User talk:DeFacto/General archive

Speedy deletion advice

Hi! If you make an error like wrong name, missing workspace or such thing you do not need to start the whole probably rather complicated deletion request procedure. There is as you can read here the possibility of a speedy delete. In case of the missing 'category' ore similar things you can just write a {{speedydelete}} and the reason. That's all. An admin will then delete it. -- Cecil 08:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll remember that :-) DeFacto 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Bust of Dalida, Montmartre.jpg

File:Bust of Dalida, Montmartre.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!

Jebulon (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Statue of St Denis, Montmartre.jpg

File:Statue of St Denis, Montmartre.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!

Jebulon (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

VI renominated

Hi DeFacto,

I have changed the scope of this VI nomination. Please revisit the nomination and recast your vote.

Regards

Martinvl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Fireworks from the Philippines to celebrate 2016
	Happy New Year DeFacto! I hope you still do your great work in 2016! ★ Poké95 07:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Poké, and a Happy New Year to you too! DeFacto (talk). 11:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

File:VDNKh Pavilion No 35 Tobacco.jpg - the scope was changed

Commons:Valued image candidates/VDNKh Pavilion No 35 Tobacco.jpg - the scope was changed. (P.S. Happy New Year! :-) ) Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Category:Valued_images_of_cars

Valued images of cars 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!

Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello, thanks for your contributions on COM:VI and COM:VIC! Your contributions are appreciated. ★ Poké95 04:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. --Hedwig in Washington ^(mail?) 06:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to discuss

a single decision with some other opinions, then you have to send a declined picture to the consensual review process (as Tuxsyo did) you have just change from decline to discuss. I did it with your picture: Kirby Hall, Leicestershire. The porch.

--Hubertl 21:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hubertl: thanks for clarifying the protocol for this and for applying it in this case. DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi DeFacto, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

lNeverCry 21:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016_-_October_-_Gardening/Winners

	Photo Challenge Winner
	Congratulations! Your picture Baddesley Clinton Scarecrow 2.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Gardening, in October 2016. You can find the results of the challenge here.

-- Jarekt (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Aston Martin

Hi DeFacto- I saw the post you made here. In my very limited experience with Commons:Deletion requests, if there is enough question about the status of an image to warrant seeking additional opinions, starting a DR will (I believe) bring out those in the know. You could initiate a DR (I could initiate one), or we could wait and see what happens at the Village Pump. I've taken one or two of my currency uploads to DR after realizing I misread a banking statute. Never feels too good putting one of your own images up for a deletion discussion. Your call. Best, Godot13 (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Godot13, I'll try that. DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Problem in VI

Hi, Thank you for your intervention. I had noticed the anomaly that had begun the day before. The Bot was probably disturbed by the particular signature of The Photographer. This morning everything seems to work properly. Have a good day --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: thanks for the kind message. The bot seems to be very sensitive to the environment and context. Between us we will will keep it on the rails. DeFacto (talk). 07:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

DeFacto (talk). 21:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Your attempt to have the windmill picture as POTD wasn't created properly. See Template:Potd/2018-05-11. Check how the other days around it were done for examples. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky: thanks for the heads-up. I was struggling a bit to figure it out, I thought I had cracked it though - but obviously had not. Perhaps I exited without saving or perhaps it is just my age! ;) DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

:-; PumpkinSky talk 18:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Falsche Bearbeitung

Hallo DeFacto, Du hast vorhin mein Foto eines Porsche 944 positiv bewertet, und dann merkte ich, dass ich die falsche Version hochgeladen hatte. Schau bitte, ob, ob Du Deine Bewertung aufrechterhältst. Vielen Dank und freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spurzem. I re-checked and it's still OK for me. DeFacto (talk). 21:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Flatbed truck or pickup?

Hallo DeFacto, thank you for your correction. But I think that the Goliath Goli is a Flatbed truck and not a Pickup. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lothar. Yes, you labelled it a platform truck which I first changed to flatbed truck and then (because the Goli has sides) I changed it to pickup truck. All I was thinking is flatbeds do not have sides, but, like the Goli, pickups do. I'm relaxed about it though - feel free to set it as you wish - I will still support it. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2018! ;)

			* Happy Holidays 2018, DeFacto! *
			Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you George, Happy New Year! :) -- DeFacto (talk). 12:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Saint John the Baptist Church in L’Union, southwest exposure

Hi, can you help me? I have nominated this photo for valued image candidates. Unfortunately, similar image has this award already. Can you start most valued review? I not able to do it, and you have helped me with it last one. Have a nice day! Tournasol7 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tournasol7: I've done that for you. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Tournasol7 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Valued image candidates/L'Union - Eglise extérieur - Le clocher.jpg

Hi, it's me one's again. It's possible to make a Most valued review candidates. I understand why Archaeodontosaurus ends the nomination Commons:Valued image candidates/L'Union - Eglise extérieur - Le clocher.jpg as supported, when no doubts have been dispelled. Without commenting on my comments. I don't understand. Tournasol7 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tournasol7, the closure was perfectly normal. The required length of time had elapsed and the vote was clear - 2 other voters disagreed with your opposition. To understand for yourself the closure process, you can read the closure rules in English at Commons:Valued image closure or in French at Commons:Valued image closure/fr. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now, thanks for your answer. Have a nice evening! Tournasol7 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

1897 Daimler Grafton

Nice photo. I've tried to adjust the categorisation to fit mostly with our different requirements. If you're not happy please tell me and we can talk it through. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I've "re-adjusted" them because I believe we should use the most specific categories available for each image and for each category. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Please discuss this first Eddaido (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss, but I didn't see where you raised it before you made those changes.

Maybe its only me but I try to follow the already established conventions when I categorise something. That's what put the nose slightly out of joint and I tried to suit you as well as tried to point out the perceived error of your ways

I'm working to the established policy at COM:Categories and specifically COM:OVERCAT where it says: "The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." Images of the same car should go in a category for that car, then every category applying to that car goes on that category. Otherwise you end up with unmanageable over-categorisation. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

"Images of the same car should go in a category for that car, then every category applying to that car goes on that category." This is new to me where may I read it? Eddaido (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It is what the policy I referred to above means when applied to images of cars. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Whose interpretation is that? Eddaido (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the presumption is that the category already exists and the instruction is not to creators of the category but for newbies trying to categorise an image. Here you have created your very own cat. Eddaido (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please may we have the talk without more interruptions. The point I was making - and roughly - was that you can create new cats down to atoms and molecules and it such a confusion for anyone trying to find anything. The car is quite simply another Daimler Four. Why go creating your very own special cat for it? Eddaido (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That's the whole point and advantage of categorisation. We group things by topic, and if necessary sub-topic. It makes navigating and searching so much easier. It also makes categorisation more efficient and easier to apply. Rather than having to add several identical categories to each image of the same car, you just have to apply the one of the car. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That does not support this particular case even though you seem to think it does!
C'mon De, this is just another Daimler Four and its category and all is sitting waiting for it. Its the work of the moment to add the categories, that car is unusually heavily categorised I agree and that's why I left part of your preferred scheme. Why create a new one. I showed how ridiculous it is by creating a new primary category Daimler Grafton, how many graftons can we find and you can easily go on ad infinitum to the very atoms. What is all this about is your Sunday not going well or something? Eddaido (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's in a world-famous museum, it's the oldest Coventry-built Daimler in existence, more photos of it will appear (in fact I have several queued up for processing). It is what categories are for!. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

They usually are when they've been around that long. It is Still Just a Daimler Four, in a famous museum like its mates. Looking forward to seeing the other photos. Eddaido (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Eddaido: the point is that it, and each of its mates, are specific Daimler Fours, and being in museums are likely to have photos taken of them. So rather than having to add all the categories related to the details of the car and which museum they are in for each and every photo of them, we can add all that to one category for the specific car, then put all the photos of that car in that category. And that's basically what COM:Categories tells us to do. Photos of historic cars are no different to photos of historic buildings or photos of other historic artefacts or works of art, or photos of anything else for that matter, and proper categorisation is equally important for them.

I can't see what your argument against efficient categorisation is. Why do you think it is better to have a flat structure containing all cars, and each car photo having to have multiple categories added to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your second point first then I must go out. I hold these strong views because I seem too be one of the few people who actually Use the photo collection (in order to untangle it) as distinct from generous photographers (generous to give their images to Wikimedia) who want the most "efficient" method of getting a job done roughly. I do not usually include you in this ("efficient") number. Back later, Eddaido (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The efficiency gain of proper categorisation works both ways. It is the inefficiently categorised photos that are hard to find, especially if they are poorly named too. Now, both of the AD1897 photos inherit all the categories from the AD1897 category, so both will turn up no matter which category branch you follow - and that is the ideal situation. It also means that if, say, you want to add the coach builder, you only have to add it in one place and it applies to all, and returns all if that branch is followed. You may think it's no big deal with only 2 photos (and I'd agree) but as the number of images of this car increases (as it will) that is when the benefits really accrue. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The photographer's "efficiency" is inefficient for a user of the photographer's product,
it should stay like you put it forever, just do it right then forget it. Why make them difficult to find visually - how most of us hunt for things specially when we are not absolutely certain of the correct description of what we hunt for. You want to see what a Daimler Four looks like you want them all together not in little mystery pockets where you need to open another page to compare them

You want your nice pictures to be seen then put them on show.

What is this AD1897 category you refer to, the other photos belong in it too (you imply) and why don't you want to put them into it too? If you do you will have created an exact duplicate of the Daimler Four category! It is just digging another rabbit hole or is that squirrel hole / opossum hole and more forests will burn to power the search, well, another bit of tree or lump of coal or water under the dam or . . .

"COM:Categories tells us to do" (quoting you above) where does it tell us to do what you say it does?

Have a nice evening, Eddaido (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry possums, that should have been a possum hole. Eddaido (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree that efficient categorisation makes visual searches more difficult, it improves them if anything and certainly makes them more reliable. In your example wanting to see all Dailmer Fours you simply go to category:Daimler Four and click "All images" in the "Good pictures" pulldown menu - and all are revealed. Efficiency leads to searching elegance!

All I get is a message telling me I am in a (growing) queue! Even so, why should I have to do that? It is completely unnecessary. In any case (if you hadn't told me) how would I know to do that being the dumb user I am?

"AD 1897" is the registration mark - the id on the number plate - of the car in the British Motor Museum - a unique identifier for that individual car. The other images in Daimler Four are of different cars, so don't belong in "AD1897" - they're in different museums and may have been made in different years. All the photos of the AD1897 car should go in the AD1897 category, and every category that applies to those images would be applied only on that category - thus automatically applied to all its images.

Fine, it is still Just a Daimler Four - why separate it out?

COM:Categories says: "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)." So put pictures of AD1897 in Category:Daimler Grafton Phaeton AD 1897, and not directly in Category:Daimler Four (or in Category:Daimler Grafton the less precise and currently redundant category that you created). -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

So to demonstrate the absurdity I created a still yet more specific category to show one can just go on creating "more specific categories" for ever.
The category Daimler Four is right there for you to use. There is no need to create your extra complication.
The whole thing (just what is "Good Pictures" supposed to do for a user of Wikimedia?) is complex enough as it is and creation of this new extra category of yours just creates more muddle and its lazy. Good Pictures is just an arrangement to suit Wikimedia's cognoscenti and extremely unsympathetic to a user — the which I am.

About this categorisation efficiency if you look to the left and up from Good Pictures you will see a tab marked edit. Once you have categorised one image you just need to use that to copy the categories to all the other images of that vehicle you have / will upload(ed) and Bob's your uncle, easy-peasy, no probs, there's no messing about, — Done.Eddaido (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't explain your problem with the "Good picture" button, but I find it very powerful and useful. The "AD1897", as for most other notable and multiply photographed museum exhibits, should be separated out as it is an individual item with attributes different from all other examples of its model. Like we have categories for individual people and not just one category for each gender. It's not laziness to promote improved efficiency, reliability and integrity of categorisation. Tuning of categories need only be done on the category and not again and again on each individual image. Users adding photos don't need to worry about adding all the appropriate categories (and generally don't anyway). As for the cat you added, it is less, not more specific, than the one for "AD1897" - not all Daimler Graftons are Daimler Grafton AD1897s, it is the other way around (I corrected the tree). So we have a redundant intermediate category now until we find images of other Graftons. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if "Good picture" button worked who is going to know it exists? Only the Wikimedia in-crowd or whatever the current description is.

I find no reason to separate out AD 1897 — you can add whatever categories you like to the images but they are of a Daimler Four and need to go in that particular cat (bang it through an 'efficiency' cat into as many others as you like) as individual images and not another (*vile swear-word deleted*) link to yet, yet, yet another sub-cat.

Improved efficiency for the photographer but certainly not for the user. Edit copy and paste, quick and easy can solve that for the photographer. What I'd do (if I were the photographer and I'm not) is put them all to Daimler Four when uploading them then add one's own little grouping on top of that, the way you want to, afterwards. But I cannot tell you how you should categorise them you except you must leave them as individuals in Daimler Four. Just leave them as individual images in Daimler Four so we can all immediately know they are there and we can see them without diving off down another rabbit burrow, sorry that's a book isn't it.

Improved efficiency - you are complaining because I sorted out your efficient categorising and did it properly for you. Isn't that just a little strange I mean efficiency-wise?

The cat I added was to show how easy it is create yet another sub sub sub cat like you have.

De, we are beginning to get repetitive to no benefit to either of us. Lets have just one more round of this and then go to dispute resolution. OK? or take it there now if you wish.

Eddaido (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC) De Dai d'oh dumb I smell the . . whose is it?

The button is there, for all to see, at the top of every category page. The reason to have a more specific category for the AD1897 car is so it (hence all photos of that car) can be added to the correct place in the car model tree, to the museum collection category and to the other related categories specific to that car (but not to all the other similar models) efficiently, and hence found efficiently too. The resultant improved categorisation integrity benefits the user more than the supplier as it helps to ensure that new images are more likely to be more fully categorised. I don't get your point where you say "I sorted out your efficient categorising and did it properly for you" - where was that? Sure it's easy to add useless categories like the one you added, but what is the point and are you going to get it deleted again? If you still don't see the logic and benefit of the specific AD1897 category, and you still think it should be deleted, then please feel free to take the discussion to the next level - to Commons talk:Categories, perhaps. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation problem

I have a translation problem. As we designate in architecture the term Contre-façade (French) or Controfacciata (Italian). Mr Google offers counter-facade but I have a doubt. Thank you for your opinion. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Archaeodontosaurus, I don't really have an answer because I suspect that English has different words for different contexts. I Googled for images and found many images like on this page. In the UK we call those lean-to pergolas (like here) because they lean against an existing wall. On the other hand this Commons image, described as "Altichiero, oratorio di san giorgio, controfacciata" appears to show (to me) paintings on the inside of a church wall, perhaps the inside of the facade, but I'm not aware of a specific term in English for that. Which image do you wan to descrie? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is my problem: San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice) - controfacciata.jpg Maybe I could write inside facade? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(Stalking) Leave it at counter-facade because anyone who will read that far will immediately understand. Mind you, you could say something like the inner-side of the facade but counter-facade is simpler and I think pretty obvious to anyone who cares about such things. Best to both of you, Eddaido (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I will follow this recommendation. Thank you both. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: for your picture it seems to mean something like "structures leaning against the inside of the facade", which is a bit verbose without a specific term in English. Until we discover the English word for that (if there is one), I would be tempted to use the established French term. After all, there are many English words that have been borrowed from French anyway, and anyone wondering what it meant could Google it. I see Eddaido's suggestions too, although I might not use "counter-facade" as it is not in the English dictionary and the other doesn't quite capture all the nuances that the French seems to have. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I think (I haven't looked it up) a facade includes things like columns statues and other decorations as well as the plain wall of a building and so the same applies to the counter facade? Eddaido (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts of my recent uploads

Hello, I went through the pictures you taken at the British Motor Museum and I recently been there and photograph almost everything that been displayed (Roughly about 215). Some are good but there a few that are underexposed or overexposed due to certain lighting over the vehicle. But I'm curious to see what your thoughts of some of them.

Ones I particuly liked are these:

• 
• 
• 
• 

--Vauxford (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vauxford, yes the BMM has a fantastic collection of cars and you do seem to have taken some great shots of most of them! Some of the indoor shots would benefit from a bit of noise reduction I think, to compensate for the necessarily high ISO settings. Also I think you'd find that the DoF would be better with a smaller aperture. Keep up the good work though, your pictures are certainly very welcome additions to commons. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I mostly relied on the automatic setting without flash since I have my manual setting set for photographing outside. Which might explain why it resulted those shots. I will definiately take your advice next time I visit.

One thing that I like at BMM is the car park. You get all sorts of automobiles parked there from kit cars to cars from the early 90s or the latest models in the market. --Vauxford (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Difference between the E-Type's

I been trying to distinguish between the 3 body type of the Jaguar E-Type, especially the ones I photographed. The difference between the 2-door fastback coupe and 2-door roadster is obvious but what difference between the 2-door 2+2 fastback coupe and the regular 2-door fastback coupe? --Vauxford (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2+2 is nine inches longer to make some room for 2 passengers in the back, with the difference being most noticeable in the length of the doors. Compare these two images and you can see that.

• 
  Original 2-seater
• 
  2+2 (4-seater)

-- DeFacto (talk). 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

That explains it, thank you. --Vauxford (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Fake Numberplate creating

Hi DeFacto. Just wondering if it possible if you could tell me how you do that fake number plate effect with your QI images. As much as I like to document every cars on the road I also want some of my best promoted as QI. Knowing how to do this would be very much helpful and getting a image promoted to QI a less hit-n-miss. Unless it limited and tedious to do. I'm also still practising of fixing perspective. I'm not the best at understanding instructions by word of mouth and can understand it better with examples, pictures etc, just who I am I guess.

Many thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vauxford, the number plates are hard work. You saw Ralf Roletschek's ideas on the QI page. I do it differently. I choose the registration I want (but deliberately a non-UK-valid one) and type it into a number plate selling website which offers a preview image. I then do a screen-capture of that and move into a graphics editing package. There I blank the original plate as best I can using the original background colour. I then select just the characters of the new registration from the screen-capture and copy them to the clipboard. I then paste them onto the blanked plate in the car image and manipulate them there to get the correct alignment.

For the perspective correction, you need to concentrate on getting all the obvious verticals in the picture correct and parallel to the image's left and right edges. This will include vertical corners in walls, vertical door edges, fence posts, lampposts, shop window frames, etc. I tried to correct your Hyundai image but there wasn't quite enough room in your crop to allow for the rotations necessary to do a good job.

Hope that helps. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I updated a version which is less cropped. Maybe you could have a go with that. Do you mean verticals like vertical lines on objects? --Vauxford (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vauxford: I've uploaded a version with better verticals and annotated the natural vertical features I used for guidance. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Is it fine for it to be tilted like that? Other than that, thank you very much. --Vauxford (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vauxford: it's not tilted, the verticals are all vertical now - that's how it should be. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto: That makes much more sense! Thank you and I will most defniatelly try out your method of adding a fake reg plate and Rolf's method if I can understand. (It is in German after all) --Vauxford (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:St Johns House Museum.jpg

File:St Johns House Museum.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!

Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Srittau, but I am puzzled why you replaced my speedy deletion request with this request. I have added my comments to the deletion request page. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2019! ;)

			* Happy Holidays 2019, DeFacto! *
			Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Virtuloft

I contest the closing of the candidacy. 48 hours have not passed, since the nomination was discussed (And IMHO discussing is in retrospect to a closing equivalent to a support, oppose, neutral vote). --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi C.Suthorn, the details about when a nomination can be closed appear automatically at the bottom of the nomination frame, and this one said it could be closed. The guidelines on closure can be found at Commons:Valued image closure, and nominations, such as this one, which have no supports and no opposes, can be closed after a period of 7 days. As this one was nominated at 2019-01-13 14:13 (UTC), the 7-day deadline would have been at 2019-01-20 14:13 (UTC), which is why the ok for closure message was displayed. I closed the nomination at 2019-01-20 17:11 (UTC). Feel free to nominate it again though - the guidelines for doing that are here. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I did read the page you mention, before I came here. I found there nothing, about a nomination "must" be closed, only that it can be closed. You decided to close it. Would have been absolutly ok, if you voted oppose and gave a reason, but you did not. Obvously, you would oppose a renomination and I would waste time on a failed attempt. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: I closed it because it had not attracted any votes in seven days. If you think that image is a VI then I recommend you renominate it, but it's your call. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

good evening De Facto,

Betreft: Commons:Valued image candidates/Bloem van Convolvulus cneorum (Zilverwinde). (d.j.b.) 02.jpg This photo is an approved valued photo. But did not get a valued sign.
Sincerely,--Famberhorst (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Famberhorst, the bot occasionally fails to do its job properly, so I added the tag by hand for you. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Good morning DeFacto, Thank you very much.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2018 is open!

Dear DeFacto,

You are receiving this message because we noticed that you voted in R1 of the 2018 Picture of the Year contest, but not yet in the second round. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2018) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked.

In the final (and current) round, you may vote for a maximum of three images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2018.

Round 2 will end 17 March 2019, 23:59:59.

Click here to vote now!

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 18:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Important message for file movers

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2020!

		* Happy Holidays 2020, DeFacto! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Attribution Details

What details should be included to provide you appropriate credit for one of your images reproduced in an academic book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelshTexan (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@WelshTexan: which image? Which book? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The image is of the ceiling fresco in the Sheldonian Theater in Oxford. I am writing an academic monograph titled "The Culture of Revelation in England," which is scheduled to be published with Oxford University Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelshTexan (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@WelshTexan: thanks for the info. Something like "By DeFacto (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons" as seen under my photo of Bletchley Park on this webpage would be fine. You need to read the Reusing content outside Wikimedia guide too and follow the general guidance there for these licences. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Post box, Warwickshire?

Is this on private land? If so, I'd have thought Royal Mail would have removed the collection plate. Do you know if the Letter Box Study Group list it? Perhaps they should be made aware. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rodhullandemu. It is on private land, and in the same wall it has been in for over a century. It has the plate to make it clear that it is emptied six times a week by the Royal Mail. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm wondering why it doesn't have an identifier. Royal Mail number all boxes they empty, even ones on private property such as this one. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: I obliterated it to hinder identification. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem. The LBSG will probably know them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2020/2021!

		* Happy Holidays 2020/2021, DeFacto! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks George, and season's greetings to you too! -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not there?

Do you know why I'm not on this list? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Valued_images_by_user -- Jim Evans (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jim Evans, yes, it isn't automatic - you need to add it for yourself. There are 4 steps:

1. Create a user category to add your VIs to - something like Category:Valued images by Jim Evans
2. Edit it and add these 2 lines to it:

   {{Collection of valued images}}

   {{user category|cat=Images by Jim Evans|Valued}}

   [[Category:Valued images by user|Jim Evans]]

3. You also need to edit Category:Valued images by user and insert your user category details into the correct alphabetical position in the table by adding these 4 lines there:

   |--------------------------------------

   | [[User:Jim Evans]]

   | [[:Category:Valued images by Jim Evans]]

   | {{PAGESINCAT:Valued images by Jim Evans|files}}

4. Add all your promoted VI images to your new VI category by adding the following line to the bottom of their files:

   [[Category:Valued images by Jim Evans]]

I think that's it, but if it doesn't work, feel free to come back here and we can try and fix it. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks -- Jim Evans (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2021/2022!

		* Happy Holidays 2021/2022, DeFacto! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @George, the same to you too! -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays 2022/2023!

		* Happy Holidays 2022/2023, DeFacto! *
		Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! Joyeux Noël! Bonne année! Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком!    -- George Chernilevsky talk 01:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @George, I wish you the same too! -- DeFacto (talk). 13:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Questions re nominations for featured picture

I have recently nominated two of my photos of Nilgiri Tahr to be considered as featured picture. I wonder how I can add the scope as "Commons within the scope: Nilgiritragus hylocrius (Nilgiri tahr)". Is the nomination for the most valued picture the same? The two pictures I have nominated are the following:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Varaiyaadu_Nilgiri_Tahr_DSC_5419-2.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Varaiyadu_Nilgiri_Tahir.png

செல்வா (Selva) (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Marilyn Monroe sculpture, Haugesund.jpg

File:Marilyn Monroe sculpture, Haugesund.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!

A1Cafel (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)