User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2014

← Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 →

Pictures from inside of Swiss churches

Dear Andy - I do not knwo, if you speak German or Esperanto (if yes please tell me, as I do not like to write in English) but I yesterday have seen in the discussion of Martin Sg. that you have the exactely same probleme with speed delition requests made by this user. This request is in my opinon not correct because there is no copyright for objects of art which are placed durabebly in a public accesible aerea - and a open church is evidently a puclic accessible area. There is no matter, if the place is in private or public possession. There seems to be a misunderstandig as in the German Wikipedia in the text Panoramafreiheit there is a remark that there is now "Panoramafreiheit" in Switzerland inside of rooms. This remakr is complete bullshit because there is no notion of "Panoramafreiheit" in Swiss law at all. This issue is regulated in Art 27 of the Swiss URG which stipulates clearly that 2-dimensional pictores taken from an object fewable from a public accessible place ist free! There may be some interpretation in which case a place inside of a building is accessible by public. On this point was the remark in the Stämpli which is in fact not correctly interpretated by the autor of the article Panoramafreiheit in Wikipedia and by Martin Sg who made this request. A probleme could be, if the owner of a building does not allow to take pictures inside of this building (this is effecitvely the case in Grossmünster!) - but this is only a question of the houseright and not of the copyright of the picture: the Grossmünster could claim (only during 3 months!) against the person who made the picture for the act of taking it in Grossmünster. This has nothing to do with the copyright status and is the private probleme between the photographer and the building owner. I shall in any case procude during the next days a law expert opinion to make clear this issue once for ever. Greetings DidiWeidmann (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no German. I withdraw my objections to this deletion, do whatever you wish. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Diesel-electric locomotives

Hi! It seems to me that the entire structure of Category:Diesel-electric locomotives is redundant to Category:Diesel locomotives, if only because the overwhelming majority of diesel locomotives have an electric transmission. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern was simply that Category:Diesel-electric locomotives isn't fleshed out enough to be useful; particularly in the United States categories it's treated as synonymous with Category:Diesel locomotives. Now obviously there are subtypes; a noteworthy example from the states is the electro-diesel locomotive (cf Category:Electro-diesel locomotives of the United States, which was recently split out). When studying the structure of the D-E category I've gotten confused seeing things like Category:British Rail Class 44, which is in both Category:Diesel-electric locomotives of Great Britain and Category:Diesel locomotives of Great Britain. This is confusing, and it's this sort of usage which brought me here. If we're doing a strict split-out by transmission then that's redundant. On the English Wikipedia (as I'm sure you know) diesel-electric locomotives aren't categorized that way, save en:Category:Diesel-electric locomotives of South Africa. In essence, anything categorized within "diesel" is considered "diesel-electric" unless specified otherwise. I think we need to be consistent one way or the other, and as you are the creator of these categories I sought to open a dialogue. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. I've suffered far too much trolling of late and my fuse has grown a little short. Of course you're no part of this. Sorry.

OK, to diesels.

It's true that the majority of diesel locomotives world wide are diesel-electrics. However diesel-hydraulics are an important group of diesels too, especially in Europe. Even in the US there have been a few. In the UK there were just enough of them to be significant, without them ever becoming common – so it's an interesting topic (just why was a licence built version of a successful German design seen as such a failure?) and deserves coverage.

I did create Diesel locomotives of Great Britain, but never intended it to be more than an overall container with only a few sub-types within it, not (as it has become) a list of all the types (normally Commons is excessively keen on removing such implicit transitive categories). Personally I frequently ignore OVERCAT on this matter. Categories are primarily navigational, not defining, and we shouldn't be over hasty in removing them, if both are useful, just because there's a rule that says we can do so.

Mostly though, I just don't care. I've given up on Commons, I'm tired of arguing English spellings and idioms with non-English speakers; I'm tired of arguing complex definitions with subject non-experts. I no longer care what anyone else does to categorization, or what sort of mess it is. Do whatever you want. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Cat Roofing by material

Hi Andy;

I noticed that you created Category:Roofing by material which is minimally used and closely related to Category:Roofs by material. Should they be merged? Jim Derby (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably a search fail beforehand. I think this is when I was trying to tie grouted roof into things. There's some scope in this sort of case to split into "roofs" and "parts of roofs", but not a strong one. Go ahead and redirect one to t'other, if you think it's better that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with the URAA

Hi, I see from your posts at Commons talk:URAA-restored copyrights that you are interested in tackling the problems that the URAA causes us here on Commons. I've started a new policy that might help, at Commons:Hosting of content released to the public domain globally. Could you have a look, and also add your thoughts to the talk page? I hope you will support it! --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm no longer active at Commons. Largely because of this issue. What's the point? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MM, that page makes sense. Andy, did you get your images exported to Wikilivres? We do need a better solution for multi-jurisdictional hosting; but are still looking for an effective way to do it. --SJ+ 23:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Exported?! Many of them met NFC for use at Commons, but the whole lot were deleted. Too many people at Commons are much too keen on finding admin tasks that they can do, not tasks that are useful for the goals of Commons. There is no point in contributing to such a community, so I no longer bother. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Railway signalling

Hi Andy. I removed this category from Category:Rail transport safety to prevent over-categorisation, because it is already a subcategory of that higher category. It is a subcategory of Category:Rail transport traffic control, which itself is a subcategory of Category:Rail transport safety. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

OVERCAT is all too frequently harmful, when applied simplistically. Look at the members of Category:Rail transport safety – signalling becomes an obvious omission if it's not there. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

File:English oak dresser, three sections, Gordon Russell (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).jpg

File:English oak dresser, three sections, Gordon Russell (Time, Taste and Furniture, Gloag, 1925).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!

Philafrenzy (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment in FPC

Hi, I don't think this is the way to comment on FPC, and therefore I removed your comment. You can proceed with the deletion request, which I don't share, but don't call FPCs shit that's not respectful. On the other side, that picture will not become FP and I will start a speedy removal of the nomination, but that's a different story. Poco² 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's OK for other people to call my photos shit, but not for me to agree with them? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not okay for anybody, who called your pictures shit? Poco² 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for not recalling their exact editor name – the Russian guy who went after a load of my images because they are "the worst imaginable". For chapter and verse on this particular image, why it's quite so bad and why (despite I being the only one present on the day) it's out of focus and ought to be a lurid purple colour instead, just read the various comments attached to it.

I don't care that WP thinks this is a bad photo – I've never claimed it as anything more. However I don't see why I should have to sit here as a repeated coconut shy for the "real" photographers on WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you are famous! :)

I had to preserve your internet-kitten-sd-reason for future generations: User:Hedwig in Washington/Funny --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 21:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:64' diaphone atlantic city.gif

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:64' diaphone atlantic city.gif, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:64' diaphone atlantic city.gif]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

File:66090 Gospel Oak.jpg

File:66090 Gospel Oak.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!

-mattbuck (Talk) 08:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

File:AestheticTeapotMale.jpg

File:AestheticTeapotMale.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!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you moved this image to Commons, and now people are trying to delete it. I think it is in the public domain, because it is just a faithful photo reproduction of the sculpture taken from an exhibition. Could you please move it back to English Wikipedia, or else help save it at Commons? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It should probably have been deleted at en:WP too. The problem isn't the teapot (that's old enough), it's the photo not being the original uploader's.

There's a photo of the other side of it in the same category, and that photo looks OK. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

File tagging File:A strumbly dulcitar.JPG

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:A strumbly dulcitar.JPG. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:A strumbly dulcitar.JPG]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 

-- TLSuda (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your help with a deletion nomination

Greetings Andy: There is a message on my talk page] which perhaps you could help solve?

Hi, you closed the DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walschaerts motion.gif. Did you see that there are more versions of this animation from the same source? File:Walschaert gear reversing.gif and there is this one: File:Steam locomotive work.gif. Here I'm not sure if it is a derivative work of the others or an independent one. --h-stt !? 17:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't figure out if they are or not a problem and will appreciate any help you can give. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Walschaert gear reversing.gif is by the same author (take a look through the website linked and the archive copy at archive.org), so presumably has a similar licensing problem. Can't tell which was a derivative of the other though.

File:Steam locomotive work.gif is not a derived work (other than possibly legitimate inspiration) and is sourced to Panther, who is still active at Commons. It should be acceptable here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:1922AmericanLaFrancepumper.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:1922AmericanLaFrancepumper.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:1922AmericanLaFrancepumper.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Abbeymills pumping.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Abbeymills pumping.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Abbeymills pumping.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing images

Hello. File:ARA Moreno 305mm gun.jpg is not "own work by original uploader." Please take care to choose the correct parameter on the tool when performing uploads. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you reading what I wrote, or are you just ignoring it? Please stop incorrectly sourcing your uploads. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you provide false information in one of your uploads, I will take your name to the administrator noticeboard and asked that your account be blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Locomotives on preserved lines

I'm not sure why you've changed the categories relating to GWR 4500s on the West Somerset Railway. These need to be consistent with the way the class appears on other lines, and the way other classes appear on this line. That means

• West Somerset Railway
  • Rolling stock of the West Somerset Railway
    • Locomotives preserved on the West Somerset Railway
      • GWR 2884 Class 3850
      • GWR 4500 Class 4561
      • GWR 5101 Class 4160 etc.
  • Trains on the West Somerset Railway
    • GWR 2884s on the West Somerset Railway
    • GWR 4073s on the West Somerset Railway
    • GWR 4500s on the West Somerset Railway
    • GWR 4575s on the West Somerset Railway
    • GWR 5101s on the West Somerset Railway etc.

The two groups aren't interchangable - a picture of 4561 isn't necessarily on the West Somerset Railway, and a picture of a 4500 on the line may not be 4561. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Buildings by function

I noticed you undid some changes I made to categories under Category:Buildings by function. Here is my reasoning for some of the change I made:

• Category:Oasts: "Oast" is not a function, it is what a certain type of building is called. Further, Category:Oasts is under Category:Hop kilns, which is under both Category:Agricultural buildings and Category:Industry buildings, via different branches, and both of those are themselves under Category:Buildings by function. Therefore, Category:Oasts doesn't need to be directly under Category:Buildings by function.
• Category:Boiler houses: This is already under Category:Buildings by function via Category:Industry buildings. Therefore, it doesn't need to be directly under Category:Buildings by function. We wouldn't want to list every kind of industry building directly under the parent category.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oasts are a function, it is not merely a certain shape of building - therefore it belongs under buildings by function.

For both of these, the issue is WP:OVERCAT and the simplistic assumption that items must never be categorised in both a category and a supercategory of it. That is simply wrong, in both reason and implication.

There is a valid case to remove categorisation when one categorisation is implied by another. In many cases, categorisation implies transitive categorisation of the children: a member of Big dogs is also implicitly a member of Dogs. However this simple transitive assumption is not the case for all categories. Mediawiki categorization is navigational, not ontologically defining. In particular, categories may gain parent categories either because there is a useful relationship to the category members, or else to one for the category itself. It is not always the case that a category that is itself categorized also implies that every member of the child category is implicitly a member of the parent cat.

OVERCAT should be applied when (and only when) the parent category membership to be removed is reliably implied for all members of that category and not simply because the category itself (not necessarily its members) is a member.

This is particularly relevant for navigational list categories such as Buildings by function. Their navigational ability is substantially reduced if items aren't placed in them! Whilst there may be cases where types of buildings can be grouped together (eg. iron water towers and concrete water towers) and still represent a useful navigational clade within the overall list, we should be careful not to allow simplistic dogma to remove the useful function of the list. "Industrial buildings" in particular is such a broad category that whilst it can have child categories and it should be listed under by function itself, it would be far from useful to then remove the children with clear functions (such as boiler houses) from the overall by function list. This is especially so for oasts, where they have a clear function that can be listed, but it's much less clear whether they are "industrial" buildings or "agricultural". In such a specifically narrow case, it is downright disruptive to ask a reader searching "buildings by function" (an obvious place to start looking) for oast houses, but to first require them to guess whether we have hidden them under "agricultural buildings" or "industrial buildings". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"circlips"

Would you please reconsider your reversion? I think "retaining ring" really is the better choice of common term, from a broad perspective. It's not something I'm going to waste any more effort on, though. If you insist, then at least make the "retaining ring pliers" category consistent, with appropriate redirects. Thanks. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(It occurrs to me that you may be unaware of how UK-specific the term "circlip" is, so I should probably mention that here.) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Read Machinery's Handbook, which is as UK-biased as Dick Van Dyke's accent. Circlips.

2. They're not even rings. MADEUP does not beat COMMONNAME.

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those points address the simple issue that en:Retaining rings is at least as common a term as en:Circlips, and it should be possible to get to the category containing those objects using that term. Since you have both knowledge and strong opinions about the subject, I'll leave it to you to sort out how to implement that. It's really not worth butting heads over. :) --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Millers Crossing

I'm aware this bridge over the Exe happens to be above a weir. However "Millers Crossing" is the name of the bridge itself, not its location. The weir underneath is Blackaller Weir. eg This Geograph image correctly makes the distinction--Nilfanion (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Then rename the category (or IMHO, just stop worrying about it and merely note the names on the page). The point is that the category represents a location, and that location is the combination of the crossing, the river, the flood channel and the weir. The location (as a single entity) should be categorized under both bridges and weirs. This doesn't change whether we've named the category "Millers Crossing", "Millers Crossing bridge", "Blackaller Weir" or "Grid ref XYZ123456". Where an image within this is particularly of the weir (or the bridge), then we might categorize that image itself too.

BTW, thanks for renaming the Exminster Bridge. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I will set up a cat for the weir too later. Its helpful to have a cat for the bridge because then you can correctly apply bridge-specific cats (eg construction date); likewise the weir would have weir-specific cats. It makes no sense to say the weir is a 21st C cable-stayed bridge, nor to say the bridge is a medieval weir. The point is its two separate constructions, each of which is category-worthy in its own right.

A good example of how this sort of situation should be handled can be seen further west - with the Tamar Bridge and Royal Albert Bridge. If one bridge is shown its in the cat for one, if both are its in both.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars

You restored the global category:Diesel railcars saying that the GWR railcars were not DMU. While I agree in this single case, it seems widely unclear where to cut. Is a railcar which can work with a driving trailer but not together with a second railcar still a DMU? And is an element of a DMU still a DMU when used as single vehicle? Other languages make other distinctions. I went through these categories worldwide and you won't be able to find what you are looking for if the distinction between railcar and MU is maintained in the collecting categories. It remains possible to make distinctions in national categories. Finally, the category name Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars clearly indicates that a railcar is or may be something else than a motor coach or a multiple unit. I propose that we keep the global category wide and only distinguish on a national level.

And then, if you say that a GWR railcar isn't a DMU, why is it categorized since the beginning as [[Category:Diesel multiple units of the United Kingdom|GWR railcars]]? Hmmmm.... Not very logical, is it?

But in a category Multiple units, motor coaches and railcars of the United Kindgom a railcar is well at home! --Gürbetaler (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A multiple unit is a unit that can be coupled to work in multiple. How much simpler can I state this? If multiple powered units, with separate driving positions, can be coupled together to work as one train and controlled from a single driving position, then they are multiple units. If they cannot, they are not multiple units. Not all railcars (and very few early railcars) were able to do this. Driving trailers are not powered, thus are not multiple units.

You've merged a previous distinguishing structure into one large heap. This is not an improvement. If you think that the GWR railcars are DMUs, on the sole evidence of an uncited and vague category, then why not carry the process even further and rewrite the Wikipedia article to match? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said that I think that the GWR railcars were DMU. I said that they are categorized as DMU, which is obviously wrong but it was you who participated in changing back the category to DMU of UK when somebody put it to DMU of BR. Please don't blame me for what you did... I know what railcars are. But when I see that so many Wikipedia users are not able to correctly categorize, what is the distinction then good for? You will never find what you are looking for, because somebody thought it was an EMU and you are looking for it under electric railcars. There is enough work to sort out all the DMUs wrongly put under diesel locomotives. We won't come to an end if we distinguish multiple units, motor coaches and railcars.

And as I said earlier, in other languages the distinction is different. The continental view of this group of motive power is different from the British view. And Wikicommons should work for the whole world. The distinction between multiple unit and railcar only exists in English!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:700HD-EU-main.jpg

File:700HD-EU-main.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories

It seems we disagree about the use of categories. Please read COM:OVERCAT and have a look at the image there which says "Don't place an item into a category and its parent" (original emphasis), and "the general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." I don't see how the Alvis categories should be subject to any of those exceptions. That said, it's been common practice at Commons and Wikipedia for ages to not use parent categories and subcategories on the same page. De728631 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion that navigation across Alvis military vehicles should be denied to readers who aren't already familiar with Alvis model numbers is not a convincing one.

I'm glad that you've found something already written down for you. It saves all that tiresome thinking about actual results. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Running in circles at a category tree is probably even more tiresome to unexperienced users. And by your logic we wouldn't even need the "600 series" category. De728631 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So what about adding a Category:Alvis military vehicles by name that would be on the same level as the Alvis 600 series but contain all the relevant subcategories like Stalwart, Salamander, Dingo, etc.? Of course that would require one more click while browsing for images but at least we'd have a proper taxonomy as you called it. A similar approach has been taken at Category:Mercedes-Benz vehicles where there are subcategories for autos, trucks and type numbers on the same level. De728631 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We already have Category:Alvis military vehicles, which works perfectly well for that purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Peter Sam/Edward Thomas

Hi - I took the "Peter Sam" sub-cat directly out of Category:Steam locomotives of the Talyllyn Railway to avoid people getting confused and thinking that Peter Sam is a separate loco to Edward Thomas, which isn't the case. It's the children's engine livery, applied to Edward Thomas, and no longer in use, and therefore best served as a sub-cat of that loco.   An optimist on the run! 22:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For precisely the same reasons I think it ought to remain as a a category of Talyllyn locos. We don't remove such things because they were temporary. Are you planning on removing the Corris locos from Corris railway, on the grounds that they're no longer there? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course not - please don't make straw man arguments. The point is that "Peter Sam" is merely a livery of Edward Thomas, not a separate loco. And in any case, as you're presumably aware, a sub-category shouldn't be in both a category and it's parent category.   An optimist on the run! 05:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hi, the user problems noticeboard is not for discussions. It is meant to bring up a problem with a user to the administrators. If an administrator closes a discussion at that noticeboard, it's closed. Jcb (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

An administrator then re-opened it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see neither Thryduulf nor Andy Dingley is an administrator at Wikimedia Commons. Jcb (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, Chris' adminship at Commons lapsed some years back as he was busier being an admin at en:WP and Meta.

What's the difference though? We have policies against blanking discussions in this manner and they're not optional, even to you or A.Savin. I note also your threat to block me for bringing such things to your attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You may start further discussion at the talk page of an involved user, or e.g. in the 'comments' section of de de-crat nomination. Maybe in the village pump. But not on our noticeboards. Those noticeboards are meant to get our attention if administrator assistence is needed. If necessary I can use tools to enforce this, but I trust you will not bother us again about this case at our noticeboard. Jcb (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will continue to use "your" noticeboards in whatever way is permitted by policy. I will certainly not restrict this according to your personal whim. I would ask you too start doing likewise, as policy applies to admins as much as it does to lowly editors. You, like JurgenNL, would do well to remember that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please keep all the discussions in one place, at Commons:Bureaucrats/Requests/Odder (de-bureaucrat). Although I'm not supporting edit warring by involved admins on any topic, I respect Natuur12 closing of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Repeated_blanking_of_editor_comments_by_A.Savin_as_Commons:Bureaucrats.2FRequests.2FOdder_.28de-bureaucrat.29. Jee 02:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The first two pages are about behavioural problems with Jurgen and Odder. The later page is about a behavioural problem demonstrated by both A.Savin and Jcb to repeatedly blank a GF editor's contributions about that first issue. This is a separate problem, so it doesn't belong on the Odder page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree; but following such things will only help to deviate from the core issue. Moreover, it is up to the closing crat (as Slaunger alredy commented there), whether or not to consider votes without any arguments. In complicated cases, they can even count the merits of arguments without merely counting the votes. So it is better to wait and see than forcing them to make a decision by ourselves. (Personally I see no clear consensus for this case now; but this discussion gives a clear view that the Commons as a whole is not blindly supporting all anti-WMF moves. Hope, those who think in the other way will change their mind. ) Jee 09:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I want't to make clear thatI don't agree with A.Savin's action. However, there has already been enough drama and bloodshed. People already received the ping and got the message. This is not worth the drama. Let's live to fight another day etc etc. Sometimes it is better to let things be and slowely walk away from the drama. That's why I closed the thread and not because I wanted to protect A.Savin like someone suggested. Natuur12 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Natuur12: Sometimes though, closing threads does make it seem like the closer is trying to protect the people being complained about, even if they are not. In such cases, closing the thread only serves to inflame the situation. There's generally a way to try and make people feel heard, while trying to decrease the drama at the same time. --Rschen7754 02:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If the AN/U page is for bringing up problems of users, why were my reports of problems with users (who are coincidentally admins) removed twice against policy? Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

As for my adminship, that status lapsed here as I was indeed busier at en.wp and en.wiktionary (I've not been an admin at Meta) than here. This though was back in the days when administrators here respected policies. According to policy, I can regain adminship here by simply asking for it back. However, I am currently not sure I wish to be associated with the actions of the current admins here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Swear words

Hi.

I'd appreciate if you toned down a notch in your edit messages. A little respect goes a long way.

Regards. Badzil (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you weren't so persistently stupid in your edits. There is a reasonable structure in place to describe this awkward situation and its variance internationally. You persist in breaking it on the grounds of COM:SIMPLISTIC POLICY WITH SHORT WORDS FOR EASY SITUATIONS. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

File:HMS Severn-1-.jpg

File:HMS Severn-1-.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!

Diannaa (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Miniature two-stroke diesel engine 1960.JPG

Это не дизельный двигатель, это карбюраторный компрессионый двигатель.

Простейший карбюратор авиамодельного двигателя «МК-12В»: только диффузор, жиклёр и дозирующая игла подачи топлива; воздушная и дроссельная заслонки отсутствуют. Это мой двигатель, я его заводил ещё в 1970-е годы.

Это мой самолет, я его сделал собственноручно почти 40 лет назад. Эх молодость, молодость... Кордовая модель самолета МиГ-3, СССР, 1976 год. Установлен именно этот двигатель (фотография выше).

Уважаемый коллега!

Я надеюсь, что вы переведете мое послание, ведь русский язык - один из основных официальных языков Организации Объединенных Наций.

Изображенный на фотографии двигатель не является дизельным двигателем, это ошибка, которая характерна для говорящих на английском языке. На фотографии изображен двухтактный компрессионный карбюраторный двигатель.

Компрессионные двигатели не относят к дизельным двигателям, так как в «дизелях» происходит сжатие чистого воздуха, а не топливо-воздушной смеси и дизельное топливо при помощи топливного насоса высокого давления впрыскивается форсункой в конце такта сжатия.

Компрессионный карбюраторный двигатель Carbureted compression ignition model engine

Вон та трубка, которая отходит вправо вверх от картера - это и есть карбюратор. На правой части фотографии (вид спереди) - к вон той короткой латунной трубке подсоединяется топливный шланг, топливо - смесь диэтилового эфира, керосина и касторового масла примерно в равных пропорциях. Вон та Г-образная рукоятка - регулирование подачи топлива, это примерно то, на что вы давите правой ногой, управляя собственным автомобилем, когда желаете ехать быстрее.

Кстати, на фотографии два двигателя: который сфотографирован сбоку - у него дозирующая игла стоит слева от картера, а на двигателе, который сфотографирован спереди - дозирующая игла стоит справа от картера, вероятно, так авиамоделисту удобнее.

Так что я убираю категорию Diesel engines

С уважением: --Andshel (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear Colleague,

I hope that you translate my message, because the Russian language - one of the major languages of the United Nations.

Pictured in the photo is not the engine diesel engine, it is a mistake, which is characteristic of English speakers. The photograph shows a two-stroke petrol engine compression.

Compression engines are diesel engines are referred to as a "diesel" is compressed clean air, not the air-fuel mixture and diesel fuel using a high-pressure pump of the injection nozzle at the end of the compression stroke.

Compression carburetor engine Carbureted compression ignition model engine

Vaughn is the tube that extends upward from the crankcase to the right - this is the carburetor. On the right side of the photo (front view) - to yonder short brass tube connects the fuel hose, fuel - a mixture of diethyl ether, kerosene and castor oil in equal proportions. That one L-shaped handle - fuel control, it's about something that you press the right foot, driving your own car, when you want to go faster.

By the way, the photograph two engines: the side which is photographed - he metering pin to the left of the crankcase, and on the engine, which is photographed in front - the dispensing needle is to the right of the crankcase, probably because it is more convenient model airplanes.

So I remove the category of Diesel engines

Sincerely: --Andshel (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a carburetted compression ignition engine. However it doesn't run on petrol / gasoline (that may be a factor of Google's auto-translation). Per COMMONNAME, these model engines are widely referred to as "diesel engines", however inaccurately. As the commonplace "diesel engine" doesn't use Rudolf Diesel's Diesel cycle either, this is not a serious inaccuracy.

If you wish, create a new category for model diesel engines using this method of ignition. Maybe call it "Category:Carbureted compression ignition model engines". However just removing diesel engine altogether is not a positive move. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Template:Image from the Florida Photographic Collection

Hi. I don't know if you've seen my edits the last few days on your watchlist, but I've seen your name repeatedly in discussions about these images, so I thought I'd give you a poke. You are, I'm sure, aware that {{Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl}} was created for these same images, and has been quite widely used. I came across them both in relation to an image that was using the 'images from' version, with an incorrect NASA attribution also added. Looking at the images using it, it became apparent that there are now problems with your older version of the template, specifically being that it's not actually a 'license template', and that it's not machine readable. There were quite a few cases where people had uploaded images using your version, and then added 'bogus' licenses such as CC-BY-SA (which is completely wrong for these images), apparently just in order to avoid the 'error' of not having a license template. Since the majority of the Florida Memory images were using the newer version, which is also 'machine readable' and detected as a license template, I've been going though and converting them all to use that version, while also changing source URLs to the 'new' website that's actually bookmarkable, at http://floridamemory.com/ , checking (and often fixing) the metadata, and adding the 'explicit' credit line required by their license (they specify it on the new website as "State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory"). At the same time, I've been 'manually' categorizing the images using the newer template into the existing 'Images from...' categories.

This isn't to say the newer version is 'perfect', it also misstates the license by saying these images are in the public domain, and that needs discussed and fixed ('freely usable for any purpose' would be better language). For some images, they are actually in the public domain (mostly ones in the 'Department of Commerce collection'), but it's easy to give the {{PD-FLGov}} license and still categorize them as from Florida Memory.

Anyhow, the point being that it is my intent, and I hope you are okay with this, to try to completely remove your 'older' version, since it now has issues, and aim people at using the 'newer' version. Among other things, it's compatible with (the oh so wonderful, sigh) Media Viewer, and as an actual 'license template' seems less prone to having people add incorrect 'other' licenses....a truly sad number had CC-BY-SA added.

FYI, if you haven't seen it, the language of the 'license' at the new version of their website is (apparently) better phrased than the old version, and says "The use of any materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the materials. Please credit materials in accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes." Still, it's explicitly a 'license' requiring attribution, and it's clear that we can trust the State Archives to know what they can legally license, so as far as I'm concerned it's perfectly valid. My 'issue' is more with how your version was being misused. Revent (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Preservation of images depends more on the whim of attracting the arch-deletionist admins or not, rather than any matter of policy. I no longer care, nor have any involvement with Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)