User talk:Skeezix1000/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Re People of Black African descent

I invite you to initiate a projectpage for discarding the continent scheme. I'm sorry that you feel you're being given grief. Wikipedia is to me more important than avoiding stepping on your toe as my colleague, still; but I'll improve on that one. Orrlingtalk 16:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Global March for Syria Montreal Quebec Canada.jpg

File:Global March for Syria Montreal Quebec Canada.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Polarlys (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Template MM

Hi, Just a technical question. In Template:MM/en, in the link for the url, you appended a suffix "&section=196". But the links seem to work as well without this addition. So I was wondering, what is the use of this suffix? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the delay in responding - I have been taking a break over the holidays. The simple answer is: I have no idea. That might have been the url way back when I created MM. Maybe I accessed the McCord website in an unusual manner, and got a non-standard url. I don't know. Feel free to update the template. Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Murphy Gamble 1940.jpg

File:Murphy Gamble 1940.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Dcoetzee (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sculptures in Munich|*Statues

Thanks for removing my accidental error. --I. Berger (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

---

Delivered by Orbot1 (talk) at 10:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC) - you are receiving this message because you voted last year

Hello, Skeezix1000. You have new messages at File talk:Actor Jose Ferrer in costume at Maple Leaf Gardens.jpg. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rrburke (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Château Frontenac vers années 1900.jpg

Hi,

Two things about this.

When I uploaded this file, in 2009, the source at BAnQ did not have much information about the origin of the photo. And, back then, I was not familiar with the works of the Neurdein or with their trademark "ND Phot", so I could not fill on my own the information that BAnQ was missing on its source at that time. I assumed it was a Canadian photo and I put the PD-Canada tag. I became more familiar with the Neurdein's works while doing research on other photos first in 2010 and then again in 2012 . In the meantime, I had forgotten about that 2009 upload. Now, today, while categorising another photo, I happened by coincidence to look at this file and realised that I now had more information than in 2009, and I could now make its description page more accurate. Also, I found that BAnQ has a better description on this page than it had in its other source I had used in 2009. So, now that the file can be attributed to the Neurdein, and considering that their works were published in France, it seemed proper to add the relevant template for such works, in this case a variant of PD-old, as we can now consider that the source country is France, not Canada as I had previously thought in 2009. However, I suppose my mistake this time, today, was to not remove the PD-Canada template. I had left it on the page today because I thought it could still be useful as an additional information for people who might want to use the photo in Canada, as it shows a scene of Canada. That explains why I had relegated that template to the third place, as it had become accessory, after the two required templates, the U.S.-related one and the source-country-related one. But now, from your comment, I see that leaving the template PD-Canada can be confusing because it starts with the words "This Canadian work...". So, I suppose the best thing to do will be simply to remove the template PD-Canada from the description page.

The other thing in your comment is about the respective order of the status templates in general, when you suggest "always place source country template first -- that's the first step on any copyright analysis on the Commons". It's not that that's especially important, but I happen to disagree. It can be the first step only in cases requiring, for example, PD-1996. It's certainly not the first step in any analysis, for example in cases of PD-1923, which quickly solves the U.S. status and is independent of the source-country status. Actually, when ordering the templates on the page, a case could be made that it is logical to put in first place the template that must always be present on every file without exception and that tells the actual legal status of the file on Commons, i.e. the U.S.-related template. And then, in second place, to put the template that is there only for some files and that is there to satisfy the current internal policy of the website, i.e. the country-related template. Anyway, I don't think there is a binding rule or guideline about the respective positions of those templates, so it would be unnecessary for us to really have an argument about that small matter. As long as the correct templates are present, I suppose each user can exercise some artistic freedom and position them according to his best logic or his inspiration of the moment.

-- Asclepias (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for the note. Sorry to have prompted you to write such a lengthy comment. I didn't appreciate what my edit and summary would lead to. :) First, the image was created in Canada. Canada is the source country given that Canada ties copyright for photos of this vintage to creation date. That the photographer was French and the image might later have been published in France does not change that fact in respect of Cdn law, as far as I know. U.S. copyright law treats the source country as the location where an image is first published, but on Commons we are not solely concerned with status in the U.S. We are concerned with the location where copyright first arises. At the end of the day, we need to consider the law in the actual source country, the law in the source country under U.S. law and U.S. law. The PD-CANADA template is not just a nice extra. It's the primary template.

As for template placement, the standard practice is to place the source country template first. The U.S. template, for example, is there merely to reflect the fact that the Commons servers are in the United States. Given that the image is of a scene in Canada likely makes its status in Canada far more relevant to today's Commons user than the implications surrounding the nationality of some long-dead photographer or the legality surrounding Wikimedia's physical operations. Although, at the end of the day I agree with you that it is not an important issue, and I am not going to be fussed in how you choose to place it. I just don't think today's typical user is helped much by listing it last. Hope that helps explain my logic. Please do not remove the template as it is tremendously relevant. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Move

Hello, I am wanting to change or redirect my name to Mr.GoShows, although I don't know how and I hope you know how to redirect or if you can move account to this one, I am wanting a new account title, because I do want to change my userpage, pssword is the same, just want to change to this account name, please.--GoShow (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:El objeto encontrado, serie EL OBSERVADOR OBSERVADO...JPG

Hello,

You closed the DR but didn't delete the image. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Nuit Blanche Toronto 2010 (2).jpg

File:Nuit Blanche Toronto 2010 (2).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Stefan4 (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ships by year built

Would you undelete and redirect this. I would like to look at its edit history. I don't recall the renaming being discussed. --  Docu  at 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me look into it right now. I have absolutely no recollection of deleting it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it appears that I just cleaned up some old move requests at Delinker. That's why I don't remember it. Whew - I started to think I was going nuts, or someone had my password. I will undelete and redirect so that you can review. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

License

So long ago as to be almost irrelevant, but when you made this edit you appear to have clobbered a license. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

How did I even manage to do that?? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No idea. You're one of the people for whom I don't usually check your edits to my images, since they are almost always good, and I didn't see it at the time. You can imagine how surprised I was recently to see it tagged as lacking a license. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious uploads

User:Victoriaedwards has uploaded many files that are claimed as "User created". Because they are of varying quality, from thumbnail to pro, I became a little suspicious. Further investigation shows that mutiple cameras and phones have been used. For example File:Royal Millitary College of Canada band plays @ Paladins hockey game.jpg shows the author in the metadata as "Mike Shewfelt". In addition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_St_Lawrence1.jpg, uploaded to Wikipedia, shows the author as "Base Photo CFB Kingston, Steven McQuaid" and copyright DND. Those seems quite blatant, but many are just dubious, and I don't now how to deal with this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will take a look. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skeezix, I see your point. I am a RMC alumni, who writes for the military college alumni e-journal (weekly) or journal (print). When I travel to Kingston, Saint-Jean or Victoria, I take low res photos and crop them (Paint/cell phone). I don't know how to crop in Wikipedia (although it is a good idea). I tend to update wikipedia, when I get a chance. Since I do not know how to check the history of the photo, I assume (falsely) the photos are mine; My editor, however, has access to multiple cameras e.g. by a cadet (Mike Shewfelt) or professional base photographer (Steven McQuaid). My cropped low res photos look good to me, BTW; Is there a minimum resolution I should achieve? I don't know how to crop within Wiki Commons (good idea though). I know how to replace a photo with one of a higher resolution, but don't know how to delete my photos within Wiki Commons (good idea). Can you advise, especially on the latter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriaedwards (talk • contribs)

Hi, Victoria. I'll respond to you more fully on the weekend when I have a bit more time. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, Victoria - many apologies. Forgot to respond. I will this weekend - it's a long weekend, so hopefully I will have more time than the last one. Cheers, Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

...of Italian descent

hello, if they are to be deleted is fine for me. I didn't add any, simply standardised their name. There were "Argentinian of Italian descent", "American-Italians", "Brazilian Italians" and so, thus I thought it would be fine using the Commons standard that privileges the country name rather than the nationality and put everything on the form "People of [Country] of [Nationality] descent". But as I told, if these categories are redundant or useless, I will make no opposition to their deletion. the only thing I wanted to ensure is that they were named with the same scheme :-) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 17:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. I've let the comments on my talk page add up. I will leave you a more detailed comment shortly. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the categorisation help!

It's great to see someone pitching in to help me sort these out - many thanks! I'll be resuming the uploads tonight, and then probably running them through the weekend with LibraryBot. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's actually an excuse to enjoy looking at the old photographs. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I admit that's part of our reason as well! It's surprising what intriguing material turns up - the nature of the collection is that it's very varied. Let me know if you spot any clear metadata problems, & I can feed it back into our catalogues. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I see you found one of the ones with horrendously racist captions! I think there's three of these that we're aware of - I've pulled together a category at Category:Racism in Canada. I had hoped to fix the captions before uploading, but it seems they slipped into the batch I put up last night. Many apologies for not catching it beforehand, and thanks for setting up the rename! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(Hi)

I apologize. Never was it by any measure an intent to sound insultful. Have become rigid and overrationalized. Especially in the past year. I'm actually quite happy to find out that you, like no many probably, can make a sensitive, noble person besides a orderly dedicated editor. This has one way or the other become less self-obvious . Your attitude makes you a precious partner. Please re-read my discussion comment if you can, but if you ask me I'll re-write it. Orrlingtalk 23:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of you to leave this note. No harm done. I will reread your comment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You wrote that you'd re-read the comment,: nevertheless, now a while afterwards there appears to still be no new response attending the category impediment I was addressling. Taking one's time generously is OK, I guess. But please note that absent of discussion from your side the category will soon need to be re-made to some way. I still believe you do your best for the project. Orrlingtalk 11:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look at it this weekend. Cheers, Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Chapel(s) Royal

Sorry, I had advanced brain fade at around 2 am my time, couldn't think what to do with the top of the category or where to seek help or . . . . so Thanks. You want Chapel Royal to be unused because you think it better that the name (plural) matches that in Wikipedia? regards, Eddaido (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a very good name: fr:Chapelle royale: attracting problems. --Foroa (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Union Railway Depot

I am only here sporadically, so I'm not sure if I'm doing this right -- please bear with me if this isn't the place to leave a message.

On 27 March I uploaded an 1894 architectural drawing for the previous incarnation of Toronto's Union Station. I uploaded the image to wikimedia commons and added it to the "Original Union Station (Toronto)" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Union_Station_%28Toronto%29

Today I went to the "Original Union Station (Toronto)" page, but the architectural drawing I'd uploaded was gone. All that was there was the alt text which appeared to be a link. I clicked on the link, but instead of taking me to the drawing it took me to an upload page. I assumed that meant I had messed up somehow when I uploaded the drawing, so I uploaded it again.

It was only after I was done that I discovered your earlier version of the drawing and the notice of the deletion.

You can probably understand why my version required a fair bit of digital clean-up if you see where it came from: http://archive.org/stream/canadianarchitec02onta#page/n358/mode/1up

Your image may well be cleaner, but I think my resolution is higher. I'll leave it with you to decide if you are going to delete my version of the drawing again. If you do, please ne sure to add your image to the "Original Union Station (Toronto)" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Union_Station_%28Toronto%29

Thanks! Laurelrusswurm (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Laurelrusswurm

You are correct. I am not a graphics person, so they looked like duplicates to me, except yours had not been cleaned up (and everything else being equal, we usually keep the version of a drawing uploaded first, regardless of who uploaded it). I always do check to see if an image is being used before deleting it, but this time I either missed it (or deleted it shortly after you added it to en.wiki as there can be a lag time). Having looked at them again, your upload sufficiently different (other than just clean-up) that we should keep both. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Sorry for any incovenience. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It all depends what you mean by resolution. The source given for the recent upload is actually of a of lower resolution and a lot of the detail missing from this inferior version is clearly shown on the previous one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

a heads-up

In 2011 you participated in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb_(de-adminship 2). That discussion ended with User:Jcb losing his administrator privileges.

This note is to inform you that User:Odder proposed Jcb have unconconditional access to administrator privileges restored.

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Jcb (readmin) is scheduled to close on May 20th.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for being firm and unequivocal in your comments about my behaviour at COM:AN. Geo Swan (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Request that category moves are better documented in edit summary

Hi. I am repeatedly being poked by people not liking category moves, this usually follows my doing a removal or catredirect from the commands page. I am asking all admins who add category moves if they would please look to better document the moves that are being ordered for SieBot. As background, I asked Siebrand if there was a better means to automate the "who ordered" statement, but he is unable to do so, such we are going to need to do this manually. Thanks for your cooperation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tipis

Not sure what you are driving at here with "present-day". It seems to suggest that tipis are something strictly recent, which of course they are not. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could be my own poor wording, but I was simply trying to clarify that tipis long pre-exist the comparatively recent Canada and U.S. borders, i.e. they are a traditional form of housing in the region now known as those two countries. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a crack at fixing it. I won't be offended if you still think it is confusing and copyedit it some more. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I reworded a bit further: might as well be more specific about the geography. Is this OK with you? - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings

Hi! I'm just wondering what's going on with this. Thanks! Hamblin (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have been away, so sorry for my late reply. I will take a look when I have a moment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Hamblin (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:New Orleans Tram stops

Hi. Your further input is welcome at Category_talk:New_Orleans_Tram_stops. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I moved "Category:New Orleans Tram stops" to "Category:Tram stops in New Orleans" per your alternative proposal. I usage of regional terms is a big issue as you say, you might wish to check out other examples like Category:San Diego Trolley stations. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up and taking the initiative - the discussion was just going in circles. Yes, I agree that there are many outliers (and not just for tram stops, but in almost every category tree). But, as I mentioned in the discussion, that's a rationale for a clean-up, not for more deviations. I'm not necessarily opposed to regional variations in some instances, as long as there is a high-level consensus for that particular category tree so that it is done comprehensively rather than as one-offs. Hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've posted this at but am crossposting it here as I would like to explain myself, and try to get some answers, a response would be appreciated. Liamdavies (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologise, but this place gives me right irrits quite often. I fail to see where it says that naming should be consistent, or really any guidelines or policies (or documents at all really) that spell out how categorisation should occur. And yet on one hand we have this situation where a category is given a name other than the rest in it's nest, due to, for lack of a better term, standing orders. While on the other no one bats an eye lid, or does anything at all to help solve the ridiculous mess at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague, where yet again nothing was provided, other than: that's the way we do it. It would be really nice if instead of being told that that's that, someone could at any point link to documentation that explains, why or how something happens in that manner. Yet again, I apologise for being short, but this in so incredibly frustrating, and I would appreciate links to documentation about standing traditions. Liamdavies (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We all get frustrated around here from time to time, so fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your concerns.

As you know, this isn't the English Wikipedia. Over there, everything is spelled out in policies and guidelines. It just doesn't work that way here. We do have some policies, but even the ones we do have are not subject to the same debate and not cited in the same way as over at Wikipedia. Moreover, half of our policies are in a perpetual state of "proposed". In some ways it's a drawback, because one can't always just link to a policy page and say "there you go, now shut up". On the flipside, though, that's a plus in my opinion. Typically, the important policies that get cited here tend to involve licensing and other legal matters.

The reason naming should be consistent is because of the nature of Commons categories. Commons uses categories completely differently than Wikipedia. We are literally categorizing 1,000,000+ files per year - the need for naming standardization is obvious. We have Commons:Naming categories which refers to universality, but I have never myself seen anyone refer to it when arguing for the need for universality. As I said above in my chat with Infrogmation, we don't need to rigidly adhere to universality all the time, but if not there should be some sort of high level consensus on that score (by high level, I don't mean a centralized discussion with hundreds of participants, but rather one that applies to all subcats by location).

I haven't seen the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Trams in Prague, but will take a look.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for both being understand, and trying to explain a little deeper than "cuz". I do appreciate it, but still wish this place had a few more rules, policies may be prescriptive, but are sometimes necessary. At the very least an 'ARBCOM' type body would be highly useful to make executive decisions - relieving the huge backlog at COM:CFD. After about six months a decision should be made - one way or the other - irrespective of arbitrary nature, having CFDs open for almost 4 years is absurd. Yet again, I am truly sorry, and don't mean to hold you - or anyone - responsible, but some times need to vent, sorry (I hope you take no offence, or take this personally, neither are my intention), I also apologise for not being overly civil before.

To a more practical measure, given your concerns (irrespective of personal views), we now have a problem of inconstancy within the New Orleans Streetcar nest, and other North American streetcar/tram networks. How do we move to a consistent category style (and please don't say COM:CFD that seems to be where ideas go to die of boredom)? There are quite a few of both styles, and you are right, one should be adopted. I additionally have a question about how to categorise rollingstock, there are two options:

• 1) TRAM CLASS in CITY
• 2) TRAM CLASS (CITY)

See Category:Kinki Sharyo light rail vehicles in the United States for an example (that I may have created, but only from lack of template); should this be consistent as well? And if so, how does one style get chosen? (I'm guessing you can now start to see my frustration). Kind regards, and thanks in advance for your time. Liamdavies (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Having said that, sorry for not responding sooner.

Yes, COM:CFD can brake to a halt. Not sure that we need an ARBCOM body as much as we need to whip the collective asses of us admins to be doing more to determine consensus/close discussions and/or to help move discussions forward. Will give that more thought.

We do have a inconsistency within the New Orleans Streetcar nest, but consistency is a relative term. Creating consistency within one category tree can cause more inconsistency within the larger category tree.

I do want to respond to your issues more thoughtfully, but I am having an insanely busy week. When I have a quieter moment, I will provide a fuller reply. Cheers, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No rush, we're all volunteers and have lives. I understand, and am just grateful not to be dismissed. In the mean time I'll probably start a CFD soon on US Streetcar cats, but will ping you when posted. Liamdavies (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion please.

Hi, Sorry to bother you, but persistent to my complaints about lack of rules and being given policies that aren't real and told cuz... Could you please have a look at this, and show me why my naming suggestions are reasonably rejected given it is just creating yet more inconstancies. Thanks in advanced. Liamdavies (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Category talk:Monuments and monuments in Busan

You are saying "the category should be Monuments and memorials in Busan", but you are acting "the category is renamed, whatever your opinion". Is this way of doing the way you understand the category 'cooperative behaviour' ? Pldx1 (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure what the issue is. All such categories follow the "Monuments and memorials..." format. This was the result of a consensus here on Commons. I just assumed that was the problem you had identified - your note on the talk page was very unclear. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Slow down

Hi, you closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Presentation of Samsung Galaxy S4 (2013-03-14) 06.jpg incorrectly. You copied the rationale from another DR of mine you closed when you closed this one. However, your rationale for closing does not stand up to scrutiny.

Unclear how this differs from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Krassotkin. Other than the icon, the Ear Spy graphics graphics do not meet the threshold of originality, and the icon is de minimis. Unclear what is meant by the "store layout" (the table top) - in any event, there is nothing copyrightable.

There are no Ear Spy graphics in this image. Instead, there are copyrighted TouchWiz clock/weather widgets. If you look carefully at my deletion request, you will see that I explicitly reference this. My DR does not reference store layout or anything else. The widget problem is very clear, though. You should be more careful when you close these DRs; please revise your closing and delete this file.

Thank you, —Mono 19:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct - I actually typed out a different response for that one (still keep), so not sure how I managed to screw that up and insert the response for the other one. I can amend it (still as a keep). I still don't see how it makes a difference, though, what you are saying about the weather widget. What precise elements are you saying are copyrightable and not de minimis? Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding, and some further explanation would help resolve this. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Exteriors of library buildings?

I noticed you removed Category:Exteriors of library buildings from some images I added it to, which appear to un-controversially depict the exteriors of library buildings. You didn't mention any reason in your edit summary. Could you clarify why you removed the category? Thanks for your work at Commons. JesseW (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. I believe I only removed it from one image. I'm not convinced there is much value in Category:Exteriors of library buildings. Of all of our library photos on Commons, 90%+ are of exteriors (I'm being conservative - I suspect the % is probably higher). By including images of all library interiors in Category:Exteriors of library buildings, we are simply inviting the creation of what is effectively a parallel/duplicate category structure to Category:Libraries (Category:Exteriors of library buildings will inevitably be divided by country, city, library type, etc. etc.). That doesn't help Commons users looking for media - it just creates another unnecessary level of categorization. Having said that, where there is a category pertaining to a specific library containing many images, and such category is broken down into "Interiors of Library ABC" and "Exteriors of Library ABC", Category:Exteriors of library buildings is potentially a parent category to the latter. But that's the one limited use I would support. In any event, you can ignore me if you want. I'd be interested in your thoughts. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. I do think the distinction between interior and exterior shots is a useful one -- but if you are correct about the ratio, Interiors of libraries would probably be a better category. I'll go and look at what the existing category tree looks in that area, and we can discuss further. JesseW (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the other similar categories (of which there are lots and lots) they are generally specific to a particular building, with its category as their only parent. There is one other subject specific one, Category:Church_exteriors which has spawned a bunch of subcategories. I think you are probably right -- we should mark the library one as a {{Metacat}} and remove the individual pictures. Thanks for the discussion! JesseW (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Craigellachie

Craigellachie has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Child planting at tree in an Ottawa suburb to celebrate Canada's Centennial.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Child planting at tree in an Ottawa suburb to celebrate Canada's Centennial.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:CNE_Government_Building

CNE Government Building has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Nick Moreau (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:CNE_Press_Building

CNE Press Building has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Nick Moreau (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tobermory

I don't understand your comment here "inappropriate to move the category until the CFD has wound up". Nobody moved the category but you! You've just moved dozens of files and several sub-categories to the Category:Tobermory, Mull from Category:Tobermory. So it seems like you've prejudiced the debate with your own decision. For years the Category:Tobermory, Mull was used by about five images whereas the Category:Tobermory was widely used. Please revert back until the debate has finished. Colin (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. First, how was anyone expected to know what the state of affairs given that you'd already set things up the way you wanted and gave no background in the CFD? Second, didn't you already prejudice the discussion by emptying out Category:Tobermory, Mull and creating Category:Tobermory (disambiguation)? I'm happy to sort it all out, but I am not really keen to be lectured to. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't "set things up the way I wanted". I haven't moved any categories at all. So why are you talking about "revert"? There were a handful of files in the "Tobermory, Mull" category but dozens and dozens in the "Tobermory" category. I moved those few files out of the neglected category but then realised I didn't have the tools to delete it. Multichill said we needed disambiguation so I created one per the example for Dundee. Now today you've moved all the files to the "Tobermory, Mull" category and turned "Tobermory" into a dab. Your comment in the debate was lecturing me about not prejudicing things when in fact you were mistaken about moves and you have now prejudiced things by moving loads of files into the category you perhaps think is right. BTW, I've opened a move discussion on the en.wp page because it is clearly at the wrong name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Colin (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Jeez. You emptied out a category, didn't explain what you'd done, I made an incorrect assumption, and now instead of a friendly note telling me that I was mistaken, you're going on about how I have prejudiced something or other (and misunderstanding how I used the word prejudice in my note, which was in the opposite sense and meant to be helpful to you). Please assume some good faith in others and that they are not out to get you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The thing you must appreciate is I'm not an expert Commons user and not an admin. I've tried reading the Commons policy on the things and they are crap. Commons has no policy on disambiguation and its policy on category naming isn't official and rudimentary and largely seems to defer to en:wp. I think you are reacting badly to criticism of your mistake, that's all. This isn't a big deal. My note wasn't unfriendly, just pointing out your mistake. I do assume good faith and haven't assumed anyone is out to get me. Whatever gave you that idea? I don't even care much which way the move goes (but think commons guidelines need improving). Look, there's no reason for us to fall out over this. I'm the beginner, you're the admin. I expect you to do your homework before acting and to accept criticism. As for me accepting criticism: I "emptied out" (i.e. moved a handful of images) the "Tobermory, Mull" category in good faith -- you seem to be the one thinking I was doing that in bad faith. I'll know not to do that in future. Now, let's chill. Colin (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't assume that you acted in bad faith, and I am sorry if I gave you that impression. My comments about the emptying of the category had everything to do with the fact that it was hard to tell what-was-what, not that you had done anything inappropriate. Generally, it's a good reminder for all of us (me included) that we should be extra careful not to give the wrong impression or to inadvertently admonish others. My initial response to your note was admittedly confusing, as I ought not to have turned the suggestion of prejudicing the discussion back on you. I have no problems admitting to mistakes, and am generally happy do so, but I took issue with being accused of somehow trying to prejudice the CFD and for not knowing something that wasn't apparent from the category edit histories. But I am glad to hear that you do not take issue with those things. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

pied-du-courant prison

Is it more proper to call it Patriotes-au-Pied-du-Courant Prison, or is Category:Pied-du-Courant Prison more acceptable? Je ne sais pas. Fungus Guy (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Moi je ne sais pas non plus. I lean towards the latter, because I think that's probably the more common name, but I am not fussed if you want to change it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Jane's Walk in India and your reverts

Hi, as argumented some minutes ago, thank you for using >meaningful categories<, as you argumented before after your 'undo' within four minutes. As pointed before, according to "Jane's Walk" it's categorized as "Activism" and not "Events". Therefore it was imho also absolutely no need to quasi-revert, again within a handful minutes :-( Regards, Roland zh

Roland, it's an event in India. The fact that you believe it also belongs in an activism category is fine (it's actually a neighbourhood educational walk), but it is also an event, and the event and activism categories are not mutually exclusive. There is no good reason why an event should not be categorized in an event category. Your desire to maintain Category:Events in India as a pseudo-meta category is not good reason. There is nothing more "meaningful" about the activism category than the events category - both are applicable for different reasons.

If you want to further subcategorize it in an events subcategory by topic, that is also fine, but do not remove it from the Category:Events in India category tree again. If you disagree, initiate a CFD dicussion. Thank you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I am having trouble finding an event-by-topic category that this would fit into. We may need to create one from scratch. Let me keep looking. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, hmmm??? I read again (and again), and obviously I did not say so, it's your interpretation.

As mentioned before, in short words: Category:Jane's Walk is it's categorized as "Activism" and not' "Events". And I allowed to leave a kindly disappointment about your two reverts [oh, I think one more] within few minutes, again. [addition] Please therefore remove "Actvism in India", or change as you prefer, thx.

There was for a second (!) time a 'version conflict' [added: obiously your occurred during your first and second addition] and my comment was lost, so I did it again in 'very short words'. sorry about that short kind (as well for my my bad English) and final regards without any further 'ping-pong' as there are imho some really important things to do within Wikimedia Commons ;-) Roland zh 20:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Again, activism and events are not mutually exclusive. If it's in an events category, why remove it from an activism category, or vice versa? It either belongs in a category or it does not. You keep referring to undoing within a few minutes - not sure why a few minutes matters. If content is inappropriately removed from a category, I would think it is preferable to fix it as soon as possible. Are we supposed to wait a few days to express concern? Finally, your English is very good - you write better than a number of native speakers around here! You shouldn't apologize - you are the one being courteous and writing in my language. I couldn't carry on this conversation in German.

In any event, I created an event by type category tree (Category:Walks (event)) with a specific subcategory (Category:Walks (event) in India) for this one - hopefully that will alleviate your concern. Let me know.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Great_Depression

Great Depression has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User House1090 uploads

User:House1090 has uploaded photos claimed to be self made. Many of these images are of a reduced size and have no camera information embedded. When I tagged a couple of the recent ones as copyright violations the licencing on File:CSUSB TC UC DL.png was changed and a claim was made that he had uploaded File:Verdemont Station UC II.png to the official Facebook page. I would appreciate you looking at these and other previous uploads. Everything may be OK, but "websized" images always look suspicious. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will look at these later today. Thanks for the heads up. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Your status as an admin give you no special privilege to edit war. If you don't like the category streucture I set up in Burlington, Vermont, then discuss it, but don't undo it. I worked hard on making it, and then pn re-maing it so there were no parent/child conflicts, and your edits undoing my changes look extrenmely childish. Stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

??? - Responded on your talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Brown Building

Hello, Skeezix! Since you categorized the images of the “Brown Building” in Edmonton as unidentified, I thought you might be interested in the possible ID I have suggested at File talk:The brown building (HS85-10-28351).jpg. I’d appreciate any comments you care to contribute.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Memorial" drinking fountain

Hello Skeezix1000, I don't believe this change in category is correct. This fountain is a monument on itself, but it's not a memorial to anything. Why have you changed it?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note and sorry for the confusion. I changed it because "monumental drinking fountain" either means a massive drinking fountain (see Category:Monumental objects) or something of enormous significance. Is that what was intended? There is such a thing memorial drinking fountains (I live near this one, for example), but thank you for pointing out that the one I moved is not a memorial drinking fountain (I sadly do not speak Portuguese). What was intended by monumental drinking fountain? Is it a cultural heritage monument? Let me know, and we'll fix it. Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I wasn't sure as well about which category it should be placed in, so your help in sorting that will be greatly appreciated. In Portugal we usually call "monumental (drinking) fountains" to those who are erected as a monument or landmark, besides their ordinary function of giving water to people or/and animals. In Lisbon there are many splendid examples, like Chafariz del Rei. This one in Funchal is not specially monumental, but it's purpose is similar, in a smaller scale - it's a monument or landmark on that road it's placed on, not the usual drinking fountain (example).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

category:Drinking fountains as monuments and memorials? Category:Drinking fountain monuments and memorials? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it will have to be something like that, but those category names seems to sound a bit quaint, don't they? :| -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here is a nice short description of some of the surviving Lisbon monumental fountains, in English and Portuguese - http://www.lisbonlux.com/magazine/10-monumental-drinking-fountains-in-lisbon/ . I was in the belief that this sort of thing existed in other countries as well, isn't that right?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes a bit. Category:Drinking fountain monuments comes a bit more easily off the tongue, but we are trying to avoid using just "monument" or "memorial" (as opposed to both) in new category names (unless there is a clear practice, such as "war memorial", etc.) because there has traditionally been such confusion and disagreement over what the difference is between the two. Plus, Category:Drinking fountain monuments and memorials allows the category to be used for drinking fountains that are monuments in the sense you are using, but also have a commemorative/memorial function. Unless you are in a rush, let's give it a day or two for us to mull it over - we might come up with something better. Category:Landmark drinking fountains?

To answer your second question, I'm not sure that they are that common, but I don't think they are unique to Portugal either. Are you sure that these fountains are not all Category:Cultural heritage monuments?--Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, many of them are now classified monuments, but some are not (and still are monumental fountains, the classification process is a modern thing, they already were monuments on their own before that). No, I'm not in a rush, and I'm happy with it standing for a while as memorial fountains. Please tell me if you find out something better, otherwise Category:Drinking fountain monuments and memorials would perhaps be the better choice. Thanks for the help. :) -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Armand Turpin déposant son vote dans une boîte de scrutin.jpg

File:Armand Turpin déposant son vote dans une boîte de scrutin.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 22:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Arthur L. Joliffe and Yousuf Karsh at the first Canadian Citizenship ceremony, Supreme Court of Canada.jpg

File:Arthur L. Joliffe and Yousuf Karsh at the first Canadian Citizenship ceremony, Supreme Court of Canada.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 22:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial

I've requested a review at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_in_Category:Beaumont-Hamel_Newfoundland_Memorial. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I sent emails to historic monuments & veterans affairs Canada asking for a ruling on ownership of copyright on this. The former did not reply, the latter say they will investigate. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Honest Eds at Bathurst and Bloor.jpg

Hi — when people use this CC BY-SA 2.0 image, the attribution doesn't contain a useful link to the original. All it says is “Stewart Russell (Flickr)”, which isn't sufficient to uniquely identify the original. As the creator, I would prefer if it linked to http://www.flickr.com/photos/scruss/448528482/ --Scruss (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Canadians acclaim their royal guests. School children were among the most vociferous greeters of the royal couple throughout the tour.jpg

File:Canadians acclaim their royal guests. School children were among the most vociferous greeters of the royal couple throughout the tour.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 22:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Drew Gets Things Done.jpg

File:Drew Gets Things Done.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 20:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Edward Young Eaton.jpg

File:Edward Young Eaton.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

JuTa 21:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Wiarton Willie and cyclist.JPG

File:Wiarton Willie and cyclist.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

GrapedApe (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wiarton_Willie_statue

Category:Wiarton_Willie_statue has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

GrapedApe (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Demolition of Riverdale Hospital.jpeg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Demolition of Riverdale Hospital.jpeg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Korean peninsula at night.jpg

Presumably North Korea turns off streetlighting at night because there's negligible urban night-life and negligible motor-vehicle traffic at night, and the electricity-generating capacity might not be up to it anyway, so it all seems to come down to pretty much the same thing... AnonMoos (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Delville Wood South African National Memorial

FYI. Carcharoth thought you might want to know about these requests as I submit them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pozieres Memorial and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pozieres Memorial

FYI. Images with article links moved to wikipedia.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Returning sock

You may want to have a look at this. I hid a revision of a personal attack on you and blocked the IP for a short time. It's a mobile IP though, so we may see him again at any time. If you know of or see more socking that requires checks/blocks, let me know. INeverCry 02:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Good old UrbanNerd. He's certainly a charmer. Thanks for the help. They are having problems over at en.wp - he keeps popping up to throw around insults. Apparently he has nothing better to do with his time. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

People of the United States

BTW, I just created this template for massive meta-categorizations, please tell me whether the user manual is understandable enough. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Good work. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Tram transport by year in Canada

Look, I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's inappropriate to redirect a template that's actually in use without having an alternative prepared. Category:2010 in tram transport in Canada was left in a badly broken state yesterday. It would have been a kindness to add support for tram transport by year to Template:CanadaYear first. I appreciate that you've now done so. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I meant to do so yesterday, but got distracted. Having said that, I don't have a lot of patience for unnecessary year templates for Canada, especially given that they usually (although not in this case) involve a lot of clean up deleting them, and I find it hard to believe we even need tram by year categories for Canada when the rail by year categories are not even in good shape. All in all, though, even though a replacement was not a priority, I agree with you that I ought not to have broken a category. You left a very kind note, so thanks for your patience. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome

You're welcome. Unfortunately, I informed him about this tool only after () he created dozens of deletion requests. Thank you for your compliment about my English. Best regards, BrightRaven (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Women of Canada

"Women's sport" is related to sports disciplines, not to women intended as people. The category "Women of Canada" is about women, not about the activities. The sports are correctly treated in Sportswomen from Canada. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 19:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Liberté de panorama en France

Bonsoir Skeezik1000,

• je vous invite à prendre connaissance de l'étude sérieuse et très récente faite par un groupe de Wikimedia France traitant de la liberté de panorama concernant les sites sous juridiction française [[1]].

Amicalement.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

• ⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive 3⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

York

Why "nope"? Bots are doing a mess - redirecting automatically to York, England will prevent us from having that disambig category overcrowded. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You created a mighty big problem, then. Highly inappropriate of you to express an opinion in a discussion and then, before anyone can comment (you didn't even wait 24 hours), ignore the previous comments, declare "problem solved" and impose your preferred solution. Category:York is the DAB page.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was not my preferred solution (my preferred solution would be deleting York, England and restoring York as main category for the English city, as it should be because York is commonly intended as that). It was a midway solution that prevented York, England from being deleted and at the same time allowed bots to send files there. We can't pretend that 90 per cent of material referred to "York" is about "York, England". Frankly disambiguating York for saving New York is too U.S. centric for an international project. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
PS The problem was on method only?

It's a "midway solution" that ignored the previously-expressed concerns and that you implemented without discussion. And "saving New York" is not the issue. I don't even think New York is particularly relevant. The issue is that York is but one of a number of several Yorks worldwide, many of which are larger than the English one. Unlike Wikipedia, we do not have a system of primary uses here on Commons favouring historic names. People using hotcat need to see the multiple choices when they enter the word York. If there develops a clear consensus to redirect Category:York to the English one, that's fine, but that's not the case today.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Category:York (Toronto) is an existing neighbourhood of Toronto. It also used to be a city separate from Toronto. It is not the same thing as the pre-1834 name of Toronto. It is, admittedly, quite confusing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Skeezix, my concern is for the bots that keep on dumping files into York, and therefore put - i guess unnecessary - work on our shoulders. In my opinion keeping this situation is creating a bigger problem than the one we want to solve. Let's add that the discussions about categories are never too participated, we might have another opinion in 7 months or so. Anyway... ok, let's wait (You mean the York, Upper Canada?) -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's a legitimate concern, and I apologize for being brusque. You were clearly acting in good faith. However, it seems to me that the problem is not Category:York (Toronto), but rather the fact that we have bots dumping files into disambiguation categories. It's a much wider problem, and why aren't they programmed *not* to do so? It seems unfortunate that we should have to twist our category practices and structure simply to satisfy the demands of bots.

The use of the name York in the Toronto area is very confusing. First, Toronto was called York from 1796 to 1834 (in the days of Upper Canada). Even when the city changed its name back to Toronto, the county was still called York until the 1950s. There was also a large township north of Toronto called York, which eventually separated into York, North York and East York. York Township (minus North York and East York), located northwest of Toronto became the City of Toronto, and then was merged into Toronto in 1997. To add to the confusion, the suburban areas north of Toronto and north of the old township of York were named York Region in the 1970s. Today, if you talk about York in Canada, you either mean the region, the former city or the university. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thus is my fault, I tell you how I understood the thing: since the original nucleus of Toronto were called York and then the city took the name as Toronto, I thought that the name York remained to the small burgh that formed the city, and that the current York (Toronto) was the same old York. Hence my error. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 19:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)