User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 1

Plane crash into Hudson River[edit]

Re File:Plane crash into Hudson River.jpg

Hi Andy. Please note that files should be in the most appropriate sub category. In this case the image will already be under Aviation via Category:US Airways Flight 1549. Adambro (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messerly[edit]

adding cats to templates[edit]

If you are going to add categories to templates, please understand that you must place them inside <noinclude> tags. Otherwise, all pages using the template are placed in that category. I don't think it was your intention to place a couple hundred image and category pages that use template:places by decade into the templates generating hCalendar cateogry. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it wasn't; but it seems to be 'Hotcat' which is at fault. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I differ. It is the author's responsibility to verify the edits they are making are correct- particularly to templates used by large numbers of pages. It is especially hazardous to assume that a tool designed for tagging data will work faultlessly on code. Not bothering to test changes to code is precisely why there are so many buggy programs around. -J JMesserly (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were I responsible for WikiMedia's code, you might be right. Andy Mabbett (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, take a little responsibility for your actions. You have edited templates twice today, and broken them twice. You are zero for two. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are fallacious. Andy Mabbett (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. Your code generated random text around the calendar icon. If you don't believe me, make your own copy of the templates and see for yourself.

Please accept my apology for accidently deleting your comment. I was attempting to merge our edits that were submitted at the same time. I only saw your edit of a typo of->Of, and didn't see your response below. Sorry. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not have an Edit war[edit]

I propose you take your case to an independent microformats body for arbitration. Really, if you want to promote your way of doing things, you are free to create your own templates that do it the way you think is correct, and promote that way on Commons. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; as soon as you show me the Commons policies requiring an "independent body" to arbitrate and that we have "our own" templates. Andy Mabbett (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you don't just fork the code and do what you want on a different template. You assert that I am perpetrating some harm to the community, based on an argument that is highly esoteric. It is reasonable to have the question arbitrated by a community knowledgeable of the issues. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I have said is based on an "esoteric" argument. This wiki, like most others, is predicated on multiple editors working on shared resources; but I have provided concrete evidence of the bogus metadata which you are adding to real, live articles. I have no desire to have "my own" template; I'm trying to fix the live, publicly visible bugs in Wikimedia Commons' template. If you wish to involve "a community knowledgeable of the issues", please do so; but do not persist in the misapprehension that you can require me to. Andy Mabbett (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want the template not to interoperate with Google and Yahoo maps. If you have an argument on how that is perpetuating some harm on Commons, you are free to make it. Until then, please desist from removing functionality from the Places by decade templates. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want nothing of the kind. I simply want the template not to emit broken and bogus metadata; I have already made clear the harm you are doing Andy Mabbett (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. This is a harm that you think justifies removing functionality. Every vandal has a justification. I tell you what, just don't revert this for a while so I can get some work done. I can't test my work with your so called fix. -J JMesserly (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward in a productive fashion[edit]

Hi Andy/Pigsonthewing,

I just wanted to leave you a short comment on your reply to my note on your interaction with User:J JMesserly.

I think J JMesserly has realised that he was way too abrupt with you in his description of your initial edits of the template. On Template talk:Places by decade he has shown some patience and certainly displayed an ability to respond to questions with detailed answers. I think the two of you can certainly move forward on this without rubbing each other the right way.

For that to happen, there will have to be co-operation on both sides. Don't agitate or bite back but try to bring constructive comments to the discussion. Please propose improvements rather than removing work in progress. Watch your wording and remember: being right doesn't make your behaviour right, and there might be other valid points of view.

In some of your comments I got the feeling that you weren't quite understanding where your counterpart in the discussion was coming from. It's always a good advice to step into other people's shoes for a while and try to see things their way. You don't have to agree with them, but you should be clear that you're doing an effort to understand where they're coming from.

Take care,
--Swift (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Templates generating hCards[edit]

Andy, you seem to be an hCards expert around here, so I have a question. Could you look in Category:Templates generating hCards? It has dozen of photographer categories which I have created, but those are categories not templates so why are they in the template category? Am I misusing {{Photographer}} template somehow or is it that this template adds some wrong categories? --Jarekt (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have been fixed already. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nipper[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing,
More stuff:
Source: Postcard
Date:1907 or after
Author: Unknown
This is almost certainly a shot to publicise their new purchase of this loco. “In 1907, the park management decided to try out a miniature railway and brought in "Nipper" a 10¼" gauge loco.” [1]. This image could also go in one or more Category:Postcards. --P.g.champion (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem_with_microformats_in_artwork_template[edit]

Andy, You had some concerns at Template_talk:Artwork#Problem_with_microformats_in_artwork_template. Can you help me figure out what microformating should be added by various templates? --Jarekt (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polygala chamaebuxus var Grandiflora .jpg[edit]

Could I ask for the filename you wanted? The name you wanted and the filename was the same so I removed the notice. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As I noted in the template, which I've restored, a rename would "loose space; decap" - there is an extraneous space between the final letter and the period; and "grandiflora" should not be capitalised. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the only thing template describes is "Looks like this image was renamed already, please remove the rename template.". Renamed. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Issue with coin images[edit]

Please see my statement at your VP thread 'How eBay could help Wikimedia Commons get more open-licensed images' as soon as possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Majorca beetle[edit]

I think this is Chalcophora sp. maybe mariana but there are several Chalcophora sp. in the Balearics Certainly it's Buprestidae. Notafly (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walsall wall advertisement.jpg[edit]

File:Walsall wall advertisement.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!

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

-mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbers Teas, Always Please, Brookvale Road, Birmingham.jpg[edit]

File:Barbers Teas, Always Please, Brookvale Road, Birmingham.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.

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

-mattbuck (Talk) 16:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filemover[edit]

I've given you the filemover right. INeverCry 16:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

I think Russavia and Odder had it right. There is no question that you could be a competent Commons Admin, just that you don't have enough experience here. Two months or so, with a record of intelligent comments on DRs, and given your record on WP, it will be an easy election. Lest you think that is just make work, please remember that we delete around 2,000 pages every day -- yesterday's DR list had 250+ entries. A good comment from a known user can make it much easier for the closing Admin to reach a decision. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Svenska syndabockar[edit]

Hi! I'm helping the artist Markus Andersson to upload pictures of his paintings to Wikimedia. He has sent an email releasing the pictures under an appropriate license and received a response from you. I started out by uploading the file Svenska syndabockar.jpg. I have never done this before and would therefore be very grateful if you could check if everything is in order, or if I should do something differently next time. The ticket number I have received is [Ticket#2012111410011543]. Artfreak4567 (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload looks good. Please reply to the email, with the URL of each of the images, Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I am having difficulties with my upload of this picture and a couple of others by the same artist, released in the email I mentioned above. It is now being called into question if an email has actually been sent by the artist. He has already granted permission and if possible I would like to avoid bothering him again about sending another email. Do you have time to take another look at this? It would be greatly appreciated. Artfreak4567 (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much I can do; you need to discuss with whoever's raised that concern. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be possible for you to take a look at the copyright owner's email of 14 November 2012 (filed as Ticket#2012111410011543) and mark the uploads Det sista vittnet.jpg, Jämlikhet.jpg, Kaj med barnbarn.jpg, Katharsis.jpg, Vrede mot gudarna.jpg and Svenska syndabockar.jpg as having been released under an appropriate license? (You responded to that email shortly after it was sent.) Artfreak4567 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Dave Winer voice.ogg[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Dave Winer voice.ogg|base=Noticket}} Denniss (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ticket:2012102510011695 was in another user's OTRS mailbox. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User cat[edit]

Hi Andy, as mentioned by email, I am slowly populating Category:Images by Andy Mabbett by sweeping up files with your name in the author field. Drop me a note if there are types of upload that my search is missing (Google Chat can be a good way of contacting me on technical stuff - it cannot be lost in the aether, unlike IRC). I rarely update my local Commons dump, which is now just over a month old, so if a large number of recent uploads are being missed, it might need to run again after I have had a refresh at some point. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 07:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great; many thanks. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Hull and Humber Estuary 2013-03.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ asturianu ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Hull and Humber Estuary 2013-03.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.

If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

High Contrast (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Please do not provide direct links on images. PD-NASA cannot be verified with the source you have pasted. Regards. --High Contrast (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not link direcly on the .jpg file but on on the .html site. Same problem with the following files:

--High Contrast (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that still makes no sense. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Bsr --High Contrast (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a link to a template. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Now read. --High Contrast (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't intelligently and coherently explain your point, without issuing commands, please don't post here again. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabbett, sorry that I am no native speaker but you should also try to think a little bit. What is the source of those images in question? You must provvide a clear source that can proof that this image is really a NASA image. A direct link to this jpg cannot verify this. --High Contrast (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now you accuse me of not thinking. You are rude, as well as unhelpful. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it rude to ask for clarification? You are constantly refuse to cooperate. --High Contrast (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say you were "rude to ask for clarification"? And no, I have refused no such thing. Stop posting here until you have learned some manners. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse him of not being helpful. That is also rude, isn't it? --McZusatz (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want, Mabbett. I won't waste any time on this thing. Revert those no-source-tags. Good bye, High Contrast (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, let me clarify. For those images, you are only linking directly to the JPG file as the source. He is asking that you link instead to the tweet that he posts, so that it can be verified by others. I would suggest something like this, using the Hull and Humber Estuary image as an example:

|source= https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/status/311868006508666880 ([https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFP6TLFCIAEWRYs.jpg:large direct link])

Also, please note that you are uploading the lower resolution version of the images. Make sure you click on the image in the tweet for a larger file (you'll see the ":large" bit appended to the URL)...I've gone ahead and cleaned up the Hull image. Let me know if there are any questions (and yes, an OTRS filing would be great for those that don't believe). — Huntster (t @ c) 03:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying; and for doing so without insulting me. I use a Twitter client and do not usually visit twitter.com; and my client does not show me the higher resolution image which you have found. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Views from the International Space Station[edit]

Category:Views from the International Space Station 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!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

--Julian H. (talk/files) 15:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wind tunnels[edit]

Hi, you've got me going now on wind tunnels. I have made some new cats there, reflecting the cases where full size subjects such as aircraft are used. Hint, full size aircraft often retain their usual colours and markings. Your remaining unidentified model might never get identified, because speculative designs are often tested before a publicly-revealed designation is assigned. I'm tempted to remove images from Unidentified Aircraft that are unrecognisable, as in contrails etc.146.90.73.236 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Oops, just got logged out. PeterWD (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps we need an "unidentifiable aircraft" category? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men with glasses[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing, I've seen your cat-conflict with Foroa. Regrettably your mutual communication seems to have happened only via edit-summaries, as far as I can see. The reason for the removal of cat:Men with glasses from your cat:Andy Mabbett may be that each image in this cat is already in cat:Men with glasses, it would thereby be a double-categorization - so far my assumption. --Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm afraid you're labouring under a misapprehension. The matter is discussed - complete with Foroa's wildly-inaccurate statistical claims - at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/05/Category:Men with glasses (and before that at User talk:Mjrmtg#Category:Men with glasses). And individual images in cat:Andy Mabbett should not be in cat:Men with glasses; precisely because the former is. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimaps[edit]

Do you want to participate in drafting Wikimaps? --Susannaanas (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Right Royal Tour of Lancashire 1913.ogv[edit]

There you go. Please add the appropriate licence and also a description or categories because I do not have the time right now. Thanks --McZusatz (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbers Teas, Always Please, Brookvale Road, Birmingham.jpg[edit]

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!

LGA _talk^edits 02:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twinings wall advert - Kings Heath Hydroponics - Silver Street, Kings Heath.jpg[edit]

File:Twinings wall advert - Kings Heath Hydroponics - Silver Street, Kings Heath.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.

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!

LGA _talk^edits 09:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Sound Archive request[edit]

Is there a place to make requests for specific areas of interest?

Also does the BBC audio archive retain BBC Political coverage?...

For example portions of the 2013 debate on action in Syria for example might be worth looking into (given that the Hansard copy is already under an open license) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfan00 IMG: There will be. If you refer to broadcasts for parliamentary debates, then the copyright would not belong to the BBC, but to Parliament, and there is, AIUI, specific law restricting its reuse. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I felt it was worth checking on that.

Some other areas for searching (These are not necessarily in the archive mentioned though) i)In respect of other sound archive material that would be of interest, but possibly not in the archive concerned, there is a 1980's interview where Thatcher was challanged over the Belgrano, which would aid the commentary about controversy surrounding that incident.

ii) There was a BBC Radio comedy which satirised Wikipedia, it may be appropriate to find representative samples of it.

iii) "Journey into Space" - In this 1950's radio drama there are some early experimental Radiophonic like sound effect, which could be used to support commentary on electronicaly generated sounds. "Major Blodnok's Stomach" is another well known effect using radiophonic techniques.

iv) "Dick Barton" - Whilst the Devils Gallop Music can't be on Commons, a sample of the Breathless tone used as a cliffhanger might be approrpriate to support commentary on radio dramatic presentation tactics..

(Noth Dick barton and Journey into Space have featured on Radio 4 Extra)

Just some thoughts.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will pass these comments on to my contacts at the BBC, but please note that the scope of the project in this initial, experimental, phase is limited to the speaking voices of people appearing in those BBC programmes which are available permanently online. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lighting the blue touch paper[edit]

Thanks for your thanks :-)

I did think of writing "once you've finished all the Turkey", but I wasn't sure if that would be fair to your dindon sauvage. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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:Glenfarclas 105 miniature.jpg

Yours sincerely, -mattbuck (Talk) 15:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lost a license[edit]

Andy, you lost a license and OTRS in this edit. Is that intentional? --Jarekt (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've fixed it, Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some more titles from the BL1million for the West Midlands[edit]

diff, just in case there's any of interest. Jheald (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useful, thank you - though I have a backlog of uploads, so it may be a few days before I get to doing anything useful with them. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magazine rack, Gare del'Est, Paris - 2014-02-01 - Andy Mabbett.JPG[edit]

File:Magazine rack, Gare del'Est, Paris - 2014-02-01 - Andy Mabbett.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.

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!

Jespinos (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Police Editathon[edit]

Just to let you know my photos from the day are now finally all on Commons. They're all in Category:Collection of West Midlands Police Museum and the badges and hats sub-categories of that. Thank you again for organising the enjoyable day. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GLAMwiki toolset[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing,

Congratulations on becoming a user of the GLAMwiki Toolset. You can find some frequently asked questions and helpful links for using the tool at GLAMwiki Toolset. As your first step, please add yourself to the list of users at GWToolset users and follow the good practice of creating pages explaining your new projects, as these can help create a focus for our wider community of volunteers. A standard place to set up a project page is at Batch uploading, though long term GLAM programmes may fall under GLAM. To discuss the tool with fellow users, please join the email list GLAMtools or try chatting at #wikimedia-commons ^webchat. SteinsplitterBot (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treak Cliff Cavern[edit]

hello Andy! Treak Cliff Cavern Rob (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Objects hallmarked in London[edit]

Hi, would you mind to create and categorize this not yet existing category you curently filling up with a lot of files? Thx. --Ju Ta 13:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always intended to; you left your message while I was still working on it. Please be more patient. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Fellows (auctioneers)[edit]

Hello :), Some minutes before your comment was posted i have started my deletion script. Unfortunately the person did not have appropriate legal authority to act on behalf of the copyright holder. And this is a very clear case per OTRS conversation. :(:( I am very sorry. Have a nice day --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Steinsplitter: "The person did not have appropriate legal authority to act on behalf of the copyright holder" There is no evidence that thy did not. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per OTRS yes, it is also recently uploaded + DR started by unloader, + COM:PCP apply. I would also like to keep the files, but it is not possible :(. You can go to COM:UNDEL if you like a review. greetings --Steinsplitter (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WMP museum notice photo[edit]

Not sure if it is worth raising Commons:Deletion requests/File:West Midlands Police Museum (13175361163).jpg at Undeletion requests. If you do, raise it there and I'll support it. I think OTRS tickets in these situations are bizarre when the declarations are public already and create pointless extra work for volunteers. --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:flac sound files of spoken English[edit]

Will u make this cat also blue?--Sanandros (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always intended to; you left your message while I was still working on it. Please be more patient. Or do it yourself. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to do it but then I remember that u maybe working on it (like writing some longer text), so i asked before taking action. But Thx anyway 4 your work.--Sanandros (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata links based on naming of sound files[edit]

Hi Andy, no expectations of doing anything on this before Wikimania, but putting down a marker as we might chat about it during the hackerthon... I have just added wikidata:Q192912 to Stephen Fry by starting with the recording of his voice and working backwards. So long as the file naming has been consistent, it would be not too hard to automatically generate a list of candidate celebrity names with voice recordings and check for wikidata entries to link to. I'm slight hesitant to take this further without discussion, as it makes more sense to have a systematic policy for creating categories with wikidata links, and the links ought to probably become part of {{Authority control}} rather than being an additional odd template.

Anyway, if we get a chance to chat in the next couple of weeks and want to follow up, prompt me on it. I have just started playing with the wikidata API and I would guess that an exercise like this might take me 2 or 3 hours of my volunteer time, which seems worth it (especially if wikidata is automatically improved with links to the Commons categories/sound files), if we can establish best practice. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Yes, let's chat about that next week. It sounds good, but there is wider a problem, in that Wikidata treats Commons pages, not categories, as the significant unit. I'd like to see that reversed, but don't yet understand the reasoning behind that approach. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania category[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing. I'm not sure why you removed File:Wikimania 2014 MP 006 - Lydia Pintscher.jpg, File:Wikimania 2014 MP 007 - Lydia Pintscher.jpg and File:Wikimania 2014 MP 008 - Lydia Pintscher.jpg from Category:Wikimania 2014 - Day 1. Perhaps you were thinking they're from the hackathon pre-conference days, but I'm fairly sure this talk was on day 1 of Wikimania... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither sorry - over zealous selection, probably. I've undone that. Sorry for the trouble. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OrcID[edit]

Thanks 4 the tip. It's now linked on my page :-) Klaas|Z4␟V: 12:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed my UserPage. ok in this case, but don't do it unasked anymore. Now it;s not my personal page anymore, but of you and me Klaas|Z4␟V: 07:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Buses_in_Kosovo[edit]

Buses in Kosovo 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.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Geo Swan (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Boy was Born - Benjamin Britten - page header.jpg[edit]

File:A Boy was Born - Benjamin Britten - page header.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.

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!

George Ho (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transcribe here[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing, wouldn't it make sense to extend Template:Transcribe here by the language information? So that one can mark it for possible transcribers. --Arnd (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aschroet: Yes, I would like that. Do you know how to do it? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. This template language is quite cumbersome. Would be nice to find someone doing it. Nevertheless if we do not find, i could try to do it as well. --Arnd (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Are you aware of any resource we can use to help us with templates? If there is we then need to specify what we what such a parameter to do. --Arnd (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idea[edit]

Lets first think what is we intend with such an extension. First thing i see is that we could categorize pictures into different sub-categories of Category:Needing transcription. We could have categories based on the type of alphaet such as "Needing latin transcription", Needing chinese transcription", "Needing cyricllic transcription", "Needing armenian transcription", etc. or it could be based on the language such as "Needing english transcription", "Needing german transcription" etc. Furthermore, this language information could be used in the dialog that is presented to the reader. But i am not if that makes sense. Finally, it could be used to already preconfigure the inscription language when the reader wants to transcribe the text of the picture. For me the first point is important. Practically, the template should be extended in a way like {{Transcribe here|language code}}. In case this language tag is missing the template behaves like before. What do you think? --Arnd (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible. After all, I can transcribe, say, most German, even though I don't speak the language, but I wouldn't know where to start with languages in other scripts. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons bleatings ...[edit]

--Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 01.JPG[edit]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 01.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.

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!

Smial (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 02.JPG[edit]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 02.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.

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!

Smial (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 03.JPG[edit]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 03.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.

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!

Smial (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 04.JPG[edit]

File:Chocolate Father Christmases - Andy Mabbett - 04.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.

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!

Smial (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:ScottPageAutographCropWiki.jpg and File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg[edit]

Hi Andy Mabbett, I'm concerned that you have nominated a photograph I submitted for the article on musician Scott Page for deletion, specifically the file of his autograph of a copy of "A Momentary Lapse of Reason." There are two files I uploaded - this was largely due to a mistake on my end that I wasn't sure how to correct. The following file can be deleted as it was not my intention to duplicate the submission of that specific photograph. As such, it is appropriate to delete File:ScottPageAutographCropWiki.jpg.

That said, I am concerned about your nominating File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg for deletion seeing as it is being used appropriately for the article on musician Scott Page. 1) The picture file is low resolution, which is what is expected of album covers. 2) The picture provides vital information about the artist by showing his autograph on one of the most important albums he contributed to in the course of his career - I feel this is stating the obvious but I fully understand that this is one of the requirements for posting album covers in the context of an article, as in the case of Pink Floyd and Storm Thorgerson each - each of the pages feature low resolution photos of the album covers that help crystallize the narrative in each of the article to whom these items are relevant. 3) The article is nominated for "invalid claim of authorship." I took the picture and am not uploading a copy of the album cover as my own work - it is a low resolution PORTION of that album cover.

Wikipedia is a great resource - but I am concerned that the institutionalization of a culture where editors look for ways to invalidate work rather than to collaborate in finding a solution to help sustain it is going to run the effort into the ground (I find this article illustrates this point well: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/). I'm just hoping that rather than starting this from scratch you can help me find a solution to this problem: based on what I have stated above, my effort meets all the necessary criteria for the work to be upheld as legitimate, valid, and informative. In fact, it is not unlike the following file, which meets the exact same standards and has never faced this type of deletion challenge that I can discern: File:Bob Marley's autograph on LP Rastaman Vibration 1978.jpg

Can you please consider the information I have provided to withdraw the deletion nomination for File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg (as opposed to my erroneous submission of File:ScottPageAutographCrop.jpg, which can be deleted as it was not intended to remain in the Wikimedia Commons system)? I would appreciate help with this as I know my addition to the article is valid.--MarieLopezPhotographer (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So this file was deleted, without any discussion whatsoever, and - clearly - without any effort to maintain the integrity of a collaborative editorial spirit to retain the integrity of what the file contributes to the article? Really?--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Album covers at low resolution are used on Wikipedia - but not here on Commons - under "fair use" provision. You, however claimed to be the author of both the album sleeve artwork and Page's signature. Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, let me illustrates where your effort seems to be on the side of bad faith: clearly, my wife's intent was not to imply to be the author of the album artwork or the signature. A better, more collegial, and good faith effort would have actually endeavored to at least entertain a brief discussion of why this was done, in mistake (deletion does require SOME discussion, which was not provided for). Just a suggestion that may not make an editor seem territorial - here's a statement that would seem far more collaborative and in the spirit of Wikipedia:

"Thanks for contributing the image of Scott Page's autograph. The information provided makes it appear you are the author of both the album sleeve and Page's signature, here's how we can correct that (insert suggestion). Also, the low resolution file will work on Wikipedia but not on Commons. Here's the link where you can pursue that. As an experienced editor with a keen interest in Pink Floyd I look forward to collaborating and appreciate the effort you put forward."

Pretty much what other editors, elsewhere, did to help us with this file. It just seems like good courtesy. I cannot recommend that article my wife linked on your Talk page, above, more strongly. Let's keep a good thing going; it's not a "gotcha on that" game - we're all trying to improve the information Wikipedia provides: as volunteers. Have a good New Year.--1987atomheartbrother (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the deletion was incorrect, raise the matter at Commons:Deletion review; if you think I acted incorrectly, raise the matter at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Otherwise, since you accuse me of acting in bad faith, don't post here again on this topic. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2014[edit]

FYI - File:Wikimania 2014 MMB 57 Pigsonthewing.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one; thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed![edit]

Hi, as requested Category:Thinktank, Birmingham (check needed) is now filling up. --Fæ (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Museum Images[edit]

Two images have been tagged copyvio because of a copyrighted movie character:

One image is nominated for deletion:

File:We Made It - Thinktank Birmingham Science Museum - bling (13901960052).jpg

1989 22:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: then knig of Rome[edit]

Hi Andy. Pleasure to see you again here! I'll work on that page as soon as i can. It was a real pleasure meeting you, hope we'll stay in touch on Wikipedia always--باسم (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, check it out

--باسم (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@باسم: I saw it - thank you so much! I will notify the museum. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:NickySauce.jpg[edit]

Hi, Nicky Sauce's image might not be of the highest quality and with only showing his body but as stated, Nicky Sauce wrestled with a mask for The AKW Arena Kaged Wrestling Promotion. This picture was shown throughout Nicky Sauce's persona during events and in the autographs of Tom Ricca. The picture should be placed back on the page as it has been removed. The consent of Tom Ricca was given. This picture is shown on his Flickr, Facebook, Twitter, his page and elsewhere throughout the web. This is part of his career and should be well noted. Tom gave consent, it's shown throughout the web on many websites as this should be noted. This needs to be taken into consideration as Tom's wrestling persona's are of the nature of his career. Tom signs autographs with that picture and his other persona's. I look forward to the picture being put back on the page. It's appalling to not see it on there. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgivac (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

NARA TIFs[edit]

Andy,

I've been following the instructions at Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs. Is that something that should be done away with?

Thanks, Choess (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Choess: No, but if you're going to bulk-remove otherwise valid categories, you need to leave an explanatory edit summary; in this case including a link to that category page. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, then. Sorry about that. Thanks. Choess (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next Speakerthon: Request for voice sample[edit]

Hi, when will the next BBC Voice Project event take place. And is there any portal where we can request the participants to obtain a certain BBC Radio program episode?. Waiting. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fasi100: Hi, No events planned, and no such portal, but if you post your request here, I'll pass it on. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing I'm looking for the release of rights of this BBC Radio episode:Start the Week. Looking forward. Thanks. --Fasi100 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fasi100: The project only involved 30-40 second clips; not whole programmes. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: sure, here is the clip I'm looking for on the audio timeline: from 12:06 to 13:09. The sequence is a little above one minute. If that's too much, just start from the said point and cut it wherever you want. Hope that will do. --Fasi100 (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: any update, sir? --Fasi100 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; this will take a while. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small typo on your user page[edit]

Hi Andy, the caption on the second picture of you reads in part "No credit is required is you use this". Cheers, Storkk (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Storkk: Well spotted! Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Museum object[edit]

Hi Andy - I'd presume this stuffed kingfisher File:Thinktank Birmingham - object 1929Z3.1 (1).jpg - File:Thinktank Birmingham - object 1929Z3.1 (2).jpg has some museum accession data, giving e.g. collection locality & date, species identification, etc. Would you be able to look it up to find out, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: No, but I've passed on your request to someone who should be able to help. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! Will await their reply. - MPF (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy - any result on this, please? - MPF (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: No, I'll chase it. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any further joy on this one, please? - MPF (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion you may want to see[edit]

Andy, what do you think of this? - Thekohser (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corsham-middlewick-house-1907 57816.jpg[edit]

File:Corsham-middlewick-house-1907 57816.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.

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!

Amitie 10g (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images donated by Carl Zeiss[edit]

Dear Andy,

the pictures are all double-categorised "Microscopy" & "Microscopes". May you fix this? (Category:Carl Zeiss microscopes)--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done; as much as I can. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Binocular compound microscope, Carl Zeiss Jena, 1914[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Binocular compound microscope, Carl Zeiss Jena, 1914 (6779276516).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Binocular compound microscope, Carl Zeiss Jena, 1914 (6779276516).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you inform Zeiss that its image was promoted? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of Birmingham[edit]

The subcategory Category:Maps of Birmingham contains many files for the district not the settlement like File:Birmingham UK locator map.svg. Because "Geography of Birmingham" could contain images of the whole district and not just the settlement, shouldn't it be in the district cat? It is probably the case that other cats also need to be moved to (City of) Birmingham. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The district and the settlement are the same. Andy Mabbett (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empty category[edit]

I just happened on Category:Royal Birmingham Society of Artists permanent collection/Reports, which you'll remember I deleted as empty and then undeleted on your request. This led me to discover {{Empty category}}, which functions similarly to the one at en:wp, so I've added it to the category to prevent future speedy deletions. Would you like the template to be transcluded onto {{GLAM dashboard links}}, or would that be unhelpful? Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; the latter isn't always on a category, so no, but I'll add it to the documentation. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations regarding your facilitation of donations[edit]

Andy, thank you very much for helping with the donation of so many media files. I have a couple things to ask you to please bear in mind, and I have emailed you as a response to Ticket:2015113010021096, since it was easier to use an example than vague points on your talk page. I hope it didn't sound exasperated, but I offer those opinions in the spirit of gratitude, and hoping that you realise that bearing those points in mind will greatly expedite the response time of your average ticket, increase the success rate, and generally make things run more smoothly. Thanks, Storkk (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to ask donors to jump through unnecessary hoops, making their life more difficult, to make the life of OTRS operatves easier. The answer is "no". Andy Mabbett (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of the situation is unfortunate. They are not unnecessary hoops: it would seem more complex or difficult if the OTRS agent must request clarification from the copyright holder in a subsequent email exchange, rather than having it all in order in the first place, and we have boilerplate that they can use (COM:CONSENT). It's also not about making OTRS agents' lives easier, but rather trying to ensure faster processing for the copyright holders. In any case, this was just a set of suggestions; feel free to take them or leave them. Storkk (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Youdan & Surrey Theatre company.png[edit]

File:Thomas Youdan & Surrey Theatre company.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.

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!

195.89.201.254 12:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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:St. John's Retail Park, Wolverhampton 03 - Guy vehicle badge.JPG

Yours sincerely, . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester Painted Bollards[edit]

Andy - Was just looking at the entry you did on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_art_in_Hampshire page about the Winchester Painted Bollards. I was just about to create a similar entry on the Public Art in Tower Hamlets page on some art I photographed there on Friday when I notcied that the link to ' Media related to Winchester painted bollards at Wikimedia Commons' doesn't link to anything anymore. Any suggestions on what we can do about this? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkymasterUK (talk • contribs) 10:20, 28 February 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

@SkymasterUK: I've fixed the link in the Wikipedia article. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

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:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18 - Andy Mabbett - 55.JPG

And also:

Yours sincerely, ~riley (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18 - Andy Mabbett - 47.JPG[edit]

File:Fogbridge - 2015-02-18 - Andy Mabbett - 47.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.

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!

Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham walking tour[edit]

Andy, shouldn't Category:Images of Birmingham taken during Wikimedia UK AGM 2016 be Category:Wiki Takes Birmingham 2016? Alternatively I can create a redirect that points the other way and categorize the redirect into Category:Wikipedia takes ... --Deryck Chan (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: No, because it includes images taken before the event started, as folk arrived in Birmingham. The latter should be a subcategory of the former. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry-stacy-marks-heron-at-sunset.jpg[edit]

Hi Andy - curious, why you reverted my ident on this? American art, and it looks like a juv. Great Blue Heron, so I reckon a reasonable ident. (oh, and PS while I'm on, any joy on that Kingfisher from B'ham museum, please? ;-)) MPF (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think "American art"? No mention of America on en:Henry Stacy Marks. And sorry, no; no response, despite me chasing more than once. Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Ooops! Guess I misunderstood the US-PD license the pic has; "... in the public domain in the United States" was the only 'location' info I saw. A juv. Grey Heron, then. And thanks for chasing up the kingfisher! - MPF (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help[edit]

Hi Andy, thanks for adding the {{Retouched picture}} template to some of my images. I had no idea there was such a template, and had been labouriously adding similar information in notes at the ends of the descriptions of the images. If you had pointed out that template on one of the image talkpages or on my talkpage I would have happily applied it where appropriate and saved you the trouble. Anyway thanks agaim. DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My category[edit]

Hi Andy, I took a page from you and created Category:Images by Montanabw and am now trying to find everything I've taken (as opposed to Flickr uploads I've done of images by others). It's going to be a long and slow process (even with cat-a-lot) but if you can do anything technical to improve the way the category is structured or help me find "my" images -- particularly my older ones -- to do an easier mass categorization -- well, any help you can offer will be appreciated. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Looks good. From a cursory search, I couldn't find any images uploaded by you that are not already in the category - even your very first upload; ten years ago! I assume you know about https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorgan.html?&category=Images_by_Montanabw&depth=12&month=last ? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stole it from your page! LOL! Montanabw (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunbeam[edit]

Hi, why do you think the motorcycle badge might have been used for Sunbeam cars? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeiss images at FPC[edit]

I suggest you try to enhance the image description page, especially for lay audience, with annotations for the parts/colours. Perhaps a wikiproject can help get an expert. Currently most are just fancy abstracts of no meaning. Also the low resolution ones are unlikely to get much wow. Can we get higher resolution versions? The File:Kidney section, fluorescence microscopy (30575642655).jpg is very high resolution. There's a description, but some help for lay readers could improve it. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: I'll see what I can do, but I note that the guidelines require "an accurate description", and say nothing about lay readers. Have I missed some other guidance, that might better inform my nominations? I've added a description at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Indian Muntjac fibroblast cells (24271618921).jpg, but I'm concerned about your comment that "there are three such images as part of the donation by Zeiss". If the message we give to potential media donors is that by providing multiple images in this manner, they are less likely to be featured, we risk harming the project by reducing the number of such donations. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is spelled out in guidlines. We are selecting the finest on Commons, which includes the file description page. A good detailed description, accessible to not just fluorescent microscopists, will help. A microscope image really needs some scale, just as we expect most buildings and landscapes to have a geocode. And we appreciate when advanced photographic techniques (e.g. stitched photos) give details of the technique. I've noted what the red/green/blue parts of File:Indian Muntjac fibroblast cells (24271618921).jpg actually are. And added the relevant category (though there may be a more precise one). I hope you can appreciate that the sentence I added, and the links, hugely increase the educational value of the image+page, and educational value is a key part of FP. Without this, to most people, it's just a pretty abstract. I don't understand your last comment. As part of judging "the finest" we often refer to other examples on Commons and on the internet, so the fact that this is one of three similar images will certainly form part of anyone's serious review. Having the correct categories also helps people judge the finest. Honestly, you should not be dependent on the roulette wheel that is FPC for encouraging media donations. FP is a bonus, never ever rely on it. -- Colin (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page fixes[edit]

Heya: I saw that you changed and unchanged my top line of the greeting. Do you think it should be the other way? Is "admin and crat" too formal? Sorry about the earlier edit... read this one, don't read that one! Best! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Hazelnut (male flower), overlay of 7 channel autofluorescence microscopy (30458886372).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hazelnut (male flower), overlay of 7 channel autofluorescence microscopy (30458886372).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Rat primary cortical neuron culture, deconvolved z-stack overlay (30614937102).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rat primary cortical neuron culture, deconvolved z-stack overlay (30614937102).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion[edit]

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Mouse Kidney (23725924684).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mouse Kidney (23725924684).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Temporary: Zeiss Microscopy images awaiting categories"[edit]

Hi Pigsonthewing, in files like File:Hazelnut (male flower), overlay of 7 channel autofluorescence microscopy (30458886372).jpg appears the mentioned text. Since you uploaded them you could maybe say what that text means? Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was an error. Thank you for spotting it. I've removed it. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Muslim ban'[edit]

Just inquiring as to why this is in quotes in e.g. Category:29 January 2017 SFO 'Muslim Ban' protest? From what I've been able to tell, there's no formal name for the protests -- just a common cause which isn't a "Muslim ban" per se. I imagine that's why it's in quotes, but it seems like if there's no real name for them, something more descriptive is preferable. I've moved the main category to Category:Demonstrations and protests against Donald Trump's January 2017 executive order on immigration. It's rather cumbersome, admittedly, and there may well be a better way. The two existing specific events are at "Protest at ___ against Donald Trump's January 2017 executive order on immigration". Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: You've moved (e.g.) the files from a category with a specific date, to a category with just a month. Please fix that. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"January 2017 executive order" is just a description of the executive order (an alternative to "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", in an example of when the actual name of something makes a subject harder to understand) rather than, necessarily, the date of the protest. It's possible we'll see protests against the same in February, for example. But the SeaTac, etc. categories themselves are categorized in 2017-01-29. I don't know why the category name would also have to reflect the specific date unless we were, say, differentiating two different events at the same place on different days? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: You've moved files from a more-specific category to a less-specific category. There are going to be photographs from 28 January, and probably 30 and 31 January, as well as dates in February and maybe beyond. Once again: please fix this. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows which locations will have events on different days? Making a category less specific isn't a bad thing if the specifics are handled by categories and there's no confusion between extant categories. I imagine you would not complain if the original category also included full GPS coordinates, time of day, time zone, county, city, state, etc. Right now each location has one category and one event. Maybe we'll get some pictures about a similar event on a different day in one or all of those, at which point it may make sense to spin out date-based categories, but why do that preemptively, when we don't know? Including the date serves to differentiate one event from another in the same location with the same title/subject. If there's nothing to differentiate, there's no reason to include details that are already handled by categories. We don't automatically include the full date in the title of every category about an event because there are other categories for that. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in your baseless imaginings. Please now fix the degradation of quality you have caused. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village_pump#Question_about_full_dates_in_category_names. Participate if you wish. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: You moved files without consulting the uploader, and they asked for you to unmove them. Why can't you heed that request? The category created by Pigsonthewing would have fitted nicely under your banner category, and still can. It would be good of you to consider reverting your edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: ? Pigsonthewing is not the uploader. Certainly if an uploader had a particular naming scheme I would be sympathetic to the idea that some scenarios call for some sense of deference, but that's not the case here. For all the ones I double-checked just now (which is most of those I moved, but admittedly not quite all), the uploaders were Seagull123, Hinnk, and Dennis Bratland.

I don't think that reverting (and moving the files which have been added since) makes sense, as it would return the odd "'Muslim Ban'" naming, make them the only two categories in the parent category with this setup, and reintroduce superfluous data to the category name, forming an unnecessary compound category that serves no differentiation/disambiguation purpose (at least at the time) and is already satisfied by its membership in date-based categories. It's possible, a week later, that we now have images from other days at the same locations, in which case I've no objection to reintroducing the date for differentiation purposes -- as I've said would be sensible from the beginning. I'm turning in for the night shortly, but will look tomorrow to see if that's the case and will move accordingly. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week has passed, and you have still not fixed the degradation of quality you have caused. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I will take a look today if there's call for introducing a date to either of them yet, and will take care of it if so. It's certainly possible at this point. I'm not going to restore the original name or add a date if there's no reason to do so, as that would actually be degrading quality. Compound categories are not automatically "higher quality" than basic descriptive categories when there's no need for a compound. An informal name in scare quotes is not "higher quality" than a straightforward description of the subject. If you feel my reasoning is poor and actions were as egregious as all of your responses thus far have indicated, I would welcome more participation at some other venue with regard to whether/why there's support for the original category name as opposed to where it is now (especially after adding the date where applicable, if applicable, later today). I'm not going to continue replying here. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]