User talk:Nyttend/archive 1

Welcome to the Commons, Nyttend/archive 1!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Yann 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Nyttend, I noticed you put Image:Stillwater Downtown.jpg and Image:Enid Downtown.jpg in the category Churches in the United States. Why not create the category Churches in Oklahoma and put the two photos under that category instead? --Georgeryp 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Downtown Beaver Pennsylvania

Thanks, but it is easy. It is just one or two clicks on the automatic function in the software AcdSee . The software is not really expansive but the automatic functions are brilliant. --Marku1988 21:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bluffton_northward_along_Main_Street.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Bluffton_northward_along_Main_Street.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 image, 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. In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

24.165.124.148 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Maps by User:Nyttend

Hi, i hid your category to seperate them from other categories. Greetings, --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You can make hidden categorys visible by changing your preferences (Preferences->Misc->Show hidden categories), please try this. If it is to uncomfortable you may revert my edit to your category. --Martin H. (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello just here making certain that the welcome template was here also

I will be honest, I only used the help template to remember the badname template because I occasionally get a little discombobulated with the naming of my uploads. A link to the deletion guidelines is in there!! Yay!

I personally had much more luck though just putting the delete template on it and following those instructions and haven't actually read these guidelines in a long while. -- carol (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Baker Electric Building

Thanks for uploading so many Cleveland images. The building on Euclid is officially the Baker Motor Vehicle Company Building in the NRHP, but it is more commonly called the Baker Electric Building. Here's a recent Plain Dealer article about its restoration. I'm not sure where the Baker factory was located, but given the large footprint of auto factories and the high values of Euclid Avenue land at the turn of the century, it seems reasonable to assume that the factory wasn't on Euclid. - EurekaLott (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Birnirk Site.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!

Doncram (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:File:Winnibigoshish Lake Dam.jpg

Its simple, follow the LOC templates link http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/hhh.mn0389 and you will come to the archival description page of this survey. The survay consists of 11 b&w photographs, 10 data pages and 1 photo caption card, you see the survey number somewhere on the page (HAER MN-65) and the stable link with the digital ID hhh.nm0389. You can click the Item on the Top 11 b&w photographs because they are already digitalized. Klick it and you will see the 11 photographs. Your photo is nr. 4, survey id MN-65-4, thats important to find the image in the caption card. Click the photo. You have two download options at the bottom, select the High res TIFF image. Its 19 MB large, so the download will take some time. Open the file with a software i dont even have photoshop so i use ms office picture manager. Edit the TIFF file like you want, maybe crop the borders, and export it to jpg. You can get the informations about date and author from the photo caption card. --Martin H. (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:180px-Kujau wiki.jpg

Hi Nyttend, please do not remove a {{Delete}} template inserted by someone else as you did here. This has to be done by the admin who processes the associated deletion request. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Permission templates question

Earlier today, you dealt with the File:Waterfall in the War Memorial Park.jpg, changing the "OTRS pending" to the standard template with the OTRS ticket number. I was confused about one thing, however: you replaced the {{Attribution}} with the OTRS ticket number template — don't we need to have some sort of copyright tag as well as the OTRS ticket number template? I've restored the permission template and moved the OTRS number elsewhere in the image description; if you get a chance, please look at the page and fix it if I've done something wrong. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You've left it exactly how I should have done; my script for adding OTRS templates failed. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1531 Stout Street

It was fun to go down and take this picture. Thanks as always for your great edits to this and others. It was a difficult building to photograph; the street is narrow. Here is the front view, which I though was not as good as the shot I eventuall chose. Denverjeffrey (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Puye Ruins.jpg

It was a nice photograph and agree but if the author does end up replying and agrees to have it under a free license forward it to OTRS and contact me and I'll be happy to restore the photograph. Bidgee (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Yarnalgo's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Yarnalgo (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo requests - NRHP sites in Valencia County

I will take some photos on my next trip (I live in southern New Mexico, but I travel through this area a few times a year). I got a photo of the Harvey House Museum on this trip, which I have uploaded. File:Harvey House Museum Belen New Mexico.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --AllenS (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will collect them statewide. Leave a note on my talk page is there is anything you think is especially needed. --AllenS (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lake County Courthous photo

Hello Nyttend, I have changed the license on my Flickr photo page of the Lake County Courthouse. I hope I used the correct license. If not please let me know. I am sorry for all the confusion regarding this photo. Thank you. --Pdepalma (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Nikbot not giving me a message

You're right. I'm back from holiday and I've just seen that's a bug on wikipedia.py that make the bot crash just before it can notify the problem to the user. However, I've just fixed it :-) Thank you, --Filnik^{\b[Rr]ock\b!?} 10:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Image license question (Denver)

I think the license that was there was the one I originally gave to the picture. Definitely please do not delete it from Wikicommons. I just changed the license to attribution only. That solves the problem, no? Thanks, Denverjeffrey (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my confusion on this picture's license. I made a change just now -- is it the one you seek? My intent is to give it a license that allows it to remain on Wikicommons, but I guess I am confusing either the picture or the license. Also, thanks for your comments on my Speer Boulevard photo!Denverjeffrey (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Abigor#Talk page speedy deletion?

I deleted the talk page, as you requested; no need for further bureaucracy. –Tryphon^☂ 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I'm sorry for the error here: File:Miami County Courthouse clock and Justice.jpg

The situation is as MGA explained. When one sees the flickr license, I thought it might be 'safer' to pass it as I saw it: 'cc by 2.0' in this case. I usually check the license and the resolution. My apologies, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Mounds.jpg

I'm not quite sure, but as far as remember 7 years later the picture was taken at the Bynum Mounds, near milepost 232 on the Natchez Trace Parkway. --Jan Kronsell (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Media with erroneous locations

Nyttend, I just fixed your files to be compatible with the {{Location}} template you are using, and today they are back in Category:Media with erroneous locations with clear error messages showing on the file page. You can keep {{Location}} template on top (sorry for moving it), but please leave the parameters inside the template intact. --Jarekt (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits on several of my images

Thanks for the category cleanup, but please don't mess with how other people choose to state their re-use permissions. This has been discussed several times on the Village Pump. Unless someone actually gives the wrong permission info - e.g. misattributes the work, claims a CC license on something that is actually PD, etc. - you (and I, and anyone but the uploader) should leave alone their one statements about the image (adding is fine, but removing is another thing). I choose on my images always to be explicit, not implicit, about myself as a source, and that I, as the photographer, am granting rights. I do this as a precaution, because I've found that quite a few of my images get used outside of Wikimedia Foundation projects, and that "own work" has a tendency to turn into a credit to the Commons or to Wikipedia instead of to the actual photographer.

Again, sincerely, thanks for the category cleanup, but please don't "fix" what is not broken. - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Law offices

Category discussion notification

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

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jurists

Category discussion notification

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

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

concerns: Licence for File:Cityhall-Little Rock 131.jpg

Hello, you mentioned that this foto has no correct licence. Please read, what I wrote on the File:Cityhall-Little Rock 131.jpg , that the fotographer W.Beckers gave all rights to me. He is my brother in law!! There are dozens of other fotos of my br.i.l. Please remove the Licencedeletion plague. Greets. --Peng (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You wrote::You've not provided evidence that he gave you all rights to the image. Could you contact him and ask him to sent an email to OTRS, saying that he'd given you all rights to these images? Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC). He did it, and what happens now? You ask now the OTRS and then YOU remove this b........ OK? --Peng (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright post

I dropped a comment at Commons talk:Licensing#Template for US Post Office Department stamp? in response to yours. Ww2censor (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Image restored

I have restored your duplicate image that you had speedy deleted as the author. You can find it at File:Bellefontaine City Hall.jpg. You're welcome! Royalbroil 04:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Curved Building in Cameron.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 21:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Karthaus Truss Bridge

I just uploaded File:Karthaus Truss Bridge Steelwork.jpg it's over the West Branch Susquehanna River between Centre and Clearfield Counties. I am not sure if it's part of the bridge project that you've been working on or not. Either way it's uploaded and available. Dincher (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacker

With the high level of trust that you have demonstrated as a long-term administrator on the English Wikipedia, I have given you the rollbacker permission here on Commons. I am certain you would use it wisely. Royalbroil 14:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please use it to roll back your tagging of all those files that already have an active deletion request. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Easier to keep discussion here. As I pointed out in several of the DRs: the license was recently changed. If the problem is that the DR's were not logged, you can log them. And they should be bundled in a mass DR. But tagging bypasses the discussion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

copyright on centerpoint image

What do I need to do I am the webmaster from centerpointminsities. It is our image for our church. I uploaded for a new wiki page for the church

Thanks

I give my page on wiki got killed as not relevant, until I get more references my Church and its activity I am not going to try again. You can delete my pic I will try again when I am ready to attempt a new wiki page

Sorry for the trouble

Newark

I was only in Newark for a day, mostly by happenstance, on the way from Nashville to Allentown. Did research afterwards on it. The Great Circle Earthworks, which I took photos of, is in a public park, anyone can get in. Another part is in a country club, I don't know how accessible is is. There's a third bit, but don't know where it is. Newark is a nice town, visit Dawes Arboretum and the nearby Velvet Ice Cream Company in Utica if you ever get there. --Ebyabe (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

File:First Presbyterian Church, Napoleon 1.jpg

I've wondered about removing duplicated descriptions in files that I've modified. I've never done it, probably because, like many things on Wikipedia, there are no clear guidelines. So I appreciate your educating me that it's not only OK, but good. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: New user right

The thanks goes to User:Docu who put in a request at Commons:Requests for rights#Patroller (add request). ;) Bidgee (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Files by Fale

Hi There! some time ago you answerd a question I had in the Village Pump. I had time to mark lots of files and create a deletion request but nothing seems to happen. Would you maybe like to write a comment here? Amada44 (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Hi! Regarding this:
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Osterstein Castle from the air, 2008.jpg

i know the creator, can i tell him to send you e-mail, or something? Can you please explain me, or send me a relevant link?

Thanks! :) -Tadija (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I did all that you said, and he sent mail. :) :) What else i can do for this photo? You will search for it? --Tadija (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohio!

Thanks for the note. As I noted in reply on my talk page, as you've been working on Ohio topics on Wikimedia, if you haven't checked out the Flickr photos of Dok1 / Don O'Brien I'd suggest you do so. I've copied a few of his pix here, but I bet people who know more about that part of the country than I could find good use for more. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Colors

Hi, I've read about your little problem in Commons:Help_desk. If you are using w:Firefox maybe the Addon colorZilla (screenshot there) could be a help for you. It shows you the RGB code (see also RGB color model) of any color on a webpage/image you pick using your mouse. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Sackville House site in Washington.jpg

I saw File:Sackville House site in Washington.jpg. Did you happen to get any other pictures of W&J buildings or the campus? Also, let me know if you find yourself in Washington again, I can suggest some really cool architecture for you to see.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token 62d27c5ba9cc53fdb6e063493b215821

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2010 (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 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!

Deletion

When you get a chance, could you have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kent Roosevelt New.jpg and comment if you can? I'm not sure why it's taken so long for this to get deleted. I personally think it should be speedily deleted as it serves no purpose here at all. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind...I put a speedy tag on it as it is out of the project scope. No need to discuss something so obvious. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian Copyright and Related Rights Law.

Hi! I think that Chapter II, Art. 4, para. 1 of the Bulgarian Copyright and Related Rights Law meets the requirements of Wikimedia Commons: normative and individual acts of state authorities, as well as their official translations, are not subjects to copyright protection. Best wishes, Bulgarian Herald (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

no-source-tag removal

Hi Nyttend,
I have seen that you removed no-source-tags from a lot of files only because there was an own-tag. As you are not new on Commons, you might know that even copyvio-uploaders usually tag their uploads as "own". When an admin or another experienced user tags an allegedly own-sourced image with no-source, that simply means (with less harsh words), we don't believe you or we aren't sure, whether this is really your own work. In some instances the uploader reacts and either provides evicence or concedes that it was actually not his own work. In my impression, that strategy is more productive than directly requesting such files for deletion. Therefore, you should be more cautious in removing such tags without any further evidence. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that they do, but I also know that the policy says an {{Own}} claim is sufficient. If one disbelieves the claim, one can file a deletion request. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You may also comment here. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Deputy Commissioner.png

Hi! OK, I put some words how he\she can solve the license problem on the uploader page. Regards Electron ^<Talk?> 07:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Univac-model.jpg

File:Univac-model.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!

--     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GFDL / CC

Please stop changing the license of the red wine glass image. I uploaded it years ago using the GFDL license, but changed it later to CC-BY-SA 2.5 because images licensed this way are much easier to use for third parties. Nobody looses something, because its less restricted than before. -- regards, aka 13:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus, at Commons_talk:Licensing#User_keeps_removing_GFDL_tag, that Aka may change the licensing to whatever he/she wants as long as it remains suitable for Commons purposes. Yes, licenses are un-revokable -- you can't go up to a re-user who obtained the image while it was licensed GFDL and demand they stop using it that way -- but Commons can certainly change the license under which we distribute the file as long as the copyright holder agrees. Powers (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing parent categories

Hello, I see you have an interest in HABS photos and the NRHP (and that hidden category in all the image pages). Why do you like to work with these photos and categories? I'm interested in places around the neighborhood, and I appreciate the details in the photographs as an architect.

Can I ask about your reason for taking Category:Historic American Buildings Survey in West Virginia out of Category:Beverly?

Your objection was that "the house itself isn't related to HABS". But the house, at one time, was surveyed. Much like the houses in the Category:National Register of Historic Places. Actually, this parent category has the same function as Category:National Register of Historic Places in West Virginia (where Beverly appears): to "make it easier to move through the category tree" of HABS by state as per COM:C.

- Dogears (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

File:St. Francis Seminary entrance.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 02:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove parent category

Howdy, I'd be more than willing to remove the redundancies. Just didn't want to spoil anyone's fun by removing their favorite image that appears on the "tens" (Category:1660s houses in the United States, etc.) Anything earlier than 1660 will stay in the tens until there's enough entries for separate years. P.S. I appreciate your tactful communications which make it easier to get along here. Some of my other critiquers are rather blunt with their edit summary.

— Dogears (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

So what's the "policy" on: There's such a thing as alphabetical order.

The list of categories serves the user best to be ordered from specific to general, with the credit for the photographers last. Otherwise, there's no order to the categories: national, then local, then national, who's this guy? (Jet Lowe), local, national ... Dogears (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Best to follow the categorizer's preferences, so be it. Dogears (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cane River Creole National Historical Park — Simple google search found the website, then click the "maps" tab. Google maps has an add-on that lets you drop a coordinate onto the map (right click menu). Then cut and paste the coordinate into the template and then format. Dogears (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• The coords are in the middle of a field for this one, hence the {{Object_location}} template was used. With google Street View, the coordinates on the street can be pinpointed, and the (Camera) {{Location}} template can be used (when not in the middle of a field). Dogears (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin?

While we haven't always agreed on every little thing, you've given me a lot of help on WP:EN in the past. I see you asking for Admin help from time to time here. If you'd be willing to do an RfA, I'd be delighted to sponsor you. We certainly need all the help we can get.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the offer! Unfortunately, I must decline — I have enough to do at en:wp, and I begin grad school in a week, so I expect soon to have much less time. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The thought occurs to me — I doubt that I would risk being desysopped per the inactivity portion of the de-adminship policy, but I'm sure that I'd perform far fewer admin actions than I do at en:wp. I'd probably only use them when I found them necessary for what I wanted to do, rather than going places such as COM:AN and looking for jobs that needed to be fulfilled. If you think that such a low level of activity would be welcomed in a request for administratorship, feel free to nominate me; I'm not going to make a Shermanesque statement. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't twist your arm. I was one of those who proposed raising the bar for being a sysop to ten edits a month, so I would be inconsistent if I didn't agree that we don't need inactive ones. On the other hand, that proposal failed, so the bar remains at five edits in six months and your various work here would have generated far more than that number of Admin edits without having to look for more.

So, what are you studying?     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

File:NYCS-bull-trans-Q(6ave).png

File:NYCS-bull-trans-Q(6ave).png 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!

Train2104 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request

Could you use a mass DR when you go to town on a particular subject? It saves both the nom and the closing admin several pageloads per file. Thanks      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As at Miral Faisal, when you nominate a lot of images on the same subject, with the same rationale, a Mass DR saves you time because you only have to make one entry in the log and create one DR subpage (I know that a script can do the work, but you still have to watch all the pages load). It saves the closing Admin time because he or she has to click only once, to keep or delete the image, omitting the second time to close the DR. See, for example: Commons:Deletion requests/Images of User:M1keRTM.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No apology needed -- it's not a big deal and we're all learning.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about featured pictures

Hello, I was on a trip to Israel in the last days, so I couldn't answer to your question. There is a page on the english wikipedia, where you perhaps get hints how to improve your photographs: Photography_workshop. Before presenting your pictures at Faetured Picture Candidates you should go to Quality images candidates where you can get also valuable hints. For File:Monroe County Courthouse in Bloomington, dome interior from floor.jpg: nice composition but there ist too much noise and overexposed parts. At File:Downtown Bedford, Indiana.jpg perspective shouls be corrected to avoid converging lines. A very useful software to do this is the free shiftn (also available in english). So good luck :-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nisqually quake

I don't think you made a good move adding Category:Seattle, Washington in the 2000s to Category:2001 Nisqually earthquake and removing if from individual photos. The quake was centered near Olympia, Washington, a good 80 km from Seattle. While its effects in Seattle were dramatic, so were its effects in many places, some of them even on the other side of the epicenter and hence not within 100km of Seattle. I think the Category:Seattle, Washington in the 2000s category should only be on photos taken in Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I encountered the categories at the photo you uploaded of the damage at the Cadillac Hotel, which was in both categories; this made me think that it was a Seattle earthquake, since I'd never before heard of it. Nyttend (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Seattle was certainly affected, but so were many other places in Washington, hence it shouldn't be subordinate to the one city. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: FlickrreviewR doesn't believe you

Lol, that's pretty bizarre. Thanks for the note! Hekerui (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

new templates for US-States

Hi Nyttend,

I have simplified the use of the templates again, actually for Pennsylvania, see for ex.: Category:Built in Pennsylvania in 1869 (Template:PennsylvaniaArc) and Category:1860s architecture in Pennsylvania (Template:PennsylvaniaArcDecade). You see the US-States navigation templates are included now in the "built in" templates and you have much less work with single pages. ---anro (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

the same for bridges in Pennsylvania by decade, see Category:1930s bridges in Pennsylvania --anro (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Pinal County Courthouse.jpg -- original uploader?

I tracked the origin of this photo, and found that I added it to the Pinal County article back in March 2008, and uploaded the photo shortly before.

For whatever reason, when it got moved to Commons, it was deleted in favor of the copy you uploaded in April 2009.

This is true Wikitrivia, but I couldn't figure out why you reverted my credit line, so spent a few minutes tracking it down, instead of doing unwelcome chores...

Best for 2011, PDTillman (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

House?

Hmm. I generally agree with your edits, but I wonder about this one. It was a pair of houses moved from the International District to Ballard; in Ballard, they are used as offices, not houses. So I'm not sure Category:Relocated houses in the United States is actually better than Category:Relocated buildings and structures in the United States. - Jmabel ! talk 03:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Jmabel's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:The Assam News.jpg

Hey Nyttend, this file was added recently to illustrate The Assam News. I find it odd, though, that the tag says "own work" and the image itself says ©The Assam News. Shouldn't this be accompanied by a ticket (OTRS ticket, is that it?) that says that permission has been granted by The Assam News? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks! (I shouldn't have put wikilinks around the image, I guess--sorry.) Drmies (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Permission vs. no source

Hi. You declined three of my "no source" tags at English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, when dealing with thousands of images, I make mistakes, and what I meant to click was "no permission" (since corrected). However, you then came to commons and declined the "no permission" as "Permission was provided at en:wp" [1] [2] [3]. However, I really don't see anything to indicate there is any permission on the page. Could you correct this or explain the decline? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole issue is very simple: you tagged the images for lack of a source and then lack of permission when they're sourced to the uploader. If you read the NPD template, you'll see that it depends on the image being sourced to someone other than the uploader. If we have an {{Own}} source statement for an image, it may not be deleted by NPD. Moreover, when your deletion was declined, you tagged them as having been marked for lack of permission several days before you actually tagged them — kindly observe that images are required to be tagged for lack of permission for several days before they may be deleted for that reason. I don't care what kind of mistake you make: don't put a false date on a tag so that it can be deleted sooner. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that wording in the NPD template at all: template:no permission since. In fact the template specifically says "This also applies if you are the author yourself." If you disagree, you might also want to have a talk with w:User:Diannaa, who deleted more than just those three images. She also deleted several other uploads by the same author. Also, I don't have a problem with constructive criticism, but I don't appreciate being tersely commanded to do something; it's not polite. I would appreciate though if you could phrase your requests to me in a kind manner. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it also applies if the uploader is the author, you have my permission to go ahead and tag all of my own-work images for deletion, since I've never provided OTRS permission for any of them. Moreover, I give constructive criticism when people are doing things in good faith that could be improved. When someone intentionally falsifies information in order to circumvent policy, I am under no illusion that he is acting in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that helps us to answer the question in any form. I could continue, but, as you've become combative and show no desire to help, I'm afraid I'll have to ask some others in the community. the relevant thread will be at COM:AN. I may of course be proven wrong, but your assumption of bad faith not only is wrong-headed, it's against community rules. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:BAR-1 NWS Site Komakuk Beach Yukon Territory.jpg

The free use to use this image is placed directly in thesummary for permission. I shall repeat it here since it's clear you must have not seen it in your zeal to delete images

|Source =http://www.pc.gc.ca/canada/pn-tfn/itm2-/2006/2006-05-01_e.asp |Author =Parks Canada |Date =2003 |Permission = Information on this Web site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal or public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified. http://www.pc.gc.ca/avis-notice_e.asp

You do notice that I also posted the source of the image as well.

Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was this image deleted? Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Admiral Theatre

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Admiral_Theater&diff=52836366&oldid=33545003: Priteca's remodel was so drastic as almost to constitute a new building. Almost all of the architecturally interesting features of this landmark building date from the Priteca remodel. Priteca was one of the leading cinema architects in the U.S. (almost any theater you might know with the name "Pantages" was his work). - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Southcoastpl-pano1.jpg

Hi, I noticed that the category Category:1980s architecture in California was recently removed for the image Southcoastpl-pano1.jpg. The building photographed (Sears at South Coast Plaza) was built in 1966 however in 1985 the exterior went through a complete remodel, voiding any sign of the 1960s from most of the department store. As a result, the outside of the store is now prominently clad in pink faux stone-surface tiles and white stucco, all motifs of 1980s architecture and design. Therefore I think that it is appropriate to keep the category in order to reflect this. Please speak up if you suggest otherwise. Thanks! --Amineshaker (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings again! Thank you for the quick response. I definitely understand your point and it makes sense. Since the Category:1980s Architecture in California is set up to contain the sub-categories Category:Built in California in 198x, then I can see why it should only contain photographs of buildings built during that decade. However I invite you to consider this: the reason for my concern is based on what is implied, linguistically, with the category name Category:1980s Architecture in California. Without considering what sub-categories are contained here, one would be lead to believe that the aforementioned category is dedicated to any structure that reflects architectural design, style, motifs, etc. from the 1980's. On the other hand, Category:Built in California in 198x linguistically implies specifically that a structure was built between 1980-1989, regardless of if the structure contains any defining architectural style or not (i.e.: a tool shed built in 1982; a park restroom built in 1988, etc.). Based on these definitions, I think the two categories in question do not necessarily have to be mutually inclusive, since one is referring to the architecture while the other is referring to the year a structure was built.

I would imagine many years in the future that an enthusiast of architecture would look at the category titled Category:1980s Architecture in California and expect to see images of not just structures built in that decade, but also of any structure which reflects architectural elements designed in the 1980s (regardless of when the actual structure was built). I'm eager to hear your thoughts and further suggestions. Finally thank you for your tireless work in going through the countless number of images on Wikimedia and correcting the category designation--I know that its a tedious task but certainly one that will be appreciated for future users of this site! Best regards --Amineshaker 15:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Stream_at_Holford_Combe.jpg

File:Stream_at_Holford_Combe.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!

Lmatt (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Missvain Indianapolis categories

I noticed you were reverting categorizations made by User:Missvain. I can't figure out what is wrong with most of them, particularly if they end up having more than an image or two. A could see a few of them being too specific (Category:1970 in Indianapolis), but I think that user is from the area and she's drilling down a lot of Indianapolis stuff, so it could be that several of the categories she's adding end up populated. (For example, Category:High schools in Indianapolis was removed from File:Arsenal Technical High School.jpg, yet that category already has 5 images, and is almost certainly fillable with media lurking around Commons.) Is she being overly aggressive somewhere and people are needing to just mass-revert her and figure it out later? --Closeapple (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

File:YumaTrestle1.jpg & FlickrLickr

Your review of this image is completely unacceptable. You say "its never been reviewed." That's just nonsense! This image was uploaded and its flickr license reviewed and verified by the FlickrLickr bot on 26 July 2007 here which could Only upload flickr images which were freely licensed as "cc by generic" (ie. cc by 2.0) as this one was. You don't know what FlickrLickr was? If you don't trust me, ask another Admin who knows about bots. FlickrLickr was one of the earlier bots which viewed the licenses of images at upload at Commons--much like Magnus Manske does today--from 2005 until 2009 when it stopped being used and was replaced by the Flickr Upload bot. I can't believe you could have got an image deleted because of what you didn't know; so, I'm sending you a notice as a trusted user now! Its important.

Once an image is uploaded by the FlickrLickr, Magnus Manske bot, Flickr Upload bot or passes flickrreview, it is considered passed for life and non-revocable...unless there are FOP or copy vio problems. Please remember this the next time you see that an image was uploaded by FlickrLickr. Also, please read the message at the top of this Category for FlickrLickr images...because I did NOT type it. Someone else did. I hope this clear things up. Some people may mark Flickrlickr images later but that's irrelevant because they were free at upload and that's what counts. You can't delete them just because a flickr copyright owner changes the license 2 or 3 years after they were uploaded onto Commons. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment: I'm sorry if I was angry. It was midnight in BC, Canada, and I was tired. All I'm saying is that in 2011, FlickrLickr images don't need to be reviewed because the FlickrLickr bot confirmed the image's flickr license was 'cc by 2.0' at upload. So, its non-revocable. I thought maybe you didn't know about FlickrLickr since it hasn't been used to upload images since August 2009. My sincere apologies. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Brian Reichle

Perhaps he's not the most relevant man in the world but I believe his pursuits are relevant enough for the existence of a Wikipedia page for him.

He is a lightning rod for many established and not so established comedians coming up and adapting the new technologies that are becoming available in our increasingly connected world.

If the Brian Reichle article itself was poorly edited/sourced/structured that can be fixed.

He's an Ohioan that deserves his own article. Please, I believe it would be helpful if you undeleted him.

Hi Unknown, it would be more helpful if you would specify the file (filename) you are talking about. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Church halls"

Please see Commons:Village_pump#.22Church_halls.22; your comments would be very welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 15:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Johnson's Creamery.jpg

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at File talk:Johnson's Creamery.jpg#Cell phone elements. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NRHP template

Are you sure about the rationale behind this removal? Because you are reverting some of the literaly thousands of such edits I made over the last several weeks after this discussion on the Village Pump. It seems to me that my edits are in accord with what was said there. Could you please either bring this back to the Village Pump or discuss it with User:Multichill before reversing more such edits? I don't want to waste hours of my time or yours. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Jmabel, let's try to keep the conversation on one page.

I don't understand what you mean. If I understand the VP section correctly, you believed that the categories should be tagged with the template, not the images; since the categories are tagged, the images shouldn't be. Am I missing something? Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was what I originally suggested, but User:Multichill, who created the template disagreed and wanted it on all images (indeed, he had originally placed it on 8 or so of my images, not on any of my categories). The discussion linked from the VP seems to go his way on this, so I was going along. Do note that (somewhat to my surprise) this does seem to be the common practice for other subcats of Category:Cultural heritage monuments with known IDs.

Again, I could go either way on this, but I think you & Multichill should try to reach a consensus, rather than my doing what he said to do and you reverting my edits. I will lay off of further related edits until a consensus emerges. - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the clarification; I indeed misread it. I agree with "what I originally suggested", since one of the main points of having category trees is to prevent some categories from becoming too full; e.g., {{CatDiffuse}}. However, I don't feel like putting much effort into convincing people that they need to change, so I'll just not remove these templates in the future. Nyttend (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of this puts anything in a new category, it's just a matter of what gets a template. I believe the idea is eventually to hook to some DB that can use the reference numbers, so that anyone encountering a category or image with this template can click through to a page based on the database entry. - Jmabel ! talk 04:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Imho individual images should be tagged and categories can be tagged. All subcategories of Category:Cultural heritage monuments with known IDs are flat (big) tracker categories. We use this system in other countries to assist in categorization, to add location templates, etc. This is now also possible for the US. Multichill (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Kettering

What does "People from <fooville>" mean?

Charles Kettering was born in Loudonville in central Ohio. As a rich man he later built a large mansion in South West Ohio, near his business interests in Dayton, a location that later chose to rename itself after him as Kettering.

He was from Loudonville. He lived in Kettering. When we have a category for Category:Residents of Kettering, Ohio, we can add him to that. He's only from one place though, and that place is Loudonville, not Kettering.

Similarly Brooklyn Decker, another member of Category:People from Kettering, Ohio. Born in Kettering, she now lives in NC. Commons listed her as "from" three places at once. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Raised at Commons:Village_pump#What_does_.22Cat:People_from_.3Cfooville.3E.22_mean.3F Andy Dingley (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Another request for help

One of the 3 images was already geo-tagged (though some 100 m off; I've corrected it now); another showed essentially the same scene; and for the third, I can't exactly figure the point of view, but I believe I've identified the building (another church!) as shown on Google Maps sat view. Have adjusted captions accordingly. Not sure about the 2 trees near the church, but maybe they have been cut since I've taken the picture... -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

NRHP tagging

You might be happy to see that one of my bots is filling up Category:National Register of Historic Places with known IDs. The tagging is based on the usage of the images in lists at the English Wikipedia. This will result in about 34.000 images in this category (based on these statistics). Multichill (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New nomination on File:Abetomb03 (December 2005).jpg

There is a new deletion nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abetomb03 (December 2005).jpg. We were the participants in the original 2010 nomination. I'm not sure if it's important, but you were the original nominator, so there it is. --Closeapple (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Link commons and Flickr

Hi, as per "there's no evidence from Flickr that the en:wp is the Flickr uploader" from this - how would I supply said evidence? Cheers, Nikthestoned (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

License review request

I've cleaned up your request - the page you'll want to have on your watchlist is Commons:License review/requests. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: NR and HD categories

Really? Then can you sort out the ones that are, and the ones that aren't? I've considered something similar for Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, because some other user is loading up images from parts of Texas and adding bad categories, and sometimes none at all. However, with the distinction of Historic districts that aren't on NRHP, you left me with something to keep in mind. ----DanTD (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Commons:License review/requests. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

One more church photo

Off Victor Pike; see coord in image details

This looked as if it was on private land (a farm). There was no sign with the church's name. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2012 (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 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!

Affected:

• File:TVE La1 logo since 2008.png

Yours sincerely Stefan4 (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note about my mis-categorizing the Fort Washakie Historic District Building No. 67 photo. I'm not sure what I was going for there, so I'll just leave it as it is after you undid that edit. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Slightly belated reply

I replied to you at User talk:HJ Mitchell#Courthouse photos. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Central House in Napoleon.jpg

Hi Nyttend. The above file has been showing in Category:Other speedy deletions for a few days now. I can't see why it's showing there, so I though I'd let you know. INeverCry 00:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Newcom Plain Neighborhood Park.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

House museum

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Freeport_Historical_Museum&curid=18785735&diff=85977943&oldid=73867686: although this is a museum in a former house, I wouldn't particularly call it a "house museum". No effort has been made to restore any of the rooms of the house or to reflect what it looked like in a past time; they simply used it as a convenient and appropriately historic building in which to place the museum, which has artifacts of a pretty diverse nature. Is there something I'm missing about the meaning of this category, or should this be reverted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Note

Considering how the Xanderliptak case was (mis-)handled, I don't think it's right to tell an editor he'll be committing a federal crime if he fraudulently uses DCMA. However, it would be totally fair to tell the editor that if he goes ahead with it, he will necessarily be indef'd, for violations of the wikimedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Given your response, then tell me why Xanderliptak wasn't taken to court and charged with perjury? His pretext for getting his images deleted was a blatant lie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there was nothing special about Xander's illustrations, and as I recall the feud erupted because his watermarks were removed, which is pretty much analogous to the current situation. But are you aware of what specific tactic Xander used to get his stuff deleted? I am, but I don't want to say it out loud here. And it's other than the obvious fact that wikimedia just didn't want to bother with that clown anymore. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Unidentified insect in bathtub.jpg

A Blattid cockroach (immature) Most likely Periplaneta americana [4] Notafly (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

NR-listed

Hey, I don't understand your edit to File:George Boxley Cabin, southern and western sides.jpg. What is NR-listed, and why does it mean that we should link to a Wikipedia article that doesn't exist? (specifically, why does it being on the National Register mean that we link to non-existing articles; I'm not as familiar with Commons policies as I am with enwp's, I'll admit, but your edit makes no sense to me) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Town Hall vs City Hall

I'm trying to understand your reasoning between Town Hall vs City Hall. You mentioned "Go with established category; throughout the US, we use simply "Town halls" regardless of the local jurisdictional name" yet Category:Minneapolis City Hall is ok to remain a City Hall? Per wikipedia : city hall: "chiefly N. Amer., the chief municipal offices of a city; hence, the municipal officers collectively" Other buildings you changed to town hall when even the building said city hall on them. Living in the US, I've never heard someone say let's go to the town hall even in a small city. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

File:John and Dorothy Haynes House.jpg

File:John and Dorothy Haynes House.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!

KTo288 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Object location vs Camera location

I noticed that you undid my edit to File:Bishop's Block.jpg. I had converted the (somewhat inaccurate) object location formerly there to an accurate camera location. You reverted the change, explaining "The point is the object location, since the camera location isn't important; we're showing where the subject is."

In fact, if you look at Commons:Geocoding#Geocoding media on Commons you will see a clearly stated preference for camera locations over object locations: "On Commons we record the location of the camera as accurately as we can. The locations of subjects should be geocoded on their Wikipedia articles, and the Commons description should link to those Wikipedia articles."

I think you should revert your change (and put mine back), following this policy. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

FYI, a new suggestion has been added. Hamblin (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area and Pittsburgh-New Castle CSA.png

File:Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area and Pittsburgh-New Castle CSA.png 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!

Marketdiamond (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Stefan4's talk page. You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan4 (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend Look2See1 Edit Wars

Hi, Look2See1 (talk · contribs) and Nyttend (talk · contribs). I've noticed you two have been repeatedly reverting each other on numerous image pages (one example of many). I don't consider myself a novice about Wikipedia categories, but I'm not sure what the disagreement is about. I have no particular opinion about who is more correct, but I am getting increasingly annoyed at seeing so many counter edits back and forth on my watchlist. Let me suggest that you please take your disagreement to a forum here where other Commons regulars can comment, or submit the matter to third party arbitration. I think both of you are well capable of making better contributions to Commons than spending your time reverting each other. Thanks for your attention. (Same notice put on talk pages of both users.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

@Nyttend, Your response to this (more of the same misuse of the rollback button on what you consider your files), ad-hominem attacks, denial, and the ongoing concerns many editors have with your poor behaviour prompts me to bring the matter up at AN/U. Penyulap ☏ 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

NRHP in Missouri by county

I just added categories to nearly a dozen commons categories you created for various National Register of Historic Places listings in XXXXXXXX County, Missouri. I thought since you added commons tags to the lists, and a lot of images in Missouri weren't sorted out by county, it'd be a good idea to fix this problem. ----DanTD (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Music of 1905

Can we close this now? It's been several days since the last comment, and most of the comments are oppose. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying this go on for ever? COM:CFD says However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Requests for comment/Assign translationadmin-right to admins

Feel free to vote on this RfC again. The old dicussion you voted on was declared as "no clear consensus". --McZusatz (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)