User talk:Rodhullandemu

• Archive
• Archive 1

Rodhullandemu: I request that you revert the two files to the editions with sources. Fry1989 is vandalising because he didn't use any source. Please, see this official document in File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg or this image in File:Flag of the President of Chile.svg. Thank you. --Echando una mano (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not getting involved in the merits of this dispute, that's outside my remit. It's up to you to persuade others that yours is the perferred version; I have no opinion on that, and don't intend to form one. Rodhullandemu (talk)

Just to reiterate my response on the AN page, this user has repeatedly said I don't have sources, which must mean that all 3 I have linked don't exist. I can not possibly be expected to discuss the merits of the matter most important of which are sources when this user does not acknowledge the existence of my sources. For that reason, I actually would like to suggest you remove the text in protection template at the top of the files suggesting this matter can be discussed and then unprotection requested. I support indefinite protection. Fry1989 ^eh? 03:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu: I would like to modify File:Coat of arms of Chile.svg, maintaining the basic lines of the design (including the white torse). --Echando una mano (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Replied at the image talk page.Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Alfred Hitchcock NYWTSm.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)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | +/−

188.101.2.107 22:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes :-) You failed to write down these things in the RfD. I assumed that this John Naylor were an English photographer whose works had been uploaded on Geography portal and released with a free licence. There was no hint it was the actual uploader. Anyway since you have clarified the point, I'm going to delete the picture. But before doing that: could it be he's some sort of grandson of the actual John Naylor who took the photo? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
PS Or, could it be he is the legitimate owner of the photographs' rights?

Well, any of the possible reasons why this image is worth keeping could be valid; the problem is that we just don't know. The watermark at the top of the image suggests it's part of a collection, but there are no other clues. I think it's better deleted on the precautionary principle. Sorry if my nomination wasn't so clear, cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)