons first before I upload it at Flickr. I don't want any issues later on when I'm not around to defend myself. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well we all should worry if others think that using EXIF to base everything on the type of equipment used makes it a solid argument for grounds that the uploads are copyright violations. Really it should be used as part of any evidence that proves it, not suggests it. Bidgee (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I just want to be as careful as possible. Some of the editors here can be overzealous at times in exercising their best impersonation of Sherlock Holmes. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks OSX. For the record I reported the block on Com:ANU#Unjustified block. @Mr.choppers: Technically yes, practically, well... --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I hope you do not get into trouble because of that! You are correct in stating that it worked. If I was an outsider in your shoes, I could have easily made the same error. It would take days to go through BD's complete history for full context. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

File:1995-1997 Toyota Camry (SXV10R) CSi station wagon 04.jpg

Once I closed your more than two hundred requests for deletion of your own uploads and I think, that I understand, what kind of photos you nominate for deletion. This photo is also such. If you think, that the photo is bad, then I can delete it. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo. Thank you for your message. It is true that I have been nominating my older circa 2008 images taken with a cheap Nokia camera phone for deletion. However, I only do this once better photo(s) of the same car exist of the same trim/year range. Rarely are the photos taken by my old Nokia phone any good. Once I have photographed a better example of a 1995–1997 Toyota Camry (SXV10R) CSi station wagon I will likely nominate it for deletion. Best regards, OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Infringements

Hi OS X. Don't know if you noticed this and the recommendation to contact a photographer so here I am because at least one of the pictures is yours.

http://www.dlocaustralia.org/registers/dj-range/

Would you be able to contact the organisation concerned in Springwood NSW? I cannot cause troubles as I have a good association with some of the prominent members which I need to preserve for WP. In spite of requests not one of their members has ever allowed WP/WM to use one of their photos which I feel quite strongly about that but needs must stay silent though more than a little p'ed off to make the discovery.

Main page

Regards, Eddaido (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as my photos are released into the public domain, there is no actual infringement. I have no problem with other people using my photos for any purpose. Thank you for the heads-up nonetheless. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Some people have all the answers. I've just talked to Ian Johnson who made friendly and obliging noises though he is currently overseas and may not get it done instantly and I'll keep an eye on developments. Eddaido (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think I have been unfair to Eddaido?

OSX,

I have recently had a disagreement with Eddaido regarding categorization on Commons, specifically the relationship of Category:Alvis 12/75 in the ZeitHaus to Category:Alvis 12/75. From my perspective, the matter in dispute appears to be a simple case of properly applying the Commons:OVERCAT policy. Because of your experience regarding automobile-related categorization, I greatly value your perspective and (in this situation) your neutrality. In your opinion, do you think that I have either been unfair to Eddaido in this discussion or am in the wrong regarding my interpretation of Commons policy? Thanks so much for considering my request. All the best!

Michael Barera (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Automobiles in Maldonado Department

Hi, OSX! I hope that you like the car photos I took last Saturday. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Great photos! I have added a couple to the en.wiki pages. Thanks for sharing these ones. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cat removal

Can you explain this edit? The category presumably refers to the car at center. Are you saying that it is a misidentification, or that there is no reason for a category for this car, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

As per COM:CAT, it is advisable to stick to the "main subject" and "noteworthy features of the image" when categorising photos. The cars found incidentally in pictures of streetscapes are not noteworthy. In this case, the noteworthy feature is the art on the cars, but not the cars themselves, which only make up a small part of the photo and do not represent a stock configuration.

The photo illustrates the subject of art cars very well. However, I do not believe it to be very useful at illustrating Kia Rio (DC) automobiles which the image is also categorised in because it contains a glimpse of the said vehicle in an unrepresentative condition.

If it bothers you to have these cars as "unidentified" so to speak (because there is not a category to specify exactly what they are), then Commons is better served by using annotations on the image itself or by placing a note in the description. Placing such images in the actual car categories is not very useful because those looking for pictures of Kia Rios are not going to find this example particularly useful. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not the one who put the category there, but I think with any decent picture of an art car it's worth having the make & model as a category. I don't see any other way someone could sanely track down images of art cars of a particular make & model. There isn't really a "main subject" of the photo, but this car is front and center, as "main" as anything in it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the car is the main subject, but it is the car in its artistic form, not as a conventional car would look. In reality, the Kia Rio is like a mannequin for the art. No one looking for photos of Kia Rios is going to find this image useful, the main subject is artwork. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverts in closed deletion requests

Hi, could you explain your reverts in allready closed deletion discussions like this, this, this and this edit?--Wdwd (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

See also here. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the closing note, "no rationale for deletion" is invalid, which is completely false. I had stated "low quality file", which correlates with Commons:Deletion policy#Redundant/bad quality. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Linkrot

Stop attempting to create linkrot by deleting filenames: it's intentional, not a bug, that the software creates a redirect when a page is moved. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend. I have been told by admins that it is okay to delete redirects that are recently created and that are misleading. If the redirect has the year as 2006 and the actual year as 2008, this is completely misleading. These files only existed at the old names for 2 days. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:OSX. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I have responded there. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits to User talk:Bull-Doser (1 Feb 2016 12:03 to 12:17)

Hi there,

Could you please clarify what you did to Bull-Doser's talk page with the set of edits from 12:03 to 12:17 on 1 Feb 2016?

In particular, there were a set of 107 auto-notification edits (here) that were immediately reverted (here) and a further removal of some older notifications.

I appreciate that there may have been a good reason for it, but if so, the edit summaries don't make this clear at all. Has this material been archived?

All the best,

Ubcule (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A whole bunch of files that I nominated this week had broken automated warning messages posted to Bull-Doser's talk page. These messages were of no value as they were complete gibberish. I therefore deleted them along with a few other old nomination notices from me only (not others users). This was done to make the page more readable and to show more of the relevant information. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the auto-generated warning messages didn't come out correctly. I'm not sure of the legality of users removing their own comments from another's page, though, even if they were boilerplate that's likely to have been acted upon by then.

More seriously, removing the flawed notices without putting anything in their place is unfair on Bull-Doser as- regardless of how he's (not) responded to these notices in the past and how he will (likely not) respond to them in future- he's still entitled to know about possible deletions of materials he's uploaded. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you sought assistance via the usual channels in such cases where you're not sure what the problem (or solution) is.

FWIW, I had originally intended doing that too, but noticed that the warning I got when I tried editing meant that the problem was due to too many templates on the one page and was able to fix it myself by archiving the existing content prior to the problem templates (which going by his activity I assume he's had the chance to read). This has let the newer templates show correctly on the main talk page.

If this happens again, you can archive the parts of the existing content that he's likely to have already seen as described here.

Ubcule (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to retain that many deletion notices? Surely we are better off without them? History shows he never even bothers responding. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree, but I don't think it's for us to start taking that sort of thing into our own hands. He (she?) knows about the problem and has been given reasonable notice of each case.

(It's just a bit unfortunate that the automated tools don't bundle- or make it easy to bundle- consecutive such nominations together into a single notification.)

I felt entitled to archive his talk page because it was necessary for other users to continue communicating with him (due to the problem mentioned above) and it was the standard way of doing things. Ubcule (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Austin Metropolitan

Hello, I'm contacting you because of the two files "Moskvitch & Skoda line-up (8122646217).jpg" and "Moskvitch & Skoda line-up (8122648079).jpg" that you categorized as "Austin Metropolitan". I can't find a Metropolitan (nor any other Austin) on those images - just two Moskvitch and three Skoda. Was it a mistake? Kind regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I probably clicked on those images accidently when batch categorising Andrew Bone's Flickr files. I apologise for this. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes do happen. I just wanted to contact you before re-categorizing. I just put the images in the proper categories (Moskvich 427, Moskvich 2140 and Skoda MB1000). Regards, --Purzelbier (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Bone

...has uploaded a bunch more jewels. I don't have much time, put up a Variomatic image but I gots to run. Cheers, get to work... mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, done. See Category:Photographs by Andrew Bone. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Super! Thanks for the effort. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Holden bodies

Do you think there should be a category for cars with Holden bodies? I mean General Motors cars that were given bodies with shapes that were unique to Australia, Vauxhalls, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles, Buicks - almost the lot of them before 1950. What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this as all. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 03:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. Will start. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

AWB

I've added you to the AWB checkpage, so you can now use AWB here on Commons. INeverCry 16:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with licensing

Hey, can you help me identify the licensw of this photo. If it is a free image or fair image?
acagastya  📷 06:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it is not compatible with for the Commons as it is marked "NC" (for non-commercial). Thanks. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

But is it a 'fair use' media?
acagastya  📷 06:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm just explaining how the rules work. I don't make them. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to know if it can used under 'fair use' so that I could upload it locally on the sister project.
acagastya  📷 11:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure about the legalities. You would need to ask someone with more experience about the matter. Thanks, OSX (talk • contributions) 12:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Is a Škoda Octavia hatchback or sedan (saloon)?

Hello, I'm apologised that the Škoda Octavia may be a hatchback or sedan (saloon), due to articulated liftgate (long, notchback-styled boot). What do you think that it may be a sedan or hatchback? Allo002 (talk) 19:16, 09 Sep 2016 (CEST)

Hi Allo002, the Octavia is a hatchback. Shape is not the determining factor for differentiating a sedan and hatchback; it is where the boot/trunk is hinged. Sedans have their boot/trunks hinged at the base of the rear window. Hatchback are hinged above the rear window. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there are any cars whose domestic (local) markets doesn't exist?

Several cars with Japanese and South Korean badges are mostly intended exclusively for international export, and never being sold at the home markets, most notably being various Toyota vehicles, Nissan Navara, Infiniti QX70, Lexus LX, Honda Pilot, Mazda CX-9, Hyundai i10 etc. There may be cars which have been exported back home such as Toyota Avensis and so on. These cars surely not being related with either Japanese nor South Korean cultures, and also it can't be any prides of aforementioned countries. Example of this: File:Kia Ceed Taxi, Reykjavík.jpg Any suggestions? Allo002 (talk) 19:16, 09 Sep 2016 (CEST)

Sorry, I am confused as to what you are trying to ask of me. Can you please restate your question so it is more explicit? OSX (talk • contributions) 16:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Images

Hi OSX, the owner of the white Falcon wagon in this image:

(File:2005_Ford_Falcon_(BA_II)_XT_station_wagon_(2015-05-29)_01.jpg)

and one other has requested that the images be deleted and /or stripped of identifying information such as GPS coordinates, registration, chassis number etc ... Thank you wd — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 120.21.149.147 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi OSX, You don't have to but would you like to categorize all these images in this category?, If so I'll move the category to your name, If not I'll speedy all of the images, I've not sorted the images yet and I'm not going to waste my time categorizing them if most are copyvios (in all fairness most may not be but you know more about his images than me),
Thanks (and again thanks for spotting these copyvios!) :), –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Davey, I'd be happy too. I'd also happily do Jeremy's as well. Cheers, OSX (talk • contributions) 15:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi OSX, Oh wow you sir are a legend!, Thank you so much!,

I've moved the categories (and files) to Category:OSX/James/30474136@N07 album and Category:OSX/Jeremy/126433814@N04 album,

Had it not been for the copyvio crap I would've done them myself however you know what's a copyvio here and what isn't but anyway thanks again :), ::Obviously from hereon in I'll leave that Flickr uploads well alone!, Thanks again for your help, –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi OSX, Thank you so so much for kindly doing these for me, It's extremely appareciated it really is, I was going to do them myself at somepoint however you know what's a copyvio and what isn't but anyway thank you for your help in categorizing and sorting them for me - it's extremely appreciated :), Have a great day :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. And thank you very much for the barnstar :) OSX (talk • contributions) 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You're more than welcome :), As stupid as this sounds I actually wanna buy you a beer and I'm not even joking!, But anyway thank you so so much :), Right I'll fuck off now as sounding like a broken record!, Have a great day, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Toys

Hi, don't do this again. If you think this is eligible for deletion, then use a regular DR instead. Your last block expired over a month ago, don't put yourself at risk of a new block. Jcb (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sorry Jcb. I was not aware that speedy deletion was inappropriate in this case. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominating redirects for speedy deletion

Dear OŜ,

Please don't nominate redirects for deletion after you renamed a file. This creates an unneded extra workflow for admins and if we delete such redirects we can break external usage off the images like via instantcommons. Or we can break links to the source file when someone uses an image. Natuur12 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

AN/U

Dear OSX,

Please see here. Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Despite the fact that you are 'retired', I feel the need to make this explicit for future reference, since you were threatening to retire when warned about the same issue five years ago...

If you nominate a redirect for speedy deletion, when the file was at the previous name for more than a 'short period' (a week or two) you will be indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing after warnings. You were notified that this behavior was unacceptable as far back as 2011, and probably earlier, and were told again in August of 2015. 'Retiring' for a few months is not going to make it okay again. Revent^talk 06:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:1996-1998 Toyota Camry (V40) sedan (2008-06-07).jpg

File:1996-1998 Toyota Camry (V40) sedan (2008-06-07).jpg is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified: This file is a duplicate of the following files: File:File:Toyota Camry 1996.jpg. If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted). All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log. If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Revent^talk 06:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)