User talk:Motacilla

Welcome to Motacilla's talk page.

Please remember to sign your post with ~~~~ and add new comments to the bottom of the page.

If you write me a message in German or French, please keep it relatively simple for me to understand it.

If you write me a message about a Wikimedia technical matter please keep it very simple, as I have great difficulty understanding how some things on here work!

Thanks, Motacilla (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, your photo of the Tea Rooms in Bladon is lovely, but the Tea Rooms closed several years ago so are no longer in Bladon. Is it possible to remove the photo from the entry? Thank you! 81.141.93.81 18:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Regulus_madeirensis_&_leaf_litter.jpg[edit]

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

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Regulus_madeirensis_&_leaf_litter.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Oxam Hartog 16:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I restored this pic and add PD-self. Sorry for this deletion but it's not always easy to appreciate the good status of each pic and a little format without exif netheir license leads often to suspect an uncertain upload.

You will have to restore links on both articles. Friendly Oxam Hartog 23:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

new uploads[edit]

I read your message on User talk:Rüdiger Wölk

The process before deletion is the following :

All pics without license are in a special list (Uncategorized images) and anyone (me for your pic) can tagged these pics for deletion (with warning message on user page and a minimun of control).

Without reactions, 7 days later, an administrator can deleted the pic without other warning message. this is the rule on commons where a lot of pics are uploaded every day, some like copyvio.

Your license is correct but it will be better if it's possible for you to upload larger pics. 800x600 is a minima. Larger is best (in articles all pics can be reduced by add of |thumb| in the image syntax. Oxam Hartog 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Motacilla!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:NorthLeigh Chancel RobertPerrot.JPG was uncategorized on 2 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image:NorthLeigh WilcoteEagle 0623.JPG was uncategorized on 2 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:SS William Cory aground.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 22:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Nellie Wise aground Hartlepool.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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 22:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

File:J&FBell ThreeNuns 2oz.jpg[edit]

Hi there. I wonder could you provide any approximate date for this tin? Thank you. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. On one side it says "This label is issued by the Imperial Tobacco Co. (of Great Britain & Ireland) Ltd." That doesn't help very much, as Imperial Tobacco was formed in 1901 and J&F Bell joined the group shortly afterwards. For all I know the tin could have been made anywhen from the 1930s to the 1960s. Sorry, Motacilla (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TUSC token 47d74753d1187323bba262eda0bd60ad[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:AVParkway Welcome sign.JPG[edit]

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:AVParkway Welcome sign.JPG. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ ไทย ∙ 日本語 ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Motacilla, just a note that one of your images "1 ounce (28 g) tin for Player's "Navy Cut" tobacco" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Player_%26_Sons is being used for profit, by expres-prints-online, an Ebay UK Store owned by Scott Harper, 8 Chepstow Way, Walsall, West Midlands, Ws32nb, UK. Ph: 07412021399, Email: s-harper@hotmail.com http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Players-Navy-Cut-pub-bar-Sign-Retro-metal-Aluminium-Sign-vintage-/121283056058?pt=UK_Home_HomeDecor_Accessories&hash=item1c3d0891ba contact customerhelp_uk@ebay.com to arrange to have the offending item/s removed, you will likely have to fill out a required copyright infringement notice (NOCI1). I have had the same problems with this person illegally downloading my work and printing it onto metal signs for sale, this repeat offender and thief needs to get the message this is not OK. Thanks Darian Zam.

Copyright status: File:FURWIT06.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:FURWIT06.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ju Ta 15:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke für deine Nachricht. Die Quelle des Fotografs gibt kostenlose Urheberrechterlaubnis aber es ist mir nicht klar, welche Lizenz sie ist. Wann ich diesen Upload gemacht habe, ich habe eine Erklärung bei File_talk:FURWIT06.jpg gemacht, und darin habe ich eine Bitte für Hilfe damit gemacht.

Der neuer Artikel RMS Nova Scotia (1926) braucht einen Foto des Schiffes, und ich habe Schwierigkeit gehabt einen urheberrechtlose Foto zu finden. Wenn du kannst entweder mit dem Urheberrecht dieses Fotos hilfen, oder einen anderen urheberrechtlosen und guten Foto des Schiffes zu finden, du würdest sehr viel helfen und ich würde sehr dankbar sein!

Es grüßt dich, Motacilla (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:OnBoardMVBarracudaVanSmit SalvageGenoaCa1972.jpg[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:OnBoardMVBarracudaVanSmit SalvageGenoaCa1972.jpg, was found available on Flickr by an administrator or reviewer under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. The file has been deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. If the Flickr user has changed the license of the Flickr image, feel free to ask an administrator to restore the file, or start an undeletion request.

Stefan4 (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12661.jpg[edit]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12661.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12656.jpg[edit]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12656.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12663.jpg[edit]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12663.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12660.jpg[edit]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12660.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12662.jpg[edit]

File:Shuntien Shanghai 12662.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

LFaraone 17:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Class 142 Picture Danescourt[edit]

Hi Motacilla,

I would like to use your image of the Class 142 in our brochure. If you have no objection perhaps you let me know how to attribute the image.

Kind Regards

Joel (Dapol Ltd)

Unnecessary deletion requests for church images[edit]

Please stop nominating perfectly good images for deletion, deletion requests should be used for copyright violations. You are harming the good work of other contributors by your actions Oxyman (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a high-handed tone you have! The only images that I nominate are of low resolution, low quality and generally duplicated by better images of the same subject. If donating such images to Wikimedia Commons is "good work", why should I continue to donate high quality 2 MB ones taken with good cameras? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Existence of other images doesn't stop you donating other ones, this is false logic, other images have a value that perhaps you have failed to perceive, they show the situation at different times, even if nothing has changed, they show that. Oxyman (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edits to descriptions[edit]

I suggest you take greater care when editing descriptions supplied by the author: Things like correcting errors and adding pertinent info are fine, but removing things less so. I have real objections if the description of one of my works is degraded, eg by removal of info I feel significant, and this could cause minor irritation by authors more generally.

Some examples:

File:Hexworthy Bridge.jpg: The name of the bridge is 'Hexworthy Bridge' OR 'Huccaby Bridge', not 'Hexworthy or Huccaby Bridge'. That is how the bridge is listed, but that's because both names are used. For instance, OS has consistently preferred Hexworthy.
File:Horner packhorse bridge.jpg: Why remove the mention of Exmoor? I consider that more pertinent to the file than the county.
File:Lerryn Bridge at high tide.jpg and File:Lerryn Bridge at low tide.jpg: Why remove mention of the estuary? The fact the river is tidal below the bridge is significant to the images - hence the inclusion of 'tide' in the file name. I also phrased the description to try break up the repetition of "Lerryn" and make the sentence a bit less of a mouthful.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Riley cars[edit]

Dear Motacilla, Thank you for your provision of four nice pictures of an aging Riley Kestrel. I've noted your interest in birdlife. We have a problem. Because a Kestrel body may conceal vaious sizes of engine, I quote "Body names. Each chassis could take any of three or more different bodies from the Riley catalogue of more than fifty different bodies, some of the names of those bodies are listed below:
Adelphi, Adelphi-Sprite, Alpine, Alpine Fabric, Alpine Gamecock, Alpine Half-pane, Alpine Tourer, Ascot, Autovia, Biarritz, Brooklands, Chatsworth, Continental, Deauville, Edinburgh, Falcon, Foleshill, Gamecock, Gloucester, Grangeworth, Grebe, Holbrook, Hoyal, Imp, Kestrel, Kestrel-Sprite, Light-6, Lincock, Lulworth, Lynx, Lynx-Sprite, Maltby Redfern, March, Mentone, Merlin, Midworth, Monaco, MPH, Roebill, San Remo, Sprite, Stelvio, Tourer, Touring, Treen, Trinity, Ulster, Victor, Wentworth, Winchester,"

So you see just saying its a Kestrel does not tell us enough and while you are definite it is a 1936 car it does not appear in the DVLA records under the displayed number and now I can't put it away in the right category. Can you suggest what should be done. (I realise you or an acquaintance might commute daily in it). Sorry to trouble you but please would you come up with more info. Kind regards and lots of thanks for the nice images, Eddaido (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh dear, I take your point about Riley's blizzard of body names! I just found the car at the Oxford Spires Hotel and rather recklessly assumed it was a Kestrel. I can't remember if I met and spoke with the owner, and I certainly don't know the engine size. Two editions of the Bulletin of the Riley Register mention or depict DVW 374, according to the .pdf of its index online [1]. That index does not seem to give the model, so one would need one of those editions of the Bulletin to find out.

I am much more sure of the year the car was registered. According to Glass's Index of Registration Numbers, Essex County Council issued the DVW block of registration marks from June to August 1936. I use 1954, 1959 and 1964 editions of Glass's Index. They seem not to cover every block of numbers ever issued until 1964, but the 1954 edition is a 21st anniversary special whose coverage of pre-WW2 numbers seems comprehensive.

Does this give you a bit more on which to base a decision? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes it does, thank you, but not enough, yet. I've added a note of possible engines to the Kestrel page. Bin ruminatin and will now write to the Riley Register. I knew there was a publication that explained old licence numbers. Thank you very much for its name. I see eBay sometimes has those guides. Do I want the 1954 edition or its supplement? Thanks and regards Eddaido (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think William Glass Ltd published Glass's Index every year, but added supplements as the ever-increasing rate of vehicle registrations overtook it. The 1954 "Twenty-First Anniversary Edition" seems to provide more or less complete coverage 1903–54. For subsequent years I have the 1959 and 1964 editions, but they seem not to cover absolutely every number block. I suspect I need some intermediate years to fill those in! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I've had this message from rileyrob: "The Red Kestrel is, as I suspected from the photos, recorded in my database as a 1936/7 Kestrel 12/4. That means a 1937 model registered at the tail end of 1936, which was quite common back then." For the moment I've left your photos where they are but added a note of possible chassis (OK, engines) for the Kestrel body.

I wish a method might be devised to allow readers to find all the Kestrels and also find all the 12/4s and all the Kestrel 12/4s. I mean a kind of matrix that would let us look at these things from different views (do I mean dimensions?). When I tried to achieve something like this elsewhere in Wikimedia I was found to be in contravention of the rules (again).

Can you suggest a solution? Please, Eddaido (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but I'm out of my depth here. I like Rileys but am no expert. I simply photographed a pretty car, surmised (very possibly wrongly) what model it might be and uploaded it. Please forgive me if I leave this puzzle to others who know more about Riley models and how to categorise cars on Wikimedia! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorising ships[edit]

I changed the categorising of the Evangelia. We have more than 30.000 ships categorised via "name (ship, year of completion)" system and I saw no reason to deviate of that system for this ship. Found her details here --Stunteltje (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would thank you and apologise were your correction entirely constructive. Instead clearly I should apologise for donating my time to Commons to correct the year of build (1942, not 1948). I should also apologise for adding the correct categories from this edition of Lloyd's Register for where the ship was built, the fact that she was a UK steamship, a reefer ship and a Blue Star Line ship. I am not sure whether the source you cite has the correct name for the ship either. This one, which admittedly does not cite all its sources, says E Evangelia, not Evangelia.

In your message you don't even bother with the basic courtesy of saying thankyou for my contribution(s). All you seem interested in is proving how and why I'm wrong. Normally I "assume good faith" of course, but this type of reversion is too negative and therefore demoralising for me to deal with.

You could have preserved all the improvements I had given to the categorisation. But clearly that was less important than your wielding a blunt, punitive revert that does at least as much harm as good. You reverted the year of build from right to wrong. You deleted the ship from a whole set of correct categories. You even deleted the category page I created, so that I can't even find it to copy all the categories I added.

Please do not expect me to restore the work you have destroyed. I am not here to waste my time repeating the labours of Sisyphus. In the recent past this kind of behaviour on both Commons and Wikipedia has stopped me from contributing for several months at a time. At this rate it is likely to do so again.

Goodbye. Motacilla (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My time to apologise, I was much, much too fast. This project is done in a way that people who have better information correct the wrong information. I don't have any problem with correting my work that way, I will restore your information. The only thing is, that I was surprised that you introduced a way of categorising ships that the community doesn't use any more in Commons for more than 30.000 ships. No problem at all to do that in local wikipedias, as every language has its own way. E.g. the English categorise by year of launching, the Germans and Dutch by year of completion. Standardisation makes it possible that people can find images to illustrate their articles. That is, as far as I know, the reason for Commons.

I missed the E in the name in the copy-paste and I restored your information as far as I could find. --Stunteltje (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorization[edit]

Hello,

I noticed you're creating some entries at COM:CFD regarding categorization. If you move a category and you don't know what to do with the old one, it's usually wise to leave a redirect as long as it's not misleading. You may find some help at Commons:Renaming a category. This would be my answer to:

as for:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/09/Category:Rotorua (ship)

you say that both ships were completed in 1910, but you created Category:Rotorua (ship, 1910) and Category:Rotorua (ship, 1911). Did you make a typo somewhere?

Anyway, I'm not a ship person so I would defer to the people at WikiProject Ships is they tell you any different.

Thanks, –⁠moogsi (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NZ Shipping Co's Rotorua (ship, 1910) was built in 1910 and sunk by torpedo in 1917. (http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/newzealand.shtml) Rotorua (ship, 1911) was built in 1911 as Federal Steam Navigation Co's Shropshire, renamed Rotorua in 1922, transferred to the NZ Shipping Co in 1936 and sunk by torpedo in 1940. (http://www.theshipslist.com/ships/lines/federal.shtml) I do make mistakes, but I am not aware of this being one of them. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that you made a mistake, just that you'd contradicted yourself and I didn't know what was right: here you say "There were at least two liners called "Rotorua": one built in 1910 and sunk in 1917; the other built in 1910 as "Shropshire", renamed "Rotorua" in 1922 and sunk in 1940." Carry on :) –⁠moogsi (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:BicesterTown LondonRd hoarding.jpg[edit]

File:BicesterTown LondonRd hoarding.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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ 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 ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

-mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorising trains[edit]

Hi. I noticed your image File:Cathays 150 Barry.jpg and similar were categorised in three train-related categories:

Category:British Rail Class 150s in Arriva Trains revised livery

Category:British Rail Class 150s of Arriva Trains Wales

Category:British Rail Class 150s on the Merthyr Line

There's actually a fourth category which should be added in such cases:

Category:Trains of Arriva Trains Wales on the Merthyr Line

You can use the {{Ukt}} template to add all these automatically, including unit number. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category redirect[edit]

Hi Motacilla, Your recent redirect of Category:Sailing vessels to Category:Catamaran sailboats is not appropriate. Catamaran sailboats is a small subset of Sailing vessels, in that all catamaran sailboats are sailing vessels, but not all sailing vessels are catamarans - most are not. Please make the appropriate corrections. Thanks, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hillman 14 (1929)[edit]

Thank you for refining the identity of the Hillman of which I uploaded a picture a few years back. I'm afraid I do sometimes upload pictures of cars without being sure what they are (or, which is worse, thinking I know what they are and later discovering I didn't). Anyhow, in this case you have kindly completed an identification that has needed completing for way toooo long. (And I'll spare you my German.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

England or UK[edit]

Thanks for your updates and corrections on my image page:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weatherboarded_Cottages_59-61_Bromley_Road_Colchester.jpg

One comment I have is that you changed 'UK' in the address to 'England'. There is an England in the USA, too! See http://binged.it/1K03klS. I know it is clear that you mean England in the UK from the context, but personally I prefer 'UK', or 'England, UK' However, I am more than happy to leave it as it is. Thanks again. PeterEssexHeritage (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metacats[edit]

Hi,

Please note that {{Metacat}} should only be applied to a meta category. A meta category is one that should ONLY ever contain other categories, because it is a category for categories - and it does not make sense for it to contain files. Churches in the England by county is a meta-category - the giveaway is the "by".

High level categories, such as Category:Churches (nevermind Category:Churches in Suffolk), should normally contain no files as the files are migrated to sub-cats, but are not metacats.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sarottaflo (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[edit]

Sarottaflo (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Sarottaflo (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date Categories[edit]

Please don't remove these from images, this action is of course vandalism when others have bothered to put them there, also please keep your edit summaries polite when others have accorded you this respect Oxyman (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every one of your reversions of my edits has been unconstructive. If you think date categories on inanimate, almost unchanging objects are vital, all you had to do was (a) reinstate them and (b) leave me a polite explanation on this page. Instead you chose the almost entirely destructive option of reverting good editing over one detail that was so previous to you, that you had to destroy all the accuracy I had added on each case.

Firstly you thought it constructive to remove File:Sundial, Reigate Priory - geograph.org.uk - 1199684.jpg from the accurate category "Vertical sundials in Surrey" and dump it back in the less precise category "Sundials in Surrey", and remove the "defaultsort" template I added. There is no purpose to such an unconstructive reversion. I suggest you were indeed point-scoring.

Then you removed the saint's name from File:Alstone Church - geograph.org.uk - 61446.jpg, removed it from the correct category "St Margaret's, Alstone, Tewkesbury" and dumped it back into the inaccurate category "Churches in Gloucestershire" and frankly wrong category "Alstone, Cheltenham". Gloucestershire has two Alstones. Look at the other photographs of the church in the Alstone near Tewkesbury. You moved it from the right one to the wrong one! I suggest that for you to accuse me of vandalism and then vandalise good categorisation is indeed hypocrisy.

Then you removed from File:Abbey chest - geograph.org.uk - 369955.jpg two categories that correctly place it in Lincolnshire and you incorrectly dumped it back in Huntingdonshire. And you replaced the accurate categories of "15th-century furniture" and "Church chests in England" with the vague and misleading one of "Curiosities". More vandalism.

Since then I have not deleted any date categories, even when they seem to serve no purpose. But then came your latest and purest piece of, yes, vandalism. For a second time you have moved :File:Alstone Church - geograph.org.uk - 61446.jpg from correct categories to wrong ones. But did you first check my previous edit? This time I left in place the "October 2005 in Gloucestershire" category that you insisted should remain. Your revert didn't reinstate the category, as I hadn't removed it!

In all, for the last three months you have been rude with no justification and to no purpose. Yes I have accused you of vandalism, because that is what it is. And of point-scoring, and hypocrisy, because that is how it comes across. I have told the blunt truth of how unconstructive your reverts have been.

As I said above, you could have sent me a constructive message months ago, instead of indiscriminately reverting good work because you disliked just one part of it. I have put right the damage you did to the Reigate sundial and Croyland Abbey chest files. I invite you to undo the damage you have done to the file of Alstone church.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are a lot of categories I see no purpose to, but I don't delete them unless they are in correct, anyway I fixed the Alstone church file, best Oxyman (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In your recent mishandling of File:Christ Church - geograph.org.uk - 745132.jpg you yet again reverted valid refinements of a description and several categories. And you smeared those refinements as "vandalism", which is both nasty and ironic, as you were vandalising the previous edit! Please stop petty point-scoring, stop smearing a fellow-contributor and stick to editing constructively. — Motacilla (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oxyman in your recent mishandling of File:Door to Himbleton church - geograph.org.uk - 846682.jpg you yet again reverted valid refinements of a description and several categories. For once you dindn't smear my work as "vandalism". But you still need to stop petty point-scoring, and stick to editing constructively. — Motacilla (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are removing categories which is Vandalism, I will revert your vandalism, You need to modify you behavior before you talk about others, there really is no furtherer discussion about this. Please stop vandalising files. Oxyman (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:NPOV[edit]

Hi Motacilla - thanks for all the categorisation work you are doing - on a recent edit you tweaked the description for NPOV - this isn't necessary, please see COM:NPOV, the tower is unusual, and there is no reason not to say so on Commons. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DEFAULTSORTs[edit]

Hi there. I see you overturned some of my edits. Hopefully you understand why I made these edits in the first place: your DEFAULTSORTs sometimes mess up other peoples sortings. This would not be the case if you yourself would consider the effects your DEFAULTSORT and fixed them. Please respect other peoples categorising in the future by doing this. --Judithcomm (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category order[edit]

Hey,

There is no need to re-order categories into alphabetical order. If anything I would suggest it is a bad idea, as thematic structure would make more sense. For instance with this - the one non-church category (the location) is in the middle of the list. And if you have a set list of things you want to categorise for (eg denomination, date, style, patron saint, listed status), it is easier to work out of any are missing if a non-alphabetic structure is applied.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. I find it hard to check whether a category is omitted, or has been included twice, unless the order is alphabetical.

Thematic orders are somewhat subjective. Everyone has their own idea of themes. The alphabet is consistent. Motacilla (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is hardly a big deal of course - as long as it works. However, there's no real need to spend too much time on it (its not even worth mention in edit summary).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, please don't' remove valid categories - such as Category:Geograph images in Devon - like you did here [2].--Nilfanion (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for finding that mistake. I never intentionally remove "Geograph images" categories. In many cases I find them missing, and I nearly always remember to add them.

I started categorising images for Commons four years ago. At first I tried grouping them thematically. But most categories are combine at least two themes and many combine three. For example Category:Gothic revival church towers in Kent combines a type of structure, an architectural style and a location. So I got ever more confused, kept making mistakes and had to change.

People who categorise bus or rail images on Commons seem to work thematically. They apply huge numbers of very detailed categories to each image, so it seems to work for them. Maybe now after four years' practice I would make fewer mistakes if I tried it now.

But when I started, the subject areas on which I work were very poorly categorised: historic architecture in England and historic merchant shipping. They compare very badly with subjects such as modern cars, railways and aircraft, which tend to be categorised in fastidious detail.

In the last four years we have improved the categorisation of both church architecture and vernacular architecture, and I have done a large share of that work, but there is a vast amount left to do. For examples of what can be achieved, please compare Category:Churches in the Diocese of Oxford and Category:Vernacular architecture of Oxfordshire with corresponding categories for other English dioceses or counties.

The work on shipping is barely started, thanks to thousands of photos from the State Library of Queensland being labelled en bloc Category:Ships of Australia regardless of their true nationality. Many of the ships in that category were built or registered in the UK, which is why I bother to sift that collection at all.

Thankyou for your suggestion. I will bear it in mind. But you have already shown that I make mistakes. I would not want to make more frequent ones, merely for the sake of changing a method of working.

Motacilla (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep you are human - mistakes are understood! :) I wouldn't worry too much about the how, its the end result which matters (ie what categories are applied). I generally don't adjust category order at all, as it has no impact on end result, and fiddling with the order gives opportunity to make errors - like the Geograph example.

I can empathise with the State Library of Queensland bulk upload - mass uploads by bot are a huge problem for effective maintenance (as I'm sure you know, the Geograph upload is still far from fully incorporated).

A couple question with the Diocese categories:

Is there a potential redundancy? eg Category:Anglican churches in Devon and Category:Churches in the Diocese of Exeter should be identical.
There may be a POV issue in some cases as well, like Category:Churches in the Diocese of Birmingham. The RC diocese has the same name - why should the CofE one take precedence?

--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

... for adding categories to one of my London photographs. If you happen to enjoy using Cat-a-Lot to add categories to multiple images, feel free to see my other London images at Category:2014 photographs of London by Another Believer. Thanks again! -Another Believer (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defaultsorts[edit]

Please FIX the sortings for all involved categories when you apply default sorts. You're doing great work on Commons, but you're not alone here. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your message. I treated Category:St. Mary's Church, Chilham the same as I have treated hundreds of other parish churches. St Mary's is in Chilham, so {{DEFAULTSORT:Chilham}} correctly alphasorts it in every category in which it needs alphasorting. The categories Category:Chilham and Category:Chilham Square, Chilham are small and do not need alphasorting, unless one has an aesthetic desire to do so.

I have yet see how the category for this church differs from those for many hundreds of others that I have categorised. But if there is a problem that I have overlooked, I will be grateful for your guidance. Motacilla (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another query on defaultsorts. I have been following your example on this whenever I happen across, rather than consistently working through, files and cats, particularly if files begin with a date or a camera file number. Can you tell me what is the convention reasoning with defsorts as I cannot find any guidance on this within Wikimedia ? Is there an agreement as to when, why, if, and under what circumstances to apply it ? I ask this as an uploader is querying why I have defsorted their files... I've given a stab at a reply based on what I have gleaned through osmosis but I'm not sure if it is strictly correct. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defaultsort[edit]

Hi. The query above was probably not flagged to you as it was an adjunct to another topic head. Be grateful for a response. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your messages of 24 and 28 May. I apologise for taking a fortnight to reply. I am on the autistic spectrum and often get too anxious to interact with people. Online it looks like rudeness. Actually it's irrational panic.

Thankyou also for all the good photos that you have taken and uploaded, and the thoroughness with which you categorise both your own images and those that other users have contributed. It makes a nice change!

I don't know what conventions Wikimedia Commons may have on defaultsorts. If there are clear conventions laid down somewhere, I have no idea where to look to find them. I know approximately where to find policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. However, here on Wikimedia Commons the conventions and where to find them are different, and I have much less idea where to find them.

I simply do what I think will achieve a good outcome. For a parish church, most categories need to be sorted by placename. For example "nth-century churches in —shire", "Anglican churches in —shire", "Churches in the Diocese of —cester", "Grade X listed churches in —shire" and "Saint — churches in —shire". If it's a Gothic Revival church, the number of categories needing alphasorting will be even larger. A "defaultsort" template seems the most concise way to do the job.

Usually the only category that doesn't need the same defaultsort is the location. Some contributors therefore apply a "key" using the "|" character. But if the location is a village, I can't see the point. That is because most categories for an individual village and/or civil parish is likely to contain only a few categories. The parish church will therefore be as easy to find on the page regardless of what letter it is under.

If one treated every item in a village the same way — the local country house, historic pub, Medieval packhorse bridge, motte-and-bailey, whatever — every category within that village might end up under the same letter of the alphabet. That might dissatisfy someone who wanted them to be more spread out. But in so small a list each category will still be easy to find, so I have yet to understand why some contributors object to defaultsorting them.

I am sorry not to be more definitive in the above. But I hope it gives you an idea of why I do things in a particular way. If anyone directs you to a set of written conventions which we're supposed to apply, please share the link with me. It would save me from making it up as I go along!

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bottisham / Reach church[edit]

Hi -- sorry I didn't get back to you about the church, but thanks for correcting my egregious error. I evidently visited both on a trip out and tagged them incorrectly, but all appears well. I can confirm that it is Bottisham church, if that's of any use now! Smb1001 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the message. I guessed what you might've done! You're not the only one to have photographed several churches in one trip, and then wondered afterwards which photos were from which church! I may have done it. I know several other contributors have. I've certainly managed to mislabel photos after confusing which saint is patron of which church, I think as a result of having photographed several villages in one day!

I've never been to Bottisham or Reach. I managed to work out which church it really was by asking myself "Now what mistake would I have made?", and then searching the map for nearby churches!

But the important thing is it's a good photo of a good subject, and thankyou for taking and uploading it! And thankyou again for getting in touch. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorting churches[edit]

"most churches in England are now sorted first by place, then by dedication"; why? Who decided this? It makes no sense to do this. In what we might call "local categories", since people read from left to right, they would expect church names to be sorted by dedication. In wider categories (e.g. Saint X churches in England), these should be sorted by location. So it makes better sense to default sort on saint, location and override this for the handful of wide categories that may apply. I'll also point out that your method does not, and never has, applied, in Scotland and Wales. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your message.

In England thousands of churches are categorised by century, county, style, denomination, heritage category (if any) and, where known, architect. For all of these it is right to sort them by location, so that is the defaultsort. It was custom and practice before I started, and nor am I currently alone in copying it. I have applied it to thousands of churches, most of them in England, it as it makes sense. Dedication or other name is better for sorting churches within a town or city, to prevent them from all being under the same initial. For that, the dedication or other name forms a key for that town's category.

Because Wikimedia Commons is organic and individuals apply their own ideas in their own areas of interest, London has developed differently. Someone has sorted the Church of England dioceses of London and Southwark into deaneries, and has sorted some of the churches in those deaneries by dedication.

Many churches have no known dedication. This applies both to denominations that do not have bishops, and to C of E churches whose dedication, if any, has been long forgotten. The dedication of some churches has been changed. Some people know a church's location but not its dedication.

For most of England, therefore, sorting first by place is normal practice. Examine the categories for England's 43 Church of England dioceses, anything up to 49 county categories for each century, major denomination, style or heritage category and you will see this is the case. In the Diocese of Oxford, so far nearly 600 churches have individual categories. The counties of Devon, Kent and Oxfordshire each have individual categories for more than 300 C of E churches, and those numbers are increasing. To sort them other than by place would be very unhelpful.

Before I started sorting churches in England, most of them were in a mess. Now an increasing proportion of them are in good order.

Thankyou again for asking about the way English churches are sorted. I hope that the above explains that it is a practice that has evolved for practical reasons, and not the product of one contributor's wilfulness!

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't the number of overrides of {{DEFAULTSORT}} in Category:St Barnabas, Liverpool suggest that this is not a useful approach, however widespread it is? It does to me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, because the defaultsort applies to six of the ten categories and the keys apply to only four. And in most other cases the number of keys required is fewer. Motacilla (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Tattie Kirk[edit]

All churches I've worked on in Scotland, which is hundreds if not thousands, are sorted by name, then location, and not the other way around. Please stick to the prevailing custom. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bell cotes vs bell gables[edit]

Hi Motacilla, I just noticed this edit where this figure was sorted from Category:Bell cotes to Category:Bell gables in Ireland. This appears to be strange as “bell cotes” and “bell gables” are synonyms. There is no difference between them. See, for example, James Stevens Curl, Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, Oxford University Press, p. 80. Likewise the Penguin Dictionary of Architecture. Both terms have, BTW, one common German translation: “Glockengiebel”. The corresponding articles bell-gable and bell-cot got it wrong, they haven't been written using architectural reference works. If you read the actual description at File:Suggestions on the Arrangement and Characteristics of Parish Churches Figure 10 BL Scan.png you will see that the author of the book (which was a famous architect) refered to it as “bell-cot”. Hence, there is no point in maintaining these categories in parallel. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your message.

Commons has separate categories [[Category:Bell cotes]], [[Category:Bell gables]] and [[Category:Bell turrets in England]]. Fleming, Honour and Pevsner (1966) define bell cote and bell gable as synonyms. But their origins are distinct, hence the logic of the Wikipedia articles bell-cot and bell-gable.

For centuries cot or cote has meant a little house – hence cottage. Bellcot or bell cote implies a little house for a bell or bells, which therefore implies shelter.

"Bell gable" implies an extension on a gable wall, either upward or outward, to hang a bell or bells. But the term makes no implication about sheltering the bell, and indeed some bell gables are very open and exposed.

Glockengiebel translates literally as "bell gable". Giebel does not translate as "little house", or therefore as "cot" or "cote".

I have been categorising bell turrets as well. My copy of Fleming, Honour and Pevsner (third edition, 1980) seems not to mention the term. John Henry Parker (1935) defined bell turret as a synonym of both bell cote and bell gable. But a turret is a little tower. I therefore expect a bell turret to be in a relatively high place on a building, as I would a bell gable. But a cote, a little house, could be anywhere. Some bell cotes are free-standing at ground level.

I have therefore been drawing distinctions between the three terms, and applying whichever one seems most descriptive. In some cases two terms seem applicable to the same structure, so I have applied both.

If we are to treat cotes and gables as precise synonyms, then one category or set of categories should be replaced with a redirect to the other. But given the wide diversity of structures that this would lump together, I can see this producing some odd results.

And if we are to treat cotes and gables as synonyms because architectural dictionaries say so, can we defend keeping bell turrets as a distinct term? Parker treats all three as synonyms. But some turrets are so large as to verge upon being towers, whereas others are small and perch on a gable wall like a bell gable or bell cote.

Where do we go from here?

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for jumping in here chiefly as I have added files to bell cotes and bell gables, and regardless of 'experts' who provide definitions... presumptive I know. I tend towards Motacilla's view.

I work on the accepted definition that 'cotes' are enclosures (would that mean usually four walls?), for bells or birds etc. I have assumed that bell cotes are bell enclosures added to any parts of roofs or side walls, while not having their special tower (being a separate bell tower or turret), or part of a multi-purpose tower (as belfies).

I think some confusion lies with bells in enclosures (however enclosure is defined), and bells housed in gable edge 'two dimensional' upper apertures. This also poses the problem of the bell gable seeming to suggest a gable which is built specifically to support on it a bell... hardly ever the case I suspect. This terminology the experts have perhaps not tackled.

Apart from the anomaly suggested in the last paragraph, I think it might be a way forward to call all enclosed dedicated roof bell enclosures as bell cots or, if tall and pointy, bell turrets, even if they appear at the end of a gable, and end-of-gable bells in simple wall apertures as bell gables, however inadequate the term 'bell gable' may be. Acabashi (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File renaming[edit]

Hi Motacilla. As you are so active on Wikimedia, and may have asked for a number of files to be changed, you might consider becoming a filemover: request filemover-rights here. I know one of your concerns (and mine), is with Geograph files (especially the dubious quality of loads of them), and no doubt this with all files too... see. And there is now a load of badly named and catted defunct Panoramio stuff being shoe-horned in. There are so many files with ridiculous and meaningless names that make them virtually unsearcheable, such as some I've seen: 'Are you asleep', 'Gaggle of Gravestones', 'Whoops', 'What Stile', '007(6062522586)-DellboyDaBumbler' ... you get the picture. Cats we both add are fine and very useful, but most searchers will first pick up first on a file name, not just here, but on web searches. I hope you will consider being a file mover. Keep up the good work. Happy New Year. Acabashi (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saint James churches[edit]

Please stop removing things from Category:St. James churches. That category is for churches by name, not by patron saint, so the remaining categories for specific saints do not cover this. Since you commented at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:St. James Churches, I know you are aware that this category is being discussed, so it's inappropriate for you to remove things while the discussion is ongoing. Anything you remove in the meantime will be put back. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 13 November AFBorchert placed a template at the head of the Category:St. James churches. Its second sentence states "As a result of this discussion, pages and files in this category may be recategorised (not deleted)". I am making no change to the category. I am, in accordance with that template, recategorising pages in that category.

By now the churches that I have categorised on Commons, mostly in England, number many hundreds. The ways in which they are categorised are highly developed. The categorisation itself has been progressing well, but much remains to be done. Please consider contributing to that process, instead of threatening an edit war with your statement "Anything you remove in the meantime will be put back". Motacilla (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template statement you quote refers to what may happen to pages and files after the discussion is closed. The discussion is still open, so no related action should be taken yet. Do you have any suggestions on how to resolve the name confusion between the categories by name and those by patron saint? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is already a Category:Saint James churches in England, which so far includes Category:Saint James the Greater churches in England alongside categories for nine English counties. I have just moved Category:St. Joseph and St. James Church, Follifoot to it, as this is more precise than Category:St. James churches. More counties could be added to this family of categories. And there is not yet a Category:Saint James churches in the United Kingdom. Motacilla (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming files[edit]

Thanks for adding files to the 'Bad file names' in UK place cats... useful. I work through yours when I happen across them. I am happy to carry on, but you might find that adding a change file temp using "more → move" tab near the top right per Commons:File renaming, will get more file changers directly on the case, with a descriptive file name added to your satisfaction. I go on the basis that the actual file name (its potency up to, but diminishing towards, the first 10 words of that name) is the optimum and prime latch for recognition by Google algorithms for image searches... descriptions have less search value, and tags (cats) virtually none. Also, building a history of file name change requests helps in a presentation for file changer rights for which, from your dedicated efforts for the project, I think you should soon apply. Thanks for the good work. Acabashi (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cats[edit]

Hi Motacilla, Just to let you know categories don't go in alphabetical order, For buses atleast they go by: "the name of the company", then "the vehicle make/model", then "the bus colour" (if desired) then "buses in X" and then finally "Files with bad names",
Thanks & Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 13:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your edit warring and gratuitous obscenity on File:Au Morandarte Flickr DSC00958 (10332793974).jpg. It tells me all I need to know. Motacilla (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome!, Had you bothered to actually discuss it maybe things would've been nicer. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defaultsorts[edit]

Stop reverting me or you may be blocked. We may have started by doing these incorrectly, but that's no excuse not to do them properly now. I can't believe anyone ever though that "location, dedication" as opposed to "dedication, location" is in any way a sensible way of default sorting church names, and frankly, it's just asinine to support the idea. People read names in the UK from left to right, and expect to see a church sorted by its saint's name. Let's not insult their intelligence and confuse them by getting it wrong, please. I'd fix all this but I have 506 uploads to do from the last five days photography so it won't be this week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I categorise sort churches throughout England and have been achieving a very high degree of consistency. I have categorised and sorted images of hundreds of churches that, until I found and categoriesed them, were barely findable on Wikimedia Commons.

You want churches in your part of England to be sorted differently from those everywhere else. This makes categories much harder to navigate and serves no purpose that I can see as constructive. For goodness' sake please stop.

Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I want ALL churches EVERYWHERE to be defsorted CORRECTLY, showing proper consideration for our users and a basic understanding of their expectations. A very high degree of consistency is absolutely useless if you are consistently wrong. Following the herd may be easy, but it is mindless. I'm prepared to seek community consensus on this, because everybody else seems to get it right. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saint Peter's Church Redditch[edit]

Hello, sorry for any confusion, this is definitely part of the Church, not the annexe, although it is a modern addition. I'm assuming eth title was auto generated by Wikimedia, otehrwise I have no idea where it came from. Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Deleted categories appropriate only to individual files"[edit]

No. Not "only". A category may be specifically of the tower of a church, in which case a tower category would be appropriate, but not for the individual files within it, was it would then be overcategorisation. Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you. I'm prepared to let you have the clearly incorrect DEFAULTSORT templates, if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Bedford_K_series[edit]

Bedford K series 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 ∙ +/−

Peter James (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[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!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ 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 ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:AVParkway NationalRail sign.JPG

Yours sincerely, ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sculptures_in_Norfolk,_England[edit]

Sculptures in Norfolk, England 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 ∙ +/−

Icarusgeek (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:St Columba's, Smithdown Road[edit]

{{Location}} should always precede {{Listed building England}}. This is because location is wider and draws the reader's eye to the right; the LBE then draws it back to the left and to the natural reading position. Otherwise, the reader's eye is forced to jump about, which is disconcerting. Thanks.

Typos in category names[edit]

Motacilla, I appreciate your efforts in categorizing files here on commons, and I understand perfectly that sometimes typos are made when creating a new category. In those cases, please use {{Bad name}} rather than nominating the category for discussion. The vast majority of the CfDs you have started have been to delete categories you have just created:

Meanwhile, "Categories for Discussion" is so backlogged that there are unresolved real discussions going back to 2012. If you could please deal with these mistakes yourself in the future, instead of requiring others to do extra work (closing the discussion with an explanation, deleting the category, archiving the discussion), it would be a great help. I know this has been suggested to you numerous times in the discussions linked above, so I hope you'll take it to heart this time. Thanks very much for your understanding. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zwei Fragen[edit]

Hallo Motacilla,

~~vielen Dank für die Einsortierung von File:St Matthews Church, Fromes Hill - geograph.org.uk - 1340586.jpg.~~

Welches Tool nutzt Du, um solche Dateien in Oberkategerien (Over-over-catecories) so schnell zu finden?

Welches Tool nutzt Du, um solche Dateien so perfekt einzusortieren?

~~Best regards, Hystrix (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

No answer is also an answer. I respect it. And I probably understand it too. Greetings, Hystrix (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning: Stop disruptive behaviour at Categories for Discussion[edit]

@Motacilla: It has been repeatedly suggested to you that you should deal with your own typos in category names rather than bringing them to CFD for discussion. You have been told in CFDs and I have personally written you here at your talk page. If you continue this disruptive behaviour, I will institute a temporary block of your account.

I would appreciate if you would acknowledge receipt of this warning, or better yet, explain why you continue to type in long explanations for deletion at CFD instead of using a 20 character template. - Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defaultsorts again[edit]

Please explain, with regard to how the rest of the world reads text, why "Kings Arms, Wheatley" should appear sorted under "Wheatley" rahter than "Kings Arms" in 18th-century architecture in Oxfordshire, Built in England in 1756, Grade II listed pubs in Oxfordshire, Greene King Brewery and Vernacular architecture of Wheatley, Oxfordshire, when all of these categories refer to the pub itself and not the village of Wheatley. Please be careful, because your answer will determine whether you are able to continue editing here. And, I'm sorry "That's the way it's always been done" won't do, because only an utter fool would perpetuate mistakes made by others. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DEFAULTSORT for UK churches and pubs[edit]

Please feel free to defend your practice at COM:VPP. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:All Saints, Upper Bucklebury - geograph.org.uk - 1539255.jpg[edit]

It seems to have slipped your mind that community consensus is now to DEFAULTsort churches in England by dedication rather than location, and I'll be glad if you would kndly respect that consensus. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Careless editing[edit]

Please stop your careless editing of descriptions of photos which I have uploaded. Every time you edit those pages I have to go through them all to check for your mistakes. This time, you created a "missing text" error on two of the image description pages. Regarding descriptions of church images, please stop replacing "exterior" with "outside". In that context, the exterior is the outside surface. If you replace it with "outside", that could mean anywhere in the churchyard. Storye book (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should add that on 20 March you removed the licences from two image pages, as well. Luckily a bot flagged it up on my watchlist and I was able to put the licences back. Storye book (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories and file descriptions[edit]

Hi Motacilla, I would be grateful if you could keep my file descriptions as written unless there is a good reason for fixing them. File:Coleraine St Patrick's Church Window W01 Ascension 2014 09 13.jpg, among other things, depicts the Ascension of Jesus rather than representing it. Before, it was categorized in Category:Evangelists on stained-glass windows. You changed this to Category:Saint Luke on stained glass windows in the United Kingdom despite having all four evangelists in this window. Before, the categories for the saints followed exactly the order of appearance from top to down, left to right. You changed this into an alphabetical order which makes it difficult to see if categories for any of the saints are missing. And please do not change any category into anyone that does not exist yet as you did here. Please create new categories first before moving anything into it. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto for my images. It makes sense to categorise images showing all four evangelists as a group rather than separately. Also, when I write "depicts", I do not mean "represents" which has a different meaning. Better not to meddle in things that might annoy people. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're still doing it. Stop now or you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Two editors have now asked you not to change their meanings. So don't. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 week[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 week for the following reason: You know by now that pubs and churches are not sorted on location. Yet you continue to make this mistake.You now have a week to assimilate community consensus. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

العربية ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Gaeilge ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

You have been blocked for a duration of one month[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of one month for the following reason: continued disruptive editing. Community consensus is for churches and pubs to be sorted by name not location, and you keep on ignoring that..

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

العربية ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Gaeilge ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Motacilla,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 01:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Motacilla,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Motacilla,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Church of St Mary the Virgin, Stone[edit]

You should know by now how the Commons community wishes churches to be sorted. Please correct the {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been blocked for a duration of three months[edit]

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of three months for the following reason: continued flouting of community consensus on {{DEFAULTSORT}} for churches..

If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

العربية ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ Gaeilge ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ suomi ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ हिन्दी ∙ বাংলা ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion.

Request reason: "User:Rodhullandemu blocked me because when I created Category:Church of St Mary the Virgin, Stone I sorted it by place rather than dedication. He cites a community consensus that churches should be sorted by dedication. However, Stone is in Worcestershire, which is a county to which this consensus has not been applied. Rodhullandemu obtained the consensus in October 2018. In December 2018 he started applying it to counties in England, working alphabetically from Bedfordshire. In May he completed Cornwall, in June he started Cumbria but never completed it. At this rate of progress he is unlikely to reach Worcestershire for several years. When I created the category "Category:Church of St Mary the Virgin, Stone" it was more logical to sort it by place than waste my time reordering 180 other Worcestershire churches by dedication.

Rodhullandemu blocking me for three months is the latest episode in a campaign of cyber-bullying that he has waged for more than two years. His first message to me was in September 2016 (see above on this page). I thought I replied reasonably and thoroughly to his message. But he did not accept any of the evidence and reasoning that I put to him. He messaged me again in October 2016. Having given him all my reasoning a month earlier I could not think of a reply, so I made none. In September 2017 Rodhullandemu descended from disagreement to bullying. This was the first time that he threatened me with being blocked. He was aggressive and insulting, using words such as "asinine" and implying that I was wasting his time. I replied defending my work but Phil replied dismissively and aggressively. In October 2017 Phil sent me a furious message disagreeing with my categorisation of an image or images. His message included the sentences " Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you." and "I'm prepared to let you have the clearly incorrect DEFAULTSORT templates, if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place."

I have had poor mental health for much of my life. Toward the end of 2014 I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, and was told that I am a "vulnerable adult". In my adult life I have had at least five mental health crises, two of which (starting in 2003 and 2014) were nervous breakdowns. My Asperger's Syndrome may be one of the reasons why I like categorising images on Commons. However, my mental health makes it difficult to cope with some aspects of the project, such as managing disagreement and disputes. I was recently accepted for a course of treatment for complex PTSD, which I will start early in 2020.

All but one of my mental health crises were caused by bullying and one was caused by cyberbullying. Both of my nervous breakdowns resulted from bullying within large organisations, and were made much worse by that organisation refusing to apologise or to take appropriate action against the individuals who bullied me. This has all but destroyed my confidence in justice within large organisations. I have never made a full recovery from either of my breakdowns. I live with chronic anxiety and suffer panic attacks. And I suffer autistic meltdowns from my Asperger's syndrome if distressing circumstances "trigger" me.

With my history of chronic anxiety and panic attacks, Rodhullandemu's abuse, aggression and threats from September 2017 onward have terrified me. His tone has left me too terrified to read my talk page. This has rendered me unable to respond to messages from either him or anyone else on Wikimedia Commons. I have just struggled on, vainly hoping to be left in peace.

Rodhullandemu's aggression continued. In August 2018 (see above on this page) he again messaged me with a threat and gratuitous abuse: "Please be careful, because your answer will determine whether you are able to continue editing here." and "And, I'm sorry "That's the way it's always been done" won't do, because only an utter fool would perpetuate mistakes made by others." In September 2018 he initiated a discussion on COM:VPP to resolve our disagreement on categorising churches and pubs. He invited me to take part in the discussion, but by then (a) I was still to anxious to read my talk page, let alone respond to his aggression and (b) two close and long-standing friends of mine were dying of cancer. One had had breast cancer for six years, Another had had bowel cancer for three years, and I was dreading losing both of them. For all of these reasons I was in no position to join the COM:VPP discussion.

Few users showed any interest in the discussion. One asked with whom Rodhullandemu was having a dispute, but Phil replied "I don't want to embarrass him by naming him, but I confirm he has been made aware of this proposal." As a result users who saw the discussion were unlikely to know that the dispute had been running on my talk page for two years, what arguments I had posted on my page in reply to Phil's messages, and how abusive, sweary and aggressive he had been toward me. And frankly, I do not believe his claim "I don't want to embarrass him by naming him". Since 2017 Rodhullandemu has repeatedly shown me utter contempt. It seems much likelier that his true motive was to avoid drawing wider attention to his long-running abuse of me.

I note also that only one of the users who joined the discussion (User:Crouch,Swale) has played much part in categorising images of English churches on Commons. For example, there was no sign of User:Acabashi, User:Dave.Dunford, User:Judithcomm, User:Saga City or User:Storye book joining the discussion. Either Rodhullandemu did not tell them about the discussion or they were not interested. To the best of my knowledge they and other users have generally accepted my categorisation and alphasorting of churches and pubs in England. Rodhullandemu has succeeded in creating a consensus by having a discussion with a group of people most of whom had almost nothing to do with the subject!

On 11 July 2019 Rodhullandemu blocked me for a week. At the same time he somewhat perversely reverted the categorisation of a few images and categories that I had refined, e.g. File:The_North_Arms,_Wroxton_-_geograph.org.uk_-_553112.jpg, File:Clock tower, Coach House of Royden Park 2019.jpg, File:High Street Walsall - panoramio.jpg, Category:The Fox, Stanton Harcourt. Moving files and categories from refined categories back to less refined ones contradicts how we are told to categorise items on Wikimedia Commons. His reversion of my work seems to have been driven by a desire to undo my work at all costs, regardless of whether the categories he was undoing were correct.

On 18 July 2019 Rodhullandemu blocked me for a month and also blocked my IP address. But in my C-PTSD I was too panicked and anxious to appeal against my block. On 19 October 2019 he blocked me for three months. Again I was too ill to respond. I am responding now, more than two months later, only because I have a mental health support worker sitting next to me to help me to stave off a panic attack.

I joined Wikipedia in February 2007 and Wikimedia Commons in November 2009. I uploaded my first photo of a church in November 2009 and started categorising and sorting images of churches shortly thereafter. Since then I have contributed thousands of my photos of English churches, and I have a backlog of several thousand more to edit and upload. I estimate that since 2009 I have categorised and sorted most of the Anglican churches in England, many English churches of other denominations and smaller numbers of churches in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The total number is probably in the order of 15,000 churches. I created many of the categories for individual churches. I also categorised and alphasorted a far larger number of individual image files.

Rodhullandemu's project to re-sort all churches by dedication rather than place is impractical. I set out several reasons when he started disagreeing with me in September 2016. But the scale of the task is another strong reason. From December 2018 to June 2019 he changed just over 1,100 Church of England and Roman Catholic churches to his new order. He completed only seven English counties and left another, Cumbria, incomplete and thereby muddled. Since then he has failed to continue the re-sorting that he insisted was so important. He has left at least 12,000 Church of England and more than 350 Roman Catholic churches sorted by place, and for the last six months has done precious little to reduce these numbers. This implies that his motive is not so much to achieve a new order as to bully me and possibly get rid of me from Wikimedia Commons.

Few C of E dioceses are coterminous with English counties. Some Roman Catholic dioceses cover more than one English county. The result of Rodhullandemu re-sorting only a few counties and leaving the task mostly undone is that he has muddled the order in the categories for several dioceses of each denomination. Category:Churches in the Diocese of Carlisle and Category:Churches in the Diocese of St Albans are prime examples, but there are others.

I accept that for more than two years I have not responded effectively to Rodhullandemu. But that is because I have chronic mental health conditions, and for more than two years Rodhullandemu's aggression, threats and abuse have worsened my ill-health and left me unable to respond. I deserve and ask to be reinstated, both to continue my positive contributions to Wikimedia Commons and to challenge the COM:VPP consensus on sorting churches and pubs that Rodhullandemu obtained in unsatisfactory circumstances.

Also I ask that other administrators examine Rodhullandemu's recurrent, persistent misconduct against me and the harm he has inflicted both on my health and thereby on my ability to participate constructively in Wikimedia Commons. He has abused me and he has abused his position as an administrator. I suggest that he has repeatedly shown that he is unfit to be an administrator, and that his status as such be revoked.

Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)"Reply[reply]

Decline reason: "No consensus for unblock. After two weeks the block will end in normal way. Also it's a bad idea to attack the blocking administrator in unblock request. Rodhullandemu is a good administrator. Taivo (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)"Reply[reply]

Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log)
(unblock)
(Change local status for a global block)
(contribs)

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ português ∙ Simple English ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ हिन्दी ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ 中文（臺灣） ∙ +/−

Block. I am responding to Motacilla's above comment because my username was mentioned in it, and I had not been notified of the discussions mentioned above. My experience of Motacilla's categorising of churches is that when categories are added to, rearranged or repositioned within an image page, the licence is sometimes removed accidentally by this editor. Because of this carelessness, I have to check every file on my watchlist which has been edited by Motacilla, and I have to check it immediately, to prevent no-licence-deletion notices being tagged to my uploads. I accept that Motacilla pleads illness and is not ill-intentioned, but that kind of editing is a nuisance. We cannot all check our watchlists and go through Motacilla's work with a fine toothcomb every day. So with a heavy heart I request that Motacilla's block be retained. Meanwhile I wish Motacilla a full recovery from the personal problems mentioned. Storye book (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry that Motacilla feels that in any way I have been unfair to him/er- but the simple fact is that it makes no sense to sort churches by location since that is not how our typical user (I'm imagining a picture editor on a local newspaper) would expected to see them ordered. I have argued this on several occasions, but "that's the way it's always been done" and "that's the way Wikipedia does it" is all I got instead of a reasoned argument. At one point I thought perhaps I was wrong and sought community consensus. Motacilla did not participate in that process in the slightest. However, a consensus consonant with my opinion, although perhaps weak for some, was reached. Motacilla continued to edit against that consensus, hence the block. Furthermore, he adds unhelpful categories to images of churches, e.g. of the tower or porch, when the image is of the whole church. Categorising a whole building by its parts invokes COM:OVERCAT, much as I disagree with it, and I have lost count of the number of churches round here that I have had to revisit to take separate images of the tower, porch, etc, so that the categorisations are consistent and correct. I have only reached Cumbria in the lengthy correction process because I fell ill myself last year and it took a while to reach a diagnosis and treatment, so I put that on the back burner because it is time-consuming and wearying. But I do have it pencilled in for January. You may cry en:WP:INVOLVED here but once the community had reched its consensus I felt able to enforce that consensus, of which Motacilla was fully aware and could have avoided a block by the simple act of complying with it. S/he also annoys other users by erroneously changing their preferred wording, see "Careless editing" and "Categories and file descriptions" above. I see no commitment from Motacilla here to follow consensus and I suggest the block should stand. Meanwhile, I too have suffered mental health problems and I overcame them without any help from anyone, thank you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I see I was mentioned above, though it's been a while since I worked on categorisation of churches and I'm more active on English Wikipedia than Commons. I'm offering no opinion on the Motacilla's block, but feel I must disagree with Rodhullandemu's statement that "it makes no sense to sort churches by location". Location is my preferred defaultsort and I wasn't aware of any convention to sort by dedication; indeed, I've changed many defaultsorts from dedication to location where I found it, and had I been aware of any such discussion I would have argued strongly in favour of Motacilla's position. Contrary to Rodhullandemu, I see very little sense in sorting by dedication, and location seems far more sensible. The only scenario where listing "St Mary's Church, Anytown" under the letter M makes sense is in a category such as "Category:Churches in Anytown" (and such categories are not numerous). In the far commoner situation of a category containing multiple churches in different locations (listed churches by county, for example) sorting by place allows people to find a church far more easily (people are almost certain to know the placename but distinctly unlikely to know the dedication); also it puts churches that are in the same settlement next to each other, which make far more sense to me than listing all the St Mary's churches next to each other. In a non-church-related category for the parent place (i.e. Category:Anytown or Category:Buildings in Anytown) I would expect to find "St Mary's Church" under "S", not "M". Where and when was this claimed consensus established, and what is the argument for sorting by dedication? Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Edit conflict) This is not the place for that debate, but it makes no sense to sort "St Mary" under "S", because you then overload the "S" section of Churches in X with all the "Saint X" churches. Also bear in mind that most churches will have several images, which means there will be a category, and once that category reaches its lowest level, e.g. Churches in England -> Churches in Cambridgeshire -> Churches in Cambridge, we already know its location so it then makes perfect sense to sort by dedication. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"This is not the place for that debate" - that's rather presumptuous, and I still disagree. "Churches in <city>" is a rather atypical example (where, as I acknowledged, sorting by the dedication makes sense). The majority of churches are (arguably) parish churches in towns and villages, and there is unlikely to be a "Churches in <settlement>" category, since there is typically only one church (or the other churches will be non-conformist chapels without a dedication). Location still seems to be far the most logical value for DEFAULTSORT; in the few cases (such as "Churches in <city>") where dedication is the more appropriate sort order, it can be piped to override the DEFAULTSORT. If I consider the vast majority of church-related categories ("13th-century churches in <county>", "Grade II listed churches in <county>", "St Mary churches in <county>", "Churches in the Diocese of <diocese>", "Churches designed by <architect>"), then the most useful and sensible order is by place (and then by dedication, so that the churches in a particular city are listed together, sub-sorted by dedication). Lumping all the (arbitrarily dedicated) St Mary's churches in a county under the letter M makes very little sense to me. But I don't care enough to argue with someone who seems so sure that they are right. Perhaps you could direct me to the Talk page where this was originally discussed.

"it makes no sense to sort "St Mary" under "S" - not as a default sort, I agree. But in a village or parish subcategory, where there might be subcategories for various buildings, landmarks, organisations, people etc., I'd expect to see "St Mary's Church" listed under S (and certainly not M). The only place where sorting by dedication makes sense is "Churches in <place>", and such categories are vastly outnumbered by other categories (mostly county-based) where the church categories listed are from numerous different places, and sorting by place makes more sense. Thus place should be the default, and dedication the override where it's appropriate. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since my username was mentioned as well, I would also like to respond. If there is a consensus to defaultsort churches according to their dedication, this makes much more sense to me. In fact, this would be the sorting I would chose instinctively myself. So the defaultsortings by place should all be changed. I'm sorry, Motacilla, that all your hard work will be undone, but you could have known it would have to be one day. Too bad the blocking appeared to be needed. --Judithcomm (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a bad block by an involved administrator. It is absolutely clear that Rodhullandemu is far too involved in the issue of categorising by location or name to be making blocks of editors who disagree with him over content. He even started an RfC on the matter, which clearly demonstrates his obsession with having categorisation done the way he prefers. The weak consensus that he relies on to justify his behaviour is a long way from obvious, as many editors – myself included – challenge it because categorisation of a church by name does not allow any hierarchy in the cat tree, whereas categorisation by location is much more natural and amenable to sensible grouping: St Mary's Church, Kingswinford would naturally be in Category:Churches in Kingswinford, which would be in Category:Churches in Dudley, then Category:Churches in the West Midlands, Category:Churches in England, and so on. Like any other building, it is obvious that St Mary's Church, Kingswinford has far more in common with the Church of Saint Thomas, Dudley (both in the Diocese of Worcester) than it has with St Mary Magdalene Church, Krakow. If you prefer organise churches by diocese, exactly the same argument applies. This block is simply a method by Rodhullandemu, who has a history of bad admin actions, to stifle opposition to his personal preferences. It should be immediately undone to allow Motacilla to take part in the content debate. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You mean the debate he's refused to participate in for over a year? Whilst I am now aware of his difficulties, it does not seem that he's unable to put an argument together when he's able and willing to do so. I'm sick and fed up of users from other projects coming here and saying their way is the only correct way, because projects work in different ways, and while ordering by location might be fine for Wikipedia articles, it doesn't work well for Commons categories, which are here to do different things, such as eliminate redundancy. And I invite you to substantiate or withdraw "who has a history of bad admin actions", in relation to Commons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Rodhullandemu: I mean the debate you made sure he wouldn't be able to participate in. He is indeed a lucid and intelligent person, but he recoils from conflict and finds great difficulty in facing unpleasant situations. You have no comprehension of the effort it must have taken him to assemble his recent comments. I'm also sick and fed up. I'm sick and fed up of you attempting to belittle me as "users from other projects". My tenure on Commons goes back almost twelve years, a mere couple of months less than yours, and although I do the bulk of my editing on the English Wikipedia, I contribute regularly to Commons, mostly on technical matters, so I don't intend to allow you to smear my good standing here. I've just as much right as you to decide what is the correct way to "do things", and you have offered no rationale for your personal preference to categorise churches by dedication, while I have demonstrated clearly that categorisation by location is superior for all purposes, especially on Commons. Both editors and readers are far more likely to want to browse images of churches within a given area than they are to want to browse images of churches dedicated to a particular saint which are scattered across the globe with nothing more in common than the name on the board outside. That's a fundamental principle of categorisation and none of your hand-waving about "it doesn't work well for Commons categories" carries any weight when examined. I'll respond to your invitation by making it clear that you're the same person on Commons as you were on the English Wikipedia, where you were site-banned for abuse of your admin powers; you display the same willingness to take administrative action when involved in a content dispute. Don't play word-games with me like "a history of bad admin actions, in relation to Commons", when you know well that involved means involved, and you don't take admin action to win a content dispute on any project. If you think Commons has no relationship with any other project, you're wrong. Your behaviour here is governed by the same terms and conditions as the Foundation lay down for every Wikimedia project, and editors are entitled to the same protection from abuse on each and every project. --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply Thankyou everyone for your comments.

User:Dave.Dunford cogently sets out some of the logical reasons why churches should be sorted first by place-name and then by dedication (if any). To the best of my knowledge Commons follows this convention throughout the World. Since User:Rodhullandemu started edit warring with me in 2016 he has offered no reason to overturn it except that people read from left to right and would not realise that the place-name on the right is the primary key to the alphabetical order of a list (see "Sorting churches" above, September 2016). This seems highly implausible.

Rodhullandemu now offers the example of a news picture editor. Any person who is not a church specialist is more likely to know the name of the place where a church is than its dedication. I recognise most of the place-names in Oxfordshire but I could tell you the dedication of the parish church in relatively few of them. So almost a decade ago I took up and continued a convention that was well-established before I started. I do not know who started it: users such as User:Saga City who categorised churches in England back then may know.

User:Judithcomm supports Rodhullandemu's sorting "instinctively", but offers no supporting reason. Nor has anyone else in the last three years. Judithcomm jumps straight from "In fact, this would be the sorting I would chose instinctively myself" to "So the defaultsortings by place should all be changed. I'm sorry, Motacilla, that all your hard work will be undone, but you could have known it would have to be one day." No, I could not have known. I worked both by common sense and by placing faith in the common sense of others. I continue to hope that eventually we will reach a common sense consensus that most people navigate the Britain like they do the rest of the World: by place name, not by a church dedication that many people may not know.

Judithcomm comments "Too bad the blocking appeared to be needed". This a three-month block for one entirely logical edit: sorting one church in Worcestershire whose category I had just created, so that it would be in the same order as the other 200 churches in Category:Churches in the Anglican Diocese of Worcester and other 182 in Category:Anglican churches in Worcestershire. It would have been perverse to order one church differently from all the others, in anticipation that Rodhullandemu might eventually re-order Worcestershire within the next few years. In this circumstance a three-month block is unjustified, achieves nothing positive and I again ask that it be lifted.

In my original appeal I mentioned the scale of the ordering by place-name that Rodhullandemu wishes to dismantle. Today The Guardian reports that the Australian photographer Cameron Newham is working to photograph in detail and single-handedly most of the parish churches in England. (Australian on mission to photograph every parish church in England) When The Daily Telegraph reported on Newham's project in July, it said England has about 16,000 C of E churches, of which about 12,500 are listed buildings. (Sacred Mysteries: One man’s photographs of 9,000 rural churches). In addition England has several hundred Roman Catholic churches: perhaps as many as a thousand.

Commons has at least one photo of most of these C of E and RC churches and has many photos of some of them. In six months Rodhullandemu reordered the categories for only seven and a half of nearly 50 current and former counties. And for the most part he has not reordered of the tens of thousands of individual images in those thousands of categories. At this rate Commons' church photos in England will be in two parallel orders for the next several years, all because a few members personally dislike the ordering by place-name that I had consistently applied to nearly every county in England. More than once when Rodhullandemu has attacked me he has claimed he has "better things to do". Clearly this is not so. He has undertaken a re-ordering project on a vast scale, with considerable disruptive effect until it is completed, without presenting a convincing case that it will yield any benefit in proportion to the inordinate amount of work that it will involve.

In September 2017 Rodhullandemu gratuitously turned nasty against me (see "Defaultsorts", above). At that time he had not sought or obtained a consensus to sort by dedication followed by location, yet his opener was "Stop reverting me or you may be blocked." He was defending a practice that at that time had no standing outside his own personal preference. His entire post was terrifyingly aggressive. Anyone who does not agree with his personal preference is "asinine". He arbitrarily and unilaterally deems me "consistently wrong". This is online bullying.

In October 2017 Rodhullandemu's aggression worsened. "Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you. I'm prepared to let you have the clearly incorrect DEFAULTSORT templates, if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place." Conspicuously no-one in this discussion has yet acknowledged that no admin should behave as aggressively and with such foulness as Rodhullandemu has done, and this is a disciplinary matter that someone must pursue against him.

In August 2018 (see "Defaultsorts again", above) Rodhullandemu resorted to what might be termed passive aggressive threats: "Please explain, with regard to how the rest of the world reads text" and " Please be careful, because your answer will determine whether you are able to continue editing here". His closing sentence "only an utter fool would perpetuate mistakes made by others" assumed – at that time without a community consensus – that what everyone else has done is wrong and Rodhullandemu alone is right. This is a frame of mind unsuited to a collective project that works by reasoned consensus. In particular it reveals a temperament unfit to be an admin on such a project.

By the time User:Storye book messaged me in March 2019 ("Careless editing", above) Rodhullandemu had so damaged my mental health that I was no longer reading my user talk page because it was too traumatic. Storye book can be forgiven for thinking my lack of response was rude. In fact it was a result of mental trauma inflicted by a rogue admin whom no-one seems willing to stop. Now that I am at last aware of his/her message and concern I can at last take it on board.

Contributors are quick to criticise me for carelessness but it is years since anyone on Commons thanked me for any of the things that I tidy up. Almost daily Rodhullandemu uses categories many of which I created, but has never thanked me for them and instead repeatedly bears me ill-will. A year or so ago User:Tm imported several hundred photographs of churches in East Anglia and put them in very loose categories. I asked her/him to sort them into individual churches, and in response s/he did sort some of them, but I ended up doing much of the work myself. Tm also imported a smaller number of images that s/he categorised as "Churches in Bristol". They included subjects that were in fact a church in South Gloucestershire, a pub in Wiltshire and a village water pump in North Somerset. It was a mess but I made no fuss. I just sorted them out.

Rodhullandemu states that he fell ill last year, and that this is the reason he stopped re-sorting churches when he was mid-way through Cumbria. But in fact he did not start systematic re-sorting of churches in England until around the end of last year, I think in December 2018. From then on he worked alphabetically by county from Bedfordshire to Cornwall, but abruptly stopped in early June 2019 mid-way through Cumbria. Since then he has relentlessly made many edits on Commons almost every day for the last six months, yet never returned to the systematic re-ordering of English churches. This has left both Category:Churches in the Diocese of Carlisle and Category:Churches in the Diocese of St Albans in a mess, half in one order and half in the other, which is far worse than putting them consistently in one order as I had done. To a lesser extent he has messed up the order in numerous other dioceses that overlap county boundaries. Nor was Rodhullandemu too ill to block me twice in June 2019.

Despite his mental health problems, Rodhullandemu attacks me for mine. See his acidic comments above: "I too have suffered mental health problems and I overcame them without any help from anyone, thank you" and "You mean the debate he's refused to participate in for over a year? Whilst I am now aware of his difficulties, it does not seem that he's unable to put an argument together when he's able and willing to do so."

The first sentence is vicious and spiteful victim-shaming. In the second sentence "the debate he's refused to participate in for over a year" is false: Rodhullandemu himself incapacitated me, and then criticises me for not taking part. And the third sentence "it does not seem that he's unable to put an argument together when he's able and willing to do so" ignores my statement "I am responding now, more than two months later, only because I have a mental health support worker sitting next to me to help me to stave off a panic attack." I started therapy in April. It has taken me eight months of intensive support, at a cost of more than £5,500, to get this far.

Rodhullandemu "invites" User:RexxS to withdraw his comment "who has a history of bad admin actions". Read the discussion between the two of them on RexxS's talk page, which RexxS has now archived: User talk:RexxS#Sorting churches. It's community consensus. Note Rodhullandemu's arrogant and threatening tone: "Accusations of edit edit-warring against an editor of 11 years standing and Admin of five years here are unconstructive and will only end in one way. I'd remind you this is Commons, where we act to professional standards in a mellow manner and care about what we do. This is not Wikipedia. They can make all the mistakes they want, we don't care. We strive to get things right here."

It is odd that Rodhullandemu cites Commons:MELLOW: both because "Mellow" is not a Commons guideline or policy, and because Rodhullandemu's repeated misconduct is anything but. Someone who attacks a hard-working, good-faith contributor with terms such as "just asinine", "utter fool", "before... I lose my fucking temper with you" and "why the fuck everything is in the wrong place" is a disgrace to Commons and a real threat to other contributors' mental health. Rodhullandemu must not be allowed to remain an admin.

Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's good to see you have found your voice after such long periods of silence. Had you done so, e.g. by participating in the consensus discussion, or just accepting that consensus, or appealing your earlier blocks in the same terms, I think we would not be here now. It's clear that you can make a case when you need to, and I leave the consequences of your failure to do that for others to consider. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A so-called "consensus" of you and less than a handful of others doesn't make a project-wide consensus, and I've already challenged you on that point. You blocked him and prevented him taking part in the discussion, so it's a quite disingenuous to criticise him for not taking part. --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect. The consensus discussion took place between 10 September and 11 October 2018. Motacilla's flouting of that consensus continued until his first block on 11 July 2019. So he had eleven months, and several reminders in that period, to do something about it. Ignoring it is not "doing something about it". Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/09#_for_UK_churches_and_pubs link. And frankly, I find bringing up stuff from eight years ago, when my personal circumstances were very different to today's, is irrelevant, petty, spiteful and heading in only one direction. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is a reasonable point about sorting by location since as noted many people will only know the location unlike other types of places (like farms and schools for example) but the consensus was to sort by name. However given that the discussion was over a year ago and WP uses location maybe we should consider a new discussion. While its true that we're not required to always follow WP we generally should for consistency and many guidelines probably aren't written here since they'd be redundant to WP's anyway. As far as the block its self goes, Motacilla should have followed consensus and not deleted tags in files. Rodhullandemu probably shouldn't have blocked even though they had adequately discussed since we should err on the side of caution with being involved but as noted has obtained consensus for this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I'll just say that I followed COM:DISPUTE to the letter. Once consensus was reached, it became the property of the project rather than myself, and if you doubt that, consider what would have happened if the consensus had been the other way. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou User:Crouch, Swale for recognising that the Commons consensus on alphasorting should be reviewed. Incidentally User:Rodhullandemu's preference to alphasort by name rather than location works even worse for pubs than for churches, as in recent decades proprietors have so often changed the names of many pubs.

On 24 and 27 December I outlined my chronic mental health conditions and described how Rodhullandemu had made them worse. Anyone who is fit to be an admin would have responded by conciliating. Instead Rodhullandemu immediately doubled down. His comment "It's good to see you have found your voice after such long periods of silence. Had you done so, e.g. by participating in the consensus discussion, or just accepting that consensus, or appealing your earlier blocks in the same terms, I think we would not be here now. It's clear that you can make a case when you need to, and I leave the consequences of your failure to do that for others to consider." is pure sniping and victim blaming. As such it is further evidence that Rodhullandemu is an habitual cyber-bully who, for people's online safety, should cease to be an admin.

Of all the editors in this discussion, only User:RexxS acknowledges how hard it has been for me to even begin this discussion, let alone continue it. Today I am able to comment again because my mental health support worker is sitting next to me looking after me. This page includes two years of evidence of Rodhullandemu bullying me, yet no other editor yet dares to call it what it is.

In November 2014 when I was diagnosed as autistic, two things were explained to me. One is that the autistic spectrum is not linear like wavelengths or colours, but rather a nebula of different characteristics by which we differ from neurotypical people. The other is that a person's place in the autistic spectrum is not constant. Conditions such as other people's behaviour will move an autistic person in one direction or another. Behave reasonably and show understanding, and an autistic person will respond well to you and work with you. Be unreasonable or confrontational and you may push an autistic person into a "triggered" state, in conflict not only with you but within themselves.

Since 2017 Rodhullandemu has done this to me repeatedly. And as both I and User:RexxS have pointed out, he obtained his community consensus by first mentally incapacitating me. Therefor no-one should be surprised or shocked that I have occasionally defied the poorly-reasoned consensus that he obtained in so underhand a manner.

RexxS rightly cites en:WP:INVOLVED. Rodhullandemu has disputed alphasorting with me since 2016. Therefore each of his three blocks against me abuses his power as an admin. He should have recused himself at the outset and asked another admin to act. Given that Rodhullandemu was a practising lawyer, his abuse of procedure is particularly regrettable and inexcusible.

User:Taivo scolds me that "it's a bad idea to attack the blocking administrator in unblock request. Rodhullandemu is a good administrator." No-one who has read all Rodhullandemu's attacks on me since 2017 can agree that "Rodhullandemu is a good administrator". Toward me he has been an habitual bully and, more recently, has misused his admin powers. To give evidence against an admin who has repeatedly misconducted himself is both proper and a moral duty to the Commons community. While I am blocked, my userpage is the only place where I may submit such evidence. Please do not mischaracterise the proper submission of important evidence as an "attack".

Were Rodhullandemu to unblock me now that would speak in his favour. To date almost every post he writes on my userpage only expands the evidence that he is unfit to remain an admin and must be removed.

Bullying is disabling and disgusting. It harms individuals and undermines Commons. Rodhullandemu is impenitent, which seems ironic for someone with so keen an interest in churches. After my block expires I have a moral duty to request his removal as an admin. I hope to do my duty to this Community to the best of my ability. Motacilla (talk)

If you are making another Unblock request, please do so through the proper channel, otherwise another Admin will not be aware that you are doing so. Otherwise, using your Talk page while blocked is not a valid way of airing other grievances you may have. I note you agree to "defying consensus"- a consensus which you had every opportunity to take part in, but failed to do so. Also, continuing personal attacks is neither a way to be unblocked nor to retain your ability to use this page. Please think about that very, very, carefully. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(EC)@Rodhullandemu: would you consider an unblock to start a new discussion with the grounds that Motacilla doesn't change any of the sorts to location? I must say that I think that Rodhullandemu has followed process to the letter and spirit and you (Motacilla) should have participated in the discussion. However despite the fact that Rodhullandemu has discussed this with you I think you should probably conditionally unblock as an involved admin, thanks. Maybe I should also notify WP to try to get consensus on this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may consider this myself when my own health improves but at the moment I am discinclined to do so considering the traductions I have received. It's always open to Motacilla to make a further unblock request in the terms you suggest. I don't see any merit in importing opinions from en:WP because they don't necessarily use categories with end users in mind, as we should. And Motacilla when mentioning pubs seems to have forgotten that changes of name might trigger a category move, retaining a redirect to the old name. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou User:Crouch, Swale for your conciliation. Please do seek a new consensus, but it needs to be on Wikimedia Commons.

I am sorry I have taken a fortnight to reply. I have not been well enough to read my messages and respond. Today my mental health support worker is with me again and helping me to cope.

I do not understand User:Rodhullandemu's comment "please do so through the proper channel" when he had blocked me from anything but editing my own talk page. I wrote on the only page on which I was allowed to write. I did and do not know what else to do.

Rodhullandemu accuses me of traducing him, yet what I have done is quote his own swearing and abuse of me. Rodhullandemu repeats his attack line "a consensus which you had every opportunity to take part in, but failed to do so", after I had already made clear that his attacks incapacitated me, and therefore it was impossible for me to participate. Rodhullandemu seems to ignore what he is told. There seems no end to the damage he wishes to do to my mental health.

I note too that when I honestly reported and described repeated online bullying, Rodhullandemu replied "continuing personal attacks is neither a way to be unblocked nor to retain your ability to use this page. Please think about that very, very, carefully." That is a menacing threat and further evidence of Rodhullandemu's abuse of his power as an admin. Whatever his health problem may be, it does not justify a campaign of bullying and threats that has repeatedly incapacitated me.

This discussion is going in circles, with Rodhullandemu ignoring, denying and making gratuitous threats over and again. For both our sakes, please stop. I must now ask other admins to intervene with an objectivity that he has repeatedly failed to show. Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably we should start a RFC like the other one and ping the other users that have been involved in churches here and also notify WP. I don't think Rodhullandemu could have been expected to notify others (and a few might consider it to be canvassing) but they probably should have been. I also don't understand why you (Motacilla) didn't participate in the previous discussion, while you might have been embarrassed, you could at least have posted you're opinion here for Rodhullandemu to post (though that might not be possible for copyright reasons). My advice for now is (to Motacilla) don't change anymore to location until we have a consensus and to Rodhullandemu don't block Motacilla you're self and ask at Commons:ANU instead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou Crouch, Swale for your message and helpful suggestions. Rodhullandemu obtained the current consensus on alphasorting via a Village pump proposal. Crouch, Swale now proposes an RfC. Is this the same thing? I know nothing about Wikimedia Commons' administrative processes.

But above I have explained more than once why I did not take part in the previous discussion. I was not embarrassed. I suffer trauma which causes me anxiety and panic attacks. And I have Asperger's syndrome in which I am susceptible to autistic meltdowns. Both are chronic conditions that can be triggered into episodes of acute crisis. Rodhullandemu's bullying, threats and gratuitous insults and swearing repeatedly triggered both my trauma and my Asperger's into a state in which I both suffered autistic meltdowns and was too terrified to read his messages, let alone answer them.

My original trauma was caused decades before I joined Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I had two courses of therapy for depression, each several years long, but until a year ago no-one realised that I might have complex post-traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD). It is only within the last year that I have at last found enough mental health support to be able to start reading and answering messages.

This support has cost me more than £6,000 in less than ten months. On a low income I cannot afford this indefinitely. Next month I am due to start therapy for C-PTSD, which will also cost me money I can ill afford. I know neither how long my treatment will take nor how complete a cure it will ever give me. But eventually it should give me at least some help.

In the meantime, the behaviour of people who interact with me is critical. Friendly, helpful, reasonable behaviour will help me to interact with people. Bullying, threats, insults and swearing will make me more ill and may prevent me from responding. Rodhullandemu owes me a profound apology, which would help me to heal from the damage he has inflicted on my mental health over the last two years. Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Break[edit]

I'll start a discussion in a few days presumably the same way as the previous one though I think categorizing pubs by location would cause more problems than pubs even if they change their name often since the location for pubs is less likely to be known (a pub in a hamlet might be known as being in that hamlet or its parish for example). I'm afraid I don't see evidence of bullying by Rodhullandemu, in fact (s)he has tried to not upset you by even not mentioning you by name at the discussion. I understand you have problems but you can't just edit against consensus (see w:Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors) and if someone objects to undiscussed changes you make you generally need to seek consensus before making the change again (w:WP:BRD). And just for clarity do you want only churches and pubs to be sorted by location or do you want other types of places also sorted by location such as farms and schools? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you have sorted Category:Packhorse Bridge, Hampton in Arden by location so yes I assume its not just churches and pubs but it would still be useful for you to clarify what else you want sorted by location, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: So in Category:River Blythe, Warwickshire, this bridge appears sorted under "H". How on earth does that make sense, and why would this deter users from trusting our services? It's not just wrong, its massively wrong. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: I agree with you that it should be sorted by name I was just queering Motacilla on this. Indeed I'm against sorting everything (other than possibly churches) by location since indeed people look for things by name not other facts (such as location). This would be the equivalant of sorting w:Draco Malfoy under "Harry Potter" in w:Category:Fictional English people. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: I apologise for my delay in replying. I am now seldom well enough to engage with Wikimedia Commons as people's behaviour on here makes me so ill. Today I have my MH support worker with me so I can cope for a short while.

More than once above I have listed all the instances of Rodhullandemu bullying me. There seems scant point my repeating the list. The fact that you reject clear evidence of bullying is itself a cause for concern. And in the VPP discussion, his refusal to name me when other users asked him to do ensured that they did not find my talk page and see his series of intemperate attacks on my work, and my rational responses. That was not "trying not to upset me". Rodhullandemu was counting on my not responding, so that he would get the poorly-reasoned consensus he sought.

You asked me whether I want only churches and pubs sorted by location, or other buildings too. I have tended to sort buildings by location whatever they are. Rodhullandemu believes that to sort Category:Packhorse Bridge, Hampton in Arden under "H" is "not just wrong, its massively wrong". I would be interested to see his criteria for determining which wrongs are "massively wrong" and why.

You mentioned farms. I created the category Category:English Farm, Nuffield. I included the parish name "Nuffield" because there is almost certainly more than one "English Farm", adding the parish name disambiguates it, and it also provides a rationale for alphasorting it under "N".

Please notify me when you start the new VPP discussion. I will try to take part when I am well enough. Motacilla (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody but you thinks that I am bullying you. This is another personal attack which I am not prepared to tolerate. One more word in the wrong place, and your next block is going to be your last. Make no mistake about that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will start a discussion in a few days, other than those listed above and at User:Crouch, Swale/To do is there anyone else you think should be notified of the discussion, there's no need to ping them here but you can add them to that subpage. I don't think Rodhullandemu's comment above is particually helpful but it does show that (s)he also is unhappy about you're behaviour but I'd strongly reccomend that if Rodhullandemu does think you should be blocked to go to Commons:ANU rather than imposing a block themselves. I'll also notify you on you're WP talk page in case you aren't able to read this page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crouch, Swale thankyou for your message. My delay in answering you is because in the worsening covid-19 crisis my MH support worker and I had to self-isolate for a fortnight and my Internet access has slowed down a lot since the lockdown. Much of the time it is too slow for me to upload even small files to Commons or edit a large page on Wikipedia.

Did you start the discussion? In the unfortunate current circumstances I am not sure whether the conditions exist for me to take part. I am lucky that today my connection speed is enough for me to reply to you. I therefore suggest that we defer the discussion until the UK lockdown is eased enough for these two conditions to improve.

In answer to your question, whenever a discussion is held I suggest that anyone who has contributed significantly to categorising English churches or pubs either currently or in the past should be invited to take part. That includes User:Acabashi, User:Dave.Dunford, User:Judithcomm, User:Saga City and User:Storye book as well as yourself. There may be others who have contributed significantly and whom I have overlooked. If so I apologise.

I am frightened by User:Rodhullandemu threatening me yet again (4 March 2020), and that his latest threat seems to be to ban me from Commons for ever. This would be a gratuitous escalation.

The Commons:NPA page to which Rodhullandemu refers is not a Commons guideline. It is an essay based on a Wikipedia guideline. But were it a guideline, its sentence "Insulting or disparaging a user is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" would apply to several of Rodhullandemu's outbursts against me, including "I can't believe anyone ever though that "location, dedication" as opposed to "dedication, location" is in any way a sensible way of default sorting church names, and frankly, it's just asinine to support the idea" (10 September 2017), "Please learn what you're doing with categories before you do anything else, and I lose my fucking temper with you" (20 October 2017), "if you will allow me to override them so that the user doesn't wonder why the fuck everything is in the wrong place" (20 October 2017) "And, I'm sorry "That's the way it's always been done" won't do, because only an utter fool would perpetuate mistakes made by others" (8 August 2018).

The essay proposes that an accusation may be a personal attack if it lacks evidence. I have presented the evidence in good faith above. Others may interpret the evidence differently, but does not make my case against him a personal attack.

The essay proposes also that "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely blocked." Rodhullandemu has shown a pattern of hostility and a confrontational style against me since September 2017.

The essay adds "administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment." Rodhullandemu has recurrently attacked me for two and a half years. And he has repeatedly blocked me for what an objective observer could call "less-severe situations". He might argue that he is threatening to block me for "prevention". However, it could also be argued that he has done so for punishment, and is now threatening to do so again for punishment.

A contributor who feels bullied, threatened or victimised must be free to report their concerns in good faith. Admins and other contributors should be free to agree or disagree with their concerns based on the evidence. Threatening to block a contributor for the rest of their life for raising an honest concern in good faith is disproportionate and unjustified. It inhibits the freedom to report legitimate concerns and is a misuse of power. It is to the detriment of the Commons project. Rodhullandemu would be wise not to carry out his threat. Motacilla (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I haven't started the discussion yet since I was waiting for you to say if anyone else needed pinging when the discussion starts, if you can think of any others in the meantime you can add them here, anyway I'll wait until you're ready for the discussion in which you can ping me to say you're ready, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And yet you did not take part in the original discussion as to defaultsorting, you did not appeal your first two blocks, and you certainly didn't heed the warnings implied by those blocks and change your behaviour. Neither have you started a discussion to overturn the consensus reached by the community, and neither has anyone else. All you do is sit here wailing and compaining about me to a tiny audience. Yet despite other user's concerns and your protestations about your mental health and in the middle of all this you manage a trip to Croatia to photograph trains. That must have been quite a challenge. It's a long way, longer than I would be able to travel without assistance. I presume you had your mental health worker alongside you every second of the way, given how stressful foreign travel is. You've been upsetting other editors by ploughing your own furrow here since 2014- that's six years- and I think it's about time that the learning curve you've been on flattens out and you (a) stop personally attacking me as a pretext to make me "involved", otherwise I will have take this to COM:ANU for wider scrutiny, and (b) follow community conventions. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: you've already been told how fragile Motacilla's health is, and you already know that he felt unable to confront you in that discussion about defaultsorting. You know that he was unable to bring himself to edit even his talk page during your unfair blocks. You are far too involved with Motacilla in the content dispute to be taking administrative action against him, and you need to stop doing so. I will remind you that blocks are meant to prevent disruption to the project, not as a means of behaviour modification (for which they would be a very blunt tool, if of any value at all).

It is neither productive nor civil to describe another editor's comments as "wailing and compaining". He has justifiable complaints of your use of admin tools while involved, and you should not be so dismissive of those.

It is not acceptable to mock another editor's mental health. You are not qualified to make an assessment, and it is most improper to attempt to compare the stress of travelling abroad with the stress of facing your behaviour here. You have no way of knowing whether or not Motacilla finds travelling difficult (which actually seems to be no problem), but you have been told clearly the damage done to his mental health here. You should not be making threats of further escalation before you have understood the extent to which you are not, and cannot be, seen as impartial in this matter. Please step away now, and disengage from the dispute. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RexxS: You are mistaken when you say I am not qualified. In the 1990s I spent weeks- many weeks- in a psychiatric unit, was under the care of a psychiatrist and CPN for three years and got no help from anyone else, not even my family. At one point I was living in my car to escape my abuser. I got out of all that completely on my own after much effort. I'm not saying that I understand Motacilla's illness completely, but I do know what is possible. He has a mental health worker to enable him to post here. Why was that help not available for him to discuss the defaultsort issue or to appeal the blocks? If you have an issue with me, please take it to COM:ANU rather than some backwater talk page read by virtually nobody. I was thinking of taking Motacilla there myself but I am giving him a chance to consider, with appropriate advice, whether the punishment he appears to be putting himself though is in any way therapeutic. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rodhullandemu It is bad form and bad grace that you repeat old accusations that, as RexxS rightly states, I have already answered. However, you now add new false accusations.

I have never made "a trip to Croatia to photograph trains". In all my life I have spent barely 24 hours in Croatia. It was an overnight stop in Osijek in which I neither saw nor photographed any trains. Are you referring to the fact that I visited Trenčianska Teplá last August? Trenčianska Teplá is in Slovakia, more than 300 miles from Osijek.

I am not "putting myself through punishment". I am defending myself from a bully who has attacked me for two and a half years and continues to do so.

I had no mental health help when you began your long-running defaultsort dispute with me. My mental health support worker has been working with me only for about a year, and only for one or two days a week. For the first several months my fear and trauma were so acute that I needed my support worker's help with many things. Only after months of work together did I become well enough to respond to you, even with support.

Your comment "I presume you had your mental health worker alongside you every second of the way, given how stressful foreign travel is" is subjective and seems sarcastic. It seems far from the COM:MELLOW principle that you claim to espouse.

Having had your own mental health difficulties may enable you to understand that it is unhelpful to threaten, abuse and swear at someone whose mental health is vulnerable. And yet you have repeatedly done so, and despite numerous opportunities you have yet to retract or apologise.

Your mental health history does not qualify you to judge my ability to travel while suffering from a mental health condition. My mental health is damaged by bullying, cyber-bulling and victimisation. Touring abroad, like photography, is one of the things that helps me. When travelling I am free, empowered, far from my PC and far from bullies.

RexxS has offered you wise advice. For your benefit and mine please take it. Motacilla (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All you needed to do was follow the community consensus. You decided not to. You accuse me yet again of bullying. I will say this only once: that is the very last time you will do that on this page or anywhere. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: Please stop threatening Motacilla. The very language of "that is the very last time you will do that" is a clear example of bullying: you are in a position of authority here, and you are abusing it by threatening someone in a weaker position. Why can't you see that and disengage? --RexxS (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RexxS: If you are saying that an Admin here should not enforce COM:NPA, that's not going to happen. It goes with the job. As ever, it is up to Motacilla to stop making personal attacks, and that applies equally to you. He is the architect of his own misfortune by first ignoring, then persistently flouting Commons consensus even after blocks. Please don't go down that road yourself. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: What I am saying is that you should not be taking admin action against an editor with whom you are involved in a content dispute. That's what's happened before and it should never happen again. If a personal attack really has taken place, then an uninvolved admin - not you - will assess that. You are in no position to do so, and it's not your job. If every complaint by an editor about bullying were to be suppressed as a personal attack, that would result in the untenable situation where nobody could claim misbehaviour by an admin, and no Wikimedia project could tolerate that sort of abuse. I am willing to stand up and be counted in calling out your involved misuse of admin tools, so please don't attempt to browbeat me as well. You've been politely asked more than once to disengage from Motacilla, and you must understand that it's a necessary step in resolving the issue here. --RexxS (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see I've been tagged here. On the merits of usability I favour defaultsorting churches by location (as preferred by Motacilla) rather than dedication (as favoured by Rodhullandemu), for the reasons I've stated in detail above. I've not followed their spat in detail in detail or considered other types of category (pubs, bridges, etc.) but purely on the question of sorting churches my sympathies are with Motacilla. Rodhullandemu seems to be aggressively enforcing a supposed "community consensus" that to my mind has never been properly established and is logically flawed. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevertheless, that consensus is valid and is all we've got until it changes. There was a more recent poorly-framed attempt to establish another consensus, but it failed miserably. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you post links to where this supposed consensus (and the defeated alternative) were posted please? I've never seen either and I'd like to see how it was arrived at, and how many people concurred, because it seems patently illogical to me. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I may do that when I have some spare time. Right now I have backlog of eight days' worth of photographs to process and upload. Meanwhile, this is not a burning issue. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave.Dunford: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/09# for UK churches and pubs and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/05#Defaultsort for UK buildings RFC (2020). Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: Thanks – I'd not seen either before. I'm going to abstain (I've moved on to less contentious endeavours; arguing with brick walls isn't my thing) but I will observe that of the two examples that Rodhullandemu cites (Category:Anglican churches in Cheshire and Category:Anglican churches in Worcestershire) I much prefer the latter, which has been my position all along. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019! Please help with this survey.[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Motacilla,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 12:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in Wiki Loves Monuments 2019 Participant Survey (Reminder)[edit]

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Dear Motacilla,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time. Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 210K+ pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 40 countries around the world.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet). If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2019.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team MediaWiki message delivery 03:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:AstonMartin 15-98 Deddington RadiatorDetail.jpg[edit]

File:AstonMartin 15-98 Deddington RadiatorDetail.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 ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ 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 ∙ ไทย ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jonteemil (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trenčianska Teplá[edit]

Dear Motacilla. Thank you for your pictures. One of them is going to be picture of the week. Cheers!--Jetam2 (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou Jetam2 for your message and good news! The Trenčianska elektrická železnica is a lovely little railway and I had great fun photographing it. Motacilla (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikitext of URL links[edit]

Hello, I've noticed in couple of your edits https URLs with incorrect syntax. URLs go in single brackets with a space before the text: [https://example.org Example text after a space] → Example text after a space. This is in contrast to wikilinks, which use double brackets with a pipe character as separator [[Main Page|Example wikilink]] → Example wikilink. Note, that URL links to Commons also need to use external link syntax: Example URL link to Commons. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Septembrie 2020: A început Wiki Loves Monuments în România![edit]

Deși trecem prin momente dificile în aceste vremuri imprevizibile generate de pandemia de COVID-19, competiția Wiki Loves Monuments are loc și anul acesta, implicit și în România.

Am fi încântați dacă ați participa și în acest an la documentarea fotografică a patrimoniului nostru cultural construit. Întrucât o carantină nu este programată în România, puteți să ieșiți în continuare să faceți fotografii - luând toate măsurile de siguranță recomandate de autoritățile locale de sănătate. Dacă preferați să evitați ieșirile, cu siguranță aveți fotografii cu monumente înregistrate pe calculator din ultima călătorie! Aceasta este o oportunitate excelentă de a le oferi o a doua viață prin concursului Wiki Loves Monuments. Pe lângă faptul că vor fi vizibile pentru toată lumea, fotografiile dumneavoastră ar putea reprezenta România în competiția internațională. De asemenea ele pot apărea în diverse articole la Wikipedia și pot contribui la conservarea online a patrimoniului cultural și istoric al României.

Pentru detalii și reguli de participare, puteți găsi mai multe informații pe pagina Wiki Loves Monuments România. Dacă aveți fotografii și din alte țări, puteți verifica aici țările participante.

Mulțumim și nu uitați, concursul se desfășoară până pe 30 septembrie! Mult succes vă dorim și să vă bucurați, în condiții de siguranță, de patrimoniul care vă înconjoară!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SS Athenian[edit]

File:SS ATHENIAN with passengers departing for Nome, June 5, 1900 (TRANSPORT 334).jpg:

Do you have any real basis to think the ship name was "Athenian" rather than "Athenean"?
In any case, surely "SS Atnenian" (your "correction" in one place) cannot be right.
Usually we do not change a GLAM's "LCSH" subjects list even it it has errors; we just add a sic.

I'm inclined to revert you, but thought I'd get hold of you first to see whether you have an (unmentioned) citation for Gordon Newell having the ship name wrong. I've only once caught him out in an error in literally hundreds of cases where he is cited on maritime-related matters. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also: even if you are dead certain a GLAM got it wrong, unless you contact them and they agree with your correction and apply it to their site, you really should use the "original description" parameter to show what they called it. See File:Northeast corner of 3rd Ave and Madison St showing the demolished Third Avenue Theater during street regrade, Seattle (SEATTLE 3852).jpg for an example. - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your message. Firstly my Shorter Oxford Dictionary does not list the word "Athenean" as a word in the English language, even as an alternative to "Athenian". Secondly, the Scottish Built Ships database, which compiles its records from Lloyd's Register, spells it Athenian.

You threaten "I'm inclined to revert you". I advise you to 1. assume good faith and 2. read the source. GLAMS are fallible. Good members of this project are here to correct mistakes, not let them stand.

Motacilla (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you saying you think http://clydeships.co.uk is a better authority than Gordon Newell??? - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Comment I'm reluctant to intervene here because of some history, but I will just say this:
Per Occam's Razor, a normal spelling should be preferred to an abnormal version. To me, it's much more likely that the ship's name is "Athenian" rather than "Athenean". HOWEVER, mistakes are made. Normally in the Wiki universe we rely not on primary, but on secondary sources, and in this case, a photograph of the ship's name plate would be the best we can manage, assuming it's available. I note that Newell is cited as the editor of his book and so may not have done the research into the ships name himself.
"I'm inclined to revert you" is nowhere near a threat as we understand it here. Sorry, Motacilla, and I'm glad you've returned here and recovered your ability to discuss issues, but I think you're being too defensive here. You acted in good faith in regards to what was available to you.
I think if there was a problem, it's been solved until a more authoritative version is found, and nobody has died. I leave that to the both of you. That's all. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Various Built in Leeds by year categories at CFD[edit]

It seems like you created a number of the individual Built in Leeds (at the year-level) categories but I've listed them for discussion at CFD. Please comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Built in Leeds by year categories. As always, please do not take the category discussion personally; I just wonder if it's too much on its own. Thank you! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Language templates with no text displayed[edit]

Please note that you put several files into that maintenance category. --Leyo 14:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:1936 Bedford WTL.jpg[edit]

Hi, You recenty added some useful information on the vhicle registration to the description of this image. Can I ask where you got the information from? All I've found is the DVLA page which just gives the year of registration. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: File:1936 Bedford WTL.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing file descriptions[edit]

Please do not re-write the wording of image file descriptions unless you can show evidence that the information is actually untrue. For example, in a picture of a churchyard, if you remove the build-date of the church to which the churchyard belongs, you are removing evidence for when that churchyard was probably established - especially in the case of 19th-century churchyards. Some information might appear irrelevant to you, but if you do not understand why it is there, please contact the uploader and ask a question. Don't just remove information. Storye book (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our history apart, I'm sorry to see you do this. You would expect the uploader or the photographer to have done basic research as to what is depicted, and unless it is (as said) actually wrong, it's provocative to change it without discussion, COM:OWN notwithstanding. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:HMS_Himalaya_(ship,_1853)[edit]

HMS Himalaya (ship, 1853) 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 ∙ +/−

Broichmore (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great stuff[edit]

Such wonderful work on CWGC graves - and the glorious butter coloured buildings of West Oxfordshire. I feel as if I too am ploughing a lonely furrow with my categorisitation obsessions! I'm always finding gems by searching "needing categories" then various keywords. Thank you once again for your beautiful images. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou for your kind message. I apologise for not replying for two months. I have all but given up donating photographs of buildings to Commons, after an admin aggressively took issue with my categorisation and sorting of churches and pubs, which did catastrophic harm to my mental health. But I am still photographing and uploading CWGC and other headstones. Taking bad photos of headstones is easy. Taking good ones requires more skill and planning than ever I imagined when I started! Motacilla (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Westernland I poster.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Westernland I poster.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Westernland I poster.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 22:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright status: File:Cabo Mayor 1881–1886.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Cabo Mayor 1881–1886.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Cabo Mayor 1881–1886.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File source is not properly indicated: File:Tubantia sea trial.jpg[edit]

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

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Tubantia sea trial.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Tubantia sea trial.jpg]]).

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

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

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

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : The ed17.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still here?[edit]

Shame. 212.250.104.123 17:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And all of my hours spent on this website goes drown the drain thanks to you[edit]

Thanks alot you really hade to say: nope you see you work well since you didn’t add links I am gonna have to remove your work because you didn’t reply to my message” word can no express how angry I am and now those images are gone and I even tried to explain to you why I did those things but that doesn’t matter you don’t fucking care An ocean liner fan234 (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I messaged you politely on your talk page at least ten days ago. I thanked you for your uploads, but advised you to learn to use the correct copyright templates, include links to online sources, and categorise each file correctly. You ignored my advice and continued to make a mess, which other contributors to Wikimedia Commons have now cleared up. The deletion of your contributions to this site is the fault of no-one but yourself.

Now you are swearing at me, which will make things worse for you. Please behave if you wish to continue to contribute to Commons. Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah well here’s the thing I didn’t know cuz I didn’t see your message due to scrolling through all the deletion requests I didn’t see yours also about links and categories I didn’t add much but only because I didn’t know what else to add as for links. Well I haven’t been great at adding links from websites i struggled trying to add satellite and ss gallia Wikipedia pages to the Cunard line ship list An ocean liner fan234 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]