User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Glasgow Road

Yes but there's more than one Paisley. Since we correctly disambiguate Paisley, Scotland, if one gets to Glasgow Road, Paisley will wonder "Which Paisley, precisely?" -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If you judge it disproportionate as effort I may rollback with no problem, it was just an attempt to clarify better the disambiguated category. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no problem then. Restored the old category. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That said, as you can see, there's not much consistency in the naming rules. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's because I haven't looked at it yet. Following the Wikipedia policy, you would do it my way, but some people aren't aware of that. But I think we have better things to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Train categories

Hello Rodhullandemu

A week ago you blocked 46.76.30.119 (talk · contribs) for creating a lot of categories with meaningless names and deleted the categories. As I see it, the IP-user wanted categories for specific locomotives and multiple units instead of collecting them all in the categories for each class. It may or may not be a good idea, but the names were obvious useless, if you don't know how the Germans are classifying their trains. But now a lot of pictures have red category links to the deleted categories instead of being in the categories they originally came from. For instance the pictures in Category:605 008 should be moved back to Category:DBAG Class 605, the pictures in Category:VT 11 5003 belongs to the now empty Category:DB Baureihe VT 11.5 and so on. Do you intend to move them? Or would a bot be able to do it? I know that you and other have already been working with some of them, but there still lack a lot. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I did start doing this but forgot to finish, for some reason. There are a lot of these and, yes, a bot would be useful in undoing. I'll continue for a while and have done the ones you mentioned above. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

About 3.5 hours, and there are still between 500 and 1000 left. Will come back to this tomorrow, perhaps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. It is certainly one of those cases where an user should have been stopped long before. Not least because it seems that some of it are just make up. There are plenty of the pictures where you can't tell whether it is this or that particular multiple unit but the IP-user never the less do it.

Unfortunately there are also 5.60.27.239 (talk · contribs), who created a lot of similar categories a few weeks ago. It may be the same person. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Grief! There are nearly 3000 edits under that IP. I think we are going to have find a friendly bot operator to revert all this edits, then I can delete all the categories he created. Leave it with me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also from me for cleaning this up! 31.1.80.89 (talk · contribs) seems to be another "contributor", being active on July 7 and July 8, while 5.60.27.239 (talk · contribs) had been active from July 12 to 17. Initially mentioned 46.76.30.119 (talk · contribs) was active July 24 to 30. So I truely fear that it is always the same person. Regards, Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Additional information (in case you haven't seen it yet): It's being discussed at de:Portal_Diskussion:Bahn#Splitterkategorisierung_Bahnbilder_auf_Commons, basically nobody agrees to what has happened with all those mass subcats. I guess many users would be happy, if a bot could undo this. Thanks again for your efforts! --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No bot operator has been helpful so far, so I have done some of the undoing myself. Unfortunately in turned out that the IP-user was also active as 31.2.118.119 (talk · contribs) from July 20 to 21, 31.1.72.118 (talk · contribs) at July 22 and 95.40.81.142 (talk · contribs) from July 22 to 23. The later is mostly done and same goes for much of 46.76.30.119 (talk · contribs). So now there are a lot empty subcategories ready for deletion. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've been through some but can't delete the categories until they've been emptied- I will check periodically for empty categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

sort Edits

I am responding to your reverts and message. I have a problem with what you have done, for example on Sefton, Cemeteries in Sefton and Maps of the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton should both be in c and m respectively. Can you explain why you are not going with this? Babydoll0409 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have fixed the sort keys for Category:Cemeteries in Sefton and Category:Maps of the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton; there is no reason for either to be out of the usual alpha order. The reason I haven't done any others is that I am currently in the middle of the huge task of sorting out categories under Category:Scotland which is a project which will last years rather than weeks, so I have little time to spare at present to look at Category:England, especially when people who should know what they're doing introduce errors. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi, as an active colleague on upload projects, I thought I'd drop you a personal heads-up for my request for adminship, today being the last day for views. RFA's tend to only have a small proportion of the community taking part, so it can be difficult to judge if this is representative. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Backlit duck photo

Exactly what can this image be used for? Oh, wait. Nothing. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen worse. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You need better standards. I can't tell you have many images I've come across on here that are absolute trash. None of you people make any goddamn sense. PhysalusAntiquorum (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry we can't meet your standards, but then quality of photography isn't really a major indicator of worth here. If you read COM:SCOPE, you'll see that images must be free of copyright, which might lower the bar of acceptability if there are no other images of a particular subject; but the acid test is that files "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose"- and the get-out is that "Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality" are not considered to be within scope. Therefore, it would be useful if any further deletion nominations you make would be made on that basis. You'll see that I agreed with your nomination of the geese photo, but disagree with that of the duck photo. It would be wonderful to have professional-quality images of everything, but that just isn't possible, and we are grateful to contributors who freely give their images of obscure and irreplaceable subjects. I hope you enjoy your time here, but I'd advise you cease treating us as if we were Getty Images or the Press Association. We are all unpaid, and irrevocably donate our copyrights in our images. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Newcastle CfD

Hi,

Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/10/Category:Newcastle upon Tyne may interest you. It deals with the situation in England where the Civil Parish structure may not be appropriate for primary categorisation, and the outcome may be helpful north of the border as well.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Argyll and Bute

I am replying on my talk page to your notification concerning Argyll and Bute. If you don't see it right away, just a moment.Botteville (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wl7zNEQdp6z9Vb

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

File:The Welkin, Button Street.jpg

{{File:The Welkin, Button Street.jpg}} Thekohser (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

kmlexport down

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T118396

for reference. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:White_Hart_pubs

White Hart pubs 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!

Mattinbgn (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Bidean nam Bian

Looking at Bidean nam Bian, it seems that Category:The Three Sisters, Glencoe more properly belongs within Category:Bidean nam Bian. Those being the collective name for three of the peaks on this mountain. -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seen clear to me, and I intend to come back to it- if you look at The Three Sisters and Bidean nam Bian, there apppears to be an inconsistency between peaks and corries. I'm about to finish Category:Beinn Bhreac at leats as far as Highland is concerned, so I'll take another look at it then. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"The highest peak is the great multi-summited massif of Bidean nam Bian whose three great buttresses rise impressively above the road and are known as the 'Three Sisters'"[1]. "the reigning peak of the Glen or the district [is] the peak of Bidean nam Bian; whose main summit is hidden above and behind its more famous outliers, three great truncated spurs known as ‘The Three Sisters of Glencoe’.[2]. Looking at the OS map (available via Bing Maps old version, not the "new" one), there are three lesser peaks or "buttresses" labelled "The Three Sisters" and only two corries. I'd tend to go with the OS map. -- Colin (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, please feel free to fix it. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Fisheries

Is there any particular reason Category:Cochno Loch, Category:Carman Reservoir, and Category:Burncrooks Reservoir are children of Category:Fisheries? As you can see, no other similar bodies of water are categorized there. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Not yet, but then I haven't finished curating all of Scotland yet. Those lochs may not be officially designated as fisheries, but they are venues for recreational fishing. If you know a more appropriate category, please feel free to amend. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Almost every body of water in the world is at times a fishery. But if you look at the contents of the category, it is almost entirely works on Fisheries Science or international fisheries management. As far as I can tell, it's sort of like if you put Category:Rubber chickens in Category:Physics because rubber chickens are physical objects. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

On that basis I think Category:Fisheries should not have been made a subcat of Category:Recreational fishing, and I've moved the three above to Category:Angling in Scotland. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Much better, on all counts. - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Kilchoman Cottages

Hi, my friend. I'm creating a few categories that I know will have more images than just one, as soon as I put them there, which will not be long. It sometimes happens that you excellent editors are too fast for me and correct me before I complete my mission. That's all right. Do what you have to do if you feel you have to do it. I will catch up at some point. I'm not really creating one-image categories, only taking a little longer to put the other images in. So, don't be surprised if a category reappears after you took it out, but this time with more images. For now, you are right, they do have one image. Not for long I hope. I can wait until I have more before I create the category. It just takes longer, but, I can;t expect to have the field all to myself. Thanks for telling me you noticed. I will just keep plugging.Botteville (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories

Thank you for cleaning up categories. Do I just use "parent" categories and not the sub-categories? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemoramee (talk • contribs) 16:43, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

If the sub-category more accurately describes the image, use that; otherwise, use a category that covers the image, e.g. "partially-clothed" includes "topless" and "bottomless" if those categories don't exist. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Russavia socks

I think it is redundant to block the socks of Russavia, such as Videographing. The WMFOffice globally locks Russavia socks. Also, if you think that autoblock will prevent Russavia from socking, it is still useless, as it seems that Russavia resets his router to change to different IP addresses. And lastly, it seems he wants to fix his files on Commons, which is not harmful to Commons. He even nominates files for deletion, which is useful too. I don't see yet some harmful edits of any socks of Russavia. So I recommend you to not block those socks of Russavia as it is a waste of time. Let the WMF chase the ghosts instead. Thanks! ★ Poké⁹⁵ 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

And you blocked 2001:648:2FFC:1225:A800:2FF:FE69:874B as a sock of Russavia. Can you please kindly unblock that IP, because they filed a DR that is clearly valid. I don't care if they are Russavias, as long as they filed a valid DR or involved in such discussion. Sometimes, blocking a sock of Russavia is unconstructive. This prevents the IP to respond to any comments in his DR. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether good or bad, WMF have determined that Russavia's edits are not welcome here, or anywhere else. You want me to fail to perform my duties as an Administrator here? I don't see that I have much choice. I'm not the only Admin blocking Russavia's socks, and WMF are not always around when he is. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be worth raising your point of view on AN if you believe you have a duty to implement WMF's office actions. Such actions are independent of anything we do as a community here on Commons for good legal reasons and precisely do not introduce any requirements on Commons administrators to take action. If you are blocking an IP it should be justified against Commons policies with regard to vandalism, harassment or similar. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Also, you are not authorized nor required to do office actions. Such blocks like this should be discussed by the Commons' community. There are many other works admins should do other than blocks, such as COM:CDC. I recommend you to stop in blocking Russavia's socks. As I stated above, let the WMF chase the ghosts instead. Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 12:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts is always a valid reason for blocking, as is block evasion, whatever the source of the block. This principle must also apply to bans. To think otherwise is to subvert the reason for having a system of blocks and bans in the first place. However, if you want me to allow Russavia to continue sticking two fingers up to the Commons community in a monstrous display of arrogance and immaturity, I'll happily do so, fully knowing where the fault lies. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it is really an abuse of multiple accounts? Yes, maybe block/ban evasion is an abuse, but that is not the case for now. Russavia created multiple accounts to fix their files and nominate files for deletion (which is valid), and that is not an abuse. Russavia rarely socks to abuse Commons (but I saw an account by Russavia that intimidated INeverCry, well I will not say the username as it is offending to him), and I think his only intention for now is to help Commons, which is in good faith. So I won't consider that as a real "sockpuppetry", as sockpuppetry means abuse of multiple accounts. Now, do you think that your block of an IP that filed a obviously valid DR, whether it is Russavia or not, is fair, or unfair? I appreciate your blocks of the socks of Starship9000, but not Russavia's socks. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's an abuse of multiple accounts. Multiple accounts are not permitted except in special circumstances, but in particular they are not permitted to evade blocks or to edit when hiding one's alternate identity. You forget that I was an admin on en:WP long before I became one here, so I am familiar with blocking policies there and here, and they don't differ that much. You have only to look at some of the names of accounts that Russavia has created to see how much respect he has for his former colleagues here, and the policies and social norms that prevail. In short, he's "flipping the bird" at us, however useful his edits may be, and for that reason alone AGF goes out of the window as far as I am concerned. I know he has his supporters here, but I am not one of them. Neither am I critical of him as far as content goes; however, blocked is blocked, banned is banned, and WMF don't do so for other than good, and presumably legally defensible reasons. As for the IP, hiding behind anon and open proxies is one the trademarks of Russavia. No new user comes here and straightaway does edits that are typical of Russavia. I may be naive in some ways, but a fool I am not. If he wants to appeal his ban, that is the way forward. Abusing the system is not. Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if you are an admin on enwiki, or any other wiki, as they are different to Commons (BTW, they should not be used as a reason for something, unless clearly related). You haven't answered yet my question above (Now, do you think that your block of an IP that filed a obviously valid DR, whether it is Russavia or not, is fair, or unfair?) And again, you are not authorized to enforce such office actions. Did the WMF said to you to block the socks of Russavia? It is their responsibility, not ours. Also, to be clear, I am just against to blocks of IPs that are currently participating or filed a valid DR, whether it is Russavia or not. Did you just read the comment of Fæ above? ★ Poké⁹⁵ 02:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing to prevent this section from being archived automatically, as this discussion is still open. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 09:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you really avoiding this discussion, or you already realized and admit that your blocks are unfair and unnecessary? I think you're the one who is abusing the system, you just wait for this discussion to be auto-archived by a bot. I still won't forget this discussion until you haven't responded. BTW, I am watching your logs. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 00:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding this discussion, I am still considering it in my spare time, which you will realise is limited if you are watching my logs. You will also have realised that I haven't blocked any socks of Russavia, or anyone else, recently, despite numerous opportunities. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and bearing in mind this, you might want to pass your wisdom on to User:Nilfanion too; I'm sure he'll appreciate it. Good night. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I reminded him/her about it. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 01:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

While Commons admins may not have a duty to enforce a WMF global ban, that doesn't mean we should ignore actions by a WMF-banned user if we happen to encounter them. Sure any local block becomes redundant once WMF locks the account, but several hours may elapse before then. Why wait and allow further disruption?

Russavia is also blocked locally, so evasion of that block is an abuse of multiple accounts per Commons blocking policy. That is regardless of whether the edit is "good" or "bad" - it is the evasion of the block that is the abuse, not what the edits are.

However the key bit to me is that the edits of accounts like User:Katch me if u can are disruptive as an unauthorised bot, and that would be true even if it wasn't Russavia. The individual edits appear harmless, but the sheer number of them floods the Recent Changes log and watchlists. That makes RC patrol much more difficult, and disrupts user's watchlists - which is why such actions should be done with a bot-flagged account. Normally the block for an unauthorised bot would be short while the bot-op is contacted, but that's not an option here.

I know that Russavia just moved on to the next account, but in the hours after I blocked that account the RC log was free of this clutter - that's a good thing. If I had blocked User:บริษัท การบินไทย จำกัด when it appeared on my watchlist, it would have been active for 1 hour instead of 5 (when WMF locked it). To me, that's all the justification needed to intervene, instead of waiting for WMF to cotton on to the latest one.

There are several things I think Commons should do:

1. Russavia appears to want to purge all reference to himself from his uploads. That seem safe enough, so instead of allowing him to run amok, lets do it ourselves properly. A bot-flagged account should be set up and run by an active Commons user (Maybe user:Fæ?). The bot-flagging would remove the harm I describe above, and the request will allow discussion of whether these edits truly are harmless - its possible there's a problem we are overlooking.
2. Public scripts, in particular VisualFileChange, should be modified to have an effective speed limit unless done on a bot-flagged account. The breakneck edit rates Russavia achieved with VFC should not be possible without a bot flag.
3. Consider an abuse filter for all VFC edits - it would also make the WMF's job easier. I'm also curious how much of recent VFC use is actually legitimate (ie non-Russavia).

Its beyond our power to get Russavia unbanned, so we should not waste time talking about that - regardless of our feelings about him and whether his ban is justified or not. We shouldn't let him do whatever he wants because its the WMF, and not Commons, he has the issue with - especially when what he is doing is disruptive.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well said, Nilfanion; no one can give a better explanation for this current situation. Our COM:OV and WMF CA team can work together for a better solution. But doing it or not is up to them, and it is there problem; not ours. A protest using sock-farm is not a productive solution for it. Jee 13:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jkadavoor, you are highly visible in various forums creating discussions about Russavia's account, responding in threads when Russvia has used a sock account, and appearing each time there is a potentially related discussion. In the context of your past assertions, it is reassuring that you no longer feel harassed by Russavia. --Fæ (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I (voluntarily) don't want and trying hard, NOT to respond you. But you're chasing me everywhere with NONSENSE. I didn't understand your comment above. I had worked together with him in many places including FPC. It was me who handled some OTRS tickets. Anyone who re-examine those tickets can see they are handled as best as possible. Still he threw some very bad words against me that I reported to IRC ops. It is a past incident and I'm no more in IRC or OTRS. And I'm not a guy keeping grudges till marching to the grave. I no longer feel harassed by ANY than YOU. Jee 14:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's hope that Russavia's office lock was not based on similarly insubstantial complaints of "harassment". I hope you are never the target of the criminal harassment that other contributors here have experienced. --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

CNN Tonight logo

Can you please stop this nonsense about hat 14.42.188.169 is making to File:CNN Tonight logo.png? This is the same user who is blocked, has multiple accounts (both created and IP), and keeps making nonsense edits to CNN-related articles on the English Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb has blocked them, but they just keep going to another IP. This is getting tiresome. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan 14:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Closed the DR as "Keep", and protected the file against anon IP editing for a while. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Corkythehornetfan 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think Commons:Deletion requests/File:CNN Tonight logo.png needs to be protected too so the anon IP totally cannot nominate that file again for deletion. ★ Poké⁹⁵ 11:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Makes sense. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thanks in god we trust King muh (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletions

I don't think that Category:Linton, Herefordshire and Category:Bishopstone, Wiltshire were implausible as they are w:WP:INCDAB (which were separate pages) redirects and send page to the dab page to be disambiguated. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't slavishly follow en:WP policies here as there are somewhat different considerations except that I feel free to follow w:WP:BOLD when convenient. I don't think a reader following a link to Category:Linton, Herefordshire would expect to arrive at a page including Lintons other than those in Herefordshire, for example. If you really think it's a useful distinction to make, feel free to recreate those as dabs with links to the specific settlements, but this is only an exercise in completeness. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't using that as policy, what I was meaning was that they were created when there was already cats for the pages further disambiguated so if someone looks up "Linton, Herefordshire" they are directed to choose the correct Linton rather than finding no page and creating a cat at the county dab, there seems no point in creating "sub" dab pages for the counties, redirecting to a central dab is usually easier. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Easier, but logically incorrect. Three years later, I am still trying to sort out the mess made of Scotland by Scotire (talk · contribs), so I prefer to keep things simple. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting them does keep things simple so that duplicate cats aren't created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Tinashe

If you two had the foggiest idea of what you’re doing here, you’d have linked to the said original. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any point in linking a deleted image. It was linked from the derived image, which is how I knew it had been deleted as a copyvio. Let's not make pointless work for ourselves. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Unpaved roads

I here what you are saying but not all Unpaved roads are Dirt roads some as this [[3]] are roads made up from aggregates and can not be described as a dirt road. Do you not think that a category for Unpaved roads would cover both Dirt roads and Gravel or aggregate roads? Kolforn (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The image you refer to is categorised under Category:Gravel roads which is implied to be a co-category of Category:Dirt roads. That implies we should have subcategories of Category:Unpaved roads such as Category:Unpaved roads by material, holding Category:Gravel roads, Category:Dirt roads and whatever. That's a lot of work given how many images of roads we have in the UK alone and not a task I'd care to tackle for fear of not living long enough to complete it. It's even more complicated because a bot has been placing images which are properly subsets of roads into Category:Trails in the United Kingdom, which should be limited to long-distance walking paths. So I think we should concentrate on fixing that before we can sensibly impose a more refined structure on to the roads hierarchy- otherwise, we'd miss some, if not many. I'm doing this, and hope to finish by the end of this week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also wondering whether "unpaved" is the correct term- it seems to be a specifically American term, and in the UK at least I'm aware that most roads with a surface of concrete or tarmac are refered to as "metalled", implying that the alternative should be "unmetalled". Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rodhullandemu

I agree with you about the large amount of work that would be needed and that hell might freeze over before completion. As far as Unpaved against Unmetalled, I think Both descriptions are used in the British construction Industry, an Industry that I worked in for the best part of 30 years. A distinction that I have come across many times is that metalling a road would usually be used when Tarmac is applied and Paved is widely used when concrete is used. But then again the tarmac laying machines are often referred to as Paveing machines as you can see at Category:Pavers (vehicles). All very confusing I think?

On reflection, if we are to do this, I think the top level should be between Category:Surfaced roads in the United Kingdom, which would include concreted and tarmaced roads (the only problems I can foresee is that it may be difficult to tell the difference from any given image, and a concreted road may become tarmaced at some point)- that's a maintenance problem once the initial vertiginous height of recategorising all current images is conquered. Thereafter, Category:Unpaved roads in the United Kingdom should become Category:Unsurfaced roads in the United Kingdom, having Category:Gravel roads in the United Kingdom and Category:Dirt roads in the United Kingdom as subcategories- but all this makes me fear that we are in danger of overcomplicating things without any obvious benefit to users- how many would be seeking images of particular types of road construction, for example? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, we would be overcomplicating things as far as this set of categories are concerned. Kolforn (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tinashe

If you two had the foggiest idea of what you’re doing here, you’d have linked to the said original. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any point in linking a deleted image. It was linked from the derived image, which is how I knew it had been deleted as a copyvio. Let's not make pointless work for ourselves. Rodhullandemu (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Unpaved roads

I here what you are saying but not all Unpaved roads are Dirt roads some as this [[4]] are roads made up from aggregates and can not be described as a dirt road. Do you not think that a category for Unpaved roads would cover both Dirt roads and Gravel or aggregate roads? Kolforn (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The image you refer to is categorised under Category:Gravel roads which is implied to be a co-category of Category:Dirt roads. That implies we should have subcategories of Category:Unpaved roads such as Category:Unpaved roads by material, holding Category:Gravel roads, Category:Dirt roads and whatever. That's a lot of work given how many images of roads we have in the UK alone and not a task I'd care to tackle for fear of not living long enough to complete it. It's even more complicated because a bot has been placing images which are properly subsets of roads into Category:Trails in the United Kingdom, which should be limited to long-distance walking paths. So I think we should concentrate on fixing that before we can sensibly impose a more refined structure on to the roads hierarchy- otherwise, we'd miss some, if not many. I'm doing this, and hope to finish by the end of this week. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also wondering whether "unpaved" is the correct term- it seems to be a specifically American term, and in the UK at least I'm aware that most roads with a surface of concrete or tarmac are refered to as "metalled", implying that the alternative should be "unmetalled". Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Rodhullandemu

I agree with you about the large amount of work that would be needed and that hell might freeze over before completion. As far as Unpaved against Unmetalled, I think Both descriptions are used in the British construction Industry, an Industry that I worked in for the best part of 30 years. A distinction that I have come across many times is that metalling a road would usually be used when Tarmac is applied and Paved is widely used when concrete is used. But then again the tarmac laying machines are often referred to as Paveing machines as you can see at Category:Pavers (vehicles). All very confusing I think?

On reflection, if we are to do this, I think the top level should be between Category:Surfaced roads in the United Kingdom, which would include concreted and tarmaced roads (the only problems I can foresee is that it may be difficult to tell the difference from any given image, and a concreted road may become tarmaced at some point)- that's a maintenance problem once the initial vertiginous height of recategorising all current images is conquered. Thereafter, Category:Unpaved roads in the United Kingdom should become Category:Unsurfaced roads in the United Kingdom, having Category:Gravel roads in the United Kingdom and Category:Dirt roads in the United Kingdom as subcategories- but all this makes me fear that we are in danger of overcomplicating things without any obvious benefit to users- how many would be seeking images of particular types of road construction, for example? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, we would be overcomplicating things as far as this set of categories are concerned. Kolforn (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Pilgrims' Way

Hi. I notice you've been recategorising Category:Pilgrims' Way to Category:Pilgrim's Way, Kent - note that the new categorisation is incorrect, and would best be undone. The Pilgrims' Way (not "Pilgrim's") runs across three counties, not just Kent, starting from Winchester in Hampshire, heading eastwards acrsoss Surrey and ending at Canterbury, in Kent. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I take your point, but there is another "Pilgrim's Way" or "Pilgrims' Way" which is a path to Lindisfarne. en:WP doesn't disambiguate this. However, I will revert myself if it keeps things normalised. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the main use is for the trail from Winchester to Canterbury (although I may be biased because it's near me). The simplest thing may be to call the other Pilgrims' Way "Pilgrims' Way, Northumberland" if it stays within one county... All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Public footpaths

Another problem, which relates to both the above threads - not every footpath is a public footpath. Public footpaths have a very precise definition, but does not match our current categories. To list some of our current difficulties: There are no such things as Public footpaths in Scotland; National Trails and Recreational Routes are not public footpaths, but routes that sometimes follow them; Bridleways are not public footpaths, but a separate designation.

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Public footpaths in the United Kingdom.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with ghouston (talk · contribs) that it would be a lot of work to determine which routes are actually public footpaths for very little benefit, and in doing this work recently I have come to the conclusion that the distinction is somewhat moot to our users. I don't believe editors have been putting footpaths into Category:Public footpaths in the United Kingdom with any basis of knowledge, more on the basis of "well, it's in a public place". I have no objection to moving all the categories in Scotland to Category:Footpaths in Scotland. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and the entire thing should be streamlined (with public footpaths and bridleways cats both being removed). Re-creating categories for the formally designated right of way is possible but that has to be a low-priority task - and if these cannot be curated effectively, they may be actively harmful (people assuming a public right of way exists, because we say it does, when it doesn't in fact exist). Time is better spent on the useful stuff - like identifying the notable named routes.

My gut feeling is to split roads (including unsurfaced roads) from non-roads (including footpaths and cyclepaths); and leave it there. Basically the distinction is - is it a motor vehicle route? If yes, its a road. If its not a road, then its the other thing - whatever name we use. Trail is possibly the best term.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of the confusion that seems to have arisen is a misunderstanding of what a "trail" is- I think it's meant to be a long-distance route primarily for walkers, but some bot or other has overloaded it with green lanes, farm tracks and other things which do not fit that definition. Of course a route may be many things along its length: public footpaths, bridleways, roads, etc, and I think we could sensibly keep bridleways as a separate category, after all, they are verifiable from local highway authority records. Category:Bikeways in the United Kingdom I think is also defensible beyond having the various Category:National Cycle Network routes. Once I've finished sorting out Category:Trails in the United Kingdom and its children, I'll go on to Scotland and make all Category:Public footpaths in Scotland into Category:Footpaths in Scotland. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reason I say get rid of bridleways for now is two-fold: Firstly, I do not trust the content, any more than I trust the content of footpaths or trails. Furthermore, they are barely distinguishable from footpaths in many cases - and the majority of bridleway images are probably included within public footpath categories at present. Splitting bridleways from footpaths may be possible, but is both probably a non-useful distinction for end users and is exposed to similar risks as with footpaths (a bridleway is a public right of way - a permissive bridleway is not).

A few categories are obvious: Railways; roads; Cycle routes (including the NCN); Long distance trails (ie National Trails and Recreational Routes). Beyond that it gets awkward and I'm not keen on trying to split "paths" (for want of a better term) further, unless there's an obvious function as there is for towpaths.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I'd be very cautious about saying trail means "long-distance route". I am not convinced that trail implies "long distance" by itself, and see it more as just a near-synonym of track or path. Its more that the word is often used when naming a route; I can think of several that are under a mile long.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult when English usage varies so much. I was brought up to believe that a "footpath" is what Americans call a "sidewalk", a paved walking path at the side of a street, and an unpaved path is a "track". Category:Trails says that it's for "rough"/mostly unformed routes, but perhaps that could be extended to include any unpaved path that isn't intended for use by vehicles. Then we also have paved paths that aren't necessarily at the side of streets, and which may be cycleways as well as footpaths. --ghouston (talk) 01:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Then Category:Walking paths seems like mostly a duplicate Category:Trails although with possible paved paths. --ghouston (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Then we have Category:Hiking trails. The same as a long-distance path? --ghouston (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

At the global level, its fairly obvious to me that track, path and trail are sufficiently muddled that we should not use them for separate things. In my opinion the following would be true (within UK):

• A path may or may not be paved, but is well-defined in the sense that its route is obvious. A sidewalk (US English, for clarity) is not a path. They are accessible on foot, and are not used by motor vehicles. They may or may not be suitable for bikes and horses.
• A track is never well-surfaced. It may include rough tracks through woodland, that are little more than animal tracks, as well as much broader routes used by agricultural vehicles. Some are not paths, but there is heavy overlap.
• Trails are routes either specifically laid out, or at least waymarked, with a purpose in mind, and various types possible. These include major long-distance trails, as well as many other things such as nature trails, sensory trails, mountain bike trails... They may be designed for multiple modes of transport, but never motor vehicles. A trail may follow a single path, or multiple paths. If its long-distance it probably follows roads on occasion.

With all this in mind, I'm inclined to entirely avoid the use of the word trail by itself, always referring to a trail by the sort of trail it is. That would allow merging of Category:Paths and Category:Trails, with the various trail types as sub-categories. As for tracks,Category:Tracks is a disambig (OK), with the relevant concept pointing at trails (not OK). If that points to a combined paths/trail category, that would probably suffice.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, please do not make Category:Trails in the United Kingdom solely about long-distance walking routes, as they are not the only sort of trail in the country. Ideally the long-distance trails will form a sub-category - that distinguishes them from other trail types. Also its worth making a distinction between categories of long-distance routes. The biggest distinction there is between modern waymarked routes (eg the North Downs Way), and ancient pathways (eg the Pilgrim's Way) At the same time, purging most of the bot-placed files (of green lanes and so on) is a good thing :)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to clear all the dross from Trails in the United Kingdom and maybe then see how "trails" can be subdivided. Not all the trails I've found are by any means long-distance, but I've no idea yet where to draw the line, if at all. There seems to be a type of "National Trails" which implies there should be "Local Trails", but it's too early to tell. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Long-distance walking routes, are shown with diamond markings on OS maps and called "recreational routes". They are typically have names and are waymarked on the ground. National Trails are a distinct subset of those. But my concern here is trails are not always about long-distance walking. They can have a very different purpose, such as nature trails and sculpture trails. They can also be non-walking routes - ie cycling or horse only. Please bear that in mind, both in clearing the junk and in categorisation.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanx

	https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AVincent_van_Gogh_-_Irises_(1889).jpg
	Thanx King muh (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hello, can you help me to remove this file?All respect for you, Ala'a Najjar (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@علاء نجار:  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I uploaded a new one now All respect for you, Ala'a Najjar (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion before reverting my edits

I deleted a category, and you have questioned why I did that on my User page. We are currently discussing that deletion; therefore please refrain from reverting my edits until we have discussed fully. For you to understand my actions: I have removed one category (Stone walls in Wales and subcategories) on four images. I have done so, as there are better stone walls, and better quality images of stone walls. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I did one revert because it looked like an obvious error. Then I realised you had done others, when I realised the issue on your talk page. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Geograph

I've been thinking about ways to try and clear the backlog of unsorted Geograph files from the high-level categories, where they have sat for years now. There are still 700K files marked as needing better categories - I estimate it would take over 4000 man-hours just to get the correct location categories. With that in mind I've had a few ideas stemming from the "geograph images in <county>" cats, which I've found give highly reliable localisations:

1. I've asked Fae if its possible to complete that task, and adapt it to identify the Civil Parish/Community. That could clean the files out of categories like Category:Cheshire overnight and put them into the category for the right village. Obviously that's ideal but may not be practical.
2. With those categories, clearing the "<subject> in <country>" categories. For instance, I know I could move all the Geograph files out of Category:Roads in England of Geograph files, and get them all into the relevant Roads in <county> cat. I know I could set some of this to run immediately, but its easy to make it too aggressive (such as moving a file from Category:Rocks in England to the non-existent Category:Rocks in Hertfordshire)
3. Some stuff, like content within towns, is probably a manual thing. IMO that's ok, as its converting geocoding to a category that's the real pain. When subject-based categories are needed, looking at the image is much faster (eg deciding what images of a town are of buildings in the town).

Any thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

An interesting proposition, and useful if it's possible. I need some time to think about this and will get back to you. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Removed Image

I uploaded an image of Anders Breivik for his page, but you took it down for copyright, when the image was on flickr with a creative commons license. Why was it taken down? TBMNY (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That image shows up in several places on the internet prior to being uploaded to Flickr. The Flickr account itself was flagged by a bot as having previously hosted copyright violations which have found their way to Commons. The image did not have any embedded EXIF data, as it should have if it was an original image. Given that access to the court hearing Breivik's case would be extremely limited, the image would be more likely to have been taken by an official photographer who would be very unlikely to release it free of copyright. The same image had previsouly been deleted twice on copyright grounds. All of these concerns invoke the Precautionary Principle whereby an image is to be delted unless a free licence is clearly shown. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your email

I didn't realize that I can search for others here. Since you're happy working here, I'll leave all your decisions back to you. In other words, I'll not try to appeal your block ever again until you decide to come back. Let me know, okay? --George Ho (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for the confidence. Cheers, Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

An email to OTRS has already been shared by the www.gurumaa.com team

As per the deletion of the images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2016_July_09_10:30#Salilchaudhary_.2840_edits.29 with the tag of copyright an email to OTRS permissions-commons@wikimedia.org has been shared by the concern organization from info@gurumaa.com to grant me the permission to upload their images anywhere across the globle as those images were clicked by me and also request you to rollback all my images been removed from wiki commons. Let me know if anything else id required. Salilchaudhary (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do not have access to OTRS emails to verify this but it should be dealt with by the OTRS team in due course. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Steam hammers

There are two steam hammers in Blaenavon, one large, one small. They're both in car parks in the general town. Neither is at Big Pit, the railway or the ironworks site. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I would have dealt with that in due course once the top-level category has been emptied. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Superlambanana LSP.jpg

File:Superlambanana LSP.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!

-mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi, Just wanted to apologize for the snarky comment earlier, I clearly need to go to SpecSavers lol, Anyway my apologies for the comment earlier Have a beer on me :), –Davey2010Talk 22:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Occupation_bridges

Occupation bridges 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!

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Railway stations

Hm.. I saw an 8-year-old discussion yes, but since the whole category tree is by now "Train stations in...", "Railway stations in..." has become inconsistent. Or am I missing something? That said, if one wants to restore to "Railway stations" I won't lose no sleep on that, but would just be sorry for the inconsistency in the category tree. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we can tolerate a minor inconsistency if the terminology is the common usage in that country. I think it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind". British people do not use "train station". Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Still we have to deal with those who are accustomed with the scheme "Train stations in" and don't find the category for places of the United Kingdom. At this point there are lots of category redirect from "Train" to "Railway" that must be create in order for HotCat to catch them. -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 11:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, done, though the main cat needes some more children cats. I added Railway stations in the United Kingdom by location and subdivided the stations of England, Scotland and Wales resp. by county, council area and principal area. As for Northern Ireland, there's a whole mess. I noticed that the principal way to subdivide topics of Northern Ireland is by county, but Northern Ireland's counties are no longer an administrative unit since 1972. I understand that for non-administrative topics like i.e. writers, music, culture, a county subdivision is still acceptable, but for administative items a more accurate categorization is hopeful... -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 12:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I haven't touched Ireland and am not familiar with its structues, but I'm open to someone knowledgeable coming along and taking it on. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Aren't there Wikicommoners from Northern Ireland who could possibly help on this respect? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 13:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:WMTemp

Still needed? --Achim (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I've nuked it. Thanks for the reminder. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)