Open main menu



Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Antonantoska

Hi, You tagged all files by Antonantoska (talk · contribs) as copyvios, but at least the churches should be OK. The YT videos are under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Yann, I'm confused as you've deleted them all?, I'm sure one fileyv video wasn't under a creative licence hence why I nominated the lot, The churches were accidental and should never have been included so I apologise for that (On Visual change I had disabled images and completely forgot to re-enable them again - have done it now!), Again my apologies, –Davey2010Talk 14:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be civil

العربية | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | עברית | Magyar | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Simple English | Svenska | Українська | +/−


 
You are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. If your behaviour is not moderated, you may be blocked from further editing.

The sarcasm behind your "Restore 'em please" message doesn't help anyone, insults the other users, and is finally disruptive for the project. Learn good manners, and collaborative work. Ruthven (msg) 17:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you got pissed off, but this is not a reason to insult anyone. I hope that after your (forced) wikibreak you'll be happy and relaxed enough to contribute constructively. --Ruthven (msg) 18:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruthven - Was it really necessary to block me considering I have this minute just apologised to you[1] and had removed the rant on your talkpage[2], Bit punitve isn't it?. –Davey2010Talk 18:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
No, at all. You shouldn't behave in that way. I can understand from what you wrote that it was a temporary bad reaction, and that you recognise it, so I didn't blocked you indefinitely. Blocks aren't punitive, they are just there to avoid vandalism and other sort of behaviour against the project. You recognised that you needed to cool off a while and I agree with it. When you'll be able to contribute constructively, you'll be welcome again, but I feel that now it's too early. --Ruthven (msg) 18:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect Ruthven it's the way I am - I tell someone to fuck off in a temper, cool off, come back in a few hours and apologise and regret my actions, It's just me - I take no joy from telling anyone to f off you know,
I've never told an admin to f off however what with the DRs and then your civil warning it all just got to me, I'm not going to file an unblock because I too a point agree with the block myself (No one should tell an admin to fuck off and get away with it) however in some respects it is punitive because I won't ever change as it's just the way I am,
Like with EN I'll do my best to leave the laptop the moment I get angry but in short the F Offs won't ever change unfortunately,
Anyway I apologise for telling you "that" as well as for the rant,
Happy editing anyway. –Davey2010Talk 18:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

DR

Hi Jameslwoodward, Inregards to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Taxikuching - Did you still want me to crop the images or just leave them be?, It's not a problem cropping them but just wanted to know as I said I would in the DR, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 20:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I think they are fine as is. Thank you for asking. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward - Okie dokie & no worries :), Didn't wanna do it incase there were issues so I'm glad I asked :), BTW as you're on could you do me a quick favour please - Could you remove the retired template from my userpage, Kinda got myself blocked so unfortunately can't do the honours myself, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant thank you, Can't even thank via Echo now either, Oh the joys of being blocked!, Anyway thanks Jim much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 21:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, G I Chandor (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-07-10 09-38-08 ILCE-6300 DSC07278 (28349590086).jpg

 
File:2016-07-10 09-38-08 ILCE-6300 DSC07278 (28349590086).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

G I Chandor (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, G I Chandor (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Osterfeuer03.16 (26028223776).jpg

 
File:Osterfeuer03.16 (26028223776).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Joschi71 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-09-04 15-57-51 ILCE-6300 5337 DxO (22757236208).jpg

 
File:2016-09-04 15-57-51 ILCE-6300 5337 DxO (22757236208).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Ham II (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page communication

I'm happy to have you drop requests on my talk page. However, it would be helpful, if someone else does the job, if you used strikethrough and the {{Done}} tag rather than deleting the request. As I go through the new messages, if I see one for you, I have to go into the history to see what it was. It's faster just to ignore a struck-through message. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jameslwoodward, My apologies, When I've been removing various requests I've never ever thought of the talkpage history and only thought about it about a week ago when I did the exact same to another editor!, Anyway I'll try & remember to strike etc but I apologise for unitentionally being a pain in the arse!, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Davey2010,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh 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 (2016) 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. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

 
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Yours sincerely, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Email

Thank you for removing the email. Most people are unaware that Commons has no "fair use" permission from WMF to post non-free text in discussions. A RFC on Meta by Revent failed to gain any consensus to change this, though it was hampered by not being worded well. Generally most people will not mind the odd paragraph of non-free text or so, but posting an email that someone has sent you privately is a gross breach of trust. While the contents of this email were not particularly sensitive, it is the principle that you broke a confidence that is so damaging.

I don't think you appreciate how hostile your response was, or how harmful that is to Commons mission to generate a repository of high quality free educational images. You should always remember that these photos are the property of the photographer. Generously giving them a CC licence and thus permitting them to be uploaded to Commons does not make them our property. The legal risk remains with the photographer, who published them in this case on Flickr but it could have been directly here also. If he has taken a picture of a building or sculpture or other artwork that is still under copyright, then he risks being sued for possibly thousands of dollars. An example is that publishing a photo of the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen got a newspaper sued for £1100. In the US, the awards can be much higher, especially for works registered with the copyright office. Suing for copyright infringement is a "nice little earner" for some artists. So please, no matter how clumsily a photographer puts their case, you should begin with a position of respect for the property, which belongs to them, that Commons hosts, and be concerned for any legal difficulty the photographer may have placed themselves.

Many bloggers are all too quick to document their bad experiences on the internet, and this negative press can be quickly spread. Look at it from his perspective ... this is what he could have blogged: "I got concerned about legal issues surrounding photos I'd taken of buildings and people. When I tried to have them removed from Commons, I was told it was my fault and I should have been more careful, and that the licence I applied meant I could not change things. I was told bluntly that Commons cannot and will not delete them. When I tried to contact an admin on the site privately by email to explain my plight, he f****ing published the email on the internet. Another admin claimed I was under no serious legal risk and accused me of going on a fishing trip." Cue shit-storm of negative postings about Commons and the stupidity of photographers giving their work away for free.

Wrt me pinging you, this is standard practice if you are mentioned in a discussion. Many users would consider it very rude to be talked about without such a notification. You are not obliged to respond. However you should know this is an open wiki, so if you post something, then anyone is permitted to comment on it, agree or disagree with you/it, and to post their opinions. If you don't like that, don't post here. I wish you wouldn't be so hostile. -- Colin (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Colin, I never realised publishing an email was a copyright offense (I thought it was only an offense when I published their email here) and although I've been made aware of the whole text copyright thing I've never (and probably never will) fully understand it, Anyway no worries as for the trust thing I completely understand however (as I said below which was written long before this section) the email pasting was to seek help and opinions on the matter instead of me essentially giving the wrong advice - I should've asked first that was a big error on my part and I apologise for that however you have to see it from my point of view - I never thought it would be a problem - As I said the email did indicate issues which I believed was relevant and instead of giving potentially wrong advice I wanted to seek admins/experts help on the matter - It was purely done on Good Faith and purely to help the editor as much as possible,
Again I'm not exactly clued up on FOP however I know certain things cannot be photographed in certain areas and I wish the photographer had said this as I would've handled this alot more differently - The nom did at the time state there were legal issues however with all respect anyone can say that - I don't mean this in a funny way but anyone could change their mind inregards to CC licenses and use "legal issues" as an excuse,
See when you put it like that yes it sounds bad however in my defense as I said there were no mention of the FOP at the time of me replying and the email was posted to get others opinions - I didn't want to not say nothing and it turned out this email was extremely important (which in the end it was) so I had not pasted it I don't believe we would've got anywhere - The email wasn't to embarrass them it was simply me not knowing what the best solution was and thought leaving it into better hands was a better idea - As I said before I'm no expert on here and I would rather paste an email and seek help instead of me simply giving the wrong advice and potentially making matters worse,
Yes I'm hostile when it comes to people who change their minds however if it was stated at the time there was FOP issues I would've handled it much much differently however as I said from his perspective it does look bad however there's 2 sides here,
As for the ping thing - I didn't appreciate you stating my actions were clumsy over something I had no idea about at the time and at the time yes it did rile me up seeing comments like "I apologise for Daves hostility" because at that time I didn't believe I was all that hostile and at the time the FOP had only come to light - Ofcourse now I realise I was a little hostile and in future I will do my best to not be so hostile,
To a point and I've said this to another Admin - En has strict ways, policies, messages etc etc and I guess it's difficult to go from a strict project to another project where everything is not strict at all - I wouldn't really say I'm strict at all however I guess compared to EN It probably seems like I am,
Anyway I apologise for getting rattled with you as well as for the whole email thing, Thanks for your message it's much appreciated :),
Have a great day, –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad things are cooler now. We have COM:AGF and COM:MELLOW for a reason. I can't say I'm perfect in this regard. I agree that initially, with putting everything up for deletion, things looked a bit like the photographer was simply trying to make all his images "all rights reserved" but he didn't claim that and so I think it warranted some further questioning / explanation before reaching for the voting buttons and starting to assume bad faith on his part.
One big difference between WP and COM is that WP is a collaborative editing project, where users very much are told they do not WP:OWN any articles. This contrasts hugely with COM since all images that are still under copyright remain owned by their copyright owner, and even those that are PD still have typically a sole creator who we have an ethical obligation to credit. The collaborative bit on Commons largely involves organising other people's works, though there's also discussions on copyright and how to take great pictures, etc, etc. Also unlike WP, content creation typically takes place off-site and often involves an initial upload somewhere else. So where you might see someone working collaboratively on a WP article for many weeks, on Commons the image just appears as if by magic. And on Commons, there are a lot of people who don't produce any (high quality) original content of their own. So I think sometimes this leads to a lack of respect for our most precious resource: the content creators who permit their work to be free. Cheers, Colin (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Code issues in User:Davey2010/common.js

Hi Davey2010, I am a bored bot (this is kind of a computer program) that is watching the recent changes and tapping buttons like I did now.

Curious about the reason? Possibly not but I will tell you anyway:

  1. You edited User:Davey2010/common.js. Glad to see you coding in javascript! Have you ever considered becoming a MediaWiki hacker?
  2. Though, that change appears to introduce 2 new jshint issues — the page's status is now having warnings. Note that invalid or ambiguous code often has unwanted side effects like breaking other tools for you. If you cannot find out how to fix it, I suggest blanking the page for now.
  3. To help you understanding where the issues are, I have aggregated a report here and now. If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask users experienced in javascript writing for help. But do not ask the bot's operators (chronically overwrought) unless you suspect an error of mine. If you prefer not getting spammed by me, you can opt-out reports by adding {{ValidationOptOut|type=all}} to your user page. Good luck at Wikimedia Commons and happy hacking!
  1. ISSUE: line 25 character 40: Don't use extra leading zeros '00'. - Evidence: var time = { hours: 14, minutes: 00, seconds: 0 };
  2. ISSUE: line 35 character 9: Read only. - Evidence: location = "//"+location.host+"/w/index.php?title="

Your CommonsMaintenanceBot (talk) at 21:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC).

File:Crossrail construction, location map, Great Chapel Street, Soho (33355223681).jpg

 
File:Crossrail construction, location map, Great Chapel Street, Soho (33355223681).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Crossrail Map, Great Chapel Street, Soho (33483387425).jpg

 
File:Crossrail Map, Great Chapel Street, Soho (33483387425).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Crossrail Map, Great Chapel Street, Soho (33483403355).jpg

 
File:Crossrail Map, Great Chapel Street, Soho (33483403355).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your VFC installation method is deprecated

Hello Davey2010, we are aware that using the old installation method of VFC (via common.js, which you are using) may not work reliably anymore and can break other scripts as well. A detailed explanation can be found here. Important: To prevent problems please remove the old VFC installation code from your common.js and instead enable the VFC gadget in your preferences. Thanks! --VFC devs (q) 16:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:London Holloway Road May 6 2017 (1) (33679081883).jpg

 
File:London Holloway Road May 6 2017 (1) (33679081883).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

File:London May 16 2017 (19) Alien Covenant Odeon Leicester Square (34568291111).jpg

 
File:London May 16 2017 (19) Alien Covenant Odeon Leicester Square (34568291111).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Túrelio (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Free images from Flickr

Hi, If free images from Flickr were uploaded, you can't request a speedy deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no speedy. Yann (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yann these images were uploaded to this website by me and therefore speedy still applies, If I didn't upload these then ofcourse I'd go straight to DR!. –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
No. These files are under a free license on Flickr, and were license reviewed. So anyone could reupload them. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yann - Yes but I mean I uploaded them here and you yourself have deleted these in the past so what's the issue ?...... I'm genuinely lost?.... –Davey2010Talk 18:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
You should change the license on Flickr if you don't want them to be on Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
No no no I'm not the actual photographer, I simply upload and then sort through and delete the images that I don't believe are of quality - But you yourself have deleted these in the past so I don't get the issue now ?,, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Rugeley Trent Valley Station - London Midland 350 255 - Entertainment's in our nature - Amazing free TV shows now on board (34559994745).jpg

 
File:Rugeley Trent Valley Station - London Midland 350 255 - Entertainment's in our nature - Amazing free TV shows now on board (34559994745).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Rugeley Trent Valley Station - sign - Cannock Chase Heritage Trail - Welcome to Rugeley (34165691970).jpg

 
File:Rugeley Trent Valley Station - sign - Cannock Chase Heritage Trail - Welcome to Rugeley (34165691970).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Yann (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

STOP!

I told you these are not acceptable as speedy! Yann (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

See my above reply - In short speedy does still apply. –Davey2010Talk 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I blocked you for 2 hours. Yann (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yann - Unblock me and I'll send to DR instead. –Davey2010Talk 18:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, done. Yann (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Yann - Sorry I had just reworded it but I was met with a conflict, Anyway I shan't revert, Thanks for unblocking. –Davey2010Talk 18:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

To make it specifically clear, per COM:GCSD 'author or uploader request' is only a valid speedy for files that are less than a week old.... older files need a DR because they may be in use outside of WMF projects. - Reventtalk 18:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Revent, The chances of the Trent Valley files being used are extremely thin and If I were to put money on it I'd say none would be used at all (Ofcourse I may well be wrong but to be absolutely honest I doubt it), ANyway thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:50, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to add but the Trent Valley ones being nominated was accidental - They shouldn't of been nominated at all so I apologise for that .–Davey2010Talk 18:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

We Stand Together mural in Manchester

I'm afraid that murals are copyrighted in the UK, so unless the yellow "We Stand Together" mural in Manchester has specifically been released under a free licence, the pictures you transferred over from Flickr (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) are actually violating the copyright of the artist who painted it... which is a sorry thing, as I took pictures of the murals that have been painted on the Outhouse at Stevenson Square and can't upload them here. Incidentally, if those pictures are to be kept on Commons, they should be moved away from Category:2017 Manchester attack tributes and memorials at St Ann's Square as that mural is in a different place somewhere in the Northern Quarter (and I don't know where exactly). odder (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi odder, Well that's a deep shame as they're such lovely images but I guess there's no way around it,
It's at times like this I wish we could invoke WP:IAR but there we are,
Anyway I'll send them to DR - Thanks for kindly letting me know - Much appreciated,
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The explaining for doubts of copyright rights

Dear Davey2010 Thank You for your attention and vigilance. Indded the photos of my wife (list of them below) are available on web sites, because few years ago I posted them on Imagefap.com. The photos were made by me personally between 2005 and 2007. I understand that my explaininig is a very poor proof for You because in digital reality the copy is identity with original. Sincerely Your Stan old Stanisław Kucharczyk

File:Baby doll 2.jpg File:Baby doll 1.jpg File:Black bra gstring2.jpg File:Tanga front and back.jpg File:Tanga 1.jpg File:Tanga 3.jpg File:Tanga 0.jpg File:Gstring tanga4.jpg File:Gstring tanga3.jpg File:Gstring tanga2.jpg File:White bra and panties.jpg File:Crotchless tights 1.jpg File:Crotchless tights 2.jpg File:Gstring tanga.jpg File:Cameltoe 4.jpg File:Cameltoe 1.jpg File:Cameltoe 3.jpg File:Cameltoe 2.jpg File:Fishnet tights 4.jpg File:Fishnet tights 1.jpg File:Fishnet tights 3.jpg File:Fishnet tights 2.jpg File:Babydoll 3.jpg File:Half corset black.jpg File:Black camisole.jpg File:Cupless bra black1.jpg File:Black bra gstring.jpg File:White bra mature2.jpg File:White bra mature3.jpg File:Crotchless pantyhose back.jpg File:Crotchless pantyhose front.jpg File:Nipples of mature woman.jpg File:Breasts of mature woman.jpg File:Shelf bra black2.jpg File:Cupless bra black.jpg File:Female body mature.jpg File:Female body mature2.jpg File:Net pantyhose black.jpg File:G string lingerie.jpg File:White bra mature.jpg File:White babydoll back.jpg File:White babydoll front.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan old (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that. JavaScript made my watchlist jump and "rollback" moved in place of "diff". Guanaco (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Guanaco, No worries, If I'm honest I actually thought you objected to me archiving them but wasn't sure, The watchlist jumps happen to me all the time so no worries :), Thanks for popping by, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 03:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Van?

This is a van (of sorts) - I know it may not be the most comfortable fit, but what else do we call it? Maybe there should be a "light commercials" category? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've created Category:Toyota Starlet (P80) van which seems to be the common thing for these, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Crops/trims

Sorry to keep busting your balls here, but I noticed you reverting a bunch of minor crops. See this section for support for not renaming such files. They point out that "aggressive crops" should be uploaded as new images, but that doesn't apply to what I saw you revert in the four or five images I looked at. Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Do you have any images that you object too and I'll take a look, FWIW I've always been told unless they're minor crops then they should be reuploaded as new files, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 12:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
[picking up archived conversation] I feel that those edits of Heierlon's were ok (he's got some history with copyvios and is not exactly a communicator). I don't know if there is a definition of "aggressive crop" - to me it reaches that point when renaming the file might be in order, but that's just my gut feeling. This is a good example of reaching the threshold: while not a massive crop pixelwise it removes the third-placed Boutsen (ought to be renamed, really). Mostly my opinons, but somewhat confirmed in practice. Nice doing business with you. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Yeah sorry the talkpage is set up to be archived after a day, Images like that I fully agree should be cropped but the images I reverted were more or less minor crops which I personally didn't think needed cropping but anyway I've uploaded those as new files and some I've self reverted,
Probably going to shoot myself in the foot but personally it would be nice if there was perhaps a more detailed essay on what realistically is an okay crop and what isn't,
Same here nice to have met you and I guess came to a resolution,
Happy editing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (37611647516).jpg

 
File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (37611647516).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lev. Anthony (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (23808155028).jpg

 
File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (23808155028).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lev. Anthony (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (37611632776).jpg

 
File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (37611632776).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lev. Anthony (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (37628467072).jpg

 
File:Citroën Jumper - Mont-Bus (Montmélian) (37628467072).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Lev. Anthony (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your email

Aloha! Thanks for your email. I have to say that I don't see a problem. It's a {{PD-textlogo}} and frankly, what the EN-wiki does is not our concern. You need to talk to Yann to sort things out, you know how things are sometimes. You've been here for almost seven years. Holy cow! Maybe I shouldn't remind you, old man....   Forget about Golf MK2 and E30 beemer. Old as you are, your next car is this --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hedwig in Washington, Okie dokie well thanks for reading it and replying - I do agree other projects isn't a concern and annoyingly I thought of that the moment I sent it,
I have a confession .... I've only been on here for 2 years  , Haha damn that looks epic!!  , Certainly unique  ,
Anyway thanks for popping by :), –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

ok

Instead of reverting me, I would have preferred a note of explanation. Artix Kreiger (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Artix Kreiger - No note of explanation was needed - You redirected your talkpage to your userpage which is a pointless thing to do and as such you were reverted accordingly. –Davey2010Talk 22:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You delete every contribution by Boy Addi

Recently all contributions by a Wikipedia user named Boy addi you always delete. You have brought hatred in Wikipedia and Wiki media contributions.Resist since Wikipedia is a free place for everyone to contribute.Stop misusing your privileges instead try helping new users. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.96.95.42 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's an idea ... Stop spamming and promoting this moron across Wikipedia and I'd be more than happy to "not misuse my privileges" as you like to put it. –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Switching user group

Everyone in the MP3 uploaders user group is going to be switched to the new Extended uploaders group per this discussion. Sorry for the confusion. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaldari, No worries thanks for kindly updating me, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Dave,

Having reflect further on the discussion at Commons:License review/requests and in light of your recent comment that you have nothing against me, I want to apologize to you for having the mindset that you have grudges against me. I wanted to struck out my comment but you seemed to have collapsed it, but let me know if you still want me to struck it. Dave, in my limited interaction with you at EN Wikipedia, it was all quiet pleasant. Although, you presented evidence against me during my ArbCom case and your recent comment when Oshwah wished to help was not too good but I want to take it as constructive criticism and I do not wish to see it beyond that. I have a very rough beggining at EN Wikipedia and that put me in trouble and I have since learned from my mistakes. I just have to move on, Dave. Wikicology (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikicology, Thank you that truly does mean alot to me so thank you, I absolutely understand where you're coming from I do and if I'm being honest after the Arbcom stuff and then here I can see why you thought that way (and me nominating your file certainly didn't help), But as I said I'm not the one to hold grudges against anyone, (My motto is and always has been "Life's too short for petty grudges and all that" and I've gone through life with that motto and If I'm being honest in the 27 years of being alive Yann is the only person I've ever had a grudge against),
With me and Yann there was a lot of bad blood and having commented on one of his posts at AN I realised I did have a grudge against him and It needed to stop,
With me and you yes there was the whole EN thing bu no there was no bad blood between us and there never will be :),
FWiW I think you're a nice guy and I absolutely have no problems with you at all (obviously if I did i would say),
Anyway thanks for apologising it does honestly mean a lot to me and I hope we can put this behind us and just start fresh :),
Thanks again, Happy editing :), Regards, Dave. 12:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words and I look forward to us exchanging values. Regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:P7290304 Pompeji-2 (28974143855).jpg

 
File:P7290304 Pompeji-2 (28974143855).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 remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

LRR Request

@Davey2010:, I don't want to be a pest but I believe you accidentally archived my unclosed LRR by mistake with the other two. Best Regards -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sixflashphoto, Whoops my apologies for that, Not sure how yours ended up with the rest but anyway I've restored it again, Thanks for letting me know and again my apologies for that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, no harm done. Thanks, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Davey2010

Imagine that I already wrote a long epistola as a reply to your last message on Sixflashphoto's page, but I read it again before sending it and deleted it. I realized that You are not prejudiced against me but You are trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia. I wish You Merry Xmas and Happy New Year Stan old (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stan old, After the recent issues I can understand why you'd think but I honestly have no prejudice against anyone, As you can see on your block log no one bothered to mention the socking or the SPI so for historical purposes I thought it was best this was mentioned on your archive page, Again this isn't to shame you - it's simply there for historical purposes (Had an admin noted this on your blocklog then I wouldn't of created the archive etc),
Thanks and I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"Maximilian Befort" -> "own work"

I'm not sure your edit here is right. When I asked Krd, the OTRS verifier, whether Footsmudge was Emily Beecham, Krd was non-committal. Meanwhile, I did some web searching and found these bits. Maximilian Befort is a German actor and at least friend of Beecham. [3] [4] [5] So, they clearly know each other, but we still aren't sure who Footsmudge officially is (though honestly I suspect they did not care that much about our silly rules about "one person=one account", and just made it together), we shouldn't mark it "own work" unless we think Footsmudge=Befort. There is at least the possibility that Footsmudge=Beecham, and she just got Befort to write a separate email to OTRS/Krd, releasing the photo, in which case we shouldn't be marking it "own work". I'd leave it the way it was. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi GRuban, Being absolutely honest it was a kneejerk reaction - I wasn't sure if Max was the author and yeah I just tagged it, I'll self revert but GRuban if I make (or you believe I've made) an error please revert - I'm not going to revert but I'm no saint and do mess up :), Anyway thanks for your message, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Just want to make sure I am doing this correctly

I just want to make sure I'm doing these Public Domain from USDA Flicker files needing human review correctly. Here Is one I've done. If there is anything I should be doing differently, please let me know. Is the stated license correct on the image file. I'm mostly asking if I should be changing the tags or tagging this with a different license but since it is done by a government employee I believe I'm doing it right but it never hurts to check with someone. Thank you very much, -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sixflashphoto, As far as I'm aware those licences cannot be used here (the uploader would need to ask the of the image for their permission - In short they're not worth bothering with, However with Gov images I could be wrong on this so your best bet is to ask at COM:AN, Sorry I couldn't be more help, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
Merry Christmas! Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


btw, where did you get the christmas template message? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Artix Kreiger, I made it myself :), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

  Christmas Card
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Here's a pic of Canterbury Cathedral. Artix Kreiger (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

SEASON'S GREETINGS

Have a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and keep up the good work. 🎄 Green Giant (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Thank you Davey2010! Merry Christmas to you and your family!! --Ruthven (msg) 08:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2018! ;)

    * Happy Holidays 2018, Davey2010! *
  • Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!
  • Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année!
  • Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr!
  • Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом!
  • ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo!
  • Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!

-- George Chernilevsky talk 18:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)   

Merry Xmas

Your edit on Admin noticeboard

Hi Davey, I saw your recent contribution to the admin noticeboard. Personally, I think it would be good to modify the link on the admin noticeboard to yourself. I'm hesitant to change your edit. What do you think? --Schlurcher (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah my apologies Schlurcher, Yeah that should've been my name not that editors so I've changed it, Again my apologies for that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if anyone would have taken offense; better safe than sorrow. Best,--Schlurcher (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Who knows but thanks for bringing it to my attention, Exactly that's literally my motto with everything (Best be safe than sorry), Anyway Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Davey2010/Archive 2017".